Should the way earned runs are given, be changed?

I was thinking about this the other day.

My thought is:

A relief pitcher comes in when the starting pitcher left 2 on base, and said relief pitcher allows those 2 runners on base to score. The earned runs go to the starting pitcher.

Should those runs go to the relief pitcher?

I understand that it was the starting pitcher that put the runners on, however, he did not allow them to score, and had he stayed in the game, there is no notion that he would have allowed those runs to score.

That is why a good arguement can be made for those runs to the relief pitcher.

What do you think?

HPC said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

My thought is:

A relief pitcher comes in when the starting pitcher left 2 on base, and said relief pitcher allows those 2 runners on base to score. The earned runs go to the starting pitcher.

Should those runs go to the relief pitcher?

I understand that it was the starting pitcher that put the runners on, however, he did not allow them to score, and had he stayed in the game, there is no notion that he would have allowed those runs to score.

That is why a good arguement can be made for those runs to the relief pitcher.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

But why should a reliever get hit with those runs when he didn't put them on base. Who says that if that reliever started the inning, he wouldn't have gotten them out?

Ultimately, those runners on base, were the responsibility of that pitcher. Those runners score, it's his fault for letting them get on base.

Sly said:

HPC said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

My thought is:

A relief pitcher comes in when the starting pitcher left 2 on base, and said relief pitcher allows those 2 runners on base to score. The earned runs go to the starting pitcher.

Should those runs go to the relief pitcher?

I understand that it was the starting pitcher that put the runners on, however, he did not allow them to score, and had he stayed in the game, there is no notion that he would have allowed those runs to score.

That is why a good arguement can be made for those runs to the relief pitcher.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

But why should a reliever get hit with those runs when he didn't put them on base. Who says that if that reliever started the inning, he wouldn't have gotten them out?

Ultimately, those runners on base, were the responsibility of that pitcher. Those runners score, it's his fault for letting them get on base.

Click to expand...

agreed. getting runners on base is the fault of the starter.

While that is very true,

It is also the relief pitcher that let them score.

The starter got them on, but, didnt allow them to touch home. Had the starter stayed in, he may not have allowed them to score.

I would say, it is a relief pitcher's job to relieve...come in and get through the inning whatever the situation, and, it also can go with job duty...come in for 1 or 2 innings and get the team along.

HPC said:

While that is very true,

It is also the relief pitcher that let them score.

The starter got them on, but, didnt allow them to touch home. Had the starter stayed in, he may not have allowed them to score.

I would say, it is a relief pitcher's job to relieve...come in and get through the inning whatever the situation, and, it also can go with job duty...come in for 1 or 2 innings and get the team along.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, who says if the reliever had come in sooner, those guys may not have gotten on base.

Yes, good point.

They should consider it a half earned run for the starter and a half earned run for the reliever because they are equally at fault.

I do not see why it has to be changed. I was actually hoping for a 'good argument' but found none. If the only compelling reason to change is that the reliever let them score(after the starter put them on base and then was pulled), then there is no reason to change since there is no 'good' reason for it. It's a reason, true! But not a 'good' one..

matfanofold said:

I do not see why it has to be changed. I was actually hoping for a 'good argument' but found none. If the only compelling reason to change is that the reliever let them score(after the starter put them on base and then was pulled), then there is no reason to change since there is no 'good' reason for it. It's a reason, true! But not a 'good' one..

Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical arguement pretty much.

"There's no way of knowing whether the starter would have let them scored..."

"There's no way of knowing the relief pitcher would have let them score if he was put in earlier"

...my arguement is the relief pitcher is the person who physically allowed the runners to score by giving up the hit(s) that let them cross the base

scotty21690 said:

They should consider it a half earned run for the starter and a half earned run for the reliever because they are equally at fault.

Click to expand...

They do it in the NFL for sacks.

