In the Phillies/Expos game tonight, Brandon Duckworth left the game with 2 outs in the 5th and a 5-4 lead. The announcers said he couldn’t get the win because he didn’t pitch 5 innings.
The way the game shook out, one of the relievers stood to earn the win (the Expos tied it at 5 but the Phillies later exploded for more runs). But if the Phillies had indeed held on to the lead they had when Duckworth left the ballgame, which pitcher would be awarded the victory, if any at all?
It’s up to the official scorer, who gives the victory to the pitcher who was the most effective.
If the pitcher who relieved Duckworth went on to pitch 2 or 3 innings without allowing any runs, the scorer could judge him to have been the most effective.
PS: Every game must have a winning pitcher.
And of course, if after the starter leaves the lead changes hands, whichever pitcher was in the game when the lead stopped changing hands gets the win. So because Duckworth left leading 5-4 and the Expos tied it at 5, whoever was pitching when the Phils went ahead to stay would get the win.
Pretty much the way it winds up working is that the pitcher who pitched when his team got the lead for good gets the win. So if, with the Phillies up 5-4, the final margin had been 5-4, the first reliever on would have gotten the win.
dantheman is perfectly correct when he says that the pitcher who pitched most effectively is supposed to get the win, but it seems like the criterion in practice seems to be that the pitcher who pitched when his team got the lead for good is the pitcher who gets the win. This is silly, of course.
Not at all. He’s the pitcher of record, that’s all. Cormier gave up a run in the sixth; if he had given up two runs to give Montreal the lead - and the Phillies never subsequently tied the game - Cormier would have gotten the loss, too.
No, what I meant is that the criterion is officially to do with the pitcher who pitched most effectively, but that in practice this is often ignored in favor of the guy who happened to be pitching when the lead stopped changing. I would argue that if Joe Schmoe comes in losing 1-0 and leaves an inning later winning 13-12, and is relieved by Bob Schmuck who pitches 5 scoreless innings (but doesn’t close the game, which does indeed end 13-12), Bob Schmuch should probably be defined as the pitcher who pitched most effectively. In practice, Joe Schmoe seems to get the win anyway.
Even worse, Joe Schmoe could come in with the team winning 8-0, concede 12 runs in one inning, then his teammates hit 5 in the next and go on to win 13-12 and Joe Schmoe gets the win.
It is possible to get a win without throwing a single pitch.
For example. The team is trailing in the ninth inning. A relief pitcher is called in and the team that is leading has a runner on first and there is two outs. The pitcher picks the runner off first base to end the inning. If the pitcher’s team scores two runs in the bottom of the ninth, the pitcher who didn’t throw a single pitch is in line for the win.
Here’s a real life example: The other night Mike Mussina pitched a darn good game for 8 innings. Yanks are ahead 5 - 1. One man gets on and then they call in Mariano Rivera to close it out. Everybody figures the game is all over but the shouting. But no. The great Mariano gives up four runs!! The game is tied! Bottom of the 9th, Red Sox pitcher gives up a double, runner gets third on an error. There’s already two outs. Pitcher walks the next two, who are strong hitters, to load the bases for an what he hopes will be an easy out at any base. Unfortunately for the Sox, he also walks the next batter (Posada), which brings in the winning run. So who gets the win? Not Mussina, who pitched great. Rivera, who should have put it away, but almost let his team lose. Go figure.
Was Duckworth starting? If so the rules prohibit him from getting the win.
Rule 10.19 (A):
http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/baseball_basics/mlb_basics_official_scorer.jsp
Jplacer’s example actually happened, though it’s too late for me to find a cite. I don’t remember the pitcher’s name, I believe he pitched for the White Sox. I remember the story from one of those “Strange but True Baseball Stories” kind of books I read as a kid.
Gahhhhh…sorry missread your post. Anyhoo here is the link to the Official Scorer’s section of the rules of baseball.
Official practice is to give the win to the guy who was pitching when the lead was achieved for good. The “most effective pitcher” bit only comes into play if the starter didn’t go the requisite innings for the win.
B.J. Ryan of the Orioles was credited with a win against the Tigers earlier this season without throwing a pitch. He picked off a runner without throwing a pitch. The Orioles took the lead the next inning and a new pitcher was brought in.
If a pitcher throws 4 2/3 innings of perfect ball (for this example leading 5-0) and gets injured and has to leave the game, a reliever would have to come in to finish the 5th. He pitches 1/3 of an inning. By some fluke, for the rest of the game, everyone pitching leaves after only throwing 1/3 or 2/3 of an inning.
So, you have:
starting pitcher - 4 2/3 innings
reliever 1 - 1/3 inning
reliever 2 - 2/3 inning
reliever 3 - 1/3 inning
reliever 4 - 2/3 inning
reliever 5 - 1/3 inning
reliever 6 - 2/3 inning
reliever 7 - 1/3 inning
reliever 8 - 2/3 inning
reliever 9 - 1/3 inning
Are you saying that Reliever 1 will automatically get the win? The starting pitcher cannot get it?
If the score never changes, ending 5-0, then it’s up to the scorer to decide which of the nine relievers would get the win. The situation you’ve described would never happen, because no team has nine relievers on its active roster, and even if it did, it wouldn’t use all of them in one game (unless it’s Game 7 of the World Series, perhaps).
The starting pitcher has to go 5 innings before he is eligible to get the victory for his team. So yes, in your example he would not get the win. But you have to remember, such situations - a pitcher getting injured during a perfect game - are rare. And pitcher 4 2/3 innings of perfect ball is fine, but it’s not even half of a game, so it’s not as tough as all that.
Yeah, as in the example that I posited, or as in the example in the OP, right? 
Right. But this doesn’t happen very often. Usually what happens is a reliever gets the win because he was the pitcher of record when his team took the lead for good.
4 2/3 innings = 14 outs.
14/27 outs is more than half a game.
Nitpick, sure, but that is my point… why doesn’t he get the win?
Probably has something to do with the idea that an official ball game has to go at least 5 innings, is my guess.