Clipping:The new scoring rules
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, December 24, 1876 |
|---|---|
| Text | The score of a game of baseball should be, as nearly as possible, a concise record of what each individual player does or fails to do, a fact the National League seems to have forgotten when it adopted a code of rules for scoring at its late convention in Cleveland, some very good individual rules were included in the code, notably that which recognized the good play of the fielder who really makes an assistance, but has heretofore been deprived of credit for the act through the error of the person to whom the ball was thrown. There were other rules passed which are in direct violation of the real principle of scoring. One rule says that a base on called balls shall not be recorded as a time at the bat. Why not? Has not the player been at the bat, and in 90 cases in a 100 had one or more chances to strike at a fair ball? Provision is made for a column of “total bases,” including the bases which a baseman [sic: should be batsman?] makes off his hit, the bases which runners ahead of the same hit, and the bases he steals after becoming a runner, whether any or all of it is secured by good batting and running, or off fielding errors. A more inconsistent and meaningless rule could hardly be devised. It assumes as the unit or base the getting from any one base to any other without being put out, and yet declines to count as a base that which a batter secures on a “force.” Hence its inconsistency. Again, the rule is meaningless. It does not show a player’s batting skill nor running ability, but does show what a batsman is able to accomplish through his personal skill at the bat, assisted by his adversaries’ errors and the pedal service of the base runners; in fine, it shows considerable in general and nothing in particular. To illustrate: Barnes is at the bat, Peters on second and Anson on third. The striker makes a clean two base hit, sending Peters and Anson in and securing for himself a record of five total bases. Again, the men are in the same position; Barnes hits to the third baseman, who gathers the ball well, but throws badly to first. Anson and Peters score, and Barnes reaches second off the error. Barnes gets five bases in this case the same as before, although doing absolutely nothing which would entitle him to a single base. True, Barnes hit the ball, which the baseman threw wild. But it was not the hit which yielded the bases, but the wild throw, and so it should be recorded. Don’t sum together what everybody accomplishes off a fielding error and credit it to a batsman, who, if he had received his just dues, would have been out. That is giving a man credit for what he does not do. More senseless still is a provision giving a catcher a “put out” and a pitcher an “assistance” when a batsman makes a foul strike (steps out of his position in striking) or strikes out of turn. What on earth has the catcher or pitcher to do with a batsman’s stepping out of position or forgetting when his turn comes? Nothing whatever; and there is no good reason for giving such credit. If it were to make the summaries “prove,” which is not all necessary in this particular, why not count a base on called balls a time at bat, so that the total of outs, runs and times left on bases may equal the times at bat? New York Sunday Mercury December 24, 1876 ...the rule changes only two points from the old system,–one in giving an assist, even though the ball be not held by the receiver, and the other in adding a column of total bases. This last draws down the wrath of the critics who forget that it is often as creditable to rattle an opponent as to hit clean. The common objection is that it gives a player credit for what he did not do to give him “a base” which he reached on an error. The intention of the new rule was to show exactly what each man did toward winning a game, and to credit him with everything which came from his plays. Will some one of the objectors please say if he has ever seen a game of billiards? And if so, whether the marker refused to push along buttons for “scratches?” In other words, did or did not the player get credit for what was made off his shot, whether by perfect play or an accident? In the same game, if one player left the balls so that the other player could not help counting, did the marker refuse to put up the next shot on the grund that the player should have any credit for what the other fellow did for him? In a rowing match where one coxswain by bad steering lost the race, though his boat traveled further than the other in the same time, would the umpire be justified in refusing to give the winner credit because the other side made an error? It seems as if the whole complain was made by that class of papers which are opposed to the League from beginning unto end. The Courier-Journal’s idea that the rule is cumbrous will fade away after he has scored a few games with it. It really appertains to only a few men anyway, and there is no fear that they cannot use it. Chicago Tribune December 31, 1876 |
| Source | New York Sunday Mercury |
| 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" />