Another Baseball Bleg
Posted by
tgirsch
I suppose I could look this up myself, but I’m lazy: Is it scored as a fielder’s choice any time when you have a double-play situation but only one out is made (sans an error), or only when the batter is the one who’s safe? I suspect it’s the latter, but I’m not sure.
Example 1: Runner on first, batter grounds to the shortstop, who throws to second, getting a force out. The second baseman chooses not to throw to first, or throws too late. Fielder’s choice, clearly.
Example 2: Runner on first, batter grounds to third. The runner gets a good jump and the third baseman isn’t sure he can get the throw to second in time, so he throws to first and gets the force there. My guess: Not fielder’s choice, just 5-3.
Discuss.
P.S.: I’m thinking of going to Huntsville this weekend to go see a Stars game. Has anyone been? Any thoughts what to expect?
Since doublbe play is never assumed, if batter is out at first, it’s just a ground out. Fielder’s choice is when batter reaches and another runner is forced.
Note: the technical name for advancing on defensive indifference has been changed to fielder’s choice. So player on first steals second uncontested, they are awarded second by wat of fielder’s choice. Which is silly to me. I also can’t get behind automatic doubles, or RBI used as a plural. I really hate that.
Comment 7/18/2008
“Automatic Double” makes sense to me, if only because it’s easier to abbreviate that on a scorecard (as AD), than “Ground-Rule Double.” I would like to see the rule changed, however, on runners advancing on a ground-rule double. I’ve seen a couple of ground-rule doubles where the runner at first clearly would have scored, but because the ball went over the wall, he had to go back to third.
But I’m with you on “Fielder’s Choice” not making sense as a replacement for “defensive indifference.” Though even defensive indifference is a tough judgment call sometimes.
When I was in Milwaukee, there was a radio guy who hated “RBIs” the way you do. In protest, he called them “RsBI.” Personally, “RBIs” doesn’t bother me much: if the “R” in “RBI” is implicitly plural, then the phrase “he had one RBI” should be disallowed. But I’m essentially ambivalent on this.
Comment 7/18/2008
I thought a fielder’s choice occurred when you didn’t have a double-play possibility: when you had more than one runner (including the batter) and could likely get either one out but not both, so you choose which one to put out. Examples would be a ball hit deep behind a runner from first base, fielded by the second base player but not in time to get a double play - fielder throws to second and the batter is safe, but only because of the fielder’s choice; a ball hit to shortstop with a runner going from second to third - fielder could get the play at first but chooses to get the lead runner at third. Counterexample: ball hit deep behind first base, second base player makes a diving catch but can only throw to first to get an out - not a fielder’s choice because there was no available play at second.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that I don’t know shit about the Rules of Baseball - a subject I once thought I knew. This is strangely depressing, even though I’m not fanatic about baseball to begin with.
Comment 7/18/2008
KTK:
That understanding is more or less correct. I think you just misunderstood my terms. A double-play is possible in theory, i.e. there are potential force outs at more than one base, but in practice you either fail to get the double play (e.g., 6-4-3, but the batter beats the throw to first), or realize that a double-play is exceedingly unlikely, and so you don’t make the second throw, or the runner makes an effective slide into second and “breaks up” the double-play possibility.
a ball hit to shortstop with a runner going from second to third - fielder could get the play at first but chooses to get the lead runner at third
I don’t think this would count as a fielder’s choice (digg?) because there’s not a force situation on the runner going from second to third. But I’m not even close to sure about that. In any case, I’d think that scenario would be pretty infrequent, because the shortstop would likely “hold” the runner before throwing to first. A (smart) runner on second with nobody on first and less than two outs is likely to be cautious about trying to advance on a ground ball hit to the left side of the infield.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that I don’t know shit about the Rules of Baseball
Same here. It’s funny, because for years, my wife has hated baseball, but has recently started to really get interested in it (for a lot of reasons, probably worthy of their own blog post). So she’s starting to ask questions about this stuff, and is beginning to figure out that the Emperor Has No Clothes. A depressing percentage of the time, I have to answer, “I don’t know.” We men tend to take great pride in our knowledge of the rules of the sports we follow, but when push comes to shove, most of us really aren’t all that competent.
Comment 7/18/2008
Fielder’s choice is always used in the context where you can state: the batter reached first on a fielder’s choice. In other words, a fielder chose to get the out somewhere else. (Obviously has to be ground ball, fielded by infielder). With the esception of the defensive indifference case.
Tgirsch, no no no. I like RBIs. I hate “He has 10 RBI.”
