Five Innings For A Win?
Join me in a hypothetical, starring a manager who has shown a past willingness to use his starters in limited relief on their "throw" days, Bobby Cox.
It's Javier Vazquez's turn and Derek Lowe's throw day (or, if you fear I'm jinxing Vazquez, I think you might be able to flip them). The Braves are up 2-0 with nobody out as Vazquez takes the mound for the two outs in the top of the third inning. He throws an obvious strike, which the ump calls outside. Vazquez detonates and is ejected.
You supply the reason - his bullpen is short, or it's overworked, or Lowe really needs to work on something in a game situation, or the All-Star break looms and he's going to get too much rest - but, for whatever purpose, Cox summons Lowe, intending to have him throw no more than 25 pitches. Lowe does so with maximum efficiency, and exits for a pinch-hitter in the bottom of the fifth, the Braves now up 4-0. They win 6-0.
By the rules of scoring, Lowe is going to be credited with the win. The starting pitcher, Vazquez, is, alone among all pitchers, required to finish five innings with an unvanquished lead. Of course we have just constructed the scenario in which two pitchers, both of them starters, have produced nearly identically: Vazquez has thrown 2.2 scoreless, Lowe 2.1.
Now, obviously, in this case Lowe is literally, if not traditionally, a relief pitcher. But this hypothesis is designed to show a scenario in which merely the act of being the relief pitcher earns Lowe a win, while merely the act of being the starting pitcher disqualifies Vazquez from a win. And it is built to underscore the point: why does this rule exist?
In the He-Man Days of the Complete Game the inference was obvious to us. Starting pitchers who didn't make it through five were not only not worthy of getting a victory, they were not really worthy of being starters, and should suffer the ignominy of that halfway house that was known as the bullpen. Certainly we have lost nearly all of that bigotry towards the reliever, that he is necessarily a failed starter. If that still existed, it was certainly killed off by the conversions of guys like Righetti, Smoltz, and Lowe himself, from starter to closer (and in two cases, back again).
There was, as I recall from the '60s, a certain lingering fear that the Five Innings Rule was necessary to protect against a statistical armageddon. You could construct a scenario based on the 1972 Phillies where there is a horrific team with one unhittable pitcher with a rubber arm and the a chance to win 30 games in a season. Why not start him every third day for the last month of the season, and pull him after three innings or the attaining of a lead, whichever came first? Our alternate-universe Carlton could've won 30 or 35 that way.
Certainly that fear has to be gone by now. Faced with going down 3-1 to the Indians in the 2007 playoffs or starting Josh Beckett on short rest, Terry Francona bit the bullet and took the former. In their life-or-death battle last September, the Mets had to be talked into letting Johan Santana pitch on three days' rest rather than four - by Santana. The likelihood of abuse in a world without a Five Innings Rule seems almost nil.
There was certainly also the belief that a reliever coming in for a starter struggling with a lead before five innings had been completed, was probably going to pitch as long, or nearly as long, as the starter. How often is that true?
And I'm not of the opinion that a sudden elimination of the rule would lead to managers yanking starters even earlier - or at least any earlier than a batter or two, usually in the fifth. Ask all 30 managers what one wish they'd ask of a Baseball Genii and I think all 30 would answer "starters going seven every night."
All these ruminations come from the Mets-Rays game in New York this afternoon. Jeff Niemann of Tampa Bay did not pitch well by any stretch of the imagination (4 IP, 4 BB, 3 H, 2 ER). But he left for a pinch-hitter in the top of the fifth, losing 2-0; they rallied in that inning to lead 4-2. If the Rays had held onto the lead (they did not; Lance Cormier coughed it up) Niemann would have been ineligible for the win even though he was technically the pitcher of record when the runs were scored, and Cormier or one of the others who pitched even more poorly than he did, would necessarily have gotten it.
Just a thought here: is the Five Innings Rule a meaningless vestige of the past? Should it be eliminated? Modified to four innings? Left to the Official Scorer's discretion?
Don't know myself but I will give you my Dad's opinion (seeing as it's Father's Day): Pitchers today are creampuffs who should be able to go 9 innings, they could back in the day, why not now? Of course, back then the Gashouse Gang would come to the ballpark hammered, or so I've been told. Maybe booze helps. Thanks for explaining this rule. I've been wondering how the winning pitcher was chosen and now I know.
Report any abuse or spam
I understand the original motivation for the rule, despite the contradictions that arise because of it. I personally think that going to four innings would be just as arbitrary as five, so maybe it should be up to the official scorer. I don't see how else you can fairly assign wins or losses in a situation like the hypothetical Rays win posed above.
Report any abuse or spam
In the age of pitch counts and relief specialists, the 5 inning rule makes no sense whatsoever. Olbermann, although you did not take a stand, you did present reasons for elimination of the rule. I am a Dodger fan. Dodgers starters have won only 2 games in June, the remainder of the wins have gone to the Bullpen. Sometimes a W was awarded to a pitcher who threw 2 pitches in the game. It makes more sense to me to eliminate the archaic rules governing the awarding of the W and to give the discretion to the official scorers who would consider the totality of circumstances.
Report any abuse or spam
I was confused by this rule for a long time as well, but I think I understand the logic now: The winning pitcher is the pitcher for the winning team at the point when it became an official game (so long as they held the lead continuously).
The starter does not have to pitch five, unlike a reliever, to get a win; he just has to throw a single pitch in an official game.
Report any abuse or spam
if anything, the minimum for a win should be RAISED to 6 innings, not lowered.
let's eliminate the bogus 100-pitch, 5-inning "win" (otherwise known as The Matsuzaka).
I predict starters will suddenly (and miraculously) have the stamina to go deeper into games if you need to go 6 to get the win.
Report any abuse or spam
The thing of it is that Baseball does not fare well when it changes time honored rules, whether they make sense or not. I always thought that if you were the "pitcher of record" when your team went ahead for good, then it's your W. But that can be unfair too. Back in the way back machine we didn't have holds and saves and another billion or so stats. Some of these things were developed so pitchers would have an argument when it came time to discuss a new contract. There had to be a way to measure their contribution to the ball club. So, here we are. KO, you are on to something here. Does MSNBC ever let you come to the west coast? If they did, would you go see the Dodgers? I would love to read your thoughts on their season. There is one caveat though, can it be done without any reference to Manny the Clown??
Report any abuse or spam
Technically, an NL relief pitcher can come into a game with two outs in the fifth inning and a man on first, get to the mound and pick off the runner. If his team bats for him in the very next inning in the process of going ahead, he gets the win without having thrown a pitch. If that's not arbitrary I don't know what is. Leave it to the Official Scorer. Award the win to the pitcher who did the most to obtain the win. Can't the Official Scorer deny a Save to a closer who "does not pitch effectively?"
Report any abuse or spam
Can a pitcher get the win and save in the same game?
Situation: Starting pitcher has a 1-0 lead with one out in the ninth inning. He doesn't have a good history against the upcoming batter. So a relief pitcher comes in and retires that batter for the second out, but the starting pitcher was put into right field, as the manager wanted to use him against what would become the final batter. the starting pitcher then comes back in and records final out.
What's the ruling?
Report any abuse or spam
yanksfanintx: The starting pitcher gets the win. There is no save.
See Rule 10.20. One of the three conditions for a save is that the pitcher is not the winning pitcher.
Report any abuse or spam
Thanks, al_9000.
Report any abuse or spam
I say leave the 5 inning rule as it is a nuance that makes the game great. My favorite nuance is a winning pitcher never throwing a pitch !!
Report any abuse or spam
I think the five inning for a starting pitcher is unfair because a reliever can sometimes get a win by pitching only a third of an inning, whereas the starter must pitch five innings to qualify for a win. I suggest the following replacement for 10.17(a):
Credit the win to the pitcher who closed the half-inning just prior to the scoring of the winning run if he is a relief pitcher, otherwise credit the the first pitcher who got the most outs (innings pitched) in the game. The winning run is the go-ahead run when the opposing team never ties or regains the lead for the remainder of the game.(replace 10.17 a, b, c, and e).
This revision would produce reasonable results in the 'exceptional cases' where the game lasts less than five innings, when the winning run is scored in the first half of the first inning, and in exhibition games.
Peter Gaposchkin
Report any abuse or spam