|
Related Topics:
| scoring question - This happened in the game last night. Two out, nobody on, Helton up with two strikes. He checks his swing on a pitch in the dirt. Santiago catches it cleanly on the hop and points to third base, asking for an appeal. The 3B ump rings him..
scoring question... - How would the following play be scored? Runner on 3rd, fewer than 2 out, 1st and 2nd base open. Batter swings at strike 3, catcher drops the ball but it doesn't go far away, attempts to take 1st. The catcher makes no attempt to throw the..
RBI scoring question - Less than two outs, no one on base. Hitter A triples to deep right center and rounds third, falls down just as throw home gets to catcher. Hitter A dives back towards third. Catcher throws wildly to third. Hitter A gets up and runs home on wild throw. ..
Scoring Question - I had something strange this happen while scoring a AAA game earlier this scoring rules don't cover it, though. Runner on first, nobody out. Guy hits a popup to the 3B dugout. The 3B catches the ball and then falls in the dugout. Dead..
Scoring question - I look at the MLB website for the New York Yankees often. When they show the stats for a game their is a column called LOB. Yesterday Bubba Crosby batted 5 times but the LOB column showed 7. What does that mean?
|
|
|
Next: Baseball General: Scoring Question
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:34 am
Post subject: Another scoring question
Archived from groups: rec>sport>baseball (more info?)
|
|
|
This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have asked
about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
for not giving the guy an RBI? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 26
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:03 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Seapig <seapig.RemoveThis@altavista.com> wrote in news:68ef13ee-684e-4ad1-91ec-
ae49ac72bf64.RemoveThis@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
> Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
The scoring rules say the following about RBIs:
***************************
10.04 RUNS BATTED IN A run batted in is a statistic credited to a batter
whose action at bat causes one or more runs to score, as set forth in
this Rule 10.04.
(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for
every run that scores
(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter’s safe
hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly,
infield out or fielder’s choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
(2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full
(because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by
a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or
(3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a
runner from third base ordinarily would score.
***************************
What happened was definitely not a safe hit, sac bunt, infield out or
fielder's choice, nor was it a walk or hit batter with the bases loaded.
The definition of a sac fly says the ball must be hit into the outfield,
so it's not that, either. There just isn't anything in the rule that
says an RBI should be awarded in this case.
--
- Jeff Lichtman
Author, Baseball for Rookies
http://baseball-for-rookies.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 09, 2005
Posts: 224
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:03 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 21, 5:03 am, Jeffrey Lichtman <swa... RemoveThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> Seapig <sea... RemoveThis @altavista.com> wrote in news:68ef13ee-684e-4ad1-91ec-
> ae49ac72b... RemoveThis @8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> > pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> > the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
> > Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> > his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> > credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> > for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
> The scoring rules say the following about RBIs:
>
> ***************************
>
> 10.04 RUNS BATTED IN A run batted in is a statistic credited to a batter
> whose action at bat causes one or more runs to score, as set forth in
> this Rule 10.04.
>
> (a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for
> every run that scores
>
> (1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter’s safe
> hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly,
> infield out or fielder’s choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
>
> (2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full
> (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by
> a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or
>
> (3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a
> runner from third base ordinarily would score.
>
> ***************************
>
> What happened was definitely not a safe hit, sac bunt, infield out or
> fielder's choice, nor was it a walk or hit batter with the bases loaded.
> The definition of a sac fly says the ball must be hit into the outfield,
> so it's not that, either. There just isn't anything in the rule that
> says an RBI should be awarded in this case.
This just pushes the question back a step, to why are the scoring
rules written this way? I can only guess. Perhaps the thinking was
that a runner would only score on a foul ball which isn't in the
outfield would under weird circumstances that don't really have
anything to do with the effort of the batter.
Then there is the question of why this wasn't scored an error? Rule
10.12 defines an error in terms of a "fumble, muff, or wild throw". I
suspect that, upon consideration, the scorer decided that the catcher
did none of these. The rules don't define "fumble" or "muff", but if
we are to believe MWOnline to fumble a ball is " to drop or juggle or
fail to play cleanly a grounder" while a muff is "a failure to hold a
ball in attempting a catch" Neither applies here, and of course there
was no throwing involved, so it cannot be an error. Which means that
the pitcher gets stuck with this run in his ERA. This may not exactly
be justice, but it is an odd situation that falls through the cracks
in the scoring rules.
Richard R. Hershberger >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Seapig" <seapig DeleteThis @altavista.com> ponders:
> This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have
> asked about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
> response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
>
> The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
> Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> for not giving the guy an RBI?
The run scored because the catcher slid into the dugout resulting
in a dead ball and not directly due to any action by the batter.
Note that 7.04(a) covers balks, so the run credit is treated in the
same manner, i.e. no RBI.
During Friday's Yankee @ O's game the scorer changed his mind
five times, twice on one play. Pass the white-out, please.
--
Don
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 21, 2:03 am, Jeffrey Lichtman <swa... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> Seapig <sea... DeleteThis @altavista.com> wrote in news:68ef13ee-684e-4ad1-91ec-
> ae49ac72b... DeleteThis @8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> > pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> > the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
> > Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> > his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> > credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> > for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
> The scoring rules say the following about RBIs:
>
> ***************************
>
> 10.04 RUNS BATTED IN A run batted in is a statistic credited to a batter
> whose action at bat causes one or more runs to score, as set forth in
> this Rule 10.04.
>
> (a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for
> every run that scores
>
> (1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter’s safe
> hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly,
> infield out or fielder’s choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
>
> (2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full
> (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by
> a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or
>
> (3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a
> runner from third base ordinarily would score.
>
> ***************************
>
> What happened was definitely not a safe hit, sac bunt, infield out or
> fielder's choice, nor was it a walk or hit batter with the bases loaded.
> The definition of a sac fly says the ball must be hit into the outfield,
> so it's not that, either. There just isn't anything in the rule that
> says an RBI should be awarded in this case.
What prevents it from being considered an infield out? Is it because
it was foul? I don't think there's any fair/foul distinction made on
sac flies, so I'm not sure why we should infer one for infield outs
(if that's what's going on here). >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 21, 3:57 pm, "Don McC" <Don... RemoveThis @roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "Seapig" <sea... RemoveThis @altavista.com> ponders:
>
> > This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have
> > asked about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
> > response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
>
> > The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> > pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> > the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
> > Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> > his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> > credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> > for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
> The run scored because the catcher slid into the dugout resulting
> in a dead ball and not directly due to any action by the batter.
But it was directly due to an action by the batter - he hit the ball
in such a manner that the only way the catcher was going to make a
play on it was to slide into the dugout.
> Note that 7.04(a) covers balks, so the run credit is treated in the
> same manner, i.e. no RBI.
On a balk, the run scores because somebody screwed up. Nobody screwed
up here. It might seem silly to give the batter an RBI, but he would
have gotten one if he'd driven the run in with a weak ground ball to
the first baseman. I don't know why this play should be treated any
differently. >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:57 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Seapig" <seapig RemoveThis @altavista.com> wrote:
> "Don McC" <Don... RemoveThis @roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> "Seapig" <sea... RemoveThis @altavista.com> ponders:
>>
>>> This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have
>>> asked about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
>>> response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
>>
>>> The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
>>> pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
>>> the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
>>> Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
>>> his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
>>> credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
>>> for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
>> The run scored because the catcher slid into the dugout resulting
>> in a dead ball and not directly due to any action by the batter.
> But it was directly due to an action by the batter - he hit the ball
> in such a manner that the only way the catcher was going to make a
> play on it was to slide into the dugout.
>> Note that 7.04(a) covers balks, so the run credit is treated in the
>> same manner, i.e. no RBI.
> On a balk, the run scores because somebody screwed up. Nobody
> screwed up here. It might seem silly to give the batter an RBI, but he
> would have gotten one if he'd driven the run in with a weak ground
> ball to the first baseman. I don't know why this play should be treated
> any differently.
