在一个国外blog看到的小故事
http://baseballresearcher.blogspot.tw/2017/04/the-first-bunt.html
The First Bunt 第一次触击
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，小熊队强打者Kyle Schwarber的触击创造了话题。 没错，就是触击。
可以看这个影片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:
这不只是Schwarber大联盟生涯的第一支成功的触击，且也是我许多年来看过最完美的触
击。 这让我想起几年前我发现的:第一次已知的触击案例。 下面是当初的报导:
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，两只布鲁克林球队Atlantics和Putnams在布鲁克林Williamsburg社区
的Lee Avenue和Hooper Street街角进行比赛。 第二局，无人在垒，Putnams二垒手
Edward Brown上打击区面对Atlantics投手John Price。 接下来发生的事看以下1860年7月
14日NewYork Clipper的报纸:
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.
这是报导内容:
第二局发生的事情我们认为是值得注意的:Brown在打击区上，Price向他投了颗低角度的球
，这颗球，让他的球棒向下。 Brown的击球方式就像板球员阻挡直球的方式;促请裁决，裁
判认为这是个意外，判决不是一支安打，但我们认为它应该被视为界内球，理由如下，当
有球员在一垒上，在投手守备前他可以轻易地上二垒，且在比赛中像这样的play将会有重
要的影响，可能会在其他时机去使出类似这种意外的决策。 在每次打击，球被击向本垒板
前方，既使是轻轻的点，应该被判定为界内球，且上述相似的意外将会频繁发生。
This description makes a few things quite clear.
这描述清楚说明几件事
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被描述的板球动作:“Brown的击球方式就像板球员阻挡直球的方式。”在现代
，对美国人来说这是一个无用的说明，因为在美国是鲜少人熟悉板球运动。 但在1860年，
板球和棒球是常见的大众运动，所以这描述写得很好。
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:
下面这版画，刊载在The Boy's Book of Sports, Games, Exercises, and
Pursuits(Frederick Warne and Co., London, 1869)的书中，表现出一个板球击球员运用
“向前阻挡”的动作，就像Brown那个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的动作明显是无意的。 那时垒上无人，所以明显没意图做牺牲，且被描述成
是一个意外，Brown也确实没想过用触击制造安打。
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."
再者这次打击令在场的人相当困惑，裁判最后判决不是支安打。 换句话说，这就像现在
小孩(姓陶吗?)会说的，不算重来。
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."
最后，在场上无人明白Brown动作的可能性，连Brown自己也不知道。 这个在
The New York Clipper写比赛报导的绅士，想到触击牺牲概念的的人，我们该给称许他。
他了解到Brown的击球方法击出球后，“若当时一垒上有跑者，他能轻易上到二垒”。
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.
所以虽然Brown是第一个触击的人，但他不是发明者。 发明的头衔应该给这个有先见之明
的运动作家，未来HOF，Henry Chadwick。
https://i.imgur.com/KVoxn1m.jpg