Awarding the win in relief outings

[Sdpm100]

I'm just wondering if OOTP can assign the correct pitcher the win in relief appearances, in oddball occurences like this.

Here's what happened: In the bottom of the 6th we scored five runs to go up 5-1. Then in the top of the 7th, the first reliever of the game, Hogbin, came in and gave up the lead as the opposition scored four runs to tie the game.
In the bottom half of the inning, we scored a run to go back in front 6-5, and held that score to the end of the game.
Now although Hogbin was the pitcher in the game at the time, he was relieved by Beadle at the start of the 8th. I am almost certain an official scorer would have awarded the win to Beadle, but blown save and all, Hogbin was awarded the decision by the game.



So this is clearly an issue, but is it possible to be solved or not?

[pstrickert]

OOTP got it right.

[zekester91]

I'm pretty sure OOTP got it right, he was the pitcher of record when your team took the lead, even if he was pitch hit for while they where doing it.

[pstrickert]

The official scorer does not have the discretion to award the win to someone else.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

The official scorer does not have the discretion to award the win to someone else.

Hogbin pitched two-thirds of one inning, allowed both inherited runners to score, walked three more batters, gave up a hit and allowed two further runs after the inherited runners, struck out nobody and blew the save. You wouldn't say that was "ineffective in a brief appearance"? See Official Rule 10.17 (c) or 10.19 (c)(4) Exception, depending on your version of the rules.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

OOTP got it right.

Originally Posted by zekester91

I'm pretty sure OOTP got it right, he was the pitcher of record when your team took the lead, even if he was pitch hit for while they where doing it.

I thought exactly the same way until I saw the Yankees/Red Sox game in midweek when Ross Ohlendorf should have had the win, but he was not given it because the scorer decided he was not the most effective.

This is the rule:

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.

Rule 10.17(c) 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 10.17(b) Comment provides guidance on choosing the winning pitcher from among several succeeding relief pitchers.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by spark240

Hogbin pitched two-thirds of one inning, allowed both inherited runners to score, walked three more batters, gave up a hit and allowed two further runs after the inherited runners, struck out nobody and blew the save. You wouldn't say that was "ineffective in a brief appearance"? See Official Rule 10.19 (c)(4) Exception.

As the manager, and with a bad run of results recently, I definitely thought it was ineffective, in fact there were other thoughts too, but that's a slightly different thing I think.

[zekester91]

But the official scorer is not required to notice that. it's one of those judgement calls that seems like Markus has tried to take out. we've massivly argued about what ineffective means, here in the past.

[ctorg]

OOTP doesn't really consider whether an appearance was ineffective or not. It just awards the win to the pitcher of record at the time.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by zekester91

But the official scorer is not required to notice that. it's one of those judgement calls that seems like Markus has tried to take out. we've massivly argued about what ineffective means, here in the past.

Originally Posted by ctorg

OOTP doesn't really consider whether an appearance was ineffective or not. It just awards the win to the pitcher of record at the time.

That why I was asking if it can be solved or not. As it can't be, then that's answered my question, and I'll have to accept it as it is.

[superdaws]

I think there would be only two possible ways to fix this.

One, hard code a set of circumstances that would define what an ineffective outing is and then live with the fact that every time those circumstances occur the pitcher who got the win in the situation you had would not.

Two, adding an option at the end of the game to over-rule the scorer's decision as to who gets the win. But I think you'd run into the same sort of problems if you limit it's use for specific events like you describe or you'd create bigger problems if there was unlimited ability to modify the scorers decision.

The problem is you are dealing with a machine that can't think about these kinds of things and can only do what it is told. The problem with translating that exception to the rule is that decision is not based on something concrete that can easily be coded. The exception relies on the scorer making a decision. Computers don't have the ability to think about those sorts of situation the same way we do therefore I think the designers just had to go with the easiest route in dealing with it and hope that it will be a rare occurrence. Unfortunately these kinds of things are going to happen, but I think there are going to be pretty rare.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by spark240

Hogbin pitched two-thirds of one inning, allowed both inherited runners to score, walked three more batters, gave up a hit and allowed two further runs after the inherited runners, struck out nobody and blew the save. You wouldn't say that was "ineffective in a brief appearance"? See Official Rule 10.17 (c) or 10.19 (c)(4) Exception, depending on your version of the rules.