Had the catcher caught the pop-up cleanly in front of the dugout,
the runner would not have scored. But the catcher fell into the
dugout, thus triggering the award of a base. The proximal cause
of the run was the catcher, not the batter.
--
Don
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 09, 2005
Posts: 224
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:22 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 22, 3:10 am, James Farrar <james.s.far....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:57:18 -0400, "Don McC" <Don....RemoveThis@roadrunner.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Seapig" <sea....RemoveThis@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Don McC" <Don....RemoveThis@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Seapig" <sea....RemoveThis@altavista.com> ponders:
>
> >>>> This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have
> >>>> asked about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
> >>>> response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
>
> >>>> The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> >>>> pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> >>>> the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c)..
>
> >>>> Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> >>>> his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> >>>> credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> >>>> for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
> >>> The run scored because the catcher slid into the dugout resulting
> >>> in a dead ball and not directly due to any action by the batter.
>
> >> But it was directly due to an action by the batter - he hit the ball
> >> in such a manner that the only way the catcher was going to make a
> >> play on it was to slide into the dugout.
>
> >>> Note that 7.04(a) covers balks, so the run credit is treated in the
> >>> same manner, i.e. no RBI.
>
> >> On a balk, the run scores because somebody screwed up. Nobody
> >> screwed up here. It might seem silly to give the batter an RBI, but he
> >> would have gotten one if he'd driven the run in with a weak ground
> >> ball to the first baseman. I don't know why this play should be treated
> >> any differently.
>
> >Had the catcher caught the pop-up cleanly in front of the dugout,
> >the runner would not have scored. But the catcher fell into the
> >dugout, thus triggering the award of a base. The proximal cause
> >of the run was the catcher, not the batter.
>
> But in that case, surely an error should have been charged?
As I noted upthread, the rules define "error" in terms of being a
fumble, muff, or wild throw. It isn't merely some activity that
produces undesirable results. The catcher did not fumble, muff, or
throw the ball wildly, ergo there was no error.
Richard R. Hershberger >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 20, 2005
Posts: 428
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:10 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:57:18 -0400, "Don McC" <DonMcC.TakeThisOut@roadrunner.com>
wrote:
>"Seapig" <seapig.TakeThisOut@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>> "Don McC" <Don....TakeThisOut@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Seapig" <sea....TakeThisOut@altavista.com> ponders:
>>>
>>>> This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have
>>>> asked about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
>>>> response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
>>>
>>>> The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
>>>> pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
>>>> the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>>
>>>> Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
>>>> his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
>>>> credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
>>>> for not giving the guy an RBI?
>>
>>> The run scored because the catcher slid into the dugout resulting
>>> in a dead ball and not directly due to any action by the batter.
>
>> But it was directly due to an action by the batter - he hit the ball
>> in such a manner that the only way the catcher was going to make a
>> play on it was to slide into the dugout.
>
>>> Note that 7.04(a) covers balks, so the run credit is treated in the
>>> same manner, i.e. no RBI.
>
>> On a balk, the run scores because somebody screwed up. Nobody
>> screwed up here. It might seem silly to give the batter an RBI, but he
>> would have gotten one if he'd driven the run in with a weak ground
>> ball to the first baseman. I don't know why this play should be treated
>> any differently.
>
>Had the catcher caught the pop-up cleanly in front of the dugout,
>the runner would not have scored. But the catcher fell into the
>dugout, thus triggering the award of a base. The proximal cause
>of the run was the catcher, not the batter.
But in that case, surely an error should have been charged? >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:03 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 21, 9:57 pm, "Don McC" <Don....RemoveThis@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "Seapig" <sea....RemoveThis@altavista.com> wrote:
> > "Don McC" <Don....RemoveThis@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >> "Seapig" <sea....RemoveThis@altavista.com> ponders:
>
> >>> This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have
> >>> asked about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
> >>> response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
>
> >>> The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> >>> pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> >>> the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
> >>> Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> >>> his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> >>> credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> >>> for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
> >> The run scored because the catcher slid into the dugout resulting
> >> in a dead ball and not directly due to any action by the batter.
