PDA

View Full Version : Another problem with relief pitching stats


Huisj
06-12-2012, 12:42 PM
For a while now, holds have been used to give some sort of credit to middle relievers and setup guys who do their jobs well but can't earn saves since they aren't a closer. The lousy job that saves and holds to of telling us how effective a reliever has been has been discussed many times on this board, and last night, there was another example of why these stats are stupid.

In the Yankees-Braves game, the Yankees won 3-0, and 4 relievers combined to pitch the 8th and 9th inning. None of them gave up any runs or hits, and none of them pitched over 0.2 innings. The first three were all rewarded holds for their performance since they all entered the game in a save situation and left with the lead still in tact. The last pitcher, our old buddy Boone Logan, pitched the final 0.2 innings, and got nothing except 0.2 innings added to his stats. He gets no save since it was a 3-run lead with only 0.2 innings to go.

How stupid is it that all the other guys, two of whom only pitched 0.1 innings, can get credit for a stat like a hold, but they guy who finishes the game and pitched equally effectively doesn't get any such credit simply because it was the end of the game? If he had come in to start the inning and only pitched 0.1 innings, and then another guy had come in to pitch to the last guys, he would get a hold, but by finishing it out, he gets nothing.

The contrived reliever stats like this are stupid.

TDog
06-12-2012, 06:21 PM
This is is part of the reason why the hold is not an official stat.

soxinem1
06-12-2012, 06:37 PM
For a while now, holds have been used to give some sort of credit to middle relievers and setup guys who do their jobs well but can't earn saves since they aren't a closer. The lousy job that saves and holds to of telling us how effective a reliever has been has been discussed many times on this board, and last night, there was another example of why these stats are stupid.

In the Yankees-Braves game, the Yankees won 3-0, and 4 relievers combined to pitch the 8th and 9th inning. None of them gave up any runs or hits, and none of them pitched over 0.2 innings. The first three were all rewarded holds for their performance since they all entered the game in a save situation and left with the lead still in tact. The last pitcher, our old buddy Boone Logan, pitched the final 0.2 innings, and got nothing except 0.2 innings added to his stats. He gets no save since it was a 3-run lead with only 0.2 innings to go.

How stupid is it that all the other guys, two of whom only pitched 0.1 innings, can get credit for a stat like a hold, but they guy who finishes the game and pitched equally effectively doesn't get any such credit simply because it was the end of the game? If he had come in to start the inning and only pitched 0.1 innings, and then another guy had come in to pitch to the last guys, he would get a hold, but by finishing it out, he gets nothing.

The contrived reliever stats like this are stupid.

He did get a stat. It is called a Game Finished (GF).

Believe it or not, many relievers have large bonus clauses for GF.

SephClone89
06-12-2012, 08:07 PM
He did get a stat. It is called a Game Finished (GF).

Believe it or not, many relievers have large bonus clauses for GF.

People also get paid for saves, which is a stupid stat.

Moses_Scurry
06-12-2012, 08:12 PM
At least holds don't affect the manager's strategy. I can't stand that managers go out of the way to give the "closer" a save rather than putting the best guy in for the job. I also can't stand it that managers keep a pitcher who is clearly gassed in too long so they can get a win. If it is their time to leave the game, they should leave the game even if they don't get a win for it.

The hold is stupid, but so far it is harmless.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
06-12-2012, 08:42 PM
At least holds don't affect the manager's strategy. I can't stand that managers go out of the way to give the "closer" a save rather than putting the best guy in for the job. I also can't stand it that managers keep a pitcher who is clearly gassed in too long so they can get a win. If it is their time to leave the game, they should leave the game even if they don't get a win for it.

The hold is stupid, but so far it is harmless.

The closer role is as much mental as it is skill. Some guys have overpowering stuff in the 6th-8th innings and can't be touched, yet when the 9th inning comes in a save situation, they implode.

Look at Thornton...even in his prime, when he was chucking near 100mph and dominating everyone he faced, he still somehow would consistently blow the game in a save situation.

Give me a guy who might have less stuff but a cooler head in high-pressure situations any time.

SephClone89
06-12-2012, 09:31 PM
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/23416/blowing-up-baseballs-most-dangerous-stat

Brian26
06-12-2012, 10:56 PM
People also get paid for saves, which is a stupid stat.

The save stat isn't stupid on its own, but it may be the only example of a stat in baseball that has been purposefully manipulated through the use of closers since the late 80s. The rules haven't changed, but saves in the late 70s by Sutter and Gossage had more meaning based on how and when they were used, as opposed to LaRussa consistently trotting out Eckersely with a three run lead just to pitch the 9th.

DSpivack
06-12-2012, 11:05 PM
At least holds don't affect the manager's strategy. I can't stand that managers go out of the way to give the "closer" a save rather than putting the best guy in for the job. I also can't stand it that managers keep a pitcher who is clearly gassed in too long so they can get a win. If it is their time to leave the game, they should leave the game even if they don't get a win for it.

The hold is stupid, but so far it is harmless.

The best example of this this season is with the most expensive reliever in history, Jonathan Papplebon with the Phillies. Many Philly fans are upset that the team doesn't use him enough.

TDog
06-13-2012, 02:48 PM
The save stat isn't stupid on its own, but it may be the only example of a stat in baseball that has been purposefully manipulated through the use of closers since the late 80s. The rules haven't changed, but saves in the late 70s by Sutter and Gossage had more meaning based on how and when they were used, as opposed to LaRussa consistently trotting out Eckersely with a three run lead just to pitch the 9th.

This is exactly what I was thinking. When the save rule was being written, there was question of what really constituted a save. Is it the guy who gets the last out or the pitcher who pitches out of a jam or both. They went with the relief pitcher who finishes a win in which he doesn't get a decision. The rule has been tweaked ever since, and its boundaries have sadly shaped how the game is played.

There was no save in Tuesday night's Sox game because of the final margin. Still, if I were to award a save that meant something, I would give it to Jones, who really did save the game.