Kopeck gives up 4 runs in 4 2/3 innings. Hendrix comes in with the score tied at 4 and gives up 2. Sox lose 6-4. Kopeck gets the loss. Why not Hendrix, who gave up the winning run(s)?
Were either of the runs that Hendrix gave up due to baserunners who were on base due to Kopeck? If so, those runs would have been charged to Kopeck, and if one of those were the go-ahead run (it sounds like it), that’d explain it.
I believe the scorer is incorrect. I have always thought that if the score is ever tied after the starter leaves the game, he cannot be the winner or loser. However, he is responsible for runners left on base.
My guess is that Hendrix must have allowed runners to score that were allowed on base by Kopeck.
Ok, now I see it was never actually tied. Kopech left with it 4-2. The Sox only got their 4th run in the 9th (after the Angels already had 6).
That’s why Kopech got the loss.
I’m assuming you mean this game: Angels 6, White Sox 4 Final Score (05/29/2023) on MLB Gameday | MLB.com
You’ll see from the line score it was 4-3 in the 8th when Hedriks came in and gave up 2 more runs.
I went to look at the box score (it’s “Kopech” and “Hendriks,” by the way).
As Jas09 notes, the Sox never tied the game; they were down 4-2 when Kopech left.
Credit for a loss isn’t about the final tally of runs; as I understand it, it’s about which pitcher gave up the run which gave the winning team a lead that was never relinquished. In the case of this game, it was Kopech, in the first inning.
It is really strange that losses are assigned so arbitrarily, and based on things the pitcher of record has no control over (which innings his team scores runs in after he has left the game).
That’s one of the reason why nobody really pays any attention to pitcher Wins and Losses anymore. They are stupid.
Particularly now, in a game where starting pitchers regularly don’t go five innings (the minimum for a starter to be credited with a win), they’re an increasingly meaningless stat.
I think it’s about time this happened. The age of pitchers starting and finishing games is over. The win means little when closers pitch the final innings of every competitive game.
No, he came in at the beginning of an inning with no one on base. He put those guys on.
Just came in to mention that those “Southside” black, pin-striped White Sox uniforms are butt-ugly.
Right. And, he came in with the Sox already down, 4-3, as previously noted, and they were never able to tie the game or take the lead after he came in. He doesn’t get the loss, because he’s not the one who gave up the lead.
Ok , thanks, I see.
I assumed that the guy who gave up the runs that won the game should get the loss, but the rules don’t work that way.
But it’s not arbitrary. As @kenobi_65 stated in the post above yours:
Conversely, the winning pitcher is the pitcher of record when the winning team scored the run that gave them the lead that was never relinquished. The exception is, as has been noted, that a starting pitcher has to pitch at least five innings to be the pitcher of record.
True, “arbitrary” was the wrong word. Assigning wins if the starter doesn’t pitch 5 innings is arbitrary (up to the official scorer). Perhaps “misleading” is a better word.
But I think the point stands that it is not that unusual for the losing pitcher to not be the pitcher (much less player) most responsible for the loss. If you want me to evaluate two starting pitchers and pick one to start a game for my team, I think pitcher’s losses would be one of the very last statistics I would care about.
I think I agree with those who say that it’s neither arbitrary nor misleading, it’s just unimportant. Team A loses 1-0. Team B wins 12-10. Which team had a better pitcher? To me, it’s Team A even though they lost, assuming a significant number of the runs scored against Team B happened when their starting pitcher was on the mound.
True, in that there many, many other stats and metrics to determine the value and/or worth of a pitcher. ERA is still important, as is opponents’ batting average, walks & hits per inning pitched, etc, etc.
Wins are an individual stat for a team result. It was more indicative of individual performance when starting pitchers were expected to pitch more often and longer into games. A pitcher with a lot of wins was a guy who did his job, he pitched a lot and stayed in games long enough to lock in the win.
Today, pitching is a team job, complete games are a rarity. Last year 4 pitchers logged more than 1 CG. Go back a half century, league leaders were logging 30 CGs, then it was 20, then 15, then 7-9, now it’s usually 2-3 for the league leader, though 2022 was an outlier with 6 for the CY winner… who had 14 wins.
Apparently this didn’t actually apply in the game in question - but if it had, no, the pitcher who left the winning run on base would get the loss, even if the run scored when a reliever was pitching.
Wins made a lot more sense when the stat was created back when they still called cars “horseless carriages.”
I was thinking about this more and I realized it’s like citing wins as an important stat for football quarterbacks, if a QB almost always left at the end of the 3rd quarter to rest him.