In the first inning, Player 1(team A) hits a grand slam, putting Team A up 4-0.
In the 2nd inning, Player 2 (team A) hits another Grand Slam. Team A up 8-0.
Now, In the 3rd inning, Team B scores 6 runs. No more score for the rest of the game, Team A wins 8-6.
Now the Question. Who gets the Game Winning RBI? Player 1 had the inital RBI that put the Team A ahead (and they never lost the lead), but it was Player 2’s RBI that wound up being the one that put them ahead in the final score.
Although, like all these questions it’s up to the official scorer, if I recall it’s the player who put the team in front to stay who gets the game-winning RBI.
The GWRBI is no longer an official stat, but when it was kunilou had the correct call.
It differs from the “game-winning goal” in hockey where the goal that proves to be the decisive margin (for example goal #3 in a 4-2 win) is the “game winner”.
This doesn’t make sense. Even though the game was never tied after that, it only stands to reason that if Player 2 didn’t get his RBIs then Player 1’s RBIs would mean nothing and the other team would be the winner. Can you cite your source for this?
Common sense says Player 2 gets the GWRBI, since it’s Run Number 7 that actually wins the game.
DAVEW007’s argument makes a lot of sense which is one reason why the GWRBI was dumped as an official statistic.
The reasoning behind the rule was that the player who drove in the run that gave his team a lead that was never relinquished was based on the theory that a team that is ahead always has an advantage over a team that is behind.
Also, a player who drives in a run in a 0-0 game was supposed to be given more credit than a guy who drove in runs 7 and 8 to make the score 8-2.
I’m not saying I agree with these reasons, I’m just stating what the reasoning was.
GWRBI was an official stat, but there never was a stat called “game winning hit”. I can’t see how it’s going to differ that much from GWRBI unless the RBI comes as the result of something like a sac fly or bases loaded walk.
The GWRBI was one attempt to identify the “clutch hitter”. As it turned out, the people with the most GWRBI usually had the most RBIs of all types and played for teams that won frequently.
You can try to quantify baseball’s “clutch hitters”, but, like in most sports, it’s like chasing the wind. Athletes who are considered good “clutch” players are almost always good at any time. We just remember how somebody did in the ninth inning better than how someone performed in the first inning, although both situations are equally important.
Are you absolutely certain of this? I rather distinctly remember one. I suppose it’s possible that this wasn’t an official stat, but I seem to recall seeing definitions of both in a Dodger Media Guide, circa 1980.
Ok, here i sit at work bored, and it just so happens
that the guy i work with is an umpire, and an all-around
baseball nut. Granted he’s not a major league ump, but he has umpired, in he says, over 1,000 games ranging in all
sorts of softball and hardball leagues.
He says that player 1 gets the game winning ribbie because
Team A never truely lost the lead.
Hope that helps.
Well, OK, but it still doesn’t make sense to me. I just think that, if the losing team has six runs, no matter when they were scored, then the winning RBI is run #7. I’m not arguing, mind you, I’m just really flummoxed by the apparent lack of logic.
OK, consider another situation: Team B scores two in the first. In the second, player 2 on team A puts in a two-run homer. Then, in the third, player 1 on team A gets one more, and there’s no score for the rest of the game. Again, player 1 is the game-winner, but his one run wouldn’t have mattered without player 2’s pair. I’ve never liked “game-winning” stats in any sport, for that reason-- Same goes for winning pitcher, etc., too.
Chronos, I didn’t quite follow you sequentially. But I think you’re sorta proving my point.
Let’s go back to the original question, with the 2 grand slams. I know scoring isn’t like this, but let’s look at it this way…
The 6 runs scored by the losing team effectively cancel out the first 6 runs of the winning team. By some quirk, everytime the losing team scored a run, instead of posting a run for them, the scorekeeper erased one of the winning team’s previous runs, beginning with the first ones scored. Therefore, runs #7 and 8 would be the only runs left, and the winning team would win by a score of 2 - 0. But it’s the final two runs that count, since the losing team didn’t muster enough runs to cancel out all the previously scored runs of their opponents.
Follow me?
So, Chronos, if I read your example correctly, the cancelling out still takes place, just not all at once. It’s still the later runs that make the winner.
