Jump to content

Talk:Win–loss record (pitching)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Usage of the "win" word

[edit]

Baseball is not the only place that uses the word win. Other usages should be covered (not that stops the current material being an interesting and good article). Thus the stub tag that I'm about to add.

Exactly. WINS as in Windows Internet Name Server is another use of WINS. I know that's how I got to this page. Peter Tangney 18:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the WINS issue with {{redirect|Wins|the acronym|[[WINS]]}}. It produces "Wins redirects here. For the acronym, see WINS" on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigNate37 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 July 2006

Misleading information

[edit]

"the only pitcher to win 30 or more games during that time was Denny McLain in 1968, in what was an anomalous pitching-dominated season)."

This would imply that pitchers are more likely to get wins in seasons where pitching is more prevalent. This is not really the case, because there are an equal number of wins and losses distributed each year (depending upon the number of contests.) Is this statement stating that in a pitching dominated seaons there would be a higher deviation in win totals than a non-pitching dominated season? I'd think that would have some influence, but not enough to make that big of a difference. IMHO, it has more to do with the total number of starts out of a four man rotation as opposed to the current five man. 63.84.231.3 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who wins when the starter gets a "no decision"?

[edit]

The article is not clear on the following point: If the winning team goes ahead for the last time while the starting pitcher is pitching, but the starter does not pitch five innings, who gets the win? Is it the pitcher that relieves the starter? The closer? Ruds 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to the official scorer to determine: the relief pitcher deemed to have been the "most effective". Wschart 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. See the article. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is not simply true. The pitcher in some rare circumstances does not have to pitch 5 innings. There are also times when a relief pitcher who is pitching when the team goes ahead also does not get the win. See the rules. I will make a minor change indicating that the rules state here are usually how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.9.225 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(b) If the 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, is a starting pitcher who has not completed

(1) five innings of a game that lasts six or more innings on defense, or (2) four innings of a game that lasts five innings on defense, then the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the relief pitcher, if there is only one relief pitcher, or the relief pitcher who, in the official scorer’s judgment was the most effective, if there is more than one relief pitcher. 72.87.87.121 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be that the first reliever always picked up the win, so long as he didn't blow the lead. There were situations where the second pitcher did very little but still got the win, and a third pitcher who finished the game in a long relief stint got nothing, except for a ex post facto "save" once that statistic was introduced. Some time in the 1960s the rules gave the Official Scorer some leeway to ignore a pitcher who pitched briefly and ineffectively in awarding the win. (It probably should have read "briefly OR ineffectively," and because it doesn't, it's still considered unusual to reallocate the win.)WHPratt (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

differentiate loss

[edit]

"Loss" should be a separate article.

I'm going to see if I can put some work into making this so. BigNate37 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking that. --Awiseman 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this article should be changed to Win/Loss (baseball), with redirects from Win and Loss. A Loss page would cover the same ground as far as the definition and examples here. Making a separate page will be an invitation for suggestions to merge the two. May as well do that to begin with. Laszlo Panaflex 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just split them apart. I think the changes I made lend to more consistency within the baseball statistic articles. If we do get merge suggestions that have merit, they can be merged but I'm hesitant to submit to an arguement I haven't heard yet. BigNate37(T) 01:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They cover the same ground, two sides of the same coin. It's also much easier to explain the loss having already explained the win, as the strained language on the new page illustrates. A Wiki reader searching for info on one would likely be interested in the other as well, so it makes sense to have both on the same page. Laszlo Panaflex 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I feel my wording at loss (baseball) is clearer than it was previously, when it was on the same page as win (baseball). Aside from that, there are many articles which are related and not all are merged, making cohesion/dependance a poor indicator at best for merge discussions. I went looking for a policy or guideline on merging, but I couldn't find anything—is there one? At any rate, if they do get merged it shouldn't be at this title but probably at pitching record. BigNate37(T) 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merger policy: [[1]]. Current proposed mergers: [[2]] The pages should use a name a Wiki user would be looking for. If looking for information on what constitutes a win and a loss, those are the words that should be in the title. Laszlo Panaflex 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any merge should probably end up at pitching record. Because wins and losses are two sides of the same coin, we don't want redirects from one to the other which would cause confusion. If win (baseball) redirects to pitching record, that makes sense, but why should one of win/loss redirect to the other? It doesn't make sense, and we don't want people questioning why they got redirected where they did. They're all possible search terms, and I don't think win (baseball) or loss (baseball) is more "searchable" than pitching record. Nobody is going to type in "win (baseball)" in the search box, and why should someone who clicks loss at the loss disambiguation page get sent to win?

