Slow roller, do or die play, F6 charging hard, scoops but ball pops out, picks up throw to 1B, bang-bang safe!
Ball doesn't pop out probably bang-bang out!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The rule says, "ordinary effort" which defines an hit/error.
Could the play have been made with "ordinary effort" at the skill level (which wasn't specificed)? I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure. But, from the description, I'd say hit at any level of play.
Again, I wasn't there, but typically a hard charging, do or die bobble is a hit.
Could the play have been made with "ordinary effort" at the skill level (which wasn't specificed)? I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure. But, from the description, I'd say hit at any level of play.
Again, I wasn't there, but typically a hard charging, do or die bobble is a hit.
This is probably a hit if Derek Jeter is involved for all the reason's JMoff lays out.
quote:Originally posted by cball:
Slow roller, do or die play, F6 charging hard, scoops but ball pops out, picks up throw to 1B, bang-bang safe!
Ball doesn't pop out probably bang-bang out!
As soon as you uttered the magic words, do or die play, you pretty much made it impossible to score an error on the play allowing the batter to reach 1st. A do or die play is not “ordinary” or “routine”. If the play is made, they are just about always web gems, and if they aren’t they are almost always great efforts.
This is definitely a had-to-be-there in order to score it play but here's my two cents...
It can't be much of a bobble if the play goes from 'bang-bang out' to 'bang-bang safe'. Also, if it would have been really close if played perfectly, there is really no way that the SK could assume that the runner would have been out if played perfectly.
I would score this a 'hit'....
It can't be much of a bobble if the play goes from 'bang-bang out' to 'bang-bang safe'. Also, if it would have been really close if played perfectly, there is really no way that the SK could assume that the runner would have been out if played perfectly.
I would score this a 'hit'....
What everything revolves around about how a given play is scored as far as a hit or an error goes, is what the scorer’s personal definition of “ORDINARY EFFORT” is, and believe me, everyone has one and they’re all different in some manner.
A few years back MLB decided it was finally time to at least try to put some kind of definition into OBR to give scorers at least some direction about what it wanted ordinary effort to be. When I first saw the release from MLB and read the rule, I thought “WOW”, this is gonna revolutionize amateur baseball scoring! Unfortunately though, neither NCAA nor NFHS has felt the need to put that definition in its rule book, and as far as I know, no other organization has either.
That doesn’t bother many experienced SKs, but it really wreaks havoc among coach’s helpers in the dugout, volunteer parents who only do it because they want to see Jr’s batting average and no one else will keep score, or just regular fans who have their own idea about when something has been done correctly, and apply it to what takes place on the ball field.
Without a real understanding of what OE means, its inevitable that people believe an error is an error, no matter what the level of ball being played, and if you think about it, that’s where most scoring issues about hits and errors lie. Likely the best example of how important it is, is in HSB. At one time, I believed like everyone else that a HS game was a HS game. But when I actually began scoring them, it didn’t take long to figger out that scoring a Fr game was not the same as a V game, or that a V game between two large school teams was not the same as scoring a game where the teams were in a small school division.
So, I just wish the definition would get put in the book. That would really make a difference to those who actually took the time to read the thing.
A few years back MLB decided it was finally time to at least try to put some kind of definition into OBR to give scorers at least some direction about what it wanted ordinary effort to be. When I first saw the release from MLB and read the rule, I thought “WOW”, this is gonna revolutionize amateur baseball scoring! Unfortunately though, neither NCAA nor NFHS has felt the need to put that definition in its rule book, and as far as I know, no other organization has either.
That doesn’t bother many experienced SKs, but it really wreaks havoc among coach’s helpers in the dugout, volunteer parents who only do it because they want to see Jr’s batting average and no one else will keep score, or just regular fans who have their own idea about when something has been done correctly, and apply it to what takes place on the ball field.
Without a real understanding of what OE means, its inevitable that people believe an error is an error, no matter what the level of ball being played, and if you think about it, that’s where most scoring issues about hits and errors lie. Likely the best example of how important it is, is in HSB. At one time, I believed like everyone else that a HS game was a HS game. But when I actually began scoring them, it didn’t take long to figger out that scoring a Fr game was not the same as a V game, or that a V game between two large school teams was not the same as scoring a game where the teams were in a small school division.
So, I just wish the definition would get put in the book. That would really make a difference to those who actually took the time to read the thing.
Stats - Agree with your thoughts on this. Also, I think most scorers gravitate towards defining OE based how they've seen it done most often, which is typically MLB games on TV.
When a Little League short stop goes into the hole on his backhand and doesn't make the play, its unfair to compare him to Derek Jeter's level of OE. He should be compared to the universe of other LL short stops. Even if it isn't in the rules, I use the OE at the level of play standard. I can't see scoring an error on a LL short stop when the same play doesn't get made 95 out of 100 times by other LL short stops. If a MLB short stop makes the same play 95 out of 100 times, it's an error for him when he doesn't make the same play.
I am in violent agreement the NCAA (at least) needs to put something in their rule book to help define OE. Official statistics are kept at this level, so a universal standard only makes sense. It would be very helpful at all other levels as well, although its easier for them to not do anything when there are no official statistics being kept.
When a Little League short stop goes into the hole on his backhand and doesn't make the play, its unfair to compare him to Derek Jeter's level of OE. He should be compared to the universe of other LL short stops. Even if it isn't in the rules, I use the OE at the level of play standard. I can't see scoring an error on a LL short stop when the same play doesn't get made 95 out of 100 times by other LL short stops. If a MLB short stop makes the same play 95 out of 100 times, it's an error for him when he doesn't make the same play.
