Talk:Win–loss record (pitching)

message: "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)
thread_title:  Misleading information 

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

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who wins when the starter gets a "no decision"? 

message: "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)
replies: text: I was just thinking that. --Awiseman 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Merger policy: [].  Current proposed mergers: []  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  differentiate loss 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colloquialism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Starter getting the win 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whoops! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick and enlightening answer! 85.226.204.42 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there criticism? 

message: 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. http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=341029107" MayerG (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 World Series Game 7 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124045510/http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/51 to http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/51
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified