View Full Version : A Baseball Question
lufbra
October 7th, 2004, 01:23 PM
Say if there's a "runner" on second base, and the "hitter" is "walked", why isn't the bloke on second base "advanced" to third base?
I can understand that if he was on third base, he couldn't advance cos that'd mean a run scored, and the catcher has the ball. But if on second base, surely if the "hitter" wasn't "walked" and made a "hit", the bloke on second base would be advancing anyway? :)
z1p
October 7th, 2004, 02:08 PM
Only the batter is given the free base on a walk (or if they are hit by a pitch). If there is a runner on 1st base he is forced to advance to 2nd base , so on and so on. So, if bases are loaded (full) and the batter is walked, then the runner on third is forced to come home (and score a run).
If there is a runner on 2nd, but not on 1st, the runner on 2nd is not forced (or allowed to) advance to third. Why it is this way, I can't say for sure. But, those are the rules and I've never questioned them. Then again, I grew up with them.
An American in MA
GO SOX!!! D&#* the Babino!! ;^)
lufbra
October 8th, 2004, 03:31 AM
It is an odd ruling, cos like I said, if the hitter got a hit, the bloke on second base would be advancing anyway......To me, this may help eliminate "walking" the hitter, at least in this circumstance.
Since I'm living in MA now (moved over from Blighty 13 years ago), I have to say that the Red Sox may have a good chance of going all the way this year..........Fingers crossed. :)
renegade600
October 8th, 2004, 10:08 AM
It is an odd ruling, cos like I said, if the hitter got a hit, the bloke on second base would be advancing anyway......To me, this may help eliminate "walking" the hitter, at least in this circumstance.
Since I'm living in MA now (moved over from Blighty 13 years ago), I have to say that the Red Sox may have a good chance of going all the way this year..........Fingers crossed. :)
It would also mean anyone on third could walk home, so the rule is necessary to keep the games interesting without everyone trying to walk.
z1p
October 8th, 2004, 03:41 PM
I can see how the rule can seem odd and that an argument can be made for both approaches, but I think all sports have a strange rule or two. In baseball, I find that the batter being able to 'steal' 1st after striking out, if the catcher doesn't catch the pitch cleanly, even stranger than how runners are advanced on a walk.
Well, let's keep those fingers crossed. I've lived in MA all my life and have been following the sox that whole time. It is hard not to get excited, but it is also hard not to worry and ofcourse you always have to be careful what you say 'cause you don't want to jinx the team. All sox fans know what they do during the game directly affects the outcome of the game. ;^)
Go Sox!!!!
Baser-X
October 8th, 2004, 05:32 PM
It would also mean anyone on third could walk home, so the rule is necessary to keep the games interesting without everyone trying to walk.
Seeing as IMO baseball is the second least interesting sport right behind golf, I'm glad to know they are doing something to try and make it interesting :p
Obviously I am a truly unAmerican non-baseball person, I'll accept whatever flaming you baseball nuts feel I need :)
Oh, and BTW, the Cardinals are taking it all this year :) The Red Sox are cursed, remember? Them and the Cubs. Even as a non-baseball person I know that.
z1p
October 8th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Alright, I'll rise to the bait. ;)
I'd have say from where I sit there are other sports than just golf that are less interesting to watch than baseball. For example, take cricket. :D Now, I've tried watching it, but I have to admit I haven't watched a match (or whatever is the proper term). It reminds me a bit of game we play as kids here in the US called hotbox. It it there are two bases and a runner tries to make it safely back and forth between them while two other players throw the ball back and forth. It was fun to play as a kid, but not that exciting to watch as a sport. :p
Now, to keep the flames at a minimum let me say that I know there is a bit more to cricket than that, but I found it difficult to watch for a long period. Maybe I just didn't know enough to appreciate it.
To each there own. Its just fun to have something to be excited about.
GO SOX!!! D&#* the Babino!! ;^)
lufbra
October 9th, 2004, 01:41 AM
Well I have to say I like watching cricket very much, yeah it may take up to 5 days to play one match, but the one day marches can get pretty exciting. :)
z1p
October 9th, 2004, 02:09 AM
But, baseball games like today's (Red Sox game) can be quite exciting.
Go Sox!! ....on to the ALCS!!!
lufbra
October 9th, 2004, 02:28 AM
LOL, they sure know how to make the games exciting and nailbiting too!! :D
renegade600
October 9th, 2004, 08:44 AM
Seeing as IMO baseball is the second least interesting sport right behind golf, I'm glad to know they are doing something to try and make it interesting :p
Obviously I am a truly unAmerican non-baseball person, I'll accept whatever flaming you baseball nuts feel I need :)
Oh, and BTW, the Cardinals are taking it all this year :) The Red Sox are cursed, remember? Them and the Cubs. Even as a non-baseball person I know that.
I usually turn on a baseball game if I need a nap in the afternoon. :dizzy:
lufbra
October 13th, 2004, 02:30 AM
Dang!!!!
The Red Sox ain't doing so good in their first game against the Yankees. :((
Ned Seagoon
October 13th, 2004, 07:23 AM
Well as far as watching televised sport goes, I'd rather watch paint dry or grass grow.
Now playing sport is a different thing, I believe we should all do a bit of that, but watching it leaves me a bit cold and distinctly bored.
TV is for drama and comedy, theatre is for attending and watching.
Now blast me for this folks. BF
z1p
October 13th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Last night's Sox/Yankees game was both comedy and drama. What more could you ask for on the TV? I'm still optimistic about the Sox going all the way this year.
Go Sox!!! Curse, what curse? ;^)
renegade600
October 13th, 2004, 09:20 PM
Go Sox!!! Curse, what curse? ;^)
Go Cardinals!!!
Bad Dog
October 14th, 2004, 03:19 PM
Back to original question. Runner on second and no one on first or third.
On a hit, the second base runner can proceed to third unless he's 'checked'
by a ground ball to third baseman, secondbase man, or shortstop.
Many times a man on second with all other bases open, the hitter will be intentionally walked. Then the next hitter will cause the infield to have 3 bases to throw a man out and a possible a double play. A walk because the hitter walked would undo all these tactics.
This action of movemoment is called rules.
When someone else forms their own baseball league, then they can make up their own rules: skipping to base, walk whenever, have bigger/smaller balls, have bigger/smaller bats, use nets instead of gloves, etc.
God made American pie, baseball, and chevy.;) Can't change God's rules.:wave:
z1p
October 14th, 2004, 03:28 PM
At least one of us is happy today :cry2:
Go Sox!!! ------ :curse: , What :curse: ?
z1p
October 14th, 2004, 03:30 PM
But the Devil made the Yankees!! :evillaugh