helsley getting the win today

[Wattage]

I agree. Matz was the pitcher of record. I know the official scorer has some discretion, but that makes no sense. The official scorer is just a member of the media picked for that game to score. Half the time they are up getting a sandwich and don’t even see the play and have to ask others in the press box what happened. Ridiculous.

The scorer can disqualify a pitcher from winning for being ineffective. The problem is 95% of scorers dont ever even though they could so whem you have a scorer that actually does its just completely random and inconsistent

[brock118]

I agree. Matz was the pitcher of record. I know the official scorer has some discretion, but that makes no sense. The official scorer is just a member of the media picked for that game to score. Half the time they are up getting a sandwich and don’t even see the play and have to ask others in the press box what happened. Ridiculous.

The scorer can disqualify a pitcher from winning for being ineffective. The problem is 95% of scorers dont ever even though they could so whem you have a scorer that actually does its just completely random and inconsistent

Yes that is the rule. This happens a couple times a year but not very often. This kills people in fantasy leagues. The problem is like people have said Matz didn't pitch that bad. A single turned into an extra base hit and a pop up thatv3 guys watched hit the ground. I dont think this applies here as I have seen way worse pitching get the win. The times I have seen it implememted the pitchers that lose the win haven't pitched THAT bad.

[RamFan08NY]

How do you explain this? The cardinals were ahead when he entered the game.Closer Ryan Helsley (2-0) was an awarded the win by the official scorer for pitching the ninth and not his 11th save.

Technically there is a clause that allows for this.

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win

"There is also a rarely used clause where an official scorer can deem a relief pitcher's appearance "brief and ineffective." (For example, if a reliever relinquished a one-run lead by allowing three runs, but was still in line for a win after his team scored four runs in the following inning -- that may qualify.) If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher who followed that "brief and ineffective" pitcher. Which relief pitcher earns the win specifically is also up to the judgment of the official scorer."

The problem is that 95% of scorers never exercise this option when they should and still award the win to the brief but ineffevtive pitcher, so whenever a scorer randomly decides to disallow a pitcher like matz from getting the win, its completely random because most scorers never exercise that clause in that situation. Id rather that clause and the less than 5 inning starter clause get eliminated so there is just no ambiguity.

So if he wanted to , does he have the power to not reward any pitcher with a win?

[Wattage]

How do you explain this? The cardinals were ahead when he entered the game.Closer Ryan Helsley (2-0) was an awarded the win by the official scorer for pitching the ninth and not his 11th save.

Technically there is a clause that allows for this.

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win

"There is also a rarely used clause where an official scorer can deem a relief pitcher's appearance "brief and ineffective." (For example, if a reliever relinquished a one-run lead by allowing three runs, but was still in line for a win after his team scored four runs in the following inning -- that may qualify.) If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher who followed that "brief and ineffective" pitcher. Which relief pitcher earns the win specifically is also up to the judgment of the official scorer."

The problem is that 95% of scorers never exercise this option when they should and still award the win to the brief but ineffevtive pitcher, so whenever a scorer randomly decides to disallow a pitcher like matz from getting the win, its completely random because most scorers never exercise that clause in that situation. Id rather that clause and the less than 5 inning starter clause get eliminated so there is just no ambiguity.

So if he wanted to , does he have the power to not reward any pitcher with a win?

Technically no. It says if reliever was "brief and ineffevtive" while theres technically no parameters on what brief but ineffevtive is, it generally wont be if the putchwr putched more than an inning, or never lost the lead to get the win by blowing the lead creating a win situation for themselves.

Its generally always only awarded to a reliever that gets the win cuz they blew the lead thenselves. The problem is that this is so inconsistently implemented, doesnt have set parameters, and doesnt even have to be implemented andnis basically if a few random scorers feel like it because most scorerswont ever implement it even if the pitcher sucked way worse than matz did today and only a few random scorers do.

[jw0595]

I'm for these types of discussions because I think the wins rules are silly.

Do the Cardinals win this game if Liberatore doesn't throw 7 innings of 1 run ball? If you're just going to give it to someone based on discretion, why not the guy who carried the load?

[CardsBest]

According to the rule of the game, I think that's a mistake.

No its not. The rule is if the reliever on record when the team took the lead was deemed not effective in securing the win he can give it to another reliever which he did Helsley. Matz didnt pitch but 2/3 of an inning and allowed the other team to go on top.

[Ozziesfan41]

According to the rule of the game, I think that's a mistake.

No its not. The rule is if the reliever on record when the team took the lead was deemed not effective in securing the win he can give it to another reliever which he did Helsley. Matz didnt pitch but 2/3 of an inning and allowed the other team to go on top.

The defense allowed it I wouldn’t say matz did

[Rosie's Rule]

Not to complicate this but that’s a great point about Libby- he deserved to win the game - if a scorer is able to use discretion, why not give Libby the win based on his performance and the fact he left the game with the lead.
(Although I’m sure the rule parameters don’t allow this).

[CorneliusWolfe]

I'm for these types of discussions because I think the wins rules are silly.

Do the Cardinals win this game if Liberatore doesn't throw 7 innings of 1 run ball? If you're just going to give it to someone based on discretion, why not the guy who carried the load?

That was my first thought. If the scorer has discretion, why not give it to the guy that far out-pitched everyone else in the game? Further reason why no one respects the pitcher win stat. It could be a relevant number if pitchers were allowed to earn it and not lose it on a dumb technicality.

[Red7]

Dizzy Dean never would have won 30 in 1934 without this rule.

[sp25]

Dizzy Dean never would have won 30 in 1934 without this rule.

Really? I see that he pitched in 50 games that year, starting 33 and pitching in relief 17 times. In addition to his 30 wins, 24 complete games, he finished 14 games additional games in relief with 7 saves. Quite the year.

So how many games was he credited with a win in relief due to a scorers discretion?

[RamFan08NY]

So, here's my problem with the "discretion " rule.
Mikolas leaves after 8 innings trailing 1-0.

Top of 9th Dodgers score 6 runs off the BP. Cards down 7-0.

Bottom of 9th cards score 6 runs, lose 7-6. Mikolas still gets the loss because the cards never regained the lead.

Now that ruling is totally [nonsense].

[Bad14]

I know the official scorer has latitude
I think he should have latitude to give errors too. On plays where a ball should have been caught even though bo one touched it

Completely agree. Call it a team error. It's unfair to a pitcher who induced a pop up that no one caught.

[rockondlouie]

Odd call by the official scorer

Matz was hurt by poor defense, not his pitching

He was the pitcher of record, should've been win for Matz and save for Helsley.

[Ordinary Man]

Dizzy Dean never would have won 30 in 1934 without this rule.

Really? I see that he pitched in 50 games that year, starting 33 and pitching in relief 17 times. In addition to his 30 wins, 24 complete games, he finished 14 games additional games in relief with 7 saves. Quite the year.

So how many games was he credited with a win in relief due to a scorers discretion?

I'm with you. I can't believe "scorer's discretion" came into play that often. Wow, pitched in 50 games and won 30 in 1934. If ole Diz were pitching today, he'd be pulled after 87 pitches in the 5th and then punch out the manager. He'd then be traded due to philosophical differences.

[Red7]

I’d need to dig into Dean’s bio, but as I recall it was one or two. At least one, I’m sure. That would have left him with 29.