IGT 6/15 - Mets v Braves

[Ceetar]

bmfc1 wrote: I concur, Ceetar. Let's draw up the papers and make this happen. (I had that caveat in there but it got too wordy for a non-legal document.)

Someone get Bud on the phone.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, the idea that you can't give the W to a starter who doesn't go 5 is in there so as to prevent 'manufactured' wins, one where say a team scores a bunch of runs early allowing the manager to either pull his starter early or even change his starter last minute so as to direct the W to him. Manufactured saves we allow, manufactured wins not so much.
But last night was clearly a different set of circumstances and in situations where the scorer's opinion enters into it the starter should be one of his options. It would be one thing if it were 2 IPs by Gee, but 4 is something else.

It's also odd that the scorer treated Carrasco's 6-outs/no-hits/1-K as less worthy than Parnell's 6-outs/1-hit/5-Ks. You usually see the W given to the next pitcher after the starter unless his outing is both brief and ineffective - and especially when he's the guy pitching when the game does become official.

[MFS62]

The scoring rules say that should the starter not go 5, the official scorer can award the win to any of the subsequent pitchers. It is usually awarded to the next pitcher. But it can be denied and awarded to another pitcher, should he pitch "briefly and ineffectively".
Carrasco did neither.

That "briefly and ineffectively" puzzled me, too. I wrote to MLB and presented them with this scenario.
A starter has a 3-0 lead going into the top of the ninth with two out. A walk, hit and error load the bases. The manager brings in a releiver, who gives up a bases clearing triple. The hitter is tagged out oversliding third. The first batter up in the bottom of the ninth hits a game winning homer.
By current rule, the win must be awarded to the releiver, because he was in the game when the winning run was scored. But, using the rule I cited above, he certainly pitched "briefly and ineffectively" Why can't the official scorer award the victory to the starter.

The letter I got back was an unsatisfactory "that is the way the rule is written. The releiver gets the win", and not "Good idea, we'll take that into consideration at the next rules meeting".

Fucktards.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

I have seen the "briefly and ineffectively" clause come into play, but always when, like last night, there are several candidates are involved.

- Say the starter is handed a big lead but struggles and can't get out of the 5th. Reliever #1 comes in w/2-outs in the 5th still with the lead and immediately gives it up: several hits, several runs (inherited and otherwise) before finally getting the last out.
- Team's offense then gains back the lead in bottom 5 and holds it for the rest of the game. Reliever #1 is officially the "pitcher of record" even though he sucked while Reliever #2 maybe cruised through innings 6, 7 & 8 hitless before giving way to Reliever #3 for the save.

In this case the official scorer could opt to cite the "brief and ineffective" clause and award the win to Reliever #2
The problem with your scenario is that the starter is still responsible for all those runners on base and that there's no one else to hand to win to.

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with your scenario is that the starter is still responsible for all those runners on base and that there's no one else to hand to win to.

That's why I asked if the rule might be changed so that the scorer could award the win to the starter.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with your scenario is that the starter is still responsible for all those runners on base and that there's no one else to hand to win to. That's why I asked if the rule might be changed so that the scorer could award the win to the starter.

Yeah, the reliever faced just one batter and gave up a big hit, but saddling him with the three runs he had nothing to do with being there is more unfair IMO than denying the pitcher the win.
If the pitcher wants the win he shouldn't have put on all those runners.