Saves, the most overrated stat in baseball
craig44
Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
There is a good story on espn about Andrew Miller and the most overrated stat in baseball, the save. It talks about the possibility of the "fireman" position coming back and how much more valuable a pitcher who shuts down a high leverage inning is than one who starts a clean 9th and goes 1-2-3. It's about time managers and execs woke up to this fact.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
I don't know, Yankee fans might disagree. Mariano Rivera was a nice option in the 9th
I think the main philosophy is that the best pitcher should be used in the most crucial situation in the game and not held out till the 9th. Ex. If you have runners on first and third with one out tie game in the sixth, it is much much more valuable for the "closer" to pitch then than to wait till the ninth to bring him in when it may be a much lower leverage situation
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Prior to the pitch count rule, I would have agreed, but these days, fireballer relievers do have big role and can be a major weapon.
This is correct, no question about it. But it is correct no matter when a team uses their fireball reliever once the starter has pitch counted out of the game.
Starter leaves after 7, game is tied:
Team A brings in their fireball reliever, he holds the other team scoreless for 4 outs, gets replaced by the #2 reliever who gives up a hit and a walk but no runs and team A scores in the bottom of the ninth for the win.
Team B brings in reliever #2, he gives up a run in the 8th, gets replaced by reliever #3 in the 9th who gives up another run, Team A scores one in the bottom of the ninth and lose by one.
Which team used their bullpen correctly:? Neither team ever had a save opportunity, but only Team B made the robotic move of saving Reliever #1 for such an opportunity, and they lost because they never brought in their best reliever. Team A used theirs because there was a situation where having their best reliever on the mound was important and they won.
I think the primary force behind the asinine way teams use their best relievers is money. The best relievers get evaluated in large part by how many "saves" they accumulate and would rebel against being brought in too often where a save opportunity didn't exist. The problem could be fixed to everyone's satisfaction if MLB would redefine "save". Giving up two runs in the ninth with a three run lead is damn poor pitching, and should not be recognized as anything other than damn poor pitching. Redefine a "save" as holding a one run lead only, and save opportunities instantly become both more rare and much more important. No manager would be foolish enough to have his best reliever sit on the bench waiting for one run leads in the ninth and would more or less be forced to use him in other situations much more important than two or three run leads in the ninth.
Dallas, you are correct. I have suffered through too many games waiting for the "closer" to come in and have him just waiting in the bullpen for the save situation to arise while the game was being lost. I am hopeful this trend will start changing soon.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Who is that bum on the red sox that can't pitch well if they bring him in unless the team is up?
Maybe your thinking of Robbie Ross? About the only thing he is good at is catching homeruns from the bullpen.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In a long ago thread I remember looking at the importance of a "closer" from another angle. Closers are, far too often, left sitting in the bullpen until a save opportunity exists, and far too often until that opportunity exists in the 9th inning. But, at least in the the years I looked at it then, a team that entered the 9th inning with a lead won 90% of the time. And they won 90% of the time whether they had Mariano Rivera, some other good closer, or nothing but bums in their bullpen. Making it to the 9th inning with the lead was overwhelmingly more important than who pitched in the 9th inning.
A team's best relief pitcher should pitch as many innings as his arm allows, and he should pitch those innings in games where the score is within a run (also considering men already in scoring position). Sometimes those innings will be in the 9th inning with a lead, but more often they will be in tie games in the 6th, 7th, or 8th. To lose a winnable game by a run and never bring in your best relief pitcher because a save opportunity didn't exist is inexcusable.
A perfect example from last night's red sox game as to why the closer "position" is the most overrated in all of baseball. Situation, 8th inning 2 on, 0 out sox up 4-3. Is this not the most critical part of the game? Is not this the situation where you want your most valuable reliever to enter the game and put out the rally? Instead, manager puts in a lesser reliever to save the closer for the ninth. Of course the lead is blown and the game lost in the 9th.
Some say closers need the 9th to get "hyped" or in the right frame of mind to really bring it. I say, if you can't get into a mental condition to pitch under pressure, you shouldn't be a closer and get the salary that goes with it. If most closers are so emotionally weak that they can only pitch well when they enter a fresh inning with clean bases, I am unimpressed. I would much rather have a reliever who could enter the game at any time to put out a rally than a 9th inning only closer.
Maybe we need a new stat so that a new breed of fireman can get recognition and the salary that goes with i t. Maybe call it an hlh or a high leverage hold.
Thoughts
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In your example you would burn out the closer. Isn't Miller on the DL now from overuse? Betances has been the high leverage guy for the Yanks and has punked out in September the last two years after 80+ innings of use. They have used him much less this year to keep him fresh.
162 games is a long season. If you burn out your best pitchers by August/September and don't have them for October, you're screwed.
I think he was trying to say bring your closer in the 8th inning in that situation. Doesn't mean he has to pitch the 9th as well
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Farrell has got to be the worst manager for the Sox since Grady Little. Last night's game was but one example. How many outs has he allowed his team to run into this year? Got to be dozens of stupid base running plays...the kind that usually get ironed out in Spring Training.
I'm not saying pitch your best reliever more than one inning or use him more often than normal. Just use him in high leverage situations and not only at the beginning of the 9th just because that is the way it has been done for the last 30 years. It would make that dominant pitcher so much more important to the team
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
use your best pitcher to win the game. Makes sense! Just like when the game is on the line (men on base, down one in the eighth, two outs and your light hitting shortstop is coming up to the plate), who do you want at bat? Do you want your best hitter or should you save him until the ninth when he might have the chance to win the game (again)?
The stat of 'saves' is indeed overrated, but I agree that Rivera was indeed a nice option in the ninth because he was an extremely effective pitcher. He would have often been a nice option in the eighth with a one run lead too(which he was used at times, but maybe not enough).
I actually looked at Rivera and his replacements when he was hurt, and then also immediately after he retired. His replacements racked up nearly identical save numbers and save percentage numbers. I'm not going to bother posting the numbers(they are on this board somewhere if anyone feels like searching).
So the question is, if Rivera was the greatest relief pitcher of all time(and he either was or in the top three), then shouldn't his mortal replacements have drastically different save numbers and save percentages while closing for the same set of teammates? Yet the Yankees 'closer' position didn't miss a beat with Soriano (who is also good, BUT we are talking about replacing the all time best).
Getting "saves" is as much about opportunity as it is about performance, and that is why they are overrated.
Except for the top few closers who have ERA's in the 1's, and WHIP's under 1.00, the closer position is a rotating door that is simply a matter of getting an opportunity to accumulate saves.
Shawn Chacon had 35 saves one year with a 7.11 ERA.
Antonio Alfonseca led the league with 45 year while putting up a 4.24 ERA.
In other words, you don't even have to be mediocre to pile up a ton of saves. That alone tells me saves are overrated.