OT: Baseball scoring

1) A player bats in place of the DH. Is he a pinch hitter, or just the new DH?

2) A runner advances from second to third on a deep fly out. How is that scored? It seems dumb to call it a FC -- it isn't as if the F had much of a C.

[q]
1) A player bats in place of the DH. Is he a pinch hitter, or just the new DH?
[/q]

Rules 6.10 -- Pinch hitters for a Designated Hitter may be used. Any substitute hitter for a Designated Hitter becomes the Designated Hitter.

So, just like any other situation, when the guy comes to bat, he's a pinch hitter, then he becomes the DH. Unless of course you want to put him out in the field, but then you lose the DH.

[q]2) A runner advances from second to third on a deep fly out. How is that scored? It seems dumb to call it a FC -- it isn't as if the F had much of a C.[/q]

I believe this is just a putout recorded to the fielder. Nothing more to it.

SF: Sacrifice Fly

Actually, from what I can decipher from rules 10.08 and 10.09, [mlb.mlb.com], plus the this portion, HOW TO PROVE A BOX SCORE (c) A box score is in balance (or proved) when the total of the team's times at bat, bases on balls received, hit batters, sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flies and batters awarded first base because of interference or obstruction equals the total of that team's runs, players left on base and the opposing team's putouts, plus my years watching and going to games, a SF is not awarded for advancing a runner from 2nd to 3rd (or from 1st to 2nd, or 1st to 3rd) on a fly out.

It isn't a sacrifice fly:

"Rule 10.09: . . . (e) Score a sacrifice fly when, before two are out, the batter hits a fly ball or a line drive handled by an outfielder or an infielder running in the outfield which (1) is caught, and a runner scores after the catch, or (2) is dropped, and a runner scores, if in the scorer's judgment the runner could have scored after the catch had the fly been caught. NOTE: Score a sacrifice fly in accordance with 10.09 (e) (2) even though another runner is forced out by reason of the batter becoming a runner."

It is just a 7/8/9 for the batter ( By the way, why was 6 afraid of 7?), and the scorebook should indicate that the runner moved up on the flyout.

IIRC, the DH rule not only prevents you from doing anything that would lead to an inconsistent batting order, but also forbids somewhat logical changes, like having the pitcher pinch-hit for the DH. Just another reason to regard it as unnatural and aesthetically unsatisfying.

I think the distinction between a runner advancing as a result of a fielder's choice or by virtue of the batter's actions is only significant when the base being advanced to is first or home. I'd give the batter credit with advancing the runner, just as if he'd hit a slowish ground ball to the right side of the infield.

Haven't really had to think about these issues since I was in Switzerland, and was one of the three or four people in Bern who could keep score.

Okay, so if it's not technically a sacrifice fly, what is it? While Jordan's statement is logical, another cardinal rule of baseball scorecards is that everything happens for a reason. What's the reason he moved from 2nd to 3rd? Could it just be he got to 3rd on a fly out? Fielder's choice (which Greg is right, would be a misnomer in this case)? Those are the only two possibilities I can come up with.

It's a flyout with the runner advancing on the play. Different people note this in different ways, but it is neither a fielder's choice nor a sac fly. I believe it's socred the same way as a ground ball where the runner advances and the batter is out. IIRC, that is not a fielder's choice because the batter does not reach safely.

How about this one - how would you score a triple play where a single fielder is responsible for all three putouts?

Tom Lento wrote:

How about this one - how would you score a triple play where a single fielder is responsible for all three putouts?

Runners on first and second, nobody out. Runners are put in motion, batter hits a sharp liner to the second baseman, catches it, tags the runner from first, runs to second and tags the bag to complete the unassisted triple play. If this is the situation, I'd score it 4-4-4, catch-tag-base.

I'd write LTP-4 in the boxes of the batter and both runners, with a circled number next to each indicating which out it was, so the batter gets a circled 1, the runner from first a 2, and the runner from second a 3.

Believe it's scored the same way as a ground ball where the runner advances and the batter is out. IIRC, that is not a fielder's choice because the batter does not reach safely.

Actually, that's exactly a fielder's choice. The fielder had the choice to try to throw out the man going to second, or to try to throw out the batter going to first. He chose to get the guy at first. The batter is therefore out on a fielder's choice, which won't count as an at-bat (much like a walk), so that it doesn't count against his average since he deserves credit for advancing the runner .

In the same logic, had the fielder gone to 2nd and the batter was safe at first, he's safe on the FC because he doesn't really deserve credit for a hit when he could have easily been out. FYI, 'failed' double play attempts also end up as FCs.

So since Sac Fly and FC both seem wrong in this, we're sorta still stuck - almost seems like a steal, but of course it's not. I'll consult some hardcore baseball fans tonight.

-Fred

NEW INFO: What about the simple concept of advancing on the fly out, which we had been missing. He gets to third on the F7 or F8 or F9, seems simple and accurate.

DeltaOne81 '03 wrote:

Actually, that's exactly a fielder's choice. The fielder had the choice to try to throw out the man going to second, or to try to throw out the batter going to first. He chose to get the guy at first. The batter is therefore out on a fielder's choice, which won't count as an at-bat (much like a walk), so that it doesn't count against his average since he deserves credit for advancing the runner .

If the batter swings away and is thrown out at first, he's charged with an at bat--regardless of who advances where. If he lays down a bunt and advances a runner while being thrown out at first, it's a "sacrifice" and there is no at bat. In the former situation, if the batter has hit a ground ball to the right side and a runner on second advances to third as a result, the batter gets an "attaboy" from his manager to make him feel better about being charged with an at bat.

I guess I'll lend my comments since I worked as an official scorer for 3 years. Even though I don't understand why this is on a hockey board.

[Q]Actually, that's exactly a fielder's choice. The fielder had the choice to try to throw out the man going to second, or to try to throw out the batter going to first. He chose to get the guy at first. The batter is therefore out on a fielder's choice, which won't count as an at-bat (much like a walk), so that it doesn't count against his average since he deserves credit for advancing the runner . [/Q] A fielder's choice most definitely counts as an official at-bat, unless it is a sacrifice bunt. And that is up to the scorer to decide if it was a sacrifice or not. If a player is judged to be bunting primarily for the purpose of a base-hit, no sacrifice is awarded, and an at-bat is charged.

As for the original question of a runner advancing from 2nd to 3rd, the scoring is a flyout, with the runner advancing on the play. No sacrifice fly is awarded, and a time at-bat is charged.

One of my favorite scoring quirks is that a batter is not credited with an RBI if a run scores on a ground ball force double-play.

> By the way, why was 6 afraid of 7?

Nobody bit on this, so I will. Because he'd always just come out of left field?

> So since Sac Fly and FC both seem wrong in this, we're sorta still stuck - almost seems like a steal, but of course it's not.

Up through the early 20th century, an even more counter-intuitive situation was credited as a stolen base: advancing an extra, unforced base on a hit (for instance, going from 1st to 3rd on a single). This is why early SB stats like Ty Cobb's are very high.

I score the advance on the deep fly as a "TU" ("tag up", in the absence of a good reason to call it anything else.

Agree on all counts. I also have done my share of scoring.

The sac bunt call is an interesting one since the official scorer has to exercise judgement in deciding if the batter was intending to sacrifice or was bunting for a base hit. Usually, they'd call it a sac if the batter squared around..an indication that he was "giving himself up".

Of course, so few guys bunt anymore....and a lot of the efforts you see are pathetic by even the bunting standards of the 70s and 80s!

[Q]Actually, that's exactly a fielder's choice.[/Q]

That just misinterprets what "Fielder's Choice" means - you are being too literal. FC is only appropriate to note the fact that a batter is on base because the fielder "chose" to eliminate a runner other than the batter, and the scorebook has to designate it as something other than a hit, and something for which an at-bat is charged. As Al said, advancing a runner with a ground ball on a 4-3 is just a groundout, even if it gets the "fundamentals" junkies excessively excited.

By the way, Greg - not bad.

A fielder's choice is also a necessary designation when a batter takes an extra base while the defense attempts to throw one of the runners out, to make a distinction between, e.g., a double and a single where the batter takes second on a throw to the plate.

John,

I have never heard the term "fielder's choice" used to explain a runner advancing in the situation you mentioned, typically a throw from the outfield. Have you actually heard that usage?

That advance is simply explained as "he took third on the throw home", for example.

RichS wrote:

John,

I have never heard the term "fielder's choice" used to explain a runner advancing in the situation you mentioned, typically a throw from the outfield. Have you actually heard that usage?

That advance is simply explained as "he took third on the throw home", for example.

