Clipping:A dissent on scoring wild pitches and strike out assists
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, January 14, 1885 |
|---|---|
| Text | [Washington correspondent “Keene” commenting on the Boston sportswriters' proposal in the previous issue.] It is proposed to include wild pitches and passed balls in the error column, and to credit the pitcher with an assistance on each “struck out,” these items to be at the same time specified in the summary. If uniformity alone is desired, these gentlemen could readily secure it by following the rules of the League relative to scoring, which provide for a statement of the items considered in a proper manner, based upon a well-founded distinction between ordinary field work and the work of the batteries. There is a wide different, and the elimination of the assistance on strikes and passed balls was a progressive step which should be further improved upon. The proposed amendments are nothing in reality but a return to the old practice of scoring battery work in the columns which should represent fielding alone. It is apparent to every one, who has at all considered the matter, that the scores of the games and the records published do no properly show the work of the pitcher and catcher, upon whom, in proportion to their efficiency, the bulk of the work devolves. The writer of this acted as official scorer during the years 1876-7 for one of the most successful professional clubs in this country, and in the latter year compiled and published the first accurate table showing the work of both pitchers and catchers, which has been imitated very frequently since, but owing to divers and deficient methods of scoring the data are not generally sufficient to properly construct the same. Excepting the pitcher and catcher, almost every ball handled by the fielder enters into the number of “chances” which form the basis of calculation determining his average. On the other hand every ball passing from the pitcher to the catcher after the second strike is called until the batter is retired, and especially while a man is on base, affords an opportunity for error. The line between a wild pitch and a passed ball is sometimes as five-drawn and as hard to determine as the line between law and equity, as every reporter can testify, when he remembers how often he has differed with the man at his elbow on this point. If such an error is made, to charge it to either pitcher or catcher without any compensating record of the balls pitched upon which errors might have been made and were not, is certainly an invidious distinction. It is true that this distinction would not be manifested in comparing the records of pitchers with each other, etc., provided the same system of scoring were adopted, but it would be entirely as easy to adopt a system in which all players would be placed on the same basis and strict justice done to each. Passed balls and wild pitches are certainly errors, and, as admitted by the promulgators of the circular referred to, they are as certainly treated as such; but they are essentially errors of the battery alone. The best possible solution of the question would be to score only strictly fielding work in the columns “A.” and “E.” whereby all players would be credited with their proper rank in fielding, and to further provide in the summary for the work of the battery, which should include “assistance on strikes, bases on balls, wild pitches, passed balls, put out on strikes,” and the number of balls pitched affording chance for error.. The latter could be scored with less trouble than the “strikes called” and “balls called” in the manner of a few years ago, and the result would enable the base ball statistician to record accurately and correctly the work of each player in his position. I am sure that those reporters and scorers who have endeavored to compile records of clubs and individual players and experienced the universal difficulty in separating the figures to obtain a correct result, will appreciate the above remarks, and never so much as after demonstrating their value by a practical application. The Sporting Life January 14, 1885 attempting to catch balls from the Washington Monument Paul Hines, Charlie Snyder, Ed Ewell and several local ball tossers went over to monument lot Thursday [probably 1/8] and endeavored to catch a ball thrown from the top of the monument. Five balls were thrown from the top of the shaft, but none were caught. A ball which was intended for Snyder to catch came to Hines, who stood about fifty yards away from the former. It came so unexpectedly and with such velocity that it went through Hines' hands like a flash of greased lightning. The players wore very thick catchers' gloves during the experiment, but those who witnessed the attempt declare that the ball comes down with such force as will carry away fingers, hands, gloves and everything that attempts to stop its downward course. Sam Trott, of the Baltimore tea, together with Hines, Snyder and others, went out again this afternoon [probably 1/9] and made another attempt to capture a ball from the monument. The great difficulty appears to be in properly judging where the ball is going to land. It is true, the ball can be seen from the moment it starts on its downward course, but it is almost impossible to guess within ten yards of its stopping place. The Sporting Life January 14, 1885 |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />