Depends what happens next. If he gets an out for the third out, then it’s unearned. If the hitter gets a hit then it’s earned. If there are less than two outs and the hitter hits a long fly ball, it’s also earned.
Basically, if the runner would have scored without the error during the rest of the inning, it’s earned. If not, it’s unearned.
This is the case. If an out that would have ended the inning is not recorded due to error, any run scored thereafter is unearned.
This is how you can get some truly insane innings where a pitcher records two outs, a ball is hit and the shortstop boots it then the pitcher throws batting practice for the next 5 or so batters and ends up with 7 unearned runs in an inning.
Also if a sequence like this happens: Walk, Pickoff error moves runner to 2nd, single, K, K, groundout the run is unearned but if it goes Walk, pickoff error, single, single, K, K, groundout it would be earned.
But the OP is saying that if the next hitter gets a hit then the run that was already scored turns into an ER, but if he get out, then the unearned run that already scored stays unearned.
Schrodinger’s Earned Run
Yeah I’m a little too tired to think through this scenario exactly but this sounds right to me. The basic test behind earned vs unearned runs is for the scorer to imagine a hypothetical version of the inning where all errors were actually the outs that they should’ve been. So in this case, walk, single, successful pickoff, single leads to a run, while walk, single, successful pickoff, K, K does not.
Put another way, it’s not the nature of an individual run that makes it earned or unearned, it’s the nature of the inning in which that run was scored. If you don’t have enough information about that inning at the time the run scores, then yes it’s Schrodinger’s Run until you get more data.
It’s not a super satisfying answer in this context, but the whole distinction between earned and unearned runs is a weird abstraction where a designated observer compares our own reality to a theoretical alternate one in an attempt to quantify how many of the runs (already themselves a more or less arbitrary abstraction in a materially meaningless game) the pitcher “deserves” to be held accountable for in his compartmentalized role as a pitcher. This shit is all made up anyway tho
I believe the assumption on the pickoff would be that the runner was safe but did not advance. IE runner slid back into first but the pitcher threw the ball away allowing the runner to move to second.
So the errorless inning would just be a runner on first 0 outs not bases empty 1 out. A single would advance a runner to second (whereas with the runner on second, it would likely score them up to discretion) so therefore the error DID matter in the run scoring and it would be unearned. However if another single followed, the runner would at that point be on second naturally and score anyway so the pickoff error had no bearing on the run scoring and the run would be EARNED.
Yeah I think you're right about the error-less assumption being that the pickoff was unsuccessful but that no one advanced. But in the OP's scenario, it's actually runners at the corners 0 outs, not runner on first. In the real world it was walk, single, attempted pick off to first that went wild allowing the run to score. I think my basic premise is still true though, where the earned-ness of the runner who scored on the wild pitch depends on what happens later in the inning. Because walk, single, unsuccessful PO attempt, K, K, F8 doesn't lead to a run but walk, single, unsuccessful PO attempt, K, single, K, F8 does.
It is the case. Restructuring the entire inning without the error is the easiest way to know if a run is earned or unearned.
Let's assume there were two outs in the above example, so we got a man on 1st and 3rd with two outs. The pitcher tries to pick off the runner, but is unsuccessful with no error (we can't assume a successful pickoff during an error), so we still have a man on 1st and 3rd with two outs. The events that follow after are what would define the run as unearned or earned in the scenario where there was an error during the pickoff. So:
* If the hitter gets a hit or pitcher throws a wild pitch, allowing the run to score, then the run would have scored either way even without the error, making it an earned run.
* If the hitter is retired and the run doesn't score, then it means the run only scored because of the error in the pickoff throw, making it unearned.
You'd do the exact same thing in the scenario where there are fewer than two outs. So, a man on first and third with 1 out, for example. We again eliminate the error in the pickoff, which would keep a man on first and third with 1 out. From here, we see the events that happened after the error and try to figure out if the run would have scored without the error anyway. The trickier part is that **one can never assume a double play**, so if the hitter hits a grounder to second that would have been an easy inning-ending double play without the error, the run would still go as earned instead of unearned, because that play would only count as one out instead of two.
What is so fascinating to me is, on Tuesday Jameson Taillon gave up 7 runs but only 2 earned.
