Can't Steal First Base (1941)

[Laurence Horn]

At 2:28 PM -0700 9/5/02, Dave Wilton wrote:
>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: American Dialect Society
>>  [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf
>>  Of Brad Vest
>>  Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:58 PM
>>  To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>  Subject: Re: Can't Steal First Base (1941)
>>
>>
>>  There is, I believe, another time in which a stolen base
>>  cannot be awarded and that is catcher's indifference.
>>  For instance, if there is a runner on first and he goes
>>  to steal second and the catcher gets the ball and would
>>  have a chance of throwing him out but chooses not to make
>>  the throw, the runner I believe is not credited with a
>>  stolen base but instead is considered to have "advanced
>>  on catcher's indifference".
>
>Yes, in this case it's scored as a "fielder's choice." It's also known as an
>"undefended steal." It typically occurs with runners on first and third. The
>runner at first advances to second, but the catcher holds the ball to
>prevent the runner on third from stealing home.

Hate to bitch again (although I do love talking about this particular
lexicon), but I'm not aware of this use of "fielder's choice".
Catcher's indifference, yes.  Undefended steal, fine, although if
it's not a steal, it seems odd to call it an undefended one.  But in
my experience, a fielder's choice  ALWAYS involves a batted ball on
which the fielder attempts (either successfully or not) to retire a
baserunner rather than the batter.  The batter usually is charged
with a time at bat for this, the exception being a sacrifice bunt
when the fielder unsuccessfully attempts to get a runner out, in
which case the batter gets credit for the (attempted) sacrifice.  But
I don't believe "fielder's choice" can be used for the catcher's
indifference/non-steal steal situation.

larry