pickoff attempt - earned or unearned run?

I would say:

R3 scoring on failed pick-off is UNEARNED.

R1 scoring on base hits, run is EARNED,
as are other runs scoring on the safeties.

Good Luck

quote:

Originally posted by Bear:
I would say:

R3 scoring on failed pick-off is UNEARNED.

R1 scoring on base hits, run is EARNED,
as are other runs scoring on the safeties.

Good Luck

Seems like the runs should either all be UNEARNED (if it was obvious that a good throw on the pickoff attempt gets the runner out for what would have been the 3rd out) or all EARNED (if I reconstruct the inning without the throwing error on the pickoff attempt and do NOT assume that the runner would have been out, the subsequent hits end up scoring all 3 runs cleanly).

Thoughts?

My feeling is that all runs are earned since after the pick off attempt, all runners would have scored. I'm not sure you can assume an out on a pickoff attempt. I could be wrong though. Someone with more knowledge of the actual rule should chime in.

MLB

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
My feeling is that all runs are earned since after the pick off attempt, all runners would have scored. I'm not sure you can assume an out on a pickoff attempt. I could be wrong though. Someone with more knowledge of the actual rule should chime in.

Yes, someone who really has experience applying the error rules, please chime in. Here's what I pieced together to come to the conclusion that I did (zero earned runs):

10.18(c): "No run shall be earned when scored by a runner whose life is prolonged by an error, if such runner would have been put out by errorless play."

10.13: "An error shall be charged for each misplay (fumble, muff or wild throw) which prolongs the time at bat of a batter or which prolongs the life of a runner, or which permits a runner to advance one or more bases."

10.13(d)(3): "An error shall be charged against any fielder whose throw takes an unnatural bounce, or touches a base or the pitcher's plate, or touches a runner, a fielder or an umpire, thereby permitting any runner to advance."

This is exactly what happened. The catcher's throw hit the runner. Had it not, he would have been out pretty easily in my judgment (college-level play here), which would have been the 3rd out. If however you can't assume an out on a pick-off attempt for some reason (I can't find anything in the rules that explicitly say you can't), then all runs are earned because of the safe hits that followed.

Yeah, that's the sticker for me as well. I'm not sure you can assume an out on a pickoff play. Now, if the batter made an out immediately following the botched pick off, that run would be unearned, but I'm just not sure about assuming that the runner would have been out like that. Good question.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Yeah, that's the sticker for me as well. I'm not sure you can assume an out on a pickoff play. Now, if the batter made an out immediately following the botched pick off, that run would be unearned, but I'm just not sure about assuming that the runner would have been out like that. Good question.

I think it all comes down to the judgment of the scorekeeper, as most things do. This throw was clearly an error, and the way I read 10.18(c) is that if a runner's life was prolonged by an error, his run cannot be earned if he scores. Doesn't say anything about HOW his life was prolonged - just whether or not it WAS prolonged. I think the same thing applies in a run-down situation where a fielder drops the ball (or makes an errant throw) on what should have been a clear out (again - college level here).

Seems like objectivity in question, as you want to have all runs UNEARNED.

Similar to DBL Play can NOT be assumed, the throw by the catcher allowed R3 to score, yet one can not assume it would be an out.

On this play if the batters had base hits that not only plated the runner from second but the batter came around and scored as well then all three runs are earned.

The error is still an error but the runner from 3rd would have scored on a hit had the errant throw not occured making it earned. If all other runs were socred by hits that the error would not have impacted the ultimate scoring of any runs then they are earned as well.

quote:

Originally posted by luv baseball:
On this play if the batters had base hits that not only plated the runner from second but the batter came around and scored as well then all three runs are earned.

The error is still an error but the runner from 3rd would have scored on a hit had the errant throw not occured making it earned. If all other runs were socred by hits that the error would not have impacted the ultimate scoring of any runs then they are earned as well.

I agree that the runner on 3rd (and the subsequent runs) would have scored had the error not happened, but that's the whole point: it DID happen, and the runner should have been put out! More importantly in this case is the fact that it would have ended the inning. Consider the following excerpt from 10.18:

"In determining earned runs, the inning should be reconstructed without the errors (which include catcher's interference) and passed balls, and the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the pitcher in determining which bases would have been reached by errorless play".

In other words, if I "reconstruct" or "replay" the inning without that error, then the runner is out at third and the inning is over. Only if I assume the play never happened, or that it was not OBVIOUS that the runner should have been out, are the runs all earned.

The TYPE of error shouldn't matter, only the fact that an out should have been made that would have ended the inning. How is it different than a routine groundball that should have ended the inning but got booted instead, allowing the runner on 3rd to score and the inning to continue? I say it's no different.

I still go back to whether a pick off attempt can be assumed an out. What if the throw was high and to the 2nd base side and the runner got back to the bag safely, but did not advance. That would not be an error, but would cause the runner to remain at 3rd, still with 2 outs. You are assuming that the catcher would have made a good enough throw that the 3rd baseman could have tagged the runner out. What if the throw was good enough for the 3rd baseman to catch, or knock down, but not good enough for the fielder to make the tag? You just don't know what would have happend had the throw not gone to the outfield. Therefore, you really can't assume an out would have been made.

You can look at it that the error allowed the run to score, but without the error, the runner just stayed at 3rd. Subsequent to that, there were more hits and the run would have scored anyway. Therefore all are earned.

My son is a pitcher and I would love for it to be the case that all runs were unearned, I just don't think so. I could be wrong though.

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
"In determining earned runs, the inning should be reconstructed without the errors (which include catcher's interference) and passed balls, and the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the pitcher in determining which bases would have been reached by errorless play".

In other words, if I "reconstruct" or "replay" the inning without that error, then the runner is out at third and the inning is over. Only if I assume the play never happened, or that it was not OBVIOUS that the runner should have been out, are the runs all earned.

The TYPE of error shouldn't matter, only the fact that an out should have been made that would have ended the inning. How is it different than a routine groundball that should have ended the inning but got booted instead, allowing the runner on 3rd to score and the inning to continue? I say it's no different.

I’d be hard pressed to say any of the runs were earned based on the information.

Consider this. Runner on 1st, 2 outs. Runner takes off for 2nd and catcher’s rotten throw allows him to go to 3rd. If the next 3 batters hit ground rule doubles, how many of the 3 runs would be earned?

Perhaps you want to assume outs on picks, and SBs, but I sure don’t. Maybe the fielder would have caught the ball cleanly but missed the tag.

Stats, in your first paragraph, you say you'd be hard pressed to call any of these runs earned. That implies that you would consider them unearned. Yet in your explanation, you build a case for the runs to be earned. Can you clarify?

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Stats, in your first paragraph, you say you'd be hard pressed to call any of these runs earned. That implies that you would consider them unearned. Yet in your explanation, you build a case for the runs to be earned. Can you clarify?

I think he meant "...hard pressed to say any of the runs were UNEARNED...".

As for the scenario with the 3 ground-rule doubles following a wild throw on an attempted steal of 2nd with 2 outs, I say all 3 are EARNED. The rules clearly state that a catcher is not charged with an error on a bad throw when trying to throw out a runner that is stealing UNLESS that throw allows the runner to advance beyond the base he stole. So in this case, an error IS charged (since the runner advanced to third), but when the inning is reconstructed without that error, the runner would have been on second base (by virtue of the steal) and scored on the first ground-rule double, as would two more runs on the next two ground-rule doubles.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
"In determining earned runs, the inning should be reconstructed without the errors (which include catcher's interference) and passed balls, and the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the pitcher in determining which bases would have been reached by errorless play".

In other words, if I "reconstruct" or "replay" the inning without that error, then the runner is out at third and the inning is over. Only if I assume the play never happened, or that it was not OBVIOUS that the runner should have been out, are the runs all earned.

The TYPE of error shouldn't matter, only the fact that an out should have been made that would have ended the inning. How is it different than a routine groundball that should have ended the inning but got booted instead, allowing the runner on 3rd to score and the inning to continue? I say it's no different.

I’d be hard pressed to say any of the runs were earned based on the information.

Consider this. Runner on 1st, 2 outs. Runner takes off for 2nd and catcher’s rotten throw allows him to go to 3rd. If the next 3 batters hit ground rule doubles, how many of the 3 runs would be earned?

Perhaps you want to assume outs on picks, and SBs, but I sure don’t. Maybe the fielder would have caught the ball cleanly but missed the tag.

I never ASSUME outs on picks or steals. But I'm talking about cases where it is OBVIOUS that an out should have been made, not the "standard" pick-off attempt or steal where it's not clear whether an out would have been made or not. For example: runner stealing second is CLEARLY going to be out by a mile (let's say he fell down between 1st and 2nd), and the throw is perfect but is dropped by the 2nd-baseman. Error? I say YES. Now change that scenario slightly so that it's a bad throw instead of a dropped ball. Error? Again, I say YES.

The original scenario I brought up was similar to this last example: runner got so far off of 3rd it was obvious that even a half-decent throw would have picked him, ending the inning. However, the throw was wild, and he lived to see another day, ultimately scoring.

We can say we don't know for sure what would have happened even on a routine groundball that gets booted, i.e. we can't be certain that the batter wouldn't have beaten it out. But I think most of us would give an error on a routine groundball that's booted because we "know" it would have resulted in an out.

Here's the thing, I have seen many, many times where a play is made in the field, following a hit where a play is made (or not made) where an out is not recoreded, but could have been. It is never thought of as an assumed out. For instance, runner on 1st, base hit, outfielder makes a throw to 3rd trying to get the runner advancing. With a good throw, the runner would be out by a mile, but the throw is off line. No out, no assumed out, no error. The only reason there would be an error assigned is if the throw was so bad as to allow the runner to advance a base. But the out is not assumed. How many times do you see a runner turn a single into a double? Throw comes in to the infield off line and the runner is safe. Even though if the throw was right on the bag, he would have been out. These are all situations in which the runner would have been clearly out if the throw had been good, but it wasn't. Never is an out assumed in these situations.

In your case, maybe the runner was so far off that you thought he would have been out. What if the throw was good, but the runner got himself in a run down and got back to the bag safely? What if he got in a rundown and scored? No error, no bad throws, runner just beat the rundown and scores. Earned run. What if the throw comes in good and the runner pulls some acrobatic move and avoids the tag? Safe. Happens all the time. I just don't think you can assume it would have been an out under any circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
For example: runner stealing second is CLEARLY going to be out by a mile (let's say he fell down between 1st and 2nd), and the throw is perfect but is dropped by the 2nd-baseman. Error? I say YES. Now change that scenario slightly so that it's a bad throw instead of a dropped ball. Error? Again, I say YES.

