Qualifying for a Win

[milladrive]

Quick question. I realize it's in the rule book, but I've often wondered why a starting pitcher can receive a loss regardless of innings pitched, but why can't he earn a win without getting 15 outs?

Meanwhile, any reliever can come in in the 5th, throw one-third of an inning and get the win. It's always seemed incongruous to me.

[GiambiJuice]

Quick question. I realize it's in the rule book, but I've often wondered why a starting pitcher can receive a loss regardless of innings pitched, but why can't he earn a win without getting 15 outs?

Meanwhile, any reliever can come in in the 5th, throw one-third of an inning and get the win. It's always seemed incongruous to me.

I'm pretty sure there isn't any logic behind it. The same goes for Saves.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'm pretty sure there isn't any logic behind it.

I think there is a bit of logic behind it: an official game is 4 1/2 innings. A home pitcher(s) has to get 15 outs to make a game official.

[milladrive]

I think there is a bit of logic behind it: an official game is 4 1/2 innings. A home pitcher(s) has to get 15 outs to make a game official.

But, with all due respect, that doesn't really address the pondery. I think GiambiJuice ironically made sense by saying it makes no sense.

If a home pitcher has to get 15 outs to make the game official, it says nothing about earning a win or a loss. The question at hand is why the pitcher can earn a loss without getting 15 outs, but he must get 15 outs to earn a win.

[SamtheBravesFan]

But, with all due respect, that doesn't really address the pondery. I think GiambiJuice ironically made sense by saying it makes no sense.

If a home pitcher has to get 15 outs to make the game official, it says nothing about earning a win or a loss. The question at hand is why the pitcher can earn a loss without getting 15 outs, but he must get 15 outs to earn a win.

It probably goes back to what is judged as being an "effective" pitcher. Whomever devised those rules thought a starting pitcher going less than five innings wasn't effective, and it had to be a hard and fast rule. It is very easy to determine who was on the mound, or whose runner is on base, when the go-ahead run that wins the game is scored.

[Jackaroo Dave]

Since losses are a measure of ineffectiveness and wins a measure of effectiveness, the number of batters a pitcher retires is unrelated to his "lossiness," except negatively.

If we wanted a rule that corresponded to the five-half-innings rule, it would be something that absolved a pitcher from a loss when he did pitch effectively: e.g. no loss if all runs were unearned, or no loss if fewer than x runs per inning were allowed, or some such.

In their wisdom, the rulemakers decided that a starter who did not complete 5 half-innings did not "deserve" a win--and infact left it up to the scorer's judgment to decide who did deserve it in that case. I guess they were less concerned about undeserved suffering than undeserved benefit, so they left the corresponding box for losers blank.

[BiZmaRK]

I'm pretty sure there isn't any logic behind it. The same goes for Saves.

There is no logic for it. The pitcher's W-L record is about 50% based on things that occur while the pitcher isn't even on the playing field, as the pitcher doesn't have control over how many runs his team scores.

Holding the pitcher accountable for how many runs his team scores is like holding the designated hitter accountable for how many runs his team allows.