According to rule 10.17 of the MLB rulebook, a Win will go to a starting pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game and his team does not relinquish that lead. Such pitcher must complete either five innings of a game that lasts six or more innings on defense or four innings of a game that lasts five innings on defense.
So there you go. That’s a win. All those words up there. Who talks like that?
You know I can’t help but think that if they weren’t called Wins and Losses, the people who still use them would have moved on from them a long time ago right along with the rest of us. Instead, we hear people say things like, “the object of the game is to win, so give me a pitcher with the most wins over a pitcher with the highest C.L.A.P. any day,” or some shit like that. Which of course is silly because based on the definition I pasted up top, they’re a completely arbitrary set of rules that really have nothing to do with whether or not a pitcher’s team won or lost. If a Win was called by any other name, nobody would mention them. But since they were given a name that people associate with a team’s overall success, they’re still treated with high regard even though the rules given to a pitcher’s wins and losses do not equate evenly to a team’s wins and losses.
I don’t think we’ll ever convince the higher-ups to get rid of them completely because they’ve been counted for over a hundred years now. Plus the 300 benchmark for Wins is still pretty cool. So here’s what I propose: we change their names. And since I’m the person mentioning it, we’re naming it after me. From now on, a Win will be called a Happy and a Loss will be called a Sad.
Hey did you see that Jake Peavy is on his way to 20 Happys?
This could work*. Read the rest of this entry »





Tomorrow is March 17th. You know what that means, right? It means it’s time to get drunk and fill out college basketball brackets.


