Shore got a save while pitching 6 innings because it was awarded retroactively. They didn’t give saves out in 1917. However, in 1917, the starting pitcher didn’t have to go five innings to qualify for the win. It was pretty much up to the discretion of the scorer.
In the 1970s, baseball went back and awarded saves to pitchers who earned them back before it was an official stat. When the people in charge of this, got to the Shore game, the starter had already been awarded a win and they decided not to change that. So something had to be done to account for Shore’s performance. Using the current rule, Shore would get a save because he was not the winning the pitcher, he finished the game, and he pitched at least three innings of relief.
It’s a pretty lame save, but back in 1917 the concept of a save was foreign to everyone.
Thanks, Opus1 and BobT. Bob apparently has the actual answer, while Opus has the theoretical answer (which is the same one I came up with).
I had been using Opus’ reasoning to account for Shore’s save. I knew Shore’s save was retroactive, but I assumed that the editors of the Baseball Encyclopedia, when awarding saves, would have applied the most current definition (which IIRC dates from the late 70s), in combination with the current definition of a win (I think the requirement for 5 innings goes back to 1950). According to current definitions, Shore should have gotten a win, not a save, in that game, as the most effective (and only) reliever in a game in which the starter did not qualify for a win.
Seems to me though, that if they’re going to go around retroactively re-evaluating no-hitters, perfect games, and home runs, based on changing definitions, they’d also need to do it for wins. But of course baseball has never been known for its logic.
So, BobT, do you happen to know if that was general policy on the part of the Encyclopedia editors: to leave starting pitchers with wins previously awarded even if they didn’t meet modern definitions? Or did they do it on a case-by-case basis? E.g., it was a win by a Hall-of-Famer and they didn’t want to change his win total?
I was surprised that someone like Bill James would question how you could get a save while pitching 6 innings. I think my and Opus’ reasoning holds, though, for how it’s possible according to the current definition. Starter gets no-decision, first reliever gets the win, second gets the save.
Well I can’t find it, but I think Red Sox pitcher Matt Young threw eight innings of no hit ball in the early nineties and still lost. Can’t tell you the date team they were playing, but I’m pretty sure it happened. Heck, I remember watching it and being totally disgusted at the time. Serves me right for being a Sox fan.
The Baseball Encyclopedia and its successor Total Baseball both followed the same general policy regarding historical statistics.
With few exceptions, the reference sources accepted whatever the scoring conventions of the day were. If a guy got a win under 1892 rules, then it would stay even if it wouldn’t be a win today.
(There were some exceptions made, but they aren’t germane to this discussion.)
As for Matt Young, he did throw 8 innings of no-hit baseball and lost. He was pitching for Boston and lost to Cleveland in, I think, 1991 or 1992. It was the first game of a doubleheader and Roger Clemens threw a 2-hitter in the second game and won.
Thanks, BobT. After re-perusing the appendixes of my Baseball Encyclopedia, I see that they do state that win-loss decisions were accepted “as is” for the period 1901-1949 (since there was an official scorer after 1920). However, they imply that some records pre-1901 may have been re-evaluated since there was no official scorer at the time.
Earlier in the thread I think Reality Chuck mentioned Babe Ruth “gaining,” then “losing” home runs (actually, it was just one), on the basis of different scoring policies on “walk-off” home runs. I also assume that at least a few of the Babe’s homers must have actually been ground-rule doubles, which were counted as homers before 1931.
I don’t have a cite, but Babe Ruth’s home runs have been thoroughly researched and I believe that someone found out that he actually had no home runs that would be automatic doubles under today’s rules.
I think the parks of the 1920s didn’t lend themselves well to “bounce home runs”. Either they had very deep fences or very short fences, like Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds, where Ruth played the majority of his games.
As for pitching wins and losses before 1901, I suppose it wasn’t too hard to figure out winners and losers since relief pitchers were rarely used in the 19th century. Pitchers almost always went the distance unless they got hurt or the game was completely out of hand.
I’ve heard this too, but only with regard to the 60 he hit in 1927.
I would think that for a guy who played for as long as he did (20+ years, 8,399AB), he must have had some hits that today would be ground-rule doubles.
While I found it hard to believe, the home run logs for Ruth don’t indicate that any of his home runs were bounce home runs. At least none were indicated in any newspaper accounts of Ruth’s games.
I didn’t check this personally, but asked someone else who knows this sort of stuff. So I am not speaking from first hand info.