Frequently probation recommendations serve only to endorse prearranged judicial agreements. When actual decisions are required, the range of recommendations is generally encompassed within narrow parameters. Individual probation officers discern these informal parameters by responding to cues provided by (1) judges, (2) prosecuting attorneys, and (3) probation supervisors. When a recommendation seems likely to meet the approval of these three entities, it is deemed appropriate or 'in the ball park.' The anticipatory nature of the ball park phenomenon seriously questions traditional concepts that sentencing judges 'follow' probation recommendations. (Author abstract)