RBI, or no RBI?

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Gerry Myerso » Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:16:16


Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:

On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home. Do you know the
rules?

--

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Roger Moo » Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:48:11

Quote:

>On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
>Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
>through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
>in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
>been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
>1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
>is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home. Do you know the
>rules?

It's a judgment call by the official scorer and will depend on the exact
circumstances of the play.  If Rolen was playing in for a play at the
plate and the ball was hit hard enough for him to make the play, the
official scorer can rule no RBI.  If he was playing back for the double
play, the scorer was wrong.  Not having seen the play I can't say for
sure, but the former seems reasonable.  I'd expect for the 3B to play in
on a play like that, since the 5-2-3 DP is as reasonable an option with
the bases loaded as the 5-4-3 would be.

--

There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Don Mc » Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:25:02


Quote:

> Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:

> On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
> Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
> through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
> in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
> been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
> 1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
> is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home.

10.04 (2) Credit a run batted in for the run scored when, before two
are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base
*ordinarily* would score.

The third baseman may have been playing in for a play at the plate.
In view of the rule cited above, the scorer must have felt that a force
at home was probable.

Walker was credited with an RBI in the 14th inning when the winning
run scored on his infield out.  Must be what they mean by productive outs.

--
Don

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Seapi » Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:02:12

Quote:


> > Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:

> > On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
> > Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
> > through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
> > in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
> > been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
> > 1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
> > is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home.

> 10.04 (2) Credit a run batted in for the run scored when, before two
> are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base
> *ordinarily* would score.

> The third baseman may have been playing in for a play at the plate.
> In view of the rule cited above, the scorer must have felt that a force
> at home was probable.

I didn't see the play, but I don't know why Rolen would be playing in
with a 2-run lead, and a batter who's not a threat to bunt.

My guess is that the official scorer screwed up.  I used to naively
believe that the scorers knew what they were doing, but I've seen too
many screwy decisions the last few years.

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by ken » Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:55:57

They was playing in at the corners to try and stop the run from scoring.

--
ken
Posted via the forums at Newsgab -  http://www.newsgab.com/forum/

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Seapi » Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:34:33

Quote:

> They was playing in at the corners to try and stop the run from scoring.

I'm not the genius Tony La Russa is, so maybe somebody can explain to
me why he'd be playing infielders in to try to cut off a run with a
two-run lead in the ninth.
 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Roger Moo » Thu, 08 Jun 2006 01:52:11

Quote:


>> They was playing in at the corners to try and stop the run from scoring.
>I'm not the genius Tony La Russa is, so maybe somebody can explain to
>me why he'd be playing infielders in to try to cut off a run with a
>two-run lead in the ninth.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me to play in _at the corners_ on a play
like that.  You're not giving up on the possibility of a double play,
since you can always go for a home and first DP instead of the more
standard second and first version.  And if you're in a position to get
just one out, it makes sense to get it at the plate, leaving yourself with
a 2 run lead instead of a 1 run lead.  I wouldn't recommend playing the
middle infielders in, but playing half-and-half, with the corners in and
the middle infielders in DP position, seems like a viable call.

--

There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Seapi » Thu, 08 Jun 2006 04:49:06

Quote:



> >> They was playing in at the corners to try and stop the run from scoring.

> >I'm not the genius Tony La Russa is, so maybe somebody can explain to
> >me why he'd be playing infielders in to try to cut off a run with a
> >two-run lead in the ninth.

> It sounds perfectly reasonable to me to play in _at the corners_ on a play
> like that.  You're not giving up on the possibility of a double play,
> since you can always go for a home and first DP instead of the more
> standard second and first version.  And if you're in a position to get
> just one out, it makes sense to get it at the plate, leaving yourself with
> a 2 run lead instead of a 1 run lead.  I wouldn't recommend playing the
> middle infielders in, but playing half-and-half, with the corners in and
> the middle infielders in DP position, seems like a viable call.

You're not giving up on the possibility of a double play, but you're
taking a big bite out of the probability, by playing the third baseman
in.  The ball is more likely to get past him (or, through his legs, as
the case may be).

I could see it if the batter was a threat to bunt, but as far as I
know, Todd Walker isn't known for his bunting ability, and it wasn't a
situation where a bunt would be expected.  Without the threat of a
bunt, playing in only helps you on "swinging bunts" or slow choppers -
balls that at worst will leave you still with a one-run lead, and the
double play in order - while leaving you more vulnerable to sharply hit
balls that are likely to tie the game, or even put you behind if one
gets down the line.

You're right about being in a better position if the only out you get
is at the plate, but if you go for a 5-4-3 or 5U-3 double play, and get
only the front end, you're similarly left with the tying run in scoring
position with two outs, and the winning run on first, so it's not a
huge difference.  If there's a slowly-hit ball, where the only play is
at first, that's a bigger difference because it would put the go-ahead
run in scoring position, but I still don't like the tradeoff of
defending against the slowly-hit ball vs. the more dangerous hits.

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by K2 » Thu, 08 Jun 2006 05:33:30


Quote:




>> >> They was playing in at the corners to try and stop the run from
>> >> scoring.

>> >I'm not the genius Tony La Russa is, so maybe somebody can explain to
>> >me why he'd be playing infielders in to try to cut off a run with a
>> >two-run lead in the ninth.

>> It sounds perfectly reasonable to me to play in _at the corners_ on a
>> play
>> like that.  You're not giving up on the possibility of a double play,
>> since you can always go for a home and first DP instead of the more
>> standard second and first version.  And if you're in a position to get
>> just one out, it makes sense to get it at the plate, leaving yourself
>> with
>> a 2 run lead instead of a 1 run lead.  I wouldn't recommend playing the
>> middle infielders in, but playing half-and-half, with the corners in and
>> the middle infielders in DP position, seems like a viable call.

> You're not giving up on the possibility of a double play, but you're
> taking a big bite out of the probability, by playing the third baseman
> in.  The ball is more likely to get past him (or, through his legs, as
> the case may be).

> I could see it if the batter was a threat to bunt, but as far as I
> know, Todd Walker isn't known for his bunting ability, and it wasn't a
> situation where a bunt would be expected.  Without the threat of a
> bunt, playing in only helps you on "swinging bunts" or slow choppers -
> balls that at worst will leave you still with a one-run lead, and the
> double play in order - while leaving you more vulnerable to sharply hit
> balls that are likely to tie the game, or even put you behind if one
> gets down the line.

> You're right about being in a better position if the only out you get
> is at the plate, but if you go for a 5-4-3 or 5U-3 double play, and get
> only the front end, you're similarly left with the tying run in scoring
> position with two outs, and the winning run on first, so it's not a
> huge difference.  If there's a slowly-hit ball, where the only play is
> at first, that's a bigger difference because it would put the go-ahead
> run in scoring position, but I still don't like the tradeoff of
> defending against the slowly-hit ball vs. the more dangerous hits.

I think the bottom line is that playing the infield (or at least the corner
infielders) in may reduce the odds of a single run scoring (with a play at
the plate), but it increases the odds of giving up a big inning from a ball
getting past one of the drawn-in fielders.
For that reason, it makes far less sense, as you say, with a 2-run lead.
Giving up a single run should be less important than protecting that lead.

It's a tactical decision, and why the managers get the big bucks, gray hair
(or less hair), and ulcers.

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Lance Freezelan » Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:23:32


Quote:


>> > Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:
>> > On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
>> > Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
>> > through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
>> > in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
>> > been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
>> > 1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
>> > is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home.
>> 10.04 (2) Credit a run batted in for the run scored when, before two
>> are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base
>> *ordinarily* would score.
>> The third baseman may have been playing in for a play at the plate.
>> In view of the rule cited above, the scorer must have felt that a force
>> at home was probable.
>I didn't see the play, but I don't know why Rolen would be playing in
>with a 2-run lead, and a batter who's not a threat to bunt.

