PDA

View Full Version : Who gets the win?



nate
08-07-2011, 09:38 PM
From BR. Dig it (http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/13780):


In Cincinnati's 8-7 win over the Cubs, reliever Nick Masset was credited as the winning pitcher, according to both MLB and ESPN online. Was that decision correct?

Masset came on in the bottom of the 7th with a 1-run lead, 2 outs and 2 on. The first batter doubled, tying the game. Masset intentionally walked the next man, then let in the tiebreaker on a wild pitch, before recording his only out. The Reds went ahead in their next at-bat. Aroldis Chapman struck out all 3 in the 8th, and Francisco Cordero pitched the 9th for the save.

Whaddya think?

Matt700wlw
08-07-2011, 09:40 PM
Does it matter?

Sorry.

kaldaniels
08-07-2011, 09:43 PM
It is the official scorer's discretion, right?

reds44
08-07-2011, 09:52 PM
No. It's only the official scores decision if the starter leaves before 5 innings with the lead.

Roy Tucker
08-07-2011, 10:03 PM
He was the pitcher of record when the Reds took the lead. Simple as that.

I've seen it often happen where a closer blows a save only to have his team come back and take the lead and get him the win. W's can sometime be pretty ugly.

Brutus
08-07-2011, 10:12 PM
He was the pitcher of record when the Reds took the lead. Simple as that.

I've seen it often happen where a closer blows a save only to have his team come back and take the lead and get him the win. W's can sometime be pretty ugly.

Yep I think it's a rather open-and-shut case. One could argue it's not right, but that's the rule. Masset was most certainly the winning pitcher.

Kc61
08-07-2011, 10:17 PM
I may be wrong, but the official scorer has the discretion to award the win to another pitcher when the pitcher of record is brief or ineffectual.

Edit - rule 10.17 (c) - official scorer doesn't have to give the win to a reliever who is ineffective in a brief appearance if a subsequent reliever was effective. Not quoting exactly, just paraphrasing.

I think Chapman could have been awarded the win today. But this rule is seldom applied.

Brutus
08-07-2011, 10:28 PM
I may be wrong, but the official scorer has the discretion to award the win to another pitcher when the pitcher of record is brief or ineffectual.

Edit - rule 10.17 (c) - official scorer doesn't have to give the win to a reliever who is ineffective in a brief appearance if a subsequent reliever was effective. Not quoting exactly, just paraphrasing.

I think Chapman could have been awarded the win today. But this rule is seldom applied.

There is some wiggle room for the official scorer if a relief pitcher pitches ineffectively and another relief pitcher succeeds him effectively. You're right about that. I just meant that by rule, Masset is still the guy in line to get the win unless the official scorer decides to use discretion.

Generally speaking, if Masset had been charged with the run(s), Chapman probably would have been credited with the win. But because, despite Masset's ineffectiveness, he was not charged with the go-ahead runs for the Cubs, the scorer probably gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Kc61
08-07-2011, 10:29 PM
There is some wiggle room for the official scorer if a relief pitcher pitches ineffectively and another relief pitcher succeeds him effectively. You're right about that. I just meant that by rule, Masset is still the guy in line to get the win unless the official scorer decides to use discretion.

Generally speaking, if Masset had been charged with the run(s), Chapman probably would have been credited with the win. But because, despite Masset's ineffectiveness, he was not charged with the go-ahead runs for the Cubs, the scorer probably gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Masset and Ondrusek better start pitching better or they will be getting their future wins at AAA.

kaldaniels
08-07-2011, 10:31 PM
No. It's only the official scores decision if the starter leaves before 5 innings with the lead.

What about the rule Kc61 cited above?

757690
08-07-2011, 10:33 PM
I may be wrong, but the official scorer has the discretion to award the win to another pitcher when the pitcher of record is brief or ineffectual.

Edit - rule 10.17 (c) - official scorer doesn't have to give the win to a reliever who is ineffective in a brief appearance if a subsequent reliever was effective. Not quoting exactly, just paraphrasing.

I think Chapman could have been awarded the win today. But this rule is seldom applied.

Has anyone ever seen this applied? Ever?

The rules regarding who gets a win and how earned runs are credited need to be re-addressed if those stats are to maintain any meaning.

kaldaniels
08-07-2011, 10:33 PM
Has anyone ever seen this applied? Ever?

The rules regarding who gets a win and how earned runs are credited need to be re-addressed if those stats are to maintain any meaning.

I personally haven't seen the rule applied, but it does exist, and should be used more often if you ask me.

Caveat Emperor
08-07-2011, 10:40 PM
Has anyone ever seen this applied? Ever?

The rules regarding who gets a win and how earned runs are credited need to be re-addressed if those stats are to maintain any meaning.

It was applied in a Reds game a few years ago -- I think it was Osvaldo Fernandez who came and gave up the runs only to see the team come back and take the lead in the next half inning.

ETA: This was the game -- http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN200108050.shtml -- Fernandez came into the game in the 7th inning with the Reds leading 8-7 and promptly gave up two runs to make the score 9-8 San Diego. The Reds came back in the top of the 8th to score two more runs with Fernandez still as the pitcher of record to take the lead 10-9. Danny Graves came in to pitch the 8th and 9th and was credited with the win instead of the save by the official scorer due to Fernandez being judged as "ineffective."

PuffyPig
08-07-2011, 11:19 PM
The rule is used occasionally.

This was the perfect time to use it, as Champan pitched great, and Masett was ineffective.

PuffyPig
08-07-2011, 11:28 PM
Yep I think it's a rather open-and-shut case. One could argue it's not right, but that's the rule. Masset was most certainly the winning pitcher.

You don't always have to be right you know.

It was clear to the whole world that when you posted this that you were unaware of the rule that allowed a subsequent releif pitcher who was not the pitcher of record to be awarded the win in certain circumstances.

All of a sudden you claimed that of course there is some wiggle room.

"but that's the rule" doesn't suggest any wiggle room.

RedsManRick
08-08-2011, 12:03 AM
If the assignment of a stat requires rules that complicated, it's probably not a very useful stat.

nate
08-08-2011, 12:43 AM
If the assignment of a stat requires rules that complicated, it's probably not a very useful stat.

And Rick picks up the 7-10 "relevance of this thread" split!

High five!

nate
08-08-2011, 12:43 AM
BTW, my favorite line of that article:


The integrity of the meaningless relief-win statistics must be upheld!

kaldaniels
08-08-2011, 01:11 AM
Regarding the scorers' discretion. I would LOVE it if that was implemented more often. Did you see David Ortiz's hissy fit over a lousy RBI the other day? Can you imagine the outbursts we would see from pitchers (a touchy group to begin with) who felt robbed of a win?

BCubb2003
08-08-2011, 10:55 AM
Relievers don't really fight for wins, and these are called "vulture wins" by the players. Still, it's probably a little too harsh to expect the scorer to call out a reliever in such a way. It would be refreshing though. Sappelt should get the save, and Marlon Byrd should probably get the loss.