In today’s Boston Red Sox versus New York Yankees game at Fenway Park, the Red Sox won the game by a score of 9 to 6. But who was the true winning pitcher of the game? The official outcome is New York starting pitcher Phil Hughes – no decision, relief pitcher Bartolo Colon – losing pitcher; Boston starting pitcher John Lackey – winning pitcher, relief pitcher Jonathan Papelbon - save. Although that is the way it has been recorded. I’d like to offer a different perspective. My pitching outcome would be New York starting pitcher Phil Hughes – losing pitcher; Boston starting John Lackey – no decision, Jonathan Papelbon – winning pitcher. Let me explain.
Hughes and Lackey both gave up six runs. The six runs that Hughes gave up in his outing of two innings of work were 66.67% of the total runs (nine) given up by the New York Yankees. Bartolo Colon (two) and Boone Logan (one) gave up 33.33% of the total runs. Hughes took two innings to give up six runs, while the Yankees bullpen took six innings to give up three runs. My position is that since Hughes gave up the majority of the runs, he has the greater responsibility for the loss than the relievers. Phil Hughes should have been assessed the loss.
The six runs that Lackey gave up in five innings of work were 100% of the total runs (six) given up by the Boston Red Sox (in reality, just Lackey). Alfredo Aceves, Bobby Jenks, Daniel Bard, and Jonathan Papelbon did not give up any runs. Lackey gave up at least a run in each of the five innings he pitched, while the Red Sox bullpen gave up no runs in the four innings they pitched. Therefore, my position is that the relief pitchers had the greater responsibility for the win than Lackey did and he should have been given a no decision. Now I would have given the relief pitchers the win. However, only one pitcher can be given the win and Jonathan Papelbon had the best line of the four relief pitchers. Jonathan Papelbon should have been assessed the win.
I know that my way of looking at the pitching in today’s game is somewhat subjective, but I believe with some merit. Should the pitcher (Hughes) who gave up the majority of the runs to the opponent team get off the hook with a no decision, just because a relief pitcher gave up the “winning” run? Hughes does not deserve the no decision. And why should the pitcher (Lackey) who gave up all the runs to the opponent team be given a win, just because his team scored in the bottom of the inning in which he was taken out of the game? It is obvious Lackey wasn’t pitching well and truly does not deserve the win.
The straightforward, by the numbers and where they occur to determine wins, losses, no decisions for pitchers is the necessary objective way to proceed. However, consideration should be given to the quality of the pitching, not just the luck of circumstances that followed after the pitcher left the game. There really can’t be an official way of doing this, but I just want people to be aware that the quantity of wins and losses don’t tell the whole story. Quality is involved as well.
Hughes and Lackey both gave up six runs. The six runs that Hughes gave up in his outing of two innings of work were 66.67% of the total runs (nine) given up by the New York Yankees. Bartolo Colon (two) and Boone Logan (one) gave up 33.33% of the total runs. Hughes took two innings to give up six runs, while the Yankees bullpen took six innings to give up three runs. My position is that since Hughes gave up the majority of the runs, he has the greater responsibility for the loss than the relievers. Phil Hughes should have been assessed the loss.
The six runs that Lackey gave up in five innings of work were 100% of the total runs (six) given up by the Boston Red Sox (in reality, just Lackey). Alfredo Aceves, Bobby Jenks, Daniel Bard, and Jonathan Papelbon did not give up any runs. Lackey gave up at least a run in each of the five innings he pitched, while the Red Sox bullpen gave up no runs in the four innings they pitched. Therefore, my position is that the relief pitchers had the greater responsibility for the win than Lackey did and he should have been given a no decision. Now I would have given the relief pitchers the win. However, only one pitcher can be given the win and Jonathan Papelbon had the best line of the four relief pitchers. Jonathan Papelbon should have been assessed the win.
I know that my way of looking at the pitching in today’s game is somewhat subjective, but I believe with some merit. Should the pitcher (Hughes) who gave up the majority of the runs to the opponent team get off the hook with a no decision, just because a relief pitcher gave up the “winning” run? Hughes does not deserve the no decision. And why should the pitcher (Lackey) who gave up all the runs to the opponent team be given a win, just because his team scored in the bottom of the inning in which he was taken out of the game? It is obvious Lackey wasn’t pitching well and truly does not deserve the win.
The straightforward, by the numbers and where they occur to determine wins, losses, no decisions for pitchers is the necessary objective way to proceed. However, consideration should be given to the quality of the pitching, not just the luck of circumstances that followed after the pitcher left the game. There really can’t be an official way of doing this, but I just want people to be aware that the quantity of wins and losses don’t tell the whole story. Quality is involved as well.
