The Most Unrealistic Part of the Game Itself

I would agree no 100% score from 1st, but 2 out doubles should be a sure thing for all but the most sluggish.

I would agree no 100% score from 1st,...

Then how do you explain it when a hitter gets a triple? That's a 100 percent score from first.

And why should an otherwise light-hitting speedster who hits triples have a chance to get a 100-percent-score-from-1st hit (that doesn't leave the ball park) while a power hitter has no chance whatsoever?

It's not only unrealistic, it's not logical.

It's not only unrealistic, it's not logical.

And some say I'm critical...

A triple is a 100% score from first because it's never a triple if a runner was thrown out and didn't score. If a batter was awarded a triple, the runner had to score from first. That's just not the case with a double. I'm surprised Coyote didn't know that.

And Coolhandlewke was being realistic and logical. There was no reason (or call) to say his argument was not. There are very few, if any, doubles in MLB that are going to definitely score the Billy Hamiltons while also definitely scoring the Billy Butlers.

A triple is a 100% score from first because it's never a triple if a runner was thrown out and didn't score.

is that fact? It is possible for the batter to reach third as runner is tagged out.

If the runner reaches third because the defense was able to throw a runner out instead of throwing to third, then it's not a triple. It's a double. That's even the case in the minute possibility the batter reaches third at the same time as the tag at home.

If someone produces a rule showing otherwise, I will stand corrected. However, I'm pretty confident on this one.

I tried searching the answer, but didn't come up with definitive answer

As I said in my above post, I'm pretty confident on this. Reaching third because of--or at the same time of--an advanced runner being thrown out at home is not a triple. It goes against the fielder's choice principle.

I don't read the vast majority of posts made by ls, and I refuse to debate him. However, I feel the need to comment on his most recent post:

1. ls's argument is--in my opinion--so illogical and off the mark that if/when he says I can't refute it, well...he's right.

2. I did not say coolhandlewke's post was illogical. I was reiterating my original point that not having a DO*** as possible result is illogical.

3. It's interesting that ls flip-flopped on his position since he previously posted:

You know, that single** is a very good point. Thanks for pointing it out to me. The double*** might work after all.

He actually flip-flopped his position twice if you read the entire thread. Is it possible he's only against the idea when I'm for it?

I don't plan respond to his response to this post, but I'm sure it will be typical ls. However, I do reserve the right to report it if his personal attacks are worse than usual.

Rule 10.06 Comment: The official scorer shall not credit the batter with a three-base hit when a preceding runner is put out at home plate, or would have been out but for an error.
There ya go

I don't read the vast majority of posts made by ls, and I refuse to debate him. However, I feel the need to comment on his most recent post:

I love when Coyote says he rarely read my posts and refuses to debate me, then proceeds to read my post and attempt to debate me. It's almost cute...

1. ls's argument is--in my opinion--so illogical and off the mark that if/when he says I can't refute it, well...he's right.

Of course Coyote can't refute my argument; it was absolutely correct. The fact he can only try to dismiss it without showing it's incorrect just proves how correct it is.

2. I did not say coolhandlewke's post was illogical. I was reiterating my original point that not having a DO*** as possible result is illogical.

I never said he said coolhand's post was illogical; Coyote needs to read a bit better, too. I pointed out he just stridently and incorrectly said one of his main arguments was:

It's not only unrealistic, it's not logical.

He also clearly has a hard time remembering what he said in previous posts.

3. It's interesting that ls flip-flopped on his position since he previously posted:

I didn't flip-flop at all. I acknowledged there could be ***doubles in SOM. I didn't say anything of the sort about real baseball. So, my point that no doubles in MLB automatically clear all baserunners was not a flip-flop. It was just correct.

I don't plan respond to his response to this post, but I'm sure it will be typical ls. However, I do reserve the right to report it if his personal attacks are worse than usual.

My responses usually are well-thought-out, reasoned, and articulated. So it was "typical ls." Considering his inaccurate and rude dismissal of one of my arguments, as well as his personal comments about me, his concern about personal attacks is both hypocritical and precious...