Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
After some discussion, an agreement was reached that starting this season, a popup/flyball that falls untouched between two fielders will be scored an error if it could have easily been caught with normal effort. (It is believed that this new scoring protocol does not apply to a single fielder losing a popup/flyball in the sun.)
That play was a perfect example of why there needs to be a provision for a team error, where it's obviously not a hit but it's hard to assign an error to any specific player. You might call it a "miscommunication error" if you wanted to be more precise.
by DIPS. Hits? Errors? Not their problem. Wake me for the perfect DIPS game, not before.
If the rule has been changed
With league batting averages down to its lowest point since 1972...every questionable call should be ruled a hit.
And some were talking about how the RF could be to blame but to me the error should clearly have been on the 2b. He stood right under it and failed to catch it. No contact made with ball and confusion over who should take the catch should play no role in that play. To me it is a very clear error on the 2b.
And the hit in the ninth was also poor defense.
Either player could have been given the error. That really didn't matter. The question was if veteran official scorer Steve Weller would call it a hit or an error. He ruled an error on Rios, which kept alive the no-hit bid even if the perfect game was over.
Rule 10.12 covers errors in the official scoring rules and includes the comment: "The official scorer shall charge an outfielder with an error if such outfielder allows a fly ball to drop to the ground if, in the official scorer's judgment, at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball."
That's how Weller ruled it. But since the play impacted a bid for a perfect game, he called the Elias Sports Bureau and asked for a review of his scoring decision. The bureau agreed with the call.
This was the closest I've ever seen a sportscaster come to succumbing to the vapors. Reynolds kept repeating that it was the worst decision in the history of MLB. The others were trying hard not to openly mock him, but they failed.
That's how Weller ruled it. But since the play impacted a bid for a perfect game, he called the Elias Sports Bureau and asked for a review of his scoring decision. The bureau agreed with the call
Stew Thornley: This year they (MLB) got all the official scorers together in New York, which was great, and it’s all well and good to try to have more consistency. We watched 56 plays together that had been sent to the league office, 18 of them were overturned, and it was great to watch them all together. There was a lot of disagreement among us, which isn’t a surprise. There are a lot of plays out there that even with the push for consistency, there is still subjectivity. That needs to be accepted. There are going to be calls that could go either way. We call them fifty-fifties. We have very qualified people making those decisions. Those are the ones we get paid to make. Sometimes we can go many games without anything comes up because the players are so good! You see that ground ball going to the shortstop and you think it’s going to be a tough call… and then they get the out! And we say thank you! It’s a lot different and the pressure is different than it is in the Independent Leagues. The first time I scored for the Twins I realized how much harder it is to do it for real than from the arm chair. It’s always easier from the arm chair, so I really give credit to people who do things for real and in the hot seat.
(audience question about defensive indifference)
[David Vincent ?] At the scorer meeting in New York we had a breakout meeting all about that. In a one run game you can’t call it indifference. In a 3-2 game you can’t say it’s defensive indifference. The rule book does define it.
(audience question about pop ups that no one catches and why that isn’t an error)
Wong: You can’t give an error there. If clearly it’s the right fielder’s ball, and he stops and just doesn’t catch it, you can give him an error. But most often it’s not an error.
Thornley: This is where the “team error” concept might benefit us. We all decided at these meetings we want to call an error when there is a real screw up and they let the ball drop. We want to call it but it doesn’t seem like the league office ever communicated it to the teams that we were going to start calling it, not where they both run hard, but just he ones that they goof up and let it drop. How about Rule 6.09, can you call the ball that bounces of Canseco’s head and goes over the fence an error? Is that a four-base error? There are these places where the fence is low, if the ball clanks off a guy’s glove and instead of just falling to the warning track, which is clearly an error, it manages to fall out of the park? That’s got to be a four-base error. But you know the first guy who makes that call is going to be besieged so we’re going to buy him lunch. The batter will want it to be called a home run. But Elias has said no, that can be called a four base error.
Wong: You have to have REALLY big ones to call that one. (laughter)
(audience member then tries to argue against it…)
Thornley: Nah. I got big ones. (laughter)
(There were more questions from the audience, anecdotes, and laughs, as well as talking about whether if a pitcher dropped a foul pop would he then be called an error, would that keep it from being a perfect game? [no] but you know, I had to uncrick my neck and finally drink my tea…) [emphasis added]
In my experience, if a popup falls between two fielders standing under it both acting like somebody else was going to get it, it is scored a hit 100% of the time
I actually didn't mind Williams' raising his voice because Reynolds was being so ridiculous.
Why is a "catch" made while a fielder is tumbling out of sight by flipping over a fence called an out?
Slightly off-topic, but #33's Canseco story reminded me of another type of call that would take guts to make, so is never called. Why is a "catch" made while a fielder is tumbling out of sight by flipping over a fence called an out? There is no way that the umpire can see if the fielder completed the catch. Doesn't the umpire actually have to determine they made the catch prior to calling the batter out? They could have easily dropped the ball while out of site while they are performing gymnastic moves trying to land safely. If they dropped the ball, they can pick it up from the ground (since they are out of sight) and show the umpire when they return to the field. Although this play is uncommon, it happens often enough that it is hard to imagine that the fielder always caught the ball and never dropped it when hitting the ground.
are you referring to a specific play? this is not at all a routine call of "out" if that is what you are suggesting. didnt we have this problem a year or two ago when someone made a catch in the left field foul section. you might want to specify if you are referring to one play or just in general.
A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession.
53, I agree that there has to be a first time. I do not agree that the first time should be in the 7th game of a no-hitter because the home scorer wants to give the home team a break.
It doesn't, really, though, does it? The runner(s) don't advance because of the ruling. No extra outs are recorded by the ruling. It's just a scorer's decision. It doesn't affect wins and losses. There's no break for any team. You're giving the individual a break.
David Ortiz has appealed for that ruling to be changed to a hit. Link
An error is a statistic charged against a fielder whose action has assisted the team
on offense, as set forth in this Rule 10.12.
(a) The official scorer shall charge an error against any fielder:
(1) whose misplay (fumble, muff or wild throw) prolongs the time at bat of a
batter, prolongs the presence on the bases of a runner or permits a runner to
advance one or more bases, unless, in the judgment of the official scorer, such
fielder deliberately permits a foul fly to fall safe with a runner on third base
before two are out in order that the runner on third shall not score after the
Rule 10.12(a)(1) Comment: Slow handling of the ball that does not involve mechanical misplay
shall not be construed as an error. For example, the official scorer shall not charge a fielder with an error
if such fielder fields a ground ball cleanly but does not throw to first base in time to retire the batter
if such fielder fields a ground ball cleanly but does not throw to first base in time to retire the batter. It is
not necessary that the fielder touch the ball to be charged with an error. If a ground ball goes through a
fielder’s legs or a fly ball falls untouched and, in the scorer’s judgment, the fielder could have handled
the ball with ordinary effort, the official scorer shall charge such fielder with an error. For example, the
official scorer shall charge an infielder with an error when a ground ball passes to either side of such
infielder if, in the official scorer’s judgment, a fielder at that position making ordinary effort would have
fielded such ground ball and retired a runner. The official scorer shall charge an outfielder with an error
if such outfielder allows a fly ball to drop to the ground if, in the official scorer’s judgment, an outfielder
at that position making ordinary effort would have caught such fly ball. If a throw is low, wide or high,
or strikes the ground, and a runner reaches base who otherwise would have been put out by such throw,
the official scorer shall charge the player making the throw with an error.
Are you saying that if the outcome of a game isn't affected, then it doesn't matter what the rules are or whether they are followed on a consistent basis?
Namely what if a pitcher throwing a perfect game drops a foul pop? Is it still perfect?
Reynolds would have been "right" (though wrong) if he had made the point that it was contrary to many years of tradition to award an error on that play. However, he wasn't arguing that, he was arguing it wasn't a routine play when it clearly was, which makes him all the way wrong.
Emmy-winner Harold Reynolds
If everyone agrees that... then I cannot believe that anyone at "Baseball for the Thinking Fan" can argue the other side.
Partly, its just unseemly to switch to a new rule only when it benefits the home team in a key situation for the first time. More importantly, there is no reason to think that Friday's scorer has ushered in a new era of consistently calling these plays errors. Rather, as 54 suggests, the next one of these is likely to be called a hit, particularly if it favors the home team.
The only "argument" which can be given is that "it has always been ruled a hit".
But even if he did intend it, would you argue that a scorer is justified in making up whatever new rules he wants if he (or a consensus of BBTF posters) think they are better than the old rules?
Dick Young was scoring a game, and there was a player who would routinely lay down a last-minute bunt attempt with a man on first. By scorekeeping convention at the time, if he was thrown out at first, it was a sacrifice; if he reached first it was a base hit. It was a very nice way of artificially inflating his BA. One day, Young scored it a 5-3, no sacrifice. He was right, and soon after scorekepers began scoring it the way it should have been scored
If everyone agrees that the play in question was an error (surely by rule book and probably by agreement), then I cannot believe that anyone at "Baseball for the Thinking Fan" can argue the other side. The only "argument" which can be given is that "it has always been ruled a hit". Well, that reasoning may be sufficient for close-minded people like Harold Reynolds, but anyone with a decent dose of intellectual curiosity surely prefers a world in which the correct decision is reached.
I think that should be scored a sac, and that there's nothing artificial at all about it raising his BA. A bunt that advances the runner and also gives the bunter a chance to reach safely is better than one that doesn't.
As far as I'm concerned, if something is to be scored a sacrifice - the intent has to be obvious. And the only time it's obvious is when the guy squares at/near the time the pitcher is making his delivery.
It's not about rewards - it's about accurately capturing what happened. The guy trying get a base hit wasn't trying to sacrifice an at bat (or an out), and the play shouldn't be treated as such.
What if half the scorers decide they don't like shifts, and start charging errors to fielders who "should've" caught balls hit to where the fielders would've been standing had there been no shift?
Yes, because that accurately describes what happened. The first guy tried to get a base hit, and he failed, so he gets the same 0-1 that all failed attempts at base hits get. The second guy tried to give himself up, and he succeeded.
You are focusing on the sacrifice, when the real essence of the play is the advancement of the runner.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 1.0036 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed