Official Scoring Questions Thread

[stewthornley]

Not me.

[70charger]

who was the scorer on the Plouffe error that wasn't scored an error on, I believe , Friday night? The one where it was hit to him and he did a bull fighter move on the ball instead of getting in front of it. Blatant over the top error called a hit.

 

I was at that game, and that was little league stuff.

 

The guy I was sitting next to decided to boo him the next time he came up to bat, and I had to remind him that "boooooo" sounds a lot like "Plooouuuuffe." So I think he might have gotten away with one....

[stewthornley]

Not me.

I'm replying just as a test to see if this response gets nested directly beneath the post I'm responding to. John Gregory is coaching me and advised that I use the Reply with Quote rather than Reply. I'm hoping to shed my Junior Member/Rookie status and realize I won't do it if I blog like Trevor fields. (At least so far I've learned a few words that this program will turn into ****.) Now I hope this reply gets nested under the other one. Here goes . . .

[stewthornley]

I was at that game, and that was little league stuff.

 

The guy I was sitting next to decided to boo him the next time he came up to bat, and I had to remind him that "boooooo" sounds a lot like "Plooouuuuffe." So I think he might have gotten away with one....

 

Good point. If anyone ever boos one of my calls, I'll just interpret as "Steeeeeeewww" Meanwhile, I gotta admit I almost miss Sammy's yells of "That's not a hit!" from the stands.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I had to remind him that "boooooo" sounds a lot like "Plooouuuuffe."

 

Cristian Guzman and Lew Ford may have missed some boo's the same way.

[snepp]

Nonsense, no one would ever boo Lew.

[Nick Nelson]

Cristian Guzman and Lew Ford may have missed some boo's the same way.

 

On a related note, I just realized that my many screams of "Boo! Terrible!" may have gone unnoticed by a certain No. 3 catcher...

[Guest USAFChief]

Regarding a question from yesterday - have scoring standards changed over the decades? My guess is that most people would say they have, that scorers are softer and calling more hits. My answer is maybe. Errors have gone down from about 1.75 per game for both teams in the 1960s and 1970s to 1.25 per game per team now. I have no idea how much better fielding and equipment and perhaps playing surfaces account for the drop. Better skills can lead to more opportunities for errors, but I'd guess that overall it would create fewer errors. I'm strong on the belief that players are better. In addition to greater range than creates more chances for errors, it also means more reliability in fielding and throwing. One thing I wonder about is if first baseman, through proficiency and a better trapper, are more likely to dig out throws in the dirt than they where 40-50 years ago. Based on memory, I think they are. I know memory is dicey, but no dicier than people convinced that scorers are softer based on their memories about how plays were called in the past. The sight of a first baseman saving another infielder from an error by scooping his throw from the dirt is pretty routine. Is it so much more routine now than it was in the 60s and 70s that it could account for half an error per game, or at least a good chuck of that differential? I don't know. If anyone out there can figure out a good way to measure that, go for it.

Thanks for the answer. As a guy who has watched a lot of baseball since the 60's, I think scoring standards have softened, but I'm open to the possibility it's just my memory. For me, the Arcia play the other day would be example "A" of softened standards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not assigning any blame here, or questioning the decision. It just seems to me, based solely on memory, that a ball that hits an outfielder in the glove, a foot or more off the ground, would have been ruled an error "back in the day." He got there, but failed to make the play. To me, that seems related to your examples above about OFers not getting into position, and therefore not being charged with an error (which I agree with, BTW). In this case, he did get into position, and my uninformed opinion is, that would have been charged as an error a few decades ago. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to answer. This is a great thread.

[Riverbrian]

I don't have a question on scoring... Most of my questions center on things like... Is the Refrigerator Light On when the door is closed?

 

I just wanted to say Thank You Stew.

[stewthornley]

I don't have a question on scoring... Most of my questions center on things like... Is the Refrigerator Light On when the door is closed?

 

I just wanted to say Thank You Stew.

 

Our cat says it stays on, and he's an expert based on his extensive experience of slipping in there without us seeing him.

 

Hope you're enjoying this. I am. Thanks.

[ashbury]

In Saturday's game, Kipnis hit a long fly that Hicks couldn't track down and went for a triple. I was following only by online play-by-play log, so my scorecard (were I keeping one) would have said WW, same as for every plate appearance. Still, one of the knowledgeable contributors in the TD game thread said "Wasn't even all that tough of a catch." If a center fielder has to go more than a couple of steps in either direction, is "ordinary effort" such that pretty much anything he doesn't get a glove on ruled a hit instead of an error?

[notoriousgod71]

Jays game today: pop up, Encarnacion falls over the mound, double.

 

Clearly the ball should have been caught. It's not Morrow's fault that Encarnacion can't manage his way around a pitcher's mound. Why should he get punished when it was a routine play if Encarnacion just pays attention?

[ThePuck]

In Saturday's game, Kipnis hit a long fly that Hicks couldn't track down and went for a triple. I was following only by online play-by-play log, so my scorecard (were I keeping one) would have said WW, same as for every plate appearance. Still, one of the knowledgeable contributors in the TD game thread said "Wasn't even all that tough of a catch." If a center fielder has to go more than a couple of steps in either direction, is "ordinary effort" such that pretty much anything he doesn't get a glove on ruled a hit instead of an error?

 

He covered a lot of ground to get to the ball, he jumped up and it bounced off his glove. Willingham was right there, which may have distracted him and he was by the wall.

 

He should have caught it, but it wasn't a can of corn either.

[stewthornley]

In Saturday's game, Kipnis hit a long fly that Hicks couldn't track down and went for a triple. I was following only by online play-by-play log, so my scorecard (were I keeping one) would have said WW, same as for every plate appearance. Still, one of the knowledgeable contributors in the TD game thread said "Wasn't even all that tough of a catch." If a center fielder has to go more than a couple of steps in either direction, is "ordinary effort" such that pretty much anything he doesn't get a glove on ruled a hit instead of an error?

 

Finally watched it although the mlb.tv was stuttering a bit. Someone thought that should have been an error? NFW. Yeah, it could have been caught, but no way would I even think about calling it an error. Looks like he may have overrun it a bit (would be clearer if the replay wasn't starting and stopping so much), but he makes a long run, leaps while approaching the fence, and misses it. That's a hit.

[notoriousgod71]

Thank God Napoli got charged with an error for that missed pop up.

[stewthornley]

Thank God Napoli got charged with an error for that missed pop up.

 

I came in late, right after it happened. Was there an argument? (I saw that mlb.com marked an On Field Delay.)

[notoriousgod71]

I came in late, right after it happened. Was there an argument? (I saw that mlb.com marked an On Field Delay.)

 

Briefly they contended that Plouffe interfered with Napoli because it was near the base line.

[notoriousgod71]

Salty would have been out by three feet if Burton makes a normal throw. Hit.

[stewthornley]

Finally watched it although the mlb.tv was stuttering a bit. Someone thought that should have been an error? NFW. Yeah, it could have been caught, but no way would I even think about calling it an error. Looks like he may have overrun it a bit (would be clearer if the replay wasn't starting and stopping so much), but he makes a long run, leaps while approaching the fence, and misses it. That's a hit.

 

I got a better look at the play and will change "could have caught" to "should have caught." However, I think the hit call was a good one. Not as clear cut a decision, though, as I thought it was when I watched the stuttering replay.

[Guest USAFChief]

I got a better look at the play and will change "could have caught" to "should have caught." However, I think the hit call was a good one. Not as clear cut a decision, though, as I thought it was when I watched the stuttering replay.

And that's sort of the central issue with scorekeeping today, to me at least. I'm sure you're just following what MLB "expects" from their scorekeepers. But somewhere along the line, within my lifetime, it sure seems to me that plays that "should have been made" but weren't, went from being errors to hits. I understand the concept of "normal effort," but to me, that play was fairly normal for a centerfielder. He had to run a long way, sure, but that seems pretty "normal" to me. He's a centerfielder. Not every ball is hit to where he can jog into position to camp under it. "Should have been caught but wasn't" seems to me a like a pretty solid case to call it an "error."

[stewthornley]

And that's sort of the central issue with scorekeeping today, to me at least. I'm sure you're just following what MLB "expects" from their scorekeepers. But somewhere along the line, within my lifetime, it sure seems to me that plays that "should have been made" but weren't, went from being errors to hits. I understand the concept of "normal effort," but to me, that play was fairly normal for a centerfielder. He had to run a long way, sure, but that seems pretty "normal" to me. He's a centerfielder. Not every ball is hit to where he can jog into position to camp under it. "Should have been caught but wasn't" seems to me a like a pretty solid case to call it an "error."

 

No argument with what you're saying. Among my favorites is getting word that a player is unhappy about being charged with an error with the explanation, "He said, 'Yeah, I should have made that play" but he still thought it was a tough error."

[notoriousgod71]

Mauer ropes one to right. Markakis freezes and it goes over his head even though it was right at him. That is a play that HAS to be made. Double.

[notoriousgod71]

You can't give chris davis a double on that!!!!! It hit arcia in the glove!!!!

[stewthornley]

You can't give chris davis a double on that!!!!! It hit arcia in the glove!!!!

My game tonight, so you can put those on me. And, like it or not, notoriousofficialscorer outranks notoriousgod. Just check the box score tomorrow if you don't believe me.

[notoriousgod71]

My game tonight, so you can put those on me. And, like it or not, notoriousofficialscorer outranks notoriousgod. Just check the box score tomorrow if you don't believe me.

 

I don't mean to make it look like I'm just bitching about everything (even though I may well be), but perhaps you could help me understand how that was more than an ordinary effort. I really appreciate you taking the time to come to this board to explain your reasoning. Thanks.

[Halsey Hall]

That's a double. What else could it possibly be, a single? Arcia, to me, looked like he thought it would come high off the wall and got into position for that, then figured he might have a chance and ran back and jumped for the ball. Almost got it too. I thought he put a pretty good effort on that ball.

[stewthornley]

I don't mean to make it look like I'm just bitching about everything (even though I may well be), but perhaps you could help me understand how that was more than an ordinary effort. I really appreciate you taking the time to come to this board to explain your reasoning. Thanks.

I was going by the position he was in to make the catch at the time the ball came down. It wasn't a good position, and it left him in a spot in which he had to leap and lunge. At that point, he effort it would have taken to catch it was beyond ordinary. Of course, if he had been in a better spot, then it would have been only ordinary effort needed to catch it. It was the same thing with Dickerson miss on Mauer's double - although hard hit balls right at an outfielder can be tougher to judge. In other words, Arcia messed up more by not being in the right spot than Dickerson, in my opinion. This is something we talked about at our meetings last weekend. We looked at some plays that have been overturned by MLB already this season. One resembled the Dickerson play - left fielder not judging the ball correctly and then having to leap for the ball. The scorer charged an error, but it was changed to a hit by MLB. The irony - or whatever the hell it is - is that if a fielder screws up a bit (getting into a decent position to catch it and then not), he gets an error. If he screws up completely and doesn't get into a good position to catch it, he doesn't get an error. I expressed those sentiments to some of the writers after the game although I used a few words that would turn into **** on this forum. They understood though I don't think any of them, including me, thinks it's really the way it should be. It's just the way it is, something that we have discussed at our meetings and that we understand is the way MLB wants us to call it, as demonstrated by what has happened with some of the scoring decisions that have been appealed. (We also looked at plays from last year that happened like this - they were errors changed to hits by MLB.) The biggest thing to us is to have some uniformity on how we all call it. Two years in a row we've discussed balls that drop in between fielders (you got it, you got it, nobody's got it) and would like the option of a team error. That won't happen (at least not soon and probably never), so we discuss how to call it. We all hate calling those things hits, but the standards advanced by MLB send the message to us that that's the way to do it. So from there, the best thing we can do is at least do it the same way. (Meanwhile, I got an explanation on what happened with the scoring changes on the bizarre play in Boston Wednesday night. I'll put that up here in a little while.)

[stewthornley]

The Doumit play Wednesday in Boston was about as weird as that baserunning by the Cubs (was that the Cubs?) earlier this year. The original call was a fielder's choice because it thought it was a force out on Plouffe at second. I'm sure Charlie Scoggins, the scorer, wasn't sure which runners were out and in which order. After the game he found out that the first out on the play was Doumit, the batter, being called out for passing Plouffe between first and second. That removed any force so the second out, which was on Plouffe, wasn't a force, and Doumit could be credited with a hit, which he was. The next day Charlie talked to Elias Sports Bureau. No rule specifically covers that play, leaving the scorer with discretion, and Charlie looked at a couple of related rules. Neither runner, both of whom had started in a force position, reached his next base. The only way a batter can get a hit when that happens is if his batted ball hits a runner. Charlie thought Doumit shouldn't benefit from passing a runner, which is what removed the force, so he took the hit away and ruled it a fielder's choice.

[big dog]

Thanks, that's very helpful- such a weird play, I had no idea what the scoring should or could have been.

[notoriousgod71]

Thank you for giving Plouffe an error.