Yes, but how does one explain the runner's presence at third base in that tiny little box on the scorecard that affords little space for lengthy explanations?

John is correct; the batter advancing on a throw to an additional base is scored a fielder's choice.

[Q]Rule 10.07
"(b) When, with one or more runners on base, the batter advances more than one base on a safe hit and the defensive team makes an attempt to put out a preceding runner, the scorer shall determine whether the batter made a legitimate two base hit or three base hit, or whether he advanced beyond first base on the fielder's choice. "[/Q]

I don't disagree with the quote from the rule (how could I?), but that is still a hit, and would be scored a single. Although it is a result of the fielder's choice, would you write "FC" in the scorebook? I would probably just write a dash in the second corner, indicating that the batter reached second on a single. If I had room (say, in a real scorebook, not the one in the game program) I would indicate the play specifically in the notes column.

For the most common example, A runner is on 2nd. On a base hit, the runner attempts to score which draws an outfielder's throw home. the batter advances to second during the play at the plate. It should be scored a single, and a fielder's choice allowing the batter to reach 2nd.

So...the runner from 2nd scores (or is thrown out) on the hit.
The batter reaches first on a single (a base hit, obviously).
The batter advances to 2nd on the FC.

The only reason that the fielder's choice is needed in this case is to justify why the hit isn't ruled a double.

Basically, the official scorer has a large number of subjective judgement calls to make. The Official Rules attempt to simplify and validate odd cases that might arise by giving guidelines, but the scorer's judgement is the final word. In this example, it's entirely within the scorer's right to rule the batter's hit a double (instead of a single and FC), if he judges that he would have reached 2nd safely without a throw home or an error. It often leads to "hometown scoring" if a home player's stats could be helped (or harmed) a certain way. The difference between hits/errors, wild pitches/passed balls, hit values, RBIs, sacrifices, et al. are all subjected to the judgement and fairness of the official scorer supplied by the home team.

And don't even get me started on Earned Runs vs. Unearned Runs allowed.

To bring it back to hockey, maybe someone can comment on what besides awarding of goals, assists and goaltender wins the official scorer in hockey has the judgement on.

Hey now, this thread was never about hockey.

> And don't even get me started on Earned Runs vs. Unearned Runs allowed.

My understanding is the only scorer subjectivity involved in this case is whether to declare an outcome an error or not in the first place. After that, the designation of a run as earned or unearned follows automatically from the rules. Right?

There is more subjectivity involved than just the awarding of hits and errors, since the official scorer has to play a game of "what-if" to determine if the runs would have scored without the error.

Example: with two outs and the bases empty, Vesce hits a double and goes to third on an error when Higgins mis-handles the bounce off the centerfield wall. Bâby hits a single, scoring Vesce easily. Paolini lines out to end the inning. Now, is Vesce's run earned or not? Without the error, Vesce would be on second, and the official scorer has to judge whether or not he would have scored from second on the single.

More complicated example: with one out and nobody on, Hornby hits a single. Walsh tries to pick him off, firing the ball over O'Flaherty's head at first, and Hornby advances to second on the error. Vesce grounds out to Reid at second, with Hornby advancing to third on the play. Now, without the error, Hornby would have started the play on first, not second. Would Reid have thrown out Hornby at second rather than Vesce at first? Would Clarkson have turned the double-play to end the inning? (I know you can't assume a double play when awarding errors; I don't know if it's allowed in the Earned Run make-believe.) In principle, you could have to imagine what would have happened next with Hornby on second, or Vesce on first, or perhaps even say the inning would have been over.

So there can be a lot of judgement calls for the official scorer in awarding earned runs.

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

To bring it back to hockey, maybe someone can comment on what besides awarding of goals, assists and goaltender wins the official scorer in hockey has the judgement on.

I believe in some places the official scorer counts shots. Even when it's done by the goal judges or someone else, it's the official scorer who enters the number on the scoresheet, so it could be considered a delegation of authority.

I basically had no judgement calls at Utah; the goal scorers were given to me by the referees, who typically asked the players. Actually, I thought the referees were responsible for determining which player(s) got credit for a goal.

And in fact, looking at [www.ncaa.org] that appears to be the case. See Part I, Rule 5, Section 3, Clause e, which lists among the referee's duties:

Announce to the official scorer or penalty timekeeper all goals and assists legally scored, as well as penalties, and for what infractions such penalties are assessed. However, conferences and tournament directors may determine an alternate policy for awarding assists.

