NFBC Message Boards

This has nothing to do with the NFBC. I just continue to see year after year starting pitchers get screwed over wins. How many times can I watch a reliever come in, give up a run to lose a lead, then get credited with a win?



Somehow it matters ZERO how much time and effort a reliever comes in - if he happens to be the pitcher who pitched the last out before his team takes the league Bingo, he gets a win. A Starting Pitcher on the other hand must stay in for 5 innings and even if he leaves with a lead, and the relievers only allow a tie, he is still denied the win.



I am just sick of this!!!!



Spy

Can't forget the SP who goes 4 and 2/3rds, gets a blister while winning 8-0.



RP comes in for the last out in the 5th inning, gets it, leaves, and gets the win.



~Lance

Spy...I would like to apologize to you as it must be one of my closers because they have been getting clobber this year. My deepest regrets! On the flip side your pitchers must be pitching good enough to at least win. My closers are killing my era and whip! LOL :rolleyes:

Wins, continue to be, the silliest statistic of any sport, in all of history.



All a statistical win for a pitcher tells you is:



a) you made an appearance in a game

b) you retired at least one batter



If a pitcher wins 20 games, all you can say with certainty, is that at least 20 times the pitcher appeared and retired at least one hitter during that appearance.

Could you imagine if the awarding fo a win was left to the subjectivity of the official scorer?



We'd have people on these boards daily asking for Tom and Greg to overrule a decision for the integrity of the NFBC.

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Could you imagine if the awarding fo a win was left to the subjectivity of the official scorer?



We'd have people on these boards daily asking for Tom and Greg to overrule a decision for the integrity of the NFBC. Great point!!

anyone watching this FLA/PITT game. Olsen is about to be another victim!!!!!

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Could you imagine if the awarding fo a win was left to the subjectivity of the official scorer?



We'd have people on these boards daily asking for Tom and Greg to overrule a decision for the integrity of the NFBC. Actually, if memory serves me correctly, it is left to the subjectivity of the official scorer in some cases. The official scorer can use his discretion to not give the victory to an ineffective relief pitcher under certain criteria, even though he was the 'pitcher of record' during the lead change. It seems though that this practice has become increasingly rare in recent years. He really should, when appropriate, take this liberty, because the so called 'W' for a pitcher has gone from being meaningless, to being rather comical, at times.



[ June 28, 2007, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Liquidhippo ]

There is a very specifically defined instance where the win is awarded subjectively -- the starting pitcher must leave the game with his team in the lead and must not have completed five innings. Then the official scorer is to reward the most effective reliever with the victory.



The number of times a pitcher leaves the game with the lead before ending the 5th is rare.



Some people do not realize the only time subjectivity comes into play is during this specific instance and think any time the starter is not in line for the win, the choice is subjective.

Originally posted by ToddZ:

There is a very specifically defined instance where the win is awarded subjectively -- the starting pitcher must leave the game with his team in the lead and must not have completed five innings. Then the official scorer is to reward the most effective reliever with the victory.



The number of times a pitcher leaves the game with the lead before ending the 5th is rare.



Some people do not realize the only time subjectivity comes into play is during this specific instance and think any time the starter is not in line for the win, the choice is subjective. Interesting interpretation Todd. When I read it, it didn't come off as that restrictive, at least not initially:



Quote:



..........(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).....



unquote



Seems pretty liberal....that is, until you shed some 'Zola light' on the subject.



The fact is that rule 10.17, in its greater context, is worded/structured so poorly on MLB's website, it obfuscates any intended meaning.



I'm guessing that 10.17.b.1 is the stipulation that Todd referred to in his previous post. Although I never would have gotten this without first reading Todd's commentary on what they were really trying to say, I think he may be right.

After reading c, I am probably wrong about



Some people do not realize the only time subjectivity comes into play is during this specific instance and think any time the starter is not in line for the win, the choice is subjective. It has always been explained to me that the only time is b. Perhaps there are other areas of subjectivity but as suggested earlier in the thread, it is rarely used.



The bottom line is in a league that is so driven by statistics (the hold is really nothing more than a stat invented by agents so they had something to bring into arbitration, it is not an official stat and actually has multiple "definitions"), the rules have to have as little grey as possible. It is bad enough that there are instances where errors are disputed so ERAs or batting averages can be aided. Adding wins to the equation would make a mockery of the process.



The drawback, is as was explained, wins are not all that indicative of performance. Which is why agents also invented the quality start.



[ June 28, 2007, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]