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.ccrobinson said:???
An 0 for 1 at-bat always lowers batting average.
A 0 for 0 at-bat never lowers batting average.
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?
Isn't this the question the OP is about?
The batter who reaches base by error is charged an at-bat. He goes 0 for 1 on that at-bat.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why is an error in baseball counted as an at bat?
- Thread starter Andy T.
- Start date
Talking about on base percentage - go read the book moneyball, the A's GM is very big on on base percentage - as are the NY Yankees among other teams that work the counts. They draw walks, wear out the opposing pitcher and are on base when the big boppers come up!
On the other subject - I think baseball has it right on thier rules - a batter should not get credit for another players mistake either for obp or ba, and a getting a walk does show skill by the player and thus gives him a higher obp - a stat that managers and owners are well aware of!
On the other subject - I think baseball has it right on thier rules - a batter should not get credit for another players mistake either for obp or ba, and a getting a walk does show skill by the player and thus gives him a higher obp - a stat that managers and owners are well aware of!
ccrobinson
Active Member
It appears they still give him an 0 for 1 for on-base average, even though he got on base. Makes no sense.
No, it makes perfect sense. The batter should have been out. You don't reward the batter for the fielder's mistake.
Then why is a misjudged fly ball counted as a hit? You've rewarded the batter for the fielder's mistake.ccrobinson said:No, it makes perfect sense. The batter should have been out. You don't reward the batter for the fielder's mistake.
ccrobinson
Active Member
Then why is a misjudged fly ball counted as a hit? You've rewarded the batter for the fielder's mistake.
From the official rules as posted on mlb.com:
ERRORS
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.
NOTE (1) Slow handling of the ball which does not involve mechanical misplay shall not be construed as an error.
NOTE (2) It is not necessary that the fielder touch the ball to be charged with an error. If a ground ball goes through a fielder’s legs or a pop fly falls untouched and in the scorer’s judgment the fielder could have handled the ball with ordinary effort, an error shall be charged.
NOTE (3) Mental mistakes or misjudgments are not to be scored as errors unless specifically covered in the rules.
Maybe you have an issue with note 3, but I don't. If Bobby Abreu loses the ball in the sun, should that be given the same consideration as if Alex Rodriguez makes a throw that sails 5 feet over the 1st basemen's head? I don't think so and I think note 3 makes allowances for just such events.
BTW, you didn't answer this question.
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?
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.
"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.
ccrobinson
Active Member
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.
You assume that every misjudgment is a mistake by the outfielder. However, if you've played the outfield enough, then you know that there are occasions where the ball is hit at just the right angle and it is nearly impossible to judge where it's going to land.
But the batter didn't make an out.
The point is that the batter should have made an out. If the shortstop/2nd basement/1st basement/etc hadn't misplayed the ball, he would have made an out. The batter earned an out, but didn't actually make the out because of somebody else's mistake.
the box score will show that 29 outs were made. But only 27 outs were actually made. That's inconsistent.
Outs by batter - errors + sacrifices = 27 outs in a 9 inning game
I don't see the problem here.
when the walk had nothing to do with the batter's skill but everything to do with the pticher's wildness.
A walk may be due to lack of control, but it is not limited to lack of control. The batter also has to have the discipline not to swing at pitches out of the strike zone.
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.
I think baseball has it right in regards to walks, errors, sacrifices, etc.
Andy T. said: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.
No, a batter works for a base on balls by maintaining disciplined watch and control, and a pitcher need not be "wild" to walk a batter. A skilled pitcher studies ever hitter he may face, and knows his abilities and tendencies, and the same for a batter to a pitcher. So a pitcher's aim may vary inches, or a half foot, depending on what the hitter tends to do with particularly located pitches, as well as different types of pitches. Pitchers are going to be more careful not to throw a belt-high fastball to Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, et al, than to a lesser known "contact hitter." Regardless, the batter's skill is largely anticipate and expect, and a hit is a successful effort, an out is a failing effort, a base-on-balls is neither, though it can be more one than the other. Anyway, that's baseball-- live with it, ignore it, or complain to the major leagues. I don't think any posters here can do anything about it.
And charging a batter with no at-bat because of being safe by error is 'rewarding' the batter unmeritedly. The less at-bats a hitter has, the higher his batting average.
"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:
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:
Last edited by a moderator: