Baseball is the most intricate and detail oriented sport in America (Cricket has it beat, but I am not worried about sticky wickets). It is that detail that makes it great, and frustrating. Its detail is one of the reasons the modern fan does not appreciate baseball because they are either too stupid or too impatient to understand the nuances. However there are some rules that make absolutely no sense, and were obviously made in the 1800’s. The rule that bothers me the most is the rule behind the pitcher of record.
In order to earn a win as a starter you must go 5 innings. If you go under that you do not qualify, regardless of the score. You can lose if you go under 5, but not win. By itself that rule does not seem intimidating, or complicated, or jaded or whatever you want to call it. The problem arises when it comes time to decide who does actually win.
The part of the rule that gets me is if a starting pitcher leaves a game with his team winning before he pitches 5 innings, he is still ineligible for the win, even if the score does not change. In that situation, it is up to the discretion of the official scorekeeper to declare the pitcher of record. Therefore the official scorekeeper decides which relief pitcher did the most to contribute to the win, and that pitcher gets the win. But the starting pitcher cannot get the win. So as long as the score never ties and the lead never changes, the official scorekeeper decides the winner.
So here is my problem, didn’t the starting pitcher contribute the most to the win? Didn’t he do enough for his team to win? Shouldn’t that be the measure of who gets the win? In the logic of the rule some guy who comes in with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and gets 1 out can get the win for only facing 1 batter, but the starter who went 4 2/3rds innings and only let up 1 run can’t get the win. Also by that logic, every subsequent pitcher can give up 2 or more runs, thus giving up more runs than the starter, but as long as the lead does not change the official scorekeeper still must chose someone to get the win, and it can’t be the starter.
The starter can leave a game with the score 2-1 in the 5th with a blister, and by the end of the game the score is 25-17 he still can’t get the win. He could have the least earned runs, most innings pitched and most strikeouts of entire staff for the night, and still not win. I think that is a travesty of the rule system.
This is obviously an archaic rule hearkening back to the days before regular relief appearances and fragile starters. For Cy Young to not go 5 innings he either had to give up like 20 runs or get shot by Ty Cobb. Back then I understand the rule. But today it makes no sense. So shouldn’t we change the rule?
I have 2 possible solutions. First we can change the rule to read that a starting pitcher can only win if he leaves the game with his team ahead (pending runners and earned runs factored in), but there is no minimum. Or, we change the ‘win’ stat to reflect who earned the win, the starter win (SW) or the relief win (RW). For example if a starter goes only 3 innings, but his team never trails and wins the game he can earn a SW. But if a reliever comes in and cleans up the mess he earns a RP. This would fix the problem and add a new stat for fantasy junkies and Elias to track.
At the end of the day this situation only happens a handful of times a season, but with fantasy championships and players’ salaries tied to these stats, every win counts. Just think, if they kept those stats maybe ‘The Loogy’ would have won.
Showing posts with label first post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first post. Show all posts
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Four Reasons I'm excited for this blog.
1. Blogs are the new best way to get fired.
Take a gander at this story and the actual blog that accompanies it. That there pretty young thing is gonna be a writer some day, and getting fired from her job because of shit-talking her boss probably just helped. She's got a book she wants to publish. Adorable, right? Let me guess. Kitten mystery? It involves unicorns in some way? I hate you. And stop posting coded messages in Gaelic or Farsi or whatever to your baby-daddy stationed overseas. Not cute.
2. I've been reading a lot of books lately, and they don't have that much embedded video.
Observe.
2a* For bonus laughs, be sure to watch the video of Christian "The Nigerian Nightmare" Okoye breaking no less than 175 tackles on his way into the end zone.
3. My daily conversations now are pretty much free of references to Quatman's.
Like when I scratch my name into the window of the subway with my keys, no one comes along and adds "Remember that time you made Ian pay for your burger [and were justified in doing so]?"
4. My life is empty.
That one's more sad than funny. Also I work nights.
Take a gander at this story and the actual blog that accompanies it. That there pretty young thing is gonna be a writer some day, and getting fired from her job because of shit-talking her boss probably just helped. She's got a book she wants to publish. Adorable, right? Let me guess. Kitten mystery? It involves unicorns in some way? I hate you. And stop posting coded messages in Gaelic or Farsi or whatever to your baby-daddy stationed overseas. Not cute.
2. I've been reading a lot of books lately, and they don't have that much embedded video.
Observe.
2a* For bonus laughs, be sure to watch the video of Christian "The Nigerian Nightmare" Okoye breaking no less than 175 tackles on his way into the end zone.
3. My daily conversations now are pretty much free of references to Quatman's.
Like when I scratch my name into the window of the subway with my keys, no one comes along and adds "Remember that time you made Ian pay for your burger [and were justified in doing so]?"
4. My life is empty.
That one's more sad than funny. Also I work nights.
Labels:
arbitrary lists,
Bo Jackson,
first post,
hot bloggers,
Quatman's
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)