Does the home book rule?

How is it lying? I know the difference between a hit and an error, and in this instance, it was a smash and the 1st baseman had zero chance to make a play on the ball. Didn't get his glove on the ball, didn't even come close even though he was a foot away.

A homer sportswriter would've said, "Oh, well, if the biased home scorekeeper ruled it an error, I'm going to give my kid a no-hitter! What a headline!"

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way with me.

 

I don't think you *do* know the difference between a hit and an error.

An error is when the official scorekeeper deems the play should have been made by a reasonable effort.

You are certainly within bounds to write "Johnny Pitcher did give up a scalding line drive down the first baseline that the first baseman never touched, but it was ruled an error."

 

You quote-function what I wrote. Is there an accompanying point you're trying to make?

 

I fixed it. It was a misclick.

 

You are right with your example of how I might have worded the situation.

So, what I'm saying is that the 1st baseman did not have a chance to field the ball, that's how hard and fast it got to him, then past him. He took half a step to his right at the same time the ball got there, and he didn't even have a chance to lunge to the dirt for an attempt. That is not an error. That is a basehit.

I guess my point is that I trust my instincts of the game over a parent who's keeping score.

But like I said, you're right in how I could've worded the story. Funny thing is, another newspaper in the area gave him the no-hitter and jacked up the hedline all nice and perty.

 

That newspaper was reporting the news. You reported your opinion.

I just don't see how what you are arguing for is any different than the following:

Crediting a kid with a hit because you think the umpire called him out wrongly at first.
Crediting a kid with a walk because you are sure that 3-2 pitch was a ball.
Crediting a team with a win because you think the outfielder didn't really trap the ball on what could have been the last out.

Imagine if you have a kid going for the state record in batting average, are you not going to report it if you think he got some unearned hits on homer scoring?

 

But that's the difference, Rick.

Example A: An umpire is making the call, not the parent of a home-team player who's keeping the book. I stand 100 percent behind what the umpire rules.

Example B: What are you saying happens in that situation?

Example C: Umpire rules an out, then it's an out and game's over.

Example D: If I have a kid going for the state record in BA and I'm still the sportswriter? I stay true to the game of baseball, and if what I deem to be something that ends his chances at a record, so be it. My son would not be above the game.

 

If you respect the game of baseball, why don't you respect the rule that the official scorekeeper gets to determine the ruling on a play?

(by kid, I didn't mean *your* kid, I just meant someone you were covering).

 

That's what I thought you meant but wasn't quite sure so I went with an even more sentimental thought.

As to your first question: Who's more at fault? The homer father of a player on local team who keeps score and is going to make sure the local players "get theirs" baseball scoring bedamned? ... Or, the local sportswriter who stays true to what he believes the game of baseball is all about and has zero qualms about giving a kid a 1-hitter even though every one else in the park expected to see a headline that said the kid pitched a no-hitter?

I can't do it. I'm reporting what I see, based on what I believe to be the right call in that situation. Zero bias. This isn't me saying the umpire's called strikeout was really a walk, because it's a black and white world with the umps. The gray area in baseball is something like determining what is a hit and what is an error.

 

topsheep, I think a lot of the problem lies in that sportswriters are a little too enamored with their own ability in this scenario. For all the world, it reads as if they can't possibly be wrong.

And yet, what it comes down to is this -- what is official? The home book is official. And if you run what goes against the home book, you're reporting a mistruth.

I think Rick was being too nice to word it that strongly.

 

Perhaps. But I call the homeristic home bookkeeper a load of crap when it warrants me to do so. It's a reporter's job to cut through the bullshit with the machete of truth, and in that instance, the home bookkeeper calling that contact an error was pure bullshit.

I'm not enamored with my ability in the aforementioned scenario. I can be wrong. I'm wrong all the time.

But put yourself in my mind's eye and envision the scenario. You would've called it a hit, too. It was a fucking hit.

The kid pitched a 1-hitter. I am right about that.

 

I always make sure my book agrees with the home book.

I am not official in any way.

The home book is.