Defensive Indifference

[jtur88]

Somebody has some tall explaining to do. In the Cards-Phillies game, 6-3 in the 9th, the Phillies runner goes to second without a play, and it is scored Defensive Indifference, no stolen base. But wait. A couple of pitches later, the ball gets away from the catcher, and the runner goes to third. PASSED BALL ! ! ! How come that's not defensive indifference, too, since the catcher made no particular effort to go after the ball? Continuing on with an imaginary scenario, the batter then flies out, and the runner (about whom the defense was recently indifferent) scores. RBI, and not even charged with an At Bat. An RBI for the batter, for driving in a run about whom the defense was so indifferent that he got no Stolen Base, but did get credit for a Run scored. If he steals home, he would be in a statistical bizarro world where he gets credit for a run scored, but not a stolen base.

How can there ever really be defensive indifference? If the runner on third jogs home on the pitch, would the catcher step aside and let him score, or would he tag the runner? Tell me that the defense is indifferent when they can make a crucial out in the last inning.

[nanwynn]

Defensive indifference is a convention that attempts to restrict credit for advancement on the bases only to situations where the defense may be presumed actively involved in preventing such advancement.

In a 6-3 game in the ninth inning, a runner on first for the trailing team means nothing to the team in the field if he scores, even if her scores on a HR by the batter. The score would still be 6-5 with bases empty.

From the defense POV, the catcher-pitcher-manager strategy might rest on the pitcher's effectiveness when he's not distracted by the runner in any way. He might even be encouraged to take his full wind up, if that's how he's most effective, or best in his own "groove." The defensive team attitude is, "Forget the guy on first. Let's just get them out and go home."

From the official scorer POV, the runner is being given 2B and maybe even 3B because the defense in indifferent to his advance. The scorer, as a matter of common sense, would prefer not to credit the runner with a stolen base. [It was given to him as part of a very passive strategy move].
So, defensive indifference is a convenient accommodation for not giving unearned credit for advancement.

However, the runner DID get on base; and that is another matter. He deserves credit for that; and, if he scores, he has earned credit for that as well.

What happens in between is subject to contingencies he doesn't control: WP, PB, error, fielder's choice, HBP, IBB, balk.

[jtur88]

But to be credited with a run scored, or a stolen base, both to exactly the same degree are contingent on the runner having earned his way to on-base. You haven't explained the difference. If the defense is indifferent about the advance of the runner, their indifference is equally appied to second, third or home. But the advance to home is accompanied by enhancing personal statistics, while the advance to second and third is not. Why the scoring distinction?

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by jtur88

You haven't explained the difference. If the defense is indifferent about the advance of the runner, their indifference is equally appied to second, third or home. But the advance to home is accompanied by enhancing personal statistics, while the advance to second and third is not. Why the scoring distinction?

There is no explanation to be made. Defensive indifference,a s presented in your example, occurs once, advancing an unchallenged runner from 1B to 2B. If the pitcher were told to ignore the runner completely and go with the full windup, another instance of defensive indifference would be recorded as the runner took third base. The runner on base in each instance has been rewarded in the record books for getting on; and, if subsequent advances are made on "gimmes" by the defense, no extra rewards are necessary because they have not been garnered by runner effort or skill.

However, a batter reaching base by whatever means is an asset in that he is a potential run. He earns whatever RC portion any formula being applied might mete out to him; and if he scores, it only happened because he reached base in the first place.

You do not knock down batter accomplishment for strategies or errors committed by the defense. Runner advancement via the same defensive maneuvers is not discounted either.

So again, no further explanation is warranted [or possible, for that matter].

[jtur88]

Nothing you have said applies to anything I have said.

Originally Posted by nanwynn

However, a batter reaching base by whatever means is an asset in that he is a potential run. He earns whatever RC portion any formula being applied might mete out to him; and if he scores, it only happened because he reached base in the first place.].

I made no remark whatsoever that questions the merit of a batter getting on base. Absolutely nothing. How about: If he steals second it only happene because he reached base in the first place.

As you so often do, you completely ignore the points I make, and begin to justify events to which I have made absolutely no mention whatsoever.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Nothing you have said applies to anything I have said.

Sometimes it's difficult to figure out what the heck you are talking about.

I made no remark whatsoever that questions the merit of a batter getting on base. Absolutely nothing. How about: If he steals second it only happene because he reached base in the first place.

You questioned the applications of defensive indifference; and, when I submitted what I thought was a considered, appropriate response, you split hairs over what bases were advanced to and stolen base metrics in an almost deliberate attempt to befog your own question.

As you so often do, you completely ignore the points I make, and begin to justify events to which I have made absolutely no mention whatsoever.

In actual fact, I've been giving them far more consideration than they deserve. It's a mistake I won't soon make again.

I do not ignore points. You muddle them in a miasma of befuddled thinking.

[jtur88]

Nan---that was my entire premise in my original post. You call it splitting hairs, and I ask why there is a formulaic splitting of them. The rules committee splits the hairs.

If a catcher does not bother to block a pitch, it goes in the record books. If he does not bother to throw out a runner, it doesn't. I didn't split that hair.

And then your response is, that the batter ought to be rewarded for getting on base. Sometimes.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Nan---that was my entire premise in my original post. You call it splitting hairs, and I ask why there is a formulaic splitting of them. The rules committee splits the hairs.

Your initial post presented the essential scenario of a 6-3 game in the ninth inning and a runner getting on first base [presumably a member of the trailing team]. As I recall, you then alleged somebody had some explaining to do because the runner advanced from base to base with no effort by the defense [leading team] to impede him.

Since you did identify the key to the thread as "defensive indifference" and asked for response relative to how it could be, I attempted not to chase all of your added modifiers except to identify how credit was meted out [or not] through the ultimate scoring of a run.

If a catcher does not bother to block a pitch, it goes in the record books. If he does not bother to throw out a runner, it doesn't. I didn't split that hair.

Here, typically, you insert a wrinkle; and one is propted to ask, "Did this happen in the 9th inning of the specific game of your reference; or is it a hypothetical, overlaid on the topic?

However, you did word it "If a catcher does not bother to block a pitch, it goes in the record books." If you are talking the 6-3 game with a runner on, then that's a far cry from it being a general observation:

1. If a catcher generally makes little or no effort to block an errant pitch almost sure to get by him, and there is nobody on base, the pitch can be called a ball, a strike, or may have been swung at and missed by the batter. It's a no harm, no foul situation; and the catcher may have put in a long, hot exhausting game of ball dealing with all sorts of errant missiles.

There is nothing entered in the record books, unless it is strike three and the catcher still makes no effort, in which case the K victim gets to first base unchallenged. [And it DOES get entered into the record books].

That would be defensive negligence; and we may be fairly sure the catcher will get a chewing out, a fine, be yanked for a sub, or benched for his indifference.

2. If the catcher nonchalance happens in your game scenario, it would risk a runner advancibg two bases, would be negligence and would go into the record book.

If you have specifics in mind, state them clearly.

And then your response is, that the batter ought to be rewarded for getting on base. Sometimes.

Would you were so precise in your own propositions. The batter who gets on base has EARNED offensive credit IF ONLY because by getting on base, he has created run potential.

His "credits" may start with a debit if he gets on via error. He is charged with an AB [and no positive offsetting plus], so no benefit accrues to his personal record. If he advances via IBB, BB, HBP, balk, error, WP, PB, or other means that force him to advance at no real risk, he gets no positive credit for those interim advances, nor do I suggest he should.

However, if he scores by whatever means, he has EARNED credit for the run scored if only by virtue of the fact that getting on base provided the team with a RUN POTENTIAL NOW REALIZED.

You also meander into credit for an RBI with no AB charged in the case of a sacrifice fly. This is a whole new topic, so whatever meandering is being done, it's being done by you, not responders.

The sacrifice fly rule has been a vacillating thing over the last century; and I won't argue it too forcefully either way. On the one hand, it's an out and it can be argued that "sacrifice" was the last thing on the batter's mind. On the other hand, the batter made meanigful contact, sufficient to produce a fly ball hit with enough depth to allow his teammate to tag up and score. It's certainly a better offensive contribution than a "K."

The responses have been clear & precise. There is no "sometimes" about it. What you see as "sometimes" is defined by scoring nuances. Credit for run contribution is not then canceled out because of slovenly play allowing it to happen. Only offense-neutral participation goes uncredited.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by nanwynn

There is no "sometimes" about it. .

I regret that you spent so much time justifying the "sometimes" before you said there is no "sometimes". Sometimes the advance of a runner is chalked up as defensive indifference, and sometimes it's not. You're happy with that. I'm not.

I would propose a simple rule. "After the eighth inning, if a team trails by more runs than the number of runners on base, no player will be charged or credited with a statistic for any other action except (for an offensive player) getting on base, (for a defensive player) recording an out. However, all runs that legally score shall be counted in the final score." It's a very simple rule, easily understood. That would cover all particulars, and would expand fully the "defensive indifference" application.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I regret that you spent so much time justifying the "sometimes" before you said there is no "sometimes".

At this point I'm confounded, either by your unwillingness to read or even attempt to comprehend what others are saying. Is it that, instead of reading, you are instead constantly distracted by planning your next response?

There was NEVER anything to justify. Defensive indifference is not some passive happenstance; it is a legitimate baseball tactic, the underlying strategy of which is based on intense concentration on retiring the batter and not being distracted by runners presumed to be of no real threat.

Sometimes the advance of a runner is chalked up as defensive indifference, and sometimes it's not. You're happy with that. I'm not.

Baseball thrives on statistics; and if I were not a fan I would care less about any statistic the game had to offer. However, being a fan, a former player, and a kid who learned to keep score at his father's knee, I appreciate the devotion of those wanting to define as many game potentialities as they can and affixing value systems to them with some respect for the realities of + and - in athletic competition. I may not totally agree with many of them; but I respect and appreciate the effort.

I would propose a simple rule. "After the eighth inning, if a team trails by more runs than the number of runners on base, no player will be charged or credited with a statistic for any other action except (for an offensive player) getting on base, (for a defensive player) recording an out.

However, all runs that legally score shall be counted in the final score." It's a very simple rule, easily understood. That would cover all particulars, and would expand fully the "defensive indifference" application.

There is nothing simple about this at all. First, it takes a game already bureaucratized with an abundance of statistics, and slices it further into segments presumed more significant than others.

If I have a young pitcher on the mound, one who has kept the team in a game with a great fastball and nasty stuff and the score is 4-0 in the fifth, and a runner gets on after one out, I may see that he is overly distracted by the runner. Maybe the two had a wearying duel, with the batter fouling off 8-10 balls, refusing to go quietly. I might go to the mound, confer with the battery and opt for him going to the full windup and to heck with the runner. My decision creates defensive indifference because I want totake any shutout pressure off the pitcher; and I want to erase the distraction that might well affect his outing. It's a game tactic, not requiring any soul searching for legitimacy.

A scorer sees it clearly enough; and a good, knowledgeable scorer will see it for what it is. Hitter got on, say by a single to right. He advanced on DI to second and likewise took third on DI. If he scores on a sac fly, he gets credit for a run scored; and the hitter is rewarded for meaningful contact [like it or not] with an RBI and no AB. I could live as easily with an out recorded with an RBI. The runner earns his "RS" because he created the potential in the first place.

Moreover, it would contract, not expand the DI concept, because it would limit it to the later segment of the game. Your "rule-making" is a feckless effort to make it go away, almost.

[johnplayer]

I saw one site for olympics.so i think to see all people and get lot of informatioin for olympics from starting



:: Olympics Records ::

[nanwynn]

I just double-checked to be certain I had the official scoring symbol right. Yes "DI" is the proper entry for "defensive interference," which is ineed the name for a play [option, execution].