Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Save Rule

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Save Rule

    Credit a pitcher with a save when he meets all three of the following conditions:
    (1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club; and
    (2) He is not the winning pitcher; and
    (3) He qualifies under one of the following conditions:
    - (a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or
    - (b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batsmen he faces; or
    - (c) He pitches effectively for at least three innings. No more than one save may be credited in each game


    Do you like the current save rule or would you make any changes?
    13
    I say keep it as is
    38.46%
    5
    I say change it
    61.54%
    8
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  • #2
    I'd vote for "I don't care as long as managers stopped managing to the save stat".

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't hate the save rule as it is now, but I do believe there are ways to make it better:

      Getting rid of 3(b) would eliminate garbage saves and scrapping 3(c) would prevent situations where players get saves in complete blowouts. Last, modify 3(a) so that the lead is one run and that the pitcher getting the save has to start and finish the inning . That'd make the statistic rarer and much more meaningful.
      46 wins to match last year's total

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by metfan13 View Post
        I'd vote for "I don't care as long as managers stopped managing to the save stat".
        Exactly

        Originally posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
        I don't hate the save rule as it is now, but I do believe there are ways to make it better:

        Getting rid of 3(b) would eliminate garbage saves and scrapping 3(c) would prevent situations where players get saves in complete blowouts. Last, modify 3(a) so that the lead is one run and that the pitcher getting the save has to start and finish the inning . That'd make the statistic rarer and much more meaningful.
        I'm ok with mid-inning saves, but it should be the tying run in scoring position in the 9th inning.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Brooklyn View Post
          I'm ok with mid-inning saves, but it should be the tying run in scoring position in the 9th inning.
          Yeah, that makes sense. I'm just a little tired of garbage saves.
          46 wins to match last year's total

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
            Yeah, that makes sense. I'm just a little tired of garbage saves.
            Like ones where you pitch the last out of the 8th in a 2-1 contest, your team scores ten, then you "save" the game when you finish it? I think the save opportunity needs to be present when you go for the finish
            "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
              Like ones where you pitch the last out of the 8th in a 2-1 contest, your team scores ten, then you "save" the game when you finish it? I think the save opportunity needs to be present when you go for the finish
              Well, yeah, that and players just coming in for one or two batters and getting the save.

              Rollie Fingers had the most 1/3 inning saves with 39 followed by Jeff Reardon with 34.

              Hoffman had 30, Smith had 26 and Rivera had 24.

              Fingers also has the most 4 out plus saves with 201.
              46 wins to match last year's total

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
                Credit a pitcher with a save when he meets all three of the following conditions:
                (1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club; and
                (2) He is not the winning pitcher; and
                (3) He qualifies under one of the following conditions:
                - (a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or
                - (b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batsmen he faces; or
                - (c) He pitches effectively for at least three innings. No more than one save may be credited in each game
                Do you like the current save rule or would you make any changes?
                Remember that 30-3 Rangers-Orioles ballgame from '07? Wes Littleton got a 3 inning save in that one. That part of the rule needs to be scrapped (even though I voted to keep it as is).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why do we even need a save rule?

                  Assume a team is winning 3-2, bottom of the 7th. Starting pitcher leaves the game with bases loaded and no outs. Relief Pitcher A cleans up the mess. Relief pitcher B pitches the 9th and gets the save. Relief Pitcher A had a lot more to do with "saving" the game then the guy credited with the save

                  I don't even think we should change the rule - just get rid of the stat. Judge all relief pitchers the same. ERA, WHIP, Strikeouts, however you want.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Does the Players Association have any say in rule changes?

                    Since many players would use the Save stat as leverage during salary negotiations, getting rid of the stat altogether would be a huge deal.
                    Would getting rid of the stat mean ignoring it in historical records?

                    I think the save rule is too liberal. It should be tightened up. But there's no reason to get rid of it completely.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Brooklyn View Post
                      Why do we even need a save rule?

                      Assume a team is winning 3-2, bottom of the 7th. Starting pitcher leaves the game with bases loaded and no outs. Relief Pitcher A cleans up the mess. Relief pitcher B pitches the 9th and gets the save. Relief Pitcher A had a lot more to do with "saving" the game then the guy credited with the save

                      I don't even think we should change the rule - just get rid of the stat. Judge all relief pitchers the same. ERA, WHIP, Strikeouts, however you want.
                      In that situation Relief pitcher A would get a Hold right? Holds should be more of a recognized stat, because of situations like this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What really is the big concern over this rule and stat?

                        Are there not other rules that need to be fixed? Yes 1) Instant Reply 2) Umpires not being able to reverse certain judgement calls 3) Current seeding method for post season play 4) Use of unlimited numbers of pitcher changes each inning 5) titles and awards given to players found guilty of PED use during the particular season 6) players placed in the HoF who are clearly inappropriate as honorees 7) using lasers to correctly call balls and strikes

                        Are there not other stats that have dubious components? Yes. 1) Wins for pitchers who get hammered in games 2) RBIs for batters who hit weak grounders with fast runners on third base 3) earned runs against pitchers and hits for batters when a ball is lost in the sun or against stadium lights 4) Wins for relievers who pitch very little in the game 5) assists for fielders when a batted ball or thrown ball strikes them during a defensive play that results in an out

                        Are there not other stats or 'titles' that are over rated, some times with no correlation to actual team success, that affects player payroll, fan recognition and general 'evaluation'? Yes 1) Pitcher wins. 2) RBIs 3) Fielding Percentage 4) Fielding double plays 5) MVP awards 6) Gold Glove winners 7) All Star games appearances 8) Cy Young Awards

                        All stats have a history. Changing how they are counted is of course an issue for historical reasons. It seems to me that this is one of many stats that could be corrected, but it's hard to see why it has more attention than many of the others.

                        I would much rather go back and correctly name MVPs (since 1901), name Cy Young winners correctly back to 1901, correct many of the GG winners, and fix the current HOF roster. Saves is on my list, but it's like number 15 or 20.
                        Last edited by drstrangelove; 10-10-2012, 12:49 PM.
                        "It's better to look good, than be good."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                          What really is the big concern over this rule and stat?

                          All stats have a history. Changing how they are counted is of course an issue for historical reasons. It seems to me that this is one of many stats that could be corrected, but it's hard to see why it has more attention than many of the others.
                          my problem with this stat, unlike all others, is that manager's manage to it. Closers get paid closer money, and get all surly when they aren't put in "save situations" to pad their stats and help with the next contract. A stat should not drive how the game is played, and unfortunately the save does.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Brooklyn View Post
                            my problem with this stat, unlike all others, is that manager's manage to it. Closers get paid closer money, and get all surly when they aren't put in "save situations" to pad their stats and help with the next contract. A stat should not drive how the game is played, and unfortunately the save does.
                            Well, ok, but consider this>

                            1) the top 10 pitchers with saves in the AL have an average ERA+ of 189. While they do make on average a salary of $4.2MM per year, it's really an empirical question as to whether being able to get 70+ appearances @ an ERA+ of 189 each year in tight ball games is worth that. Clearly a lot of relievers can't handle the wear and tear of pitching that way and still at a quality level that high.

                            It's simply erroneous to think that they make that money just because they get saves. They are in a position to get saves because they can pitch successfully. It's like saying lawyers in big name cases are overpaid because they happen to be lawyers in big cases. They are only IN big cases because they proved they could handle them. The money comes from being able to handle the cases.

                            2) It's ironic that we think managers are too stupid to understand what they are doing, but we give them credit for putting the 'big bat' in spot 3 to drive in the RBIs, or the fast player in center to catch balls, or the good leader at catcher. Why would you put a weak pitcher in the 9th inning to handle a close game? Why would you want a pitcher as a closer who wears out if he is called in the game 3 out of 4 nights? Why would you choose young, nervous players to close tight games for your team in a pennant race?

                            Do we really think that all players can handle the derision from fans and sportswriters when they blow a lead in a big game? Rivera lost game 7 of the world series about 11 years ago. He was fine afterwards. Many pitchers with talent never recover from failures in less important games.

                            3) Bottom line: we argue that the manager is stupid (he is driven by a dumb stat), the relievers are self centered for wanting to get paid what they are worth, and the GMs are idiots (paying a lot of money for a 'closer'.) Is there any actual concrete data to support this? Why do we think everyone is dumb, when we have no data to support the hypothesis that closers are overpaid?


                            If you could find a batter who could hit .400 with a .650 slugging % with RISP, tie ballgames or when behind by 2 or less runs, but only in the last 2 innings of a game and only every other night, how much would he be worth? I'm fairly certain he'd be highly desired over a slightly above average player.
                            Last edited by drstrangelove; 10-10-2012, 06:51 PM.
                            "It's better to look good, than be good."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The only change I would make would be to eliminate the 3-inning save rule, though that's not as common as detractors of the save rule would like to believe.
                              San Francisco Giants, World Series Champions in 2010, 2012, and 2014!!!

                              "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts" ~ Albert Einstein

                              "Royals wear crowns, but Champions Kiss the Ring" ~ Jeremy Affeldt

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X