OT Relief pitchers and wins

[Bluebeard]

tonight is the perfect example as to why a winning team doesn't have to have a pitcher"getting the win" every game. Only starting pitchers should earn wins. Maybe a relief pitcher who comes in losing or tied and pitches a specific minimum should earn a win. What's the point of having some pitcher get the win in every game? Blevins came into a tied game with two out and runners on first & second. He threw a pitch that bounced 4 feet in front of and 3 feet to the right of the plate. Runners took off but d'Arnaud snagged the ball threw to second badly, the runner was halfway to second and was thrown out getting back to first. End of inning. One bad pitch. Mets score in the top of the next inning, and Blevins gets the win!!!!??? Sorry, nobody should get the win. If a starter has to get 15 outs to earn a win, there has to be a change to relief pitchers with a minimum # too.

 

[QueRico]

Or how about this scenario:
Starter pitcher twists his ankle covering 1st & leaves game leading 9-0 after 14 outs.
Reliever #1: 4 outs, 2 runs
Reliever #2: 3 outs, 1 run
Reliever #3: 3 outs, 1 run
Reliever #4: 3 outs, 1 run

In this case, the official scorer determines who pitched "most effectively" other than the win-ineligible starter and assigns the win. At least Blevins was the pitcher when the winning run was scored...

 

[Piratz]

Well, it's all about being the "pitcher of record" when the game changes ownership if you're a relief pitcher.

Your example is yet another in a long list of why wins is a weak way to assess any pitcher. A bit like the season Randy Johnson won 17 games for the Yankees... with an ERA of 5.