How does this scoring get the win?

[Twodogs]

Here is the pitching box

Grateral 1.1 innings one run

Kolarek 0.2 innings no runs

Dodgers take lead

May 5.1 innings 3 runs

Gonzalez 1 inning one run

Baez 0.2 innings no runs

 

Kolarek gets the win even though he only made it through the second inning and only recorded 2 outs??

 

Doesn't make sense to me

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/gametracker/boxscore/MLB_20200916_LAD@SD/

[mikelink45]

I agree - it is time for the official scorer to look at who did the best, not the lucky pitcher who throw a few strikes just before the leading run scores.  With all these BP games it is getting ridiculous. 

 

"Win (W)

Definition
A pitcher receives a win when he is the pitcher of record when his team takes the lead for good -- with a couple rare exceptions. 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.

There is also a rarely used clause where an official scorer can deem a relief pitcher's appearance "brief and ineffective." (For example, if a reliever relinquished a one-run lead by allowing three runs, but was still in line for a win after his team scored four runs in the following inning -- that may qualify.) If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher who followed that "brief and ineffective" pitcher. Which relief pitcher earns the win specifically is also up to the judgment of the official scorer."

 

Time to step up scorers!  

 

[Twodogs]

I agree - it is time for the official scorer to look at who did the best, not the lucky pitcher who throw a few strikes just before the leading run scores. With all these BP games it is getting ridiculous.

 

"Win (W)

Definition

A pitcher receives a win when he is the pitcher of record when his team takes the lead for good -- with a couple rare exceptions. 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.

There is also a rarely used clause where an official scorer can deem a relief pitcher's appearance "brief and ineffective." (For example, if a reliever relinquished a one-run lead by allowing three runs, but was still in line for a win after his team scored four runs in the following inning -- that may qualify.) If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher who followed that "brief and ineffective" pitcher. Which relief pitcher earns the win specifically is also up to the judgment of the official scorer."

 

Time to step up scorers!

That's weird, I thought it always had to be the pitcher who got through the 5th inning, but that's only for the starter huh. Seems weird to me. Seemed like Dustin May deserved that win for the Dodgers last night. Not that I care one way or the other, I just saw it and I couldnt figure out how the guy who pitched two outs in the 2nd was able to get the win?

[Nine of twelve]

Even if the scoring guidelines are changed this is an example of how little significance there is to wins for pitchers, especially relievers. I don't think any of these pitchers stands out above the others. 

[HokieRif]

Kolarek was the pitcher of record when the Dodgers took the lead for good. The important part there is “for good” - even though the Padres continued scoring beyond the runs that had accumulated while Kolarek was still in he was the listed pitcher at the point where the dodgers never gave up a lead. Had he not been brought in Graterol would have been given the W.

[stewthornley]

The win has to go to Kolarek unless the scorer considered him to be brief and ineffective.  A guideline for brief and ineffective is less than an inning and allowing two earned runs, including inherited runners, to score.  He allowed one inherited runner.  I wouldn't apply the brief/ineffective rule in this case.  He was the pitcher of record when the Dodgers scored two in the third and didn't give up the lead.

[ashbury]

The win has to go to Kolarek unless the scorer considered him to be brief and ineffective.  A guideline for brief and ineffective is less than an inning and allowing two earned runs, including inherited runners, to score.  He allowed one inherited runner.  I wouldn't apply the brief/ineffective rule in this case.  He was the pitcher of record when the Dodgers scored two in the third and didn't give up the lead.

(Folks, for those who don't know, Stew Thornley is one of the Official Scorers for the Twins. He speaks with some authority.)

 

What you say covers the gist of rule 9.17{c}. I am wondering though about 9.17{b} just above it. I know I don't need to quote it for you, but for the rest reading this, here it is (my emphasis added):

 

...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  9.17{b} Comment:  It is the intent of Rule 9.17{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.

These seem at odds.

 

(Sorry about formatting glitches, from copying a PDF version.)

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

What you say covers the gist of rule 9.17{c}. I am wondering though about 9.17{b} just above it.

I think part b only applies if the team took the lead while the starting pitcher was still in the game, and the starting pitcher failed to go 5 innings.

 

Here, the Dodgers took the lead after Graterol (the "starter") left, while Kolarek was the pitcher of record. So he gets the win as long as he wasn't "brief & ineffective" -- the performance of subsequent relievers does not matter in this case.

[ashbury]

I think part b only applies if the team took the lead while the starting pitcher was still in the game, and the starting pitcher failed to go 5 innings.

 

Here, the Dodgers took the lead after Graterol (the "starter") left, while Kolarek was the pitcher of record. So he gets the win as long as he wasn't "brief & ineffective" -- the performance of subsequent relievers does not matter in this case.

I completely forgot to look at the linescore. Yep, that's the difference. Thanx and a tip of the ashbury hat to you for the clarification.

 

[Twodogs]

Kolarek was the pitcher of record when the Dodgers took the lead for good. The important part there is “for good” - even though the Padres continued scoring beyond the runs that had accumulated while Kolarek was still in he was the listed pitcher at the point where the dodgers never gave up a lead. Had he not been brought in Graterol would have been given the W.

Grateral would have had to complete 4 more innings in order to get the win.