One of baseball's stupidest rules (and, questioning the wisdom of a fat closer)

Tonight, Bob Wickman blew a save in Atlanta.

But that doesn't even tell the whole story. He sucked. SUCKED.

Almost 40 pitches. Half of which were balls. Got hit hard, by a pathetic offensive team whose only weapon is their steroid abusing husk of a leftfielder.

I have two problems with this performance, which I will tackle in turn. First: Why the hell do the Braves insist on trotting out a seriously overweight closer in the stifling August heat in Atlanta? Second: Why will tomorrow's boxscore read "WP- Wickman?"

On the first topic:

Bob Wickman is a professional athlete. That's right, this guy. Let that sink in.

And yet, in this, the hottest month of the year, in this, the nastiest, most humid region of the country, the Braves expect this man to succeed in an outdoor physical activity that doesn't involve Joey Chestnutt downing hotdogs (USA! USA! USA!).

And maybe, if Wickman were an aberration, I would not have a problem. But the Braves have a history of making the Bellsouth Call to the Bullpen to fat guys.

Juan Berenguer. Antonio Alfonseca (the six-fingered man). Ray King. Kevin Gryboski. Dan Kolb (who is listed, derisively, and appropriately as "Danny" on baseball-reference.com).

And they have a number of fat guys out there right now. Chad Paronto. Tyler Yates (who I think I read somewhere is gay). And the subject of this rant, one Bob Wickman.

I have no problem per se with fat guys. I am rapidly heading into that fine fraternity myself.

I just know as a frustrated Braves fan, I remember years of questionable bullpens. And living here in this unbearably hot and humid swath of the country, I have come to realize that being in shape is essential in trying to survive the elements. Maybe the Braves bullpens of years past were doomed to fail by their waistlines- they were bound to blow leads and cower in a puddle of fat-man sweat in the Atlanta heat.

(Of course, my fat man hypothesis says nothing of the colossal failures of one Chris Reitsma, or the current gopher-ball tendencies of one Rafael Soriano. But you get my point.)

On the second:

Bob Wickman was the WINNING PITCHER. Despite his pathetic performance, he gets the same boost in the win column as a starting pitcher who pitches a perfect game with 20 strikeouts. How is this fair?

Back in the day (or, more appropriately, way back in the day), a winning pitcher was almost always the starting pitcher, who took the slings and arrows and carried his team for the bulk of the game. A pitcher who pitches a complete game and wins 10-9: hey, you deserve the win. You were the guy on the hill who allowed the other guys fewer runs than your guys scored. A pitcher who pitches a complete game and loses, 1-0: deserving of the loss. As harsh as it sounds, you got bested by the other guy. Better luck next time.

But with the advent of frequently-used bullpens (thank you, Sparky Anderson), wins and losses have much less relevance. And if you need any more proof of this reduced relevance, look no further than tonight's result in Atlanta. The man who had more to do with the Braves blowing their lead and nearly losing was credited with a "win." What a bullshit statistic.

Under the rules, I understand. He was the "pitcher of record." But something must be done to straighten these things out, so that "Wins" and "Losses" for pitchers have some kind of meaning.

For one, I think a pitcher should only get a win if he has (and I know this is subjective as hell, but bear with me) a "good" performance. You keep your team in the game, and they take the lead, you should get credit. But if you come into a tie game, get an out with one pitch, and then watch your team rally with your warmup jacket on, you should not get the same amount of credit as Don Larsen in the 1956 World Series.

Many of the anachronistic rules on who gets credited with a "win" are based on the notion that some pitcher must get credited with a "win," while another must get blamed with a "loss." But why is this? Why must every game have a "winning pitcher?"

I think that there should be games without a "winning" or "losing" pitcher. Think about it. The boxscore's description of WP and LP infrequently tells you who actually played a role in his teams outcome. So do away with it. Give a "win" if a starting pitcher pitches well and his team wins as a result. Give a "win" if a relief pitcher makes an impressive contribution and makes a victory possible. But don't give a "win" just because someone has to get one.

If Harvey Haddix pitches 13 perfect innings and his team loses because of an error, he should not get saddled with a loss. And if Bob Wickman and his fat ass blows a lead, and gets bailed out by the ever-impressive Chipper Jones, he should not get credited with a "win."