Author Topic: Errors, Sacrifices, fielder's choices and other OBP quirks  (Read 1534 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9834
Not only a wow that you came up with that name but I followed the Senators and I have no recollection of him at all. Good job.
Of all my seasons following baseball, 1960 ranks in the top five for me, I followed every game (mostly on radio, not many were televised). The announcers then were Bob Wolfe and Chuck Thompson (last season for both, of course).  I loved listening to them.  They were constantly raving about how valuable Valo was to the team, even though he was a bench player.  He had a knack for getting on base, which wasn't completely reflected in his OBP - he got on base on errors.  Even then his OBP for 1960 was well above .400 and who knows how high it would have been if they counted errors ( I have always thought they should be counted).

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 5475
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #1: June 19, 2017, 11:27:24 AM »
Of all my seasons following baseball, 1960 ranks in the top five for me, I followed every game (mostly on radio, not many were televised). The announcers then were Bob Wolfe and Chuck Thompson (last season for both, of course).  I loved listening to them.  They were constantly raving about how valuable Valo was to the team, even though he was a bench player.  He had a knack for getting on base, which wasn't completely reflected in his OBP - he got on base on errors.  Even then his OBP for 1960 was well above .400 and who knows how high it would have been if they counted errors ( I have always thought they should be counted).

Errors don't count in OBP?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69684
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #2: June 19, 2017, 11:53:23 AM »
Errors don't count in OBP?



errors are counted the same as outs in BA and OBP, it would be completely stupid to credit players for reaching base on errors onto OBP

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9834
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #3: June 19, 2017, 12:17:34 PM »


it would be completely stupid to credit players for reaching base on errors onto OBP
I disagree.  Speed and how hard a ball is hit are significant factors in errors.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9834
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #4: June 19, 2017, 12:17:57 PM »
If they did Trea's would look a lot better.
Precisely my point.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69684
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #5: June 19, 2017, 12:43:10 PM »
I disagree.  Speed and how hard a ball is hit are significant factors in errors.



not every error (in fact, a very insignificant number of errors are due to speed and on hard hit balls players often get the benefit of the doubt)

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 5475
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #6: June 19, 2017, 12:44:11 PM »
Why does HBP count in OBP then?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69684
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #7: June 19, 2017, 12:45:52 PM »
Why does HBP count in OBP then?


dude :wtf: on an error it is a given that you hit onto an out, i.e., you failed.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 5475
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #8: June 19, 2017, 12:57:27 PM »
Except that it isn't an out. And lo and behold the person is on base. Which is what stat is designed to describe.
If reaching on an error was a random occurrence, that would be one thing. But it isn't.  Some players do reach more often than others.

I genuinely thought it counted.  It makes sense to me that it should. I can see the point behind why it doesn't. I'm not saying anyone is stupid for thinking opposite than I do though.

Online DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 21906
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #9: June 19, 2017, 12:59:59 PM »
And some players cause more errors than others. Trea Turner, for instance. That isn't a failure.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 22922
  • This is Howie do it...
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #10: June 19, 2017, 01:07:38 PM »
Except that it isn't an out. And lo and behold the person is on base. Which is what stat is designed to describe.
If reaching on an error was a random occurrence, that would be one thing. But it isn't.  Some players do reach more often than others.

I genuinely thought it counted.  It makes sense to me that it should. I can see the point behind why it doesn't. I'm not saying anyone is stupid for thinking opposite than I do though.

Should OBP count on a dropped 3rd strike?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9834
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #11: June 19, 2017, 01:18:33 PM »
Should OBP count on a dropped 3rd strike?

I would say no, which goes against my general philosophy, but it's hard to think of a case where the batter gets on base on a dropped third because he did something good.    Maybe his speed got him on. So, perhaps yes.  I could go either way on this one.

You know what's the screwiest thing about OBP?  You get a sacrifice (bunt or fly) and it lowers your OBP. Even though you did something positive.  You're charged with a plate appearance and no credit for getting on base.  You can see this early in the season when a guy's batting average is actually higher than his OPB. For example, he has two plate appearances, one a hit, the other a sacrifice; his BA is 1.000 and his OBP is .500.   I'm not saying he should get credit for getting on base (he didn't) but at least, don't charge him with a plate appearance.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 5475
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #12: June 19, 2017, 01:26:24 PM »
I would say no, which goes against my general philosophy, but it's hard to think of a case where the batter gets on base on a dropped third because he did something good.    Maybe his speed got him on. So, perhaps yes.  I could go either way on this one.

You know what's the screwiest thing about OBP?  You get a sacrifice (bunt or fly) and it lowers your OBP. Even though you did something positive.  You're charged with a plate appearance and no credit for getting on base.  You can see this early in the season when a guy's batting average is actually higher than his OPB. For example, he has two plate appearances, one a hit, the other a sacrifice; his BA is 1.000 and his OBP is .500.   I'm not saying he should get credit for getting on base (he didn't) but at least, don't charge him with a plate appearance.

But we need a stat that actually measures how many plate appearances someone had.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 5475
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #13: June 19, 2017, 01:45:41 PM »
Should OBP count on a dropped 3rd strike?

If the person gets on base it should improve their OBP, in my opinion. At its most basic the purpose of all baseball stats is to measure the ability of a player to generate runs. Someone that gets on base more, regardless of how they do it, will generate more runs. If at the end of the at bat, if the batter is standing on first base, he has helped his team and the stat should reflect that.

