ClutchFans - Adam Everett statistical oddity

studogg

04-20-2006, 09:27 AM

Shades of Craig Reynolds. Currently Everett's OBP (.315) is less than his batting average (.321). That's not easy to do.

I noticed that earlier. Leads me to the conclusion that once his hot streak ends, he'll be giving it to us in the poop shoot offensively.

But damn he's a great fielder.

geeimsobored

04-20-2006, 09:27 AM

Shades of Craig Reynolds. Currently Everett's OBP (.315) is less than his batting average (.321). That's not easy to do.

how do you pull that off?

bobrek

04-20-2006, 09:30 AM

and i bought an Adam Everett player t-shirt the other night at the game. so there.

Personally, I think Everett has been the most underrated and unfairly maligned player on the team the past few years. His defense is so great, game in and game out, that he is taken for granted. He gets to everything and his occasional error tends to be the throw that gets away from him.

One other note. Berkman's first base defense has been outstanding so far this year.

bobrek

04-20-2006, 09:31 AM

how do you pull that off?

More sacrifices than walks+HBP.

kaleidosky

04-20-2006, 09:35 AM

One other note. Berkman's first base defense has been outstanding so far this year.

Not to go too far from the thread topic, but I agree and disagree here. He's been average I think for the most part. Sometimes he's making plays look better than they should because he's falling trying to get to balls or he's a little slow getting over in the hole. One or 2 times he's had situations where it's showed that he's slightly out of practice compared to someone who's been playing the position day-in-and-out for the last 4 years. I think those things will improve, but they're not there yet imo.

Jugdish

04-20-2006, 10:15 AM

More sacrifices than walks+HBP.

I still don't understand. He has no walks, and I assume he has no HBPs, so his OBP should be the same as his batting average, I would have thought. How exactly do sacrifices come into play?

bobrek

04-20-2006, 10:28 AM

I still don't understand. He has no walks, and I assume he has no HBPs, so his OBP should be the same as his batting average, I would have thought. How exactly do sacrifices come into play?

On base percentage is a reflection of how often you get on base without making an out and is based on total plate appearances.

Assume you have come to the plate 10 times. In those 10 appearances you have 3 hits, 1 walk and 6 Ks. Your average is .333 (3 hits/9 "official" plate appearances). Your OBP is .400 (4 times on base/10 "total" plate appearances).

Using the same example, except instead of a walk, you hit a sacrifice fly. Your average remains at .333 since the SF does not count as an "official" at bat, however the SF is factored into "total" plate appearances so your OBP is .300 (3 hits/10 total plate appearances).

ArtV

04-20-2006, 10:29 AM

More sacrifices than walks+HBP.
Sac flys count as a hit?

KaiSeR SoZe

04-20-2006, 10:31 AM

baseball has WAY too many stats

Jugdish

04-20-2006, 10:32 AM

Using the same example, except instead of a walk, you hit a sacrifice fly. Your average remains at .333 since the SF does not count as an "official" at bat, however the SF is factored into "total" plate appearances so your OBP is .300 (3 hits/10 total plate appearances).

Thanks. I forgot sacrifices didn't count as ABs.

What an oddity!

bobrek

04-20-2006, 10:34 AM

Sac flys count as a hit?

Nope. Sacrifices are NOT figured into "official" plate appearances so they are NOT counted negatively towards a batting average. Sacrifices ARE figured into total plate appearances so they ARE counted negatively towards on-base percentage.

Jugdish

04-20-2006, 10:56 AM

baseball has WAY too many stats

I guess asking if you subscribe to Baseball Prospectus is a stupid question then.

Nope. Sacrifices are NOT figured into "official" plate appearances so they are NOT counted negatively towards a batting average. Sacrifices ARE figured into total plate appearances so they ARE counted negatively towards on-base percentage.

Replace the first "plate appearances" with "at-bats" before everyone's head explodes!

