what about if you K on a passed ball and "get on base?"

I'm with you 100% on this one, Lefty. In fact, I've believed this for years, going all the way back to an NBC Saturday Game of the Week in '86 or '87. Vince Coleman reached on two infield errors in a game at Busch Stadium on two routine grounders where the infielder had to hurry becuase of his speed. i clearly remember Joe Garagiola saying something to the effect of "Those are easy plays if any other player in the league is running, but Coleman's speed effects forces you to rush everything." I thought, if Coleman's the only player in the league who gets on base on those plays, how come he's not rewarded statistically.

I understand the "con" argument -- that it's largely based on luck, which is not something you want to reward -- but I would counter that if it is indeed luck, it should largely even out by the end of the season (at least as much as bloops falling in and line drives being caught does).

I'm also with Lefty. The stat is on base percentage and reaching because of an error constitutes as getting on base (I'm not sure what I think about the above argument regarding reaching after a strikeout.) I've never liked the fact that, if a batter barely makes contact and lifts a shallow fly ball that the fielder loses in the sun or wind and the ball falls untouched, it's a single or a double but, if a batter hits a screaming line drive that is knocked down by the shortstop and, while on his knees, his throw pulls the first baseman off the bag, it's often ruled an error and the batter is, essentially, punished in the stat book. I'd be curious to see which batters lead the league in forcing defenses to make errors.

>what about if you K on a passed ball and "get on base?"

No. You have to put the ball in play.

Via BaseballProspectus, here are the 2006 leaders in reaching on error:

NAME PA ROE ROE_RATE
-------------------- ---- --- --------
Kenji Johjima 542 13 .0240
Carlos Beltran 617 13 .0211
Juan Pierre 750 13 .0173
Adrian Beltre 681 11 .0162
Edgar Renteria 673 11 .0163
Clint Barmes 535 11 .0206
Josh Willingham 573 11 .0192
Brandon Inge 601 11 .0183
Michael Young 748 11 .0147
Ichiro Suzuki 752 11 .0146
Jay Payton 588 11 .0187
Adam Everett 566 10 .0177
Conor Jackson 556 10 .0180
Melky Cabrera 525 10 .0190
Brian Anderson 406 10 .0246
Orlando Hudson 650 10 .0154
Corey Patterson 499 10 .0200
Derek Jeter 715 10 .0140
Mike Lowell 631 10 .0158

And the NYT wrote about it here.

Well I agree to a point. I don't know where you'd draw the line. If OBP = every time you got on base (which I guess is reasonable sounding) then I still don't see how a players speed or anything else would account for him getting on base because he swung at a terrible pitch, in the dirt, that got by the catcher for a WP. Maybe bigger batters are responsible for getting hit by pitches more often since there is more surface area and thus more likelihood of getting on base by being hit by a pitch?

I was going to say that the number is so small that it would not add much, but according to the BP stats from Elbo, it can add 15-20 points for the best. Speed does seem to be a factor, but I would note these anomalies (hard line drive hitters?): Josh Willingham, Brandon Inge, Conor Jackson, Mike Lowell.

I can see doing this now, but then we need to add some adjustment for double plays then, like subtracting from the on-base sum and perhaps also adding to AB/PA's. I would also remove the total bases erased by the DP. It's clear that DP's are a huge drag on the offense (hence why we record it on defense), and yet none of the measures of offense takes into account DPs.

To those who talk of luck. Batting average is actually heavily reliant on luck. Want to know why a guy is mashing? Check his Batting Average on Balls In Play. Much of baseball is luck, so i agree it should be counted. However, it should be counted like it is with rEqA. i think it's worth about 1/2 of a hit.

I always thought it was counted for OBP, for the reasons listed above. Therefore I agree with Lefty that it should be changed.

I agree to an extent. OBP should measure what it says it measures, i.e. percentage of the time you actually wind up standing on base (or back in the dugout if you go yard...)

Thing is I'm not convinced that we want to advocate rewarding contact and putting the ball in play. Striking out is often better for your team than contact. David Eckstein barely strikes out. Juan Pierre barely strikes out.

Question: is it possible to erase the runner ahead of you and get on base via an error, or would it always be a fielders' choice? i.e. you hit it to the SS, who throws to second base and erases the lead runner, but the 2B then throws wildly, pulls the 1B off the bag and the runner is aboard. How would that be scored?

>I'm not convinced that we want to advocate rewarding contact and putting the ball in play

It's not a question of advocacy, more one of statistical consistency.

>is it possible to erase the runner ahead of you and get on base via an error, or would it always be a fielders' choice?

That would be scored FC-E4. In my system, it would not count toward your OBP because you're simply replacing one runner with another (yourself) while making an out. Whether you subsequently advance a base via error, as you describe above, is incidental.

How about we just eliminate the error as a statistic. It's too subjective. It creates the impression that the ERA is a meaningful measure of a pitchers value. And it creates all of your questions about how to calculate BA, OBP and OPS.

I like the new defensive measures. Just tell me if the team or defensive players involved in the play made an out or not. Then tell me each player's or team's percentage of success. By extension, just tell me if the batter was safe or out.

big0,
Yes, count it as on-base. And don't call anything that is not an out a strike-out!

>ELM:"That would be scored FC-E4."

Actually, no, it would just be scored as a FC, because of the "You can never assume a DP" rule (which, by the way, is another rule which should be changed -- if the first out is made early enough and all you have to do is make a decent throw to first, why shouldn't we assume it like we assume every other easy throw). The only way it waould be a FC-E4 would be if the throw got away and the batter advanced to 2nd base or beyond ont he play.

But your overall point still holds true -- you should never get credit for getting on base if you take out a pre-existing runner to get there.

Ooops, that was me above. I didn't mean to be so secretive about it.