Page 1 of 2

"Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:55 pm
by AdmiralTrey
Does anyone understand this ridiculously dumb 'stat' or 'rule or whatever you want to call it??

Today while watching the Braves-Diamondbacks game, I watched Justin Upton get a great jump and steal 2nd base in the 9th inning, but because there was no throw (There was no point, he had them beat easily) he wasn't given a stolen base, he was given a "Reached 2nd base on fielder's indifference"........................

Does it make any sense that a player is penalized a stat for getting a good jump?? I don't get it. And sometimes players are credited with a stolen base when there's not a throw... Who decides when it's indifference or not? How do they know if the player didn't throw it because he's smoking weed (Well, Lincecum isn't a catcher, so maybe that doesn't apply here) and doesn't care about anything in the world or if he just knew the runner had beaten them and didn't want to risk an error for a lost cause?

And this doesn't have anything to do with a tight race in SB's in my head to head league in which I have Justin Upton. Uh, yeah, definitely not.

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:27 pm
by Grey
Scorer decides, it is a very stupid rule though. Should be a steal no matter the situation.

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:39 pm
by royce!
I agree that it's stupid. But here's the rule:

10.07 Stolen Bases And Caught Stealing
(g) The official scorer shall not score a stolen base when a runner advances solely because of the defensive team's indifference to the runner’s advance. The official scorer shall score such a play as a fielder's choice.
Rule 10.07(g) Comment: The scorer shall consider, in judging whether the defensive team has been indifferent to a runner’s advance, the totality of the circumstances, including the inning and score of the game, whether the defensive team had held the runner on base, whether the pitcher had made any pickoff attempts on that runner before the runner’s advance, whether the fielder ordinarily expected to cover the base to which the runner advanced made a move to cover such base, whether the defensive team had a legitimate strategic motive to not contest the runner’s advance or whether the defensive team might be trying impermissibly to deny the runner credit for a stolen base. For example, with runners on first and third bases, the official scorer should ordinarily credit a stolen base when the runner on first advances to second, if, in the scorer’s judgment, the defensive team had a legitimate strategic motive—namely, preventing the runner on third base from scoring on the throw to second base—not to contest the runner’s advance to second base. The official scorer may conclude that the defensive team is impermissibly trying to deny a runner credit for a stolen base if, for example, the defensive team fails to defend the advance of a runner approaching a league or career record or a league statistical title.

"totality of the circumstances," in my experience, is legal jargon for "it's up to you, person in charge." But as a criminal defense lawyer, I'm probably a little bitter about these kinds of tests.

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:49 pm
by AdmiralTrey
Agreed that it should be a SB no matter the occasion, and thanks for posting the official rule, Royce, now I can understand the stupidity of the rule in more detail!!
So technically, according to that rule, if a team is up 15-0, a dude could steal 2B and 3B and get credit for neither because the other team won't care due to the score, right? That's insane.
We ought to have pitcher's indifference for home runs hit in blowouts, too.

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:40 am
by Terrence Mann
AdmiralTrey wrote:We ought to have pitcher's indifference for home runs hit in blowouts, too.


:mrgreen:

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:11 am
by daver
I'm going to provide a contrary opinion. I think the scoring rule makes sense. When a run is meaningless and a team makes no attempt to defend a steal, I don't see why the player should be rewarded with a steal. In such a situation, the runner did not "steal a base", but was "given a base for free".

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:27 pm
by bookiebob
"given a base for free"

Hmmmm...many jokes should be made here.......

"I voted for Obama! Where is my base for free?"

"Darryl Strawberry leads the league in free base."

"Redneck crackheads line up for free base giveaway."

"All your free base are belong to us."

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:48 pm
by AdmiralTrey
daver wrote:I'm going to provide a contrary opinion. I think the scoring rule makes sense. When a run is meaningless and a team makes no attempt to defend a steal, I don't see why the player should be rewarded with a steal. In such a situation, the runner did not "steal a base", but was "given a base for free".


Well, wouldn't that apply to hits and runs a bit, too? I mean if a team is up by 15, the pitcher isn't really going to care if he gives up a hit or two. Same with if they're down by a bunch.
What if that steal gets a guy in position and then he scores, and that sparks a rally and a huge inning? Suddenly that "meaningless" stolen base is the initiator for a huge comeback victory.

What about if a runner scores on a wild pitch in a game where it doesn't matter? You think the catcher's going to chase the ball with the same intensity he would in a tight game? No. Is that run going to be discounted as fielder's indifference? Nope.

There are too many what-if's and personal opinion calls involved with it to be a sensible rule, and it's not consistent with any other stats in the same situation. If the rule on SB's is that they don't count when they don't matter, then that should apply to every other stat, too, and that simply doesn't make any sense.

Just because that single play doesn't determine the outcome of a game doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


Edit: And also, I like the jokes, haha, baseball should start using them!

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:56 pm
by daver
Even the name "steal" itself implies that something has been taken away from the other team ... if there is no attempt to stop it and no one cares, nothing was taken away or stolen ... it's just an advance of a base runner. An error vs a hit is another judgment call ... baseball is full of them.

BookieBob, I love the play(s) on words!

Re: "Fielder's Indifference"??

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:34 am
by ChrisV82
What if the team doesn't defend against the steal, but they have good insurance?