Master Index of Archived Threads


The Save

DocTee Sep 06 2007 02:10 PM

Apropos of our recent thread on Wagner and two inning saves, Jason Stark: [url]http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3006756&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2[/url]

metirish Sep 06 2007 02:29 PM

I like this a lot. ] 2. But why stop there? The idea that a pitcher deserves massive credit for getting three outs before he allows three runs is preposterous. So we would love to propose modifying the current save rule this way: • A save of one inning or less would require no more than a one-run lead to protect -- or the reliever would have to enter with the tying run on base or at the plate. • A save of between 1 1/3 and two innings would require no more than a two-run lead -- or the reliever would have to enter with the tying run on base or at the plate. • A save of more than two innings would use the definition in the Wes Littleton Rule -- no more than a three-run lead unless the tying run is at the plate or on deck. One general manager was so enthusiastic about this idea, he told us he'd even be willing to propose this rule change at the GM meetings this fall. Wish him luck.

Edgy DC Sep 06 2007 02:38 PM

It becomes a straw-man article the minute he writes "massive credit." There's nothing massive about it. If you want to complicate things in distinguishing saves, try this. (Save Outs) X (4 - (Score Advantage)) X (Postion of Tying Run on Bases + 1) A guy who gets the easiest save by coming in with the bases empty, two outs in the ninth of a three-run game, gets one save point. The guy who comes in for the harddest save --- with no outs in the seventh in a one run game and the tying run on third --- and saves it, gets 54 points, 36 for the seventh inning, and 18 for the subsequent two.

Nymr83 Sep 06 2007 02:38 PM

]So now that we've got that point settled, here's another of our longtime gripes. This stat no longer merely measures the performance of closers. It has somehow hijacked managers everywhere. It has made them slaves to one of the worst stats in baseball. And it has turned into the only number in baseball that actually dictates strategy. Watch any game on any night. You're almost guaranteed to see more absurd evidence that the way closers are used "has now been defined pretty much entirely by the save rule," says Baseball Prospectus' always-insightful Joe Sheehan. "It is the most ridiculous case of a stat driving a tactic in baseball history, and how that has been lost in the discussion boggles my mind." Amen. Kill the save ALTOGETHER and award holds to any relief pitcher who does their job under a better defined rule, and forget about who finishes the game.

DocTee Sep 06 2007 02:46 PM

NYMR, that's the part I found most compelling, too. The comparison between Joe Borowski and Rafael Betancourt is amazing.

attgig Sep 06 2007 04:01 PM

Edgy DC wrote: It becomes a straw-man article the minute he writes "massive credit." There's nothing massive about it. If you want to complicate things in distinguishing saves, try this. (Save Outs) X (4 - (Score Advantage)) X (Postion of Tying Run on Bases + 1) A guy who gets the easiest save by coming in with the bases empty, two outs in the ninth of a three-run game, gets one save point. The guy who comes in for the harddest save --- with no outs in the seventh in a one run game and the tying run on third --- and saves it, gets 54 points, 36 for the seventh inning, and 18 for the subsequent two. i like it. but what if you multiply your formula by the inning number? that way, an out in the 9th means more than an out in the 7th. which it does, because in the 7th, your team still has opportunities to come back. also, if your team loses the lead after a reliever notches save points, they automatically go down teh toilet (even if your team comes back for the win).

Nymr83 Sep 06 2007 04:27 PM

NONONO, the idea that the 9th inning is more important has to END. when the heart of the order is coming up in the 8th THAT is the big inning and the one into which the taem's best reliever should be inserted.

metsmarathon Sep 06 2007 05:05 PM

the events in the ninth inning are more pivotal as to the eventual outcome of the game. if you're up by one run in the 6th or 7th, with the heart of their lineup due, do you want your closer in then as well, or would you rather keep him until the ninth, when you might face the same heart due back up, and the margin hasn't yet increased in your favor? because it is true that you do have time to recover from the events of the first inning through the eighth inning much moreso than you can recover from the events of the ninth inning. sure, those early outs count as part of the same 1/27th of the ballgame as the last out does. what isnt the same is your chances of still managing a win if you allow run in early innings versus late innings.

Nymr83 Sep 06 2007 05:08 PM

the 6th inning is a little more questionable, since that heart of the order may come up again... of course you may have a bigger lead by then as well. but anyone who thinks the 9th inning of a 1-run game is more important than the 8th inning when 2-3-4 or 3-4-5 are due up in the 8th has, imo, been brainwashed by the save rule. edit- and i'm not a strong believer in that whole "chance to recover" thing... if you are trying your hardest all the time theres no reason that you arent equally likely to add 1 to your lead in the 6th as you are to come back and score 1 after they've tied it in the 9th. play like you need more runs to begin with.

