Baseball Scoring Rule that makes no sense

[Toro]

Last night Schilling pitched this gem. 8 innings 3 hits, no runs, 114 pitches, 90 for strikes and leaves the game with a 1-0 lead.

Foulke comes in for the 9th and gives up a 2 run homer and then the Sox score 2 in the bottom of the 9th for the 3-2 win.

Result: Foulke gets a win and Schilling gets a no decision. I know it's been this way forever but it still makes no sense to do it this way.

[Uston]

Wouldn't it have been the right of the official scorer to give Schilling the win?

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it have been the right of the official scorer to give Schilling the win?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, no discretion is allowed in the appointment of a win.

When I read the headline of the original post, I thought, "ah, somebody whining about rules they don't understand."

But Toro, you're right. This is a clear-cut example of the way assigning the win has serious a flaw.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think this makes sense:

10.19
(a) Credit the starting pitcher with a game won only if he has pitched at least five complete innings and his team not only is in the lead when he is replaced but remains in the lead the remainder of the game.

(3) Once the opposing team assumes the lead all pitchers who have pitched up to that point are excluded from being credited with the victory except that if the pitcher against whose pitching the opposing team gained the lead continues to pitch until his team regains the lead, which it holds to the finish of the game, that pitcher shall be the winning pitcher;

(4) The winning relief pitcher shall be the one who is the pitcher of record when his team assumes the lead and maintains it to the finish of the game. EXCEPTION: Do not credit a victory to a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when a succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain the lead. In such cases, credit the succeeding relief pitcher with the victory. (

MLB Official Scoring Rules (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_scorer_10.jsp)

[SnakeRat]

He will also get a few wins in games he doesn't deserve them.
I think the rule does its job adequately.

Any suggestions for modifaction?

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this makes sense:

10.19
(a) Credit the starting pitcher with a game won only if he has pitched at least five complete innings and his team not only is in the lead when he is replaced but remains in the lead the remainder of the game.

(3) Once the opposing team assumes the lead all pitchers who have pitched up to that point are excluded from being credited with the victory except that if the pitcher against whose pitching the opposing team gained the lead continues to pitch until his team regains the lead, which it holds to the finish of the game, that pitcher shall be the winning pitcher;

(4) The winning relief pitcher shall be the one who is the pitcher of record when his team assumes the lead and maintains it to the finish of the game. EXCEPTION: Do not credit a victory to a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when a succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain the lead. In such cases, credit the succeeding relief pitcher with the victory. (

MLB Official Scoring Rules (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_scorer_10.jsp)

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes sense as far as it goes. They make an exception for an ineffective relief pitcher where they award the victory to the other relief pitcher who was more effective. Why not extend the exception and prevent ineffective relievers like Foulke last night from getting "vulture" wins.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
He will also get some wins in games he doesn't deserve them in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how. Please give me an example of this.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He will also get some wins in games he doesn't deserve them in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how. Please give me an example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Schilling gives up a leadoff HR in the top of the 1st. He pitches 7 innings and Boston is still down 1-0. They score 2 runs in the bottom of the 7th to take the 2-1 lead. A new pitcher starts the 8th for Boston, and they hold the lead for the remainder of the game. Schilling gets the W, even though Boston was never in the lead while he was on the mound.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not extend the exception and prevent ineffective relievers like Foulke last night from getting "vulture" wins.

[/ QUOTE ] Why are you even questioning the rules? I am guessing you really want Schilling to win the Cy Young and you realize the only way he has a chance is by winning more games than Santana. Santana will win the Cy Young this year because he is the better pitcher and the official scoring rules do not need to be changed.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He will also get some wins in games he doesn't deserve them in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how. Please give me an example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Schilling gives up a leadoff HR in the top of the 1st. He pitches 7 innings and Boston is still down 1-0. They score 2 runs in the bottom of the 7th to take the 2-1 lead. A new pitcher starts the 8th for Boston, and they hold the lead for the remainder of the game. Schilling gets the W, even though Boston was never in the lead while he was on the mound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example doesn't make much sense. The team scored the winning runs in the same inning that the starting pitcher pitched. Why wouldn't he deserve the win?

