Who Gets the Win?

It's been 10 years since Randy Johnson notched his 300th win, and some have speculated that he might be baseball's last 300-game winner.  While I'm not sure I'm willing to go far enough to agree with that position, the reason why people think it is valid.  Simply put, with the way baseball is played today and the size of modern bullpens, the win statistic for starting pitchers doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to.

With eight-man bullpens and managers who are so eager to exploit relief matchups, starters are throwing fewer innings than ever before.  Complete games are almost nonexistent, and it's rare to see a starter still in the game in the seventh.  We've even got guys getting pulled as soon as the lineup turns over a third time, which could be as early as the fourth!  All of this adds up to fewer opportunities for starters to pick up wins.

Then there's the "opener," which the Rays started last year and a number of other teams have since embraced, as well.  In "opener" games, whoever starts, by design, will only pitch one or two innings before giving way to the bullpen (before the Rays, these were always known as "bullpen games").  And, since the starter needs to go five to qualify for the win, it's impossible for the "opener" to get the win, even if his team leads the entire game.

Which got me thinking about the win statistic moving forward.  If the "opener" is around to stay, which it looks like it is, at least for the foreseeable future, maybe it's time to reconsider how the winning pitcher is determined.  More specifically, is it time to get rid of the five-inning requirement?

This is never actually going to happen (and probably wouldn't be seriously considered if ever proposed).  It even feels blasphemous for me, a baseball purist in many respects, to be the one bringing it up.  But I really do think it's worthy of a discussion.  Especially since bullpen usage only figures to increase, not decrease, moving forward.

They don't have the five-inning rule in the All*Star Game, where it's understood that none of the pitchers will go that long.  Instead, the winning pitcher in the All*Star Game is the pitcher of record when the winning team takes the lead for good, which is rarely the starter anyway.  (The last time the starter got the win in the All*Star Game was in 2012, when the NL had a 5-0 lead before the Giants' Matt Cain even threw a pitch in Kansas City.)

That rule has been in place for the All*Star Game from the very beginning.  Lefty Gomez started for the AL, threw three innings, and got the win in the very first All*Star Game in 1933.  Other than 1935, when Gomez went six, no All*Star Game starting pitcher has ever gone more than four innings.  Which means none of them would qualify for a win under normal circumstances.  But because the five-inning minimum doesn't apply in the All*Star Game, there are plenty examples of the starter getting the win.

The All*Star Game is obviously much different than either the regular season or postseason, but the idea is the same.  Especially in "opener" games when you know nobody's going to throw the requisite number of innings, give the win to the pitcher of record.  If the "opener's" team puts up a six-spot in the first and he has a 1-2-3 inning, why shouldn't he qualify for the win?  Frankly, that's just silly.

In games where the starting pitcher doesn't go five, it's the official scorer's discretion who gets the win.  This is generally the first reliever, provided the experience isn't "brief and ineffective," at which point the official scorer can award the win to a different reliever who had a better performance.

These rules have been on the books for as long as anyone can remember.  And the rationale behind the five-inning thing made sense for a long time.  If the starter can't go the majority of the game (which, in fairness is 4.2 innings, not 5), he doesn't get credit for winning it.  However, that explanation now seems a little outdated.

While once regarded as the premier pitching statistic, the general opinion on the win has changed significantly over the years.  With shorter appearances by starters, their fate is left up to the bullpen more often, and relievers end up getting a lot more decisions as a result.  Likewise, you can pitch well and not get a win because your team can't score (just ask Jacob deGrom about that) or vice versa, you get lit up and you still get the win because your team outscored your opponent.

And you still have the pitchers like Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw and Max Scherzer.  The true aces who are going to get their wins (and losses) because they'll pitch deep into the game and have a direct bearing on the result.  So maybe that's a reason why you shouldn't change it.  Just leave it alone, and their wins will take care of themselves.

Although, that's where it gets tricky, which brings me back to my original point.  Managers care more about the team win than the pitcher win.  That's why you see guys getting pulled as soon as they hit 80 pitches after 4.2 innings when they could easily get another out if given the chance.  And because they were taken out before completing the fifth, they can no longer get the win, through no fault of their own.  That doesn't exactly seem fair, especially since the win then ends up going to the guy who pitched 1.1 innings of relief in a game his team was already leading 7-2.

I understand that this is a non-issue for most people.  But, as we lament the demise of the 20-game and 300-game winners in this era of modern bullpen usage, maybe this is a way to fix that.  Because relievers shouldn't be getting credit for work that was done by the starters.  If a team takes the lead and never gives it up, they were all responsible for the win.  Even if the starter doesn't go five!