Talk:Earned run

Untitled

I'm watching the Giants-Padres game. With no outs, Bonds popped a ball up that Piazza should have had, but Piazza dropped it. In the same at-bat, Bonds homered. Is his run earned? Nothing in the current article says otherwise (he didn't reach base on the error, though he wouldn't have reached base without it; also, the error did not extend the inning). If Bonds' run was unearned, what about the run scored by the runner on first when Bonds homered? --Trovatore 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If the official scorer ruled the muffed pop fly as an error, the run is not earned. Refer to Rule 10.18(b) This link will take you there. http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_scorer_10.jsp Ken

Thanks. Maybe you'd like to add that info to the article. --Trovatore 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New Question

Batter 1 reaches first on an error. Batter 2 grounds to the second baseman, and he gets the out at second, but they don't manage to turn two. Now if batter 2 comes around to score, is that run earned? Reading the article it seems like it would be, but he wouldn't likely be on base if not for the error. MookieZ 22:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You can never assume a double play i.e. not turning one, no matter how easy, is not an error. I understand that doesn't totally answer the question, because if there was no double play to turn, the out at first would obviously have been easier. Still, and this is just an assumption, I think it would be an earned run. Clemenjo 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A double play can NEVER be assumed, especially under these two conditions: that the fielder (typically a first baseman) muffs a thrown ball from another fielder that if handled with ordinary effort would retire the baserunner (likely the batter) approaching his base, or that fielder's interference prevents a baserunner from advancing or retreating to a base that he must either reach or return to safely to avoid being put out. Thus with one out, runners Andrews on third and Brown on first, Carson hits a hard ground ball to shortstop Zimmerman, who throws the ball to Young (who tags second base with his foot and retires Brown cleanly. Young then makes a clean throw to first baseman White, who should be able to catch the thrown ball with usual effort to retire Carson, who would not beat the throw to first base without a misplay. Andrews scores an unearned run. Likewise, with runner Andrews on second, Andrews takes off for third base as Baker hits a line drive to the shortstop Zimmerman. Baker is out on the ball caught before it reaches the ground (first out) if he does not return to second base should Zimmerman make a clean throw to the second baseman (Young) -- which Zimmerman makes. Should Young, the second baseman, fail to catch a throw from Zimmerman that Young should catch with ordinary effort while in position to tag second base before Andrews can return (Young must be in position to do so), then a double play can be assumed.

Fielder's interference can also prevent a presumed double play. Andrews on first base, Baker batting, the first baseman White bumps into Andrews and knocks him down, preventing Andrews from reaching second base; the umpire rules interference, and Andrews is awarded second base, but not before the shortstop Zimmerman fields a ground ball, throws it to Young for what should be an out at second with ordinary effort, and then Young throws the ball to White, who catches the ball and makes a clean play to retire Baker. Baker is out, and Andrews would be out except for fielder's interference.

These scenarios are rare, but possible.

The second out in a likely double play cannot be assumed if no throw is made to a subsequent base, a wild throw is made, if the fielder is not in obvious position to make a clean play that results in a sure out. Any doubt precludes the assumption of a double play.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another question here besides assuming a double play. Abel reaches base on an error. Baker hits a grounder on which Abel is forced out at second and Baker is safe at first. The runner's identity has changed, but not the pitcher's responsibility (or rather, lack of responsibility). Due to someone's error, we still have a runner on base who shouldn't be there, and if he scores, the pitcher is not held responsible. The rule says that you charge a pitcher for the number of runners he puts on base, not for specific runners.

Say that, to start an inning, pitcher Adams gives up a clean single to batter Abel. Adams is replaced on the mound by Brown. Brown gets Baker to hit into a force out. Adams is still responsible for a runner, in this case for the runner at first. If Baker eventually scores, that run (which may or may not be earned by this time) is charged to Adams. Brown got an out, which is all that is expected of him at this point. The fact that the runner's identity changed doesn't get Adams off the hook. If Brown puts any more men on and they score, those will be charged to him.WHPratt (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "In a few cases, an error can be rendered harmless while the inning is still going on. For example, a runner on first base advances to second on a passed ball. The next batter walks. Since the runner would now have been at second anyway, the passed ball no longer has any impact on the earned/unearned calculation."

That's a good example of an injustice that the rules can't quite handle. If the runner who advanced on the passed ball represented the winning run, the pitcher might well walk the next batter intentionally in an attempt to get out of the predicament. You can hardly claim that the passed ball was inconsequential, but it is now out of the picture so far as official scoring is concerned. You have to accept these things.WHPratt (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"A baserunner scores by any means after the third out would have been made except for an error other than catcher's interference."

This is confusingly worded, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Catcher's interference, it seems, it treated like any other error for baserunners reaching... in other words the runner is now generally considered unearned, but there is no assumption that he would have been out, but the way this is worded has me thinking of weird scenarios... bases loaded, one of those runners reached on an error on what would have been the third out and then the catcher commits catcher's interference forcing home a run. That run would be unearned, according to my understanding of the rule, but the way this is worded it seems to imply (and I don't think it means to imply this) that it would be an earned run. Nacoran (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)