Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
For the Nats, Jordan pitched 5 2/3 innings, 2 runs; Ohlendorf 1/3 inning, no runs; Storen pitched 1 inning, 3 earned runs; Clippard, one inning, no runs; Soriano, one inning, no runs. And Storen gets the win?
10.17 Winning and Losing Pitcher
Rule 10.17(b) Comment: It is the intent of Rule 10.17(b) that a relief pitcher pitch at least one complete inning or pitch when a crucial out is made, within the context of the game (including the score), in order to be credited as the winning pitcher. If the first relief pitcher pitches effectively, the official scorer should not presumptively credit that pitcher with the win, because the rule requires that the win be credited to the pitcher who was the most effective, and a subsequent relief pitcher may have been most effective. The official scorer, in determining which relief pitcher was the most effective, should consider the number of runs, earned runs and base runners given up by each relief pitcher and the context of the game at the time of each relief pitcher’s appearance. If two or more relief pitchers were similarly effective, the official scorer should give the presumption to the earlier pitcher as the winning pitcher.
(c) The official scorer shall not credit as the winning pitcher a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when at least one succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain its lead. In such a case, the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the succeeding relief pitcher who was most effective, in the judgment of the official scorer.
Rule 10.17(c) Comment: The official scorer generally should, but is not required to, consider the appearance of a relief pitcher to be ineffective and brief if such relief pitcher pitches less than one inning and allows two or more earned runs to score (even if such runs are charged to a previous pitcher). Rule 10.17(b) Comment provides guidance on choosing the winning pitcher from among several succeeding relief pitchers. [Bold added]
1 IP, 3 runs is not the recommended rule book example of ineffective, even if it seems to be.
I'm very surprised that the rule book doesn't require that. How often is this 10.17(c) invoked?
According to that rule it looks like "ineffective and brief" is limited to LESS than one inning
Much more than BA and RBI, which have their limitations but do correlate fairly well with value added, wins/losses epitomizes a useless stat.
So, basically the stats would be more informative if there were no wins or losses awarded whatsoever. Much more than BA and RBI, which have their limitations but do correlate fairly well with value added, wins/losses epitomizes a useless stat. I'm not sure you can make it better.
Also, wins and losses are not useless, and do correlate with value.
Technically not applicable to the debate at hand, but still the greatest save in baseball history.
I've never understood the contention over that save. He pitched three scoreless innings, half as many as the starter. He was no less responsible for "saving" that game as Kabbard was responsible for "winning" it, yet no one points to Kabbard's W as the worst example of its sort.
Hell, if nothing else, Littleton saved the bullpen, so at least he fits the definition in some way.
A start might be to disallow a win for a pitcher who blows a save.
Obviously there will be situations where starters will get undeserved Wins (leaving with bases loaded in 4th with a 7-6 lead), but certainly less than under todays rules where it seems the majority of reliever Wins are undeserved.
Obviously there are much worse saves -- Mitch Williams made a career of them -- but it might be the silliest.
Basically, if you can hit line drives in 20% of your non-strikeout at bats, you’re a good candidate to win the batting title.
Does this presume that a very high strikeout guy won't hit line drives in 20% of the other at bats?
Todd Helton in 2003 [...] hit 149 line drives [...] Miguel Cabrera last year hit 115 Line Drives, which is about the number he hits every year, and Mike Trout hit 95 line drives. Albert Pujols in 2008, when he hit .357, hit 107 line drives. Andrew McCutchen last year hit 102 line drives.
Anybody know where this data above comes from?
This data is tracked by Baseball Info. Solutions (BIS), which is why it’s only available for players back until 2002.
wins and losses are not useless, and do correlate with value
Hence the slightly increased availability of the "Team's Record" stat for starters, which was always of some interest to gamblers and remains of enough interest to statheads to be easily found on B-Ref, and sometimes in the morning paper. It's somewhat interesting to know that the Rangers have gone 10-8 in Yu Darvish (8-4)'s 18 starts. Not amazingly interesting, but what the heck.
Every game has a win, but not every game has a save.
We have come a long way from handwritten notes and keeping track of everything manually. Let's use our spreadsheet programs and just assign a win based upon the percentage of the game played in by a player in a victory. (Roughly 50% divided evenly to the players who batted, 35% divided among the pitchers and 15% divided among all the fielders--total equals one, and there is no 'determining worth', it's all divided equally)
LgAvg 4.32 162 162 58 59 45 11 15 81 81 .500 13 18 4 2 83 51%
Tm R/G G GS Wgs Lgs ND Wchp Ltuf Wtm Ltm tmW-L% Wlst Lsv CG SHO QS QS%
Total 4.32 4860 4860 1738 1783 1339 340 461 2430 2430 .500 399 550 128 69 2484 51%
I didn't remember that Baltimore only used four pitchers in that game, giving up 30 runs.
Where we have play by play data, though, why not award percentages of wins based on actual, in-game performance?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (8 members)
Page rendered in 0.6939 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed