We all have observations, opinions, thoughts, and feelings about how the events that occur in the baseball games we watch are viewed and ruled on. I think the most common topics are decisions made in the games by the coaches, efforts made by players, and the rule book as interpreted and enforced by the umpires. All of these things are in the brightest spotlights ever made possible with better TV coverages and today’s “challenges” system that is in place. Ok, that said my question I wanted discussion on is what about “official score keeping”? Our measure of success in the game is based on almost endless statistical analysis and information today. So we know that there is a largely significant challenge system for the rules, their interpretation to judge rules challenged which lead to a final decision. I was watching the mid-day game yesterday in the SECT. My attempt here is to make this a completely level playing field. There was at best a routine ground ball hit to the first baseman. He booted it, but recovered the ball to underhand toss it to the pitcher covering first base. You got it, the pitcher dropped the toss (which beat the runner to the base). For me, two separate errors occurred. The “official scorekeeper” ruled it a base hit, I chit you not. To my knowledge you cannot question his/her decision. A ruling like this can affect everything that you would expect that it could. The hitter’s BA, the first baseman’s and pitcher’s fielding percentage as well as the pitcher’s ERA. This play was an obvious incorrectly ruled on play. There is no appeal scrutiny for the official scorekeeper to face. It’s always been this way so my question to everyone is why with stats being the measuring stick does the official scorekeeper have no one to answer to?
BP asked much the same question 20 years ago and mocked the notion of "errors" with: "I’ve done it! I’ve solved the problem of removing the corrupting influence of fielding on pitchers’ RA. We simply pay a sportswriter to sit in the press box, munch Cheetos, and decide which safeties came on plays that should have been made with normal fielding effort. Whenever one of these ‘errors’ occurs, we reconstruct the inning–not the game, mind you, just the inning–pretending as if the error never happened. Count up the runs that would have scored in this hypothetical reconstructed inning, and you have a revised run total for the pitcher. Things get a lot more complicated for relievers and team totals, and we’ll broaden the ‘plays that should have been made’ definition a little bit, but you get the idea.”" (Link: Not Earning Its Keep: Why The "Earned" Run Needs To Go | Baseball Prospectus) From the batter's perspective... is hit-at-the-crap-fielder a repeatable skill? If so, maybe call every error a hit. From the pitcher's perspective... that's what FIP/etc. (judging them only on HR, K, BB (or maybe BB+HBP)) is. That's at best incomplete in MLB and probably worse in the college game. So, we have a bunch of fielding statistics that try to account for catching 50/50 balls vs. screwing up 95% chances vs. the miracle 10% catch. Even 15 years after Rob Neyer called fielding "the last refuge of the idiots", we still have a lot of disagreement, particularly at 2B. So... my solution to unbalanced "official score keeping" is... get rid of it and the whole concept of the "error". Figure out fielding and come up with some non-FIP way of assessing pitchers' ability to control balls in play at lower levels. (I'm also 100% in favor of robo-umps and look forward to the day when I can yell 'up yours, toaster!' from the stands.) But, I'm a radical.
I don't know about college ball, but I've listened to/watched MLB games where scoring decisions are changed based on information from one team or the other
with all or most games on tape it would seem the decision on the scorekeeper's call during the game, like the umpires graded and could be dropped or otherwise flagged for poor performance
Yes, I have also been watching MLB games before and after a questionable scoring call an inning later it is announced a change on the scoring of said play. But again, what regulates the change? A scorekeeper with a conscience? His/her Mama calling him/her and telling them that they blew the scoring? With all the regulations in today’s sports games it just seems to be about 6 bubbles off plum. It seems that the most time is spent on appealing check swings and time clock violations but no regulations for the official scorekeeper.
I know in high school the home coach often changes a call during or after the game. I've seen many an apopka player hustle up to the box during a game and a hit changes to an error or vice versa. I think college coaches have similar latitude if they desire
Never been an Official Scorekeeper, but I’ve been stadium announcer at the University and minor league levels. Scorekeepers get paid, so if the do a lousy job then lose future money
“We simply pay a sportswriter to sit in the press box, munch Cheetos, and decide which safeties came on plays that should have been made with normal fielding effort.” Consider this my formal application for this job. Back to reality, I don’t know who the scorekeeper is and who they are affiliated with (I’ve often thought they take a poll of whoever is sitting in the press box), but it seems to that there’s a fair amount of home cooking involved to protect one team’s hit record.
Each team gets their own official scorekeeper. They're usually not writers, anymore. The Gator's one came to a GDC meeting (at some point after COVID)... I wasn't impressed with his reasoning re: 50/50 calls.
Clearly an error must be a judgement call, and someone(s) must be put in charge of that judgement. The best judgements, IMO, come from a relatively large bodies of people with diverse thinking. Judgements from such a body are on average vastly superior to judgements of individuals, as a diverse group’s biases tend to cancel each other out. That said, I don’t know if the importance of determining errors rises to the level of building a senate and a house to properly adjudicate the controversies. Speaking of controversies, I don’t love the rule that when a pitcher inherits a runner at first base that the previous pitcher is entirely responsible for that runner. If that runner comes home, the subsequent pitcher is on the mound while the runner advanced three out of the four possible bases. Seems like that pitcher should share at least some of the responsibility.
There is a stat for that (inherited runners scored) but not many pay attention to it. I've also thought reaching base on error should be included in on base percentage for obvious reasons. Plus speedy players are more likely to reach base on errors. Also, one could argue who should get credit for wins, the pitcher that is on the mound when you get the lead (current system if 5 inn) or the pitcher that actually pitches the best. My HS team had a guy nicknamed the vulture. Came in late while game tied/losing, pitched an inning maybe and got the win a few times when we won late. Just some random thoughts while I watch it rain.
I would have given the pitcher an error but not the 1B. He kept the ball in front of him and made the play. Not pretty but if the pitcher catches the ball the batter is out. The one that gets me is passed ball versus wild pitch. Is a yellow hammer that bounces and gets past the catcher really a wild pitch? And if a catcher gets crossed up and the ball sails past him is that really a passed ball?
Not sure I copied this right, but adios Angel Hernandez. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...HKAB6BAg9EAM&usg=AOvVaw1Fh1GgKVfiRjuGONSRw2Xc
I saw this yesterday. Figured this board would be happy. If only he’d take Jeff Head with him. Then we’d just have 100 other guys who suck at their jobs.
Being an umpire is hard. You are expected to be perfect on opening day and improve all season. At one time i was a foil fencing director. They call them that and not refs. It is WAY harder than being a ref in any other sport I have watched or played. The actions are super fast and who has "right of way" before the action starts is often hard to see. It is much harder than the block/charge call in basketball. Added in edit: A fencer cannot dispute a call but can ask for an explanation of the call, i.e. what the director saw. If it is then a matter of a rule interpretation it can be challenged. I was always able to take things back many actions to describe exactly what I saw instead of the usual last two actions that most directors give. The fencers I directed liked that I was seeing everything that they saw. Often they would look at me in surprise and say "You saw that?"
