So most games last 8.5 innings. What’s the problem?
#9 might also be interpreted a different way. Before the wild card system, the teams that made the “official” playoffs were the AL east, AL West, NL Easy and NL West division winners, and before that, the only “official” playoffs was the World Series, between the teams with the best W-L records from the the AL and the NL.
HOWEVER, in the event that two teams had the same W-L record, a one game playoff (or back in the 50s IIRC, a 3 game playoff) was held to determine who would get the “official” playoff, or World Series, spot.
Sooooo hypothetically lets say its 1980 and the Houston Astros win the NL West with 98 games, The Phillies win the NL East with 99. They play each other for the right to represent the NL in the World Series.
In the AL, the Yankees with the East with 97 games, but in the AL West, both Kansas City and Chicago are tied with 103 games. A one game playoff is ordered, and Kansas City beats Oakland in that game.
Therefore, theoretically, Oakland COULD have had the most wins that season, and still not make the “playoffs”.
As for the video, I consider myself a low level baseball “rules geek” so this is a fun thread, but most of the possibilities suggested by the subject of the video have about as much chance of happening as a camel walking through the eye of a needle.
As stated earlier - that’s not a playoff game, it’s an actual regular season game and reflected as so in the stats. It happened last year in the AL Central.
Isn’t #2 a lot easier than people think? The pitcher gets relieved, and the reliever goes on to lose the game. Why would a guy on a tear get relieved, though? I don’t know - maybe the manager is a dork. Or maybe the pitcher gets injured throwing that last strikeout. So he struck everyone out that he saw, but the reliever gave up 9 runs and they lost. Simple.
I’m only a casual baseball fan, so I don’t know why this doesn’t satisfy. But it might not.
Because the reliever would get the loss.
I’m not sure if it’s true, but it might be the case that most games are played in leagues in which games are scheduled to go a shorter number of innings; I see nothign in your post that specifies professional leagues. I played baseball from when I was very young through my senior year of high school, and never played in a 9 inning game unless it went to extra innings; I imagine most youth leagues are the same. While certainly professional and college leagues play 9, and they probably play more often, there are probably many many more high school and lower leagues.
One runner would have to get on base via a dropped third strike; if that runner scores the loss goes to the starter.
Right - but Snickers was trying to get away from the dropped 3rd strike scenario.
Which, of course, is impossible without the starting pitcher being responsible for a runner on base.
I don’t see how that guy would get the win if he only got one out. The scorer would give it to another reliever. The only exception I could see would be if it was the last out of the top of the 9th and then his team came back to win it. Even then, though, it’d probably go to the guy that pitched the first 2 outs of the 9th:
A one-out showing is definitely a “brief and inneffective” appearance.
But my reading of that rule has the relief pitcher in question protecting a lead that is not subsequently relinquished. If a pitcher records the final out of the top of the 9th inning while his team is behind, and then his team takes the lead and wins the game in the bottom of the 9th, he’s the winning pitcher, because he was the pitcher of record at the time his team took the lead, and because the game is now over, he’s never replaced by another pitcher. There’s nobody else to choose from.
The key phrase in 10.17© is “when at least one succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain its lead”. If the “brief and ineffective” pitcher is the final pitcher of the game for the winning team, there is no “succeeding” pitcher to consider giving the Win to, and so the Win goes to Mr. Brief and Ineffective by default, whether or not he really did anything to deserve it.
I’ve seen plenty of box scores where the final pitcher’s name is followed by “BS, W”. Which is basically a way of saying, “this guy took the Win away from a preceding pitcher, and then kept it for himself”. He came into the game in the top of the 9th with a lead, coughed it up, and then his team’s hitters got it back in the bottom of the 9th.
I agree that they’d probably do something but it IS possible that scheduling would force such a scenario.
Remember, “Games behind” is a convenient thing, but teams are actually ranked by winning percentage. If Team A is 101-61 and Team B is 100-60, Team B wins the division despite having fewer wins. So this could have happened, though it’s unlikely now with the wild card (at the time the OP’s news segmenet was filmed there was no wild card.) I would assume an effort would be made to resolve the issue with a playoff game but maybe it wouldn’t be possible, and anyway Bud Selig’s still in charge so any level of stupidity and unfairness is possible.
This is obviously a nitpick, bar bet question. Most games don’t go EXACTLY nine innings.
-
Home team ahead after the top of the ninth.
-
Extra innings.
-
Games called early on account of rain, the lights going out, fans throwing souvenir baseballs on the field or any of the bizarre things that have happened in baseball history.
Good then that proves my point.
I disagree. That comment refers to two rules. Rule 10.17(b) refers to a situation where the starter has pitched less than five innings, and is therefore ineligible for the win. That’s a fairly rare situation, and not, I think, what we’re talking about.
I think you’re mis-parsing the comment on 10.17(c). It says “The official scorer generally should, but is not required to, consider the appearance of a relief pitcher to be ineffective and brief if such relief pitcher pitches less than one inning and allows two or more earned runs to score…” It’s not “pitches less than one inning or allows two or more runs to score”. That’s a pretty specific criterion. Note that it also gives the scorer discretion in the case anyway. Since this whole discussion centers around esoteric and often implausible “possibilities” I think that discretion renders it moot anyway.
No it doesn’t. In your scenario, Oakland no longer has the most wins in the regular season; Kansas City does.
How does the team with the best record not go to the playoffs in that scenario? And why are the Royals playing the As when they’re tied with the White Sox?
I would figure that instead of a playoff game the Mets making up one or more of the games would have been the appropriate remedy.
The White Sox, Twins, and Royals end up in a 3-way tie at 100-62.
Based on coin-flips (and perhaps certain tie-breakers, I’m not sure), it’s decided that the Twins will play the Royals, and that winner will play the White Sox for the division title.
Royals beat twins, White Sox beat Royals, and the Royals are left out despite tying for a league-leading 101 wins.
(I think the current wild-card system would preclude this scenario, but it would have been possible back in the '80s.)
Oh yeah - I’d forgotten how wins and losses are awarded to pitchers. I was reading it in the casual, average joe type way, with the meaning that just his team won or lost, not where the win/loss was awarded.
Ignorance fought!
What if there was a three-way tie in the division? Wouldn’t two teams play a game, and the winner of that one would play the third? In that case, a team could win the first game and lose the second game, and finish the reason tied for the most wins in the majors.