Why Is This A Save

[scott1964]

Why Is This A Save?

[Izz]

Pitched more than 3 innings, and the scorer for some reason decided to give the win to Doyle?

[Snider&Hodges]

Originally Posted by Izz

Pitched more than 3 innings, and the scorer for some reason decided to give the win to Doyle?

The scorer is Doyle's girlfriend

[Westheim]

Why not post the linescore?

I predict that Doyle gave up a run in the first or second, they hit Passeau for a few in the first or second, and then Hildebrand inherited a lead and pitched more than three innings without blowing it. Perfectly legit save under any circumstance.

[scott1964]

[Snider&Hodges]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Why not post the linescore?

I predict that Doyle gave up a run in the first or second, they hit Passeau for a few in the first or second, and then Hildebrand inherited a lead and pitched more than three innings without blowing it. Perfectly legit save under any circumstance.

I could be wrong but it's my understanding that if a starter doesn't go 5 but the team still wins, the win goes to the reliever that the scorer deemed most efficient. So according to the scorer, Hildebrand pitched worse than Doyle.

[zappa1]

It's what official scorers do. But, sometimes, baseball will overrule the scorer if they think he/she has made a grave error.

If I was scoring, I'd have given Hildebrand the win.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Snider&Hodges

I could be wrong but it's my understanding that if a starter doesn't go 5 but the team still wins, the win goes to the reliever that the scorer deemed most efficient. So according to the scorer, Hildebrand pitched worse than Doyle.

I am pretty sure that this is only possible when the starter leaves with the lead while not lasting five innings, and the lead is not blown at any point.

In this case, the starter did not leave with the lead, and the win goes to the guy in the game when they got the lead.

All is well in my opinion.

[jeffw3000]

Originally Posted by Snider&Hodges

I could be wrong but it's my understanding that if a starter doesn't go 5 but the team still wins, the win goes to the reliever that the scorer deemed most efficient. So according to the scorer, Hildebrand pitched worse than Doyle.

That is the way the rule reads. I would have went with Hildebrand for the win, but often the scorer looks to give the win to the pitcher that replaced the starter if he feels they pitched well enough. Not out of the question that the scorer would have given the win to Doyle instead, in which case Hildebrand gets the save for finishing the game, never relinquishing the lead, and pitching 3 innings.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I am pretty sure that this is only possible when the starter leaves with the lead while not lasting five innings, and the lead is not blown at any point.

In this case, the starter did not leave with the lead, and the win goes to the guy in the game when they got the lead.

All is well in my opinion.

That's how I read the rule as well. The basic rule (9.17(a)) states:

(a) The official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher that pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game, and does not relinquish such lead, unless (1) such pitcher is a starting pitcher and Rule 9.17(b) applies; or (2) Rule 9.17(c) applies.

Rule 9.17(b) says that a starter has to pitch five innings in order to get the win. Rule 9.17(c) says that the scorer can award the win to a reliever if the reliever who otherwise would have been entitled to the win under Rule 9.17(a) pitches briefly and ineffectively.

So neither exception covers this situation. Doyle, a reliever, was the Washington pitcher when the Senators took a lead that they did not relinquish. Although he only pitched 1.2 innings and gave up a run, he didn't give up the lead, so I'd consider that effective. The scorer can exercise judgment under Rule 9.17(b) when a starter would otherwise qualify for the victory but for the fact that he didn't pitch five innings. But here Jones, the starter, couldn't have qualified for the win because he wasn't the pitcher of record when his team took the lead. OOTP made the right call here.

I'll just add that there would be an incentive for modern-day scorers to make a similar decision, even if Rule 9.17(b) applied. Suppose Jones pitched the entire first inning, and then Doyle pitched 1.2 innings before handing the ball off to Hildebrand. The scorer could then use his judgment under Rule 9.17(b) to award the win either to Doyle or Hildebrand. But if you award the win to Hildebrand, nobody would get the save. Now Doyle is mad that he didn't get a win, and Hildebrand, if he's a reliever, is mad because his main stat is the number of saves he records. On the other hand, if you give the win to Doyle, Hildebrand gets a save. Prizes for everybody! And then Doyle and Hildebrand can go into their contract negotiations in the off-season and brag about how many wins/saves they earned.

[Matt Arnold]

There's been 2 times in recent memory where a situation like this has happened: Bumgarner game 7 in 2014, and Morton game 7 in 2017.

The Bumgarner game almost feels like a clone of this one, where the starter came out early, a reliever came in and pitched 2 innings well, and then Bumgarner closed it out with 5 innings. In that case, Affeldt got the win and Bumgarner was given the save, like the above.

The Morton case they got out to a big lead early, but the starter still only went 2 innings. Peacock pitched 2 innings without giving up a run, then a couple more 1 batter relieves came in before Morton finished it off with 4 innings. In that case, though, the scorer decided to give Morton the win.

So I definitely think you could make an argument either way.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

There's been 2 times in recent memory where a situation like this has happened: Bumgarner game 7 in 2014, and Morton game 7 in 2017.

The Bumgarner game almost feels like a clone of this one, where the starter came out early, a reliever came in and pitched 2 innings well, and then Bumgarner closed it out with 5 innings. In that case, Affeldt got the win and Bumgarner was given the save, like the above.

The Morton case they got out to a big lead early, but the starter still only went 2 innings. Peacock pitched 2 innings without giving up a run, then a couple more 1 batter relieves came in before Morton finished it off with 4 innings. In that case, though, the scorer decided to give Morton the win.

So I definitely think you could make an argument either way.

A few more (7 innings or a blowout)

Daniel Mengden records save in 14-run victory

Benoit gets 7-inning save against O's

With a 27-Run Cushion, a Save Is in the Books

The A's also had another one of of those 3 inning/blowout saves maybe 15 years ago? I can't find that one, but it did get mentioned on the board as an example of the 3 inning save/scorekeepers decision rule.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

There's been 2 times in recent memory where a situation like this has happened: Bumgarner game 7 in 2014, and Morton game 7 in 2017.

The Bumgarner game almost feels like a clone of this one, where the starter came out early, a reliever came in and pitched 2 innings well, and then Bumgarner closed it out with 5 innings. In that case, Affeldt got the win and Bumgarner was given the save, like the above.

The Morton case they got out to a big lead early, but the starter still only went 2 innings. Peacock pitched 2 innings without giving up a run, then a couple more 1 batter relieves came in before Morton finished it off with 4 innings. In that case, though, the scorer decided to give Morton the win.

So I definitely think you could make an argument either way.

Except that the 2017 game was an example where the starter would have qualified for the win but for the fact that he didn't pitch five innings. So that was a case where Rule 9.17(b) controlled. In the 2014 game, Affeldt, the reliever, was the pitcher of record when the go-ahead run scored, so that situation was controlled by Rule 9.17(a), just like the situation in the original post. In the 2017 game, the scorer had discretion to award the win to the most effective reliever. In the 2014 game, the scorer had no discretion because Affeldt pitched effectively in relief.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Except that the 2017 game was an example where the starter would have qualified for the win but for the fact that he didn't pitch five innings. So that was a case where Rule 9.17(b) controlled. In the 2014 game, Affeldt, the reliever, was the pitcher of record when the go-ahead run scored, so that situation was controlled by Rule 9.17(a), just like the situation in the original post. In the 2017 game, the scorer had discretion to award the win to the most effective reliever. In the 2014 game, the scorer had no discretion because Affeldt pitched effectively in relief.

Yeah, the Affeldt/Bumgarner game was in some ways a mirror image of the above game, so I'm glad we did things "right". The Morton one yes, was different since there was more discretion available in that one (although certainly there is a good discussion about which reliever was more "effective", Peacock with 2 scoreless innings or Morton with 4 innings of 1-run ball)

[One Great Matrix]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

There's been 2 times in recent memory where a situation like this has happened: Bumgarner game 7 in 2014, and Morton game 7 in 2017.

