I’ve been through the MLB rules and the only real mention of base stealing is in the scorekeeping section, indicating when to score the base as a steal vs. an error, etc.
It seems to me that you have to have a live ball for a steal to be legal, i.e., you can’t steal if a batted ball lands foul. But I couldn’t find that anywhere in the rules.
Did I just miss it somewhere? Or is it implied as a consequence of other rules, like the definition of live & dead ball?
This covers it:
[quote]
5.02
After the umpire calls “Play” the ball is alive and in play and remains alive and in play until for legal cause, or at the umpire’s call of “Time” suspending play, the ball becomes dead. While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow, interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field). Should a ball come partially apart in a game, it is in play until the play is completed. (italics added)[/quote[
To answer the OP, a steal is the taking of an extra base by a baserunner who was already safely on a base. Of course, this has to occur when the ball is not dead and not due to a defensive mistake (such as a wild pitch, passed ball, balk, or the pitcher throwing the ball away on a pickoff attempt). A hitter will never be given credit for a steal. Now there is a situation when a player will not be given credit for a steal even when he takes a base while the ball is alive and there was no defensive mistake, and that’s defensive indifference. When the defense ignores a baserunner and just lets him take an extra base (such as in the 9th inning when the run represented by the base runner is inconsequential to the outcome), the runner is not going get credit for a steal.
I was familiar with the section that *RealityChuck quoted, but it only says what you can’t do when the ball is dead, which includes running bases.
It seems that stealing is allowed only by the lack of a rule prohibiting it. I don’t mean that it’s a loophole because it is clearly acknowledged. I just don’t see anywhere that stealing is explicitly allowed. Such as,
“At any time when the ball is live, a baserunner who has legal title to a base may advance at his peril to the next base if the next base is unoccupied.”
BTW nivlac provides good factual information but it is related to scoring a steal and not any rule that allows a steal.
[QUOTE=nivlac]
To answer the OP, a steal is the taking of an extra base by a baserunner who was already safely on a base. Of course, this has to occur when the ball is not dead and not due to a defensive mistake (such as a wild pitch, passed ball, balk, or the pitcher throwing the ball away on a pickoff attempt). A hitter will never be given credit for a steal. Now there is a situation when a player will not be given credit for a steal even when he takes a base while the ball is alive and there was no defensive mistake, and that’s defensive indifference. When the defense ignores a baserunner and just lets him take an extra base (such as in the 9th inning when the run represented by the base runner is inconsequential to the outcome), the runner is not going get credit for a steal.
[/QUOTE]
This whole “defensive indifference” thing always pisses me off. If I, a base runner, take the initiative to steal a base, I should get credit. So the defense doesn’t want to risk throwing the ball away, that’s their choice.
Seems like the defense wants it both ways; they can ignore me and I don’t get credit for stealing. But suppose I trip three quarters of the way and they decide to tag me; all of a sudden it’s considered a stolen base attempt and I’m out?
That’s shit. If they are willfully ignoring me; they should declare that, and I should be able to stroll over to the next bag un molested. Like that’ll ever be a rule.
Therefore, if I “risk” then I deserve “reward” for successful risk taking.
Risk == running, not knowing if the defense is ignoring me.
Reward == making to the next base and getting credit for taking it!
Basically the issue is when and where can you be or not be tagged out. You can be tagged out when you’ve wandered too far off first base and such. If you are standing on a base (and there’s not a 2nd runner in the mix), you can’t be tagged out. You also can’t be tagged out when time is called, etc.
A “steal” is just terminology that describes going from one base to another under certain circumstances. (And mainly scoring terminology at that.)
Similarly, I suspect “single”, “double” and “triple” are generally undefined in the rules either. (The “ground rule double” is in fact up to the discretion of the umpire in awarding number of bases. 2 is not hard coded.)
So the OP is not all that far off from asking “when can you hit a double?”
[QUOTE=ftg]
Similarly, I suspect “single”, “double” and “triple” are generally undefined in the rules either. (The “ground rule double” is in fact up to the discretion of the umpire in awarding number of bases. 2 is not hard coded.)
So the OP is not all that far off from asking “when can you hit a double?”
[/QUOTE]
The fan interference ruling that is often called a ground rule double is not “hard coded” as two bases but the ball bouncing into the stands is – as is a fair ball being deflected into the stands in foul territory. Not that it applies to any major league parks, but I believe that balls hit into the stands at insuffient distance are also doubles.
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
Therefore, if I “risk” then I deserve “reward” for successful risk taking.
Risk == running, not knowing if the defense is ignoring me.
Reward == making to the next base and getting credit for taking it!
[/QUOTE]
Defensive indifference is not used merely because the catcher does not throw the ball. I’ve only ever seen it invoked when the first baseman is not holding the runner on base (and second base is unoccupied) When this is happening, you as the runner know it.
Stolen bases have been around a long time in baseball. Basically, guys on base tried to see if they could take one somehow.
Baseball has always encouraged running around.
The defensive indifference rule is meant to cover the case where the defense doesn’t care whether a runner advances. For example, suppose the game is tied in the ninth inning and there are runners on first and third with no outs. The runner on first can almost walk to second - the defense doesn’t care in this case whether he advances because the winning run is on third.
As for when a stolen base is legal: a baserunner can try to advance at the risk of being put out any time the ball is live. This is implied (not stated explicitly) by rule 7.01:
“A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out.”
It is called a stolen base when a runner advances without the aid of a hit, putout, error, forceout, fielder’s choice, passed ball, wild pitch or balk (rule 10.08). This list eliminates everything except advancing on a normal pitch that isn’t hit. In other words, stolen bases are a subset of all base advances. That’s why there’s no special rule to allow them - so far as the most of the rulebook is concerned, there’s no difference between stealing a base and taking an extra base in any other way.
[QUOTE=Jeff Lichtman]
The defensive indifference rule is meant to cover the case where the defense doesn’t care whether a runner advances. For example, suppose the game is tied in the ninth inning and there are runners on first and third with no outs. The runner on first can almost walk to second - the defense doesn’t care in this case whether he advances because the winning run is on third.
[/QUOTE]
I think in this case, the defense would really want to get the guy out. Not because they care if he’s on first or second, but because one more out is good.
Or are you suggesting the catcher would want to hold on to the ball, in order to prevent the guy on third from running in while the ball is making a trip to second and back?
You’ve answered your own question, CookingwithGas. There is no rule that “permits” stealing, as there does not need to be such a rule. There is a rule, of course, that prohibits stealing PREVIOUS bases.
Taber, the defensive indifference rule is essentially a subjective call designed to not give runners “credit” for stolen bases in situations where the defense outs up no opposition at all. (It’s similar to the rule that reaching base on an error counts as an out towards the hitter’s stats, rather than a hit. Which is stupid, since it means hitting statistics are in fact all wrong.) Generally speaking this situation happens in a ninth inning situation where the runner does not represent a tying or winning run. Obviously a defensive team would always LIKE to get the guy out but in such a situation they may choose to not even have the first baseman hold the runner (which would allow the fist basemen to play back, thereby making an additional base hit less likely.)
I know this it nitpicky, but it drives me crazy. A ball that bounces into the stands fair is not a “Ground rule double,” it’s an automatic double. A “Ground rule” anything is a call that is made based on some unique condition of the park.
** ftg**, singles, doubles, triples etc. are in fact specifically mentioned in Rule 10.
[QUOTE=Jeff Lichtman]
The defensive indifference rule is meant to cover the case where the defense doesn’t care whether a runner advances. For example, suppose the game is tied in the ninth inning and there are runners on first and third with no outs. The runner on first can almost walk to second - the defense doesn’t care in this case whether he advances because the winning run is on third.
[/QUOTE]
This is maybe not the best example for defensive indifference. In this case, there is some value to the defense in keeping the runner on first: if the current batter strikes out or (short) flies out, then having kept the runner on first keeps a double-play possibility open (which gets the defense safely out of the inning). Admittedly, the defense has to balance the gain in holding the runner against the risk of a poor throw to second allowing the runner on third to score, but it’s not a completely clear-cut case either way.
A better example would be the same situation but with two outs (and the bottom of the ninth). Now the runner on first doesn’t matter at all: either the runner from third scores, immediately winning the game, or the third out is made at first base.
In the 19th century, players taking extra bases on hits would be credited with stolen bases. If you went from first to third on a single, that would be a stolen base. That’s one reason why 19th century stolen base totals are so high.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
…It’s similar to the rule that reaching base on an error counts as an out towards the hitter’s stats, rather than a hit. Which is stupid, since it means hitting statistics are in fact all wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Can you expand on this comment? We’re both apparently baseball aficionados, so I’d respect your thinking on this point. For me, I think it’s completely correct to not give credit for a hit when a batter reaches base on an error. If a batter would’ve been out except for a defensive error like a muffed grounder or dropped pop-up, why should he be given credit for a hit? It should count against his batting average by having an at-bat with no hit recorded. Yes, the batter did hit the ball with his bat, but he didn’t get a basehit. Of course, I don’t always agree with the official scorer when a play is ruled as an error or a hit, but that’s not the point.
[QUOTE=nivlac]
Can you expand on this comment? We’re both apparently baseball aficionados, so I’d respect your thinking on this point. For me, I think it’s completely correct to not give credit for a hit when a batter reaches base on an error. If a batter would’ve been out except for a defensive error like a muffed grounder or dropped pop-up, why should he be given credit for a hit? It should count against his batting average by having an at-bat with no hit recorded. Yes, the batter did hit the ball with his bat, but he didn’t get a basehit. Of course, I don’t always agree with the official scorer when a play is ruled as an error or a hit, but that’s not the point.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t mean to speak for RickJay, but in some cases the batter’s speed in running to first will cause a fielder to rush and make the error.
It’s debatable whether or not this should be credited to the batter somehow, but I’ve read some analyses at Baseball Prospectus defending the sacrifice bunt as a viable strategy (against the Moneyball types who think it’s a waste of an out) based on the higher chance of errors. If the propensity for error is a selling point for that, there should be some credit given to a batter that can create more defensive errors.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
… I’ve read some analyses at Baseball Prospectus defending the sacrifice bunt as a viable strategy (against the Moneyball types who think it’s a waste of an out) based on the higher chance of errors. If the propensity for error is a selling point for that, there should be some credit given to a batter that can create more defensive errors.
[/QUOTE]
In the sac bunt (or fly) scenario, the batter isn’t given an 0-fer, it’s just not counted as an official AB. Same with walks and HBPs. I don’t think I could be persuaded to give a batter any credit for fiedling errors, but I definitely could be convinced not to count it as an official AB. This would help alleviate penalties for situations you describe where speedy batters force defenses into mistakes and it also wouldn’t penalize batters for dubious scoring decisions.
[QUOTE=nivlac]
Can you expand on this comment? We’re both apparently baseball aficionados, so I’d respect your thinking on this point. For me, I think it’s completely correct to not give credit for a hit when a batter reaches base on an error.
[/QUOTE]
The basic problem with this scoring convention is that now all batting statistics are quite literally wrong. There are more outs in the sum total of batting statistics than have actually been recorded.
If during the course of a game a team has 9 hits, 4 walks, and reaches base twice on errors, the current scoring convention will say that in the course of a nine inning game that team actually made 29 outs, and therefore has a batting average of .310. But in fact, that team DIDN’T make 29 outs, they made 27 outs. Couting errors as outs that didn’t happen penalizes the batter for an out that never happened, making batters as a group appear worse than they are and assigning more out to a league’s batters than are credited to the pitchers (since pitchers get credit for innings pitches - e.g. outs - only for outs that actually happen.) Outs being the currency of baseball, and the denominator of a LOT of stats, it’s just silly to base those numbers on outs that never happened.
Because he hit the ball and he got on base. The difference between a player who gets a clean base hit and one who hits the ball and gets on base when Russ Adams heaves the ball wide of the first baseman (typically, once a frickin’ game) is purely subjective, and along the margins of that subjective call you get some pretty questionable calls. But in terms of the result, the result is the same; batter hits ball, batter reaches base. No out was recorded, so the batter should not be recorded as having made an out.
If you’re really opposed to the idea of giving a batter a base hit when a fielder makes a mistake, fine - but it should not be counted as a nonexistent out. Make it a separate category of getting on base, like being hit-by-pitch, as per **Ass For A Hat’s ** suggestion.
Now, having said that, I’m talking major leagues and high level ball. In Little League or your local softball league, errors absolutely SHOULD be counted as hits, because
Errors are very common, so if you could all those as phony outs your stats will be completely at odds with reality, and
The skill disparity between hitters in being able to reach base on account of fielder miscues is huge, whereas in the majors it’s not really that great, and is statistically meaningful only in the gap between the players who’re worst at it and the player who’re best.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The basic problem with this scoring convention is that now all batting statistics are quite literally wrong. There are more outs in the sum total of batting statistics than have actually been recorded.
If during the course of a game a team has 9 hits, 4 walks, and reaches base twice on errors, the current scoring convention will say that in the course of a nine inning game that team actually made 29 outs, and therefore has a batting average of .310. But in fact, that team DIDN’T make 29 outs, they made 27 outs. Couting errors as outs that didn’t happen penalizes the batter for an out that never happened, making batters as a group appear worse than they are and assigning more out to a league’s batters than are credited to the pitchers (since pitchers get credit for innings pitches - e.g. outs - only for outs that actually happen.) Outs being the currency of baseball, and the denominator of a LOT of stats, it’s just silly to base those numbers on outs that never happened.
Because he hit the ball and he got on base. The difference between a player who gets a clean base hit and one who hits the ball and gets on base when Russ Adams heaves the ball wide of the first baseman (typically, once a frickin’ game) is purely subjective, and along the margins of that subjective call you get some pretty questionable calls. But in terms of the result, the result is the same; batter hits ball, batter reaches base. No out was recorded, so the batter should not be recorded as having made an out.
[/QUOTE]
But batters are not recorded as making outs. At bats are recorded and hits are recorded. Outs are recorded only for pitchers through inning pitched.
Your calculation makes no sense. If your team had “9 hits, 4 walks, and reaches base twice on errors,” how are you determining they made 29 outs? Because 42 batters came to bat and 42 - 9 - 4 = 29? But you can’t do this. What if 27 batters singled and were caught stealing base? Would you conclude the team made 27 - 27 = 0 outs? Double plays will also affect your calculation.