3. This is the big one for me — the whole earned-unearned run thing is just part of the continuing effort to turn a team game into an individual game. Pitchers don’t win and lose games. Pitchers don’t give up runs by themselves. Pitchers don’t prevent runs by themselves.

But some pitchers do seem to prevent runs a lot better than other pitchers, even allowing for defense. And what person reading this doesn't understand that good defense is going to help a pitcher's individual line, and factor that into his view of the pitcher?

But, for more than 100 years, we have lived in a statistical world where they do, where pitchers are entirely responsible for runs allowed and shutouts and hits per innings pitched … and they cannot be held responsible if some dumb fielder botches the ball behind them.

Well, unless some pitchers defy the laws of probability and get blessed with great defenses for their entire careers, or cursed with dreadful ones, aren't those dumb fielder botches going to be spread (roughly) equally among the pitching population? And don't we have an entire army of sabermetricians who toil endless hours in their mothers' basements making us aware of all the hidden biases of traditional pitching stats, and pointing out which pitchers have been helped or hurt by their fielders?

Of course all Poz might mean is that Doris from Rego Park still worships raw ERA numbers, which is true, but isn't that kind of shooting fish in a barrel?

Of course all Poz might mean is that <strike>Doris from Rego Park</strike> Murray Chass still worships raw ERA numbers, which is true, but isn't that kind of shooting fish in a barrel?

Fixed (cough, cough)

Sadly (cough, cough) Doris from (cough, cough) Rego park passed away. I love some of those callers. I mean, Jerome is a legend!

Well, unless some pitchers defy the laws of probability and get blessed with great defenses for their entire careers, or cursed with dreadful ones, aren't those dumb fielder botches going to be spread (roughly) equally among the pitching population?

No. Ground-ball pitchers have a lot more errors behind them, and therefore unearned runs. That errors and unearned runs don't even out is one reason it's clear that pitchers do contribute to unearned runs. When using metrics that completely ignore unearned runs (like ERA, ERA+, etc.), ground-ball pitchers are overrated relative to fly-ball pitchers.

No. Ground-ball pitchers have a lot more errors behind them, and therefore unearned runs. That errors and unearned runs don't even out is one reason it's clear that pitchers do contribute to unearned runs. When using metrics that completely ignore unearned runs (like ERA, ERA+, etc.), ground-ball pitchers are overrated relative to fly-ball pitchers.

Good point to keep in mind, though that's a distinction best taken advantage of by teams with weak infield defenses, fast outfielders, and deep outfield fences.

Andy, all of your arguments work just as well for counting runs and ignoring earned/unearned. And if, as #3 points out, there is some link between pitchers and unearned runs surrendered, they'll be picked up in runs.

Really, Tango fought his battle to get ERA+ redefined -- although it seems to have gone back -- and I'd have probably preferred that he'd fought to have RA and RA+ added. Or was that all just a bad dream?

But it can't be that big a deal either way.

Passed balls contribute to unearned runs but not wild pitches.

This seems sensible to me (if we're going to distinguish earned and unearned runs) as one is the fault of the pitching and the other isn't. Now, whether scorekeepers should be deciding between passed balls and wild pitches (or do so correctly and consistently) is another question ... but not a very exciting one.

Past that, there's a clear bias in using earned runs that favors poor pitchers at the expense of good pitchers.

Why? Because (over a long enough period of time) bad pitchers will generally allow more unearned runs to score - the same way they allow more earned runs. A bad pitcher is more likely to allow a home run to drive in "unearned" runs; a good pitcher is more likely to get a strikeout and end the inning.

Any runs are as much about distribution of events as anything. In judging a pitcher's season it makes more sense than anything to forget about worrying how many runs of any kind a pitcher allowed, and just keep track of (a) the component events and (b) the number of runs those events would yield with normal distribution of events, which is what FIPS and such do. On an individual-game basis, though, I think earned and unearned makes sense in understanding what happened.

(Of course, there is some evidence--Javy Vazquez, cough, cough--that certain pitchers tend over multi-year periods to have their offensive events come in clusters for whatever reason. That might be reason to keep run-counting around.)

The percentage of unearned runs has decreased over the decades. They decreased at a very quick rate in the couple of decades of the 20th century, and started to level off by the 60's. But the trend has still continued downward.

Scoring is so different nowadays.

This seems sensible to me (if we're going to distinguish earned and unearned runs) as one is the fault of the pitching and the other isn't. Now, whether scorekeepers should be deciding between passed balls and wild pitches (or do so correctly and consistently) is another question ... but not a very exciting one.

There is no single, objective standard for the distinction between a wild pitch and a passed ball. Using that arbitrary distinction to help settle the already arbitrary distinction between earned and unearned runs... ugh.

And this is why I hate talking about "fault." Then you're recording your opinion of what SHOULD have happened, not just a description of what DID happen.

[4]

When using metrics that completely ignore unearned runs (like ERA, ERA+, etc.), ground-ball pitchers are overrated relative to fly-ball pitchers.

Okay, how about using OPS+? I think you'll find that ground-ball pitchers will still outperform fly-ball pitchers because of their tendency to surrender fewer HRs, etc.

To show any effect of unearned runs quantitatively, you could try to show that fly-ball pitchers with the same OPS as ground-ball pitchers tend to have higher ERAs.

There is no single, objective standard for the distinction between a wild pitch and a passed ball.

Not exactly, but there is largely a de facto one.

Ground-ball pitchers have a lot more errors behind them, and therefore unearned runs. That errors and unearned runs don't even out is one reason it's clear that pitchers do contribute to unearned runs. When using metrics that completely ignore unearned runs (like ERA, ERA+, etc.), ground-ball pitchers are overrated relative to fly-ball pitchers.

And knucklers allow more UER than one would expect as well. All those pesky passed balls.

and I'd have probably preferred that he'd fought to have RA and RA+ added. Or was that all just a bad dream?

I have that one even stronger than the ERA+ ERA# issue.

Just look at the unearned runs allowed by GB pitchers (Brandon Webb) and FB pitchers (Johan Santana). They don't even out. Not to mention the whole "all runs after 2-out errors don't count, but hits and walks do".

I'm with Pos on this one. Step One of the Monty Program is to eliminate Errors. Also Fielder's Choice. If you're safe, it was a hit. Take that, Fielding Percentage!

Actually, Pos doesn't take the eliminate errors position, and rightfully so. Errors have always played an important role in the story of baseball, and that's a hell of a lot more important than the bookkeeping of it.

Okay, how about using OPS+? I think you'll find that ground-ball pitchers will still outperform fly-ball pitchers because of their tendency to surrender fewer HRs, etc.

No, OPS+ has the same problem, where pitchers get credit for outs on errors behind them, even though some pitchers give up many more errors than others.

It's less pronounced with something like BA/OBP/SLG allowed than ERA, though, because the accounting rules make a larger fraction of the runs unearned than would a straight accounting of the run value of the errors. Tango gets at once case of this in #15 -- an unearned run is often a combination of an error and other hits/walks allowed; the pitcher's BA/OBP/SLG allowed will at least count those hits/walks, while ERA pretends the rest of the inning never happened.

And this is why I hate talking about "fault." Then you're recording your opinion of what SHOULD have happened, not just a description of what DID happen.

Right. I mean, we're looking at runs rather than peripherals because runs actually go up on the scoreboard. It seems odd to me to then use the scorer's judgment to construct innings without errors to figure out which runs to count.

No. Ground-ball pitchers have a lot more errors behind them, and therefore unearned runs. That errors and unearned runs don't even out is one reason it's clear that pitchers do contribute to unearned runs. When using metrics that completely ignore unearned runs (like ERA, ERA+, etc.), ground-ball pitchers are overrated relative to fly-ball pitchers.

Yes, although you left out another important consideration: strikeout pitchers. Fly balls provide less opportunity for error than ground balls do, but no ball in play = no opportunity for error (yeah, the catcher can drop the third strike), even less than a fly ball does.

Yes, although you left out another important consideration: strikeout pitchers. Fly balls provide less opportunity for error than ground balls do, but no ball in play = no opportunity for error (yeah, the catcher can drop the third strike), even less than a fly ball does.

Sure. That said, the groundball-flyball difference is more important. The error rate is near zero for both strikeouts and flyballs, and significantly higher for groundballs.

I looked at the NL's 2009 splits, which segments pitchers as groundball/neutral/flyball, and low-K/neutral/high-K. There's a much bigger range in ROE rate in the former breakdown than the latter (per 700 BF: 7.0/6.5/5.0, vs. 6.5/6.2/5.8). Flyball pitchers give up fewer errors and unearned runs -- to a greater extent than strikeout pitchers do.

This seems sensible to me (if we're going to distinguish earned and unearned runs) as one is the fault of the pitching and the other isn't.

Then why is a run that scores due to a fielding/throwing error by the pitcher unearned? That one's always stuck in my craw since I was a kid (And I'm talking about a situation in which the runner that scores is the responsibility of the same pitcher who commits the error).

The percentage of unearned runs has decreased over the decades. They decreased at a very quick rate in the couple of decades of the 20th century, and started to level off by the 60's. But the trend has still continued downward.

Scoring is so different nowadays.

Part of this is scoring, but part of it is the gloves being used. Have you ever seen the gloves they used at the turn of the century? Small things, no webbing (which supposedly didn't come in until the 20s). So it's unfair to compare error rates, it's apples and oranges.

If you're safe, it was a hit.

And any runs that score on passed balls or wild pitches while you're at the plate are RBI.

I just realized that Monty is nine years old. ;-)

why is a run that scores due to a fielding/throwing error by the pitcher unearned?

What's wrong with drawing a distinction between the guy's pitching and his fielding?

Have you ever seen the gloves they used at the turn of the century?

Not to mention the general condition of the playing field. We've become used to baseball-only parks with meticulously maintained grass and infields that have all their imperfections removed. But it's only been that way in relatively recent times. It wasn't that long ago when in multi-use stadiums like Baltimore and Oakland, you had to contend to huge patches of outfield that were little better than swamps, and rock-hard infields that were littered with pebbles. Not to mention that before the modern featherweight tarpaulin came along sometime in the 60's, it would take up to 15 minutes to cover a field during a rain delay, with a canvas tarp that absorbed as much water as it repelled, making it all but impossible to use the second time around in the same day. There's a reason beyond sheer owners' greed that there are so few rainouts today compared to The Good Old Days™.

Who Are You To Decide What’s Unearned?

That's what the IRS asks me every April.

why is a run that scores due to a fielding/throwing error by the pitcher unearned?

What's wrong with drawing a distinction between the guy's pitching and his fielding?

To my 8-year old mind, the situation didn't comport with the plain meaning of "earned" (and still doesn't). The pitcher put the runner on base and subsequently made/failed to make the play that either caused the runner to score or would have prevented him from scoring. To me, the pitcher "earned" that run and it should count against his record.

To my 8-year old mind, the situation didn't comport with the plain meaning of "earned" (and still doesn't). The pitcher put the runner on base and subsequently made/failed to make the play that either caused the runner to score or would have prevented him from scoring. To me, the pitcher "earned" that run and it should count against his record.

If you view the runs that way, then yes. But if you think of it from the offensive's standpoint _ was the run scored earned by the offensive unit or was it unearned as the result of defensive shenanigans? _ then there's no reason to make a distinction between pitcher errors and those of his teammates. I always looked at it from the latter POV, because earned always struck me as more of a positive verb, and thus I was crediting the offense for the earned run rather than debiting the pitcher for the same.

the situation didn't comport with the plain meaning of "earned"

Except for the fact that the "plain meaning" has always been that the offense deserved to score the runs. Not that the pitcher had "earned" the blame for them.

EDIT: further, pitchers are not traditionally absolved of blame for unearned runs; they get charged with losses and blown saves even if the decisive runs are unearned.