I still don't think a merge is necessary, but if consensus is gained for a merge it shouldn't be done carelessly or with a closed mind for how it was there before. BigNate37(T) 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I proposed was not that they redirect to one another. The name of the page could be "Win/Loss (baseball)," with both "Win (baseball)" and "Loss (baseball)" redirecting to "Win/Loss (baseball)." If people want info on what a win or loss is, they are unlikely to search for "pitching record." Whatever. Splitting the page is a bad idea, but do what you like. Laszlo Panaflex 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The converse is that people searching for information about what a pitching record is will not look for win/loss. I understand what you're saying. If you get what I'm saying, then we're really just going to have to disagree and that's not a big deal. As far as splitting, I had already done that before I saw your first comment against such efforts here, that is when I read your comment from 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC) I had already completed the split. As I said above, I'm not interested in merging them back together, but if consensus is to merge I won't lose sleep over it. BigNate37(T) 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquialism

[edit]

The first two sentences of the "Career Wins" strike me as excessively colloquial, and use idioms that might not be understood by some readers. Specifically, "dead locks" and "Hall-of-Famers" strike me as possibly confusing to non-American speakers of English. dafydd 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starter getting the win

[edit]

The article says it's when the winning team FIRST take the lead. It surely is when the winning team LAST take the lead as that is when the pitchers of record are set. Otherwise the starting pitcher for any away team who score in the top of the 1st would get the win if their team win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.88.147 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus emerging after more than a month Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Win–loss record → Win–loss record (pitching statistic) — This article is on the concept of a baseball pitcher's "wins" and "losses". A "win-loss record" is a concept in most sports, including baseball; therefore, I believe an article at this title should apply to the broader concept, not just this one application in one sport. I did not choose "(baseball)" or "(baseball statistic)" as the parenthetical disambiguation because one of those titles would still confuse it with team wins and losses. Recommend moving as follows:

—KuyaBriBriTalk 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly against combining win-loss record with winning percentage, as they are two separate concepts; I would be fine with a disambiguator for the content of this article at Win–loss record (baseball). At that location, team wins and losses and pitchers' wins and losses can be discussed, with a reference back to a new main article on the concept of win-loss records in general. — KV5 • Talk • 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Win-loss record (pitching) (or something similar) might be the right way to go here. The concept of an individual pitcher's record is distinct from that of a team's record even moreso than record is distinct from percentage.
Also, I think, the concept of team win-loss record is much more relevant than winning percentage, and I would be in favor of moving that article here rather than the other way around. The baseball team concept would then be included within the overall article. -Dewelar (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with Winning percentage

[edit]

These two articles discuss the same topic, therefore Winning percentage should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone this ill-advised merge carried out with insuffucuent discussion. These are not the same topic. Winning percentage discusses the team record in multiple sports, not the individual pitching statistic. I do think that this article needs to be moved to Win-loss record (pitching) for disambiguation, but these should not be merged, as they are different, if related, concepts. One is team, one individual. Not the same. oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone perhaps create a bot to fix the thousands of links that now point to a disambiguation page? -Dewelar (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And please Oknazevad, if you are going to make a change that creates this many disam issues, please discuss it first. Right now, 7,484 pages link to this page. That's insane. :) You have to discuss stuff like that. So. I'll fix as many as I can, but thats massive. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I got carried away. I figured that if I was going to undo the merge (which really needed to be done, the individual statistic and the team results really are not the same topic at all, and the merge was done without any input from someone else), I might as well give the pitching statistic an unambiguous title. I probably was too bold myself; I should have undone the merge but not the page move. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Losing pitcher definition

[edit]

This article states that: "The losing pitcher is the pitcher who allows the opponent's winning run to reach base."

Yet the MLB official rules (the first References link) states: "A losing pitcher is a pitcher who is responsible for the run that gives the winning team a lead that the winning team does not relinquish."

I read those as different. For example, tonight (Aug. 3, 2011) the starting pitcher for the Texas Rangers was given the Loss. But the Rangers lost 5-4, and the 5th run came two innings after the starter left. Isn't that 5th run the "winning run"? (ESPN box score: http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=310803106)

Wasn't the starter given the loss because the Rangers never managed to re-tie the score? (The 5th run made the score 5-3. The final Rangers run made it 5-4.)

