Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1.musial6 posted on October 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
When the Nationals began their division series against the Cardinals, writers wrote and broadcasters said that Washington was in the playoffs for the first time in 79 years. They misspoke.
Funny, but what I read was that this was Washington's first postseason appearance since 1933. Perhaps Chass misread.
Yes, but my team won because it had grit and spunk and they wanted it more! (The fact they spent dozens of millions of dollars more is just a funny coincidence!)
Getting to the league championship series, though, was not all about money. In the most stunning instance of money being meaningless, the Cardinals edged the Nationals in Game 5 of their series behind the hitting of two of the lowest-paid players in the playoffs. ...
Except one could argue that the resources of a team that can afford a larger payroll will also allow them to have suitable replacements for injured players within their system or allow them to get them.
Isn't Murray the champion of the players? Doesn't he realize that being a champion of the players means that the teams with the highest payroll is a good thing?
9.esseff posted on October 14, 2012 at 06:45 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
That No. 30 for the A's has to be from the start of the season or something, doesn't it. I can't imagine their payroll by playoff time was lower than the Astros' without Lee, Wandy and Myers.
This year’s two wild-card games and four division series, a total of 22 games, produced 14 save opportunities but only 7 saves, a poor ratio of 50 percent success. During the season pitchers converted 70 percent of their save opportunities.
Huh, one would think that maybe facing better offenses would cut into the success rate of save opportunities...but maybe that's just too simple.
Huh, one would think that maybe facing better offenses would cut into the success rate of save opportunities...but maybe that's just too simple.
Also one might be seeing more 1- and 2-run save opps in the postseason (or maybe not, I don't know, but games tend to be closer). Also relievers generally enter a little earlier presumably leading to more "blown saves, err, holds".* Also Jose Valverde.
*Regular season 9th/extra inning save situations get converted about 85% of the time. The 70% figure presumably includes blown holds in the denominator but, of course, not successful holds in the numerator. Or it was a historically awful season for closers.
This year’s two wild-card games and four division series, a total of 22 games, produced 14 save opportunities but only 7 saves, a poor ratio of 50 percent success. During the season pitchers converted 70 percent of their save opportunities.
Is he counting the complete game by CC as a save opportunity lost?
16.bunyon posted on October 15, 2012 at 08:00 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
Cuz' Steagles hates the unfunny Mr. President meme only slight more than you and I do.
KILLJOY STATHEADS FINALLY GO TOO FAR, MR. PRESIDENT.
This year’s two wild-card games and four division series, a total of 22 games, produced 14 save opportunities but only 7 saves, a poor ratio of 50 percent success. During the season pitchers converted 70 percent of their save opportunities.
OK, I counted 7 saves in 10 real save opportunities. There was also 4 "save opportunities" in which no save was attempted: the Sabathia 3-1 complete game win, game 1 of Giants/Reds in which Santiago Casilla created a save opportunity in the 9th by giving up a run in what was a 4 run lead. He finished the game. , game 3 of Giants/Reds in which Romo pitched the last 2 innings and got the win when the Giants scored a run in the top of the 10th, and game 2 of A's/Tigers in which Brian cook blew the hold in the 8th. he was never going to pitch the 9th regardless.
if you want to call that last one a blown save, fine. that still makes it 7/11, not 7/14, and pretty damned close to the regular season.
18.bobm posted on October 15, 2012 at 09:05 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
[17]. From B-R PI:
In the Postseason, For 2012, Save Opportunity, sorted by earliest date
Rk Player Date Series Gm# Tm Opp Rslt AppDec IP H R ER BB SO HR
1 Jason Motte 2012-10-05 NLWC 1 STL ATL W 6-3 8-9f S 1.1 2 0 0 1 1 0
2 Jose Valverde 2012-10-06 ALDS 1 DET OAK W 3-1 9-9f S 1.0 0 0 0 0 2 0
3 Joaquin Benoit 2012-10-07 ALDS 2 DET OAK W 5-4 8-8 BS 1.0 2 2 2 0 0 1
4 Ryan Cook 2012-10-07 ALDS 2 OAK DET L 4-5 8-8 BS 1.0 2 1 1 0 2 0
5 Sean Doolittle 2012-10-07 ALDS 2 OAK DET L 4-5 7-7 BS 1.0 2 2 0 0 2 0
6 Drew Storen 2012-10-07 NLDS 1 WSN STL W 3-2 9-9f S 1.0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7 Marc Rzepczynski 2012-10-07 NLDS 1 STL WSN L 2-3 8-8 BS 0.1 1 0 0 0 1 0
8 Jim Johnson 2012-10-08 ALDS 2 BAL NYY W 3-2 9-9f S 1.0 0 0 0 0 1 0
9 Grant Balfour 2012-10-09 ALDS 3 OAK DET W 2-0 9-9f S 1.0 1 0 0 0 1 0
10 Jim Johnson 2012-10-10 ALDS 3 BAL NYY L 2-3 9-10 BS 2.0 1 1 1 0 1 1
11 Jose Valverde 2012-10-10 ALDS 4 DET OAK L 3-4 9-9f BL 0.2 4 3 3 0 1 0
12 Sergio Romo 2012-10-11 NLDS 5 SFG CIN W 6-4 8-9f S 1.1 2 1 1 1 1 0
13 Jim Johnson 2012-10-11 ALDS 4 BAL NYY W 2-1 13-13fS 1.0 0 0 0 0 1 0
14 Drew Storen 2012-10-12 NLDS 5 WSN STL L 7-9 9-9f BL 1.0 3 4 4 2 2 0
15 Jason Motte 2012-10-14 NLCS 1 STL SFG W 6-4 9-9f S 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0
16 Phil Coke 2012-10-14 ALCS 2 DET NYY W 3-0 8-9f S 2.0 1 0 0 0 3 0
OK, I counted 7 saves in 10 real save opportunities. There was also 4 "save opportunities" in which no save was attempted
Save Opportunities are just saves plus blown saves, I think. So if Pitcher A starts the 7th with 3-run lead and finishes the inning (then leaves the game), giving up 1 run, it's not a Save Opportunity. If Pitcher B starts the 7th inning with a 3-run lead and finishes the inning (then leaves the game), giving up 3 runs, then it's a blown save and therefore a Save Opportunity.
STEAGLES IS GOING TO GO NUTS IF HE SEES THAT COMMENT, MR. MUSIAL6
nah. i've been self-medicating with quaaludes for the last 2 months, and since then, my blood has not been boiling quite so vigorously.
Save Opportunities are just saves plus blown saves, I think. So if Pitcher A starts the 7th with 3-run lead and finishes the inning (then leaves the game), giving up 1 run, it's not a Save Opportunity. If Pitcher B starts the 7th inning with a 3-run lead and finishes the inning (then leaves the game), giving up 3 runs, then it's a blown save and therefore a Save Opportunity.
It's a terrible way of accounting.
what would the percentages look like if you measured blown saves over saves + blown saves + holds?
So how are blown saves calculated anyway? Can one get a blown save in the bottom of the first? Or is there some sort of inning limit, like only in the 7th or later?
So how are blown saves calculated anyway? Can one get a blown save in the bottom of the first? Or is there some sort of inning limit, like only in the 7th or later?
Pitcher enters after the fifth inning in a save situation.
1. team has no more than a three run lead with three or more outs remaining or
2. tying run is on deck.
itcher enters after the fifth inning in a save situation.
1. team has no more than a three run lead with three or more outs remaining or
2. tying run is on deck.
If you enter a game your team leads at any point in the sixth or with nobody out in the seventh*, it shouldn't matter how big the lead is. It's technically a save situation.
* It's also possible, I suppose, to enter a game in the fifth and be eligible for a save, if the guy you're replacing was not the game's starter. It would probably have to be a Babe Ruth-Ernie Shore type situation, however, as a relief pitcher entering a game before the sixth who goes on to finish the game is likely to get the win, rather than the save.
If you expand pitchers stats out and go to relief stats, hover above blown saves and it says "pitcher enter in a save situation and lost the lead" Then go to svsit and hover over it, and it gives all the requirements.
Pitcher A starts and allows 7 runs in the first. Pitcher B comes in and pitches 3 scoreless innings while his team scores 8. Pitcher C comes in in the 4th with an 8-7 lead and finishes the game without allowing a run. Surely that's a save, yes? thus, if he gives up the lead anytime, including in the 4th, that should be a blown save, no?
Pitcher A starts and allows 7 runs in the first. Pitcher B comes in and pitches 3 scoreless innings while his team scores 8. Pitcher C comes in in the 4th with an 8-7 lead and finishes the game without allowing a run. Surely that's a save, yes? thus, if he gives up the lead anytime, including in the 4th, that should be a blown save, no?
As I alluded to above, this probably isn't going to happen. If a pitcher enters the game in the fourth and goes on to finish it, he's probably getting the win, rather than the save. In cases where the lead was taken for good in the first five innings but the SP is not in line for the win, the official scorer is supposed to assign the win to the pitcher who was most effective, and the guy entering in the fourth (and thus pitching 5-plus innings, compared to 3 for the other guy) is probably in line for the win.
The only exception I can see is if a reliever enters the game sometime in the first, pitches 4-plus and the reliever comes on and does likewise. In that case, Reliever A gets the win and Reliever B would get the save.
As I alluded to above, this probably isn't going to happen. If a pitcher enters the game in the fourth and goes on to finish it, he's probably getting the win, rather than the save. The official scorers is supposed to assign the win to the pitcher who was most effective, and thus the guy entering in the fourth (and thus pitching 5-plus innings, compared to 3 for the other guy) is probably in line for the win.
If a guy comes into the game down 7-0 and leaves up 8-7, and his team never relinquishes the lead, he will get the win by rule.
If a guy comes into the game down 7-0 and leaves up 8-7, and his team never relinquishes the lead, he will get the win by rule.
Looking at it again, you're probably right. Though the rule does note that a win should be awarded to the most effective pitcher, it doesn't actually list IP as one of the criteria to judge effectiveness (and the assumption for equal degrees of effectiveness is to give it to the first guy).
But that's a very specific scenario, and I'm not sure why you'd ask, as you did in 25, if a guy could get a blown save in the bottom of the first. There are very limited opportunities to be eligible for a save before the sixth, and the bottom of the first clearly isn't one of them.
Pitcher A starts and allows 7 runs in the first. Pitcher B comes in and pitches 3 scoreless innings while his team scores 8. Pitcher C comes in in the 4th with an 8-7 lead and finishes the game without allowing a run. Surely that's a save, yes? thus, if he gives up the lead anytime, including in the 4th, that should be a blown save, no?
Not by bb-ref definition of blown save. A blown save doesn't automatically mean all potential save situations. That is why sometimes if you add blown saves, and saves up, on the team level, it might equal greater than total save situation. They used to explain that in the glossary, but don't anymore.
There is another stat called save opportunities which is saves+ blown saves. But blown saves use save situation in it's definiton.
Not by bb-ref definition of blown save. A blown save doesn't automatically mean all potential save situations
That's foolish then. If you're going to suggest middle relief guys who come in during a one-run game in the seventh are in a "save situation" (which modern usage dictates they aren't), then there's no reason not to count the reliever who comes in during the sixth with his team in front by 12. Hell, the latter guy is probably more likely to get the save than the former.
But that's a very specific scenario, and I'm not sure why you'd ask, as you did in 25, if a guy could get a blown save in the bottom of the first. There are very limited opportunities to be eligible for a save before the sixth, and the bottom of the first clearly isn't one of them.
You're right. I cannot conceive of a way to get a save in the bottom of the first. but the second inning? Sure.
That's foolish then. If you're going to suggest middle relief guys who come in during a one-run game in the seventh are in a "save situation" (which modern usage dictates they aren't), then there's no reason not to count the reliever who comes in during the sixth with his team in front by 12. Hell, the latter guy is probably more likely to get the save than the former.
That is why when you are talking about save percentage you have to include holds in the discussion. It's the way the stat was designed, the only purpose of save situation as a stat is to allow for the creation of blown save and holds.
as far as listing an accurate save percentage you do (saves+holds-blown saves)/(saves+holds)
You're right. I cannot conceive of a way to get a save in the bottom of the first. but the second inning? Sure.
Technically, I guess. Practically, I doubt it. I suspect a guy who only lasts 1 IP (if the other guy goes the rest of the way) is not going to be assigned a win, but I'd be interested to see how official scorers would rule. But I imagine the scorer would determine the first reliever was not effective, and give the win to the guy who went 7-plus innings.
That is why when you are talking about save percentage you have to include holds in the discussion. It's the way the stat was designed, the only purpose of save situation as a stat is to allow for the creation of blown save and holds.
That's a different (though genuine) issue.
Misirlou and I are noting that it's silly to credit a guy who enters the game in the top of the seventh with his team up 3-2 as being in a "save situation," if you are not doing likewise for a guy who enters the game in the bottom of the sixth with his team up 15-0.
The guiding principle governing "save situations" should be: if this pitcher finishes out the game and his team never relinquishes the lead, will he qualify for a save. If the answer is yes, then it's a save situation. Either that, or find some way to appropriately measure those save sitautions where the reliever was in a practical save situation (you know, where he was brought with the intent of finishing the game). But splitting the difference makes absolutley no sense.
Misirlou and I are noting that it's silly to credit a guy who enters the game in the top of the seventh with his team up 3-2 as being in a "save situation," if you are not doing likewise for a guy who enters the game in the bottom of the sixth with his team up 15-0.
I think the argument is that they don't want to award holds for that 15-0 game... As I said save situation is a stat designed to credit a pitcher for blown saves and holds. That is the only purpose of it. A pitcher who comes into a 15-0 game, and if that is called a save situation, then allows 7 runs in an inning and leaves, he would be leaving with the save situation intact, and getting credit for a hold.
Technically, I guess. Practically, I doubt it. I suspect a guy who only lasts 1 IP (if the other guy goes the rest of the way) is not going to be assigned a win, but I'd be interested to see how official scorers would rule.
Guy comes in in the bottom of the first inning down 6-4. In the top of the second, he in replaced for a PH, and his team scores 4 runs. His replacement then finishes the game without relinquishing the lead. Who gets the win and who gets the save?
Guy comes in in the bottom of the first inning down 6-4. In the top of the second, he in replaced for a PH, and his team scores 4 runs. His replacement then finishes the game without relinquishing the lead. Who gets the win and who gets the save?
If he finishes the game, I imagine that the third pitcher gets the win and nobody gets the save.
I think the argument is that they don't want to award holds for that 15-0 game... As I said save situation is a stat designed to credit a pitcher for blown saves and holds. That is the only purpose of it. A pitcher who comes into a 15-0 game, and if that is called a save situation, then allows 7 runs in an inning and leaves, he would be leaving with the save situation intact, and getting credit for a hold.
Then the problem is with the hold statistic. If you enter a 15-0 game and pitch effectively for three innings but the skipper allows someone else to throw the ninth, you ought to get a hold. If you were eligible for a save when you took the hill, you shouldn't be disqualified for at least a hold when you've fulfilled the performance-based requirements (effective pitching, three innings of work, never relinquish the lead).
Why? The second pitcher came in with his team behind, and left with the lead, which was never relinquished? Isn't the the definition of a relief win?
In these cases, the official scorer is given lattitude. And I don't think he's giving the win to a guy who went 1 IP or less instead of the guy who went 7-plus.
In these cases, the official scorer is given lattitude. And I don't think he's giving the win to a guy who went 1 IP or less instead of the guy who went 7-plus.
Show me one situation in which a pitcher came in with his team tied or behind, left with the lead which was never relinquished, and didn't get the win.
Then the problem is with the hold statistic. If you enter a 15-0 game and pitch effectively for three innings but the skipper allows someone else to throw the ninth, you ought to get a hold. If you were eligible for a save when you took the hill, you shouldn't be disqualified for at least a hold when you've fulfilled the performance-based requirements (effective pitching, three innings of work, never relinquish the lead).
Don't argue with it. The hold stat has a lot of flaws, it was a half ass created stat to find a way to credit middle relief pitchers, and if it was recreated today, they might change it's design. You can get a hold without actually getting an out, I personally would have made a qualifier allowing no more runs than innings pitched or something like that. But that isn't the hold stat.
The hold stat has a couple of well known flaws. You can record a hold without getting an out. You can record a hold while being completely ineffective. (say you come in in a three run game, allow two runs, put two men on base, get an out and leave...you will get a hold even if the guy who relieves you allows both runs to score giving you the loss) It's not a great stat, neither is the save stat, but they are the stats we have.
Show me one situation in which a pitcher came in with his team tied or behind, left with the lead which was never relinquished, and didn't get the win.
I will, once you show me one situation in which a pitcher threw one inning, the first, and was relieved by a guy who went the next 7, and the initial guy got the win. I bet I could find an example before you did. (-:
If this were a Houston no-hitting the Yankees situation, where everybody goes 1-2 innings, then the WP is obviously going to be the guy who took the mound when his team was trailing or tied and left the game with his team in the lead, since all of the relievers had a similar degree of effectiveness. But this is a very different sitaution, where the WP can be only one of two choices, and the latter did the overwhelming majority of the work. I feel that in this particular situation (which is almost impossible to imagine happening in today's game), the third pitcher would be credited with a win on the basis of being the more effective pitcher.
Don't argue with it. The hold stat has a lot of flaws, it was a half ass created stat to find a way to credit middle relief pitchers, and if it was recreated today, they might change it's design. You can get a hold without actually getting an out, I personally would have made a qualifier allowing no more runs than innings pitched or something like that. But that isn't the hold stat.
The hold stat has a couple of well known flaws. You can record a hold without getting an out. You can record a hold while being completely ineffective. (say you come in in a three run game, allow two runs, put two men on base, get an out and leave...you will get a hold even if the guy who relieves you allows both runs to score giving you the loss) It's not a great stat, neither is the save stat, but they are the stats we have.
And I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't change my basic point. It's ridiculous to define something as a save sitaution if it include some, but not all, of the situations where the pitcher is in line for a save.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. musial6 posted on October 14, 2012 at 11:09 AM # hit 0 | hit 0Funny, but what I read was that this was Washington's first postseason appearance since 1933. Perhaps Chass misread.
No. Stick to the gd point, Murray. Which is what?
Sorry, still recovering from Friday night. Die, Cardinals.
Yes, but my team won because it had grit and spunk and they wanted it more! (The fact they spent dozens of millions of dollars more is just a funny coincidence!)
Except one could argue that the resources of a team that can afford a larger payroll will also allow them to have suitable replacements for injured players within their system or allow them to get them.
Why?
Huh, one would think that maybe facing better offenses would cut into the success rate of save opportunities...but maybe that's just too simple.
Also one might be seeing more 1- and 2-run save opps in the postseason (or maybe not, I don't know, but games tend to be closer). Also relievers generally enter a little earlier presumably leading to more "blown saves, err, holds".* Also Jose Valverde.
*Regular season 9th/extra inning save situations get converted about 85% of the time. The 70% figure presumably includes blown holds in the denominator but, of course, not successful holds in the numerator. Or it was a historically awful season for closers.
Cuz' Steagles hates the unfunny Mr. President meme only slight more than you and I do.
Is he counting the complete game by CC as a save opportunity lost?
Cuz' Steagles hates the unfunny Mr. President meme only slight more than you and I do.
KILLJOY STATHEADS FINALLY GO TOO FAR, MR. PRESIDENT.
OK, I counted 7 saves in 10 real save opportunities. There was also 4 "save opportunities" in which no save was attempted: the Sabathia 3-1 complete game win, game 1 of Giants/Reds in which Santiago Casilla created a save opportunity in the 9th by giving up a run in what was a 4 run lead. He finished the game. , game 3 of Giants/Reds in which Romo pitched the last 2 innings and got the win when the Giants scored a run in the top of the 10th, and game 2 of A's/Tigers in which Brian cook blew the hold in the 8th. he was never going to pitch the 9th regardless.
if you want to call that last one a blown save, fine. that still makes it 7/11, not 7/14, and pretty damned close to the regular season.
In the Postseason, For 2012, Save Opportunity, sorted by earliest date
Save Opportunities are just saves plus blown saves, I think. So if Pitcher A starts the 7th with 3-run lead and finishes the inning (then leaves the game), giving up 1 run, it's not a Save Opportunity. If Pitcher B starts the 7th inning with a 3-run lead and finishes the inning (then leaves the game), giving up 3 runs, then it's a blown save and therefore a Save Opportunity.
It's a terrible way of accounting.
what would the percentages look like if you measured blown saves over saves + blown saves + holds?
Thanks bob. I missed all those blown holds, because they aren't really save situations, in any meaningful sense of the word.
HA! I don't come by as much, so the played memes don't bother me much anymore.
Not sure, but anytime someone lists save percentage and they aren't doing it that way, they are ####### LIARS.
Pitcher enters after the fifth inning in a save situation.
1. team has no more than a three run lead with three or more outs remaining or
2. tying run is on deck.
If you enter a game your team leads at any point in the sixth or with nobody out in the seventh*, it shouldn't matter how big the lead is. It's technically a save situation.
* It's also possible, I suppose, to enter a game in the fifth and be eligible for a save, if the guy you're replacing was not the game's starter. It would probably have to be a Babe Ruth-Ernie Shore type situation, however, as a relief pitcher entering a game before the sixth who goes on to finish the game is likely to get the win, rather than the save.
Where does that come from?
Baseball-reference.com
If you expand pitchers stats out and go to relief stats, hover above blown saves and it says "pitcher enter in a save situation and lost the lead" Then go to svsit and hover over it, and it gives all the requirements.
I used Jason Motte.
As I alluded to above, this probably isn't going to happen. If a pitcher enters the game in the fourth and goes on to finish it, he's probably getting the win, rather than the save. In cases where the lead was taken for good in the first five innings but the SP is not in line for the win, the official scorer is supposed to assign the win to the pitcher who was most effective, and the guy entering in the fourth (and thus pitching 5-plus innings, compared to 3 for the other guy) is probably in line for the win.
The only exception I can see is if a reliever enters the game sometime in the first, pitches 4-plus and the reliever comes on and does likewise. In that case, Reliever A gets the win and Reliever B would get the save.
If a guy comes into the game down 7-0 and leaves up 8-7, and his team never relinquishes the lead, he will get the win by rule.
Looking at it again, you're probably right. Though the rule does note that a win should be awarded to the most effective pitcher, it doesn't actually list IP as one of the criteria to judge effectiveness (and the assumption for equal degrees of effectiveness is to give it to the first guy).
But that's a very specific scenario, and I'm not sure why you'd ask, as you did in 25, if a guy could get a blown save in the bottom of the first. There are very limited opportunities to be eligible for a save before the sixth, and the bottom of the first clearly isn't one of them.
Not by bb-ref definition of blown save. A blown save doesn't automatically mean all potential save situations. That is why sometimes if you add blown saves, and saves up, on the team level, it might equal greater than total save situation. They used to explain that in the glossary, but don't anymore.
There is another stat called save opportunities which is saves+ blown saves. But blown saves use save situation in it's definiton.
That's foolish then. If you're going to suggest middle relief guys who come in during a one-run game in the seventh are in a "save situation" (which modern usage dictates they aren't), then there's no reason not to count the reliever who comes in during the sixth with his team in front by 12. Hell, the latter guy is probably more likely to get the save than the former.
You're right. I cannot conceive of a way to get a save in the bottom of the first. but the second inning? Sure.
That is why when you are talking about save percentage you have to include holds in the discussion. It's the way the stat was designed, the only purpose of save situation as a stat is to allow for the creation of blown save and holds.
as far as listing an accurate save percentage you do (saves+holds-blown saves)/(saves+holds)
Technically, I guess. Practically, I doubt it. I suspect a guy who only lasts 1 IP (if the other guy goes the rest of the way) is not going to be assigned a win, but I'd be interested to see how official scorers would rule. But I imagine the scorer would determine the first reliever was not effective, and give the win to the guy who went 7-plus innings.
That's a different (though genuine) issue.
Misirlou and I are noting that it's silly to credit a guy who enters the game in the top of the seventh with his team up 3-2 as being in a "save situation," if you are not doing likewise for a guy who enters the game in the bottom of the sixth with his team up 15-0.
The guiding principle governing "save situations" should be: if this pitcher finishes out the game and his team never relinquishes the lead, will he qualify for a save. If the answer is yes, then it's a save situation. Either that, or find some way to appropriately measure those save sitautions where the reliever was in a practical save situation (you know, where he was brought with the intent of finishing the game). But splitting the difference makes absolutley no sense.
I think the argument is that they don't want to award holds for that 15-0 game... As I said save situation is a stat designed to credit a pitcher for blown saves and holds. That is the only purpose of it. A pitcher who comes into a 15-0 game, and if that is called a save situation, then allows 7 runs in an inning and leaves, he would be leaving with the save situation intact, and getting credit for a hold.
Guy comes in in the bottom of the first inning down 6-4. In the top of the second, he in replaced for a PH, and his team scores 4 runs. His replacement then finishes the game without relinquishing the lead. Who gets the win and who gets the save?
If he finishes the game, I imagine that the third pitcher gets the win and nobody gets the save.
Why? The second pitcher came in with his team behind, and left with the lead, which was never relinquished. Isn't the the definition of a relief win?
Then the problem is with the hold statistic. If you enter a 15-0 game and pitch effectively for three innings but the skipper allows someone else to throw the ninth, you ought to get a hold. If you were eligible for a save when you took the hill, you shouldn't be disqualified for at least a hold when you've fulfilled the performance-based requirements (effective pitching, three innings of work, never relinquish the lead).
In these cases, the official scorer is given lattitude. And I don't think he's giving the win to a guy who went 1 IP or less instead of the guy who went 7-plus.
Show me one situation in which a pitcher came in with his team tied or behind, left with the lead which was never relinquished, and didn't get the win.
Don't argue with it. The hold stat has a lot of flaws, it was a half ass created stat to find a way to credit middle relief pitchers, and if it was recreated today, they might change it's design. You can get a hold without actually getting an out, I personally would have made a qualifier allowing no more runs than innings pitched or something like that. But that isn't the hold stat.
The hold stat has a couple of well known flaws. You can record a hold without getting an out. You can record a hold while being completely ineffective. (say you come in in a three run game, allow two runs, put two men on base, get an out and leave...you will get a hold even if the guy who relieves you allows both runs to score giving you the loss) It's not a great stat, neither is the save stat, but they are the stats we have.
I will, once you show me one situation in which a pitcher threw one inning, the first, and was relieved by a guy who went the next 7, and the initial guy got the win. I bet I could find an example before you did. (-:
If this were a Houston no-hitting the Yankees situation, where everybody goes 1-2 innings, then the WP is obviously going to be the guy who took the mound when his team was trailing or tied and left the game with his team in the lead, since all of the relievers had a similar degree of effectiveness. But this is a very different sitaution, where the WP can be only one of two choices, and the latter did the overwhelming majority of the work. I feel that in this particular situation (which is almost impossible to imagine happening in today's game), the third pitcher would be credited with a win on the basis of being the more effective pitcher.
And I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't change my basic point. It's ridiculous to define something as a save sitaution if it include some, but not all, of the situations where the pitcher is in line for a save.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.