Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:21 pm
Ground rules are ballpark specific rules, like what happens when the ball hits the rafters at the trop. Automatic doubles aren't ballpark specific.
Page 343 of 792
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:21 pm
I get it, it just doesn't really bother me most of the time.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:22 pm
meh...ground rule in my book@SkitchP wrote:doug rr wrote:I wonder as well@SkitchP wrote:Simple Torture wrote:Does it bother anybody else that announcers call those ground-rule doubles instead of automatic doubles?
What am I missing here?
Apparently they're technically different things. But being bothered by it is silly.
from baseball reference
"Ground rule double" is also colloquially used for doubles awarded because "a fair ball, touching the ground, bounds into the stands". This colloquial usage is technically incorrect as the ruling is applied equally in all ballparks and has nothing to do with "ground rules". Some commentators will use terms such as "bounce doubles", "rulebook doubles", or as Jon Miller prefers, "automatic doubles" in lieu of the misappropriation of "ground rule double". Until 1931, balls bouncing over the fence were counted as home runs, and this difference in playing rules is respected when tabulating historical statistics.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:23 pm
If I was a broadcaster or a sports writer I'd use automatic double. The pedantry would be more important to me if I was describing the play professionally.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:24 pm
I also wouldn't pluralize RBI.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:26 pm
cutuphalfdead wrote:If I was a broadcaster or a sports writer I'd use automatic double. The pedantry would be more important to me if I was describing the play professionally.
based on that passage from BR though, "Automatic Double" isnt really a thing either. Its just what Jon Miller started calling it.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:26 pm
Sure, but it's an accurate description.@SkitchP wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:If I was a broadcaster or a sports writer I'd use automatic double. The pedantry would be more important to me if I was describing the play professionally.
based on that passage from BR though, "Automatic Double" isnt really a thing either. Its just what Jon Miller started calling it.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:27 pm
cutuphalfdead wrote:Sure, but it's an accurate description.@SkitchP wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:If I was a broadcaster or a sports writer I'd use automatic double. The pedantry would be more important to me if I was describing the play professionally.
based on that passage from BR though, "Automatic Double" isnt really a thing either. Its just what Jon Miller started calling it.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:27 pm
It is!@SkitchP wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:Sure, but it's an accurate description.@SkitchP wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:If I was a broadcaster or a sports writer I'd use automatic double. The pedantry would be more important to me if I was describing the play professionally.
based on that passage from BR though, "Automatic Double" isnt really a thing either. Its just what Jon Miller started calling it.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:28 pm
I wouldn't call then foul poles, I'd call them chazzwazzas
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:29 pm
cutuphalfdead wrote:It is!@SkitchP wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:Sure, but it's an accurate description.@SkitchP wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:If I was a broadcaster or a sports writer I'd use automatic double. The pedantry would be more important to me if I was describing the play professionally.
based on that passage from BR though, "Automatic Double" isnt really a thing either. Its just what Jon Miller started calling it.
If you're concerned about accurately portraying it, why not just call it what literally 99% of baseball fans call it?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:29 pm
I remember Jacoby Ellsbury being awarded third base on a ball that bounced into the stands a couple years ago. Doesn't that dispel the automatic double?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:30 pm
That's an automatic triple.numbers wrote:I remember Jacoby Ellsbury being awarded third base on a ball that bounced into the stands a couple years ago. Doesn't that dispel the automatic double?
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:30 pm
numbers wrote:I remember Jacoby Ellsbury being awarded third base on a ball that bounced into the stands a couple years ago. Doesn't that dispel the automatic double?
No, once the umpire gets involved it then becomes a ground rule.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:31 pm
cutuphalfdead wrote:That's an automatic triple.numbers wrote:I remember Jacoby Ellsbury being awarded third base on a ball that bounced into the stands a couple years ago. Doesn't that dispel the automatic double?
IF he was awarded it, it wasn't automatic.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:31 pm
Fine, but it's still definitely not a ground rule you prick.@SkitchP wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:That's an automatic triple.numbers wrote:I remember Jacoby Ellsbury being awarded third base on a ball that bounced into the stands a couple years ago. Doesn't that dispel the automatic double?
IF he was awarded it, it wasn't automatic.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:32 pm
go dodgers
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:33 pm
fuck the dodgers, they're my least favorite of the remaining teams
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:33 pm
But doesn't the umpire get involved every time?@SkitchP wrote:numbers wrote:I remember Jacoby Ellsbury being awarded third base on a ball that bounced into the stands a couple years ago. Doesn't that dispel the automatic double?
No, once the umpire gets involved it then becomes a ground rule.
Re: MLB
Posted: Thu October 15, 2015 9:33 pm
Not sure how it's technically incorrect. The ball hitting the ground and bouncing over the fence is a double. It has been called ground rule double since the 30's colloquially. There's no such thing as a "ground rule" but there is a rule that states for a fair ball that bounces over the fence (hitting the ground) the batter shall be awarded 2nd base. It's just semantics.@SkitchP wrote:doug rr wrote:I wonder as well@SkitchP wrote:Simple Torture wrote:Does it bother anybody else that announcers call those ground-rule doubles instead of automatic doubles?
What am I missing here?
Apparently they're technically different things. But being bothered by it is silly.
from baseball reference
"Ground rule double" is also colloquially used for doubles awarded because "a fair ball, touching the ground, bounds into the stands". This colloquial usage is technically incorrect as the ruling is applied equally in all ballparks and has nothing to do with "ground rules". Some commentators will use terms such as "bounce doubles", "rulebook doubles", or as Jon Miller prefers, "automatic doubles" in lieu of the misappropriation of "ground rule double". Until 1931, balls bouncing over the fence were counted as home runs, and this difference in playing rules is respected when tabulating historical statistics.
Rulebook double, double, automatic double, bounce double, ground rule double are all correct.
Now when people say "back" catcher, that grinds my gears.