That’s a great question. I wonder if anybody has questioned the official scorer regarding this ruling.
I bet if you asked them, they’d say something like “Bickford struggled against a really weak bottom of the Giants lineup, and Martin cleanly retired the stronger top of order. He was far more effective.”
I’d still think it’s a really stupid reason, and there’s a really easy solution for assigning wins staring everyone in the face. It just seems like baseball’s vestigial organ.
The “really easy solution” being to not assign an obviously team-level stat like “wins” to a single player?
The pitcher has a very significant effect on how well the fielders can do their jobs.
And vice versa.
As noted upthread, pitcher wins are a statistic that is now rarely used to evaluate a pitcher’s effectiveness (at least, by anyone who understands baseball at more than a surface level). Much of that is due to the development of better, more meaningful “advanced” stats in recent decades, thanks to the growth in sabermetrics.
Wins are also, probably, an artifact of the way the game was played decades ago, when starting pitchers nearly always worked deep into games, and relievers were generally seen as failed starting pitchers, who were primarily used to fill in when the starter got tired or hurt, or just didn’t have it on that day.
But, because pitcher wins are a stat that’s always been there, I imagine that the stat won’t be going away any time soon, even as it becomes even more meaningless.
God, I wish. But let’s at least start with:
“A win is assigned to the last pitcher to record an out when his team takes the final lead in the game.” Then we can move on to “wins are a team sport - go check out FIP, WHIP, ERA, SIERA and WAR for more informative statistics”.
I like it.
But just for clarification: A starting pitcher could get the win by just pitching one inning, correct?
I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but I also don’t have a big problem with the 5 IP rule for starters.
And a relief pitcher could theoretically earn a win without throwing a single pitch, if he came in with two outs and then picked a runner off base.
I believe that’s the case today, if his team then took a never-to-be relinquished lead in the next half-inning, while he was still the pitcher of record.
For that matter, if said relief pitcher came into a game in a “save situation,” with two outs in the 9th, and picked off the runner to get the third out, he’d earn a save, under the current rules.
Right, but as you pointed out upthread, there is some discretion on the scorer’s part under the current rules.
It hasn’t always been that way though, IIRC. Seems to me the MLS games started that maybe 10-15 years ago? College games changed later (if at all, I don’t really know, mostly because last I checked college soccer was still a bastardization of the game) and I’m not sure if international matches started before or after the MLS. I’m only talking about US television production of soccer. Most (all?) broadcasts from outside the USA have always listed the home team first.
I’ve always figured that hockey, soccer (at first), basketball and American football in the US list the home team last just because that’s how baseball does it and when televising sports really got going, baseball was still king.
I’d bet a dollar that you are correct here. Hell, hockey and football took some of their team names from baseball. Stealing from baseball is just what American sports did.
Same here. And, in baseball, the “Visitor, Home” order would seem to be the natural way to present it, as it reflects the order in which the teams take turns at the plate: the visiting team bats in the first half of the inning, then the home team in the second half.
Ha! I actually like it. I suppose that’s the actual reason the absurdity came into being - to allow the scorekeeper discretion in eliminating that. It should have stayed that way.
The home team actually has discretion on the order - but they nearly always choose to bat second, because it offers a distinctive advantage.
When was the last time a team chose to do it the opposite way?
So, I had to look this up; it appears that the rule about which team bats first wasn’t formalized by MLB until 1950, and prior to that, home teams did have the option to bat first; however, it also appears that the last time this actually happened was in 1913.
Since 1950, there’s not been an option; the home team must always bat in the bottom of the inning. That said, it appears that there is a corner case: if the two teams are playing a rescheduled game at “Team A”'s park, and the original game would have been played at “Team B”'s park, then Team B has the option to bat last. It looks like this happened in an Indians/Mariners game in 2007, at Safeco Field, in which the Mariners batted first.
https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum/general-baseball/trivia/49995-home-team-batting-first
Thanks for looking that up. Seems silly to encode that rule, but I guess it helps at least with spectator expectations, maybe?