Bug -- wrong pitcher credited with W

OldGiants · 12-15-2002, 10:34 PM

top of the ninth, 3-3 game, my closer strikes out a batter for the third out and is injured for 4 days with a sore shoulder. Bottom of the ninth, my cleanup hitter hits a solo homer to win, 4-3.

The game gave the win to a reliever who did not throw a pitch (because he wasn't needed, the inning was over) but was inserted because of the injury.

Obviously, no substitution should have been made at the time, or at all.

Steve Kuffrey · 12-16-2002, 02:44 PM

Yep, sounds like a problem.

fantom1979 · 12-16-2002, 02:51 PM

The only thing i could think of is if your pitcher was subbed when he came to bat in the ninth, but since you said your clean up hitter hit a solo hr, that rules that out. I am not even sure what the ruling would be if this happened (i live in a DH town).

Scott Vibert · 12-16-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fantom1979
The only thing i could think of is if your pitcher was subbed when he came to bat in the ninth, but since you said your clean up hitter hit a solo hr, that rules that out. I am not even sure what the ruling would be if this happened (i live in a DH town).

Actually what happened is because his pitcher was injured the game forced a sub, even though there were 3 outs. He made the sub and the game recognizes that pitcher as the current pitcher in the game.

The pitcher never came up.

But since the game was won in the bottom of the ninth the game "correctly" assigned the win to the current pitcher. Unfortunately because of the injury that had just occurred the current pitcher had never thrown a pitch and should not have earned the win.

It's a bug the way to correct it is to check that the pitcher of record has either pitched 1/3 of an inning or thrown at least one pitch.

JML · 12-16-2002, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ScottVib

It's a bug the way to correct it is to check that the pitcher of record has either pitched 1/3 of an inning or thrown at least one pitch.

Or make substitutions only after checking if the inning is already over. This way pitchers don't get an appearance when, IRL, they never would have come into the game.

Scott Vibert · 12-16-2002, 04:35 PM

Yes, ideally the way to handle this is to allow the empty lineup spot until the position next needs to be filled. (Either the spot comes up in the batting order or has to take the field)

Unfortunately right now the game doesn't behave well with an empty spot in the lineup...

fantom1979 · 12-17-2002, 02:35 AM

I am just curious, anyone know who would have gotten the win if the pitcher would have been up to bat and was substituted by a position player? Obviously you cant give the win to the pitch hitter, so would it go back to the pitcher of the last inning. Like I said, I am just curious on this.

Scott Vibert · 12-17-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fantom1979
I am just curious, anyone know who would have gotten the win if the pitcher would have been up to bat and was substituted by a position player? Obviously you cant give the win to the pitch hitter, so would it go back to the pitcher of the last inning. Like I said, I am just curious on this.

Yes the last pitcher to have pitched is still the pitcher of record and would get the win.

OldGiants · 12-17-2002, 10:42 AM

ScottVib described it right. I assumed that was what happened, but I didn't know if the problem had been reported or not.

Crediting the win to the last pitcher in the game is the way its been since the 19th century. There have been oddities along the way, though. I'm not certain of the year, but it was in the early 1970's that this happened. I wish I could remember the exact detaels, so if any else does, I'd appreciate the memory refresher.

The Cubs and Phillies went into extra innings and the game had to be paused for rain. Because of a curfew law, they had to stop the game in mid-inning and finish it the next time the Phillies came into Chicago. In between the two dates, pitcher Lowell Palmer was traded from the Phillies to the Cubs. He was the pitcher in the game when the rains came, for the Phillies. The Cub pitcher in the game was no longer with the Cubs, and so Chicago would have to make a pitching change when the game resumed.

At the time, there was no rule preventing the Cubs making their new pitcher Palmer, who was now on their 25-man roster. So the Phillies could have scored a run off Palmer, the Cubs reliever, and won the game for Palmer, the Phillies reliever who was still in the lineup in the top of the 14th and therefore would have been credited with the win.

Thus Palmer could have been both the winning and losing pitcher in the same game. But the Cubs didn't put him in the game, as I recall, and the rules were changed at the winter meetings.

12-15-2002, 10:34 PM	#1
OldGiants Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 211	Bug -- wrong pitcher credited with W top of the ninth, 3-3 game, my closer strikes out a batter for the third out and is injured for 4 days with a sore shoulder. Bottom of the ninth, my cleanup hitter hits a solo homer to win, 4-3. The game gave the win to a reliever who did not throw a pitch (because he wasn't needed, the inning was over) but was inserted because of the injury. Obviously, no substitution should have been made at the time, or at all.

12-16-2002, 02:44 PM	#2
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	Yep, sounds like a problem. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

12-16-2002, 02:51 PM	#3
fantom1979 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 3,498	The only thing i could think of is if your pitcher was subbed when he came to bat in the ninth, but since you said your clean up hitter hit a solo hr, that rules that out. I am not even sure what the ruling would be if this happened (i live in a DH town). __________________

12-17-2002, 02:35 AM	#7
fantom1979 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 3,498	I am just curious, anyone know who would have gotten the win if the pitcher would have been up to bat and was substituted by a position player? Obviously you cant give the win to the pitch hitter, so would it go back to the pitcher of the last inning. Like I said, I am just curious on this. __________________

12-16-2002, 04:35 PM	#6
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,254	Yes, ideally the way to handle this is to allow the empty lineup spot until the position next needs to be filled. (Either the spot comes up in the batting order or has to take the field) Unfortunately right now the game doesn't behave well with an empty spot in the lineup...

12-17-2002, 10:42 AM	#9
OldGiants Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 211	ScottVib described it right. I assumed that was what happened, but I didn't know if the problem had been reported or not. Crediting the win to the last pitcher in the game is the way its been since the 19th century. There have been oddities along the way, though. I'm not certain of the year, but it was in the early 1970's that this happened. I wish I could remember the exact detaels, so if any else does, I'd appreciate the memory refresher. The Cubs and Phillies went into extra innings and the game had to be paused for rain. Because of a curfew law, they had to stop the game in mid-inning and finish it the next time the Phillies came into Chicago. In between the two dates, pitcher Lowell Palmer was traded from the Phillies to the Cubs. He was the pitcher in the game when the rains came, for the Phillies. The Cub pitcher in the game was no longer with the Cubs, and so Chicago would have to make a pitching change when the game resumed. At the time, there was no rule preventing the Cubs making their new pitcher Palmer, who was now on their 25-man roster. So the Phillies could have scored a run off Palmer, the Cubs reliever, and won the game for Palmer, the Phillies reliever who was still in the lineup in the top of the 14th and therefore would have been credited with the win. Thus Palmer could have been both the winning and losing pitcher in the same game. But the Cubs didn't put him in the game, as I recall, and the rules were changed at the winter meetings.