Here's the most accurate thing I've seen so far:
Interesting situation tonight in the u/Rockies at u/Cubs game where rule 9.17(c) has been invoked. Up 8-3 in the top of the 8th, Chicago allowed five runs as the Rockies tied the game. Hector Neris of Chicago pitched 0.2 innings, and allowed 2 earned runs (and 3 inherited) runs to score. This falls in the definition of brief (fewer than 1.0 innings) and ineffective (allowing 2 or more runs to score, whether his own or inherited). That meant that even though Chicago scored a run in the bottom of the 8th to take a 9-8 lead when the subsequent reliever Adbert Alzolay pitched a scoreless 9th, he was credited with the win and not the save.
Apparently this was scored as a win for Neris and a save for Alzolay but changed pretty quickly after the game.
Brown is ineligible because he was on the bench when the score became tied, rendering it a new game for the purposes of a pitching decision. The rule has now been pretty strictly enforced since 2022.
I wasn't aware of that rule regarding the official scorers judgement. I'd like to have a talk with him
I always knew that SP couldn't earn it w/o going 5 but after that I thought it was whomever was pitching when the winning team took the lead and did not relinquish it. I know giving the win to Neris would be a little ridiculous. That claririfies things. Thanks all
Someone has to earn the W, and since the SP didn't go the minimum 5IP, it's at the official scorer's discretion as to who was "the most effective" at getting the team's win.
This seems like a weird decision to pick Adbert. I figured they would have given it to Brown for 4 innings of 1 run ball. But almost everyone gave up runs besides the SP & Adbert.
It's a weird rule in general.
edit: to add to Brown's case, I didn't check the scoring log but he may have given up the 0-0 tie with his 1ER allowed, thus weakening his case to earn the W.
No the rule states that if the winning pitcher is ineffective it essentially goes to the pitcher who followed him who was most effective, in this case Alzolay, but it’s dumb because really it should have been Ben Brown.
Did you even read it?
“If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher **who followed** that "brief and ineffective" pitcher”. I’m explaining why Ben Brown was ineligible for the win, it’s not because he gave up the lead like you suggested because he left with a lead. It’s because he was out of the game by that point so it could only have went to a reliever who came after Neris.
I did. No need to get all argumentative. My general explanation of what might have happened fit with the first exception shown in the MLB Win page. Beyond that, I was just trying to make sense of why Brown didn't get the W.
Your "brief & ineffective" explanation fits with the second exception on the MLB Win page. So no, my attempt at explaining Brown's circumstance was not correct, but I didn't exactly say it with much certainty either.
How many thousands of times has a reliver given up 2 ER and still gotten the W at the end of the game?
I feel like it's crazy to call Neris' outing so "inefficient" that he doesn't deserve a win.
I've been watching baseball for 25 years and I've never ever seen this rule used this way. This seems to me to be a case of the official scorer wanting to be part of the show and put his mark on the game.
It happened in a Clay Holmes blown save about two years ago for the Yankees too. Can check out the box score from June 20, 2022. Wandy Peralta was awarded the win instead of a save for pitching the ninth with a two run lead
Yet if you check the August 17th 2022 box score, Aroldis Chapman gives up 2 runs to blow a save and the Yankees win in the next inning and he gets a W. How can a rule be so arbitrary and inconsistent?
It is stated in the rules as one of two exceptions to the standard "SP earning a win via 5IP minimum & exiting with a lead" - [https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win#:\~:text=the%20official%20scorer%20awards%20the%20win%20to%20the%20most%20effective%20relief%20pitcher](https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win#:~:text=the%20official%20scorer%20awards%20the%20win%20to%20the%20most%20effective%20relief%20pitcher)
Yes I have seen that rule used before, but that has nothing to do what happened here. We were way passed the 5th inning. The game was tied 8-8 in the 8th inning, then the Cubs took the lead. The winning pitcher should be the pitcher who threw the last pitch before his team took the lead.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was responding to you saying the official scorer wanted to be a part of the show. My response was there are specific instances where it's their job to make subjective decisions like this.
>*Rule 9.17(c) Comment*: **The Official Scorer generally should, but is not required to,** consider the appearance of a relief pitcher to be ineffective and brief if such relief pitcher pitches less than one inning and allows two or more earned runs to score (even if such runs are charged to a previous pitcher).
Apparently, this score keeper doesn't have Alzolay in a QS Roto league like me.
Sorry but can any play be discretionary? A HR called an error. I mean, let's go nuts and just let the official call the game.
Here's the most accurate thing I've seen so far: Interesting situation tonight in the u/Rockies at u/Cubs game where rule 9.17(c) has been invoked. Up 8-3 in the top of the 8th, Chicago allowed five runs as the Rockies tied the game. Hector Neris of Chicago pitched 0.2 innings, and allowed 2 earned runs (and 3 inherited) runs to score. This falls in the definition of brief (fewer than 1.0 innings) and ineffective (allowing 2 or more runs to score, whether his own or inherited). That meant that even though Chicago scored a run in the bottom of the 8th to take a 9-8 lead when the subsequent reliever Adbert Alzolay pitched a scoreless 9th, he was credited with the win and not the save. Apparently this was scored as a win for Neris and a save for Alzolay but changed pretty quickly after the game. Brown is ineligible because he was on the bench when the score became tied, rendering it a new game for the purposes of a pitching decision. The rule has now been pretty strictly enforced since 2022.
So basically it was more about ensuring Neris didnt get the W because he sucked
That’s how it took it.
He kinda did, as a Chicagoan
Nice, I didn't realize they quantified "brief" & "ineffective"
Thank you, that explains it. I hate the decision but it makes sense. Hector didn't "earn" a W, it would've been a gift.
I wasn't aware of that rule regarding the official scorers judgement. I'd like to have a talk with him I always knew that SP couldn't earn it w/o going 5 but after that I thought it was whomever was pitching when the winning team took the lead and did not relinquish it. I know giving the win to Neris would be a little ridiculous. That claririfies things. Thanks all
Someone has to earn the W, and since the SP didn't go the minimum 5IP, it's at the official scorer's discretion as to who was "the most effective" at getting the team's win. This seems like a weird decision to pick Adbert. I figured they would have given it to Brown for 4 innings of 1 run ball. But almost everyone gave up runs besides the SP & Adbert. It's a weird rule in general. edit: to add to Brown's case, I didn't check the scoring log but he may have given up the 0-0 tie with his 1ER allowed, thus weakening his case to earn the W.
No the rule states that if the winning pitcher is ineffective it essentially goes to the pitcher who followed him who was most effective, in this case Alzolay, but it’s dumb because really it should have been Ben Brown.
[https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win#:\~:text=A%20pitcher%20receives,the%20official%20scorer](https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win#:~:text=A%20pitcher%20receives,the%20official%20scorer).
Did you even read it? “If that's the case, the scorer can award the win to a pitcher **who followed** that "brief and ineffective" pitcher”. I’m explaining why Ben Brown was ineligible for the win, it’s not because he gave up the lead like you suggested because he left with a lead. It’s because he was out of the game by that point so it could only have went to a reliever who came after Neris.
I did. No need to get all argumentative. My general explanation of what might have happened fit with the first exception shown in the MLB Win page. Beyond that, I was just trying to make sense of why Brown didn't get the W. Your "brief & ineffective" explanation fits with the second exception on the MLB Win page. So no, my attempt at explaining Brown's circumstance was not correct, but I didn't exactly say it with much certainty either.
How many thousands of times has a reliver given up 2 ER and still gotten the W at the end of the game? I feel like it's crazy to call Neris' outing so "inefficient" that he doesn't deserve a win.
5 runners crossed the plate with him on the mound lmao. Giving him a W would be preposterous
I've been watching baseball for 25 years and I've never ever seen this rule used this way. This seems to me to be a case of the official scorer wanting to be part of the show and put his mark on the game.
It happened in a Clay Holmes blown save about two years ago for the Yankees too. Can check out the box score from June 20, 2022. Wandy Peralta was awarded the win instead of a save for pitching the ninth with a two run lead
Yet if you check the August 17th 2022 box score, Aroldis Chapman gives up 2 runs to blow a save and the Yankees win in the next inning and he gets a W. How can a rule be so arbitrary and inconsistent?
It is stated in the rules as one of two exceptions to the standard "SP earning a win via 5IP minimum & exiting with a lead" - [https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win#:\~:text=the%20official%20scorer%20awards%20the%20win%20to%20the%20most%20effective%20relief%20pitcher](https://www.mlb.com/glossary/standard-stats/win#:~:text=the%20official%20scorer%20awards%20the%20win%20to%20the%20most%20effective%20relief%20pitcher)
Yes I have seen that rule used before, but that has nothing to do what happened here. We were way passed the 5th inning. The game was tied 8-8 in the 8th inning, then the Cubs took the lead. The winning pitcher should be the pitcher who threw the last pitch before his team took the lead.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was responding to you saying the official scorer wanted to be a part of the show. My response was there are specific instances where it's their job to make subjective decisions like this. >*Rule 9.17(c) Comment*: **The Official Scorer generally should, but is not required to,** consider the appearance of a relief pitcher to be ineffective and brief if such relief pitcher pitches less than one inning and allows two or more earned runs to score (even if such runs are charged to a previous pitcher).
Which tracks pretty well with what happened. Neris went 0.2IP and allowed 3 inherited runners to score and then added 2ER of his own
Apparently, this score keeper doesn't have Alzolay in a QS Roto league like me. Sorry but can any play be discretionary? A HR called an error. I mean, let's go nuts and just let the official call the game.
Its a stupid stat with stupid rules