Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1910-09-01
Griffith Wants More Allowance
In Scoring Sacrifice Hits.
LIKES OLD METHOD BEST.
Give Credit to Player Only When He
Bunts or Call Everything That Ad-
vances a Runner a Sacrifice, Says
Reds Manager-Base Running.
No. Xxx.
BY CLARK GRIFFITH.

By CLARK GRIFFITH.
Copyright. 1910. by American Press Asso-
citation.
Here is something that I've been
hammering at for some time. 1t is
for more allowance in scoring sacrifice
hits. My idea is either bunts only
should count as sacrifice hits or that
all fair balls which advance a runner
at the expense of the batter being put
out should be called sacrifice hits
that is. one should be the whole hog
or none. l believe in the old way of
scoring hits. giving credit for one only
when d player hunted, or would call
everything that advanced a runner a
sacrifice. l contend that if a long fly
which scores a runner from third base
is to be called a sacrifice then a slow
grounder that accomplishes the same
result is just as much entitled to that
credit.
Very often a runner is scored from
third by Il ground ball which bounds
over the pitchers head and cannot be
felded in time to get the man at the
plate. though the batter is thrown out
at first base. This kind Of a hit does
the club just as much good as a long
fly and is entitled to the same consid-
GRAFTON. If q runner is advanced from
second to third on an out the batter
should be entitled to a sacrifice hit
even if he did not bunt the ball. This
seems to be much fairer to the batter
than to single out and call it a sacri-
fee. to the exclusion of the other
kinds. which may be just as helpful to
the teams.
Most of the scorers are in favor of
going back to the old rule that only
bunts shall count as sacrifice hits, thus
restoring the value of the sacrifice hit
column. But if the long fly sacrifice
is to be retained l think my idea is
a fair ~one--namely. to count as sacri-
fees all outs which advance a preced-
ing runner. Undoubtedly this change
would be welcomed by all the ball
players, as it materially would increase
the batting averages.
Is clever base running as important
a factor in deciding games as ever? You
can bet it is. Since l have taken hold
of the Reds | have had my men prac-
tice base running continually. Take,
for instance. when there is a clever
base runner on the sacks. He works
the catcher for many throws. and once
you get them pegging you can pull off
many tricks on them. l do not believe
in headlong sack purloining when
there are accurate throwers behind the
plate. But take the average backstop
and as a general rule it pays to keep
'em pegging. OF recent years there
has been so very little great base run
ming that the infielders are at a loss
to know what to do with fast men
coming at them all the tire. A ma
jority of them go up in the air when
runner after runner starts round the
sacks without waiting to be pushed by
the batters.
Backstops do not always throw ac-
curately. Infelders take the throw
and Immediately grope around as if
they were in the dark. If the runner
has a little nerve be can steal almost
all the time. There has been a great
howl about spiking Of inieIders. l
think this is largely due to the infield-
ers not knowing how to tag the run
ner. Why. in the old days. when base
purloining was n Of the leading fea-
lures Of the game. the infeld station
ers were experts in tagging and dodg-
ing them. Today the infielders don't
know what to do with them. They
go over the sack in clumsy fashion
and get spiked by the man sliding. in
stead Of being to the side ready to tag
the player as he arrives. Some time
when you have a few spare moments
just glance e the records of the
old timers and you will see that more
base runners used to get hurt than the
men holding down the sacks. Seldom
was the intielder injured. 1t was gen