I am in violent agreement the NCAA (at least) needs to put something in their rule book to help define OE. Official statistics are kept at this level, so a universal standard only makes sense. It would be very helpful at all other levels as well, although its easier for them to not do anything when there are no official statistics being kept.
JMoff,
A lot of that’s because its common knowledge that the SKing at the lower levels is shall we say, “weak”. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I’d be thinkin’ there was a conspiracy to keep things that would help the SKing out of the books, and because of the general weakness of the product, and what seems to be a complete refusal to deal with it, things just stay pretty bad.
The conspiracy would then seem to revolve around the fact that the powers to be don’t want many of the things believed at lower level to be challenged by such silly things as facts!
On another board, there been a of of talk recently about the running game and the defense’s attempts to control it. Of course pickoff throws came up, and lots of people were opining, theorizing, and philosophizing about it. When I asked if anyone actually tracked pickoff throws to help see if what they were saying had any veracity, the answer was, no one did it, other than me, and that it really didn’t matter because the numbers really wouldn’t prove anything.
I guess that’s just the way folks are. If there’s any chance the facts won’t prove hem totally correct, there’s fear and a wall goes up to keep all those troublesome facts out of the conversation.
A lot of that’s because its common knowledge that the SKing at the lower levels is shall we say, “weak”. If I believed in conspiracy theories, I’d be thinkin’ there was a conspiracy to keep things that would help the SKing out of the books, and because of the general weakness of the product, and what seems to be a complete refusal to deal with it, things just stay pretty bad.
The conspiracy would then seem to revolve around the fact that the powers to be don’t want many of the things believed at lower level to be challenged by such silly things as facts!
On another board, there been a of of talk recently about the running game and the defense’s attempts to control it. Of course pickoff throws came up, and lots of people were opining, theorizing, and philosophizing about it. When I asked if anyone actually tracked pickoff throws to help see if what they were saying had any veracity, the answer was, no one did it, other than me, and that it really didn’t matter because the numbers really wouldn’t prove anything.
I guess that’s just the way folks are. If there’s any chance the facts won’t prove hem totally correct, there’s fear and a wall goes up to keep all those troublesome facts out of the conversation.
Baseball is a funny game and change is very slow. Over the last 5-10 years the value of defense has begun to evolve and as a result there are more and varied attempts to quantify it than ever. So delving into the effectiveness of pick off moves is probably a little ahead of the curve but getting at things like the range of fielders, speed to the plate and pop times have all seen increased value placed on them.
Used to be you'd only talk about the slick fielding SS or speedy CF and they are still the core of good defensive clubs but athletic corner players are becoming more of a norm. For example plays are made every day all over MLB by 3rd basemen that only Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt might have made 30-40 years ago. This string starts with a question about a play that sounds like it would have been an excellent defensive play had it been completed. Assuming that's true it shows how much things have changed that the question is being asked at all. I attribute it to the proliferation of "Web Gems" that has hieghtened the level of defensive expectations.
So all of this ties back into defining and trying to get more consistency in how the records are kept. It is ironic that for a sport that worships it's stats that the way they are determined has been so erratic. I don't see that changing any time soon at the lower levels either because scorekeeping is both partially subjective and poorly understood.
To prove my point ask 5 people at a HS game what a Fielders Choice is. It's sort of like watching those Jay Leno man on the street interviews. The answers you get are VERY entertaining!
Used to be you'd only talk about the slick fielding SS or speedy CF and they are still the core of good defensive clubs but athletic corner players are becoming more of a norm. For example plays are made every day all over MLB by 3rd basemen that only Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt might have made 30-40 years ago. This string starts with a question about a play that sounds like it would have been an excellent defensive play had it been completed. Assuming that's true it shows how much things have changed that the question is being asked at all. I attribute it to the proliferation of "Web Gems" that has hieghtened the level of defensive expectations.
So all of this ties back into defining and trying to get more consistency in how the records are kept. It is ironic that for a sport that worships it's stats that the way they are determined has been so erratic. I don't see that changing any time soon at the lower levels either because scorekeeping is both partially subjective and poorly understood.
To prove my point ask 5 people at a HS game what a Fielders Choice is. It's sort of like watching those Jay Leno man on the street interviews. The answers you get are VERY entertaining!
Isn't there also an understanding to give the hitter the benefit of doubt?
I the scenario above I was not the scorer the F6 just happened to be my son. I would have scored a hit regardless.
I the scenario above I was not the scorer the F6 just happened to be my son. I would have scored a hit regardless.
cball- that is true.
OBR Rule 10.05 has a note that begins "in applying these rules always give the batter the benefit of the doubt"
OBR Rule 10.05 has a note that begins "in applying these rules always give the batter the benefit of the doubt"
quote:Originally posted by luv baseball: OBR Rule 10.05 has a note that begins "in applying these rules always give the batter the benefit of the doubt"
That is partially correct, but not completely, and there’s a bit more to it, and that should be noted too.
[/i]Rule 10.05(a) Comment: In applying Rule 10.05(a), the official scorer shall always give the batter the benefit of the doubt. [/b]A safe course for the official scorer to follow is to score a hit when exceptionally good fielding of a ball fails to result in a putout.[/b][/i]
So its not like the batter should be giving the benefit of all doubt on all scoring rules at all times, and when the last part of the comment is applied, it makes it much easier to interpret. But, no matter what, it still boils down to the SK knowing the difference between exceptional play and ordinary play.