Master Index of Archived Threads


August 20, 1996

Benjamin Grimm Mar 21 2016 05:54 PM

I'm doing some pre-Opening Day reconciliation on the UMDB, comparing the play-by-play data (for the scorecards) to the box score data to the year-by-year line items. And this popped up. In 1996, Carl Everett had 16 runs batted in. That appears to be the official number. However, if you look at the game logs for that year, he only has 15 runs batted in. The UMDB box score has him driving in a run on August 20, 1996. But the box scores on Retrosheet and Baseball Reference don't have that RBI. I originally got the data from Retrosheet, so I can only assume that they went back and revised their box score at some point, but to me it appears that they did so incorrectly. Here's what happened: METS 8TH: Ochoa walked; Alfonzo out on a sacrifice bunt (pitcher to second) [Ochoa to second]; TOMBERLIN BATTED FOR ORDONEZ; MCCARTY REPLACED FERNANDEZ (PLAYING 1B); CREEK REPLACED WILSON (PITCHING); C. JONES BATTED FOR TOMBERLIN; C. Jones was walked intentionally; EVERETT BATTED FOR B. JONES; Everett singled to left [Ochoa scored (error by Mueller), C. Jones to second]; Bill Mueller called for obstruction by 3B umpire Gary Darling; Alex Ochoa allowed to score which negated the putout at HP; Johnson singled to first [C. Jones scored (error by McCarty), Everett to third, Johnson to second]; BAUTISTA REPLACED CREEK (PITCHING); Espinoza reached on a fielder's choice [Everett scored, Johnson to third]; Jones beat the throw home on the fielder's choice; Gilkey out on a sacrifice fly to left [Johnson scored (unearned)]; Hundley walked [Espinoza to second]; Baerga popped to shortstop; 4 R (3 ER), 2 H, 2 E, 2 LOB. Mets 7, Giants 3. Baseball Reference wrote: Single to LF (Ground Ball thru SS-3B Hole); Ochoa Scores/Adv on E5; Jones to 2B It sounds like Ochoa was thrown out at home, but then the umpire called interference on the third baseman Mueller, which allowed the run to score. Do fielders get charged with an error when there's an interference call? I would think that if the judgment was that Ochoa would have been safe at home if not for the interference, then Everett should get credit for the RBI. And apparently he did, in the season totals, but not in the box score. It seems that no matter what I do, there will always be a discrepancy, but my inclination is to credit Everett with the RBI in this game. Where's Hal the Referee when you need him? The forum's been slow lately, so I figured I'd toss this out there for us to chew on. What do you think?

Lefty Specialist Mar 21 2016 06:21 PM Re: August 20, 1996

I think we need to speed up the forum. Since Carl Everett believed that man walked with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago, it's entirely possible he received a magic RBI.

Ceetar Mar 21 2016 06:55 PM Re: August 20, 1996

10.04 (a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores (1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter’s safe hit (including the batter’s home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder’s choice, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies; (b) The official scorer shall not credit a run batted in (1) when the batter grounds into a force double play or a reverse-force double play; or (2) when a fielder is charged with an error because the fielder muffs a throw at first base that would have completed a force double play. But this is really referring to an error that allows a runner to advance, not one that prevents it. 7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal “Obstruction.” (a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out. I think this is key. The rule says he has to be awarded at least one base, which means scoring regardless of if he would've actually made it. So say the runner is 3 steps past third and decides to return to the base because the catcher has the ball. If the third baseman obstructs his return, he'd be awarded home and the run would score but logically he wasn't actually driven in.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 21 2016 07:08 PM Re: August 20, 1996

In this case, though, it seems that Ochoa didn't stop at third but went home where he was initially called out but then the call was reversed, I suppose because Mueller somehow interfered with the play. What's weird is that Crawford has the RBI in his career stats, but not on the box score for this particular game. And I do think that he did once have that RBI, since I got that box score data from Retrosheet some time around 2002. I'll have to look for any online accounts of the game from 1996.

Ceetar Mar 21 2016 07:23 PM Re: August 20, 1996

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In this case, though, it seems that Ochoa didn't stop at third but went home where he was initially called out but then the call was reversed, I suppose because Mueller somehow interfered with the play. What's weird is that Crawford has the RBI in his career stats, but not on the box score for this particular game. And I do think that he did once have that RBI, since I got that box score data from Retrosheet some time around 2002. I'll have to look for any online accounts of the game from 1996. yeah, an online account might work. I suspect the obstruction call ruled the play dead retroactively, as a result of the tag out. If he'd been safe the obstruction call wouldn't have happened. Ochoa was running on the pitch and was obstructed at third. If a play is made on the obstructed runner, ball is dead. He hasn't scored, nor is he out. Just the act of making a play on him makes the play dead. Runners are awarded the base in which they last reached, or where they would've reached. That's first and second for Jones and Everett, and third for Ochoa. But the rule states the obstructed runner gets an extra base, and thus Ochoa scores as a result of the call and the error, so no RBI.

Nymr83 Mar 21 2016 07:24 PM Re: August 20, 1996

Lefty Specialist wrote: I think we need to speed up the forum. Since Carl Everett believed that man walked with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago, it's entirely possible he received a magic RBI. Everett knows what he saw at CitiField

Lefty Specialist Mar 21 2016 07:52 PM Re: August 20, 1996

Boy, Bartolo really needs to lay off the junk food.

Frayed Knot Mar 21 2016 08:19 PM Re: August 20, 1996

Do fielders get charged with an error when there's an interference call? I would think that if the judgment was that Ochoa would have been safe at home if not for the interference, then Everett should get credit for the RBI. And apparently he did, in the season totals, but not in the box score. I wouldn't have thought so either based on the idea the out call is only reversed if, in the ump's judgement, he would have been safe anyway - but by the 'Retrosheet' description it's pretty apparent that Mueller did get tagged with an 'E'. Not sure if the 'missing' RBI is both intentional and correct or if it just got lost in the sauce of the unusual play and should in fact be credited even if the error stands. I believe that catcher's interference calls are labeled as errors but: 1) that's interference rather than obstruction which isn't quite the same thing, and 2) it does allow the batter to advance to a base he wouldn't have obtained otherwise So the charging of an error makes more sense in that case -- although a batter who hits the ball despite being interfered with by the catcher's glove (or face for that matter) has the option of accepting the result of the AB if he likes that outcome better than a simple awarding of 1st. Wonder if an error is still charged if the hitting team takes 'Option B' on that kind of play?