> > But it was directly due to an action by the batter - he hit the ball
> > in such a manner that the only way the catcher was going to make a
> > play on it was to slide into the dugout.
> >> Note that 7.04(a) covers balks, so the run credit is treated in the
> >> same manner, i.e. no RBI.
> > On a balk, the run scores because somebody screwed up. Nobody
> > screwed up here. It might seem silly to give the batter an RBI, but he
> > would have gotten one if he'd driven the run in with a weak ground
> > ball to the first baseman. I don't know why this play should be treated
> > any differently.
>
> Had the catcher caught the pop-up cleanly in front of the dugout,
> the runner would not have scored. But the catcher fell into the
> dugout, thus triggering the award of a base. The proximal cause
> of the run was the catcher, not the batter.
If an RBI requires such proximal cause by the batter, why do we award
one on a sac fly caught in foul territory? Hitting a foul ball, by
itself, is never enough to drive in a run. It requires the
intervening action of a fielder catching the ball. >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
--
Don
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain
"Seapig" <seapig.TakeThisOut@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:fee77c52-e00c-40e6-93ea-3e1ad1ed0493@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 21, 9:57 pm, "Don McC" <Don....TakeThisOut@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "Seapig" <sea....TakeThisOut@altavista.com> wrote:
> > "Don McC" <Don....TakeThisOut@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >> "Seapig" <sea....TakeThisOut@altavista.com> ponders:
>
> >>> This happened in the April 5 Padres-Dodgers game (I would have
> >>> asked about it then, but I didn't think anybody was still here - the
> >>> response to the pinch runner question gives me some hope):
>
> >>> The Dodgers had a runner on third with no outs. The batter hit a foul
> >>> pop, and the catcher made a nice sliding catch on it. He slid into
> >>> the dugout, so the runner was awarded home, according to rule 7.04(c).
>
> >>> Initially, the scorer gave the catcher an error, but he later changed
> >>> his mind. Even after he changed his mind, the batter didn't get
> >>> credited with an RBI. If there's no error, what's the justification
> >>> for not giving the guy an RBI?
>
> >> The run scored because the catcher slid into the dugout resulting
> >> in a dead ball and not directly due to any action by the batter.
> > But it was directly due to an action by the batter - he hit the ball
> > in such a manner that the only way the catcher was going to make a
> > play on it was to slide into the dugout.
> >> Note that 7.04(a) covers balks, so the run credit is treated in the
> >> same manner, i.e. no RBI.
> > On a balk, the run scores because somebody screwed up. Nobody
> > screwed up here. It might seem silly to give the batter an RBI, but he
> > would have gotten one if he'd driven the run in with a weak ground
> > ball to the first baseman. I don't know why this play should be treated
> > any differently.
>
> Had the catcher caught the pop-up cleanly in front of the dugout,
> the runner would not have scored. But the catcher fell into the
> dugout, thus triggering the award of a base. The proximal cause
> of the run was the catcher, not the batter.
If an RBI requires such proximal cause by the batter, why do we award
one on a sac fly caught in foul territory? Hitting a foul ball, by
itself, is never enough to drive in a run. It requires the
intervening action of a fielder catching the ball. >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 22, 2008
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Seapig" <seapig.DeleteThis@altavista.com> wrote:
> If an RBI requires such proximal cause by the batter,
> why do we award one on a sac fly caught in foul territory?
> Hitting a foul ball, by itself, is never enough to drive in a run.
> It requires the intervening action of a fielder catching the ball.
The alternative (dropping or not catching the ball) usually leads
to a less desirable outcome than catching the ball. In this case,
the run does not score because the ball is caught, but because
the fielder causes the ball to be dead. If the play had involved
an outfielder catching the ball and falling into the stands, an RBI
would probably be awarded because the run would have scored
regardless.