There is not an error assigned in this situation unless the misplay allows the runner to advance to 3rd. It is always credited as a SB. I have NEVER seen any subsequent runs considered unearned because the play would have been the 3rd out of the inning. NEVER.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Here's the thing, I have seen many, many times where a play is made in the field, following a hit where a play is made (or not made) where an out is not recoreded, but could have been. It is never thought of as an assumed out. For instance, runner on 1st, base hit, outfielder makes a throw to 3rd trying to get the runner advancing. With a good throw, the runner would be out by a mile, but the throw is off line. No out, no assumed out, no error. The only reason there would be an error assigned is if the throw was so bad as to allow the runner to advance a base. But the out is not assumed. How many times do you see a runner turn a single into a double? Throw comes in to the infield off line and the runner is safe. Even though if the throw was right on the bag, he would have been out. These are all situations in which the runner would have been clearly out if the throw had been good, but it wasn't. Never is an out assumed in these situations.

In your case, maybe the runner was so far off that you thought he would have been out. What if the throw was good, but the runner got himself in a run down and got back to the bag safely? What if he got in a rundown and scored? No error, no bad throws, runner just beat the rundown and scores. Earned run. What if the throw comes in good and the runner pulls some acrobatic move and avoids the tag? Safe. Happens all the time. I just don't think you can assume it would have been an out under any circumstances.

Very good points, and I agree with you on them - I would score no error.

Despite how it may sound, I'm not trying to refute every point that someone brings up on this issue, and I don't WANT a certain result, either in the specific case that I brought up or any other case. I'm just playing devil's advocate to point out what we all know: (1) judgment is obviously part of scorekeeping, (2) the rules are sometimes difficult to interpret as to precisely what is covered (and NOT covered), and (3) there needs to be a set of accepted "standards" that everyone adheres to for those situations that aren't explicitly covered in the rules. We all wish there was a complete set of scoring rules that covered EVERY scenario, but clearly that isn't practical or possible. Instead, we have a decent set of scoring rules and a set of generally-agreed-upon "standards" like the ones you (and others) have pointed out - ones that we all have to follow or statistics become meaningless.

The scoring rules that affect earned runs are the WORST in my opinion, mainly because it's so difficult to determine the outcome - and thus how responsible the pitcher is - when errors or mental miscues occur. Because of this, it's not a coincidence that in recent years ERA as a metric of a pitcher's effectiveness has fallen out of favor among stat enthusiasts, and a lot of this has to do with what the rules cover (and don't cover) regarding how to blame the pitcher.

To help improve the value of ERA, the accepted "standards" could change in a way that would allow the scorekeeper to assign blame a little more liberally. A simple example: 2 outs, infielder plays a routine groundball so slowly that the batter - who for this purpose has just average speed - is safe at first. The rules explicitly say something to the effect of "do not score an error for slow or mechanical play", but any person with a baseball background watching a play like that would say "Wow, that should have been a routine out but the fielder just took his sweet time" (coaches would probably have a nice chat with the fielder too!). An all-star-caliber play wasn't required, nor did the runner have olympic speed. Just an average play, no mishandling or bad throw, but the rules say no error. Next guy hits a 2-run homer. Rules say 2 earned runs. Are both of those runs REALLY the pitcher's fault? If you want ERA to mean something, do you really want to tag him with BOTH runs? I understand nothing is perfect, and there are cases where a quirk in the rules may actually FAVOR the pitcher's ERA, but I'm saying I would love to see some "baseball common sense" be used in those situations where the rules are not entirely clear or don't make any sense.

I realize this will NEVER happen, and that even if it did it would probably create a "slippery slope" by opening too many things up for judgment. So I and everyone else will just keep on scoring the way we always have, even though there are times where we say to ourselves "Man, that play REALLY should have been made but I can't give an error because there is nothing in the rules that allow it". No wonder the Sabermetricians continue to come up with metrics to replace ERA as a measure of a pitcher's effectiveness - I can't blame them at all! ERA will soon go the way of the dodo because the scoring rules make it of little value compared to other metrics.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
For example: runner stealing second is CLEARLY going to be out by a mile (let's say he fell down between 1st and 2nd), and the throw is perfect but is dropped by the 2nd-baseman. Error? I say YES. Now change that scenario slightly so that it's a bad throw instead of a dropped ball. Error? Again, I say YES.

There is not an error assigned in this situation unless the misplay allows the runner to advance to 3rd. It is always credited as a SB. I have NEVER seen any subsequent runs considered unearned because the play would have been the 3rd out of the inning. NEVER.

Correct on a bad throw from the catcher trying to throw a guy out stealing, but not always true for a dropped ball on a steal:

10.08(f): "When in the scorer's judgment a runner attempting to steal is safe because of a muffed throw, do not credit a stolen base. Credit an assist to the fielder who made the throw; charge an error to the fielder who muffed the throw, and charge the runner with 'caught stealing'."

And so much for the well-known "fact" that you can't assume a DP. Here's a clear indication that you CAN, when it's OBVIOUS that the play should have been made:

10.14: "NOTE: When a fielder muffs a thrown ball which, if held, would have completed a double play or triple play, charge an error to the fielder who drops the ball and credit an assist to the fielder who made the throw."

I'm sure I can find other examples as well, but I think you see my point that the rules DO allow for "common sense" scoring jugdment in some cases, even some that everyone thinks must always be scored a certain way - no exceptions.

Harco, first of all I agree with a lot of what you are saying. There are some circumstances that don't make a lot of common sense, such as the slow play situation. Same thing for mental mistakes. Fielder doesn't technically make an error, but throws to the wrong base, or freezes up and doesn't make the play, or misplays a batted ball to the outfield, etc. We can come up with a lot of mental mistakes that would not be considered an "error", but will not be counted as one. However, these standards apply to every pitcher, and will happen at one time or another to them all, so it kind of evens itself out.

In your specific case, you do score an error on the catcher for the bad throw. However, it does not affect whether the run is earned or not in this scenario. If the pitcher got the 3rd out immediately following this play, then the run would be unearned, but because the next batters got hits, the runs do count as earned because the runner would have scored anyway, reconstructing the inning without the error.

Same thing if a catcher tried to throw out a runner at second, and a throwing error allowed the runner to advance to 3rd. Let's say in that scenario, there are 2 outs. Without the throwing error, the runner would have been on 2nd. Let's say the next batter gets an infield single. The runner on 3rd scores. The next batter strikes out. That run would be unearned because without the error, the runner (at the most) would have advanced to 3rd on the infield single and been stranded there on the K. Then let's say instead of the last batter striking out, he gets a single. The run would then be earned because he would have advanced to 3rd on the infield single and then scored on the next single. There is still an error assigned to the catcher, but an out was not assumed and the inning is reconstructed as if the error did not happen and you decide ER/UER from there.

Hope that makes sense. Sometimes it is difficult. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, but it is what it is. It's why I am always talking to my pitcher son about overcoming the mistakes of teammates and keeping overall runs down, regardless of the play in the field. He doesn't like giving up runs - earned or unearned. He pitched last week and gave up 3 unearned runs. I told him he did a good job and his response was "yeah, but I hate giving up any runs". Earned, unearned, doesn't matter. In your scenario, pitcher needs to bear down after something like this and get the 3rd out.

"...these standards apply to every pitcher, and will happen at one time or another to them all, so it kind of evens itself out."

I agree that they apply to every pitcher and will happen to them all at one time or another. But I agree with the statement that it "evens itself out" only in the sense that they may cause ALL pitcher's ERAs to be inflated by about the same amount. The fact that they add to a pitcher's ERA at all is why ERA is rapidly falling out of favor.

"...However, it does not affect whether the run is earned or not in this scenario... the runner would have scored anyway, reconstructing the inning without the error."

Now we're getting somewhere! It's all how you define "reconstructing the inning without the error". It sounds like you're defining that to mean that you can not assume that out would have been made, and the runner gets back to 3rd safely and ultimately scores. In that case I agree - all subsequent runs are EARNED. But if you define it to mean that the out should have been made if it weren't for the error (remember - we're talking about an obvious situation here where any baseball person would say "should have got him"), then that run is unearned as are all subsequent runs because that would have been the 3rd out. Also keep in mind that nowhere in the rules does it ever say anything about not "assuming an out". Look at my next post and you will see two clear examples where you CAN assume an out - spelled out clearly in the rules.

"Same thing if a catcher tried to throw out a runner at second, and a throwing error allowed the runner to advance to 3rd."

I completely agree with you on this scenario.

And of course at the end of the day (or the game), all that matters is how many runs scored - there's no spot on the scoreboard for earned/unearned runs. So a pitcher does need to learn to accept it and try to bear down as you said. But this is about stats, and what they mean. Everyone that sees an ERA of 5.xx says "that guy isn't very effective". I'm pointing out that because of the rules themselves and the "accepted" ways in which certain things are scored that are vaguely covered in the rules, ERA is not the best indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness. And I'm far from alone on this.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
Stats, in your first paragraph, you say you'd be hard pressed to call any of these runs earned. That implies that you would consider them unearned. Yet in your explanation, you build a case for the runs to be earned. Can you clarify?

OOOPS! Fat fingers couple with a weak brain. I meant UNearned.

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:…But this is about stats, and what they mean. Everyone that sees an ERA of 5.xx says "that guy isn't very effective". I'm pointing out that because of the rules themselves and the "accepted" ways in which certain things are scored that are vaguely covered in the rules, ERA is not the best indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness. And I'm far from alone on this.

True. And that’s why more and more, ERA is being looked at as a stat that has exceeded its useful life, and so many new and better metrics have sprung up and are now being used. The general baseball public who doesn’t get very involved much more than looking at the sport’s page want something familiar, simple and easy to understand, that’s why BA and ERA are still very popular.

But those in the know are looking at many other things they feel are far better indicators of a player’s performance.

I'm late to the party but will throw a match anyway (assuming HS level of play and my standard disclaimer that I wasn't there and didn't see it)...

On a pickoff attempt at third with a catcher throwing down to third over a runner who is "way off base", I don't automatically assume an ordinary effort play results in an out at third. I am not inclined to "assume" out on this and would suggest most MLB level scorers would assume the same at that level.

I would score E-2 for the run scoring and subsequent advance of R2. Subsequent hits score the runners assuming no other errors and I score them as earned.

Again, if I was there and saw the play as a blind squirrel would've made the simple out at third I would change my mind, but I wasn't there.

The fundamental flaw in scoring plays from your den that you never saw.

Final thoughts on this topic:

(1) The scorekeeping rules as they are written provide a framework but do not cover every possible scenario, and are vague or unclear in some areas. I can cite numerous examples of this, but we all know this is the case.

(2) There are MANY references in rule 10.00 to the scorekeeper's judgment and "ordinary effort".

(3) The word "assume" appears in rule 10.00 only four times, none of which have anything to do with not assuming an out. In fact, for two plays that most people believe an out can NEVER be assumed on - attempted steal and double-play - the rules clearly state that an out CAN be assumed (and therefore an error should be charged) if in the scorekeeper's judgment the out wasn't made because a fielder dropped the throw. See 10.08(f) and the note under 10.14(c).

(4) The very first entry in the section that addresses errors (10.13) is a definition of what an error is: "...a misplay (fumble, muff, or wild throw) which prolongs the time at-bat of a batter or which prolongs the life of a runner...". This definition, along with the numerous references to the scorekeeper's judgment being paramount, provides all that is necessary to rule an error on ANY play - including run-downs and pick-off attempts - in which an out should have been made with "ordinary effort" but wasn't due to a bad throw or dropped ball. It says nothing about errors applying only to "traditional" plays like routine groundballs and flyballs. The only exception to this I am aware of is 10.08(b) which says not to charge an error to the catcher if he makes a wild throw attempting to prevent a steal (unless the throw allows the runner to advance an extra base), apparently even if the runner is clearly going to be out by a mile. I guess that for this play the feeling is that throwing a runner out trying to steal has such a low probability (and depends a great deal on the pitcher) that the catcher shouldn't be penalized. I agree.

(5) 10.18 defines earned runs and how to score them: "In determining earned runs, the inning should be reconstructed without the errors...and the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the pitcher in determining which bases would have been reached by errorless play". It says nothing about not assuming outs on certain plays, nor does it say anything reconstructing the inning by REMOVING the plays on which errors occurred (example: a wild throw on a pick-off attempt), as if they didn't happen. It explicitly says to reconstruct the inning WITHOUT the errors, which means that we are to consider each and every play on which an error occurred, use our best judgment as to whether or not that play could have been made with "ordinary effort", and then determine what the result of the inning would have been had the plays been made cleanly. And whenever there is doubt as to which base a runner would have reached if the errors hadn't occurred, always choose the result that most benefits the pitcher. If anything, the only thing we are being told NOT to assume when an error accurs is an outcome that is detrimental to the pitcher!

In summary, two people watching the same game may differ in their opinion as to what "ordinary effort" is, thus leading to one of them scoring "error" while the other scores "no error". But there is nothing explicit or implict in the rules that says you can't "assume an out" on a given play, and therefore I think ANY play in which an out should have been made with "ordinary effort" in the scorekeeper's judgment (except 10.08(b) as mentioned above) should be scored an error and factored in when determining earned runs.

Harco, agree with pretty much everything you have to say above. Two points to consider in your original scenario.

1. Not all errors are associated with an out. Many errors are simply associated with the advancement of a base. The catcher's throw is one of them. Another would be an outfielder's throw to a base that allows a runner to advance a base. Reconstruction of that inning allows for the scorekeeper to see where that runner would have wound up had he not advanced a base. Not whether or not that error was associated with an out, therefore ending the inning earlier. Let's say you have a runner on 1st, two outs. Base hit to the out field, bad throw to 3rd, runner scores on the throw. Now, let's reconstruct the inning without the error. 1. Next batter strikes out, ending the inning - unearned run. 2. Next batter gets a base hit - runner would have scored from 3rd anyway - run earned. Therefore, there was an error charged, but it is not considered that an out should have been made, only that the runner advanced due to the bad throw.

2. I'm pretty sure that if the catcher had picked off the runner on 3rd, that would be considered a caught stealing. The rules state that you cannot charge the catcher with an error on an attempted steal unless it allows the runner to advance a base. It did allow the runner to advance in this scenario, so an error is charged to the catcher. However, there is nothing saying that a good throw would have resulted in an out. In fact, if it was a bad throw, but the runner did not advance, there isn't even an error charged, no matter how much you thought he would have been out. In my mind, you just can't consider an out would have been made with a good throw. An error is charged because the bad throw allowed the runner to advance, not because he should have been out. However, in determining ERs to the pitcher, you reconstruct the inning without the error (no out assumed-errors are not always associated with outs), ie. the runner would have remained at 3rd without the error.

That's just my thinking on it.

Great points! I'm expanding the way I look a things through this discussion - I hope others are too. To your points:

1. I agree with your scoring of the scenario where the outfielder throws to 3rd, for both cases of what the next batter does. I hope I didn't say that ALL errors should have resulted in an out, because I agree that they don't. Examples of this would be an outfielder that bobbles a ball hit to him on the ground, thereby allowing the batter to take 2nd, or a WILD throw back to the infield that gets away from everyone and allows a runner to advance when he wouldn't even have considered it otherwise. Error charged in both cases, but not in an attempt to get an out. As you said, reconstruct the inning without the error and WITHOUT assuming an out (because there wasn't an out to assume!). But any time an error is made in an attempt to put a runner out - whether it be a throw from the outfield or a pick-off attempt - AND in the scorekeeper's judgment the out should have been made with "ordinary effort", an error can be charged. This is my point. Now in the specific case of a throw from the outfield to 3rd trying to put out a runner advancing at full-speed from 1st, I am not giving an error on a throw that's off-line enough or weak enough that the runner is safe. That's just baseball: the fielder did everything he could and it didn't work out. But I MIGHT give an error to that outfielder if he picks a ball up 10 feet from the infield grass (say a bloop that was hit in no-man's land between the infield and the outfield), and a runner on 2nd has to freeze to see if the ball is caught, and all the outfielder has to do is make a 60-ft throw to 3rd to force him out but instead thows wildly, forcing the 3rd-baseman to come off the bag so far that even the runner who had to stop dead in his tracks ended up being safe at 3rd. In that case (at a high enough level of baseball), I don't call that "assuming an out", I call that a play that should have been made with "ordinary effort" but wasn't - even though it was a throw from an outfielder.

