According to the official rule book of Major League Baseball, the term comes from Rule 10.07(g). Here's the formal definition:
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.
Whew, huh?
But it might be kind of fun to mine this baseball definition for phrases that could be applied in other venues such as argument and persuasion, namely the phrases "defensive indifference," "legitimate strategic move," "trying impermissibly to deny ... credit," and "fails to defend the advance."
I was reminded of this definition by Carlos Pena's move to second base in the bottom of the ninth of tonight's game. And with how the Cubs played defense last year and parts of this season, you could make the case they're playing with a different type of defensive indifference.
5 comments:
After watching Soriano attempt to field Descalso's triple, I invented the scoring term "defender's hijinks," but the DH abbreviation was already used somewhere else.
Same old Cubs.
Eventually the club needs to go into rebuilding mode though I doubt that'll happen with Hendry as GM. You know, the guy who acquired Milton Bradley, signed Fukudome, and inked Soriano to a huge deal? In addition, while I like Pena, the Cubs are better off letting Colvin and/or Baker play all year.
Anyone besides the Astros could win the Central. Yes, even the Pirates are in play.
You Cardinal Clones shouldn't fret about the Cubs getting your precious Pujols. I suspect they'll go after Fielder instead.
Yes, the Cubs need to rebuild, but they are stuck in salary purgatory for at least another year.
Cubs commitments in 2012:
Soriano @ 19m
Zambrano @ 19m
Dempster @ 14m
Marmol @ 7m
Byrd @ 6.5m
Marshall @ 3.1m
Ramirez @ 2m (buyout amount if option not picked up)
I suppose Marshall might be a good value at that salary. Those top 3 salaries are especially tough. They aren't bad players, just vastly overpaid.
All data from Cot's Baseball Contracts
Q., you make me laugh. Soriano's defense no longer raises my hackles. I just shrug my shoulders while C. rants and raves.
I no longer expect any wins, so when they do come along, it's all the merrier. :) Long Live the Lovable Losers!
I write this as I'm listening to Metallica's "Sad But True." How appropriate.
Yeh, it's going to be another year or two before they can rebuild, travolta. If they're out of it by early fall, which I think they will be, it'll be interesting if any deals can be made.
As for list of players you provided, here are my thoughts:
Soriano--There's no way you can move him unless the Cubs eat a significant portion of the salary. We're stuck with him. He's been hitting well though.
Zambrano--He's actually pitching well this year, so I'm cautiously optimistic, and he's untradable.
Dempster--Huh, I thought he was a free agent in '12? Either way, Cashner, Coleman, Trey McNutt, Chris Carpenter, and Jay Jackson should be given a shot when ready. The first two seem to be ready. We'll see about those others.
Marmol--I'm good with Carlos. I don't want him on my fantasy team because he'd drive me crazy.
Byrd--If he can be traded, I'd like to see Brett Jackson come up at the end of this season.
Marshall--He's outstanding in the pen, but I've always wanted him to be a starter. Keep him.
Ramirez--This situation will very interesting. I think whether they pick up his option depends on the work of Josh Vitters.
I'm tired of the lovable losers stuff. We had chances in the past and screwed it up.
Post a Comment