wins

Suspended Game Singularities

Last Thursday (May 22), the game between the Giants and the Rockies was suspended due to rain tied 2-2 in the bottom of the 6th.  Most likely, this game won’t be completed until the Giants return to Colorado during the first week of September.  That’s a long time to wait to finish a game.  The suspended game (as opposed to the postponement or shortening of a game due to weather) is a relatively rare occurrence, and brings with it a bevy of interesting hypothetical scenarios.  For example, let’s say between now and September, the Rockies trade Michael Cuddyer to the Giants.  When the game is completed, Cuddyer would be eligible to enter the game for the Giants, thus appearing in the same game for both teams.  This has never happened before in the history of baseball, but in this age of increased in-season trades, this is bound to occur sooner or later.

Hypothetically, it would also be possible for even stranger situations to occur when players switch teams prior to the completion of a suspended game.  Nick Masset completed the top of the 6th for the Rockies; if the Rockies were then to take the lead in the bottom of the 6th, Masset would be in line to get a win.  But what if Masset were traded to the Giants, then, when this suspended game is resumed, enters the game in the bottom of the 6th inning with the bases empty and gives up a tie-breaking run?  In theory, at least, Masset could get credit for BOTH the win and the loss in the SAME GAME.  While this can’t happen in this particular situation because a runner is currently on base with two outs (even if Masset entered the game immediately for the Giants, the go-ahead run couldn’t be charged to him), you can see how it’s at least a plausible scenario.  At the very least, this is yet another reason why wins and losses are super fun.

Finally, let’s look at one other possible (but even more unlikely) situation: as before, Masset pitches the top of the 6th for the Rockies, the game gets suspended, Masset gets traded to the Giants, the game resumes, then Masset enters the game for the Giants in the bottom of the 6th.  Upon entering, however, Masset ends up facing the pitcher’s spot in the order for the Rockies…which is of course currently occupied by Masset himself.  Of course, there’s no situation where Masset could actually walk up to the plate and face himself, unless, you know, he’s Multiple Man.  So in 99.99% of these situations, the Rockies would just put a pinch hitter in Rockies Masset’s spot to face Giant Masset (wait…is a single member of the Rockies team called a Rocky?  Or are the Rockies one of those team names that can’t be singularized like the Heat or the Red Sox?).  But let’s say Rockies management has a colossal brain fart (or just wants to make history) and somehow just skips Rockies Masset’s spot in the order.  According to MLB rules, if you skip a player in the order, that player would simply be called out.  Statistically, I’m not sure how that would be recorded (probably an 0 for 1 for Rockies Masset and 1/3 of an inning pitched for Giant Masset), but I would like to think that this would mean that Masset gets credit for an at bat…against himself.

The fact that it is possible (however unlikely) for two versions of the same person to appear in a single game proves that suspended games are far more insidious than they initially appear.  How can there be two Nick Massets?  Think of it this way: the unholy act of suspending a baseball game creates a tear in the space-time continuum , allowing Future Nick Masset to interact with Past Nick Masset.  In other words, a suspended game behaves like a black hole. Taking that reasonable analogy to its logical conclusion, the upside of suspended games is the possible creation of interestingly quirky box scores, while the downside is the potential destruction of the entire world.

For The WIN: Defending the ‘W’

On Opening Day, Cliff Lee got the win in an ugly 14-10 victory over the Rangers, despite giving up EIGHT earned runs in five innings.  Obviously, he did not pitch well, and statheads like to point to results like these when criticizing the win as a statistic that accurately measures pitching performance.  Some go even further, suggesting that baseball should do away with the win altogether.  I think that’s too far.  Everybody already knows that the number of wins a pitcher racks up is largely dependent on team performance and luck, so the win is already de-emphasized in most people’s minds.  How else can you explain Felix Hernandez winning the 2010 Cy Young with a 13-12 record?  But the win has its merits, particularly in a historical context.  300 wins has long been an automatic ticket to the Hall of Fame and it still should be; even if you think wins are a bit lucky, a high career win total is, at the very least, a testament to a starting pitcher’s longevity.  There’s also the continuity argument: Denny McLain was the last pitcher to win 30 games in a season, back in 1968, and this was a big deal.  Baseball, more than any other sport, is all about tradition and history.  By eradicating the win, we’d basically be saying to future generations, “Grandson, there was this guy who won 30 games back in the day.  Wait, what do you mean you don’t know what a win is?”  And MLB is all about continuity, so they’ll never get rid of the win.  People need to stop shouting at the rain.  The win, flawed as it may be, will always be around.  Deal with it.

Some hardcore fantasy baseball leagues, frustrated with the arbitrary nature of the win, have moved away from the ‘W’ as a scoring category, replacing it with quality starts or some other category.  At the same time, however, more and more fantasy leagues are moving from traditional season-long scoring formats to weekly head-to-head formats.  Head-to-head, by breaking up the season into discrete scoring blocks, keeps more people engaged throughout the season, but at the same time, also introduces a greater element of luck.  You might have the best fantasy team in the league over the course of a season, but in any given week, any team can beat any other since the sample size is so much smaller.  The best team very often doesn’t win, and it seems that more and more fantasy baseball managers are willing to sacrifice accuracy for fun.  That’s why the win is still a perfect statistic for fantasy baseball; it’s the funnest stat out there (yes, I realize that “funnest” is not a word.  But it just looks funner than “most fun”.  And I’m all about fun).  I mean, sure, we could only credit a starting pitcher for what he does during the game.  But starters only go like six or seven innings these days.  What’s the incentive to watch the rest of the game once they leave?  That’s why the win is so great; even if your pitcher throws great and leaves with the lead, you can still enjoy the roller coaster ride of seeing if the bullpen can hold the lead.  There’s no more agonizing feeling than seeing a closer blow a lead for your starting pitcher (even more so if you own the closer as well.  Ouch).  On the other side, it’s just as uplifting to see your pitcher leave the game in line for a loss, only to see the offense rally after he’s left the game to give him credit for a win.  You get to root for or against everybody, not just the players on your roster, and that’s just fun.  And isn’t that what fantasy baseball is about?  Fun for the win.