Why is an error in baseball counted as an at bat?

The OP was specifically about batting average. My last question was about on-base average. I was just curious. It appears they still give him an 0 for 1 for on-base average, even though he got on base. Makes no sense.

 

Then why is a misjudged fly ball counted as a hit? You've rewarded the batter for the fielder's mistake.

 

An outfielder who misjudges a fly ball (not counting those lost in the sun) are usually not credited with an error. I've seen it a few times where they give him an error, but not often. So in most cases, they've rewarded the batter for the fielder's mistake.

"The batter would have made an out. Giving him an 0 for 0 means his batting average doesn't change, even though he should have made an out. How is that not a reward?"

But the batter didn't make an out. I guess that's the problem I have with it. If you add up all the 0 for 1's in a game for a team, it should equal 27 minus any runners thrown out on base or double plays. But it doesn't, if a guy got on with an error. If no runners get thrown out or no double plays, but two guys get on with errors, the box score will show that 29 outs were made. But only 27 outs were actually made. That's inconsistent.

I don't see giving a guy 0 for 0 as a reward anymore than giving a guy 0 for 0 for a walk is a reward when the walk had nothing to do with the batter's skill but everything to do with the pticher's wildness.

 

"I used to wonder why a walk was not counted as an at-bat, and I have to assume that the reason is twofold. #1, the batter doesn't get rewarded with a 1-1 because he didn't actually get a hit. #2, the batter doesn't get punished with an 0-1 because he didn't make an out. There's nothing left except to not charge him an at-bat."

Don't you see - you're using the same logic for walks as I do for errors. Baseball has it right on how they treat walks - no argument there. But the fact is, some walks are due completely to the pitchers wildness. Shoot, even pitchers who hit .100 get walked every once in a while, because the other pitcher is so wild - it had nothing to do with the batter's skill. And yes, some walks are due to the hitter's skill either by having a "good eye" or the pitcher pitching around him out of fear.

But the same principle applies with errors. It takes some skill to hit a ball even in fair territory. Guys get ground ball hits all the time that are not hit that hard but they squeek thru the infield (maybe because the infielders are slower than normal). Some guys get on with an error that is an easy ground ball (think Bill Buckner). Others get on with an error on a sharply hit ball that the scorekeeper thinks the fielder should have caught. So in the two examples, one guy gets on a ball that a fielder would catch 95% of the time, while the other guy gets on with one that maybe is caught 65% of the time. Yet, they are both charged with an 0 for 1. I say it took at least "some" skill to hit the ball fair in the first place, so give them an 0 for 0 since they made it safely to first base. Just like it takes "some" skill for a batter to draw a walk - whether it is the .100 pitcher who gets lucky or Barry Bonds who gets walked out of respect; they both get an 0 for 0.

Admit it, it takes skill to hit a ball fairly, right? In some cases, it takes more skill to hit a ball fairly than it does to draw a walk from a pitcher who is throwing wildly. I bet if you took some average joe off the street and put him in a game, he would have a better chance at drawing a walk than hitting a ball fairly. No doubt about it. Yet, we treat walks differently. And it's wrong, I tell you! This injustice must stop! :tongue3: