Errors: What's the Point?

[amjgt]

Seriously, what's with the protection of the defender at the expense of the pitcher?

 

Both Sano and Dozier had balls hit right at them that they whiffed and cost the Twins runs. Ruled hits.

 

If those aren't errors then why do we even bother with the stat?

[Brock Beauchamp]

There is no point to paying attention to errors unless the player has an excess of them.

 

So on one side, it tells you nothing. On the other side, it tells you someone is a terrible defender.

 

But there are a dozen stats out there that tell you both sides of the story.

 

So, yeah, mostly worthless.

[yarnivek1972]

Especially given the fact that the decision is made by an employee of the home team which makes the decision arbitrary, at best (think Cal Ripken and his 3 error season - he made at least two that weren't called against the Twins that year).

[Willihammer]

Have been mostly listening on the radio so can't really confirm but Gladden has been ripping one of the Twins scorekeepers as well. I distinctly recall Buxton's fourth(?) hit which Provus described live as a "routine" grounder to short, which was ruled an error.

 

In another instance there was a borderline call and Gladden said "let me see who's keeping score today and I'll tell you whether it was a hit or an error."

 

There doesn't seem to  be much consistency.

[Mike Sixel]

That Gladden quote is gold. Pure. Gold.

[spanman2]

 

That Gladden quote is gold. Pure. Gold.

It sure is and classic Dazzel man copyright John Gordon.   Certainly refreshing from time to time when a former player of Gladden/Bert or Jack's stature aren't afraid to call people out...be it a player/member of the coaching staff/manager or scorekeeper.  I enjoyed the back and forth banter between Bert and Dick about Mauer's reluctance to change his approach during an at bat.  Jack is great as well no doubt about that!  When things need to be called out or discussed they should be.  Nothing wrong with that at all.

[yarnivek1972]

And that was a "hit" by Mauer. In little league maybe.

[ashbury]

Especially given the fact that the decision is made by an employee of the home team which makes the decision arbitrary, at best (think Cal Ripken and his 3 error season - he made at least two that weren't called against the Twins that year).

The "traditional" home-town call has always been to give the home fielder the error. This annoys the fielder (bad) but pleases the pitcher (good) and also annoys the visiting batter (good).

 

So a non-call on Dozier or Sano doesn't fit the narrative.

 

There can be exceptions, as you noted with Ripken, when the motivation is strong.

 

"That should have been an error!" is the common refrain across all of baseball. I doubt there exists a home park where fans are constantly complaining that too many errors are being called. Occasional TD contributor Stew Thornley stresses that MLB strives for consistency in how official scorers across the league do their jobs. A scorer who doesn't get with the system is quickly shown the door.

 

None of this has bearing on the opinion that I share with most others, that fielding percentage was never a great stat and has even declined in value because of the way MLB has chosen to re-implement it. There needs to be a greater willingness to record bad plays in the field, perhaps with multiple categories instead of the catch-all "error". Muffs, flubs and boners - " the shortstop muffed the catch, then flubbed the throw, and compounded it with a boner by failing to cover third during the ensuing rundown" - how's that for a start? (One downside for average fans would be many fewer triples and essentially no inside-the-park home runs, since the majority of those involve a mistake by an outfielder or two.)

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

The "traditional" home-town call has always been to give the home fielder the error. This annoys the fielder (bad) but pleases the pitcher (good) and also annoys the visiting batter (good).

 

So a non-call on Dozier or Sano doesn't fit the narrative.

 

There can be exceptions, as you noted with Ripken, when the motivation is strong.

 

"That should have been an error!" is the common refrain across all of baseball. I doubt there exists a home park where fans are constantly complaining that too many errors are being called. Occasional TD contributor Stew Thornley stresses that MLB strives for consistency in how official scorers across the league do their jobs. A scorer who doesn't get with the system is quickly shown the door.

 

None of this has bearing on the opinion that I share with most others, that fielding percentage was never a great stat and has even declined in value because of the way MLB has chosen to re-implement it. There needs to be a greater willingness to record bad plays in the field, perhaps with multiple categories instead of the catch-all "error". Muffs, flubs and boners - " the shortstop muffed the catch, then flubbed the throw, and compounded it with a boner by failing to cover third during the ensuing rundown" - how's that for a start? (One downside for average fans would be many fewer triples and essentially no inside-the-park home runs, since the majority of those involve a mistake by an outfielder or two.)

Based solely on anecdotal observation (so take it for what it is worth), the most likely decision involving a borderline call is a base hit instead of an error. It seems to me that I find myself saying "that should be an error" far more often than "that should be a hit".

[notoriousgod71]

The only way to get an error is to physically throw the ball into outer space and allow the base runner 3-4 extra bases.

 

The way errors are called makes me wonder how we haven't seen a .400 hitter in 78 years.

 

Along with pitch counts the refusal to charge errors on obvious errors is my main pet peeve.

[ashbury]

Based solely on anecdotal observation (so take it for what it is worth), the most likely decision involving a borderline call is a base hit instead of an error. It seems to me that I find myself saying "that should be an error" far more often than "that should be a hit".

I'm not sure we're saying anything differently. In the past ("traditional") the home-town scorer would lean toward giving his pitcher a break via an error, or his batter a break via a hit. Today, it's more balanced for home and visitor, and with a more pronounced lean toward giving the fielder a break than you or I would like.