I know very little about baseball rules and statistics, or else I would make the edit. (Is my understanding of "winning run" wrong? If it is, the article should be clearer on the point.)

(Go Tigers) 99.181.129.69 (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a crack at this. You are corect that the starter earned the loss because Rangers never managed to re-tie the score. The key point of the MLB definition is "that the winning team does not reliquish." In this case, the starter left with his team behind. Even though his team managed to eventually surpass the opponent's score at the time he left the game, his team never managed to tie or take the lead, so that pitcher earns the loss.
I would agree that the definition as stated in this article is not quite accurate for this reason. The game winning run was clearly the fifth run scored against the Rangers, but that run turned out to not be the run that determined the loss. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to the first sentence of the section, trying to clarify this. I still don't like "winning" run being used here but am not sure how to word it more clearly. 99.181.137.234 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what it reads now: The losing pitcher is the pitcher who allows the opponent's winning run to reach base; in other words, the pitcher to lose the lead for the last time is the losing pitcher. (which is an improvement).
Here is a suggestion: The losing pitcher is the pitcher who allows the go-ahead run to reach base for a lead that the winning team never relinquishes. A pitcher can be credited with a loss if they allow a runner to reach base, and is then replaced by a relief pitcher who subsequently allows that base runner to score.
I'm not sure that this is complete, but I think it gets away from the idea of the winning run issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy with your suggestion. (And I just put it in.) But I'll leave it up to you and others to decide if it needs more improvement. I do hope, if there are any more changes, that it remains clear why the Rangers pitcher mentioned above was given the loss. Thank you. (I'm the same other person that's been in this thread though my IP may vary.) 99.109.126.45 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. Beginning with words about allowing someone to reach base invites quick confusion. It may be better (humble opinion) to begin with the simple case and go on to the details and exceptions. Say something like (1) "The losing pitcher is the pitcher who is responsible for the opposing team's winning run." Period. Then, in the next sentence, (2) define what is meant by a "winning run" (bringing in the stuff about a lead that is never relinquished). Pause. In a third sentence, (3) include the fact that a pitcher may remain responsible for some runners even after he's left the mound. (Or even for a batter with a 2-0 count who walks during a subsequent pitcher's tenure, etc.) WHPratt (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's one more distinction to be made. It's not so much putting someone on base, but rather being charged with a run: they're usually, but not always the same thing. Say it's a tied game, bottom of the ninth. Pitcher Smith walks batter Abel. He is relieved by Pitcher Jones. Batter Baker hits into a fielder's choice, where Abel is retired at second. Batter Charles doubles, scoring Baker with the winning run. Q: Who put Baker on base? A: Jones did. Q: How is the run charged? A: Smith was responsible for one baserunner, and the fielder's choice didn't change that. The run is charged to Smith. This is explained in the official rules: it's the number of baserunners, not any specific baserunner. Therefore, Smith must get the loss. WHPratt (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A recent rule change (the runner placed at second base at the start of extra innings) has given us yet another technicality as to identifying the losing pitcher! Here's ESPN's description of a game played June 14, 2023:
"After Dominic Leone (1-2) pitched a hitless top of the 10th that included an intentional walk to Stanton, Eduardo Escobar started the bottom half as the automatic runner at second. Albert Abreu (2-2) struck out Vientos, Nick Ramirez relieved and Nimmo got the winning hit. Escobar, who had tagged up, sprinted home with a headfirst slide, giving the Mets their third walk-off win this season."
Abreu got the loss (on an unearned run), presumably because Ramirez (who allowed the winning hit) had inherited the automatic runner who scored the winning run, although Abreau was blameless for putting that runner on base. WHPratt (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops!

[edit]

It currently says "In the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, every pitcher is considered a relief pitcher for the purposes of this rule. For example, starting pitcher Matt Cain was awarded the win in the 2012 All-Star Game despite throwing only nine innings."

Nine innings pitched in the All-Star Game would be noteworthy, unprecedented, heroic and illegal, but certainly not an undeserved win. I suspect that this should read "throwing only nine pitches," or something close to that. WHPratt (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comma and quotation marks

[edit]

When I first made this change, I gave a good source for support (OWL). Here are more: Grammarly Answers | Quotation Marks and Other Punctuation ... http://www.grammarly.com/answers/questions/4726-quotation-marks-and-other-punctuation-insi... Apr 5, 2012 ... 18-19 AMA Style -- “Put closing quotation marks outside commas and ... the practice and recommended a deviation from it: logical placement.

Quotation Marks - Writing - English Rules http://www.englishrules.com/writing/2005/quotation-marks/ Feb 12, 2005 ... Periods and commas: inside the quotation marks; Colons and ... The placement of the exclamation point (whether inside or outside the ... -The subject is American. I'm employing standard Aermican punctuation (illogical though it might be). There is also a policy not to change acceptable things just becuase (e.g., BCE/BC). Kdammers (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC) -The revert done by the other editor was done with no explanation.[reply]

While I agree that using typesetters-style quotation marks, which are near-universal in American usage would make sense as the article is written in American English, the current Manual of Style calls explicitly for so-called "logical quotation" in all circumstances. So reverting your change to match that is well within another editor's purview. And he did explain himself, in that he included a link to the MOS, so your reversion of his reversion was unnecessary, as a) your initial edits were an unneeded change, and b) it's not considered an acceptable style here. (Frankly I think it's stupid. The rarity of so-called "logical" style in standard American English means that people are forced to use an unfamiliar non-standard grammar when writing in American English. And there is nothing inherently superior about so called "logical" style. The supposed accuracy it provides is based on a false idea that every single character between the quote marks must be part of the original material, which treats all quotes as a string of characters, which is not actual English, just a machine-like format. But I digress.) oknazevad (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I didn't realize that the cryptic WP:MOS was a rationale. I looked at it, and, in spite of the policy that US topics should be US style and UK topics UK style etc., it does clearly say that consensus has created the policy. So I will defer.
But can you tell me where I can find out about the consensus? I know that on some article issues, consensus can be 3 to 2 after only seven days and then basta. I wonder about this one.Kdammers (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the manual's corresponding talk page. At the top is a FAQ about some of the decisions, and the talk page archives are large and extensive. I personally once posted a summary of the opposing viewpoints on the issue (it's in Archive 114 if I remember), but there are those who point to American-produced publications with so-called "logical quotation" as proof that its acceptable. (A few obscure journals doesn't convince me that its foreign to American English, but the vociferous objections of a few calling for it to follow the rule on national varieties of English are usually shot down pretty quick.)oknazevad (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there criticism?

[edit]

I just played a computer baseball game, where I was 5–0 after eight innings. In the top of the ninth, my starting pitcher started to lose it, and at 5–2 I took in my closer. Before he managed to close the inning, he had given up three runs, but then I scored the winning run in the bottom of the ninth. The closer got the win! Which, ironically, he would not have done if he hadn't given up so many runs. As far as I can find out from this article, this was entirely according to the rules of the game. Has there been any notable criticism of the winning pitcher definition due to absurdities such as this one? If there has, maybe it should be discussed in the article. 85.226.204.42 (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially in the sabermetrics community. Some propose that wins and losses should be regarded simply as a team stat, others want wins and losses attributed to the most deserving pitcher (which would be rather subjective), and I think I've also seen mention of "partial wins", in which each pitcher is attributed a share of a win or loss based on performance in the game (this, of course, needs to consider the effects of defense). Mindmatrix 12:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick and enlightening answer! 85.226.204.42 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 World Series Game 7

[edit]

There was some talk that Madison Bumgarner would be named the winning pitcher in Game 7 of the 2014 World Series, but in the event the win was awarded to Jeremy Affeldt. I thus removed the following passage, apparently made prematurely. I leave it here in case the official scorer reverses himself (again-- he had briefly credited Bumgarner with the win). "The most recent example was in Game 7 of the World Series in 2014, when Madison Bumgarner received the win from the official scorer, even though he came into the game with a 3-2 lead in the bottom of the fifth inning. He was deemed more effective and worthy of earning the Game 7 victory, his third in the 2014 World Series (tying a Major League record shared by many), than the man he replaced, Jeremy Affeldt. Affeldt gave up just one hit in two and one-third innings of relief work, and was pitching when the Giants took the lead in the 4th inning. Bumgarner, pitching on just two days rest after his complete game victory in Game 5, pitched the final five innings, allowing just two hits and no walks. [1]" MayerG (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=341029107
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Win–loss record (pitching). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Win–loss_record_(pitching)&oldid=1209452823"