base runner tagging up and advancing

vincemaes on May 27, 2010, 06:06 pm

I want to know if I've recorded the following event correctly. The situation is: batter hits a singles, there is a runner on 1B who tags up and advances to second. Here's how I noted the event.
[ S.1-2 ]
It seems like I'm missing something.

Also if I used and arrrow to show the advance [S.1->2] would that throw off scoring eventually?

Alex Reisner on May 27, 2010, 06:13 pm

I'm does a runner tag up on a single? If it was a sacrifice fly to the centerfielder you would score it:

8/SF. 1-2

If it's a single and the runner goes to second you would score it:

S. 1-2

However, in both cases you can omit "1-2" because it will be obvious from where you place the runners in the following at-bat box. I indicate baserunner advancement only if it's unusual. Hope that helps.

vincemaes on May 27, 2010, 07:46 pm

Sorry 'bout that, I merged two different scenarios together.

You did answer one of my questions, which was the notation in the catalyst area, or lack there of, for the runner on 1B. I get it, we use the situation area to "note" usual base runner movement. Cool.

My other question is of the example:

Double play on grounder to second baseman. 46(1)3/GDP

What is the "(1)" noting? Did the pitcher get involved somehow?

Please bear with me, I know some of my initial questions might be somewhat rudimentary.


Alex Reisner on May 27, 2010, 08:00 pm

That (1) is optional too. It means that the runner on first was put out. If you wanted to be even more explicit you could write:


Though I don't recommend doing that. Usually the (1) is just needed to indicate who gets the putout when it's an unusual double play, for example if the pitcher deflects the ball to the second baseman, who throws to the shortstop, who throws to 1B it would be:


vincemaes on May 27, 2010, 08:04 pm

Very good, thank you Sir :-)

alexeth on July 8, 2010, 08:29 pm

Off topic, but the mention of Sacrifice Fly reminds me of surprising discovery I made while reviewing rule 10.08 "Sacrifices".

I previously thought any advancement of runners on an out was a sacrifice, even if swining for a hit.

10.08(a) specifies "with a bunt"

It would seem only a bunt can be credited with a sac-bunt, not other infield contact achieving similar result.

10.08(d) specifies a sac fly only when "a runner scores"

It would seem a fly that merely advances runner without a score would not be a sac.

Writing this caused me to find this reference link:

Originally any advance on an out was a sac. After many changes, 1939 finally settled a sac fly as only awarded on a score.

For an example, Seth Smith on 4/11/10 for Rockies against Padres in the bottom of 7th hit a fly to center advancing Ryan to 3rd. no Sac Fly is scored in the box.

To return to topic, I suppose there is style differences for Reisner scoring. Standard practices and "verbose". So someone might write 463/GDP, while the exhaustive/explicit/verbose would be 46(1)3(B)/GDP. Maybe a 3/L(B).3(1)/DP is a verbose form of what I write as 3L/UDP and putting the outs in the right boxes and arriving at the next box, it's apparant what happened.

Log in or register to post a response

Copyright © 2009-17 Alex Reisner | contact