Madison Bumgarner
Note--If Hudson would have left with the lead, MB getting the win is a non-issue. Hudson earned the win, but doesn't qualify for it, so they have to give it to whoever else they want. Here, Affeldt earned it and qualified for it, but they gave it to MB anyway.
In order for a pitcher to get credit for a win, he must satisfy a number of conditions. The one the starting pitcher appears to have missed is to pitch at least 5 innings.
Being pulled in the 5th isn't 5 full innings.
Quote: FaceI hate that I know this, but...
In order for a pitcher to get credit for a win, he must satisfy a number of conditions. The one the starting pitcher appears to have missed is to pitch at least 5 innings.
Being pulled in the 5th isn't 5 full innings.
That has nothing to do with the question, sorry face. You are to baseball as BBB is to BJ.
Quote: FaceI hate that I know this, but...
In order for a pitcher to get credit for a win, he must satisfy a number of conditions. The one the starting pitcher appears to have missed is to pitch at least 5 innings.
Being pulled in the 5th isn't 5 full innings.
The starting pitcher was pulled in the second inning, so it isn't a question as to why he doesn't get the win. But as sonuvabish mentioned, reliever, Affeldt pitched 2 & 1/3 innings from the second until the 4th at which point the Giants took the lead that they did not relinquish. My understanding of the rules is he (Affeldt) should be the winning pitcher and Bumgarner should get a save. Seems like a pretty clear cut case.
Normally in that situation he, affeldt, would be awarded the win, the next pitcher or pitchers given holds ( what a bullshit made up useless stat), and the final pitcher a save.
In this case the following pitcher, Bumgarner, thew 5 scoreless and basically dominating innings. Affeldt pitched with a lead for 1 inning, the next guy 5. IF there had been a succession of 1 inning relievers after Afeldt I think he would have been awarded the win. In this case the official scorer was within his or her discretion. The win stat is almost meaningless in baseball when measuring a pitchers success and effectiveness. This is what you need to know about Bumgarners World Series: 21 IP, .2something ERA and a WHIP of .38. Those are historic, with or without the 3 wins.
http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24774547/giants-madison-bumgarner-caps-world-series-with-another-win
Quote: chefphydeauxI don't think it was a serious abuse of official scoring. It is his discretion to who gets the win in the situation. .
wrong. you don't just go...hey that guy did a great job, I think I'll give him the win. there are rules. Discretion is allowed when the rules say so. The scorer took discretion when he was allowed none. Wins may seem meaningless, but they sure effect a kid's point of view as to who's better. And they effect million-dollar contracts as well.
Quote: SonuvabishThis just in: The official scorer's decision to give MB the win was changed. MB was given the save. Seems we are more qualified to his job than he is.
http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybaseball/update/24774547/giants-madison-bumgarner-caps-world-series-with-another-win
This correction was the correct decision IMO. Bumgarner was truly amazing, but you can't just change the rules to award him a win. The save is the correct call.
Quote: kewlj
The starting pitcher was pulled in the second inning, so it isn't a question as to why he doesn't get the win. But as sonuvabish mentioned, reliever, Affeldt pitched 2 & 1/3 innings from the second until the 4th at which point the Giants took the lead that they did not relinquish. My understanding of the rules is he (Affeldt) should be the winning pitcher and Bumgarner should get a save. Seems like a pretty clear cut case.
That's not true in this case, either of the two relievers can qualify for the win because it is determined by the official scorer's judgment on, "Most effective," reliever because the starting pitcher did not go five full innings. If the starting pitcher had gone five full innings and the, "Winning run," was scored while a relief pitcher was on the mound, then it would be a clear cut case because that is the only pitcher who could get the win, pursuant to the rules.
In this case, I agree with the official scorer's decision, check out the stats:
Innings Pitched: Affeldt 2.1, Bumgarner: 5
Hits Allowed: Affeldt 1, Bumgarner: 2
Hits Allowed Per Inning: Affeldt: .42857, Bumgarner: .4
Walks: None
Strikeouts: Affeldt: 0, Bumgarner: 4
Strikeouts per Inning: Affeldt, 0, Bumgarner, .8
Pitches/Strikes: Affeldt: 32/21 (65.625%) Bumgarner: 68/50 (73.529%)
Therefore, in addition to the fact that he pitched longer, finished up the game, and pitched the length of time that a starter would need to pitch for his pitch to qualify for a win/loss, Bumgarner was statistically better in every possible category, except walks, because neither had any. Bumgarner was, hands down, the most effective pitcher.
Either way, I agree with the original decision, but have no problem with a win for Affeldt and a save for Bumgarner. Bumgarner was still statistically the most effective pitcher, though.
Anyway, no real sense in disusing it further. The official scoring has now been changed to what it should be. I was just surprised by that initial decision, as it went against what my understanding of the rule was. Since it has been changed, my understanding must still be correct.
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/madison-bumgarner-scoring-change-takes-away-game-7-win-longest-world-series-save-instead-102914
Quote: kewljNone of that matters, Mission. It isn't a matter of who was the better pitcher of the two relievers. There are rules that are pretty clear. Bumgarner entered the game with a 3-2 lead. You don't register a win in that situation. The pitcher that was pitching when the team took the lead gets the win.
Anyway, no real sense in disusing it further. The official scoring has now been changed to what it should be. I was just surprised by that initial decision, as it went against what my understanding of the rule was. Since it has been changed, my understanding must still be correct.
It can matter:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/official_scorer_10.jsp
Quote:(b) If the pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game, and does not relinquish such lead, is a starting pitcher who has not completed
(1) five innings of a game that lasts six or more innings on defense, or
(2) four innings of a game that lasts five innings on defense, then the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the relief pitcher, if there is only one relief pitcher, or the relief pitcher who, in the official scorer’s judgment was the most effective, if there is more than one relief pitcher.
Rule 10.17(b) Comment: It is the intent of Rule 10.17(b) that a relief pitcher pitch at least one complete inning or pitch when a crucial out is made, within the context of the game (including the score), in order to be credited as the winning pitcher. If the first relief pitcher pitches effectively, the official scorer should not presumptively credit that pitcher with the win, because the rule requires that the win be credited to the pitcher who was the most effective, and a subsequent relief pitcher may have been most effective. The official scorer, in determining which relief pitcher was the most effective, should consider the number of runs, earned runs and base runners given up by each relief pitcher and the context of the game at the time of each relief pitcher’s appearance. If two or more relief pitchers were similarly effective, the official scorer should give the presumption to the earlier pitcher as the winning pitcher.
In this case, it was apparently determined after the fact that the two pitchers were equally effective, so Affeldt was given the win after that. Again, I have no problem with either decision, but would defend the first decision based on, "Base runners given up by each relief pitcher and context of the game at the time of each relief pitcher's appearance." Bumgarner gave up fewer base runners per inning pitched and he held a one-run lead pitching five scoreless innings, so I think he was statistically most effective.
That said, my only real point is that the Rules allow Bumgarner to get credit for the win if that is the official scorer's judgment because the starting pitcher did not last five innings.
But that was not the case here. It would have been the case if the Giants had taken the lead while starting pitcher Hudson was pitching, since Hudson only pitched less than two innings. In that case the scorer could have declared either Affeldt or Bumgarner the winning pitcher. But because the Giants took the lead while a reliever (Affeldt) was pitching, he is the winning pitcher. Period! There is no discretion involved. Even if a reliever pitches 1/3 of an inning, recording the final out of an inning and then his team takes the lead and hold it, he is the winning pitcher. The discretion part ONLY comes into play if the team took the lead while the starting pitcher was pitching, but he does not pitch the required 5 innings. Again, that was not the case here.
Quote: SonuvabishQuote: FaceI hate that I know this, but...
In order for a pitcher to get credit for a win, he must satisfy a number of conditions. The one the starting pitcher appears to have missed is to pitch at least 5 innings.
Being pulled in the 5th isn't 5 full innings.
That has nothing to do with the question, sorry face. You are to baseball as BBB is to BJ.
Son,
Pretty offensive of you to take a gratuitous swipe at me in a conversation I'm not even a part of.