It's my understanding that a DP can NEVER be assumed, so in this case it's simpler.

Oh, and John...if it were up to me, I would not have either Walshiw on the mound or Kevin O' at first...but that's just this fan's "judgement".

RichS is right. Jesus F***ing Christ, did I just say that?!

BTW, I've heard announcers say "the official scorer is not permitted to assume a DP" almost as much as I've heard them say "these kids today just don't respect the fund'mentals."

I came across a great diatribe about "these kids today just don't respect the fund'mentals" about a year ago in a Spalding Guide from around 1915[/b][/i]

Did I just read that Greg? Wow! Try it again sometime, eh?

Well, I figured goalie->pitcher in the hockey-to-baseball isomorphism. ("Now here's how that play would have sounded if we'd been playing baseball instead of football..." I was going to use Boucher, but couldn't come up with enough familiar Dartmouth players. Should have done it with UVM circa 1996 and Tim Thomas on the mound. (I can just imagine Steve Wilson taking out Martin St. Louis at second to break up a double-play, or Oatesie taking one for the team.)

Having just come back from a trip where I saw (and scored) six baseball games in five days, this has been kind of a fun thread.

Well, having been a goalie, er..."sieve", myself, I see goalies as more of the catcher type. My response was taking that as well as the personalities of the Tech players you mentioned in mind.

I do like the analogy though...I thought you might think of Harvard guys before anyone else though...

By the way, why was 6 afraid of 7?),


This is the kind of groaner my 9 year old comes home with...
and the answer is....

because 7 8 9 (say it out loud)


And since this is a baseball scorekeeping thread, I am wondering how to score a play I saw this year:

Runner on third, one out.

Batter swings at pitch in dirt, strike 3....throw to first for putout, Runner from third scores. Is this a stolen base? Is there an rbi?

It's not a groaner - it's a classic.

More recent number humor: What did 0 say to 8?

[Q]
Runner on third, one out.

Batter swings at pitch in dirt, strike 3....throw to first for putout, Runner from third scores. Is this a stolen base? Is there an rbi?
[/Q]

If the runner were going on the pitch then he would get an SB (obviously). Likewise, if the runner takes off when the catcher throws to first - delayed steal. But if the runner takes off for home when he sees the pitch in the dirt it probably would go down as a wild pitch advancing the runner.

In any case, there is no RBI.

> Likewise, if the runner takes off when the catcher throws to first - delayed steal.

Hmm. I think I'd call that advancing on an FC. Maybe.

Even if the runner scores before the throw to first is completed, it is a force out and the run doesn't count, correct?

Has anyone *ever* seen a fielder use the IF fly rule to fake out a baserunner and get him out? Has anyone ever even seen an infielder try this?

Switching sports. Football. Has anyone ever seen a ball carrier, having outrun all the opponents by a large margin, stop on the 1 yard line and wait for the opponents to run all the way to him before stepping the extra yard, just to waste time? The obvious case would be a go-ahead TD with a handful of seconds to play in the game, to avoid having to kick back to the other team. The only reason I can think of not to do it is the risk of blowing the TD, but if you had say a handful of trailing blockers who yelled ahead that you were waaaaaaay clear, then why not?

>If the runner were going on the pitch then he would get an SB (obviously).

Is that true? Are you sure it can't be fielder indifference? Say the pitch is in the dirt but the catcher blocks it, and bobbles it for long enough that the hitter gets out of the box without getting tagged. The catcher might have a play at the plate. Now, why the catcher would choose to throw to first in this situation I don't know, but there you have it. Maybe if it's 10-0 in the ninth or something. . .

>Has anyone *ever* seen a fielder use the IF fly rule to fake out a baserunner and get him out? Has anyone ever even seen an infielder try this?

Well, yes and no. The infield fly rule is designed to prevent an infielder from deliberately dropping a fly ball in order to turn a double play. I have never seen a fielder do this, because once the infield fly rule goes into effect the batter is out, and it is no longer possible to get the force at the next base. I have seen baserunners screw up and get thrown out, and I have seen infielders deliberately drop the ball to bait the baserunner into an ill-advised attempt to advance to the next base. Admittedly, only in meaningless rec league games, but I've seen it.

I have since forgotten the exact wording of the rule, but I think it does leave some situations in which dropping a fly ball *can* result in a trick double play. If that's what you're getting at, then no, I've never seen a fielder take advantage of that.

Tom,

If my memory serves, I think if it's a hard play, like a little infield bloop or short outfield, then infield fly won't be called, so if the fielder is really good, he could not quite get to it (on purpose or not) and try for the double play. Chances are he wouldn't make it. There's even a good chance that on a hard little play that that, everyone would be safe, so best to go for the catch if at all possible.

Oh, and Greg, I've never seen it, but I'm sure someone saw the play that caused the infield fly rule to be made... but chances are they're not on this earth anymore, nor are the people involved .

-Fred

The infield fly rule also doesn't apply if first but not second base is occupied. However, if the infielder intentionally drops the ball to get the double play, the batter is out and the ball is dead. The difference between this and the infield fly rule is that the fielder has to touch the ball and the umpire has to rule it was intentional. There was a play which took place in one of the Dodgers-Yankees World Series in the late 1970s where, with one out, a runner on third, and Reggie Jackson on first, Davey Lopes dropped a pretty easy line drive, threw to second to force Jackson and start what should have been an inning-ending double play. But Reggie had stopped in no man's land and the throw ricocheted off his hip into right field, scoring the run. On the replay you could pretty clearly stick his hip out, but the umpire missed both the interference and the intentional dropping of the ball, which led to the best of the three possible outcomes from a Yankee perspective.

I did once make a double play on an infield fly, in an IM softball game in Utah. The team we were playing was short-handed and had an automatic out in their order. So with one out and a couple of runners on, the runners took off on a popup to short, figuring there were effectively two outs. But I caught the ball and stepped on second, and had to explain to the umpire between innings that thanks to the inning-ending double play, the automatic out was leading off the next inning.

Okay, I think I have found the rules that explain this, thanks to the official major league rulebook online at [mlb.mlb.com]

Runner from third is running on the pitch: Rule 10.08(a)
[Q]
When a runner starts for the next base before the pitcher delivers the ball and the pitch results in what ordinarily is scored a wild pitch or passed ball, credit the runner with a stolen base and do not charge the misplay. EXCEPTION: If, as a result of the misplay, the stealing runner advances an extra base, or another runner also advances, score the wild pitch or passed ball as well as the stolen base.
[/Q]
Although it looks like it's up to the scorer to decide whether the runner scored because the pitch was not cleanly handled or because the catcher threw to first, as described below.

Runner takes off when the catcher throws to first: Rule 10.14(f)(2)(ii)
[Q]
When the catcher recovers the ball after a wild pitch or passed ball on the third strike, and throws out the batter runner at first base, or tags out the batter runner, but another runner or runners advance, score the strikeout, the putout and assists, if any, and credit the advance of the other runner or runners as having been made on the play.
[/Q]
Note that if any runner is thrown out on a double or triple steal, no one gets credit for a stolen base. Presumably this includes a delayed double steal, although I've rarely seen the defense throw the runner out at second anyway; they typically cut the throw off and throw home.

I can think of situations where the catcher would be unable to make the play at home but could still throw out the batter at first, like if the ball goes through his five-hole and rolls a little way, and by the time he gets to it, he has time to throw to first but not to run back to home. That should be a stolen base if the runner was going on the pitch and a wild pitch if not.

Thanks JTW. That was the exception that I was thinking of.

I knew about the "hard play" exception, but I really can't see anyone turning the double play successfully *and* being obvious about intentionally booting the ball. Still, it's worth noting.

I was thinking of a far simpler case. Bases loaded, one out. High pop on the infield and the ump signals the automatic out. The shortstop circles under it, then (discretely) muffs the catch, hoping that one of the runners will forget the IF fly, think he's forced, and try to advance. My reading of the rules above is that indeed, unless the ump calls the SS on the muff as intentional, then this would create the fake out DP.

OK, how about a totally different scenario for a different rule? With one out, runners on second and third, the batter flies out to deep right. Both runners tag and advance. Before the next pitch, the pitcher throws to second, where the ump declares the baserunner left too soon and is out.

Does the run count under all, some or no circumstances?

Greg wrote:

I was thinking of a far simpler case. Bases loaded, one out. High pop on the infield and the ump signals the automatic out. The shortstop circles under it, then (discretely) muffs the catch, hoping that one of the runners will forget the IF fly, think he's forced, and try to advance. My reading of the rules above is that indeed, unless the ump calls the SS on the muff as intentional, then this would create the fake out DP.

Given the wording of rule 6.05(l), which says that the batter is out when
[Q]
An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases; APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies.
[/Q]
It seems that the intentional dropping rule also applies in IF situations. However, (1) since an infield fly has to be called by the umpire (tby yelling "Infield fly", usually followed by "batter is out!" for good measure), it's difficult to see how the runners would fail to notice that and (2) the infield fly rule (which is hidded in chapter 2.00, "definition of terms" explicitly says that
[Q]
If on an infield fly rule, the infielder intentionally drops a fair ball, the ball remains in play despite the provisions of Rule 6.05 (L). The infield fly rule takes precedence.
[/Q]
So presumably, with runners on at least first and second and less than two outs (when the infield fly rule is in effect) the intentional dropping rule only comes into play if the umpire doesn't call an infield fly (e.g., on a line drive).

OK, how about a totally different scenario for a different rule? With one out, runners on second and third, the batter flies out to deep right. Both runners tag and advance. Before the next pitch, the pitcher throws to second, where the ump declares the baserunner left too soon and is out.

Does the run count under all, some or no circumstances?

I think the run counts, although that's implicit rather than explicit in the rules. See rule 7.12:
[Q]
Unless two are out, the status of a following runner is not affected by a preceding runner's failure to touch or retouch a base. If, upon appeal, the preceding runner is the third out, no runners following him shall score. If such third out is the result of a force play, neither preceding nor following runners shall score.
[/Q]
A runner leaving early is an appeal play rather than a force play, so I don't think it affects the preceding runner. But if on the play you describe, the fly ball is so deep that the runner from second rounds third, heads for home, and is safe at the plate, but the runner from third has left early and is called out on appeal, neither run scores (because the preceding runner was the third out). Even more fun, if the runner from second is thrown out at the plate in the play described above, seeming ending the inning with one run having scored, the fielding team still has the opportunity to prevent the run by throwing to third and appealing that the precedind runner left early; see rule 7.10:
[Q]
Appeal plays may require an umpire to recognize an apparent "fourth out." If the third out is made during a play in which an appeal play is sustained on another runner, the appeal play decision takes precedence in determining the out. If there is more than one appeal during a play that ends a half inning, the defense may elect to take the out that gives it the advantage.
[/Q]

In the infield fly situation there really can't be any issue with intentionally muffing the play because the fielder does not need to make the catch. The batter is already out and actually catching the ball is irrelevant. (I managed to pull this off a few months ago, intentionally letting an IF drop at third and then tagging the confused runner coming from second for an easy, inning-ending duoble play. We still got mercy ruled though...)

> I managed to pull this off a few months ago, intentionally letting an IF drop at third and then tagging the confused runner coming from second for an easy, inning-ending duoble play.

This was sort of case I was talking about. And considering there are MLB players who chrage the mound on an HBP in a perfect game, I think there are players that could be fooled by *anything*.

IIRC, an HBP is not scored as a walk. So, is a perfect game still a perfect game if there's an HBP? What is the exact requirement - is it no walks, no hits, or is it all 27 batters retired in order? I thought it was the latter, which leaves the question - what do you call a no hitter with no walks and an HBP? Just a no-hitter? Can it be a no-hitter if you hit someone?

A perfect game is nobody reaches base, for any reason, zip.

There were a couple of "bogus" perfect games on the books for years: Haddix' perfecto into the 12th when he finally lost the game (sorry Harvey, you got boned, but that's not perfect), the the reliever (for Ruth no less) who got a pickoff for out 1 and then retired the next 26 in a row (again, amazing,, but not perfect). Both have been removed now. The only way you can "back" into a perfect game is a rain-shortened game.

Y'know, I tried to look up the definition of a perfect game in the rulebook, and it doesn't seem to be there!

Trivia question: how can you have a perfect game in which the winning team commits an error?

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:

Trivia question: how can you have a perfect game in which the winning team commits an error?

I may be wrong, but, if an easy popup is dropped in foul territory, isn't that scored an error?

Can a rain-shortened game be an (official) perfect game? If so then we could end up with a pretty cool trivia question: When is a perfect game NOT a no-hitter? If you recall, they revised the no-hitter rules some years ago and decided that it only counts if the pitcher goes the entire game and it's at least nine innings. Thus, if a pitcher goes six perfect innings and the game gets called for rain, it does not go into MLBs official records as a no-hitter. Even more ridiculous is when a visiting pitcher goes the distance but loses despite giving up no hits. The game doesn't count as a no-no because he will have only gone 8 innings (see Andy Hawkins, 7/90, losing to the White Sox 4-0 despite allowing 0 hits.)