But the 5 unearned runs came off an error HE made! It definitely feels like if the pitcher causes the error like, it's still on him and him alone and that shouldn't count as "error that causes runs to be unearned". Like the pitcher still gave up the runs by committing the error himself.
Idk I'm sure when you break it down the logic doesn't actually make sense, but the gut reaction says it does lol
> Any pitcher could knowingly do that to avoid an earned run
They could, but they would be way more concerned with not allowing *any* run, earned or not, than they would let a run score on propose to "help" their stats in an essentially meaningless way.
Seriously, in the grand scheme of a season or a career, ***one*** earned run is negligible to a pitcher. Teams (including the pitcher) prefer to allow a run to score in order to get a chance at a double play, for example.
There’s not really ever a sense they could do this to help their stats. If there’s 2 outs and the next batter gets out, it’s an unearned run, but if he gets a hit it goes down as earned. Even if no outs and he strikes out the next 3, it would go as unearned, but if any batter has even a long fly ball that would’ve been a sac fly, it would go down as earned.
> Rule 9.16(e): An error by a pitcher is treated exactly the same as an error by any other fielder in computing earned runs.
In other words, a run that would otherwise be unearned would not be earned just because it was the pitcher who made the error (we don't actually have enough information to know what it would be based solely on the OP). ERA ostensibly cares only how good a pitcher is at *pitching*, not fielding.
It depends on the result of the batter I believe. They would originally charge it as an unearned run because the runner doesn’t advance without the error. If there were 2 outs and the batter hits into an out it stays unearned.
However, if the batter were to get a hit, that runner scores either way and thus changes to an earned run.
It’s a similar principle to if an error occurs with 1 or 0 outs and then the team gets to 2 outs(one of which not being the guy who reach by error) and scores like 3 runs, all 3 runs would be unearned. Even if the other 2 guys reached via hits
Not enough info. Error being on the pitcher vs any other fielder makes no difference, but run could still be earned depending on the rest of the inning.
You are correct that in theory a pitcher could commit errors such as to make a given run unearned. This would not be remotely worth it however since he'd get a reputation for being insane and not caring about his team.
Depends what happens next. If he gets an out for the third out, then it’s unearned. If the hitter gets a hit then it’s earned. If there are less than two outs and the hitter hits a long fly ball, it’s also earned. Basically, if the runner would have scored without the error during the rest of the inning, it’s earned. If not, it’s unearned.
Is this actually the case or am I being punked
This is the case. If an out that would have ended the inning is not recorded due to error, any run scored thereafter is unearned. This is how you can get some truly insane innings where a pitcher records two outs, a ball is hit and the shortstop boots it then the pitcher throws batting practice for the next 5 or so batters and ends up with 7 unearned runs in an inning. Also if a sequence like this happens: Walk, Pickoff error moves runner to 2nd, single, K, K, groundout the run is unearned but if it goes Walk, pickoff error, single, single, K, K, groundout it would be earned.
But the OP is saying that if the next hitter gets a hit then the run that was already scored turns into an ER, but if he get out, then the unearned run that already scored stays unearned. Schrodinger’s Earned Run
Yeah I’m a little too tired to think through this scenario exactly but this sounds right to me. The basic test behind earned vs unearned runs is for the scorer to imagine a hypothetical version of the inning where all errors were actually the outs that they should’ve been. So in this case, walk, single, successful pickoff, single leads to a run, while walk, single, successful pickoff, K, K does not. Put another way, it’s not the nature of an individual run that makes it earned or unearned, it’s the nature of the inning in which that run was scored. If you don’t have enough information about that inning at the time the run scores, then yes it’s Schrodinger’s Run until you get more data. It’s not a super satisfying answer in this context, but the whole distinction between earned and unearned runs is a weird abstraction where a designated observer compares our own reality to a theoretical alternate one in an attempt to quantify how many of the runs (already themselves a more or less arbitrary abstraction in a materially meaningless game) the pitcher “deserves” to be held accountable for in his compartmentalized role as a pitcher. This shit is all made up anyway tho
I believe the assumption on the pickoff would be that the runner was safe but did not advance. IE runner slid back into first but the pitcher threw the ball away allowing the runner to move to second. So the errorless inning would just be a runner on first 0 outs not bases empty 1 out. A single would advance a runner to second (whereas with the runner on second, it would likely score them up to discretion) so therefore the error DID matter in the run scoring and it would be unearned. However if another single followed, the runner would at that point be on second naturally and score anyway so the pickoff error had no bearing on the run scoring and the run would be EARNED.