2. I'll check the rules to see whether a pick-off attempt is treated the same as a steal, but you may be right. But I respectfully disagree with your other comments here. First that "...there is nothing saying that a good throw would have resulted in an out...". My whole point is that in SOME cases it is clear to anyone with a baseball background that a reasonably good throw - not a PERFECT one - would have resulted in an out. Forget for a minute what we THINK the rules say - go by what your own eyes and experience tell you. You mean you've never seen a pick-off play where a guy was caught off base so badly - perhaps even slipped and fell - that you didn't say to yourself "Man, that guy sure botched that throw - they should have had the runner out easy"? Granted this is not the way most pick-off plays happen, but when it does happen in such an obvious way, I say ERROR, ASSUMED OUT, and if it results in a run scored after the inning should have ended, UNEARNED RUN. I don't see anything in 10.00 that says not to score it this way. In fact, as I pointed out, it explicitly says to charge an error whenever the life of a runner is prolonged, so I argue that such a badly-botched pick-off fits into that category. This leads to your next comment "...you just can't consider an out would have been made with a good throw...". I say you CAN, for the reasons already given. If you can't, why then does no one have a problem charging the SS with an error when he throws a ball in the stands on a play where CLEARLY an out should have been made? Do we KNOW he would have gotten the batter out? Of course not, but our JUDGMENT and experience tells us something very basic: that the out SHOULD have been made. Said another way, we ASSUMED the out would have been made, so we gave the SS an error. How are the two plays different? Because one is "standard" and occurs all the time, and the other doesn't happen that often? I don't think that should be the criteria!

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:…2. I'll check the rules to see whether a pick-off attempt is treated the same as a steal,

I’m throwing this in just to create a bit more thought. Whenever I see people begin to banter about Pick-offs, the 1st think that runs through my mind is what their definition of a Pick-off is. From what I can tell, there’s no requirement of Pick-off or Pick-off attempts to be reported on in the rules.

So what it ends up being, is something that describes something a pitcher does, something that happens to a runner, and something fielders participate in. Is it an offensive or defensive metric, and when does it take place? If a pitcher or catcher throws being a runner in plenty of time to record an out, but for some reason the runner isn’t put out, should a pick-off still be recorded?

When I converted my stat program to score the game electronically, it didn’t take very long to figure out I not only had to tell the computer my definition, but how to log the different things that take place when that event takes place.

10.08(h)(2) A runner shall be charged as "Caught Stealing" if he is put out, or would have been put out by errorless play when he...is picked off a base and tries to advance (any move toward the next base shall be considered an attempt to advance).

This clearly says that the runner should be considered "caught stealing" even if the out wasn't made but would have been by errorless play. "Caught stealing" is also defined in this case.

I would think the same holds true for a "true" pick-off, i.e. one where the runner makes NO attempt to advance to the next base: if he SHOULD have been out, but an error was made (say they had him dead and the 1st-baseman just plain dropped a perfect throw), he should be considered "picked-off". The only difference I see is that there is no requirement in the rules to report pick-offs and pick-off attempts.

Lots to consider, very good discussion. I just can't remember a situation in which an error was made on a caught stealing or pick off (essentially the same thing), and it was considered an additional out, thereby extending the inning making runs unearned. Maybe it's happened, I just can't think of a time.

I thought the "10.08(b) which says not to charge an error to the catcher if he makes a wild throw attempting to prevent a steal (unless the throw allows the runner to advance an extra base), apparently even if the runner is clearly going to be out by a mile." rule would be applied to this situation as well. And there is nothing in there about counting this as an out.

IDK.

I think the difference is in WHO the mistake is made by on a botched steal or pick-off.

If the CATCHER makes a bad throw (even a wild one), you can't charge him with an error (unless the runner advances beyond where he would have been) because of the inherent difficulty and uncertainty of the play on his end. The rules seem clear on this.

However IF the runner is by all reasonable judgment "dead to rights" and IF the catcher makes a good or perfect throw and the fielder just plain drops it, an error IS charged to the fielder, an out IS "assumed", and subsequent runs are UNEARNED (if in the reconstruction of the inning they wouldn't have scored anyway). The rules seem pretty clear about this too.

That's my take.

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:…However IF the runner is by all reasonable judgment "dead to rights" and IF the catcher makes a good or perfect throw and the fielder just plain drops it, an error IS charged to the fielder, an out IS "assumed", and subsequent runs are UNEARNED (if in the reconstruction of the inning they wouldn't have scored anyway). The rules seem pretty clear about this too.

That's my take.

Speaking about a straight steal attempt only, I honestly can’t remember a fielder having been charged with an error for dropping even the most perfect of throws in plenty of time to get the runner.

Agreed that this play certainly is not the norm. In MLB, where the level of play is so high, it is rare indeed. But I'm going to say that it HAS happened, and whoever wrote 10.08(f) apparently wanted to cover it no matter how unlikely it is.

Some of the plays I'm referring to are admittedly "non-standard". On 99.9999% of all stolen base attempts for example, no error is charged to anyone when the runner is safe. He's just safe, that's baseball. I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that outs on "non-standard" plays such as pick-offs, run-downs, steals, and throws from the outfield CAN be "assumed" (for lack of a better term), and that this fact is supported in the rules as I've cited.

Why did someone go to the trouble of telling us how to score scenarios like 10.08(f) if the odds of them happening are a gazillion to one?

Here's the the thing I'm saying. Giving someone an error is not the same thing as counting it as an out. In the original scenario, I'm sticking with giving the catcher an error, but all the runs are still earned because of what happened after. Some of the rules are written expressly stating that an error should be assigned, but not necessarily saying that an out should have been made. I know it's a little nitpicky, but it's what I think. Particularly in the situation of the OP.

Great stuff, but I think we're going to have to "agree to disagree".

All errors don't fall into the category of a fielder attempting to make an out (see previous post for examples). But my position is that for those that do, the play SHOULD be "counted as an out" (to use your words) since the out would have been made were it not for the error - by definition!

Thanks again for all the insight.

Not to keep things going ad nauseum, but it is not by definition. In fact many errors are only considered errors IF the misplay allows a runner to advance a base. On a double play, an errant throw by the fielder would not be considered an error unless the runner advances a base. It is not an error if it allows the runner to reach 1st safely. On a steal attempt, an errant throw by a catcher is not an error unless it allows the runner to advance a base. If an outfielder makes an errant throw on an advancing runner, it is only an error if it allows the runner to advance an extra base. In your original scenario, the only reason an error is assigned to the catcher is because it allowed the runner to advance a base. None of these scenarios allow for an out to be "counted" (for lack of a better term). A pick-off is a caught stealing situation. An error is not charged unless the runner is able to advance a base, regardless of how out the runner might have been with a good throw. My point is, it is not a matter of definition that assigning an error is associated with an out being "counted" towards it.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. It's been fun, but I'm going to try to be done.

I can't believe you're going to let me have the last word! Just kidding. I don't consider this 'ad nauseum' because with each point a further refinement or distinction is made. That's how we learn. But I agree we're coming to the end here. Nevertheless, I can't resist a final (?) summary that shows where we agree and disagree, hopefully for the benefit of others that may be reading.

For those that have not followed this discussion, you can jump in here and get the gist of what's been said:

1. On a throw to COMPLETE a double-play (example: by the 2nd-baseman on a 6-4-3), I agree: no error even for a wild throw to 1st (unless it allows the batter to advance beyond 1st), and therefore no "assumed out" and no factor in determing earned runs. This case is explicitly handled in the rules.

2. On a MUFFED THROW to complete a double-play (i.e. good throw to 1st in plenty of time, 1st-baseman just plain drops it): ERROR (on 1st-baseman) and therefore "ASSUMED OUT" in the reconstruction of the inning and UNEARNED runs if that play allows runs to score that wouldn't have scored in the reconstructed inning had the ball been caught. This may be rare, but it's explicitly handled in the rules.

3. On a THROW by the catcher on a steal attempt, I also agree: no error even for a wild throw (unless it allows the batter to advance beyond 1st), and therefore no "assumed out" and no factor in determing earned runs. This case is explicitly handled in the rules as well.

4. On a MUFFED THROW by an infielder on a steal attempt (i.e. good throw by catcher in plenty of time, infielder just plain drops it): ERROR, and therefore "ASSUMED OUT" in the reconstruction of the inning and UNEARNED runs if that play allows runs to score that wouldn't have scored in the reconstructed inning had the ball been caught. This may be rare, but it's explicitly handled in the rules too.

5. On an errant throw from an outfielder (one that is just off-line or even wild) TRYING TO GET AN ADVANCING RUNNER, I agree: no error (unless it allows the runner to advance beyond the base he was going for), and therefore no "assumed out" and no factor in determing earned runs. This case is NOT explicitly handled in the rules, but I think it's implied.

6. On an errant throw by an outfielder NOT trying to get an advancing runner (example: wild throw on the normal "toss" back to the infield after a hit, when all runners are clearly holding their base): error if runner(s) advance but NO "assumed out" in the reconstruction of the inning (since no out was attempted to be made). Unearned run(s) ONLY IF the runner(s) that advanced wouldn't have scored anyway in the reconstructed inning without the error. Another example of a rare case, but if/when it happens, I believe this is the correct scoring.

I think we agree on all of the above, but the last case is where we disagree, and is what started the whole discussion:

7. PICK-OFFS. The rules don't explicitly define what a pick-off is, but I will define it as a play where the pitcher or catcher throws to a base in an attempt to put out a runner that is too far off. Two cases to consider. FIRST CASE: the runner makes no attempt to advance to the next base, i.e. he just tries to get back to the base that he occupied. In this case, if everything proceeded "normally" and no out is recorded, then it's "no error, no assumed out, etc". However, in those rare cases where it is clear that an out should have been made, then it's "error, assumed out, and quite possibly - unearned run". Obviously the judgment of the scorekeeper comes into play here, but I can think of two examples where if you were watching the play you'd be hard-pressed to tell me an out shouldn't have been made: (1) runner slips and falls on his way back to the base, and just lays there realizing that he's dead; all that's needed is a half-decent throw and a catch to tag the guy out, but the throw is wild or the catch is botched, and the runner has time to get back safely, and (2) runner is off bag talking to base-coach and not paying attention (I've actually seen this one); again a half-decent throw and catch and he's dead, but either the throw is wild or the catch is botched and the runner gets back safely. These are admittedly VERY unlikely scenarios, but they have happened and the question is how to score them. I say step back and think "under those SPECIFIC circumstances, should an out have been made with ORDINARY effort?". If yes, then "error, assumed out, etc". SECOND CASE: runner at some point makes an attempt to advance to next base. In this case, 10.08(h)(2) applies: "A runner shall be charged as "Caught Stealing" if he is put out, or would have been put out by errorless play when he...is picked off a base and tries to advance (any move toward the next base shall be considered an attempt to advance).". Yes, he is considered to be "caught stealing", but this is not the "standard" steal play where the catcher is "excused" if his wild throw doesn't get him out. Instead, this rule has the phrase "would have been out by errorless play", which implies to me that the author is saying this is a different case, one where we CAN assume an out should have been made if it wasn't made because of a wild throw or botched catch. He even goes so far as to say "don't credit the runner with a steal" in this situation. Why? Because this is a play where the runner made a mistake, and the ONLY reason that mistake didn't result in an out is because a fielder made an error. In my mind this is clearly allowing us to "assume an out". It's a totally different play than the "standard" steal, and as such, it is treated differently. You can't just make the sweeping generalization that it's a steal, and any time there's a wild throw on a steal, you can't charge an error and thus assume an out. This is a case where you can, and the rules support that.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
…In fact many errors are only considered errors IF the misplay allows a runner to advance a base. On a double play, an errant throw by the fielder would not be considered an error unless the runner advances a base. It is not an error if it allows the runner to reach 1st safely. On a steal attempt, an errant throw by a catcher is not an error unless it allows the runner to advance a base. If an outfielder makes an errant throw on an advancing runner, it is only an error if it allows the runner to advance an extra base. In your original scenario, the only reason an error is assigned to the catcher is because it allowed the runner to advance a base. None of these scenarios allow for an out to be "counted" (for lack of a better term). A pick-off is a caught stealing situation. An error is not charged unless the runner is able to advance a base, regardless of how out the runner might have been with a good throw. My point is, it is not a matter of definition that assigning an error is associated with an out being "counted" towards it.

Something that’s always struck me as being “unfair” or at least ”inequitable”, is not giving fielders credit for not making an error when there’s every possibility to do so. FI, a line drive single to left. The fielder isn’t given any kind of credit that would be reflected in his FPCT or even his range. Its as though the BIP was non-existent. Then there are the throws where if they’re bad almost always result in an error being charged, but if they’re good, there’s no record of them at all. An example is a catcher attempting a pick.

What I started doing last season was to try to account for those things, even if it was minimally. I began counting those things as “TOUCHES”. If there was a base hit, the 1st fielder who has an opportunity to get charged with an error for misplaying the ball or making a bad throw gets credit for a “touch”. Same thing for an attempted pick. The thrower gets a touch and so does the receiver.

After all that was done, I ran the numbers, and this is what came out. http://www.infosports.com/scor...r/images/defteam.pdf

It doesn’t really change anything, but it does seem to “even” things out a bit.

If I understand you, it seems like this inequity doesn't exist for infielders on groundballs: if they make either a throwing error or a fielding error, it's an error as far as fielding percentage is concerned, and the entire play is one "chance".

But for outfielders, I've always felt the same way, namely that their fielding percentage isn't really calculated properly (at least the way I understand how it's done): they only get credit for a "chance" when there's a catchable ball hit to them in the AIR, where there's - dare I say - an opportunity for an "assumed out". But if they flub a ball hit to them on the ground that allows a runner to advance, or make a clean pick-up on a ball hit to them on the ground but then make a wild throw that allows a runner to advance, they get charged with an error but NOT a chance. Seems like their fielding percentage then will always be artificially on the low side - perhaps considerably so if you're a guy who makes a lot of throwing errors or errors picking up groundballs but you don't have a lot of balls hit to you in the air!

quote:

Originally posted by harco bb fan:
If I understand you, it seems like this inequity doesn't exist for infielders on groundballs: if they make either a throwing error or a fielding error, it's an error as far as fielding percentage is concerned, and the entire play is one "chance".

On a ground ball, a fielder gets a PO, ***, or an E, and all 3 compute in FPct, so they are credited with something. But on say an IF hit the only thing they can get is a negative, and that’s if they make a throwing error. My way they are still liable if they make a throwing error, but they get credit if they don’t.

quote:

But for outfielders, I've always felt the same way, namely that their fielding percentage isn't really calculated properly (at least the way I understand how it's done): they only get credit for a "chance" when there's a catchable ball hit to them in the AIR, where there's - dare I say - an opportunity for an "assumed out". But if they flub a ball hit to them on the ground that allows a runner to advance, or make a clean pick-up on a ball hit to them on the ground but then make a wild throw that allows a runner to advance, they get charged with an error but NOT a chance. Seems like their fielding percentage then will always be artificially on the low side - perhaps considerably so if you're a guy who makes a lot of throwing errors or errors picking up groundballs but you don't have a lot of balls hit to you in the air!

True.

Where I notice counting the touches the most, is looking at the FPct by Position. Not that I don’t think SS is an important position, but the dogma is that the number of touches a SS gets is enormously more than any other position. That’s generally true, but as soon as “TOUCHES” get thrown into the mix, things change quickly.