Greg wrote: [Q] The only way you can "back" into a perfect game is a rain-shortened game.[/Q]

This isn't true any more. They changed the definition of no-hitter/perfect game to be a traditional complete game - at least 9 innings. They don't even give a no-hitter if a pitcher on the road throws 8 innings of no-hit ball, but loses due to an unearned run. (This could happen if, for example, the leadoff hitter for the home team starts the game with a walk, advances to second on a groundout, moves to third on a wild pitch and scores on a sac fly. Home team goes on to win 1-0 without getting a hit.) This happened to Andy Hawkins with the Yankees. He lost 4-0!


For a good short discussion of the no-hitter rules, (and the Hawkins loss) see: [www.pubdim.net]

And if someone drops a foul ball, and the batter does not reach base, it is still a perfect game.

And finally, even though Ernie Shore, the guy who relieved Babe Ruth, no longer gets credit for a perfect game, Shore and Ruth do get credit for a combined no-hitter. Ruth was thrown out after arguing over ball 4 to the leadoff hitter, so nobody got a hit for the Senators.

What about a wild pitch? Is it not wild if no one is on base? Is it not wild if no one advances? Does a tree make a sound when it falls if no one is there to hear it?Josh Herman '99 wrote:

And I was trying to stay out of the baseball discussion...

Ah, more baseball technicalities. One again, the beauty of the scorecard is that everything happens for a reason. Though not necessarily so, in this case the reverse is also true - a reason is only necessary if something happens. If the ball gets away from the catcher, but the runner doesn't advance, it's not a wild pitch/pass ball. Same thing if there was no one was on base to begin with.

-Fred

(Hoping he's actually right this time, though I'm personally 100% positive)

The E on a dropped foul ball is a case defying "a reason is only necessary if something happens."

Another: cases in which assists are given but no out is recorded (I hate these, I think they're so dumb). I can't quote an exact example, but I'm sure somebody here can give one.

Greg wrote [Q]Another: cases in which assists are given but no out is recorded (I hate these, I think they're so dumb). I can't quote an exact example, but I'm sure somebody here can give one. [/Q]

I've never actually heard of this, but I can think of one example where it might be true. Although strikeouts aren't usually thought of this way, the pitcher gets an assist and the catcher gets a putout. If the catcher drops strike three (with first base open), the batter has to be put out "again" either by tag or a throw to first. If the batter reaches first safely it is scored as K, E2. Perhaps the pitcher gets an assist even though there is no putout.

I'm such a sucker -

The error on the foul ball is scored because the batter gets to continue hitting. If the batter then reaches base, it's an indirect result of the error on the foul ball.

As for the assist with no out - I imagine that an error on the first baseman might be scored as such. Say the shortstop makes a brilliant play and the first baseman just misses the ball. Is that an assist with an E-3? I'm not so sure, since I never keep track of assists/putouts when I keep score.

The pitcher never gets an assist on a strikeout. (I'd quote the rule, but I can't be arsed to go look it up. Follow one of my gazillion links to the online major league rulebook from earlier in this thread and look in the chapter entitled "The Official Scorer".)

Examples of assists with no putout are when a catcher would have thrown out a runner trying to steal second, except that the shortstop muffed the catch. The runner gets a "caught stealing", the catcher gets an assist, and the shortstop gets an error. Similarly, if the first baseman drops a throw from an infielder which would have thrown out the batter, the infielder still gets the assist.

Exactly. Let's give assists whenever a player puts a perfect pass on a stick in front, even though the forward muffs the shot.

Say the shortstop makes a brilliant play and the first baseman just misses the ball. Is that an assist with an E-3? I'm not so sure, since I never keep track of assists/putouts when I keep score.

Well, it depends. In my experience, it seems that that would most likely be scored a hit based on degree of difficulty. If the shortstop made a great play but couldn't get the out and the play would have been close at first. Almost always, the error is charged to the thrower, because he is more likely to err than the person catching the ball. Some scorers are more likely to give the batter a hit, some are more likely to give the fielder an error, depending on if the out could have been made had the throw been flawless.