Orioles win; Yankees lose

[bluedog]

All of a sudden no one is talking about the Yankees being the best team ever. 

[Chelsea_Phil]

I think it is actually good for the yanks that they have dropped a few games, since if they would have kept up their blistering pace all season, the pressure would have done them in for the playoffs.  Now, a lot of that pressure has been released, and that does not make me happy as I hate The bastards.

[spiritof66]

Cardinals 1  NYYs 0

We're 13 1/2 out of first.

 

[bluedog]

14 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Cardinals 1  NYYs 0

We're 13 1/2 out of first.

 

Wild card? We don't need no stinking Wild card!

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 hour ago, bluedog said:

Wild card? We don't need no stinking Wild card!

 

[Brooks The Great]

18 hours ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

I think it is actually good for the yanks that they have dropped a few games, since if they would have kept up their blistering pace all season, the pressure would have done them in for the playoffs.  Now, a lot of that pressure has been released, and that does not make me happy as I hate The bastards.

It's not good for them. They're costing themselves the top seed and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. The Astros are already the superior team from a talent and balance perspective (better bullpen, deeper lineup) - the Yankees conceding home field advantage to the Astros is the last thing they want to do.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Brooks The Great

[spiritof66]

Red Sox beat the NYYs in 10 innings tonight.

Orioles are 11 1/2 out.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

08/15/22: Orioles beat the Blue Jays and the Yankees get shutout by the Rays.

[JR Oriole]

Since August 1, the Yankees have played Seattle, Boston, and Tampa 10 times and lost 7 of them.  That hurts us a lot.  They are going to win the division, so we need them to win as many games against our direct wild card competitors as possible.  They have literally won only 2 series out of 8 played since the All Star Break (they beat us 2 of 3 and KC 3 of 4) and if they lose either of the next two games to Tampa, it will be 2 out of 9.  I knew that our competitors having countless games against Detroit, KC, LAA, Texas, and Oakland would hurt us.  But the Yankees should not be such easy roadkill for everyone.

[gangsta gangsta]

Another O's win Yankees loss. 

Side note: can anyone explain to me why Baker got the W last night instead of Bradish? 

[Chelsea_Phil]

I believe that the rule still is that the starting pitcher has to pitch 5 full innings in order to get a win.  Bradish only pitched 4 2/3.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, gangsta gangsta said:

Another O's win Yankees loss. 

Side note: can anyone explain to me why Baker got the W last night instead of Bradish? 

 

57 minutes ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

I believe that the rule still is that the starting pitcher has to pitch 5 full innings in order to get a win.  Bradish only pitched 4 2/3.

Yes, the rule is a holdover from around 100 years ago when most starts were complete games, and typically a starter was only removed if he was getting hammered or was injured. It kind of made sense in that context. 

Ironically it wasn't in the rulebook until something like 1950 when relievers started taking on a somewhat larger role. If you do a stathead search for 9-inning games where the starter went four innings or less but still was awarded the win you get 236 hits between 1902 and 1949.  The database only goes back to about 1900, so I'm sure there were other cases in the 19th century.  HOFer Herb Pennock had five wins that wouldn't count under the modern rule.  Christy Mathewson had four, including a game where he started, faced three batters, and was removed for Rube Marquard (who years later was credited with an 8-inning, 12-hit, 5 run, 14 K save).

I believe it was generally accepted, at least for a while, that the starter was eligible for the win if he was injured early in the game.  I don't know how many of the 236 cases were because of this.

The cheapest win in history just might be this one. The Indians' Duster Mails got three outs in the first, but also allowed a three-run inside-the-park homer to Braggo Roth.  In the second he walked Bobby LaMotte leading off and was promptly replaced by Guy Morton.  But somehow by the rules of the day he was awarded the win.

I think we'd be a lot better off if the rule was changed to "the win will be awarded to the pitcher on the winning team whom the official scorer deems to have pitched most effectively regardless of how many innings he completes." It makes no sense that a starter has to get 15 outs to get a win, but technically a reliever could come in, pick off a runner to end an inning, be removed from the game and get a win if his team takes the lead despite not throwing a pitch.

Edited August 16, 2022 by DrungoHazewood

[Chelsea_Phil]

Thanks for the historical perspective.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It makes no sense that a starter has to get 15 outs to get a win, but technically a reliever could come in, pick off a runner to end an inning, be removed from the game and get a win if his team takes the lead despite not throwing a pitch.

It looks like BJ Ryan actually did this. Orioles-Tigers, 2003.  He was brought in with two out in the 7th with Omar Infante on first.  Before throwing a single pitch he picked off Infante.  Orioles score three times in the top of the 8th, Buddy Groom comes on in the bottom of the 8th.  Ryan gets the win without throwing a pitch.  While last night Kyle Bradish gets 14 outs and leaves with the lead and gets a no-decision.

The bb-ref/retrosheet data has 33 instances of a pitcher getting a win after throwing just a third of an inning that included a caught stealing.

Probably a better way of capturing this is the 26 pitchers who got a win without an official batter faced. (Note: the last game on this list is a 1916 contest between the Tigers and Senators where Hooks Dauss is credited with allowing an earned run and getting the win in a game where he had zero batters faced.  I think this has to be in error.  I don't know how you could allow a run without having a batter faced. Unfortunately there is no available play-by-play for that game. Also of note in that game is the losing pitcher is Hall of Fame OF Sam Rice.)

Edited August 16, 2022 by DrungoHazewood

[Number5]

38 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

(Note: the last game on this list is a 1916 contest between the Tigers and Senators where Hooks Dauss is credited with allowing an earned run and getting the win in a game where he had zero batters faced.  I think this has to be in error.  I don't know how you could allow a run without having a batter faced. Unfortunately there is no available play-by-play for that game. Also of note in that game is the losing pitcher is Hall of Fame OF Sam Rice.)

Wow  Yeah, there seems to be something wrong with the official scoring there.  I agree that in MLB a pitcher can't be charged with a run unless he faces at least one batter.  This would be possible in leagues playing with the international tie-breaker.  In college softball a few years ago, the losing pitcher pitched a perfect game.  Score tied 0-0 after 7, and her team failed to score in the top of the eighth, having started the inning with a runner on second.  In the bottom of the eighth, the runner on second took off to steal third.  The catcher's throw sailed down the left field line and the winning run scampered home.  The pitcher allowed no batter to reach base the entire game, yet lost.