Raven Lunatic

04-20-2006, 11:42 AM

kaleidosky

04-20-2006, 11:48 AM

Not to derail the thread, but I don't see how anyone could seriously think that Berkman's defense has been just average so far this season. His range to his right side is ridiculous, partly due to being left handed, I'm sure, but also because he is really spry on his feet for a guy his size (although he does seem much more trim this year than in seasons past). Berkman's excellent range to his right and Everett's ridiculous range up the middle greatly help compensate for what range Biggio has lost in his advancing years.

Maybe I'm just comparing to Bagwell's good years when I think of people saying how great he's been.. but I feel like he's just had a few too many times where I feel like he should've already been in position rather than falling/diving for the ball. And a few too many times where he should've come up with the play but didn't.. just my opinion. I think he'll be fine (and above average) by the midway point of this year, but I don't think he's there yeti s all.

rocketfat

04-20-2006, 12:19 PM

Tb-Cain

04-20-2006, 12:19 PM

Bottom line - he needs to find a way to get hit more often. :D

ArtV

04-20-2006, 12:46 PM

Nope. Sacrifices are NOT figured into "official" plate appearances so they are NOT counted negatively towards a batting average. Sacrifices ARE figured into total plate appearances so they ARE counted negatively towards on-base percentage.

Thanks - now I understand.

bobrek

04-20-2006, 01:11 PM

let me add one more player's defense to the mix....one morgan ensberg. the guy absolutely blossomed defensively the 2nd half of last season. he's made a few errors this season, but in my opinion has turned into an elite fielding 3rd baseman.

Ensberg is fine with the glove, but he has problems with his throws. He already has 5 errors and they seem to all be on throws.

bobrek

04-20-2006, 01:16 PM

Not to derail the thread, but I don't see how anyone could seriously think that Berkman's defense has been just average so far this season. His range to his right side is ridiculous, partly due to being left handed, I'm sure, but also because he is really spry on his feet for a guy his size (although he does seem much more trim this year than in seasons past). Berkman's excellent range to his right and Everett's ridiculous range up the middle greatly help compensate for what range Biggio has lost in his advancing years.

I agree. I have seen a few times already where Berkman has made plays ranging far to his right that Biggio could have made. In addition, he has made some laser-like throws across the diamond. It is a skill that has been missing (unfortunately) the past few years.

His foot work around the bag is the only drawback I have seen and it has been minimal. For example, I think he should have saved Ensberg an error 2 or 3 games ago. In actuality, he may have but the umpire got the call wrong. Had he displayed better footwork, he probably would have gotten the out call. It is a minimal concern, because it will only get better as he becomes more familiar.

All that being said, did anyone catch Berkman downing a swallowful of sunflower seeds or some sort of nuts while holding a runner on Monday or Tuesday night?

don grahamleone

04-20-2006, 02:50 PM

geeimsobored

04-20-2006, 02:54 PM

Ensberg is fine with the glove, but he has problems with his throws. He already has 5 errors and they seem to all be on throws.

Statistically over the last few years, he has been one of the better third basemen defensively. He'll get better and get back to form as the season moves on. I think we forget that third basemen generally will get more errors than the average player because their throws are so far and because they have the least time to get it off since they are so far away from first.

Buck Turgidson

04-20-2006, 03:03 PM

When he got caught before reaching 2nd, his batting average was not effected, but his OBP for getting to 1st base was erased.
I don't think that's correct.

macalu

04-20-2006, 03:29 PM

A couple of years ago Soriano had the same thing. He would try to stretch out all of his singles into doubles. When he got caught before reaching 2nd, his batting average was not effected, but his OBP for getting to 1st base was erased. He did that so many times that his batting average was higher than his OBP. He didn't get many walks at that time either.

OBP does not take total bases into it's calculation. it's basically how many times you reached 1st base divided by your total plate appearance. trying for 2nd and getting caught is irrelevant. his batting avg, on the hand, would go up regardless if he got caught or not at 2nd.

Nick

04-20-2006, 03:44 PM

OBP is the most VITAL of all individual offensive statistics... read Moneyball if you need the full explanation.