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not extend the exception and prevent ineffective relievers like Foulke last night from getting "vulture" wins.

[/ QUOTE ] Why are you even questioning the rules? I am guessing you really want Schilling to win the Cy Young and you realize the only way he has a chance is by winning more games than Santana. Santana will win the Cy Young this year because he is the better pitcher and the official scoring rules do not need to be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO!!!

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He will also get some wins in games he doesn't deserve them in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how. Please give me an example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Schilling gives up a leadoff HR in the top of the 1st. He pitches 7 innings and Boston is still down 1-0. They score 2 runs in the bottom of the 7th to take the 2-1 lead. A new pitcher starts the 8th for Boston, and they hold the lead for the remainder of the game. Schilling gets the W, even though Boston was never in the lead while he was on the mound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example doesn't make much sense. The team scored the winning runs in the same inning that the starting pitcher pitched. Why wouldn't he deserve the win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, then change it so Boston is the visiting team. Schilling gives up 1 (or 5 or whatever) runs in the bottom of the first, pitches 7 innings, Boston scores 2 (or 6 or whatever) in the top of the 8th, new reliever comes in to start the bottom of the 8th, Schilling gets the win without being on the mound with a lead.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I knew it!!!!!
Even the Yankees can't change the rules, so what makes you think Boston can. If Schilling wins the Cy Young this year, all that will do is fuel my hatred and rage for the Red Sox. Santana deserves it regardless of what the fat SOB John Kruk says about it.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not extend the exception and prevent ineffective relievers like Foulke last night from getting "vulture" wins.

[/ QUOTE ] Why are you even questioning the rules? I am guessing you really want Schilling to win the Cy Young and you realize the only way he has a chance is by winning more games than Santana. Santana will win the Cy Young this year because he is the better pitcher and the official scoring rules do not need to be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you'd better give Santana 2 more wins for the no decisions he got on 4/16 vs KC (left in the 7th with a lead, Rincon gave up the tying run, Twins retake the lead in the bottom of the 7th) and 7/22 vs TB (pitched 7 innings, leading 5-1, Rincon gives up 4 in the top of the 8th, Twins score 2 in the bottom of the 8th - exact same scenario as Schilling had).

Now he's got the magic 20 wins and Schilling has zero chance at the Cy Young.

Checkmate.

[bwana devil]

In the real example, Schilling pitched 8 innings for 0 runs. At the end of the 8th, Boston is up 1-0.

In the hypothetical example, Schilling pitches 7 innings and gives up 1 run. At the end of the 7th, Boston is up 2-1.

Looks similar to me. I wouldn't count it against the starting pitcher whether he was on the home team or away team determining whether he pitches in the top or bottom of the inning.

[ThaSaltCracka]

J. Santana, Min IP:217.0 Hits:151 Runs:68 ER:64 K's:254 Wins:19 Loses:6 ERA: 2.65
C. Schilling, Bos IP:219.2 Hits: 205 Runs:82 ER:80 K's:197 Wins:20 Loses:6 ERA: 3.28


Please tell me why Schilling deserves the CY Young over Santana?

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, then change it so Boston is the visiting team. Schilling gives up 1 (or 5 or whatever) runs in the bottom of the first, pitches 7 innings, Boston scores 2 (or 6 or whatever) in the top of the 8th, new reliever comes in to start the bottom of the 8th, Schilling gets the win without being on the mound with a lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the reliever in the 8th would get the win.

And I don't have a problem w/ that.

[andyfox]

There is discretion allowed in the assiging of a win, but only among relievers. If a relief pitcher comes in and pitches briefly and ineffectively, yet his team takes over the lead while he is the pitcher of record (which it does not relinquish), the official scorer can award the win to a subsequent reliever who pitched more effectively. In the case at hand, though, he cannot award the win to the starter.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the reliever in the 8th would get the win.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, he wouldn't. Schilling still gets the win because he hasn't been substituted for yet.

[bwana devil]

Yes, you're right. Once I posted and others started the discussion, I realized my post was too general in discussing pitchers when I intended to only address starters. Thanks to you and others for clarifying.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Jeff A. is right.