I feel if the pitcher makes an error and as result a run scores,I feel it should be an earned run. . If another postional player makes the error it should be unearned

HPC said:

matfanofold said:

I do not see why it has to be changed. I was actually hoping for a 'good argument' but found none. If the only compelling reason to change is that the reliever let them score(after the starter put them on base and then was pulled), then there is no reason to change since there is no 'good' reason for it. It's a reason, true! But not a 'good' one..

Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical arguement pretty much.

"There's no way of knowing whether the starter would have let them scored..."

"There's no way of knowing the relief pitcher would have let them score if he was put in earlier"

...my arguement is the relief pitcher is the person who physically allowed the runners to score by giving up the hit(s) that let them cross the base

Click to expand...

They have the inherited runner statistic to allow for this. If you come in with the bases loaded and no outs and allow a run while getting three outs there's no way you should have that run charged to you when it was already on third.

The definition of their job is to keep the runners from scoring. It's kinda silly that it doesn't count against them at all. I remember a season or two ago when Brad Ziegler was getting all this hype for not allowing a run....despite allowing a few runs.

Frow said:

The definition of their job is to keep the runners from scoring. It's kinda silly that it doesn't count against them at all. I remember a season or two ago when Brad Ziegler was getting all this hype for not allowing a run....despite allowing a few runs.

Click to expand...

It counts against them - ever heard of inherited runners allowed to score? It just isn't a big statistic because it pertains mainly to middle relievers only.

I voted "no".

Relief pitchers have ONE job: don't let inheirited runners score/protect the lead; so i can understand your arguement, but I'll only echo the points mentioned above.

HOWEVER--

on a related topic, I have a problem with the following:

SP allows 1-3 runs, exits in the 6-7 inning with the team behind. Relief pitcher comes in and gives up 5+ runs. But ALSO, the team's offense score 5+ runs. In effect, the starting pitcher takes the loss because, while the offense could cover his realatively FEW mistakes, it couldn't cover the reliever's MANY mistakes. I would be for a rule change that transferred to loss to the pitcher that gave up the most runs.

Dan Haren and Yovani Gallardo would owe me BIG if that happened

whats everyone's opinion on the TUR?

The only change that I would like to see in regard to earned runs is that a if a runner reaches base on the pitcher's error and scores, the pitcher should be responsible for an earned run.

ubersweet987 said:

The only change that I would like to see in regard to earned runs is that a if a runner reaches base on the pitcher's error and scores, the pitcher should be responsible for an earned run.

Click to expand...

Doesn't earned mean earned on the part of the hitting team? That's why regardless who made the error, the run is unearned because the hitter didn't actually earn his hit.

Let's say a starting pitcher walks a batter in the top of the 7th inning, and the next batter hits a double. There are now no outs, and runners on second and third. The relief pitcher comes in and allows a single that scores both runners. He then proceeds to strike out the side.

Is it really fair to charge two runs to a reliever that simply gave up one hit?

Had he come into the inning at the top of the inning with no one on base, he wouldn't have given up any runs, just a single.

Quite simply, you can forget about it being changed. For the most part, "cheap" earned runs earned by a starter will be earned by ALL starters. It washes out in the end when you compare starting pitchers. It's not like one pitcher's ERA is going to go up a ton (compared to another) because his bullpen gives up the runs he left on base. All starting pitchers are going to have some runs score from runners left on base when they leave. You compare starters to starters, not starters to relievers, so like I said, it's a wash in the end.


David

nborton said:

ubersweet987 said:

The only change that I would like to see in regard to earned runs is that a if a runner reaches base on the pitcher's error and scores, the pitcher should be responsible for an earned run.

Click to expand...

Doesn't earned mean earned on the part of the hitting team? That's why regardless who made the error, the run is unearned because the hitter didn't actually earn his hit.

Click to expand...

I have always thought of earned runs as runs earned off the pitcher. I figured that this is the reason ERA is associated with a pitcher rather than a team's offense.