If this is all random, then over time it will even out for everyone. But, if as I suspect,  it's not, then the stat will be more reflective of the players abilitiy to generate runs. 

But this is just my opinion. What do I know.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69684
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #14: June 19, 2017, 01:53:53 PM »
:lmao:   freaking stat geeks



Might as well credit players for reaching base on a fielder's choice so their OBP can be higher. And credit players with a stolen base on balks. And I can only imagine what this all would do to ERA's.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69684
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #15: June 19, 2017, 01:55:16 PM »
Should OBP count on a dropped 3rd strike?



Good one VaRK. And don't forget catcher's interference.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 5475
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #16: June 19, 2017, 02:14:00 PM »
:lmao:   freaking stat geeks



Might as well credit players for reaching base on a fielder's choice so their OBP can be higher. And credit players with a stolen base on balks. And I can only imagine what this all would do to ERA's.

Reaching on a fielder's choice isn't a good outcome. Reaching on an error is. And advancing on a balk isn't a stolen base. If there were a stat called advancing a base, then it could count for that.

In the case of the On Base Percentrage, I'm just saying it should count the number of times someone actually gets ON BASE.

I know the stat doesn't count it. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't.

Because I can't believe you are actually this obtuse.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25265
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #17: June 19, 2017, 02:48:27 PM »

You know what's the screwiest thing about OBP?  You get a sacrifice (bunt or fly) and it lowers your OBP. Even though you did something positive.  You're charged with a plate appearance and no credit for getting on base.
Not quite right.  A sacrifice bunt does not count as a plate appearance in OBP, but a sacrifice fly does.  The logic is that a bunt is really a deliberate choice to give an out to advance runners, while a sac fly is more a try for a hit or a homer that ends up, due to the runner's tagging, being positive.  http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/On_base_percentage

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 1906
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #18: June 19, 2017, 02:52:21 PM »
OBP works just fine for me the way it is. The real problem in baseball is that errors by the pitcher do not result in earned runs...

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9834
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #19: June 19, 2017, 03:23:17 PM »
Reaching on a fielder's choice isn't a good outcome.
If there is a runner on third and, hit a ground ball to short, and the shortstop chooses to throw home, that is, statistically, a fielder's choice, whether they get the out or not.   If they get the out then yes it is not a good outcome.  But if they don't get the out, it is a good outcome.   I'd credit the guy with an on-base in cases where they don't get the out.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 9834
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #20: June 19, 2017, 03:31:16 PM »
a sac fly is more a try for a hit or a homer that ends up, due to the runner's tagging, being positive.

Probably true in most cases  But I've seen many cases where the batter takes a bit off of the swing to better ensure contact in  a deliberate attempt to hit a fly ball deep enough to score the runner from third.  (As hard as it may be to believe, I saw Desmond do that two years ago to score a runner for a walk-off.)
If a batter tries to bunt for a base hit, gets thrown out, but moves the runner (and in the scorer's opinion was not trying to sacrifice) does he get credit for a sacrifice?  I believe not (I seem to recall that happening sometime in the past few years).   So similarly, it should be in the scorer's discretion to give a sacrifice on a fly ball if the scorer thinks that was the objective (which I realize isn't the case).

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 22922
  • This is Howie do it...
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #21: June 19, 2017, 03:39:37 PM »
I think the most importance lies in the historical aspect of this. 

Changing OBP now would be like awarding 2 points for a hockey goal and 1 for an assists.  It would forever screw up relativity, and Einstein would be seriously pissed off that someone freaked with his theory...

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69684
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #22: June 19, 2017, 03:50:41 PM »
Reaching on a fielder's choice isn't a good outcome. Reaching on an error is. And advancing on a balk isn't a stolen base. If there were a stat called advancing a base REACHING BASE ON ERROR, then it could count for that.




Reaching on a fielder's choice isn't a good outcome. Reaching on an error is. And advancing on a balk isn't a stolen base. If there were a stat called advancing a base, then it could count for that.

In the case of the On Base Percentrage, I'm just saying it should count the number of times someone actually gets ON BASE.

I know the stat doesn't count it. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't.

Because I can't believe you are actually this obtuse.



Go back and read your own posts to see why you're chasing your own tail.


Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 69684
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #23: June 19, 2017, 03:58:44 PM »
OBP works just fine for me the way it is. The real problem in baseball is that errors by the pitcher do not result in earned runs...



I see where you're coming from on this but they choose to treat pitcher errors as separate from pitching, just like fielder errors.


If there is a runner on third and, hit a ground ball to short, and the shortstop chooses to throw home, that is, statistically, a fielder's choice, whether they get the out or not.   If they get the out then yes it is not a good outcome.  But if they don't get the out, it is a good outcome.   I'd credit the guy with an on-base in cases where they don't get the out.



the only problem with this is that in the "good outcome" a player would get OBP credit not because of anything he did but because the fielder was indecisive or because the runner on 3rd is a good base runner.




If a batter tries to bunt for a base hit, gets thrown out, but moves the runner (and in the scorer's opinion was not trying to sacrifice) does he get credit for a sacrifice? 



No.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 5475
Re: Re: Extend Lind
« Reply #24: June 19, 2017, 04:20:01 PM »
I think the most importance lies in the historical aspect of this. 

Changing OBP now would be like awarding 2 points for a hockey goal and 1 for an assists.  It would forever screw up relativity, and Einstein would be seriously pissed off that someone freaked with his theory...

This is the best argument for not changing it.
Not that it in actuality the best stat to measure the ability for someone to get on base.