Winning Pitcher: Bumgarner….er, Affeldt

One of the major story lines from Game 7 of the World Series was the decision by the official scorers to initially award the win to Madison Bumgarner, only to reverse themselves upon review after the game was over, and give the win to Jeremy Affeldt instead.

The decision that the scorers originally made appears to be based on a comment that appears next to Rule 10.17(b) - part of the rule that covers how the winning pitcher is determined - which is also repeated in rule 10.17(c). That comment has been quoted frequently by supporters of the original decision, and reads like this:

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.

This comment is referenced in the comment to rule 10.17(c):

Rule 10.17(b) Comment provides guidance on choosing the winning pitcher from among several succeeding relief pitchers.

What most people fail to realize, however, is that neither rule 10.17(b) nor rule 10.17(c) applied, and therefore the comment doesn’t even come into play.

Let’s walk through what the logic that the scorers should have applied (and probably, if belatedly, did apply).

Rule 10.17(a) reads as follows:

The official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher that pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game, and does not relinquish such lead, unless(1) such pitcher is a starting pitcher and Rule 10.17(b) applies; or (2) Rule 10.17(c) applies.

The Giants assumed the lead in the second inning, but immediately relinquished that lead in the bottom half of the inning, when starter Tim Hudson departed to be replaced by Affeldt. The Giants regained the lead in the top of the fourth, and held it through the end of the game. Affeldt was in the game at the time the Giants assumed the lead that they did not relinquish, and is therefore the presumptive winning pitcher. By the clear wording of rule 10.17(a), furthermore, Affeldt receives credit for the win unless one of the two exceptions applies.

Rule 10.17(b) reads as follows:

If the pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game, and does not relinquish such lead, is a starting pitcher who has not completed
(1) five innings of a game that lasts six or more innings on defense, or
(2) four innings of a game that lasts five innings on defense,
then the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the relief pitcher, if there is only one relief pitcher, or the relief pitcher who, in the official scorer’s judgment was the most effective, if there is more than one relief pitcher.

Clearly, 10.17(b) does not apply. Hudson, who was the starter, didn’t depart while the team held a lead that it did not relinquish, and Affeldt, who was the pitcher in the game when the Giants took the lead that they did not relinquish, was not the starting pitcher.

Now let’s look at rule 10.17(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.

Bumgarner was more effective than Affeldt, true, but rule 10.17(c) applies only when both circumstances hold - the pitcher in line for the win must have been ineffective in a brief appearance and a succeeding reliever was effective. The reference to the rule 10.17(b) comment comes into play only when rule 10.17(c) is applied and the team used more than one pitcher after the ineffective reliever. There is no reasonable argument to be made that Affeldt pitched either briefly or ineffectively - so clearly, 10.17(c) also does not apply.

So now when we walk back to 10.17(a), what do we have? 10.17(a) states that Affeldt should be credited with the win unless either 10.17(b) applies or 10.17(c) applies. 10.17(b) does not apply. 10.17(c) does not apply. Ergo, Affeldt receives credit for the win.

Simple enough, and the application of the rule should have been clear enough when taken out of the heat of the moment.