I saw the play, and I fully expected Rolen to come up throwing home
for the force play at the plate.

--
Lance

"In a world filled with hate, prejudice, and protest,
  I find that I too am filled with hate, prejudice, and
  protest."  -- Bob Gibson

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Seapi » Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:12:09

Quote:




> >> > Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:

> >> > On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
> >> > Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
> >> > through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
> >> > in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
> >> > been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
> >> > 1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
> >> > is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home.

> >> 10.04 (2) Credit a run batted in for the run scored when, before two
> >> are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base
> >> *ordinarily* would score.

> >> The third baseman may have been playing in for a play at the plate.
> >> In view of the rule cited above, the scorer must have felt that a force
> >> at home was probable.

> >I didn't see the play, but I don't know why Rolen would be playing in
> >with a 2-run lead, and a batter who's not a threat to bunt.

> I saw the play, and I fully expected Rolen to come up throwing home
> for the force play at the plate.

He was playing in, then?  Did La Russa take any heat for that?
 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by David Emerlin » Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:34:39


Quote:



>> > Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:

>> > On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
>> > Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
>> > through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
>> > in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
>> > been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
>> > 1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
>> > is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home.

>> 10.04 (2) Credit a run batted in for the run scored when, before two
>> are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base
>> *ordinarily* would score.

>> The third baseman may have been playing in for a play at the plate.
>> In view of the rule cited above, the scorer must have felt that a force
>> at home was probable.

> I didn't see the play, but I don't know why Rolen would be playing in
> with a 2-run lead, and a batter who's not a threat to bunt.

> My guess is that the official scorer screwed up.  I used to naively
> believe that the scorers knew what they were doing, but I've seen too
> many screwy decisions the last few years.

In this situation, usually the middle infielders play at double play depth
and go for the 2nd-to-1st double play whereas the corner infielders play
shallow going for the home-to-1st double play. Balls hit toward the center
of the infield are conducive to 2nd-to-1st double plays whereas balls hit
along the lines are more conducive to home-to-1st double plays. They go for
the double play with the shortest throws.

I would not credit Walker with an RBI because the runner on third would not
have "ordinarily" scored on this play. Rolen was playing shallow for a
reason ... most likely to force the runner out at the plate.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Lance Freezelan » Fri, 09 Jun 2006 06:02:42


Quote:




>> >> > Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:
>> >> > On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
>> >> > Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
>> >> > through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
>> >> > in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
>> >> > been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
>> >> > 1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
>> >> > is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home.
>> >> 10.04 (2) Credit a run batted in for the run scored when, before two
>> >> are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base
>> >> *ordinarily* would score.
>> >> The third baseman may have been playing in for a play at the plate.
>> >> In view of the rule cited above, the scorer must have felt that a force
>> >> at home was probable.
>> >I didn't see the play, but I don't know why Rolen would be playing in
>> >with a 2-run lead, and a batter who's not a threat to bunt.
>> I saw the play, and I fully expected Rolen to come up throwing home
>> for the force play at the plate.
>He was playing in, then?  Did La Russa take any heat for that?

No, I'd say that he was halfway.  And no, LaRussa didn't take any heat
for that.  He took a lot for running out of pitchers and for playing
with a short bench, but not for that.

--
Lance

"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been
 baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers.
 It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again.
 But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's
 a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was
 good and it could be again." -- Terrence Mann

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Seapi » Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:15:22

Quote:





> >> > Friend of mine sent me this, thought I'd see what rsb has to say:

> >> > On Friday night, with the bases loaded and 1 out in the 9th and the
> >> > Cubs down 4-2, Todd Walker hit a grounder to Scott Rolen, which went
> >> > through his legs, allowing two runs to score. The Cubs eventually won
> >> > in 14. Walker was *not* credited with an RBI. I think he should have
> >> > been: you never "assume the double play", and if Rolen had thrown to
> >> > 1st, one run would have scored. The only justification I can think of
> >> > is the assumption that Rolen would have thrown home.

