You’re covering a game, taking notes and faced with the following scenario: A runner is on second with no outs. The batter slaps an easy grounder to the pitcher, who, instead of firing the ball to first for the easy out, turns and starts to throw to third, where the base runner is headed. However, the third baseman does not get back to the base in time so the pitcher turns back to first. But she does not throw the ball since the hitter is only a few steps from the base. So now runners stand on first and third. How do you score this?
I faced this scenario last weekend during a girls softball game. At the time, our scorekeeper asked: “How the heck do you score that one?” He immediately received two conflicting answers. I said: “E-1,” denoting that this play should be scored an error on the pitcher. The other coach said, “Fielder’s choice. You can’t score this an error if she didn’t throw the ball.” Both of us have played and watched baseball for more than 30 years, yet we were at odds on this play. So where does one turn for answers? That’s always a challenge, especially when you are covering a game held in a small town, far from an official scorer.
I’ve carried rules books to games in the past, although not as frequently as I should have. Now, I carry the National Softball Association’s official rule book in my car, but it does not address this scoring scenario. Instead,this book focuses more on equipment, base running, and other clearly stated rules of the game. Keeping score is not a priority within this text. Zack Hample’s Watching Baseball Smarter is another excellent resource, explaining the context, lingo and strategy of baseball; however, this book does not focus on scoring plays like the one noted above.
You might want to purchase an official major league baseball or NCAA rules book. If you have access to the Internet, you can also go to sites that outline rules for major league baseball, NCAA softball, NCAA baseball, and youth softball. Some state high school associations, like Florida and Illinois, post their rules manuals online that can be downloaded, printed, and stashed in a briefcase or backpack. (The NCAA has even posted a video outlining rules changes for baseball this season.)
Still, some plays are harder to define than others. In cases like this, I usually try to delete what the play isn’t or cross-reference several resources to find an answer. For example, one online resource confirmed my call, indicating the pitcher should be assessed an error since ‘ordinary effort’ would have led to the team getting at least one out. But what is ‘ordinary effort’? Judgment plays a part in many scorekeeping calls. On this play, this player could have easily thrown out the hitter, so this definition works. Still, this website could be wrong, so I went to several others, looking for similar scenarios and additional definitions for fielder’s choice and error. The Baseball Almanac defined fielder’s choice:
FIELDER’S CHOICE is the act of a fielder who handles a fair grounder and, instead of throwing to first base to put out the batter runner, throws to another base in an attempt to put out a preceding runner. The term is also used by scorers
(a) to account for the advance of the batter runner who takes one or more extra bases when the fielder who handles his safe hit attempts to put out a preceding runner;
(b) to account for the advance of a runner (other than by stolen base or error) while a fielder is attempting to put out another runner; and
(c) to account for the advance of a runner made solely because of the defensive team’s indifference (undefended steal). That’s the same definition cited in MLB’s official rules section.
By this definition, this play could not be scored a fielder’s choice because the pitcher did not attempt to put out the lead runner. But could this play also be called ‘indifference’? Probably not, because the team did want to get at least one out. So fielder’s choice does not appear to be the correct call.
I next checked my favorite book about baseball rules, Baseball Field Guide, a book that illustrates the rules of the game like no other. The authors, Dan Formosa and Paul Hamburger, rely on illustrations and clear writing to clarify and define rules of the game, such as when a batted ball landing near home plate is fair or foul, the rules vs. the reality of where umpires will call a strike, and the 16 ways a batter is out. The 240-page book, which is about the size of a reporter’s notebook, can fit nicely into any satchel or back pocket. The book is also indexed, my favorite feature of all.
The authors define fielder’s choice as a play in which a fielder must choose between at least two runners — “putting one of them out instead of the other.” Since this pitcher did not attempt to put out a different runner, this definition appears to work. But my scenario is not clearly defined as an error in this book, either. Physical miscues, like dropped balls and errant throws, are typically judged as errors, not mental lapses.
So what is an error? According to MLB rule 10.12, an error is assessed when a fielder’s actions assist the team at bat. Errors include misplays, wild throws, and muffs. This rules does not apply to mental errors, misjudgments and bad hops: “The official scorer shall not charge an error to a fielder who incorrectly throws to the wrong base on a play.” This would probably apply to a player who intended to throw to the wrong base. Fielder’s choice? Perhaps.
So why spend so much time trying to determine a call that did not affect the winner of a game? Two reasons — one, we want to offer correct information; and, two, because researching plays like this makes us more knowledgeable about the games we cover. On deadline, we may not be able to thoroughly research plays, but we can revisit plays like this in second-day game stories, notebooks, or features. To do nothing at all is clearly an error on our part.
-30-
Has sports journalism really lost its game?
April 25, 2008Sportswriting today is unimaginative, sentimental, superficial, and sensational. At least, those are some of the claims made by Utne’s Michael Rowe in “How Sportswriting Lost Its Game.”
Rowe ponders: Does sports journalism suck? Overall, he seems to believe that opinion suffocates analysis, that stats derail stories, that analysis is empty, and that profiles are vacuous. On the other hand, Rowe cites several exemplary stories as well, such as Chuck Klosterman’s piece on the Boston Celtics’ transformation — a story that is self-aware and which invokes first person, approaches that are usually eschewed in journalism classes and news rooms.
Using ‘I’ is a no-no everywhere except in the blogosphere, or so it seems. (I know, I know. You’re saying, ‘Joe, that’s an obvious statement.’ But, like other bloggers, I had to find a way to insert myself into this post.) Actually, using ‘I’ in a news story may jolt some editors, prompting them to find a ‘better way’ to tell the story in a more traditional, third-person omniscient manner. Using ‘I’ may also elicit anger (or jealousy) among print journalists who hate the self-promotional approach used by ESPN’s anchors, by sports talk radio ‘personalities,’ and even by cross-over print journalists like Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon (who remain excellent sports journalists). Like with anything else, though, ‘I’ can be used both expertly by seasoned writers like Klosterman, and poorly by younger reporters who have not read much. (And reading, really, is the key to good writing. Read Gary Smith. Gay Talese. John Feinstein. Frank DeFord. Sports Illustrated. And books like Seabiscuit, Red Rose Crew and In These Girls, Hope Is A Muscle.)
Rowe also notes some other excellent examples, like one the New York Times ran on sexual harassment at Jets games and another that is really a series of dispatches on the Sonics’ pending move from Seattle. These eclectic pieces are compelling, even if they are sometimes crude, like the one where the author drops an F-bomb, a word that would be as welcome in a news room as ‘I’ or ‘layoffs.’
Yet, Sherman Alexie does not pivot on this single expletive; instead, he turns toward a sad, subtle point about empty moral victories. In another dispatch, Alexie connects the Sonics’ pending departure to Oklahoma to other national problems — unregulated hedge funds, socialism, and Marxism — before concluding that he would love to play hoops with Karl Marx’s ghost so they could “have a long talk about the soulless billionaires who love to reap where they’ve never sowed.” In another piece, he remarkably finds a way to blend Emily Dickinson’s poetry with hope.
Rowe, though, believes that good sports journalism is rare, calling these exemplary pieces “islands in a sea of dead, beaten horses.” Are these pieces unique? Certainly. But that’s true for anything — certain stories, art work, or buildings are better than others. As Rowe indicates, sports journalism can be overly sentimental, especially in formulaic profiles whose narrative goes from youthful struggles to current success (or vice verse). Single or double-source profiles do suck. In addition, Rowe notes that sports sections include way to many notes and briefs, that stories rarely have an overarching point, and that blogs frame news as debate, arguing points instead of digging into stories.
But Rowe is a little too harsh. Sports journalism is not as dire as Rowe and Richard Ford state. There’s a lot of good local sports journalism in community newspapers that chronicle kids playing in youth leagues, competing for their local high school, or about adults running in 10K races or shooting a 300 game in the local bowling league. Sure, some of these pieces can be reported better, but what do you tell the sports reporter who wrote eight or nine pieces that week? How is he going to find the time to hang out for several days with a player or coach? Not that this sportswriter shouldn’t push to develop a series or shouldn’t work on a large profile piece, stories that delve into a topic important to the local community. (And which will provide an impressive clip for potential future employers.) But sportswriters at weeklies and small dailies need to work these into a busy schedule filled with game stories and short profiles.
This is not to dismiss Rowe’s points. Rowe is correct to ask for more sophisticated and contemplative narrative journalism.
We do need more intelligent storytelling and reporting. Check out Rowe’s piece for more on these points. It’s a good read.
-30-
Posted in Commentary, Tips: General | 1 Comment »