Quote: Mission146That's not true in this case, either of the two relievers can qualify for the win because it is determined by the official scorer's judgment on, "Most effective," reliever because the starting pitcher did not go five full innings. If the starting pitcher had gone five full innings and the, "Winning run," was scored while a relief pitcher was on the mound, then it would be a clear cut case because that is the only pitcher who could get the win, pursuant to the rules.
Your statement is completely wrong. If a reliever comes into a tie game, as here, then his team scores, he's the pitcher of record unless his team gives up the lead and a new pitcher of record is established. Most effective is irrelevant. The established pitcher can only be quashed if he is deemed ineffective AND his appearance was brief. Affeldt was neither. If he had been, they fall back on the most effective standard (and MB would have been the default, his stellar performance, which seemingly is the basis of your defense, would have been irrelevant since he was merely less ineffective).
The only instance in which a scorer can choose which reliever he wants to award the win is the one I mentioned. The example I gave is where Hudson does not go 5 innings, but leaves WITH THE LEAD. If that had been the case, the scorer does in fact choose the 'most effective' reliever.
They wouldn't have corrected the scorer's decision if it wasn't egregiously wrong.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: SonuvabishQuote: Face
Son,
Pretty offensive of you to take a gratuitous swipe at me in a conversation I'm not even a part of.Quote: BuzzardIt took a while, but Sonovabish lived up to his name.
I was pretty offended by this gratuitous swipe made when I was suspended. Took me all of 4 seconds to find one. I assumed it was allowed, since we have AN ENTIRE THREAD dedicated to gratuitous swipes that is longer than all other threads. Also, if people are truly offended by jests that are in no way intended to be insulting, and are only offended by select posters who might say identical things as another poster, then maybe there should be a sub-rule in chapter 42 about gratuities. I basically said Face knows a little about baseball rules, and u know a little bit about BJ strategy. None of which is wrong, but may not be applicable. I apparently know more. I can see how offensive that was. If you wish no contact with me ever, then I will never reference you again. I hope that resolves it.
Quote: Sonuvabishwrong. you don't just go...hey that guy did a great job, I think I'll give him the win. there are rules. Discretion is allowed when the rules say so. The scorer took discretion when he was allowed none. Wins may seem meaningless, but they sure effect a kid's point of view as to who's better. And they effect million-dollar contracts as well.
They affect contracts, but the reality is that wins don't accurately describe a pitcher's value. Advanced metrics do a much better job. For me, it's WHIP [(walks+hits)/innings pitched], GB/FB ratio, and HR/FB ratio. I think FIP (fielding independent pitching) is too loose, because it is too hard to isolate the individuals involved. But the lower the WHIP, the better the pitcher. The more grounders, the better the pitcher. The more fly balls that stay in the yard, the better the pitcher. (Some argue that HR/FB is subjective and kind of random, but my thinking is that the more movement on your pitches, the less likely you get squared up.)
ETA, we actually agree, except that you say give him the win, and I say ignore the value of the win, which essentially is the same. The guy was awesome.
Quote: MoscaThey affect contracts, but the reality is that wins don't accurately describe a pitcher's value. Advanced metrics do a much better job. For me, it's WHIP [(walks+hits)/innings pitched], GB/FB ratio, and HR/FB ratio. I think FIP (fielding independent pitching) is too loose, because it is too hard to isolate the individuals involved. But the lower the WHIP, the better the pitcher. The more grounders, the better the pitcher. The more fly balls that stay in the yard, the better the pitcher. (Some argue that HR/FB is subjective and kind of random, but my thinking is that the more movement on your pitches, the less likely you get squared up.)
ETA, we actually agree, except that you say give him the win, and I say ignore the value of the win, which essentially is the same. The guy was awesome.
Agreed that wins don't reflect the pitcher's value in a vacuum. This is best demonstrated by a mediocre reliever who goes 4-1 and a great closer who goes 1-2. I hate sabremetrics. I never even heard of them until a minority of people started saying "hey let's NOT give the the MVP to Miguel Cabrera, let's give it to the Rookie of the Year. What's the Triple Crown mean?" In a moment of rare introspection, I will say it's possible they have merit, but that ridiculous argument--which ultimately brought them to public light as a measuring system, will forever bias me against them since it seems apparent that whackos are using them. I think that ultimately, if you only look at 1 lone pitching stat, the win/loss record is the best indicator. A mediocre reliever will not go 10-0. A bad starter won't go 20-5. If you're up by 7 runs, it doesn't matter if all your other stats start to sour. And they do. If a pitcher only pitches when they are losing by 12 runs, he will never get over 500, but he may have one of the best SABRE stats in the game. And he probably sux.
Quote: SonuvabishQuote: MoscaThey affect contracts, but the reality is that wins don't accurately describe a pitcher's value. Advanced metrics do a much better job. For me, it's WHIP [(walks+hits)/innings pitched], GB/FB ratio, and HR/FB ratio. I think FIP (fielding independent pitching) is too loose, because it is too hard to isolate the individuals involved. But the lower the WHIP, the better the pitcher. The more grounders, the better the pitcher. The more fly balls that stay in the yard, the better the pitcher. (Some argue that HR/FB is subjective and kind of random, but my thinking is that the more movement on your pitches, the less likely you get squared up.)
ETA, we actually agree, except that you say give him the win, and I say ignore the value of the win, which essentially is the same. The guy was awesome.
Agreed that wins don't reflect the pitcher's value in a vacuum. This is best demonstrated by a mediocre reliever who goes 4-1 and a great closer who goes 1-2. I hate sabremetrics. I never even heard of them until a minority of people started saying "hey let's NOT give the the MVP to Miguel Cabrera, let's give it to the Rookie of the Year. What's the Triple Crown mean?" In a moment of rare introspection, I will say it's possible they have merit, but that ridiculous argument--which ultimately brought them to public light as a measuring system, will forever bias me against them since it seems apparent that whackos are using them. I think that ultimately, if you only look at 1 lone pitching stat, the win/loss record is the best indicator. A mediocre reliever will not go 10-0. A bad starter won't go 20-5. If you're up by 7 runs, it doesn't matter if all your other stats start to sour. And they do. If a pitcher only pitches when they are losing by 12 runs, he will never get over 500, but he may have one of the best SABRE stats in the game. And he probably sux.
I agree mostly. As a fan it is more fun to track the stats of great players as they climb through the season. I think the advanced metrics do a better job of finding out who's playing really well but not putting up great stats. We can now track line drive rate, and find out who is barreling up the ball but not getting the gaps. OPS can show the value of an all around performer like Andrew McCutchen, who doesn't lead the league in any one thing but is near the top in almost all of them. WHIP can show who is pitching well but not getting run support, like Samardzjia did for the Cubs.
One of the best pitchers of the 50s and 60s gets little recognition today: Bob Friend. Friend is the only pitcher in MLB history to lose 200 games without also winning 200; he ended his career 197-230. But he also pitched for the Pirates in the 1950s, one of the worst teams of the era. He had the ignomy to lead the league in wins one year (22, 1958) and follow with leading the league in losses the next (19, 1959). But taking into account all his stats, he ended his career with the Pirates with a WAR (wins above replacement) of 47; Whitey Ford made the HOF with a WAR of 53. You gotta be pretty good just to get the chance to lose 200 games.
Quote: Sonuvabish
I was pretty offended by this gratuitous swipe made when I was suspended. Took me all of 4 seconds to find one. I assumed it was allowed, since we have AN ENTIRE THREAD dedicated to gratuitous swipes that is longer than all other threads. Also, if people are truly offended by jests that are in no way intended to be insulting, and are only offended by select posters who might say identical things as another poster, then maybe there should be a sub-rule in chapter 42 about gratuities. I basically said Face knows a little about baseball rules, and u know a little bit about BJ strategy. None of which is wrong, but may not be applicable. I apparently know more. I can see how offensive that was. If you wish no contact with me ever, then I will never reference you again. I hope that resolves it.
Son,
I would have enjoyed getting teased if I'd known it was a joke, because it was kind of funny. Any indication that you were jesting would have made that clear. Sorry to have taken it as an insult. Please consider some indication (joke) j/k :) whatever so I don't mistake your intent again.