I stand corrected.

[Ambermonk]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

OOTP got it right.

I agree.

[lencombs]

Originally Posted by Sdpm100

I'm just wondering if OOTP can assign the correct pitcher the win in relief appearances, in oddball occurences like this.

Here's what happened: In the bottom of the 6th we scored five runs to go up 5-1. Then in the top of the 7th, the first reliever of the game, Hogbin, came in and gave up the lead as the opposition scored four runs to tie the game.
In the bottom half of the inning, we scored a run to go back in front 6-5, and held that score to the end of the game.
Now although Hogbin was the pitcher in the game at the time, he was relieved by Beadle at the start of the 8th. I am almost certain an official scorer would have awarded the win to Beadle, but blown save and all, Hogbin was awarded the decision by the game.

Attachment 120825

So this is clearly an issue, but is it possible to be solved or not?

i would definatley give the win to Hogbin. he came in with runners on base, allowed them to tie but never lost the lead. faced 6 batters probably in the heart of the oppositions lineup, while the other guy you wanted to see get the W only faced 4 batters. Hogbin was the pitcher of record when the team retook the lead, non-issue for me. Could have been better outing but at least he didn't get a L.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by lencombs

i would definatley give the win to Hogbin. he came in with runners on base, allowed them to tie but never lost the lead. faced 6 batters probably in the heart of the oppositions lineup, while the other guy you wanted to see get the W only faced 4 batters. Hogbin was the pitcher of record when the team retook the lead, non-issue for me. Could have been better outing but at least he didn't get a L.

Well I know he didn't get the loss, because we won the game.
I can't see how anyone can say the outing wasn't brief and ineffective and the next guy wasn't more deserving of the win, but I guess I'm wrong again.

[Left-handed Badger]

Well, it was ineffective. And myabe brief (though 6 batters might not be a brief relief outing anymore). But, I never particularly liked that rule. Leads for too much interpretation and potential bias in my opinion.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by superdaws

.One, hard code a set of circumstances that would define what an ineffective outing is and then live with the fact that every time those circumstances occur the pitcher who got the win in the situation you had would not.

How hard can that be? The game already scores the effectiveness of pitchers. Maybe it could be as simple as: the normal "pitcher of record" gets the decision, unless he is a reliever who (a) pitches 1 inning or less, with a score below a certain figure, and (b) is followed by another reliever who scores above a certain figure, or a certain margin above the preceding pitcher's score.

Of course, the actual MLB rules for assigning wins and losses to pitchers are kind of stupid to begin with, so maybe perfect accuracy in modeling them isn't the highest priority.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by zekester91

But the official scorer is not required to notice that.

By the language of the rule itself, the official scorer is required to "notice" an appearance that is brief and ineffective. It's just that the definition of what that means (somewhat like "ordinary effort" for fielders charged with errors) isn't crystal clear. For example, if a run scores because of an extraordinary performance by batter and/or runner, does that affect the judgment of the pitcher's effectiveness?

The "is not required" language occurs in the interpretive comment, and is referring to one possible criterion for ineffectiveness.

[lencombs]

another scenario, say you have a starter goes 7 and 2/3 innings and has a 7-1 lead.

first releiver pitches to 1/3 inning, gives up 1 run score is 7-2
8th inning second reliever pitches 2/3 innings batters gives up 1 run 7-3
8th continued: third reliever pitches 1/3 inning gives up 2 runs score 7-5
9th: 4th reliever pitches 2/3 inning gives up 1 run score 7-6
9th continued closer comes in pitches 1/3 inning allows 2 runs score 7-8

bottom of the 9th home team retakes the lead 9-8..

who you giving the win to? it has to be the pitcher of record.. the closer, even though he blew the save.

sometimes pitchers get handed wins, sometimes they get wins taken away that they should have gotten, being the starter in this scenario..all a part of the game.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by lencombs

sometimes pitchers get handed wins, sometimes they get wins taken away that they should have gotten, being the starter in this scenario..all a part of the game.

Well, it doesn't have to be part of the game. That's why the present (real life) scoring rules are stupid. What's wrong with: a starting pitcher who completes at least five innings, and leaves the game with his team leading, shall be credited with the win, if his team wins.