In the National League, the elongated double switch shows again why pitching statistics are quite poorly attributed. A traditional double switch involves the manager inserting a position player into the game for the current pitcher and a new pitcher for a position player--typically one who just made an out, so that the new pitcher won't be batting for nearly a full trip through the lineup.
However, this same basic maneuver can also occur by simply pinch-hitting for the pitcher while on offense and then placing the pitcher in for whichever player makes the last out of the inning. If the team takes the lead (and subsequently does not lose it), the just-substituted-for pitcher gets credited with the win.
The problem is this: if this scenario occurs before the 5th inning, the starting pitcher cannot get the win, so it'll almost certainly be the next guy who pitches that will get the win. But given that a position player is the opne who was inserted for the pitcher, why wouldn't that guy get the win? He is technically inserted for the pitcher. Of course, I'm not advocating that he really should get the win; I'm arguing that the statistics need to be reconfigured so that there are categories such as "Team Wins / Losses." See some of my earlier posts for more good examples of why this should be the case.
One other note--it also wouldn't help to require a pitcher to actually throw a pitch before earning a win, as we saw last month: http://espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=290707127. Both Embree and B.J. Ryan (in 2003) have recently earned Wins without throwing a pitch. This makes it possible for a reliever to enter for a starter before the 5th (after an offensive rally when his team took the lead), warm up for the inning, then leave without doing anything and still get the win. These quirks make it clear that there needs to be a category for Team Wins.
Keywords: Baseball, Colorado Rockies, Detroit Tigers, Milwaukee Brewers, MLB, Pitching, Rules, Statistics, Washington Nationals
