Hit or Filders Choice

that is a hit

Depends ...

It's a sac bunt, unless "... in the judgment of the official scorer ordinary effort would not have put out the batter at first base, in which case the batter shall be credited with a one-base hit and not a sacrifice."

And if the "bad throw" you mentioned allows the batter/runner to advance to 2nd, then you've got an error tacked on to the sac or the hit.

So the sac is determined by the batter/runner being able to make first safely? Even if the fielder chooses to make the play at home? I thought that if the batter/runner reaches first but the runner at 3rd gets out at the plate it'd be a fielder's choice. Have I been scoring this wrong?

Yep, I have been scoring it wrong...

10.08(b) Score a sacrifice bunt when, before two are out, the fielders handle a bunted ball without error in an unsuccessful attempt to put out a preceding runner advancing one base, unless, an attempt to turn a bunt into a putout of a preceding runner fails, and in the judgment of the official scorer ordinary effort would not have put out the batter at first base, in which case the batter shall be credited with a one-base hit and not a sacrifice.

So that means that if the pitcher could've gotten the batter/runner out at first with ordinary effort, regardless of where he chooses to make the play, then it's a SAC, otherwise a hit.

Yes, SAC bunt reach on fielder's choice.

If you think he would've been safe at home, score SAC and credit RBI. If throw should've gotten the runner, no SAC, no RBI.

If you think it was a great play and decide maybe possibly he could've been safe at first maybe, give him a hit. Just don't brag about it with us purists.

In girls softball, its a hit all the way. Thank heaven for little girls...

quote:

Yes, SAC bunt reach on fielder's choice.

JMoff, I always enjoy your analyses, and I'm thinking we may have had this discussion before ... but claiming that it's a SAC and an FC is a bit confusing, because one is an 0-0 and the other is an 0-1.

I think what you're saying is that it's a SAC, thus 0-0, and writing "FC" simply allows you to recall what happened as you look back over the book at a later date.

But from one purist to another, if he reaches first via SAC, the ONLY way he could have gotten there is precisely this type situation -- where a fielder made an unsuccessful attempt at another runner. So it kind of tells its own story.

Not a big deal, but it seems like listing both is extraneous -- and possibly confusing.

Maybe I'm missing something. Your thoughts?

Yes, I think we've talked this one before and it is somewhat symantics. Fielder's choice is only defined in OBR to account for the advancement of runners because of the decisions of fielders.

The most common fielder's choice situation is defined in 10.05 b The official scorer shall not credit a base hit when a...

(3) pitcher, the catcher or any infielder handles a batted ball and puts out a preceding runner who is attempting to advance one base or to return to his original base, or would have put out such runner with ordinary effort except for a fielding error. The official scorer shall charge the batter with a time at bat but no hit;

You give a FC to account for the runner reaching first, but score AB and no hit because of this rule (not because a FC is an 0-1).

It works the same way with a sacrifice. The batter gets a sacrifice because of 10.08 SACRIFICES
The official scorer shall:
(b) Score a sacrifice bunt when, before two are out, the fielders handle a bunted ball without error in an unsuccessful attempt to put out a preceding runner advancing one base, unless, an attempt to turn a bunt into a putout of a preceding runner fails, and in the judgment of the official scorer ordinary effort would not have put out the batter at first base, in which case the batter shall be credited with a one-base hit and not a sacrifice;

The FC simply accounts for why he's on first and not out.

If you search OBR for fielder's choice, you can see that its more of an accounting for runner advancement than a definition of an at bat.
OBR

JMoff, you make a good point and explain it well. Maybe this gets a little nit-picky. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss it further.

Check out 10.04 (a)(1), and see if you think that including FC in that list of batter results puts this in any different perspective.

Thanks for what you bring to this board! I enjoy your posts.