The Bumgarner game almost feels like a clone of this one, where the starter came out early, a reliever came in and pitched 2 innings well, and then Bumgarner closed it out with 5 innings. In that case, Affeldt got the win and Bumgarner was given the save, like the above.

The Morton case they got out to a big lead early, but the starter still only went 2 innings. Peacock pitched 2 innings without giving up a run, then a couple more 1 batter relieves came in before Morton finished it off with 4 innings. In that case, though, the scorer decided to give Morton the win.

So I definitely think you could make an argument either way.

Yeah, you certainly could...the save stipulations aren't laid out but it's not limited to coming into the 9th and getting 3 outs with 3 run lead or less by any means...there's more to both rules.

I wasn't aware of the 2nd exception for the win credit being if the reliever that would otherwise get credit for the win pitched briefly & ineffectively. This happens quite a bit...In some instances, they come in and downright blow the starter's work; then the team comes back to win.....and the reliever gets the W anyway, so apparently it's not enforced or implemented very much.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by One Great Matrix

Yeah, you certainly could...the save stipulations aren't laid out but it's not limited to coming into the 9th and getting 3 outs with 3 run lead or less by any means...there's more to both rules.

I wasn't aware of the 2nd exception for the win credit being if the reliever that would otherwise get credit for the win pitched briefly & ineffectively. This happens quite a bit...In some instances, they come in and downright blow the starter's work; then the team comes back to win.....and the reliever gets the W anyway, so apparently it's not enforced or implemented very much.

The "brief+ineffective" rule is only really (legally?) applied when the starter should get the win but doesn't go 5 innings. As far as I'm aware, outside of that, it's simply whoever was in when the team took the lead and never looked back. So if a guy comes in, gives up 7 runs and gets one out, and then his team scores 15 in the bottom of the inning, he and his 189 ERA for the game would still get credit for the win.

[zappa1]

It's the official scorers call. By the way, in the above scenario, both the starting pitcher and his replacement, Doyle, left the game with an injury. Who knows, maybe Doyle would have pitched longer. He's listed as a SP. No right or wrong in this. Judgement call by the scorer. The only thing that's sure is the starting pitcher gets nothing but a game started. Like I said earlier, I would give the win to Hildebrand. That's my decision as scorer. To me, he was more deserving of the win.


I wonder what real official scorers would say if they were asked about this situation.

[One Great Matrix]

The rule has two parts. The first is if the pitcher doesn't go five innings, which they always enforce. The second is the official scorer can deny a reliever a win if he pitches briefly & ineffectively, ...yeah, they never do that, though.

I suppose part of it is because they'd have to pick another reliever to credit the win to, which probably isn't always easy & any pitcher who goes in there and puts forth an effort isn't going to want the win taken from him even if he bombs...the human element thing.

Here is the save rule:

He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club; and
He is not the winning pitcher; and
He qualifies under one of the following conditions:
He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or
He enters the game, regardless of the score, with the potential tying run either on base, at bat, or on deck; or
He pitches for at least three innings. (The word "effectively" has been removed from the MLB rules.)
Under the last condition, the official scorer has some discretion as to whether or not to award a save.

The pitcher gets the save here because he goes 3 innings plus, I believe...COULD get the win, I think, but scorer's discretion, I think, no rule.

[One Great Matrix]

If they could pick the starter instead of the brief & ineffective reliever that blew his lead, that would make some sense to me...especially in those games where he pitches 6 or 7 innings and doesn't let up much. But the rule (that is rarely implemented) says that they can only give the win to another reliever on their own discretion.

[One Great Matrix]

Jones isn't eligible for either a win or a save.
Doyle & Hildebrand were both eligible for the win.
Hildebrand was eligible for a save as well.

or Doyle was eligible for a win, and Hildebrand eligible for a win or a save.

Most scorers ....maybe? would give Hildebrand the win...if there wasn't a middle man, he's the obvious/only choice.

But here Doyle gets the win & HIldebrand the save. Neat & consequential.

Btw, if you didn't read it yet Jones is not the winner because he doesn't last 5 innings...as a starter.