'Cause the rules say he doesn’t.
Actually, gr8guy, you can have an official game of fewer than 5 innings.
If the home teams leads after 4 1/2 innings (meaning they would be batting in the bottom of the fifth) and it suddenly begins to rain, then if the umps call the game the home team wins, since obviously they wouldn’t have needed to bat to win.
True. I was using “5 innings” in the same way we talk about a normal game being “9 innings,” even if it’s really only 8 1/2.
Dan is certainly right.
The whole ‘most effective pitcher’ angle is a wide spot in the rules. As written the official scorer (hired by the home team usually) has enormous leeway to award the win where he will.
But in practice it’s the pitcher of record when his team took the lead.
Me? I always thought you could make the umpires happy by adding one to each crew and the one not working the field each night would be the ‘official scorer’. I think that’s much better than allowing a ‘home team advantage’ clutter up things.
Yeah, that advantage can make for some pretty hairy situations. It’s just the way it’s been since practically the beginning of baseball. Some teams had the same scorer for twenty, thirty years. And heck, no one even notices him until there’s a really goofy play, like a guy has a hitting streak and the scorer - at the player’s home park - gives the guy a hit instead of charging the fielder with an error. That sort of thing.
Or when Cal Ripken was going for that ‘most errorless games’ record 10-15 years ago. He could have been sleeping at SS and if a ball bounced over him it would have been ruled ‘not playable - no error’.
If the rules for determining a winning pitcher seems somewhat arbitrary that’s correct. It is arbitrary. It was more abritrary in the past. In older days, relievers would be credited with losses for allowing inherited runners to score.
When Dizzy Dean won 30 games in 1934, one of his victories would not have been credited to him under today’s rules.