PDA

View Full Version : And this is why saves are a stupid stat


doublem23
07-19-2010, 07:59 AM
Since Bobby Jenks left the game with the Sox still in the lead, he does not get a blown save for yesterday's efforts.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/07/jenks-not-charged-with-blown-save-in-soxs-loss.html

october23sp
07-19-2010, 08:00 AM
We all knew who ****ed us anyways. Don't need an official stat saying Bobby blew it.

doublem23
07-19-2010, 08:02 AM
We all knew who ****ed us anyways. Don't need an official stat saying Bobby blew it.

Way to miss the point; people still quote saves like it's a meaningful measure for relief pitchers.

october23sp
07-19-2010, 08:06 AM
Way to miss the point; people still quote saves like it's a meaningful measure for relief pitchers.

Didn't that become apparent when a guy got a save in this game?

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=270822201

TomBradley72
07-19-2010, 08:26 AM
No stat is perfect, they all have flaws.

Run a sort on mlb.com/stats for the leaders in saves as see if it that pretty much indicates the best closers in the game.

balke
07-19-2010, 08:27 AM
Sometimes I get so disappointed in White Sox fans. The reactions of people to Bobby after the good string of relief he put together is very disappointing.

This may not be in the blown save category - but its really his first bad outing since May. I'd rather see one terrible outing than 4 bad ones. This was one game - Move on and keep hold of 1st place.

DonnieDarko
07-19-2010, 08:32 AM
People overreacting a bit, much?

Oh wait, this is WSI. Sorry, I almost forgot!

WisSoxFan
07-19-2010, 08:50 AM
http://www.fantasybaseballdugout.com/2008/09/14/saves-baseball-origination/

Interesting article by Jerome Holtzman on the origins of the save. I agree with doublem - the save, in general, is not a great stat. It has nothing to do with losing yesterday.

Oblong
07-19-2010, 08:56 AM
The save stat is the only one I can think of in sprots that dictates how a coach/manager will decide who plays.

Todd Jones got a lot of saves for the 2006 Tigers yet anyone who watched that team for that year will tell you it was Joel Zumaya who came in and "saved" the team by getting a key out with a runner on base.

Color me unimpressed that a guy can come in with nobody on base and get 3 outs. I want to see what you do with the tying run on 2nd and 1 out.

LoveYourSuit
07-19-2010, 11:04 AM
Best stat to judge a reliever (especially a closer) to me is WHIP.

PhillipsBubba
07-19-2010, 11:07 AM
Way to miss the point; people still quote saves like it's a meaningful measure for relief pitchers.

I agree.

Saves, holds, quality starts....take them all with a grain of salt.

Bobby Thigpen
07-19-2010, 11:17 AM
No stat is perfect, they all have flaws
I'm pretty sure HRs is. You either hit it out or you don't.

doublem23
07-19-2010, 11:35 AM
Best stat to judge a reliever (especially a closer) to me is WHIP.

WHIP doesn't take into account how often a pitcher is putting balls in play, though, or what kind of outs he's retiring.

K-rate, FB/GB/LD splits, and BABIP are all worth looking at, too.

LoveYourSuit
07-19-2010, 11:39 AM
WHIP doesn't take into account how often a pitcher is putting balls in play, though, or what kind of outs he's retiring.

K-rate, FB/GB/LD splits, and BABIP are all worth looking at, too.

I still go with WHIP.


It tells you if a reliever is keeping people off base, that to me is the most important factor for a reliever only facing 3-4 batters per night.

I think Bobby's K-rate is very high this year, and that's not getting the job done.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 11:41 AM
Like him or not, Billy Beane knows this to be true, at least from a cost standpoint. Consider this:

-flipped Billy Taylor at his peak for Jason Isringhausen
-got two years of Izzy right before he peaked and got draft picks while Izzy's salary tripled in FA
-flipped Koch at the absolute peak before his salary doubled then tripled
-let Foulke walk for compensation picks; Foulke had one good year left but was paid handsomely for 3
-got Dotel for Teahan and got one good year from OD before his arm fell off, and replaced him with Street
-got 4 cheap years out of Huston Street then packaged him as the centerpiece for Matt Holliday before Street's salary skyrocketed. jury still out on the trade, but got a former 1st and 2nd rounder as well as a top prospect hitter

