Here is compelling evidence why the Save Rule needs to be changed!

[Rich the Giants fan]

Saves are a joke IMO. They were created to possibly add a high-dollar player on the payroll and create more lucrative futures for up-n-coming closers. Success by the MBLPA.

While I agree the three inning rule needs to be tweaked, I hardly agree that saves are a "joke" stat. The great majority of saves occur in high pressure, ninth inning situations. Additionally, the saves rule was created by sportswriter Jerome Holtzman in 1960 and tabulated it himself until it became an official stat in 1969. There weren't many "high-dollar" relief pitchers back in 1969.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Saves are a joke IMO. They were created to possibly add a high-dollar player on the payroll and create more lucrative futures for up-n-coming closers. Success by the MBLPA.

High-dollar players in 1969?

"Hey, that good looking Fingers kid in Oakland needs a break so he'll make the HOF some day . . ."

[RaysFan_98]

Saves are a joke IMO. They were created to possibly add a high-dollar player on the payroll and create more lucrative futures for up-n-coming closers. Success by the MBLPA.

Why are saves a joke? They often come with high pressure situations and high stress pitches.

[deadball-era-rules]

Saves are a joke IMO. They were created to possibly add a high-dollar player on the payroll and create more lucrative futures for up-n-coming closers. Success by the MBLPA.

Absolutely. Eventually the owners will start to realize how worthless closers are per dollar, and hopefully we'll see teams start to invest their money in pitchers with some real return on investment. It's pathetic how focused managers have become on the save- to the point where they'll do anything to set up that save situation for that closer, and it's as if that closer is the only person capable of pitching under a save condition. Makes for very boring and bad baseball in my opinion.

[dominik]

the save is not a rule. it is a stat.

IMO there is no need to change anything. baseball is about winning games. it doesn't matter what a players stats are.
if you don't like saves invent another stat.

[Danielh41]

And yet, on August 1, Joe Nathan came out of the bullpen to pitch the 10th inning for the Rangers and got shelled. He gave up three runs on two home runs, and a lot of the crowd started leaving the Ballpark. But the Rangers managed to score 4 runs in the bottom of the 10th, and Joe Nathan wound up getting the win. Sometimes offenses bail pitchers out. Are we going to change the rule for awarding pitchers wins too?

I remember hearing talk about changing the save rule in 2007 when Wes Littleton pitched the final three innings of a game for the Rangers. When he came in in the 7th, the Rangers were only leading by 11 at 14-3. Texas tacked on 16 more runs in the 8th and 9th innings. Wes Littleton went out for the bottom of the 9th with a 27 run lead, needing to finish the inning to get a save. He did, but people were in an uproar about how a save was awarded to someone pitching with a 30-3 lead.

[Ben Grimm]

Saves are a joke IMO. They were created to possibly add a high-dollar player on the payroll and create more lucrative futures for up-n-coming closers. Success by the MBLPA.

[LarrySC]

I was reading Jayson Stark's ESPN column just now and here is part of what he wrote about LA Angels pitcher Jerome Williams:

One addendum here: (Jerome)Williams also managed to record a save while giving up eight hits and five runs. No kidding. And, as ESPN Kernel collector Doug Kern reports, only one other pitcher has gotten a save while allowing that many hits and that many runs in the history of the modern save rule: Dave Goltz, for the Twins, on June 6, 1973. Goltz somehow came away with a save after giving up 13 hits and eight runs that day. And here's how ridiculous that save was: Mariano Rivera has gone 13 years without giving up that many hits and runs in the same month.

Here is the game log from that game:

LA Angels 15, Texas Rangers 8

Williams pitched the last 4 innings. Under the current Save Rule, he is entitled to a Save because he pitched at least 3 innings. I have always thought that part of the rule is preposterous and should be changed. Why reward a pitcher who gives up that many hits/runs in a game? Granted, he never actually faced the potential tying or winning run, but come on!

Who is with me on this?