Applying the reasoning behind slugging % to saves

2323

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2013
Posts:
2,228
Liked Posts:
439
I think they should track saves by also including the number of outs in each save. Similar to the way slugging % distinguishes different types of hits (as opposed to batting average,which treats all hits the same), you could essentially weight saves by the number of outs that the pitcher who gets the save was responsible for. So, for example, if the closer were to pitch all of the last two innings when getting the save, it would be a 6 point or 6 out save. This way a one out save and a 6 out save are differentiated.

Another aspect to this, that I like, is that it more properly acknowledges context when discussing closers of the past. This way Goose Gossage gets credit for all of his 2 and 3 inning saves and not all saves are weighed the same.
 

Boobaby1

New member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,236
Liked Posts:
1,180
I think they should track saves by also including the number of outs in each save. Similar to the way slugging % distinguishes different types of hits (as opposed to batting average,which treats all hits the same), you could essentially weight saves by the number of outs that the pitcher who gets the save was responsible for. So, for example, if the closer were to pitch all of the last two innings when getting the save, it would be a 6 point or 6 out save. This way a one out save and a 6 out save are differentiated.

Another aspect to this, that I like, is that it more properly acknowledges context when discussing closers of the past. This way Goose Gossage gets credit for all of his 2 and 3 inning saves and not all saves are weighed the same.

That makes sense. On the flip side, what would a no-out blown save be versus let's say a 5 out blown save. Even though it's a blown save, should one be credited as being better than the other since he recorded 5 outs on one versus not getting an out on the other?
 

2323

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2013
Posts:
2,228
Liked Posts:
439
That makes sense. On the flip side, what would a no-out blown save be versus let's say a 5 out blown save. Even though it's a blown save, should one be credited as being better than the other since he recorded 5 outs on one versus not getting an out on the other?

Interesting. I think the bigger flip side issue, to my op, is the issue of inherited runners. And I also think, relative to the issue you raise, that inherited runners are the end result of poor relief pitching. So I think Inherited runners is a stat that could be tracked. A three out save is more difficult when you inherit a bases loaded situation as a reliever.

But to more directly answer your question,Outs Per Appearance would be a way to get a feel what you're mentioning. If you have 3 more blown saves than someone else but your Outs Per Appearance is significantly higher, the circumstance you mention comes into focus. The thing I don't like about Sabe Outs is that it doesn't account for how many runners your leaving on base for the next guy.. Also, if a reliever inherits bases loaded and no outs, he could actually have a blown save by getting everyone out he faces. His first out could be a deep fly ball allowing the runner at 2nd and 3rd to tag up and advance.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
Is there a "baserunners allowed per save" stat somewhere? If not, it sure would make it easier to differentiate a closer who has command of his pitches versus a Marmol-type of closer who often puts 2 guys on, walks the bases loaded, etc.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,722
Liked Posts:
3,723
I don't see any point in trying to change saves because it's already a silly stat. Gregg was 18th in saves last year and has yet to even find a job. There are often better middle relief guys who get 0 credit because they get 0 saves. There's also very little consistency with them meaning someone who's great one year may be terrible the next in terms of them.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,924
saves are over rated..
especially since they changed if to 3runs or less lead for save situations. .
liked the way it originally was where the tie run had to be at bat..
too many easy saves now where they come in with 2-3 run lead noone on base and just need to get 1 or 2 outs..


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,955
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
I would look at WHIP and ERA as always. If his WHIP is near 1.30 and his ERA is in the 3-4 range his saves are not pretty.
 

2323

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2013
Posts:
2,228
Liked Posts:
439
Is there a "baserunners allowed per save" stat somewhere? If not, it sure would make it easier to differentiate a closer who has command of his pitches versus a Marmol-type of closer who often puts 2 guys on, walks the bases loaded, etc.

Speaking of that, I also think there should be a leverage stat for all relievers. Maybe something like: inherited runners + outs to record (**in the inning he entered the game)/appearances. The max value would be 6>> 3 inherited runners + 3 outs to get (** entered the game with no outs recorded in that inning)/1

I think the stats for relievers are inadequate. I also think it should be measured in more precise ways and in ways specific to relieving rather than shoe-horning the typical stats or cobbling them together. The bullpen is such a big part of the game now. It has unique elements to it. It shouldn't necessarily be overlaid by stats designed fir starters and hen applied to relievers.
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
Interesting idea, but I think the biggest problem is simply the issue of sample size. Relievers throw so few innings generally that there is always going to be a high level of variance in their statistics. If you check baseball-reference though it does keep track of leverage situations that guys threw in the splits tab.
 

2323

New member
Joined:
May 26, 2013
Posts:
2,228
Liked Posts:
439
Interesting idea, but I think the biggest problem is simply the issue of sample size. Relievers throw so few innings generally that there is always going to be a high level of variance in their statistics. If you check baseball-reference though it does keep track of leverage situations that guys threw in the splits tab.

Perhaps sample size is A problem but is it really THE problem? Or does fewer innings provide yet another reason for different metrics?
 

Top