Earned/Unearned Run?

GREAT THREAD, BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS SCORING DECISION??

Runner on first; pitcher crosses catcher up BIG TIME and he does not handle the ball. However the pitch is a called strike right down the middle. Wild pitch or passed ball? Can a called strike EVER BE A WILD PITCH???

 

Scoring issues...

I score for a college in the area and I have a problem with this statement made earlier in the thread...

Your example is flawed because arm strength has nothing to do with ordinary effort. You absolutely score with a player's ability in mind, if you have the advantage of that knowledge. A faster outfielder who covers more ground has an opportunity to make more plays "with ordinary effort" than slower fielders. A faster outfielder gets to a ball that ordinary fielders can't get to, then he drops the ball he should easily catch and I have to rule that a hit because the average fielder has that ball drop safely because it's out of his range? I say no. Ability does factor into a player's ordinary effort level.

In this last example above, you have to go passed ball if the pitch is a called strike and in the zone (would be into the bulk of the catcher if he's there ready to receive it in the zone). The only exception I can think of is if a catcher is calling for an intentional pass, stands up and away from the batter on the throw and the pitcher throws a strike right down the middle. I would go wild pitch in that case. So, yes, there is a case when you can throw a called strike and have it be a wild pitch.

I give lots more leeway for catchers as fielder because of all of their gear and how hard it is to find a ball when tossing masks and running into people/things (batters, umpires, on-deck junk), but if he has reasonable time to locate the ball and it doesn't land right up against a wall or fence or net, he should be charged with an error. I will eat the error if no one advances and the batter is subsequently put out (by rule, you shouldn't do that), but in this above case, I give him an error to prolong the inning and everything else to this pitcher would be unearned.

 

All very good points

 

PHS1983, I don't know if you're questioning Tarboro's official scorer, but i can tell you that when I watched the Nash Central vs. Tarboro game in Tarboro, There were 4 errors committed by Tarboro that were not scored as such. I thought it may have just been the scoreboard operator, but it was given to the paper the same way. It really skewed the starting pitcher's(Cameron Webb) ERA for the outing.

 

As a score you need to follow all the rules, not just the ones that seem right to you.

1. In rule 10.13A in black and white it is written: "The official scorer shall charge a pitcher with a wild pitch when a legally delivered ball touches the ground or home plate before reaching the catcher and is not handled by the catcher, thereby permitting a runner or runners to advance." It does not say it is only a wild pitch if the pitch is called a ball and touches the ground there by letting runners advance.

2. You do not have an option of "eating an error." If the AB was extended it is an error, period.

I have a staff of scores that work with me scoring and doing data collection for scouting purposes for the MLB teams and players. Every MLB, AAA and AA game is scored by two people because people see some plays differently. These scores are not the “official” scorer of the game, which is usually a media person. We are tracking far more than just the scoring of the game. If you differ from the official scorer that is fine, you just write a short explanation on why and how you score the play differently. In the two examples you give above your explanations are unacceptable and you would not be scoring with us if it continued.

The example you give about a fielder being faster is exactly why you do not judge talent. If the faster outfield easily tracks a fly and drops it, it is an error, where a slower outfielder on the same fly that has to lay out for the ball and then it goes off his glove is not charged with an error because he is giving more than "ordinary effort" for him. The rules do not say identical effort. What is ordinary to one player is extraordinary for the next. Even the same player one day easily handles a ball where the next day has to make extraordinary effort on a like play because of other mitigating circumstances, i.e. injury, illness, etc.

This past season (and most likely again this year) there was debate about Jeter. He was not getting to nearly as many balls as he once did, yet he had one the fewest total errors for the season for his career. Does that mean he was a better SS? Players that cover more ground get more chances, but each chance is judged as a singular event, and not against all that other chances that player gets or against what someone else could do.

A person that has never seen a player play should score a play he views the same for that player as he would for a player he was familiar with regardless of what he thinks should have happened based upon prior knowledge of that player.

“Ordinary effort” is subjective meaning different scorers can score the same play differently, but the same scorer should score similar plays alike.

 

earned/unearned runs

No, Im not questioning the official scorer. Over the years, I have figured out how that works.
Youre correct-there were several errors (I thought & gave errors against) during the NC game. The play Im talking was in the North Pitt game. I do a book of my own just to compare to the official stats, and try to score honestly as I see it regardless if its my kid who is involved in the play. I see plays and If Im not sure, or feel I would like to get an experienced answer, I ask on TBR, and the response is great. Thanks to all for the advise.

 

You don't even realize that you agreed with everything I said. And I think you will find that the rulebook doesn't cover every conceivable situation. You have to score what you think is right with respect to the game. Lots of people can quote the rulebook, but that doesn't mean that they get it.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.