IGT Fri Jun 10 NYM @ LAA

[Edgy MD]

Mets hitting against the shift for a two-run double.



Just beat the shift all day, men.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I don't think that Peterson needs to pitch an inning to qualify for the W. Because Megill, the Mets starter, pitched less than five innings yet departed with the Mets leading, the scorer has discretion to award the W to any Mets pitcher other than Megill should the Mets win the game.



I think that theoretically, Pererson doesnt even have to retire a single batter to get the W.

Edited June 10, 2022 by Guest

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Bursting out

[Edgy MD]

Mets players hit a deep drive, and I see Lagares pursuing it, and I accidentally root for him out of force of habit.

[Edgy MD]

Diaz on for the non-save. McNeil actually saving.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

B o 0 K s !!!

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Needed that one

[Edgy MD]

Lagares, looking different with a scratchy beard, goes down flailing for the last out.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I don't think that Peterson needs to pitch an inning to qualify for the W. Because Megill, the Mets starter, pitched less than five innings yet departed with the Mets leading, the scorer has discretion to award the W to any Mets pitcher other than Megill should the Mets win the game. I think that theoretically, Pererson doesnt even have to retire a single batter to get the W.

A coupl'a things here: I re-read the rule for pitcher wins. My post above in the quote box is correct. But I knew that and that's not why I re- read the rule. I learned something new after the re-read that I never knew before about the rule for assigning pitcher wins --- a rule that I think is remarkable. Also, I've never ever seen this wrinkle in the rule that I just learned, ever applied.



It'll likely come up when there's a vulture win. The scorer is not obligated to award a reliever the win even though the reliever is the pitcher of record and in line for the win if, in the scorer's view, that reliever's outing was "brief and ineffective".







The scorer may then, in his discretion, award the win to some other pitcher, if some other pitcher appeared in the game.

[Fman99]

Somehow I missed the Nimmo HR, transitioning from the feed in my vehicle back into the house. Went to bed up 4-2 and happy that it stuck. At 4-4 so far on this road trip.

[kcmets]

If anyone is interested, MLB.TV has the Apple replay available NOW!!!

[MFS62]

Edgy MD wrote: Apple.tv gives the "express written consent" warning in the fifth inning. I thought that they would have us scroll to the bottom of the screen and check a box.

BAM! (Substituting for BOC)



Later

[bmfc1]

In an age when a SP goes 7 and it's considered rare the 5-inning minimum requirement for a SP to get a win needs to be revisited (of course, the "win" is silly but it's still a thing so let's forget that it's silly). Make it 4. No one will win 30 or even 20 because of such a change.

[Edgy MD]

That pretty much is where it adds up.



Although, I would suggest making no minimum.

[Frayed Knot]

The existence of the minimum was to prevent pitcher wins from being manipulated; home team has a big bottom 1st (or 2nd or 3rd) manager pulls the pitcher so he can start him 2 days later and hopefully get him another quick W.

Guy wins 75 games that way. A lot of 'openers' would have snagged wins over the last couple seasons w/no minimum ... most notably those on Tampa.



With the value of the big W already devalued, scrapping the min would make wins easier to 'assign' but at the same time make them mean even less.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure they can mean less than they do now.



I don't see a guy gaining 75 wins by pitching two innings every third day. He might earn a lot of decisions (though less than 75), but a whole lot of them won't be wins.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think the win should be at the discretion of the official scorer. If a pitcher goes eight scoreless innings, then a reliever allows the game to be tied in top of the ninth but the home team walks off with the win in the bottom of the inning, the win should go to the starter.

[Edgy MD]

Or just divide the win up according to Schaefer voting.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think the win should be at the discretion of the official scorer. If a pitcher goes eight scoreless innings, then a reliever allows the game to be tied in top of the ninth but the home team walks off with the win in the bottom of the inning, the win should go to the starter.

I totally agree.

Scorers should have discretion when there is only one pitcher besides the starter and the reliever pitched "briefly and ineffectively". Giving up the tying run(s) could be considered ineffectively.

I came up with this scenario several years ago and sent it to the rules committee.

"Visiting team is leading by three runs going to the top of the ninth. The starter tires and loads the bases.

The reliever comes in, throws one pitch, and the batter hits a bases loaded triple to tie the game, but is thrown out trying for an inside the park homer.

Three outs.

The first batter up in the bottom of the ninth hits a homer to win the game. Why can't the starter be awarded the win, since the reliever pitched briefly( one pitch) and ineffectively (Allowed three runs to score)?

The response from the rules committee said I was technically correct in my interpretation of how the rule is written, but they can't allow the scorer to violate it. They then suggested I submit a proposal to the rules committee.

I did.

Got no response. Not even that they received it, much less considered it.



Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/images/schaefer2.jpg>



http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/index.phpCast your vote!