Safe at Second, but No Stolen Base to Show for It

[snopes]

Defensive indifference is a sleepy but established rule that has been in Major League Baseball for 89 years. Bob Waterman, a senior baseball staffer at Elias, said the addendum, “No stolen base shall be credited to a runner who is allowed to advance without an effort being made to stop him,” was placed in the 1920 rule book. The rule is typically enforced in the ninth inning of a lopsided game when the defense yawns as a runner grabs a meaningless base.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/sp...l/23score.html

[keokuk]

My father and I regularly go to games, and both of us keep score. I think the most heated debate we ever get into, a couple of times a season, is whether someone just stole a base or advanced on defensive indifference. Other than outfield errors, it is perhaps the most malleable statistical distinction in the game.

[snopes]

When a batter whose team is losing 8-0 hits a short fly ball the outfield with a runner on third, and the defense makes no attempt to throw out the runner at home, the batter still gets an RBI and isn't charged with an at-bat. I think that's more egregious scoring than giving a runner credit for a stolen base when the defense makes no play on him.

[Insensible Crier]

I'm not completely up on baseball rules but does an intentional walk still count as a walk? Because if it does count then there's no difference between this and allowing defensive indifference as a steal. The team made a conscious decision to allow the other team to take a free base.

[Mr. Furious]

Originally Posted by Insensible Crier

I'm not completely up on baseball rules but does an intentional walk still count as a walk?

Yes. IBBs are also recorded separately, but are included in a player's BB totals.

[Johnny Slick]

Eh, not exactly. On an intentional walk the pitcher actually has to throw four wide ones. With a steal nullified by defensive indifference, the play is defined by a lack of action on the part of one of the parties. Also, it should be noted that intentional walks, though they are included in the regular numbers, are also counted in and of themselves so people who want to see how good a batter's eye is irrespective of the full-on free passes can figure that out quickly and easily.

Anyway, there are lots of things in baseball worse than the defensive indifference rule. Body armor at the plate. The phantom tag. The New York Yankees. I could go on.

[Sister Ray]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Anyway, there are lots of things in baseball worse than the defensive indifference rule. Body armor at the plate. The phantom tag. The New York Yankees. I could go on.

I would just like to say that comment is made of win.

Oh, and I find players who intentionally get hit by a pitch annoying.

Sister "and the comment is very true" Ray

[Johnny Slick]

Yeah, the rules say that you have to make an effort to get out of the way. Nowadays I see guys turn into the pitch so it hits them on the butt instead of the side of the hip but the only time I ever see actual evasion of a pitched ball is when it's thrown at a guy's head. I'd love to see the reactions of the guys who are un-awarded first base because the ump said they didn't make enough of a show of avoiding the pitch though.

[Insensible Crier]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Anyway, there are lots of things in baseball worse than the defensive indifference rule. Body armor at the plate. The phantom tag. The New York Yankees. I could go on.

The Pittsburgh Pirates

[Johnny Slick]

I don't know that you can technically call the Pirates "in baseball".

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Also, it should be noted that intentional walks, though they are included in the regular numbers, are also counted in and of themselves so people who want to see how good a batter's eye is irrespective of the full-on free passes can figure that out quickly and easily.

Sort of. Intentional walk figures don't include cases of "I'll deliberately throw four pitches out of the strike zone and see if he'll bite on anything."

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by snopes

Sort of. Intentional walk figures don't include cases of "I'll deliberately throw four pitches out of the strike zone and see if he'll bite on anything."

Right, because those are called "Yuniesky Betancourt pops out to third".

[Jay Temple]

Originally Posted by keokuk

My father and I regularly go to games, and both of us keep score. I think the most heated debate we ever get into, a couple of times a season, is whether someone just stole a base or advanced on defensive indifference. Other than outfield errors, it is perhaps the most malleable statistical distinction in the game.

I can think of one that's more malleable: awarding the win in a game where the starter leaves the game with a lead before completing five innings, and the bullpen never loses the lead.

[videoguy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

On an intentional walk the pitcher actually has to throw four wide ones.

If you want to get technical, he actually only has to throw one intentional ball - the last one.

[keokuk]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

I can think of one that's more malleable: awarding the win in a game where the starter leaves the game with a lead before completing five innings, and the bullpen never loses the lead.

That's true, Even though it's become pretty commonplace to just give it to the first reliever to enter the game, it's my understanding that the actual rule is pretty much "eh the scorekeeper can give it to whichever pitcher he wants."

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by snopes

When a batter whose team is losing 8-0 hits a short fly ball the outfield with a runner on third, and the defense makes no attempt to throw out the runner at home, the batter still gets an RBI and isn't charged with an at-bat. I think that's more egregious scoring than giving a runner credit for a stolen base when the defense makes no play on him.

In defense of the sac fly rule, at least in that case, it takes an act of skill on the part of the batter to score that run. He still has to put the ball in play whereas, if he fails to put the ball in play, the run won't score. Plus, the pitcher's ERA is affected.

With the defense indifference rule, it takes no act of skill whatsoever by the offensive team to advance that runner to second base.

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by Insensible Crier

I'm not completely up on baseball rules but does an intentional walk still count as a walk? Because if it does count then there's no difference between this and allowing defensive indifference as a steal. The team made a conscious decision to allow the other team to take a free base.

Yes, the team made a conscious decision, but the chance still exists for something detrimental to either team to happen during an intentional walk. The batter could still, conceivably, swing at one of the pitches.

[keokuk]

Originally Posted by bjohn13

Yes, the team made a conscious decision, but the chance still exists for something detrimental to either team to happen during an intentional walk. The batter could still, conceivably, swing at one of the pitches.

It's more than just conceivable:

After Florida's Miguel Cabrera intentionally swung during what was supposed to be an intentional walk, it looked on video replays as if an unintentional smile flashed across his face when he made contact and sent the ball into center field.

Cabrera's unlikely base hit scored a run to break a 5-5 tie in the 10th inning Thursday night in Baltimore, and the Marlins added two more runs in an 8-5 victory, their 10th in 11 games.

Before his team opened a three-game series with the Yankees last night at Yankee Stadium, Cabrera was asked about his immediate reaction to the unusual play, which had people talking. "I don't know, I can't explain it, I don't remember," Cabrera said when asked about his grin. "I put my best swing on it, and I'll see what's going to happen."

The hit was against Baltimore's Todd Williams, who sometimes has problems throwing the ball wide of the strike zone on intentional walks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/sp...24cabrera.html

[snopes]

Originally Posted by bjohn13

In defense of the sac fly rule, at least in that case, it takes an act of skill on the part of the batter to score that run. With the defense indifference rule, it takes no act of skill whatsoever by the offensive team to advance that runner to second base.

But a batter who drives in a run in the same circumstances by hitting into a ground-out is still charged with an at-bat. Does hitting a short outfield fly demonstrate superior batting skill?

You could just as easily argue that a walk takes no skill on the part of the batter, so a batter who receives a bases-loaded walk shouldn't get credit for an RBI.

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by snopes

But a batter who drives in a run in the same circumstances by hitting into a ground-out is still charged with an at-bat. Does hitting a short outfield fly demonstrate superior batting skill?

It sounds like we should be discussing whether or not a batter should be charged an at bat on any event where the batter drives in a run while creating a single out. I'd be inclined to agree either way as long as the ruling is consistent...which it currently is not.

You could just as easily argue that a walk takes no skill on the part of the batter, so a batter who receives a bases-loaded walk shouldn't get credit for an RBI.

But a walk does take skill from the batter (or ineptitude on the part of the pitcher...or oftentimes both)