Edgy DC Sep 06 2007 05:26 PM

attgig wrote: ="Edgy DC"]It becomes a straw-man article the minute he writes "massive credit." There's nothing massive about it. If you want to complicate things in distinguishing saves, try this. (Save Outs) X (4 - (Score Advantage)) X (Postion of Tying Run on Bases + 1) A guy who gets the easiest save by coming in with the bases empty, two outs in the ninth of a three-run game, gets one save point. The guy who comes in for the harddest save --- with no outs in the seventh in a one run game and the tying run on third --- and saves it, gets 54 points, 36 for the seventh inning, and 18 for the subsequent two. i like it. but what if you multiply your formula by the inning number? that way, an out in the 9th means more than an out in the 7th. which it does, because in the 7th, your team still has opportunities to come back. also, if your team loses the lead after a reliever notches save points, they automatically go down teh toilet (even if your team comes back for the win). That adds promise. One can also use decimals. 6.67, 8.33, etc. But it shouldn't be overlooked (but is in most pitching stats) that the third out of every inning is more inportant than the first two, because it's the only out that erases baserunners. The best tool is the win expectancy finder. It's leading us toward finding the one statistic that allows us to compare all ballplayers on a single spectrum. Hail the WEF. Hail M.E.T.B.O.T.

metsmarathon Sep 06 2007 05:37 PM

well, you are equally likely. thing is, you don't know what your chances of scoring those runs is until you score them. much like getting a hit on a given occasion. you probability of getting that hit is, towards the end of the season, and all things considered, roughly the same as your batting average entering that at bat. only after the at bat do you know if your probability of getting a hit was higher, or lower, than your batting average entering the at bat. look at it this way. at the end of the season, if you had a 0.333 batting average, you could say that at any point in the season, you had a 1 in 3 chance of getting a hit. but if you entered an at bat with a 0.300 batting average during the season, you would think that your chances of getting a hit were only 3 in 10. only after the at bat do you know what your probability of getting a hit there really was. likewise in a game. you don't really know what your probability of scoring any runs after the 6th inning is until after you get to the end of the game. its too small a sample size. so if you have that one-run lead in, say, the 7th, you may think you have another two chances to score runs and that since you already have a lead that you are more likely to score than your opponent, but you may be wrong. and you may enter the ninth with still only that one run lead, and your best reliever has already been used up. and then, was the 7th inning really all that important in retrospect? this decade, entering the top of the 7th inning with a one run lead, the home team has a 71% chance of winning. if they come to bat in the bottom of that inning suddenly down by one run, they now have a 38% chance of winning - a swing of 34% this decade, entering the top of the 8th inning with a one run lead, the home team has a 77% chance of winning. if they come to bat in the bottom of that inning suddenly down by one run, they now have a 30% chance of winning - a swing of 46% this decade, entering the top of the 9th inning with a one run lead, the home team has a 86% chance of winning. if they come to bat in the bottom of that inning suddenly down by one run, they now have only a 19% chance of winning - a swing of 68% which inning would you say is most important to prevent those two runs in? ... david wright had an awful april this year. would you rather he have an awful september instead?

Nymr83 Sep 06 2007 06:40 PM

]But it shouldn't be overlooked (but is in most pitching stats) that the third out of every inning is more inportant than the first two, because it's the only out that erases baserunners. thats a good point. ]david wright had an awful april this year. would you rather he have an awful september instead? if that meant the Mets would have won more then (and by consequence been up more games in the standings now) it may have been worth it. ]look at it this way. at the end of the season, if you had a 0.333 batting average, you could say that at any point in the season, you had a 1 in 3 chance of getting a hit. but if you entered an at bat with a 0.300 batting average during the season, you would think that your chances of getting a hit were only 3 in 10. only after the at bat do you know what your probability of getting a hit there really was by that logic you don't know your chances of winning the game until its over either and your next paragraph makes no sense. your expected win% tables are as useless going into an inning as you'd say a player's BA is going into an AB. ]but you may be wrong. and you may enter the ninth with still only that one run lead, and your best reliever has already been used up. and then, was the 7th inning really all that important in retrospect? you can't go back and a manage a game in retrospect. bring your best reliever in at what you BELIEVE is the most important part of the game AT THE TIME... you say you might still only have a 1 run lead later, well i say you might have no lead at all if you let Mota face Utley, Burrell, & Howard in the 8th because "omg iz not te 9th i cant uze wagnor!"

attgig Sep 07 2007 03:05 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ]look at it this way. at the end of the season, if you had a 0.333 batting average, you could say that at any point in the season, you had a 1 in 3 chance of getting a hit. but if you entered an at bat with a 0.300 batting average during the season, you would think that your chances of getting a hit were only 3 in 10. only after the at bat do you know what your probability of getting a hit there really was by that logic you don't know your chances of winning the game until its over either and your next paragraph makes no sense. your expected win% tables are as useless going into an inning as you'd say a player's BA is going into an AB. that was my point too. it's pointless to speak in probabilities, if you already know what happened. and your probability going into the at bat is based on not only your past average, but who you're facing, what park you're hitting at, the way the wind's blowing, if you scratched your crotch when you stepped up to the plate, etc etc etc. Nymr83 wrote: ]but you may be wrong. and you may enter the ninth with still only that one run lead, and your best reliever has already been used up. and then, was the 7th inning really all that important in retrospect? you can't go back and a manage a game in retrospect. bring your best reliever in at what you BELIEVE is the most important part of the game AT THE TIME... you say you might still only have a 1 run lead later, well i say you might have no lead at all if you let Mota face Utley, Burrell, & Howard in the 8th because "omg iz not te 9th i cant uze wagnor!" you always have your special case of facing utley burrell and howard, but honestly, there really isn't a great way to categorize the significance of their at bats mathematically for the RP.

Nymr83 Sep 07 2007 09:37 PM

no there isn't, but i think anyone with a brain between his or her ears can recognize that if Utley, Burrell, and Howard are due up in the 8th THAT is the most important relief inning... but the save rule has distorted that and made people including idiot managers say "well the 9th must be more important, its a save!"