It's revisionist history, but the best time to deal Jenks was after '07 or '08. His strikeout numbers were going down, and his salary was skyrocketing. The problem was that KW had no one to replace him. If he had known then what he knows now, he would have dealt Jenks for a couple of prospects, reinvested the cash on a designated hitter, and cram Thornton or Putz into the closer spot. The problem was that, besides Jenks, the bullpen was absolutely terrible in 2007, and Bobby was one of the lone brightspots on a terrible team. Thornton, Dotel, Linebrink (gulp), Carrasco, and Masset were probably good enough as a group that Bobby (who had a good year) would not have been missed too much.

doublem23
07-19-2010, 11:42 AM
I still go with WHIP.


It tells you if a reliever is keeping people off base, that to me is the most important factor for a reliever only facing 3-4 batters per night.

I think Bobby's K-rate is very high this year, and that's not getting the job done.

But it doesn't tell you if a guy is getting people out because of luck or skill. Especially with relief pitchers who only throw an inning, 2 max per outing, WHIP can be very volatile. Like just about everything, there's no end-all stat that tells the whole story. If you focus solely on WHIP, you're going to miss a lot of important stuff.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 11:48 AM
But it doesn't tell you if a guy is getting people out because of luck or skill. Especially with relief pitchers who only throw an inning, 2 max per outing, WHIP can be very volatile. Like just about everything, there's no end-all stat that tells the whole story. If you focus solely on WHIP, you're going to miss a lot of important stuff.

I think that this is the very reason why saves are still viewed by the "experts" as an important stat. WHIP, BABIP, K/9, etc are all very telling and important as a whole, but they can be volatile and unreliable when the guy throws one inning. I feel that writers, analysts, managers, and GM's look at it all and say, "Well, did the team win the game? They did, okay, mark it a save and lets move on to another day."

doublem23
07-19-2010, 11:49 AM
I think that this is the very reason why saves are still viewed by the "experts" as an important stat. WHIP, BABIP, K/9, etc are all very telling and important as a whole, but they can be volatile and unreliable when the guy throws one inning. I feel that writers, analysts, managers, and GM's look at it all and say, "Well, did the team win the game? They did, okay, mark it a save and lets move on to another day."

No expert views saves as an important stat.

LoveYourSuit
07-19-2010, 11:53 AM
But it doesn't tell you if a guy is getting people out because of luck or skill. Especially with relief pitchers who only throw an inning, 2 max per outing, WHIP can be very volatile. Like just about everything, there's no end-all stat that tells the whole story. If you focus solely on WHIP, you're going to miss a lot of important stuff.


Guys with low WHIPs into July usually means you are more good than lucky.

Look at Bobby's high Ks/9, what has that done for him?

He is missing more bats than he has for most of his career but yet the other 2/3 of the batters he faces appear to most be getting on base.

I agree, the more bats you miss the better chances you have. But not in Bobby's case. Maybe it's just and odd thing in his case or the fact that he is walking a lot of people too.

TDog
07-19-2010, 12:09 PM
Since Bobby Jenks left the game with the Sox still in the lead, he does not get a blown save for yesterday's efforts.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/07/jenks-not-charged-with-blown-save-in-soxs-loss.html


I was going to post early in the game thread that Jenks wasn't given the blown save yesterday, that Santos blew the save, but I saw what was going on in the thread and decided it was best to walk away. Honestly, the fact that it is news that Jenks wasn't charged with the blown save, with all the stat geeks around here, astounds me.

Of course, if Jenks had given up a hit to the first man he faced in the eighth Thursday night, he would have been stuck with the blown save. As it was he got credit for a "tough save."

If you come into the game with a lead (within the save margin) after the fifth inning and the lead is lost while you are on the mound, it's a blown save. If Santos strikes out the side and the Sox win, he gets the save. If he he loses the lead, it's a blown save. It's not rocket science.

I don't like the save rule. I think it determines too many managerial moves, which is something a statistic shouldn't do.

Of course, blown saves are not an official stat, probably due to situations like the White Sox experienced Sunday. Also, if Rauch had stayed in the game Friday night and surrendered a home run to Rios to lose the lead, he wouldn't have been charged with a blown save because he didn't have a chance to earn a save when he entered. But if his relief had lost the lead, his relief would have been charged with the informal blown save. There are sites that track blown saves, just as there are sites that track holds, but technically, blown saves don't go on your permanent record.

Still, Jenks entered the game with a save opportunity and he didn't convert it without retiring a hitter. Whether he was charged with an informal blown save is irrelevant.

Craig Grebeck
07-19-2010, 12:11 PM
I was going to post early in the game thread that Jenks wasn't given the blown save yesterday, that Santos blew the save, but I saw what was going on in the thread and decided it was best to walk away. Honestly, the fact that it is news that Jenks wasn't charged with the blown save, with all the stat geeks around here, astounds me.

Of course, if Jenks had given up a hit to the first man he faced in the eighth Thursday night, he would have been stuck with the blown save. As it was he got credit for a "tough save."

If you come into the game with a lead (within the save margin) after the fifth inning and the lead is lost while you are on the mound, it's a blown save. If Santos strikes out the side and the Sox win, he gets the save. If he he loses the lead, it's a blown save. It's not rocket science.

I don't like the save rule. I think it determines too many managerial moves, which is something a statistic shouldn't do.

Of course, blown saves are not an official stat, probably due to situations like the White Sox experienced Sunday. Also, if Rauch had stayed in the game Friday night and surrendered a home run to Rios to lose the lead, he wouldn't have been charged with a blown save because he didn't have a chance to earn a save when he entered. But if his relief had lost the lead, his relief would have been charged with the informal blown save. There are sites that track blown saves, just as there are sites that track holds, but technically, blown saves don't go on your permanent record.

Still, Jenks entered the game with a save opportunity and he didn't convert it without retiring a hitter. Whether he was charged with an informal blown save is irrelevant.
How, in so many words, could one say so little?

Jenks sucked. News to no one. Saves suck. News to no one. You hate "stat geeks." Once again, news to no one.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 12:25 PM
No expert views saves as an important stat.

Then why are these guys paid so much, why does every newspaper in the country notate it in the boxscore, why do all star managers choose relievers based on saves, why are closer in the hall of fame, etc?

Sure certain "experts" don't view it as important, but too many do. GM's keep shelling out the cash, and talking heads keep talking about Gagne's streak or K-Rod's record.

LoveYourSuit
07-19-2010, 12:27 PM
What's funny about all this, Jenks will save his next 4 changes and go 24 of 25 and someone will point out the fact that he has only blown 1 game and we should sign him to a long extension.

Mark my words, someone will be wishing for a long term contract for Jenks on this board.

Dick Allen
07-19-2010, 12:40 PM
Most of us know that these stats are extremely flawed. Yet what do these pitchers' agents come armed with for an arbitration hearing? That's where it must really hit the fan.

pudge
07-19-2010, 12:41 PM
What's more important than saves not being a critical stat is the fact that saves have completely messed with the way a manager might run a game - this whole concept of saving your best guy for a "save situation" which may or may not be the most critical point of the game is insane - it also feeds into the ego of these players not wanting to be removed from the "closer" role, even when they are clearly not up for it... It also forces managers to keep the same guy in that "role" even when he's struggling, just because he's been labeled the "closer" (and in most cases, paid as such).

I'm not saying a great closer can't have an impact, but teams would be so far better off if this stat never existed.

TDog
07-19-2010, 12:47 PM
How, in so many words, could one say so little?

Jenks sucked. News to no one. Saves suck. News to no one. You hate "stat geeks." Once again, news to no one.

Saves, like most stats, are meaningless. You're right. It seems a tautology that should need no further elaboration.

The fact that this thread is premised on informing people of something that should be news to no one, makes posting in this thread a waste of time. And for that I apologize.

And I guess the fact that I know enough about meaningless stats to not need a link to tell me that Santos got the blown save Sunday afternoon makes me a bigger stat geek than most.

TDog
07-19-2010, 12:57 PM
What's more important than saves not being a critical stat is the fact that saves have completely messed with the way a manager might run a game - this whole concept of saving your best guy for a "save situation" which may or may not be the most critical point of the game is insane - it also feeds into the ego of these players not wanting to be removed from the "closer" role, even when they are clearly not up for it... It also forces managers to keep the same guy in that "role" even when he's struggling, just because he's been labeled the "closer" (and in most cases, paid as such).

I'm not saying a great closer can't have an impact, but teams would be so far better off if this stat never existed.

This was one of the points I was alluding to. Give two or three capable pitchers the responsibility of closing, according to the situation. Peter Gammons made the argument during Bobby Thigpen's record-setting seasons that other teams were getting just as many saves at the same percentage as the White Sox, but they were spreading around the workload. And he was right.

Most managers will bring their closers into one-run games in the ninth even if their closers have trouble getting out the specific hitters they will be facing.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 01:14 PM
Great example of what a save can do for your bank account.

In his walk year of 2005, Joe Borowski posted zero saves for the Cubs and Rays, while compiling a WHIP of 1.079 in 46 innings, inlcuding a franchise record of 21 straight scoreless innings. He was DFA'd and ended up signing a one year FA deal with the Marlins for essentially the league minimum or $357k.

In 2006 with the Marlins, Joe saved 36 games, but had a WHIP of 1.378 in 69 innings. The Indians decided that was worth a 1 year $4M deal with a $4M club option for '08 or a $250k buyout.

In 2007, Joe had a miserable 1.431 WHIP, but he had a league high 45 saves. In fact, he was the first player ever to lead the league in saves with an ERA over 5. Obscured by the high number of saves, Cleveland excercised his option for the $4M.

He was released by the AS break in 2008.

doublem23
07-19-2010, 01:57 PM
Then why are these guys paid so much, why does every newspaper in the country notate it in the boxscore, why do all star managers choose relievers based on saves, why are closer in the hall of fame, etc?

Sure certain "experts" don't view it as important, but too many do. GM's keep shelling out the cash, and talking heads keep talking about Gagne's streak or K-Rod's record.

I would contend that anyone who puts stock in saves aren't experts, regardless of what their title is.

Iwritecode
07-19-2010, 02:15 PM
Then why are these guys paid so much, why does every newspaper in the country notate it in the boxscore, why do all star managers choose relievers based on saves, why are closer in the hall of fame, etc?

Sure certain "experts" don't view it as important, but too many do. GM's keep shelling out the cash, and talking heads keep talking about Gagne's streak or K-Rod's record.

Great example of what a save can do for your bank account.

In his walk year of 2005, Joe Borowski posted zero saves for the Cubs and Rays, while compiling a WHIP of 1.079 in 46 innings, inlcuding a franchise record of 21 straight scoreless innings. He was DFA'd and ended up signing a one year FA deal with the Marlins for essentially the league minimum or $357k.

In 2006 with the Marlins, Joe saved 36 games, but had a WHIP of 1.378 in 69 innings. The Indians decided that was worth a 1 year $4M deal with a $4M club option for '08 or a $250k buyout.

In 2007, Joe had a miserable 1.431 WHIP, but he had a league high 45 saves. In fact, he was the first player ever to lead the league in saves with an ERA over 5. Obscured by the high number of saves, Cleveland excercised his option for the $4M.

He was released by the AS break in 2008.


It's rare to see somebody contradict their own post in the same thread.

mjmcend
07-19-2010, 02:29 PM
It's rare to see somebody contradict their own post in the same thread.

Quite. I believe it is considered a sign of intelligence to be able to hold competing thoughts in your head at the same time, however, I don't believe you are supposed to argue for both simultaneously...

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 03:11 PM
It's rare to see somebody contradict their own post in the same thread.

Obviously you have missed the point. Media sites keep reporting saves with the league leaders, writers/analysts point to a guy's save totals and equate it to its worth, GM spends tons of money for an arbitrary statistic, manager keeps running the closer out there because he's paid to save games, media site reports save statistic, and the cycle keeps repeating.

I think the save statistic is worthless, and running a guy out there because he is the "closer" or because those 3 outs are more important than any other is completely arbitrary.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 03:15 PM
Quite. I believe it is considered a sign of intelligence to be able to hold competing thoughts in your head at the same time, however, I don't believe you are supposed to argue for both simultaneously...

I have never said that saves are an important or relevant stat but rather the opposite. Rather I have argued that saves are used because it has been baseball's easy way out to place a value on a reliever. It's the attitude of "that's the way we've always done it" and management has never been able to break free from this line of thinking.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 03:23 PM
I would contend that anyone who puts stock in saves aren't experts, regardless of what their title is.

"Expert" was in quotes, and can include 90% of MLB GM's, 90% of managers, the analysts on ESPN, the writers who vote fore the hall, etc. They all have false belief in the statistic.

I used the quotations as there was not an option to type it in crayon.

Daver
07-19-2010, 03:29 PM
The "Save " and the "Hold" stats were both created by STATS Inc. at the request of a group of players agents so that they could have something "Tangible" to use in contract negotiations.

SCCWS
07-19-2010, 03:44 PM
People overreacting a bit, much?

Oh wait, this is WSI. Sorry, I almost forgot!

It is also a sign that the board may be filled w young fans who tend to be roller coaster fans.

mjmcend
07-19-2010, 03:56 PM
I have never said that saves are an important or relevant stat but rather the opposite. Rather I have argued that saves are used because it has been baseball's easy way out to place a value on a reliever. It's the attitude of "that's the way we've always done it" and management has never been able to break free from this line of thinking.

My apologies. I misunderstood and must have missed the quotes around 'experts'. I thought you were arguing that since saves are in newspaper box scores, et. al. that they were important which is exactly the opposite of your point. As it stands, I agree with you fully.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 04:01 PM
My apologies. I misunderstood and must have missed the quotes around 'experts'. I thought you were arguing that since saves are in newspaper box scores, et. al. that they were important which is exactly the opposite of your point. As it stands, I agree with you fully.

Understood.

Daver - thanks for that information.

Slappy
07-19-2010, 04:13 PM
Taken by itself, the save is a stupid stat to judge a closer by. But, there's a world of difference between a guy like Kerry Wood and Brian Wilson or Mariano Rivera, for example. Barring injury, the amount of saves tallied between the two will give you some idea of who's the better hurler. Assuming your team gets you the lead to put you in position to get the save, if you pitch well, you get saves. If you don't, your team will lose the game and you'll get a loss or a blown save, basically.

doublem23
07-19-2010, 04:46 PM
The "Save " and the "Hold" stats were both created by STATS Inc. at the request of a group of players agents so that they could have something "Tangible" to use in contract negotiations.

That would be an adorable anecdote if it were true, however, saves were created in 1960 by Jerome Holtzman, widely regarded as one of the best baseball minds to have ever existed.

STATS may have had something to do with making the save an official stat in 1969, but they sure as hell didn't create it.

Slappy
07-19-2010, 05:00 PM
saves were created in 1960 by Jerome Holtzman, widely regarded as one of the best baseball minds to have ever existed.

I don't get it. Your original post says saves are stupid, and now you're defending them.

Gavin
07-19-2010, 05:08 PM
The fact that Bobby Jenks, who...
- has only been playing in the bigs for just less than five seasons
- served as the closer for a team that was awful (2007) and pretty bad (2009)

...and is STILL is #60 on the all time saves list shows what a silly stat it is. I guess you could use it when accompanied with some context (i.e. SV% when entering game with less than a 1 run lead or something).

Slappy
07-19-2010, 05:11 PM
The fact that Bobby Jenks, who...
- has only been playing in the bigs for just less than five seasons
- served as the closer for a team that was awful (2007) and pretty bad (2009)

...and is STILL is #60 on the all time saves list shows what a silly stat it is. I guess you could use it when accompanied with some context (i.e. SV% when entering game with less than a 1 run lead or something).

Now this is way too out there.

Gavin
07-19-2010, 05:14 PM
Now this is way too out there.

#61 is Billy Koch

Rdy2PlayBall
07-19-2010, 05:18 PM
I think saves are a great stat. Combine them with wins and losses and you get a great way to judge a closer. :scratch:
It's not like Bobby should have 10 blown saves, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time something like this has happened to the Sox and Bobby didn't get the blown save. I think everyone has forgot how well he pitched for a month straight. Stuff is going on in his life right now, so I can't be too mad at him when he has gotten the job done pretty much all season. It would hurt the Sox more than help if they get rid of him just because of this.

TDog
07-19-2010, 05:28 PM
That would be an adorable anecdote if it were true, however, saves were created in 1960 by Jerome Holtzman, widely regarded as one of the best baseball minds to have ever existed.

STATS may have had something to do with making the save an official stat in 1969, but they sure as hell didn't create it.


Jerome Holtzman lobbied for the adoption of the save rule and rejoiced when it was adopted, it not seeming like such a bad idea at the time.

Relief pitchers deserved tangible credit for what they were doing, but within five years, managers started managing to the rule, even though you could get credit for a save by holding a 10-run ninth-inning lead. The save rule is one of the contributing factors that led to the rarity of pitchers with the ability to pitch complete games. I admire Jerome Holtzman, but I don't like what happened to his rule.

Holtzman also lobbied for the "team error." When beat reporters were still doing the official scoring at baseball games, Holtzman was doing a Chicago game (I don't remember if it was Sox or Cubs), and a throw from a catcher sailed into center field because no one was covering on a steal attempt. He announced "team error" to make a point that this is what he was talking about. A minute or two later, he called it on error on the catcher.

The team error was never adopted. Too bad, really. It wouldn't have changed the way the game is played on the field, which is something the save rule has.

mjmcend
07-19-2010, 05:57 PM
I think saves are a great stat. Combine them with wins and losses and you get a great way to judge a closer. :scratch:
It's not like Bobby should have 10 blown saves, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time something like this has happened to the Sox and Bobby didn't get the blown save. I think everyone has forgot how well he pitched for a month straight. Stuff is going on in his life right now, so I can't be too mad at him when he has gotten the job done pretty much all season. It would hurt the Sox more than help if they get rid of him just because of this.

If possible, that is an even worse way to judge a reliever.

LoveYourSuit
07-19-2010, 06:03 PM
I think saves are a great stat. Combine them with wins and losses and you get a great way to judge a closer. :scratch:
It's not like Bobby should have 10 blown saves, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time something like this has happened to the Sox and Bobby didn't get the blown save. I think everyone has forgot how well he pitched for a month straight. Stuff is going on in his life right now, so I can't be too mad at him when he has gotten the job done pretty much all season. It would hurt the Sox more than help if they get rid of him just because of this.


The Sox will get rid of Jenks because of the amount of base runners he allows.

Out of 25 closers with 15+ saves this year, Jenks has the highest WHIP at 1.56.

That's not good.

Slappy
07-19-2010, 06:08 PM
The Sox will get rid of Jenks because of the amount of base runners he allows.

As they should, especially if they are going to even think about paying him another 7.5 million next season. Look at guys like John Axford or John Rauch who have done a fine job filing in. These guys just aren't worth the money they are paid. Save that money you'd pay Kotsay and Jenks and get a decent bat.

doublem23
07-19-2010, 06:11 PM
I don't get it. Your original post says saves are stupid, and now you're defending them.

:scratch:

I only defended Holtzman, for fear this would degenerate into a stathead/non-stathead argument. Holtzman is widely regarded as a great baseball mind, he was the Official Historian of Baseball (hijack... Dream Job) from 1999 until his death in 2008. He created the save in 1960 because he felt that newly created bullpen specialists couldn't be properly judged by their W-L record.

He was on the right track, but the save is essentially meaningless now that there's so much information at the disposal of people.

BringHomeDaBacon
07-19-2010, 06:43 PM
Saves are not a "stathead" statistic. Based on the responses here it seems that it's probably the one statistic whose value that "statheads" and "non-statheads" can agree on.

Sam Spade
07-19-2010, 07:35 PM
Saves are not a "stathead" statistic. Based on the responses here it seems that it's probably the one statistic whose value that "statheads" and "non-statheads" can agree on.
People here can't agree that the white sox often play in chicago.

bigdommer
07-19-2010, 07:45 PM
As they should, especially if they are going to even think about paying him another 7.5 million next season. Look at guys like John Axford or John Rauch who have done a fine job filing in. These guys just aren't worth the money they are paid. Save that money you'd pay Kotsay and Jenks and get a decent bat.

Agreed. I think Bobby's performance would be adequate based on his 2005 salary. But at this price, I would let Putz/Santos/Thornton pick up the slack. Unfortunately, a non-tender looks more likely than a trade at this point. It would have been nice to get something for him, but hey, KW did get him originally for nothing.

Rdy2PlayBall
07-19-2010, 08:07 PM
The Sox will get rid of Jenks because of the amount of base runners he allows.

Out of 25 closers with 15+ saves this year, Jenks has the highest WHIP at 1.56.

That's not good.I understand your point, but I don't get what difference it makes. Dumping him means losing someone who actually can be an effective pitcher in the majors... Unless we can get something in return, I think he'd do well as either the closer, or some kind of relief. You don't just dump a talent like Bobby because one blown save. He has gotten the job done, that's all you can ask for. Quentin has gotten the job done, even though his average sucks. It's hard to compare pitchers and hitters, but ERA and AVG can be looked at in a similar way. I don't think Jenks is great, but I definitely don't think it would benefit the Sox by dumping him.

Craig Grebeck
07-19-2010, 08:11 PM
I understand your point, but I don't get what difference it makes. Dumping him means losing someone who actually can be an effective pitcher in the majors... Unless we can get something in return, I think he'd do well as either the closer, or some kind of relief. You don't just dump a talent like Bobby because one blown save. He has gotten the job done, that's all you can ask for. Quentin has gotten the job done, even though his average sucks. It's hard to compare pitchers and hitters, but ERA and AVG can be looked at in a similar way. I don't think Jenks is great, but I definitely don't think it would benefit the Sox by dumping him.
Given the raise he will most certainly receive (largely due to the idiocy of the save "statistic), Bobby should be dumped at season's end. The likelihood he will receive a contract on the open market in line with his arbitration settlement or reward is very, very low.

LoveYourSuit
07-19-2010, 08:36 PM
I understand your point, but I don't get what difference it makes. Dumping him means losing someone who actually can be an effective pitcher in the majors... Unless we can get something in return, I think he'd do well as either the closer, or some kind of relief. You don't just dump a talent like Bobby because one blown save. He has gotten the job done, that's all you can ask for. Quentin has gotten the job done, even though his average sucks. It's hard to compare pitchers and hitters, but ERA and AVG can be looked at in a similar way. I don't think Jenks is great, but I definitely don't think it would benefit the Sox by dumping him.


For a $8 million next season, I would much rather the Sox invest that money on something better than just an "effective relief pitcher."

Rdy2PlayBall
07-19-2010, 08:37 PM
For a $8 million next season, I would much rather the Sox invest that money on something better than just an "effective relief pitcher."If they are getting a little something in return, I'm all for it. I thought we were talking him being DFA. The money he's worth can be spent elsewhere, JJ can easily be our closer.

DirtySox
07-19-2010, 08:40 PM
If they are getting players in return, I'm fine with it. I thought we were talking him being DFA. The money he's worth can be spent elsewhere, JJ can easily be our closer.

They might be able to work something out trade-wise prior to him being non-tendered, but they won't be receiving anything too significant. The main objective with non-tendering him is freeing up a big chunk of money to be allocated elsewhere.

Rdy2PlayBall
07-19-2010, 08:50 PM
They might be able to work something out trade-wise prior to him being non-tendered, but they won't be receiving anything too significant. The main objective with non-tendering him is freeing up a big chunk of money to be allocated elsewhere.Any kind of prospect would do. Anybody could become good out of nowhere, so with a average prospect and $, I'd be happy with no more Bobby.

Craig Grebeck
07-19-2010, 08:51 PM
Any kind of prospect would do. Anybody could become good out of nowhere, so with a average prospect and $, I'd be happy with no more Bobby.
You probably wouldn't even get an average prospect. Which is fine -- the money is more than enough.

Bob Roarman
07-19-2010, 09:53 PM
If possible, that is an even worse way to judge a reliever.

That's a bad way to judge pitching in general.

StillMissOzzie
07-19-2010, 10:42 PM
I agree that saves is a pretty useless stat, but mostly because it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the pitching done to get one.
These was a story about closers on ESPN.com that got into this in much more depth a while back. It said that, back in the old bullpen days (before the age of specialization with your 6th inning man, your 7th inning man, your 8th inning setup man and your closer), when the team went to the 9th inning with a 3 run lead, they'd win about 95% of the time. Nowadays, you could pay some mope 8 figures to pitch that same 9th inning and nail down the W about 95% of the time.

On top of that, now a closer could come in with a 3 run lead, give up 2 runs and put the tying run on base, then get the 3rd out to "earn" a save. Was he effective? Not in my book. All too often, the save is "earned" by being the last pitcher with the ball, even when the heavy lifting goes to guys like the aforementioned Zumaya, who might quell an uprising in the 8th before turning the ball over to a closer, who may record a harmless 9th for a save.

Another gripe I have about saves is that easy saves (get 3 outs or less with nobody on base) are treated the same as tough saves (with the tying or winning runs on base and needing a punchout)

I don't have the answers, but I don't take saves all that seriously

SMO
:gulp: