Many Texas Rangers did many wonderful things Wednesday, when their team thrashed the hapless Baltimore Orioles 30–3. Eight different Rangers drove in two or more runs, nine different players scored two or more runs, and catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia raised his batting average 12 points, which is pretty impressive for someone who came into the game with 208 at-bats. As many have noted, though, by far the most stupefying achievement belonged to reliever Wes Littleton, who was brought into the game to protect an 11-run lead, saw his lineup score another 16 runs, and was credited with a save.

Reasonably enough, some large percentage of those reading this will simply refuse to believe it. Littleton took the mound with his team up 14–3, saw that lead increase to 30–3, and defended it by pitching three innings in which he gave up two hits while striking out one man and walking another. This is praiseworthy in the sense that it’s difficult to pitch three scoreless innings in the major leagues, and in the sense that one would rather a pitcher give up no runs rather than blow a 27-run lead, but it doesn’t seem worthy of special statistical reward.

Rules, however, are rules, and Official Rule 10.19, which governs the crediting of saves, specifies that so long as the finishing pitcher for a winning team doesn’t qualify for a win and has pitched for at least three innings, he should be credited with a save. (Note that there is confusion on this point. MLB.comclaims that Official Rule 10.20 requires that the pitcher pitch “effectively” for at least three innings; the actual rule book, though, doesn’t mention effectiveness, and Rule 10.20 actually guides the keeping of statistics: “The statistician shall maintain an accumulative record of all the batting, fielding, running and pitching records specified in Rule 10.02,” etc. etc.)

Every so often, people become aware of this rule, usually because something obviously stupid happens and is then traced back to the obviously stupid rule. ESPN’s Rob Neyer, for instance, pointed out that Littleton wasn’t even the least deserving pitcher to earn a save this week, considering that the Los Angeles Angels’ Marc Gwynn somehow earned a save against the Yankees on Tuesday despite giving up four runs in three innings. (Clearly the scorer in that game sides with the official rulebook on the issue of effectiveness.) Many of these people even observe the stupidity, follow the thread, and point out that the save rule is, in all instances and all applications, obviously stupid. Littleton’s save, they say, is really no more ridiculous than the save Billy Wagner earns while putting down the side in order while protecting a three-run lead; the difference is of degree, not kind. Therefore, the best thing to do would be to abolish the save rule.

While I sympathize with these people, I can’t lend them my support. We agree about all the facts, but draw different interpretations. Their point is that because the save should be done away with because it is arbitrary and nonsensical; I say it must be preserved precisely because it is arbitrary and nonsensical.

Baseball is premised upon all sorts of rules that make absolutely no sense. If we were to set about rationalizing the rulebook, we probably wouldn’t start with the save rule, but with more basic points. Baseball fields, for instance, have no fixed dimensions, and baseball games have no fixed length. The leagues play under different rules, with 47% of teams playing with 10 men, and 53% with nine. For 17% of the season, a roster has no fixed size. None of this takes into account all the fundamentally important official rules that are ignored, like the size of the strike zone. Basically, by any rational standards, baseball is played under a willfully obtuse and even perverse set of rules.

This is a good thing! Why attack one of the very sources of the game’s strength and vitality? Baseball’s idiosyncrasies aren’t embarrassments to be quietly emended, but strong defenses against the impulse to homogenization that does so much to crush liveliness wherever it can be found. Slippery-slope reasoning may not impress instructors in introductory logic courses, but it impresses me plenty when the basic structures and mechanics of the American game and its bizarre accounting systems are at risk. It may make sense to stop arbitrarily awarding pitchers saves for no evident reason, but what comes next? One day we decide that pitchers who give up more runs than they’ve pitched innings shouldn’t be eligible for saves; the next we decide that saves are a pretty crude tool to use to gauge the effectiveness of pitchers; the next we do away with the win; within days, the wrecking balls are taken to Wrigley Field and Fenway Park as bureaucrats decide to standardize outfield dimensions. To all of this I say no.

A stand is here to be taken, and those who love baseball must take it. Don’t take Wes Littleton’s glory from him; he earned it, fairly and squarely, according to either Rule 10.19 or 10.20. And so, with luck, will pitchers who manage not to give up 27 runs in an inning, for generations to come.

tmarchman@nysun.com