> >> 10.04 (2) Credit a run batted in for the run scored when, before two
> >> are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base
> >> *ordinarily* would score.

> >> The third baseman may have been playing in for a play at the plate.
> >> In view of the rule cited above, the scorer must have felt that a force
> >> at home was probable.

> > I didn't see the play, but I don't know why Rolen would be playing in
> > with a 2-run lead, and a batter who's not a threat to bunt.

> > My guess is that the official scorer screwed up.  I used to naively
> > believe that the scorers knew what they were doing, but I've seen too
> > many screwy decisions the last few years.

> In this situation, usually the middle infielders play at double play depth
> and go for the 2nd-to-1st double play whereas the corner infielders play
> shallow going for the home-to-1st double play. Balls hit toward the center
> of the infield are conducive to 2nd-to-1st double plays whereas balls hit
> along the lines are more conducive to home-to-1st double plays. They go for
> the double play with the shortest throws.

If the third baseman is back at his normal position, the throw to
second is about the same length at the throw home when he's playing in.
 Plus, right-handed throwers can move the ball around the infield
faster going clockwise than counterclockwise.

Even if there is a slight increase in the likelihood of a double play
when playing in at the corners, it's more than offset, IMO, by the
increased likelihood of a ball getting past one of the corner
infielders.

Quote:
> I would not credit Walker with an RBI because the runner on third would not
> have "ordinarily" scored on this play. Rolen was playing shallow for a
> reason ... most likely to force the runner out at the plate.

Corner infielders might ordinarily play in with the bases loaded and
one out, but that's because ordinarily the potential run on third means
something, so, on a slowly-hit ball where they can get only one out,
he's the one they want to get.  With a two-run lead in the ninth, that
run means nothing - they need to be concerned with the runners on first
and second, and the guy at the plate.  The best way to keep any of
those guys from scoring is to put your fielders where they are most
able to make plays.
 
 
 

RBI, or no RBI?

Post by Dale Hick » Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:55:13



Quote:


> > In this situation, usually the middle infielders play at double play depth
> > and go for the 2nd-to-1st double play whereas the corner infielders play
> > shallow going for the home-to-1st double play. Balls hit toward the center
> > of the infield are conducive to 2nd-to-1st double plays whereas balls hit
> > along the lines are more conducive to home-to-1st double plays. They go for
> > the double play with the shortest throws.

> Even if there is a slight increase in the likelihood of a double play
> when playing in at the corners, it's more than offset, IMO, by the
> increased likelihood of a ball getting past one of the corner
> infielders.

But that's offset by the fact that even if you only get the one out,
it's an out that prevents a run from scoring.

Playing half-way and coming home for the 5-2-3 DP is the way it's done,
and it's done that way for a reason.  Rolen doesn't let a ball through
him that often.

Quote:
> Corner infielders might ordinarily play in with the bases loaded and
> one out, but that's because ordinarily the potential run on third means
> something, so, on a slowly-hit ball where they can get only one out,
> he's the one they want to get.  With a two-run lead in the ninth, that
> run means nothing - they need to be concerned with the runners on first
> and second, and the guy at the plate.  The best way to keep any of
> those guys from scoring is to put your fielders where they are most
> able to make plays.

It means something.  Say you try your 5-4-3 DP and you don't make it,
that leaves the losing team only one run down with the tying run at
third.  Playing it to home has them two runs down with the tying run at
second.

I think you're overestimating the amount of hits that playing halfway
allows.  Of course, I've never studied it, so I might be underestimating
it.

--
Cranial Crusader              dgh 1138 at bell south point net