On Pitcher Wins

For those who don't know, I am an avid tabletop baseball gamer.  I've played them all:  APBA, Strat-O-Matic, SherCo, Diamond Mind, Extra Innings, Time Travel, Replay.  Even designed a baseball game of my own.  I'm also a stats junkie ... I keep the most complete stats, even for the tabletop, that anyone could ask for.

So, whenever I start thinking about new ways to do things, I can use my tabletop leagues to try it out to see how it would work in reality.  For example, my research showed that 96% of all extra-inning games end before the game goes into the 13th inning.  So, in my leagues, teams play up to three extra innings.  If no one wins after 12, the game goes into the books as a tie game (not replayed).

As Roy Halladay approached his 20th win, which he got tonight, I started thinking about what really constitutes a "win".  And who deserves a win.  Does a reliever, entering a tie game, deserve a win for something he really had nothing to do with?

So, here's what I plan on trying out for my next tabletop league project:

A starter can only be credited with a win in any game.  And a starter may only be credited with a win if:

a) He pitches five innings or more
b) He allows four runs or fewer (earned or unearned)

Relievers cannot earn wins under this rule.  Instead, any games won by the team, but not credited to a starting pitcher, are credited as "team wins".

Losses are another story.

All losses should be charged to an individual pitcher.  The losing pitcher will be the one who gave up the eventual game-winning run.  However, if the actions of a fielder cause the eventual winning run to score, the the loss is charged as a "team loss". 

There's an important distinction, here, in the phrase "gave up the eventual game-winning run".  Let me illustrate:

Ryan Madson comes on in the bottom of 9th and gives up a leadoff walk in a tie ballgame.  Brad Lidge then walks two guys and gives up a sac fly for the win.

Under current rules, Madson is charged with the loss because his walk scored the winning run.  But whose fault was it that the guy scored?  Lidge's!!  In this case, Lidge gets the loss as his wildness put the runner on third where the sac fly now is in play for bringing him home.

So, in my system, if the official scorer can point to the actions of a subsequent pitcher as being the cause for an inherited runner to score, then that pitcher gets tagged with the loss.  Think if Madson walked the bases loaded, then Lidge served up a grannie.  Yes, Madson put Lidge in a tough (and I mean tough) spot ... but Lidge didn't have to serve up a homer.

I admit that I haven't tried this, but it seems to make sense, probably in the same way that getting married made sense to me 24 years ago (thankfully, the missus doesn't read baseball blogs).  But the test kitchen will be the tabletop.