Comment 7/18/2008
How do you feel about MPG vs. MPGs?
Comment 7/18/2008
The situation you asked about, TG, is a fielder’s choice.
The FC really applies mostly to how the batter reached first, it’s primarily a notation to indicate that even though the batter reached base, he had a hitless AB - he’s 0-1.
In fact, you can hit into an FC even if there is no out recorded. Situation:
Runner on first, and he’s stealing. Ball hit to SS. SS throws to 2B, but runner beats it, relay throw doesn’t get batter either. It’s up to the official scorer to decide whether the SS could have gotten the batter had he chose to go to 1B. If it was just a routine grounder, you’ll be 0-1 w/ an FC even though there wasn’t an out recorded on the play.
Comment 7/18/2008
RBI/RBIs,, I agree. What’s worse, it’s one of those errors that’s so common, you sound like an idiot when you actually use it correctly - just like “data are.”
Comment 7/18/2008
digg:
On RBI/RBIs, you agree with Ted? 10 RBIs good, 10 RBI bad?
On the “data” thing, I could be wrong about this, but I’ve always understood it to be correctly referred to in the singular, as with any term that refers to a (single) collection of [whatever]. E.g., team, band, etc. Note that in British English, they’d refer to all of these using the plural (e.g., the data are inconsistent, the team are on a winning streak, the band are on tour, etc.). Sounds weird to me, but we in the US are the weird ones in that regard. We probably got rid of that usage right around the same time we threw all of those unnecessary extra Us into Boston Harbo(u)r…
Comment 7/18/2008
Also, in your no-out-recorded scenario, is it accurate to say that the runner is “stealing?” I’ve always heard that described as a “hit and run,” not a steal attempt. I wouldn’t expect the runner to be credited with a stolen base in that scenario, but you’re the guru.
Comment 7/18/2008
- I say 10 RBI not 10 RBIs.
- Datum is/data are - it’s just funny sounding. Anyway, it’s just a question of agency, in terms of semantics. Does the band actually go platinum, as in the abstract entity, or do the band members go platinum? Same thing with a team winning. I have the same question regarding plural or singular possessive when it comes to teams. Not getting into it on a Friday afternoon though.
- Well, if the runner was going on his own, and the batter was swinging on his own, then it’s not a hit and run. It’s only a “hit and run” if there is a coordinated effort (in the form of a sign given) instructing both the batter to swing and the runner to run. All instances of a hitter swinging and a runner running on the same pitch are not “hit and runs,” per se.
Comment 7/18/2008
- So you disagree with Ted on the RBI/RBIs thing.
- In American English, we tend to just go with whether the word itself is singular or plural. It’s only one team, even if it has 24 members. Two teams are a different story. As with cities and mascots and so forth, it’s the same thing. “The Brewers are …” but “Milwaukee is …” (in Britain, if referring to the team from Milwaukee, they would say “Milwaukee are …” But for me, it gets fuzzy with goofball mascot names like “the Heat.”
- Still, if the runner is going, and the batter puts the ball in play, do you credit the runner with a stolen base? Ever? If he were out at second in that scenario, would he be scored as “caught stealing?” I wouldn’t think so, not if the ball was put into play. And I’m also curious about how often the runner would go without the batter knowing he’s going to. What if the batter lines out to an infielder? The runner is a sitting duck in that situation, and the batter may have behaved differently if he knew he had a runner to protect…
Comment 7/18/2008
MPG, not MPGs. RBIs, not RBI. This is not based on anything other than tradition and common use. MPG is almost always greater than 1, so if you were saying the words, it would always be miles per gallon. What cars get one mile per gallon? (Don’t bother to submit examples of boats and planes and such. I’m talking most common context here.)
On the other hand, a player frequently gets a single run batted in, so the singular use of the term is common (RBI). As is the plural use. So I, and virtually every baseball fan until very recently, use RBI (singular) and RBIs (plural). “He had a monster night - four hits and six ribies.” No, no, the killjoys want to say “He had a productive evening playing baseball. He successfully struck the pitched ball and reached first base four times and accumulated six RBI. Pass the Grey Poupon if you will” Puhleeze. I suppose Ted Williams was the last player to end the season hitting over zero point four too. Clearly saying he hit 400 is not technically correct, so we must abandon that baseball tradition as well.
Comment 7/18/2008
Please, Ted, try it again, but this time with feeling!
Comment 7/18/2008
The more trivial the issue, the more passionately I comment.
Comment 7/18/2008
Your question is a bit all over the place in post 12, TG, but I’ll try.
- Premier basestealers have the green light to go basically whenever they want. If Ichiro or Reyes is on base, the batter doesn’t know when they are going, other than educated guesses he can make by the count and what not. The hit and run is a designed play, not the simultaneous occurrence of two individual events.
- If the ball is put in play, a runner can’t ever be given a SB or CS. If he goes and gets caught out to dry, I believe it was Voltaire who said, “shit happens.”
Ted - I hear your rant. I’ve said RBI as long as I can remember; I treat it as its own plural. Even though it is used in the single, it is not only A stat, but a statistical category, so there’s every individual RBI and the running tally of total RBI for the season. I’d say it gets used in the plural as often as it gets used in the singular - it’s displayed in the plural like everytime a guy gets up. Whatever, I can’t stand the RBI anyway; it’s a team stat that gets falsely attributed to an individual. On it’s own it is not an especially useful tool for approximating the quality of a hitter. This debate doesn’t help its image either.
Oh, and I’ll do Ted one better (actually, worse), the more trivial the issue, the knowledgeably I comment.
Comment 7/18/2008
So if the runner can’t be credited with a stolen base in that scenario, he can’t be accurately said to be “stealing.”
Comment 7/19/2008
That’s right. If ball is put in play, nobody is stealing. The appropriate terminology would be to say the base runner “was going on the pitch” or “running on the pitch”. Most common occurrence: full count, two outs, runners on (at bases where they will be compelled to advance on a hit). The runners “go on the pitch”. Of course it is impossible to record a steal in this situation - I think.
Digg, is a batter credited with a steal for reaching on a dropped third strike?
Comment 7/19/2008
Ted:
I agree, except that I’ve generally heard it referred to as running with the pitch, rather than on the pitch.
Anyway, I’m getting ready to head to a Hunstville Stars game. I’ll let you know how it is.
Comment 7/19/2008
Actually, i usually hear it as “runners were going”. But if it is a more complete sentnece, I am more familiar with “going on contact” and “going on the pitch”. Maybbe you NLers have a lingo of your own. Some day I’ll introduce you to this cool concept called the DH
Comment 7/20/2008
I actually grew up with the AL (remember, the Brewers were AL until 1998, when Arizona and Tampa Bay came into the league.
That doesn’t stop me from thinking that the Designated Hitter is the worst abomination in the history of the sport.
In my book, if you can’t play the field, you don’t get to play at all.
[Hey, I have an idea! Let’s take a significant portion of baseball strategy, and make it irrelevant!]
Interesting note: in the AA game I went to tonight, the Huntsville pitcher was 2-for-2 in three plate appearances with a two-out RBI, a run scored, and a sac bunt. He also got the win.
And back to what we were talking about, I’ve heard it as “going on contact” or “going with the pitch.” (A quick Google finds it rendered both ways, with a preference toward “running with the pitch,” but that’s probably because “running on the pitch” gets a lot of hits for fans storming soccer fields. Similar deal for “going on the pitch” versus “going with the pitch,” although this one is a lot closer; seems to be a coin toss.)
Comment 7/20/2008
I’ve seen surveys that show most AL fans like the DH and most NL fans do not. I was a fan for eight years before it came to be, and to be honest I can’t even remember my opinion on it the first few years. (The fact that I was in college at the time and focused on sex, beer, and dope probably has something to do with that.)
In reality, I kind of like that the rule is different for the two leagues. Adds to the quirkiness that is baseball.
Comment 7/20/2008
It’s funny, because even though I grew up in the AL, it now seems kind of weird to me when I’m at a game with a DH. “The designated what?!”
I can’t imagine baseball without the double-switch, or the gut-wrenching tight-game decision of whether or not to pinch hit for a pitcher who’s been throwing well.
Comment 7/21/2008
- No SB on dropped third strike, for his heads up and hustle the batter is credited with… a strikeout!
- Going on the pitch, with the pitch – reminds me of the Georgle Carlin bit about getting “on” the plane. “Let Evil Knievel get ON the plane, fuck that – I’m getting IN the plane!”
- I don’t have a HUGE problem with the DH. I think that it was instituted to fix a temporary problem (lack of offense) that is clearly no longer a problem. The Players’ Union will never let it go though. Perhaps my biggest beef with it is that I believe it contributes to the disparity between the haves and have-nots. The super-stud DH is the ultimate luxury in baseball. Not many teams can afford to drop 8 figures a year on a guy whose entire contribution to the team consists of getting 4 or so plate appearances a day. Also, it makes it easier for aging ex-superstars to hang around to reach hallowed offensive milestones.
Comment 7/21/2008