earned run

i believe so, bcos the pitcher gave up the base hit...

earned run


thanks for replying,

i didn't think so because if you reconstruct the inning w/o the catcher's passed balls, no one would have scored, even if you assume that the 1st runner gets to third on the fly ball.

of course, i don't know for sure, that is what i posted this question.

brian

I'm with you bbelcher; the run is not earned. The key is reconstructing, and in so doing there would be no run without the second passed ball. The first one gets wiped out in the reconstruction. Also, you are being generous in your supposition that the runner might have advanced on the fly ball. Anything questionable is to be decided in the pitcher's favor.http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7xsyD_jTixsJ:www.baseball-almanac.com/rule10.shtml+passed+ball+effect+earned+run&hl=en

Here's Flyboy's link.

Thanks, Setanta. I don't know why it didn't come out in the usual recoverable way on my post.

flyboy804
I am not to sure of that. No player got on base as a result of an error. You can not assume the runner would not have scored. What if there had been no advance and the next batter after the fly out doubled and scored the runner from second. Would you than consider it an earned run?

If the man who made the third out had doubled, one run would have been earned and one unearned. Without the passed balls there would have been runners on first and second instead of second and third with two out. The scorer would assume the man from second scores and the man from first goes to third. Were he to score on a subsequent hit or wild pitch (assuming no intervening potential out making errors) , his run would also be earned.

flyboy804
I won't say you are wrong however,I am not sure you are correct. You never know the man on first could have scored on a double. IMO both runs would have been earned.
Suppose instead of a passed ball it was a wild pitch that allowed the runners to advance what than do you think.

A wild pitch would make the advance the pitcher's fault and would make the run earned. As for the possiblity of a runner advancing from first to home on a double, this would be covered by the rule stating that anything questionable is ruled in favor of the pitcher. The scorer is allowed some discretion in this however. If a fast runner was on first and was in the process of stealing (or a run and hit was on) and he was practically on second at the time of contact, the official scorer would almost certainly consider hiim scoring on the hit.

But going back to bbelcher's original scenario. There should have been no one on third at the time of the sacrifice fly hence it would have been merey out number two followed by the strikeout for out number three with no runs scoring.

This reminds me of what I have always considered an absurdity of the earned vs unearned runs rules. Example: two outs; next batter hits foul pop which the fielder drops for an error. Each of the next four batters hits a home run. Since there should have been three outs, all four of the runs are unearned. I know the rationale is that the four home run hitters should never have come to bat, but it doesn't quite seem right to me. I have no solution to the dilemma.

Probably a left-wing plot . . . no, no, wait, i meant right-wing plot . . . naw, musta been some terrorists tryin' to confuse us . . .


PLAY BALL ! ! !

flyboy804
That is because the pitcher is only required to get three outs in any inning. Anything that happens after the pitcher has done that, the error should have been a recorded out. Cannot be charged against the pitcher. Makes sense to me.

As I stated, I understand the rationale, I just don't feel that a pitcher should be able to throw gopher balls to four successive batters and not have his earned run average suffer.