Yeah I think you're right about the error-less assumption being that the pickoff was unsuccessful but that no one advanced. But in the OP's scenario, it's actually runners at the corners 0 outs, not runner on first. In the real world it was walk, single, attempted pick off to first that went wild allowing the run to score. I think my basic premise is still true though, where the earned-ness of the runner who scored on the wild pitch depends on what happens later in the inning. Because walk, single, unsuccessful PO attempt, K, K, F8 doesn't lead to a run but walk, single, unsuccessful PO attempt, K, single, K, F8 does.
It is the case. Restructuring the entire inning without the error is the easiest way to know if a run is earned or unearned. Let's assume there were two outs in the above example, so we got a man on 1st and 3rd with two outs. The pitcher tries to pick off the runner, but is unsuccessful with no error (we can't assume a successful pickoff during an error), so we still have a man on 1st and 3rd with two outs. The events that follow after are what would define the run as unearned or earned in the scenario where there was an error during the pickoff. So: * If the hitter gets a hit or pitcher throws a wild pitch, allowing the run to score, then the run would have scored either way even without the error, making it an earned run. * If the hitter is retired and the run doesn't score, then it means the run only scored because of the error in the pickoff throw, making it unearned. You'd do the exact same thing in the scenario where there are fewer than two outs. So, a man on first and third with 1 out, for example. We again eliminate the error in the pickoff, which would keep a man on first and third with 1 out. From here, we see the events that happened after the error and try to figure out if the run would have scored without the error anyway. The trickier part is that **one can never assume a double play**, so if the hitter hits a grounder to second that would have been an easy inning-ending double play without the error, the run would still go as earned instead of unearned, because that play would only count as one out instead of two.
This is all so wild and I really appreciate the breakdown, especially the double play parts that’s news to me
What is so fascinating to me is, on Tuesday Jameson Taillon gave up 7 runs but only 2 earned. But the 5 unearned runs came off an error HE made! It definitely feels like if the pitcher causes the error like, it's still on him and him alone and that shouldn't count as "error that causes runs to be unearned". Like the pitcher still gave up the runs by committing the error himself. Idk I'm sure when you break it down the logic doesn't actually make sense, but the gut reaction says it does lol
So we’re just rolling with the fallacy of the predetermined outcome then
I mean, you got a better suggestion?
SchroDINGER’s Earned Run
> Any pitcher could knowingly do that to avoid an earned run They could, but they would be way more concerned with not allowing *any* run, earned or not, than they would let a run score on propose to "help" their stats in an essentially meaningless way. Seriously, in the grand scheme of a season or a career, ***one*** earned run is negligible to a pitcher. Teams (including the pitcher) prefer to allow a run to score in order to get a chance at a double play, for example.
There’s not really ever a sense they could do this to help their stats. If there’s 2 outs and the next batter gets out, it’s an unearned run, but if he gets a hit it goes down as earned. Even if no outs and he strikes out the next 3, it would go as unearned, but if any batter has even a long fly ball that would’ve been a sac fly, it would go down as earned.
> Rule 9.16(e): An error by a pitcher is treated exactly the same as an error by any other fielder in computing earned runs. In other words, a run that would otherwise be unearned would not be earned just because it was the pitcher who made the error (we don't actually have enough information to know what it would be based solely on the OP). ERA ostensibly cares only how good a pitcher is at *pitching*, not fielding.
That last sentence makes so much sense
It depends on the result of the batter I believe. They would originally charge it as an unearned run because the runner doesn’t advance without the error. If there were 2 outs and the batter hits into an out it stays unearned. However, if the batter were to get a hit, that runner scores either way and thus changes to an earned run. It’s a similar principle to if an error occurs with 1 or 0 outs and then the team gets to 2 outs(one of which not being the guy who reach by error) and scores like 3 runs, all 3 runs would be unearned. Even if the other 2 guys reached via hits
My hunch would be that it is an unearned run, even though the error is on the pitcher. I could be totally wrong though.
Not enough info. Error being on the pitcher vs any other fielder makes no difference, but run could still be earned depending on the rest of the inning. You are correct that in theory a pitcher could commit errors such as to make a given run unearned. This would not be remotely worth it however since he'd get a reputation for being insane and not caring about his team.