Should the save be eliminated?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Both myself and staJack had the same thought simultaniously. Should we just eliminate the save completely? In my view, it is a junk stat, more dependant on opportunity than any sort of ability. Mariano Rivera is the greatest closer of our era, and he's only led the league twice in saves. The effectiveness of relievers is better measured through ERA, Opp. BA, BBs, Ks, etc. The save forces managers to use relievers ineffeciently. I think the save should just get tossed.

[Guest Coffey]

No, I don't think it should be. People like Eric Gagne need to have something to aspire to number wise.

[sfaJack 0]

I think my biggest problem with the save is the retarded "3 run lead with no outs/nobody on in the ninth inning" scenario. How THAT is worthy of some sort of special stat in the box score is beyond me.

 

I agree that there are better ways to measure a pitcher's effectiveness. Few things irritate me more than watching managers overusing relievers or bringing in a guy to get only one out just so he can get the "S" next to his name.

 

But since it's doubtful that the save is going anywhere, they should at least modify the rules for earning a save, particularly in regards to blown saves. If one of the requirements of a save is that you have to finish the game, why are middle relievers given blown saves when they blow a lead, especially if it's before the ninth inning? If they don't finish the game, why the blown save? How is it any different than a starting pitcher coughing up a lead?

 

Question is, and Al can probably answer this: the precedent of saves has been set, so if it's junked, what will the Hall voters do in regards to relievers? So few of them make it as is, would junking the save cause even fewer of them to get considered/elected?

[strummer 0]

I also think the save get in the heads of relievers. Many relievers, including Braden Looper, have admitted that they aren't in the game "mentally" if it is not a save situation. I watch the Mets the most out of any team and Looper pitches very poorly in non save situations (don't have the numbers, but I would venture they are not good). I'm sure this has been said by other closers

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Question is, and Al can probably answer this: the precedent of saves has been set, so if it's junked, what will the Hall voters do in regards to relievers? So few of them make it as is, would junking the save cause even fewer of them to get considered/elected?

 

It is hard to say, because even now there is no standard criteria for electing relievers. I think relievers that came along before the change in strategy have gotten shortchanged, notably Dan Quisenberry. There are a dozen guys like Stu Miller and Johnny Murphy, who are not remembered well because they didn't collect saves, but were just as good as the top relievers today. Since only three relievers have made the Hall (two of which spent part of their careers as starters), its hard to see eliminating the save having a large impact. The leaders already (Lee Smith) are not inducted.

 

I think voters should recognize a good pitcher from the traditional statistics, and not need saves to make that distinction. Judging from the relievers they've elected at this point, I don't think the save makes an impact.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I also think the save get in the heads of relievers. Many relievers, including Braden Looper, have admitted that they aren't in the game "mentally" if it is not a save situation. I watch the Mets the most out of any team and Looper pitches very poorly in non save situations (don't have the numbers, but I would venture they are not good). I'm sure this has been said by other closers

I would have to wonder how a pitcher that exists in such a fragile emotional state could succeed at all in the majors. I just can't believe that a pitcher can not exist without a statistic.

[Guest Brian]

I doubt relievers will get shortchanged in terms of money. If a team needs someone to put out fires and such, they'll go out and get them. I'm all for abolishing the stat, unless they can amend it reasonably.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I think the idea behind saves is a very good one - you want to reward pitchers that succeed in high-leverage situations. The problem with the save is in the defined context of a "save situation", where too much weight is placed upon finishing the game.

 

Here's an example: Danny Graves can come into the ninth inning with a 6-5 lead and get three outs for the save, but Ryan Wagner wouldn't get a save from coming into a seventh inning situation with the same score and retiring three batters while runners are in scoring position. Wagner's situation is considerably more dangerous: we can quantify this by using Tangotiger's Win Expectancy metric (I tried to find a better link for this concept, but this will have to do):

 

Wagner's Situation:

- Bottom of 8th, 6-5 lead, runners on 2nd and 3rd, no outs

- Opponent's Initial Win Expectancy: 68.2%

- Opponent's Win Expectancy after 1 out: 54.6%

- Opponent's Win Expectancy after 2 outs: 33.4%

- Opponent's Win Expectancy after 3 outs: 19.4%

- Net Change in Win Expectancy: 48.8%

 

Graves' Situation:

- Bottom of 9th, 6-5 lead, no outs

- Opponent's Initial Win Expectancy: 19.4%

- Opponent's Win Expectancy after 1 out: 10.8%

- Opponent's Win Expectancy after 2 outs: 4.2%

- Opponent's Win Expectancy after 3 outs: 0 ('cause the game's over)

- Net Change in Win Expectancy: 19.4%

 

Win Expectancy is a fairly intuitive concept - a team's Win Expectancy percentage at a given point in the game is the percentage chance that the team will win that game.

 

By getting out of that jam, Ryan Wagner gave the Reds increased their chances of winning that game by 48.8%. Despite closing out the game and ensuring the win (100% Win Expectancy), Danny Graves only increased their chances of winning the game by 19.4%.

 

However, in this scenario, Graves would get the save, despite the fact that both pitchers retired the same number of batters - three - and that Wagner had much more of an impact on the game by retiring his three batters in a much more dangerous situation. Wagner gets the consolation "hold" statistic.

 

The save does well to have some context, but it doesn't have enough to really legitimize it as a measure of a good pitcher and, by adding an additional statistic for holds, baseball only increases the confusion.

 

What makes it even worse is that the entire philosophy of "save situations" has subconsciously influenced managers into holding their best relievers out of high-leverage situations.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Oh Rhett, what would fantasy leagues do?

 

I don't have a problem with saves as a stat, except that they're too easy to get. Wow, a three-run lead was protected, good job. That means a pitcher could come in, give up two runs, three hits, walk a batter and hit another, and still get a save despite a horrid performance. No pitcher should be rewarded for posting an 18.00 ERA and a WHIP that would make Sidney Ponson cringe.

 

Here's how I think saves should be earned:

-- Successfully finish out a game in which the pitcher inherited a lead of no more than 2 runs and recorded at least 3 outs.

-- Successfully finish out a game in which the pitcher entered the game with the tying or go-ahead run either at the plate or on-deck.

 

That's it. Scrap the three-run lead garbage, and the three innings of quality relief. Restrict saves to the above two situations, and retrofit everyone's historical stats to match them. This way, a save will mean more than it does now. Its worth could still be debated, and its effects on bullpen management could still be for the worse, but it would be harder to get than before.

[The Man in Blak 0]

You know, the fact that a reliever can pitch himself into a save situation by stinking up the joint is pretty worthless as well. If Jorge Julio comes in with a four run lead to mop stuff up, gives up a two-run homer, and then finishes the game, I really don't think he deserves a save, since the "save situation" was self-manufactured.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The save should be saved -- lol2004.

 

Anyway, I'm sure it could be tweaked, but at its core it's an acceptable stat. It takes a special kind of nerve to go out there with a one-run lead and facing the heart of a lineup with the bases loaded and nobody out...

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

call me retarded (no wait!....screw it), but I think there should be a stat for a run-less appearence. That would give some idea of which relivers can consistently perform and which are prone to blow-ups. Or a stat for a guy who loses a lead. (Call it a "Koch")

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You know, the fact that a reliever can pitch himself into a save situation by stinking up the joint is pretty worthless as well. If Jorge Julio comes in with a four run lead to mop stuff up, gives up a two-run homer, and then finishes the game, I really don't think he deserves a save, since the "save situation" was self-manufactured.

 

Julio would not receive a save in that situation. You have to enter the game with a three run lead or less, not just encounter it at some point.

 

By the same token, however, Jose Mesa lost a four run lead this season against Oakland. By the measure of the stat, he was NOT given a blown save because he entered the game with too big a lead.

[Guest Smues]

You know, the fact that a reliever can pitch himself into a save situation by stinking up the joint is pretty worthless as well. If Jorge Julio comes in with a four run lead to mop stuff up, gives up a two-run homer, and then finishes the game, I really don't think he deserves a save, since the "save situation" was self-manufactured.

 

Julio would not receive a save in that situation. You have to enter the game with a three run lead or less, not just encounter it at some point.

 

By the same token, however, Jose Mesa lost a four run lead this season against Oakland. By the measure of the stat, he was NOT given a blown save because he entered the game with too big a lead.

Really? Wow I always thought you got a blownsave even if you weren't eligible for a save.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wouldn't it be better to only award a save if it is ONLY awarded if your team faces a loss/win with at least one batter in the inning?

 

For example, if you have a three-run lead with two men on base, yes, it's a save.

If you have a three-run lead with only one man on base, no, it is not a save.

 

Make the save something difficult.

-=Mike