Winning pitcher rule?

[Epictetus]

Can someone explain the rule by which Braden Scott was given the W for Friday's second game? The Hoosiers were well ahead before he appeared for one batter; Modugno had pitched 4+ shutout innings; the game was never tied nor were tying runs on base.

The only thing I can figure is that a starting pitcher must go 5 innings. If not, whoever touches the ball next gets the win.

 

[hoosier roadtrips]

I have always hated the rule that a starting pitcher has to go five innings to get the win. So many times I have seen the starter leave the game due to injury, pitch count or a long rain delay before they finish the fifth. They are changing other rules, so I wish this one would also be considered. As long as the opening pitcher goes one inning and his team is ahead and stays ahead I believe the starter should get the win. It takes the decision of which reliever gets the W away from the official scorer.

 

[Epictetus]

First, I assume College Baseball accepted this 5-inning rule from MLB. Why not modify it, given that college players play under very different conditions and restrictions (including pitch count limits)?

Second, IRIC the MLB rule is that the W should go to the most effective reliever. Is it the same in College Baseball? Scott retired one batter, on, I believe, one pitch. What about Bothwell and Litwicki, who pitched full scoreless innings and had a number of strikeouts. What's the scorer's rationale for choosing Scott?

 

[MatthewByrne5]

It's a foolish rule, in my opinion, and having it depend upon the official scorer makes it highly subjective. Maybe there should be something put in place to aid in deciding who the most "effective" reliever should be to receive the win.

Regardless, a pitcher's win-loss record is an ineffective statistic, in my opinion. It would have been nice to see Modugno receive the win for his efforts in the game, but we all know he contributed significantly and that will reflect in other stats like his ERA.

I love this conversation on the ruling, though. What are your thoughts on my take about win-loss record? I am a Met fan, so that's why I have those feelings about the win-loss record. It's because of one man: Jacob deGrom.

I also hope everyone is staying safe and doing well. I am excited to watch the game tomorrow morning and I'm planning to publish my series recap tomorrow night. Go Hoosiers!

 

[hoosier roadtrips]

I think it just makes sense to have the pitcher get the W who is on the mound when his team goes ahead and stays there. As long as he pitches one inning, which would be the same for a visiting and home hurler, then I don't think he should be penalized.

Any relief pitcher is allowed to gain the W and he does not even have to throw a pitch for that to happen. He can pick a runner off and then his team goes ahead when they bat. I once called into a show to argue this point, and one panelist did not like having a starter gain a win while not pitching well. But my point was that he would still be better than the opposing pitcher and takes away a lot of the unfairness about this rule.

 

[Epictetus]

It's a foolish rule, in my opinion, and having it depend upon the official scorer makes it highly subjective. Maybe there should be something put in place to aid in deciding who the most "effective" reliever should be to receive the win.

Regardless, a pitcher's win-loss record is an ineffective statistic, in my opinion. It would have been nice to see Modugno receive the win for his efforts in the game, but we all know he contributed significantly and that will reflect in other stats like his ERA.

I love this conversation on the ruling, though. What are your thoughts on my take about win-loss record? I am a Met fan, so that's why I have those feelings about the win-loss record. It's because of one man: Jacob deGrom.

I also hope everyone is staying safe and doing well. I am excited to watch the game tomorrow morning and I'm planning to publish my series recap tomorrow night. Go Hoosiers!

I couldn't agree more. Pitchers' win-loss record is so highly dependent on the scoring ability behind them.

I always think of Virgil Trucks, who had a great career, but spent his early years with a struggling Tigers franchise. In 1952, the year I began to follow MLB, he had a record of 5-19. But in that year he was also the first pitcher to throw two no-hitters in one season (won both 1-0; that's the sort of support he usually had).

Next season was traded to White Sox and went 20-10.

Fortunately, nowadays fans are much more aware of other statistical measures and can appreciate great performances, even if they don't show up in batting average or Win-Loss records.