The five-inning requirement for the win dates back to the era when pitchers completed easily half their starts, so not managing to get through half the game was a clear sign that the pitcher didn't perform well enough to earn or deserve a win, though as always there are games where no pitcher clearly deserves it. Personally, I really dislike modern pitcher usage and don't support changing rules to reward the use of an eight-man bullpen and the fear that you can't use a starter more than 80 pitches without worrying their arm is going to come right off. (Teach pitchers pitching instead of high-stress fireballing and the injury risk goes way down, but every team wants Mark Prior instead of Greg Maddux.) I am not too concerned about holds because there are still competing definitions--I once saw a box score highlighted in a Rob Neyer column where a reliever faced three batters and they all scored and he got the loss, yet he still got the hold because he entered and exited with the same lead--but I'm okay with the existing requirements for starting pitchers to earn wins. Anything less and we might as well do away with the concept of starting pitchers altogether and just go with a pitching staff consisting solely of a 13-man bullpen where no one ever pitches more than two innings in a single game. Hell, we're nearly there already.
