在一個國外blog看到的小故事
http://baseballresearcher.blogspot.tw/2017/04/the-first-bunt.html
The First Bunt 第一次觸擊
April 17, 2017, Cubs slugger Kyle Schwarber made news by bunting. Yes,
bunting. You can watch the video here.
2017年4月17日，小熊隊強打者Kyle Schwarber的觸擊創造了話題。 沒錯，就是觸擊。
可以看這個影片https://www.mlb.com/video/schwarbers-bunt-single/c-1295916783
Not only was this the first successful bunt of Schwarber's big league career,
but it was one of the prettiest bunts I've seen in many, many years. It also
reminded me of a discovery I made a few years ago: the first known instance
of a bunt. Here's the scoop:
這不只是Schwarber大聯盟生涯的第一支成功的觸擊，且也是我許多年來看過最完美的觸
擊。 這讓我想起幾年前我發現的:第一次已知的觸擊案例。 下面是當初的報導:
On June 29, 1860, the Atlantics and Putnams, two clubs from Brooklyn, faced
one another in a game played at the corner of Lee Avenue and Hooper Street in
the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn. In the second inning, with no one
on, Putnam second baseman Edward Brown came to bat against Atlantics pitcher
John Price. Here's the account of what happened next as published in the New
York Clipper of July 14, 1860:
1860年6月29日，兩隻布魯克林球隊Atlantics和Putnams在布魯克林Williamsburg社區
的Lee Avenue和Hooper Street街角進行比賽。 第二局，無人在壘，Putnams二壘手
Edward Brown上打擊區面對Atlantics投手John Price。 接下來發生的事看以下1860年7月
14日NewYork Clipper的報紙:
https://i.imgur.com/zmrQu02.jpg
Here's a transcript:
A circumstance occurred in the 2d innings which we deem worthy of notice:
Brown was at the bat, and Price pitched him a low ball, which, in bringing
his bat down, Brown hit with the bat in a similar manner to that in which a
cricketer blocks a straight ball; judgment was asked, and as the Umpire
deemed it an accident, it was decided "no hit," but we think it should have
been considered fair, for the reason, that had a player been on the first
base at the time, he could easily have made his second base before the
pitcher could have fielded it, and the decision may lead to similar accidents
on other occasions when such play would have a more important bearing on the
game. If, in the act of striking, the ball be hit forward of home base,
however light the touch, it ought to be considered a fair ball, otherwise
accidents similar to the above will be of frequent occurrence.
這是報導內容:
第二局發生的事情我們認為是值得注意的:Brown在打擊區上，Price向他投了顆低角度的球
，這顆球，讓他的球棒向下。 Brown的擊球方式就像板球員阻擋直球的方式;促請裁決，裁
判認為這是個意外，判決不是一支安打，但我們認為它應該被視為界內球，理由如下，當
有球員在一壘上，在投手守備前他可以輕易地上二壘，且在比賽中像這樣的play將會有重
要的影響，可能會在其他時機去使出類似這種意外的決策。 在每次打擊，球被擊向本壘板
前方，既使是輕輕的點，應該被判定為界內球，且上述相似的意外將會頻繁發生。
This description makes a few things quite clear.
這描述清楚說明幾件事
First, Brown's actions were described in terms of cricket: "Brown hit with
the bat in a similar manner to that in which a cricketer blocks a straight
ball." Today, this would be a worthless explanation to Americans, as very few
in our country are familiar enough with cricket to make the parallel.
However, in 1860, cricket and baseball were both quite familiar to the
sporting crowd, and so the description worked well.
首先，Brown被描述的板球動作:「Brown的擊球方式就像板球員阻擋直球的方式。」在現代
，對美國人來說這是一個無用的說明，因為在美國是鮮少人熟悉板球運動。 但在1860年，
板球和棒球是常見的大眾運動，所以這描述寫得很好。
This woodcut, published in The Boy's Book of Sports, Games, Exercises, and
Pursuits (Frederick Warne and Co., London, 1869), shows a cricket batsman
executing a "forward block," similar to the play made by Brown:
下面這版畫，刊載在The Boy's Book of Sports, Games, Exercises, and
Pursuits(Frederick Warne and Co., London, 1869)的書中，表現出一個板球擊球員運用
「向前阻擋」的動作，就像Brown那個play使用的:
https://i.imgur.com/n3APWh1.jpg
Second, Brown's actions were clearly unintentional. There was no one on base
at the time of the play, so there was obviously no intent to sacrifice. And,
as it was described as "an accident," Brown was also most certainly not
looking to bunt for a base hit.
其次Brown的動作明顯是無意的。 那時壘上無人，所以明顯沒意圖做犧牲，且被描述成
是一個意外，Brown也確實沒想過用觸擊製造安打。
Third, the play was so bewildering to everyone involved, that the umpire
ultimately decided that it should be considered "no hit." In other words, as
kids today would say, it's a "do over."
再者這次打擊令在場的人相當困惑，裁判最後判決不是支安打。 換句話說，這就像現在
小孩(姓陶嗎?)會說的，不算重來。
And finally, no one at the game understood the potential of Brown's actions
... not even Brown himself. The fellow who did, and the one who should get
credit for the concept of the sacrifice bunt, was the gentleman who wrote the
account of the game in The New York Clipper. It was he who realized that by
hitting the ball in the manner that Brown did, "had a player been on the
first base at the time, he could easily have made his second base."
最後，在場上無人明白Brown動作的可能性，連Brown自己也不知道。 這個在
The New York Clipper寫比賽報導的紳士，想到觸擊犧牲概念的的人，我們該給稱許他。
他了解到Brown的擊球方法擊出球後，「若當時一壘上有跑者，他能輕易上到二壘」。
So, while Brown was the first player to bunt a ball, he was not the inventor
of the bunt. That title should go to the very prescient sports writer and
future Hall of Famer, Henry Chadwick.
所以雖然Brown是第一個觸擊的人，但他不是發明者。 發明的頭銜應該給這個有先見之明
的運動作家，未來HOF，Henry Chadwick。
https://i.imgur.com/KVoxn1m.jpg