--
Don
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:35 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 22, 4:26 pm, "Don McC" <Don....RemoveThis@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "Seapig" <sea....RemoveThis@altavista.com> wrote:
> > If an RBI requires such proximal cause by the batter,
> > why do we award one on a sac fly caught in foul territory?
> > Hitting a foul ball, by itself, is never enough to drive in a run.
> > It requires the intervening action of a fielder catching the ball.
>
> The alternative (dropping or not catching the ball) usually leads
> to a less desirable outcome than catching the ball. In this case,
> the run does not score because the ball is caught, but because
> the fielder causes the ball to be dead. If the play had involved
> an outfielder catching the ball and falling into the stands, an RBI
> would probably be awarded because the run would have scored
> regardless.
I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm still not seeing any real
distinction. In neither case does the catching of the ball result
directly in the run. In one case it's the catch plus sliding into the
dugout, in the other it's the catch plus the runner beating the throw
home. We're now two steps removed from the batter's contribution in
either case. It seems to me that the batter's contribution is the
same in both plays - he hit the ball to a place where the fielder was
unable to catch it without allowing the run to score. >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 09, 2005
Posts: 224
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:21 am
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 23, 1:07 pm, r....DeleteThis@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote:
> Seapig <sea....DeleteThis@altavista.com> writes:
> >I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm still not seeing any real
> >distinction. In neither case does the catching of the ball result
> >directly in the run. In one case it's the catch plus sliding into the
> >dugout, in the other it's the catch plus the runner beating the throw
> >home. We're now two steps removed from the batter's contribution in
> >either case. It seems to me that the batter's contribution is the
> >same in both plays - he hit the ball to a place where the fielder was
> >unable to catch it without allowing the run to score.
>
> Not really. In the case of a deep fly, the run scoring is
> predictable. A reasonably deep fly will score a runner from third the
> vast majority of the time, even if the runner is slow and the fielder
> has a great arm. Because it's predictable, it's assumed that the
> score is the result of where the batter hit the ball, not any failure
> on the part of the fielder or odd circumstance. The same is not true
> of a pop foul. Runners hardly ever score on pop fouls, even if the
> runner is fast and the fielder catches the ball awkwardly. Because of
> that, it's assumed that any run that does score is the result of a bad
> play by a fielder (like an error) or some strange circumstance that
> doesn't reflect well on the batter.
I wonder if part of why this seems odd is a lingering feeling that
runs scored and runs batted in ought to balance. This is how outs
work, after all. Every out has credited to a fielder, even for weird
situations like a batted ball hitting the runner. Some fielder gets
credit for this, simply for being nearby. But RBIs aren't like that.
You can score a run without anyone getting an RBI for it.
Furthermore, there is a moralistic element to when an RBI is or is not
credited. Bases loaded, no outs, batter hits into a double play,
scoring the runner from third. Why is he not given an RBI? Because
he probably wasn't trying to avoid that double play, the run
notwithstanding. But what if it is the bottom of the ninth with the
score tied? Then he is just thrilled to hit into that double play.
But this added complication has not been put into the rules.
I suspect that the rather odd situation under discussion here doesn't
get the RBI because the batter is not worthy. It's not an error, but
it isn't entirely unlike an error, either.
Richard R. Hershberger >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 09, 2005
Posts: 224
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Another scoring question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 23, 5:00 pm, k....TakeThisOut@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
> In <8f001875-5718-4963-96c6-a61b20565....TakeThisOut@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe....TakeThisOut@acme.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >Furthermore, there is a moralistic element to when an RBI is or is not
> >credited. Bases loaded, no outs, batter hits into a double play,
> >scoring the runner from third. Why is he not given an RBI? Because
> >he probably wasn't trying to avoid that double play, the run
> ^^^^^
> >notwithstanding. But what if it is the bottom of the ninth with the
> >score tied? Then he is just thrilled to hit into that double play.
> >But this added complication has not been put into the rules.
>
> [I think you meant "WAS trying to avoid that double play"]
Umm... Yeah, I probably did. Some days I don't negate no good. >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
