Until the 9th tonight, the bullpen had blown four leads in their last six innings of work.
1 Like
The scorer doesnāt have to give the win to Floribama do they? If there was ever a case for not, this was it.
Thems the rules.
Stanek is the winner. He was the pitcher of record in the top of the 9th. He gave up a homer to Donaldson. So did Urquidy.
Iām not sure thatās exactly there rule. Hereās the description from the MLB site (if not the rulebook).
First, a starting pitcher must pitch at least five innings (in a traditional game of nine innings or longer) to qualify for the win . If he does not, the official scorer awards the win to the most effective relief pitcher .
Scorer only factors into it if the starter doesnāt go 5 but leaves with a lead that the team never relinquishes. Then he gets to pick the āmost effectiveā reliever.
3 Likes
Urquidy went 7. That rule does not apply.
1 Like
Got it.
Thatās when the starter does not qualify. Stanek was the pitcher of record when the Astros took the lead for good.
Got it good. I just donāt much like the misery Floribama puts me through.
Stanek did what he could do
Giviing him the win does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
(Tell the truth)
3 Likes
Now Iām going to be an asshole. Hereās rule 9:17(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.
The commentary says that a brief appearance is usually an appearance of less than 1 inning. A starter pitching less than 5 innings is in rule 9.17(b).
Read the rule, Neil. It does not apply.
Agreed. Just noting that if a relief pitcher at the top of the 9th had been ineffective in a brief appearance, he would not necessarily be credited the win.
That rule is about when the starter is the pitcher of record when his team takes the lead, but does not qualify. It defines who to award the win based on who was most effective in maintaining the lead.
When the score is tied, it becomes a new contest as far as the winning pitcher is concerned. Stanek was the pitcher of record, with the game tied, when the Astros took the lead that they did not relinquish. He is the winning pitcher.
Also, the only other pitcher was Pressly, who got a save. And you literally cannot have a win and a save in the same game
Thatās 9:17(b), which is very specific. 9:17(c) is separate, and only deals with relief pitchers. It could only occur if an ineffective relief pitcher lost the lead. Hereās the 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). Rule 9.17(b) Comment provides guidance on choosing the winning pitcher from among several succeeding relief pitchers.
I wonder if (c) was adopted as part of the three batter rule.
To get a save, under 9:19 you canāt be the winning pitcher. If the final pitcher of the game was awarded the win under either (b) or (c), he wouldnāt be awarded a save.
Iām not sure what part of this youāre not getting, but againā¦this rule is for choosing between relief pitchers when the starter does not qualify and the game was not tied at any point after the starter left the game.
No. 9:17(a) deals with awarding wins. There are special circumstances changing (a) in each of (b) and (c). 9:17(b) deals with the special circumstance of choosing the winning relief pitcher when a starter does not qualify for a win because he fails to pitch 5 innings. 9:17(c) does not mention starters, and deals with the special circumstance of awarding the win when a relief pitcher who would otherwise receive the win makes a brief, ineffective appearance. How to chose the winning pitcher is described in the comment to (b), which is cross-referenced in the comment to (c), but (c) otherwise stands on its own, and is an exception to (a), not a gloss on (b).