No, he's not. This is addressed specifically under Rule 10.16 E:
"An error by a pitcher is treated exactly the same as an error by any other fielder in computing earned runs"
I've always thought he should be charged given that he caused the inning to continue, but I guess the scorers feel that all fielding errors should be treated equally.
http://www.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_scorer_10.jsp
2007-04-16 10:12:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Craig S 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, the pitcher is not charged with an earned run because it is still an error made by a fielder, and pitchers count as fielders.
2007-04-16 10:45:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
ERA is the abbreviation for "Earned Run Average". It's a statistic associated with pitchers only whereby their performance is measured by the following formula: total # of earned runs allowed divided by total # of innings pitched; multiply by 9. The lower the average, the higher a pitcher is rated. Personally, I think whether they are a starting pitcher or a reliever also plays a little bit into rating their performance. Your much more likely to see a lower ERA on say a closer than you would a starter. Why? Less innings pitched. Plain and simple.
2016-05-17 04:13:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by odilia 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't believe so.
An error is an error. It has nothing to do with the pitcher's pitching stats. An error is a fielding statistic so would probably be treated separately.
2007-04-16 10:11:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by ABC 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No he is not even though it is an error on himself they dont count it as a earned run(In their infinate wisdom
2007-04-16 11:24:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, he's not charged with an earned run.
2007-04-16 10:09:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by BH 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, he's not charged with an earned run. GO YANKEES!!
2007-04-16 11:05:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by BaSeBaLLChiCk247x0x 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. If that were so, then all of the fielders would have to have ERAs as well
2007-04-16 10:15:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by shaggy_g 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, he is not; but I understand your point and is very interesting
2007-04-16 10:13:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