[andyfox]

Santana has pitched 20 consecutive games giving up three runs or less. The last time that was accomplished was in 1965, by Sonny Siebert, in an era when far fewer runs were scored.

[ThaSaltCracka]

if Santana doesn't win, I will stop watching baseball.

[Thythe]

I'm not replying to anyone in particular here, but I think the rule makes fine sense. People who are really into baseball (and baseball managers, coaches, etc), don't just look blindly at number of wins that a pitcher has. In fact, in most cases, every win that a closing pitcher has is looked upon poorly because the scenario that occurred here should have occurred for every win they have. The same goes with the awarding of various awards such as the Cy Young. They don't just look at who has the most wins, they look at a pitcher's performance. So really whether the win is awarded to Schilling is inconsequential.

[Thythe]

I also agree 100% that Santana should get the Cy Young.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
People who are really into baseball (and baseball managers, coaches, etc), don't just look blindly at number of wins that a pitcher has.

[/ QUOTE ] Uh, the idiots(media) that vote for the Cy Young do. They also get caught up in HR's for the MVP too.

[andyfox]

How about the game Wakefield gave up six home runs? He won that game. Did he really deserve a win? Or the recent game where Washburn of the Angels gave up just an unearned run in 8 innings and lost 1-0. Did he deserve a loss? Or last night, Rivera came into the 9th leading 5-2, had another mediocre outing, gave up a run, and got a save. Did he really deserve a save for this?

The system is not perfect. But the active leaders in wins are Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, and Johnson. The active leaders in saves are Franco, Hoffman, Rivera and Percival. I think the system has awarded them their wins and saves reasonably well.

[Toro]

Andy, that was the only example that I could think of and was hoping no one would come up with it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

and the system isn't going to be changed because some rabid red sox fan thinks his teams best pitcher deserves the Cy Young.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, the reliever in the 8th would get the win.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, he wouldn't. Schilling still gets the win because he hasn't been substituted for yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone else care to weigh in on this? I thought I was right, and had no question about the answer. Now saltcracka is telling me I'm wrong as well. Leaves me scratching my head.

[andyfox]

I think Schilling is a lock to finish second. Which is exactly where he should finish.

More interesting is the National League. I'm beginning to think Clemens may be the favorite right now.

[andyfox]

The pitcher of record gets the win. That's the pitcher that was last on the mound when the team took an unrelinquished lead. The only exceptions are that a starting pitcher must go five innings to get a win, and a relief pitcher that pithces briefly and ineffectively.

So, if as in last night's game, Schilling pitches 8 innings and going to the bottom of the 8th the score is 0-0, and Boston scores a run in the bottom of the 8th, and now Foulke comes in to pitch the top of the 9th, and he preserves the win 1-0, Schilling gets the win and Foulke gets a save.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who are really into baseball (and baseball managers, coaches, etc), don't just look blindly at number of wins that a pitcher has.

[/ QUOTE ] Uh, the idiots(media) that vote for the Cy Young do. They also get caught up in HR's for the MVP too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Salty, let me start off by saying I agree with you that Santana deserves it. But I'm a homer so I want our guy to snag the award.

You are also correct that the voters put a lot importance on wins. I remember in 1990 when Clemens had a superior year but lost the Cy to Bob Welch because Welch had 27 wins for a loaded Oakland club. Here's their respective stats for that year:

Clemens: 21-6 1.93 ERA 209 K's
Welch: 27-6 2.95 ERA 127 K's

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else care to weigh in on this? I thought I was right, and had no question about the answer. Now saltcracka is telling me I'm wrong as well. Leaves me scratching my head.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at my earlier post which has the official scoring rules from the MLB website.

[ThaSaltCracka]

27 wins is a lot though, especially compared to 21 wins. This is like comparing 50 homeruns to 40 homeruns. But Clemens probably should have won.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think Clemens will win it in the NL. My sleeper pick Armando Benitez

[Uston]

Andy, didn't Mike Scott put up twenty straight quality starts in 1986?

Maybe it was nineteen straight.

Another insane Santana stat. Since he went on his tear at the beginning of June he has 200 strikeouts...while allowing 79 hits.

[bwana devil]

Who would get the win in Jeff's hypothetical example from earlier?

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, then change it so Boston is the visiting team. Schilling gives up 1 (or 5 or whatever) runs in the bottom of the first, pitches 7 innings, Boston scores 2 (or 6 or whatever) in the top of the 8th, new reliever comes in to start the bottom of the 8th, Schilling gets the win without being on the mound with a lead.


[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

Schilling. He was still the pitcher of record when his team took the lead. One way to keep it straight is that if you haven't yet appeared in the game when your team has a lead which it never relinquishes, you can't get the win.

[andyfox]

27 wins, that was the bottom line. Sometimes voters are overwhelmed by big numbers. Several guys who didn't really deserve it have won MVP award because of big RBI totals.

The Dodgers gave up on Welch and Dave Stewart and they won 50 games between them for Oakland in 1990. 50!

[andyfox]

I saw that stat on ESPN. Perhaps they were referring to the American League only.

If I remember correctly, Scott was in a close race with Fernando Valenzuela for the Cy Young award the year Scott won and he pitched a no-hitter on closing day to seal the deal.

Both Santana's and Radke's strikeout to walk ratios are impressive.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The Dodgers gave up on Welch and Dave Stewart and they won 50 games between them for Oakland in 1990. 50!

[/ QUOTE ] This makes me laugh for some reason.

[andyfox]

27 wins is a lot of wins. Before Welch, I think Carlton won 27, Koufax too, Mclain won 31, and Don Newcombe won 27. That's all, I think, in my lifetime, although I might have missed one or two.

It's so rare for a guy to win 25 games, even in the days of a four-man rotation; to have two guys average 25 wins who were traded away by the same team is something that doesn't happen every day. Of course, giving up on those two pales when compared to giving up on Pedro Martinez.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
to have two guys average 25 wins who were traded away by the same team is something that doesn't happen every day. Of course, giving up on those two pales when compared to giving up on Pedro Martinez.

[/ QUOTE ] Neither one of them was a 20 games winner before they were traded by LA. In Stewarts case, he wasn't even really starting any games until he arrived in Oakland. I think Both Stewart and Welch benefited from playing on a truely awesome Oakland team.

[ QUOTE ]
27 wins is a lot of wins. Before Welch, I think Carlton won 27, Koufax too, Mclain won 31, and Don Newcombe won 27. That's all, I think, in my lifetime, although I might have missed one or two.

[/ QUOTE ] Not sure what your lifetime is, but I do know your waaaaay older than me /images/graemlins/wink.gif, but Robin Roberts had 28 in 1952, Hal Newhouser had 29 in 1944.

27 wins though is the most in the past 20 years, two pitchers have had 24 though in that span.

BTW, what the hell happened to Denny McClain? 31 wins then 24 the next season and then poof! arm done.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, what the hell happened to Denny McClain? 31 wins then 24 the next season and then poof! arm done.

[/ QUOTE ]

He also ended up doing some time in the big house. Don't remember for what though.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
He also ended up doing some time in the big house

[/ QUOTE ] He played College Football at Michigan????

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who are really into baseball (and baseball managers, coaches, etc), don't just look blindly at number of wins that a pitcher has.

[/ QUOTE ] Uh, the idiots(media) that vote for the Cy Young do. They also get caught up in HR's for the MVP too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you truly believe that it's the "idiots" in media voting relatively blindly, then the award doesn't really carry much importance then making this debate moot.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If you truly believe that it's the "idiots" in media voting relatively blindly, then the award doesn't really carry much importance then making this debate moot.

[/ QUOTE ] I think the players should vote on the awards and not the media.

[andyfox]

I don't know if McLain's arm went, or his head did. Probably both.

I was born in 1953. So there. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

They end up voting for their friends, rather than for the deserving.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You're not the guy who called D&C this morning to say the same thing, are you?

On the other side of the debate, what about the starter that goes 5, gives up 7 runs, then his team scores 8 in their next at bat. He still gets the win.

These type anomalies even out IMO.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No. Foulke was the pitcher of record when the Sox took the lead.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
These type anomalies even out IMO.

[/ QUOTE ] This is an excellent reply.

[Toro]

Nope, wasn't me.