 

What they did at some point, I believe, was tighten up the definition of "Ordinary Effort", which is the key to whether a missed play can be called an error or not. Or maybe this has always been the wording, and MLB decided to enforce it. Either way:

 

ORDINARY EFFORT is the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions. ... [E]ven if a fielder makes his best effort, if that effort falls short of what an average fielder at that position in that league would have made in a situation, the official scorer should charge that fielder with an error.

 

It's interesting to me that a play may be called differently in low-A ball versus the majors, though that's not the issue here. Anyway, while paying lip service to calling errors on poor fielders, the main thrust is to grant every benefit of the doubt.

[USAFChief]

It seems to me that given the reluctance to award errors, we should consider a player who accumulates them to be pretty unreliable.  

 

You don't get cheap errors any more, with the possible exception of an OFer who's throw hits a runner and skips away.  So fielding percentage, while not a be-all, end-all measurement, has value.  

 

If they were awarding errors willy-nilly, then you could ignore it.  They don't.  They are clear, unambiguous indications of plays that should have been made.  If we consider a SS who gets to 15 extra balls a year to be great (by UZR), then we should also consider extra errors.

[ashbury]

It seems to me that given the reluctance to award errors, we should consider a player who accumulates them to be pretty unreliable. 

I don't think anyone here was saying otherwise.

 

There was the side issue of perceived inconsistency: either a hometown effect, or just capricious scorers.

 

But putting that aside, as I for one have, racking up the errors that are called is meaningful. It's just that there are many more ways for a play to not be made, besides a couple dozen clear-cut muffs over the course of a season. Not racking up errors is what's not meaningful, at least by itself, and that's why there's the call for things like zone ratings.

 

MLB has made clear they are happy with how errors are now being called. Fine. I want to know who's actually, you know, good. And some guys just have a knack for making plays, while other guys earn nicknames like "Pasta Diving".

[jimmer]

The major league scorers should hold major leaguers to a much higher standard than they do.  Fielding pct./errors seemed to have at least some small value in looking at defensive performance back during Ozzie Smith's time and before.  They seem to hold major leaguers to high school fielding standards now, so what little value it did have is gone for me.

[Mike Sixel]

The major league scorers should hold major leaguers to a much higher standard than they do. Fielding pct./errors seemed to have at least some small value in looking at defensive performance back during Ozzie Smith's time and before. They seem to hold major leaguers to high school fielding standards now, so what little value it did have is gone for me.

Missed you dude.

[notoriousgod71]

 

The major league scorers should hold major leaguers to a much higher standard than they do.  Fielding pct./errors seemed to have at least some small value in looking at defensive performance back during Ozzie Smith's time and before.  They seem to hold major leaguers to high school fielding standards now, so what little value it did have is gone for me.

 

The thing that irritates me the most is it skews every other statistic. Pitchers aren't as bad as their numbers look and hitters aren't as good as their numbers look. The complete indifference to realistic statistics astounds me in a game that has more numbers than any other sport.

[jimmer]

 

Missed you dude.

thanks, man :-)

[jimmer]

 

The thing that irritates me the most is it skews every other statistic. Pitchers aren't as bad as their numbers look and hitters aren't as good as their numbers look. The complete indifference to realistic statistics astounds me in a game that has more numbers than any other sport.

Exactly.  It's why I stay away from ERA, fielding %. Even BA (for the most part).

[notoriousgod71]

 

Exactly.  It's why I stay away from ERA, fielding %. Even BA (for the most part).

 

 

Literally everything.

 

SLG, OPS, BABIP, RC, WAR, any stat you could ever choose to evaluate a player is getting skewed one way or the other.

[drjim]

Just eliminate errors completely.

 

Might skew some stats, but would have a very minimal impact on predictive stats.

 

While they're at it, dump the no PA for a sacrifice and give RBIs when you hit into double plays (Not that batting average or RBI are the most significant of stats).

[Mike Sixel]

 

Just eliminate errors completely.

Might skew some stats, but would have a very minimal impact on predictive stats.

While they're at it, dump the no PA for a sacrifice and give RBIs when you hit into double plays (Not that batting average or RBI are the most significant of stats).

 

walks are also not PA for some bizarro reason.....

[drjim]

walks are also not PA for some bizarro reason.....

They are PA, just not logged as AB. If a walk/hbp counts as an AB, then batting average is no more.

[Mike Sixel]

 

They are PA, just not logged as AB. If a walk/hbp counts as an AB, then batting average is no more.

 

ah, right, my bad. Was actually working when I typed that, and not thinking clearly.

[ashbury]

ah, right, my bad. Was actually working when I typed that, and not thinking clearly.

I have to speculate that your Annual Performance Review is comedy gold, each year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I have to speculate that your Annual Performance Review is comedy gold, each year.

 

you have no idea, sir.

[Doomtints]

Errors have a purpose but at this point statcast should probably make the decision rather than some yob with a clipboard.

[notoriousgod71]

Just now Polanco hits a ground ball to third. Santana holds at third, Moustakas throws the ball away and the throw easily beat Polanco to first.

 

Naturally the ruling is single, RBI, error as Polanco goes to second.

 

Just aggravating.

[Platoon]

If you kicked balls like that where I came from, you received an error! It had nothing to do with keeping a pitchers ERA down, or the batters average up. You were either supposed to catch it, or you weren't!