When a win isnt a win

[bustouts]

Has anyone ever seen an official scoring decision like what happened in the Oakland/Baltimore game last nite? Ryan Cook blew a save in the 8th inning by giving up one run on three hits in 1/3 of an inning. The only out recorded was Thome being thrown out at the plate. Oakland subsequently scored 6 runs in the top of the ninth and brought in Blevins to finish the game. He pitched the ninth and gave up 2 hits in a scoreless inning. The official scorer credited him with the win because of Cook's ineffectiveness. I cant recall this ever happening before and I have seen much worse outings result in wins for relievers. I think this official scorer used his authority beyond the norm. Not to mention he cost me a valuable win .

[Joe Sambito]

Let's hope DOUGHBOYS or Captain Hook chimes in, both those guys have a history as an official scorer (although DOUGHBOY's career may be in his infancy). Now if the A's scored 4 instead of 6, and Blevins still comes in, does Blevins get the save and Cook the win?

David as a fellow Cook owner, I too was disappointed. I know the A's want to keep their young arms fresh, but he needs more work then he has gotten this week. Doolittle was pretty rusty the night before as well.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It is 'beyond the norm'.
I salute him though. Cook did not get one out by his own hand and was beyond ineffective.
Scorekeepers have few discretionary rulings. When using that discretion, common sense should rule the day. Cook clearly did not deserve the win. And I know that by saying that, the arguments will becoming from others that other relievers have been worse and if the game was in Oakland somehow (vis/home be damned), then Cook would have gotten the win.
And, you're right. But Baltimore had a more free thinking and common sensical score keeper on this night.

By the way, I got some static from a player that I did not credit with a stolen base in the eighth inning. He was not held on and no move was made to throw him out at 2nd base. He argued that fielders indifference was only called in the ninth inning. I handed him the rule book and asked him to find that rule.
After not finding it, he said it was unwritten.
I responded, "Just like your stolen base."

Getting back to the Cook ruling.....
At the major league level, this type of ruling effects hundreds of thousands of fantasy owners. While I agree with his ruling, there is still that little part of me that wonders if maybe the rival in his fantasy league owns Cook.

[swampass]

i have cook. i was relieved to see that not only did he got real lucky by getting out of that inning but that oakland also scored those 6 runs. I was pissed to see the ruling, was tempted to create a thread, but knew that id have the doughboys clearing the air as i had just read his post about being a scorekeeper. i also figured that the scorekeeper in baltimore was being creative. im still kind of pissed of but this was my text to my co-owner directly after the game when I thought we were getting the win:

"Cook finally got an out and Oakland just scored 6 runs in the top of the 9th which puts him in position for the cheapest vulture win of all time....."

[bustouts]

I understand the rules and the rationale of why it was done. Im just surprised that this official scorer took it upon himself to rule this way because other relievers really get hammered and are still credited with the win because they were the pitcher when the go ahead rubs were scored. Its usually pretty black and white.

[Daveclum]

If memory serves Joba Chamberlain would get some of the strange wins.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I reached out through some friends to see if I could get any 'inside' information from his decision.
This is very second or even third hand information.
The score keeper did not feel comfortable giving the win to Cook. He had three chances to retire a batter and failed in all three attempts.
It only happens once or twice a year and usually does not effect fantasy, the pitchers that are usually ineffective, and have a Win stripped are usually middle relievers.
This was an exception and hurt Cook owners.

[BK METS]

The uniqueness of this situation, being that Cook did not retire a batter on his own, plus the fact that the A's scored more runs in the following inning than would allow a save to be awarded to the following pitcher, makes for the appropriate call by the official scorer. If the A's scored 3 runs in the 9th, the official scorer would have had no choice but give Cook the win and Blevins the save. Although we have seen relievers blow saves and then get a win, typically those situations come when there is a save rewarded to the closing pitcher. This was not the case.

Very odd, but the rule is there, as is the more common situation, when a starting pitcher is removed for one reason or another, prior to 5 innings, with the lead, and the official scorer has the option to choose the winning pitcher.

[Daveclum]

OR 4 innings if the game only goes 5

[swampass]

HA! cook doesnt deserve a Win but this guy, this guy, deserves a Save?

"Jerome Williams earned his first save of the season Monday as he pitched four innings and allowed five runs, eight hits and one walk to go along with one strikeout."

The game finished 15-8 Angels, so again, not even close to a "normal save opp."

Consistency is needed.

[Atlas]

Along these lines.....

I wouldn't mind if an umpire would exercise some judgement on ground rule doubles.

Without having the book in front of me, I believe they have the judgement to allow a runner to advance more than 2 bases if they feel they would have scored from first.

Too many times I've seen a speedster take off on a 2 out, 3-2 pitch and be rounding third by the time the ball hopped into the stands or picked up by a fan leaning over. Is fan interference applied here?