Forcing an unearned run

[OhioTex]

Again another example of the complications in earn unearned run assignments... And why
FTM has said future release ( no time table given) will Give scorer more flexibility on assigning/ unassigning earned and unearned runs and over ruling auto assignments.

[FTMSupport]

Our next release (v2.80) will actually allow editing of the stats post game, so you will be able to change the Earned vs Unearned runs on pitchers manually if you feel iScore has identified something wrong.

[brentwalker]

If a runner advances ON an error (e.g. Right Fielder fumbles a ball or misses a cutoff man etc, thus allowing a runner to advance to third instead of staying at second), then the runner is still eligible to be earned. We currently always treat Batters making it to base as "because of", and runners advancing bases as "on the error". In a future release, we will allow selecting one or the other, and do ERA calculations accordingly.

So, what you are saying is:
1. Craig hits a single but advances to second because right fielder fumbles the ball a bit.
2. Scott hits a double to left field which scores Craig.

Your saying that this is an earned run? I would say IMO that the error (fumbling the ball) by the right fielder allowed Craig to advance to a forward base improving his ability to score. Had the fumble not occurred, the double recorded by Scott would have allowed Craig to advance from first base to third base, NOT to home plate. It is for these reasons that it should be recorded as UN-earned.

I'm not seeing the subtle difference between the two descriptions you provided. I cannot recall the exact wording but I remember reading that it is the defenses primary responsibility to prevent a team from scoring runs which implies moving from base to base absent of a "advanced by batter" situation. In these cases an error should be recorded and runs then credited as un-earned. I'll try to locate the rule I am describing, just can't find it at the moment.

Edited:
10.12 Errors
An error is a statistic charged against a fielder whose action has assisted the team on offense, as set forth in this Rule 10.12.
(a) The official scorer shall charge an error against any fielder:
(1) whose misplay (fumble, muff or wild throw) prolongs the time at bat of a batter, prolongs the presence on the bases of a runner or permits a runner to advance one or more bases, unless, in the judgment of the official scorer, such fielder deliberately permits a foul fly to fall safe with a runner on third base before two are out in order that the runner on third shall not score after the catch.

[coop85]

Brent,
So is it your assertion that once any error is made on a batter/runner, the subsequent run scored by that runner should be unearned? Or am I misunderstanding your position? If we take it to the extreme:

What if a batter hits a single no outs, and advances to second on an overthrow by the 3rd baseman (e5). The next batter hits a homerun. I believe both earned.
What if a batter reaches on an error, no outs. Batter 2 hits a double to the right field corner, but because batter 1 was going (hit and run), is able to easily score? I believe earned run.

I think it has to be up to the judgement of the scorekeeper to recreate the inning with no errors or passed balls and assign earned/unearned accordingly.

[coop85]

Please disregard my second example above! Of course if a runner reaches on an error, there can't be an earned run. My point (poorly made!) is that whether or not a runner can advance one, two or three bases on a given hit should be left to the discretion of the scorekeeper and cannot be made into a neat and tidy rule.

[brentwalker]

Brent,
So is it your assertion that once any error is made on a batter/runner, the subsequent run scored by that runner should be unearned? Or am I misunderstanding your position? If we take it to the extreme:

No, you reiterate my belief below when you state...

I think it has to be up to the judgement of the scorekeeper to recreate the inning with no errors or passed balls and assign earned/unearned accordingly.

What if a batter hits a single no outs, and advances to second on an overthrow by the 3rd baseman (e5). The next batter hits a home run. I believe both earned.

I believe in this case because of the home run, yes both would be earned runs. Only because the HR would have cleared the bases regardless of any prior errors and bases held as a result of a previous error.

What if a batter reaches on an error, no outs. Batter 2 hits a double to the right field corner, but because batter 1 was going (hit and run), is able to easily score? I believe earned run.

In this case, (I am assuming you have the 1st batter on 2B when the double occurred), I would argue that had the original error not occurred, the runner would have been on 1B and likely not to score from first on a double. Triple most likely but not a double IMO.

It all comes down to for me what was the hit, single, double, triple, or HR and in my judgment would prior runners had scored during the inning had there been no errors.

[FTMSupport]

To clarify the distinction:

Runner on first base attempts to steal second base. He reaches second base and is safe because of an error (e.g. if shortstop had held on to the ball, the runner would have been OUT). In this case, that runner should never be eligible to be an earned run (even if the next batter hits a home run) because he should have been out.

Second example. Same runner on first base, but an error occurs somewhere on the field (mis-throw or bad fielding or whatever), and the runner advances to second ON the error (as opposed to being safe because of the error), but would not have been out had the error not occurred (he would have just stayed at first base). In this case, the runner is still eligible to be an earned run --- if the next batter hits a home run, this runner is still earned.

What we do not currently allow that would be required to change our earned vs unearned calculation is a way to distinguish between the two ways the runners advanced bases. Both are during an occurrence of an error, but the impact of the error is different (one should have been an out, and one just allowed a runner to advance who otherwise would not have advanced). Both are an error, but they have different impacts on the eligibility of whether the run can still be earned or not.

This is not going to be an easy concept for people to grasp (it is not even easy to explain), but for people who are very focused on stats, it is an important distinction.

[coop85]

I'm still not sure this would help all situations. And as you mention, the on vs. because distinction is not intuitive and will probably lead to more confusion with the average user.
Also, it doesn't address the issue of the "value" of hits. I'll try an example
Batter one hits a double and advances to third because the outfielder muffs the throw. Batter two beats out an infield single and batter one scores. The runner would probably not score from second and the next three strike out. Should be unearned. However, a single to right field almost surely scores him from second: earned run. The same goes for doubles from first. If the batter is VERY slow and can only reach second on a ball hit to the wall, the runner on first probably would score from first whereas a hard line drive to the gap that the outfielder fields cleanly and comes up throwing probably doesn't score the runner on first.

The only way I see to accurately (accuracy being in the eyes of the scorekeeper after all) assign earned/unearned is to have on override screen between innings (part of the rumored inning recap screen perhaps!). Since iScore currently does an excellent job at assigning the vast majority of earned runs, there could be a button on the recap screen simply labelled "earned runs". If someone was so inclined, a press on the button would bring up a play-by-play for just that half-inning with the iScore assigned earned/unearned label next to each run scored. The scorekeeper could replay the inning mentally (or refer to the notes the scorekeeper made to themselves after the play which are now part of the play-by-play) and overide if needed the assigned ruling. Once again, this would be completely optional and would avoid the on vs. because distinction. Once the game is complete, the earned/unearned assignments would be part of the play-by-play available for editing in case there wasn't enough time between innings to reach a determination.

[FTMSupport]

You are correct... there are always going to be cases where it is scorekeeper's judgment and iScore can only do its best to guess at the correct result.

The next release does in fact allow modifying earned vs unearned runs for pitchers, so you will be able to override the iScore defaults.

We would still prefer to have iScore get enough information to make the correct choices as often as possible because we know that allowing stats overrides are going to lead to support issues. In fact, our guess is that for the average user, iScore gets earned vs unearned correct in many cases that users THINK is wrong but it is not. We have to explain the scoring rules all the time (as all of you have helped do as well in these threads), and the overrides are probably going to lead to more incorrect decisions by scorekeepers than correct ones. Many of the folks in this forum are the exception to that rule in that you are posting because you do know and understand some of the intricacies of scorekeeping, but the average user does not (there are some crazy rules out there).

By way of example, one very common mistake that we get questioned on all the time is a fly ball to the outfield that allows a runner to advance from second to third, and the scorekeeper wants that to count as a Sacrifice Fly. It is only a Sacrifice Fly if the runner scores, and iScore enforces that (even if you try and assign a Sac Fly). When overrides are enabled, we are going to see many people incorrectly overriding iScore. It will be their decision to do so, but it is still wrong.

Anyway, that is off topic a bit, but we do want you to know that the ability to override Earned vs Unearned runs is on the way, and it will only be as valid as the person entering the data.

[brentwalker]

Amen to the issues/concern over data integrity when overrides are enabled. I hope you are increasing your support staff ahead of time.