the "benefit of the doubt" for determining earned runs

That seems like a fairly easy call... unearned. not much benefit is even stretched there becaus it was a clear error.

quote:

Originally posted by northwest:
That seems like a fairly easy call... unearned. not much benefit is even stretched there becaus it was a clear error.

I guess my uncertainty was whether or not you can ASSUME that a runner would or would not have tried to advance on a clean play. I guess maybe that's what "benefit of the doubt" means - that if there's any assumption or guess-work regarding what would have happened, always rule in favor of the pitcher. Agree?

agreed... if the 1B fields it cleanly, you can ASSUME he'll see the runner coming down the line and throw home.

quote:

Originally posted by northwest:
agreed... if the 1B fields it cleanly, you can ASSUME he'll see the runner coming down the line and throw home.

OK. Let me change the play slightly and see if your answer changes. Same situation - runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out, team at bat down by 5 in last inning. Routine groundball hit fairly sharp right at second-baseman. First-baseman comes WAY off of first, and literally dives in front of second-baseman, preventing him from making what would have been an easy play, and allowing runner on third to score. In the comments on rule 10.05(a)(2), it says credit the batter with a hit "...even if a fielder...cuts off another fielder who could have put out a runner" (this seems dumb to me). Based on this, one would conclude that the run is EARNED because no error was committed. But in the comments on rule 10.12(a)(1), it says "...charge an error to a fielder who causes another fielder to misplay a ball...". While this isn't exactly what happened in the scenario I described, the over-zealous diving first-baseman DID prevent an easy play from being made, and the runner on 3rd scored because of it. as you pointed out in your previous reply, if the play went the way it should have, and the runner on 3rd broke for home, the second-baseman would presumably have thrown home. Based on this, one would conclude that the run was UNEARNED. My feeling is that it is indeed UNEARNED because a routine play should have been made, and because it wasn't, a run scored that shouldn't have scored.

This is an earned run in my opinion based on what you have described. Team at bat is down by 5, so infielders should be at normal depth. Second is not going to try and cut down a run at home with a 5 run lead, they will trade an out for a run. Pitcher should have been moving to cover first on a ball hit that way. There should have been a play on the batter. If pitcher didn't get over to cover, no error for mental mistakes, it's a hit and earned run.

I will also go on to say that I agree with unearned as the play was described in first post. If the first baseman is playing in his normal spot and boots the play it would be unearned. Runner would hold if ball fielded cleanly.

Just my opinion, but if runner from third broke on contact, it's earned. If runner at third held until ball was booted, unearned.

quote:

Originally posted by northwest:
agreed... if the 1B fields it cleanly, you can ASSUME he'll see the runner coming down the line and throw home.

The trouble with these kinds of questions, are they are really almost impossible to give a firm answer on unless you’re there to actually see the play. And with this particular question, as an experienced scorer, I tend to see it differently than the other posters.

If things were as described, I think there’s a pretty good chance that had the 1b fielded the ball cleanly, he’d have disregarded the runners and made sure of getting the out, even if it meant a runner scored, because that run meant absolutely nothing. Usually the 1b would be playing back in that situation, so I can almost hear the coaches and the bench yelling to get the out because the last thing they want to see is a snowball fight at that point in a contest.

Like I said, so much depends on what’s happening at the moment, and its really a toss-up on calls like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by northwest:
agreed... if the 1B fields it cleanly, you can ASSUME he'll see the runner coming down the line and throw home.

The trouble with these kinds of questions, are they are really almost impossible to give a firm answer on unless you’re there to actually see the play. And with this particular question, as an experienced scorer, I tend to see it differently than the other posters.

If things were as described, I think there’s a pretty good chance that had the 1b fielded the ball cleanly, he’d have disregarded the runners and made sure of getting the out, even if it meant a runner scored, because that run meant absolutely nothing. Usually the 1b would be playing back in that situation, so I can almost hear the coaches and the bench yelling to get the out because the last thing they want to see is a snowball fight at that point in a contest.

Like I said, so much depends on what’s happening at the moment, and its really a toss-up on calls like that.

I completely agree that this kind of play is a toss-up. Although I tend to think unearned, I wouldn't argue if someone else scored it as earned.

But that's the whole point of my question regarding giving the pitcher benefit of the doubt. If you are little more liberal with that interpretation, you say that in the latter scenario (1B dives in front of 2B to prevent a routine play from being made), it's unearned because you can't ASSUME that 2B wouldn't have thrown home (even if the runner on 3rd broke on contact), or that the runner on 3rd would have scored if he did throw home. After all: how is it giving the pitcher the benefit of the doubt if you assume this or assume that? If however you adopt a more conservative interpretation, you would say something more along the lines of what you said (2B would have conceded the run and thrown to 1st to take the out with a 5-run lead in the last inning).

As a long-time scorekeeper who strives to get it right, the interpretation of "giving the pitcher the benefit of the doubt" continues to trouble me. I usually come down on the side of the pitcher unless it's 100% clear in a situation like the one I described that the runner broke immediately and there was NO WAY even a perfect throw would have gotten him out.

I'll throw my hat in the ring.

Earned. If the 1st baseman was playing in I would say Unearned but since he was back the team was willing to trade a run for an out (up by 5 why wouldn't they). I assume everyone was playing back and not in to cut off the run, correct?

If, as you say, the runner was not going to run had the ball not got by the 1st baseman then that is not very good baserunning. By playing back they are giving him the run. They are back for a reason.