But, basically, its the likelihood that this certain player makes an out per every time he steps to the plate... if a team has a OBP of 1.000, they will score an infinite amount of runs because nobody will ever get out (whereas if a team has a slugging percentage of 1.000, it doesn't mean the same thing).

And for the amount of crap that Ausmus takes, he's got the second highest OBP on the team... and he's been a consistent batter ever since the second half of last year, onwards.

Also, I know people will come back with OPS as a more vital stat... which in many ways is true (if player x as a higher OPS than player y... yes, player x is the better batter)... but it's a flawed stat in the fact that it gives equal weight to OBP and Slugging, which is not the case (According to Paul Depodesta's model, he found OBP to be worth at least 3 times more than slugging in the runs created factor).

Aceshigh7

04-20-2006, 03:49 PM

Nick

04-20-2006, 03:56 PM

I know people rave about Moneyball and all that statistical modelling, but I look at the bottom line and the only number that counts, which is how many World Series have the A's been to since Beane came on board. And that number is 0.

Making the World Series becomes more of a crapshoot once you make the playoffs... ask the NY Yankees and St. Louis Cardinal, specifically (hell, even ask the Astros).

But, you can't argue with their success... in the tougher AL.... of making the playoffs and being in the position to win those elimination games.

Moneyball yields wins in the field, and MOST of their drafted prospects (who weren't big-dollar guys) are turning up in the big leagues (a rareity amongst most teams).

People think its philosophy only applies (or could work) for the cheap teams who can't afford anybody... but this is simply not true. Its more about how to be "effecient with your money... no matter how much you spend" instead of how to win by spending no money.

bobrek

04-20-2006, 04:03 PM

A couple of years ago Soriano had the same thing. He would try to stretch out all of his singles into doubles. When he got caught before reaching 2nd, his batting average was not effected, but his OBP for getting to 1st base was erased. He did that so many times that his batting average was higher than his OBP. He didn't get many walks at that time either.

Soriano has never had an OBP lower than his average. The ONLY way for it to happen is to have more sacrifice hits (bunts and flies) than you do walks and HBPs.

When you are thrown out at 2nd trying to stretch a single into a double, you still get credit for a single. If you bat 10 times and get thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double 10 times, your batting average is 1.000 and your OBP is 1.000 and your slugging percentage is 1.000.

Buck Turgidson

04-20-2006, 04:12 PM

But, you can't argue with their success... in the tougher AL.... of making the playoffs and being in the position to win those elimination games.

Moneyball yields wins in the field, and MOST of their drafted prospects (who weren't big-dollar guys) are turning up in the big leagues (a rareity amongst most teams).
You could also point to the things he admittedly devalued - namely defense & baserunning - as their ultimate downfall in the playoffs: Little Giambi not sliding at home, Long dropping a flyball, about a dozen other situations. "My sh!t doesn't work in the playoffs" being the most famous Beane quote on the subject.

Their success came from having young, cheap, homegrown talent: Zito, Hudson, Mulder, Tejada, Giambi, etc..., not from some magical revolutionary philosophy (which it wasn't, and Beane would be the first to admit it).

Look back at the "Moneyball Draft" from '02 (http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/draft.jsp?c_id=oak&year=02), you're going to say with a straight face that that draft was more successful than "most teams"? They had 7 1st round & sandwich picks and came away with Nick Swisher & Joe Blanton - good players, definitely - and nothing else.

Nick

04-20-2006, 04:29 PM

Look back at the "Moneyball Draft" from '02 (http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/draft.jsp?c_id=oak&year=02), you're going to say with a straight face that that draft was more successful than "most teams"? They had 7 1st round & sandwich picks and came away with Nick Swisher & Joe Blanton - good players, definitely - and nothing else.

First of all, way to early to say these two guys are "nothing else"... Swisher is coming of a 21 HR 74 RBI season, and Blanton led the A's in ERA as a rookie. (and Brown, McCurdy, and Fritz are still ready to play in the organization).

Secondly, you're right... it isn't some 100% fool-proof method, but you can't argue that other teams have wasted a ton of money on players (both drafted, and older)... where if they had been using more analysis earlier on, a lot of mistakes wouldn't have been made.

EDIT: n/m... just re-read your post... I now know you were referring to the others as "nothing else".

Buck Turgidson

04-20-2006, 05:01 PM

Secondly, you're right... it isn't some 100% fool-proof method, but you can't argue that other teams have wasted a ton of money on players (both drafted, and older)... where if they had been using more analysis earlier on, a lot of mistakes wouldn't have been made.
Baseball teams have been using statistical methods of player evaluation for a long, long time. The Astros, under Tal Smith in the 70's, were one of the first teams to have a dedicated "stat guy" in the front office. Branch Rickey was a strong proponent of statsitical analysis in the early to mid 1900's.

But nobody wrote a book about all that, so a lot of people think Beane & the A's were some sort of pioneers. Bollocks.

MadMax

04-20-2006, 05:08 PM

Baseball teams have been using statistical methods of player evaluation for a long, long time. The Astros, under Tal Smith in the 70's, were one of the first teams to have a dedicated "stat guy" in the front office. Branch Rickey was a strong proponent of statsitical analysis in the early to mid 1900's.

But nobody wrote a book about all that, so a lot of people think Beane & the A's were some sort of pioneers. Bollocks.

exactly.

i'm fine with statistical analysis. but there's a devotion to it with Moneyball that is almost cultish...to the exclusion of good scouting. as if a bunch of stat geeks in a room are far more valuable than good scouts. sorry...i don't buy that. baseball is far too intricate for that.

guess how i feel about the rockets' new gm. :D

Buck Turgidson

04-20-2006, 05:22 PM

i'm fine with statistical analysis. but there's a devotion to it with Moneyball that is almost cultish...to the exclusion of good scouting. as if a bunch of stat geeks in a room are far more valuable than good scouts. sorry...i don't buy that. baseball is far too intricate for that.
It's not Beane & other baseball guys driving this "revolution": it's keyboard warriors, the clowns at Baseball Prospectus et al, a few authors, etc.... Bill James called their thinking "childish" recently, and he's dead-on.

I think much of the criticism of "Moneyball" the book is from people who either didn't read it or didn't understand what Beane was really doing. I think much of the cult-like (as you said) deification of Beane comes from people who either didn't read the book or didn't understand what Beane was really doing.

MadMax

04-20-2006, 05:30 PM

It's not Beane & other baseball guys driving this "revolution": it's keyboard warriors, the clowns at Baseball Prospectus et al, a few authors, etc.... Bill James called their thinking "childish" recently, and he's dead-on.

I think much of the criticism of "Moneyball" the book is from people who either didn't read it or didn't understand what Beane was really doing. I think much of the cult-like (as you said) deification of Beane comes from people who either didn't read the book or didn't understand what Beane was really doing.

i agree. that's well said. beane gets deified or demonized, however you want to see it.

i think i'm guilty of it to some degree...because i use his name to group those that take the cultish approach.

Jugdish

04-20-2006, 10:37 PM

OBP is the most VITAL of all individual offensive statistics... read Moneyball if you need the full explanation.

Actually, I think OPS is considered the most important because it not only measure how often you get on base, but how far you get on the bases.

Which is more desirable:

A player with an OBP of .400, but only gets on via walks
A player with an OBP of .400, but hits a ton of doubles

bobrek

04-20-2006, 10:44 PM

Actually, I think OPS is considered the most important because it not only measure how often you get on base, but how far you get on the bases.

Which is more desirable:

A player with an OBP of .400, but only gets on via walks
A player with an OBP of .400, but hits a ton of doubles

You can turn that example around by asking which is better, a player with an OPS of .800 (OBP of .400 and SLG of .400) or a player with an OPS of .800 (OBP of .200 and SLG of .600). In my example, I take the guy that gets on at a .400 clip.

Rule0001

04-20-2006, 10:56 PM

The curse of the Bambino lives on :(

kaleidosky

04-20-2006, 11:23 PM

Actually, I think OPS is considered the most important because it not only measure how often you get on base, but how far you get on the bases.

Which is more desirable:

A player with an OBP of .400, but only gets on via walks
A player with an OBP of .400, but hits a ton of doubles

Yes, if you're comparing guys that get on at the same clip...but one only get singles and walks and another hits doubles and HRs..sure. You want that one.

But if that's the case, you wouldn't need the stats for those 2 guys in particular. It'd be pretty obvious to compare them as players. In most cases, a guy will sacrifice some OBP in order to go for more power. Which is why the argument will come up

Jugdish

04-21-2006, 08:39 AM

In most cases, a guy will sacrifice some OBP in order to go for more power. Which is why the argument will come up

Right, which is why OPS is a better gauge. Frequency on base + power

Jugdish

04-21-2006, 09:01 AM

Baseball teams have been using statistical methods of player evaluation for a long, long time. The Astros, under Tal Smith in the 70's, were one of the first teams to have a dedicated "stat guy" in the front office. Branch Rickey was a strong proponent of statsitical analysis in the early to mid 1900's.

But nobody wrote a book about all that, so a lot of people think Beane & the A's were some sort of pioneers. Bollocks.

The point of Moneyball isn't that no one used stats before, but that many scouts relied too heavily on "feel" and, as importantly, the wrong stats, like batting average and RBIs.

kaleidosky

04-21-2006, 09:33 AM

Right, which is why OPS is a better gauge. Frequency on base + power

Because a guy will sacrifice OBP to go for power, that makes OPS a better gauge? No, it just tracks power and makes it equivalent to OBP. As Nick said, a study was done that showed OBP to be 3 times more valuable than SLG..

Jugdish

04-21-2006, 10:07 AM

Because a guy will sacrifice OBP to go for power, that makes OPS a better gauge? No, it just tracks power and makes it equivalent to OBP. As Nick said, a study was done that showed OBP to be 3 times more valuable than SLG..

If there's a tradeoff between OBP and power, then some combination of the two is a better gauge, because, as I read into your statments, a guy with less power needs a higher OBP, and a guy with more power doesn't need as high an OBP.

Though apparently I'm wrong about the two components of OPS being equally valuable. Do you know of a stat that combines the two in a meaningful way?

Nick

04-21-2006, 10:20 AM

Though apparently I'm wrong about the two components of OPS being equally valuable. Do you know of a stat that combines the two in a meaningful way?

The "runs created" stat takes into account both, and adds more significance to the OBP over Slg.

msn

04-21-2006, 11:12 AM

Do you know of a stat that combines the two in a meaningful way?
To me it's meaningless to combine the stats at all. Of course, my stance is quite unpopular, but I consider OPS to be a pile of poo-poo. The two stats being combined respresent two very different skills which bring different offensive value to the team. As such, at least to me and my quite unpopular opinion, it is *much* more valuable to look at OBP and SLG separately.

Jugdish

04-21-2006, 11:53 AM

To me it's meaningless to combine the stats at all. Of course, my stance is quite unpopular, but I consider OPS to be a pile of poo-poo. The two stats being combined respresent two very different skills which bring different offensive value to the team. As such, at least to me and my quite unpopular opinion, it is *much* more valuable to look at OBP and SLG separately.

I realize OPS probably isn't so great as it stands, but some combination of the two parts is useful if it can tell you how often a player gets on base (OBP) and what base he tends to get on (slugging).

A search for "runs created" on Wikipedia gave me this:

James explains in his Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract why runs created is an essential thing to measure:

With regard to an offensive player, the first key question is how many runs have resulted from what he has done with the bat and on the basepaths. Willie McCovey hit .270 in his career, with 353 doubles, 46 triples, 521 home runs and 1,345 walks -- but his job was not to hit doubles, nor to hit singles, nor to hit triples, nor to draw walks or even hit home runs, but rather to put runs on the scoreboard. How many runs resulted from all of these things?1

Runs created attempts to answer this bedrock question. The conceptual framework of the "runs created" stat is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/b/2/fb25ae5ce1017c2af85fb5d12f36e970.png

where

A = Craig's Gayness percentage
B = Sean's Gayness percentage
C = How many times they hump a day on average

:D

msn

04-21-2006, 12:16 PM

but some combination of the two parts is useful if it can tell you how often a player gets on base (OBP) and what base he tends to get on (slugging).
Au contraire, you're left wondering. Even if the two are somehow weighted, the only way to really know how much is OBP and how much is SLG is to look at them separately. I like precision, OPS to me is very sloppy. I also tend to shy away from stats that attempt to make a sweeping generalization of a player's value based on some cure-all summary (like RC).

In his day, Bidge was *huge* b/c of OBP. Great value as a leadoff hitter. Ricky Henderson, that a-hole, was even more valuable. Bagwell was *huge* as an RBI guy, and there are others who were even better. For all these players, the RC numbers may look similar, but that evaluation leaves one wanting as far as a description of what really happened. Where's the stat that measures, for example, how good AE is at hitting behind the runner? How many guys scored from 2nd on a single because AE grounded out behind them (on a hit-and-run of course) to get them there? Where's the stat that measures how many runs Derek Bell, Sean Berry, etc. were able to create because the pitcher pissed in his pants while Bags was at the plate? Or how many RBI's Bags got b/c the pitcher was distracted by Bidge?

Stats aren't useless at all, but they should be kept in their place. The game is a lot more fun to *watch* than it is to analyze.

MadMax

04-21-2006, 12:19 PM

Au contraire, you're left wondering. Even if the two are somehow weighted, the only way to really know how much is OBP and how much is SLG is to look at them separately. I like precision, OPS to me is very sloppy. I also tend to shy away from stats that attempt to make a sweeping generalization of a player's value based on some cure-all summary (like RC).

In his day, Bidge was *huge* b/c of OBP. Great value as a leadoff hitter. Ricky Henderson, that a-hole, was even more valuable. Bagwell was *huge* as an RBI guy, and there are others who were even better. For all these players, the RC numbers may look similar, but that evaluation leaves one wanting as far as a description of what really happened. Where's the stat that measures, for example, how good AE is at hitting behind the runner? How many guys scored from 2nd on a single because AE grounded out behind them (on a hit-and-run of course) to get them there? Where's the stat that measures how many runs Derek Bell, Sean Berry, etc. were able to create because the pitcher pissed in his pants while Bags was at the plate? Or how many RBI's Bags got b/c the pitcher was distracted by Bidge?

Stats aren't useless at all, but they should be kept in their place. The game is a lot more fun to *watch* than it is to analyze.

i love this post.

kaleidosky

04-21-2006, 12:20 PM

Stats aren't useless at all, but they should be kept in their place. The game is a lot more fun to *watch* than it is to analyze.

Which is why it's always best to speak about players/games/teams you've watched consistently...and then use stats to either back you up, or show you something you didn't realize. But once you look at the stats, it should trigger something and make you go "oh yeah, I guess that's true". Maybe just bring out something hidden.

But you're right, watching the game nets so much more. Which is why there are 8 million scouts at so many games ;)

Nick

04-21-2006, 12:53 PM

Which is why it's always best to speak about players/games/teams you've watched consistently...and then use stats to either back you up, or show you something you didn't realize. But once you look at the stats, it should trigger something and make you go "oh yeah, I guess that's true". Maybe just bring out something hidden.

But you're right, watching the game nets so much more. Which is why there are 8 million scouts at so many games ;)

If you're watching a team over a prolonged period of time... then yes, it will be the best measure. But, if you're only watching one game out of many a team will play (like a ton of scouts do), you're going to be influenced pretty poorly. If anybody watched Adam last weekend, you'd be wondering why this guy was sitting in the #8 hole... he looked like a solid hitter that could bat second or leadoff.

That's where you can use stats as a more realistic guide. I'm not advocating using only one or another... but over the long haul, the stats don't lie when evaluating players who are being paid to produce (which is the complete spirit of the 'runs created' stat... how many runs does that player contribute to your overall team's total).

Now, guys like Adam, Chris Burke, and any other utility/role player need to obviously be evaluated differently. The stats will automatically tell you that Everett will never be a productive middle-of-the-lineup hitter... but you have to watch him play to realize just how vital he is (as a fielder), and how he performs well in his role as the #8 hitter.

Jugdish

04-21-2006, 01:05 PM

Where's the stat that measures, for example, how good AE is at hitting behind the runner? How many guys scored from 2nd on a single because AE grounded out behind them (on a hit-and-run of course) to get them there?

The sabremetriheads will tell you that no one can predict what side of the field the ball will go when a player makes contact. So, Adam hitting behind the runner is a random event.

But yeah, I don't know that there's any way to quantify baserunning ability without watching every single play of a team's season.

Buck Turgidson

04-21-2006, 01:08 PM

The sabremetriheads will tell you that no one can predict what side of the field the ball will go when a player makes contact. So, Adam hitting behind the runner is a random event.
They would be very, very wrong.

Saint Louis

04-21-2006, 01:32 PM

I finally had to open up and read through this thread. My curiousity on how a thread that started out about Adam Everett made it to three pages was overwhelming.

msn

04-21-2006, 01:44 PM

The sabremetriheads will tell you that no one can predict what side of the field the ball will go when a player makes contact. So, Adam hitting behind the runner is a random event.
Hopefully not all of them would say something that stupid. Lamentably, one can't predict it with his handy computer or wireless-enabled PDA, but nonetheless give me a bat and put a breaking ball middle of the plate or outside and I'll hit it between 1st and 2nd if need be.

TheFreak

04-21-2006, 04:22 PM

When you are thrown out at 2nd trying to stretch a single into a double, you still get credit for a single. If you bat 10 times and get thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double 10 times, your batting average is 1.000 and your OBP is 1.000 and your slugging percentage is 1.000.

Okay, dumb question coming. Why do you get credit for being on base if you're not on base when your at bat ends?

msn

04-21-2006, 04:26 PM

Okay, dumb question coming. Why do you get credit for being on base if you're not on base when your at bat ends?
Technically, the atbat ended at first base. You see, the play was scored a single, which means the out at 2nd base was a function of baserunning beyond the original at-bat. To say it much more simply, if a player is given credit for a hit then he made it on base. He just didn't make it 2nd base.

Jugdish

04-21-2006, 08:09 PM

kaleidosky

04-21-2006, 08:24 PM

Okay, gurus:

What's the ruling on a play in which a fielder allows a hitter to reach first by failing to make a routine play, but said fielder throws the hitter out at second?

What's the ruling on a play in which a fielder allows a hitter to reach first by failing to make a routine play, the man covering second fails to make a routine play to get the hitter out at second, but throws him out at third?

If they're truly routine, then situation 1 leads to an E on fielder 1, and then a putout, runner out advancing. (so 0-1 for the fielder, reached on error, out at 2nd advancing)

Same in 2nd situation except 2 1-base errors charged and out at 3rd advancing.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong? Obviously it's up to the discretion of the official scorer as to whether they're E's or base hits...but if the plays really are routine in the scorer's eyes, then I think that's how it plays out.

Jugdish

04-21-2006, 09:48 PM

If they're truly routine, then situation 1 leads to an E on fielder 1, and then a putout, runner out advancing. (so 0-1 for the fielder, reached on error, out at 2nd advancing)

Same in 2nd situation except 2 1-base errors charged and out at 3rd advancing.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong? Obviously it's up to the discretion of the official scorer as to whether they're E's or base hits...but if the plays really are routine in the scorer's eyes, then I think that's how it plays out.

That's what I was thinking but what does "runner out advancing" mean? Specifically, how do you score that on your card?

msn

04-21-2006, 11:38 PM

That's what I was thinking but what does "runner out advancing" mean? Specifically, how do you score that on your card?
Not positive, but if it were, say, the LF, I'd write an E7, draw my line from home to first, and then write "7-4" and circle a 1, 2, or 3, depending on which out number was recorded.