5 innings for a starter getting the win .. should it be 6?

[TJC_fan]

Alright Cheapy .. Shoeless Joe .. let me have your opinions of the starting pitcher's "requirement" to get a win.

 

They have to complete 5 innings to get the win. Then, quite a few times, the starter gets pulled after the 5th or in the 6th, because the manager knows that the starter has qualified for the win, so it's okay to pull him for a middle reliever.

 

What if .... baseball changes the rules to require a starter complete SIX innings before qualifying for the "W"? Unless, the game is stopped after 5 because of weather, for example.

 

You read all the time these days about the starting pitcher going 5. _ "fill in the out" innings (getting into the 6th inning) to get the victory. Seemingly, a lot more than in the past.

 

Would it change today's game in comparison with the past anymore than the "DH" change?

 

Just something about baseball to chew on a little bit.

[hendersonlonghorn]

I would love to see it. And while they are at it, raise the mound back up and call the strike zone that is in the rule book. I don't know if changing the 5 inning rule would change the game, but if they did the other two it definitely would.

[BigRocky99]

I really don't see any reason to change this rule. A pitcher can be the "winner" by throwing a 1/3 of an inning in relief and he doesn't really have to be good doing that - he just needs to be the pitcher of record when his team goes ahead. Yes, I do know there are exceptions to an "ineffective" pitcher being named the winner.

 

My point is, if you are going to change the number of innings a starter must pitch to be the winning pitcher, then there should also be a minimum number of innings any pitcher (relief) should have to pitch to be the winner. The number of 300 game winners in the future of baseball will be few, because most do go out early in a game because of pitch count, etc. I just really don't know why the 5 inning rule would be changed. Would an "official game" also have to be changed to 6 innings instead of 5 if there is weather stoppage?

 

Then, we should also look at what a "save" is and redefine it. To me, a "save" is a real crock a lot of times. A closer can go in with a 3 run lead in the 9th, give up 2 homeruns, and get a "save"?

[Guest]

I say definitely keep the requirement at 5 innings. If you change the rule, you need to take away all the 5 inning wins that Clemens, Cy Young and everybody else had. It just wouldn't be right to raise the bar now. Besides that, I think too many relievers are credited with wins as it is...especially when they only get 1-2 outs. Talk about a cheap win!

[clawsnstripes]

i agree with you bigrocky. i also think the number of 300 game winners will be a small number because most of the better young pitchers won't pitch long enough to amass the total. 20 wins a yr for 15 yrs would be tough and most of the pitchers who could hit that number are making a gozillion dollars and have no need to pitch that long.

[BigRocky99]

Clawnstripes, I think another reason for the lack of 300 game winners is really the fact that most now do NOT pitch deep into a game. MANY games are won or lost after the 6th and 7th innings.

 

Clemens is a good example in fact. He has not gotten many wins this year or last because of the Astros lack of runs, but had he been able to stay in there til the 8th or 9th (sometimes even 7th or 6th), he would have picked up a few more wins at least.

 

Now, pitch count is the thing that is watched so closely. A pitcher can have a shutout in the 6th and have thrown the magic "100 pitches" and you know he will likely not be out for the 7th.