PDA

View Full Version : How many saves will Baaad Bobby finish with?


chisoxfanatic
05-28-2006, 10:04 PM
Bobby Jenks looks like he's getting on the right track now. He's been just about lights-out the past few weeks. He's got 14 saves right now.

Chips
05-28-2006, 10:05 PM
58

SweetnesSox
05-28-2006, 10:06 PM
I voted 41-45. Dunno why, just a feeling.

PAPChiSox729
05-28-2006, 10:33 PM
I say an even 40. 7 blown saves with it.

itsnotrequired
05-28-2006, 10:35 PM
I went with 36-40 (barring injury, of course). I just don't see him getting over 40. Gut feel.

whtsx1959
05-28-2006, 10:40 PM
I just want a full season from him a closer, meaning consistent.

DumpJerry
05-29-2006, 12:48 PM
Saves, by themselves, are not a good stat because you need save situations to earn them. You get save situations because your team's offense is not producing. Blown saves is a stat that is more illustrative of a Closer's ability.

Everytime I see Papelbon leading the AL in saves, I think "Red Sox need some 'O'."

In a preseason thread that asked for prediction of the firsts for the season (first home run, etc.), I said there would be no first save beause we would have, on average, 8 run leads into the 8th and 9th inning of each game. Does that mean Jenks sucks? Of course not, it means he'll be rested for the Mets in October!

Chips
05-29-2006, 12:52 PM
Saves, by themselves, are not a good stat because you need save situations to earn them. You get save situations because your team's offense is not producing. Blown saves is a stat that is more illustrative of a Closer's ability.

Everytime I Papelbon leading the AL in saves, I think "Red Sox need some 'O'."

In a preseason thread that asked for prediction of the firsts for the season (first home run, etc.), I said there would be no first save beause we would have, on average, 8 run leads into the 8th and 9th inning of each game. Does that mean Jenks sucks? Of course not, it means he'll be rested for the Mets in October!

If by Mets, you mean Cardinals or Braves, then yes.

DumpJerry
05-29-2006, 01:43 PM
If by Mets, you mean Cardinals or Braves, then yes.
Braves don't do World Series.

sox aka champs
05-29-2006, 03:28 PM
42

Rob190
05-29-2006, 03:48 PM
Braves don't do World Series.

At least win them.

Baby Fisk
05-29-2006, 03:52 PM
http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/TV/9805/28/hartman.snl/farley.jpg

If Jenks is pitching under normal strength, minimum 85 saves.

If Jenks is ordered by the commissioner to pitch blindfolded, with his shoelaces tied together, with his right arm tied behind his back and only allowed to pitch underhanded with his left arm, minimum 84 saves.

WSox8404
05-29-2006, 04:17 PM
58

Wow. Thats a lot of saves. I say 46.

Chips
05-29-2006, 04:18 PM
Wow. Thats a lot of saves. I say 46.

It was the first number that came to my head. Like DumpJerry said, we won't need him too many times if we continue to kick the **** out of our opponents like we did today.

chisoxfanatic
05-29-2006, 04:21 PM
At least win them.

Talk to the Cleveland Indians circa 1995.

SoxEd
05-29-2006, 04:22 PM
Pardon my stoopid question (I am an ill-informed foreign type, you know), but can't he only get a save in a tight game?

I mean, if we're 11-0 up, and BB comes in to pitch the 9th, does he qualify for a Save?

That'll limit his 'Save Opportunities', surely?

chisoxfanatic
05-29-2006, 04:26 PM
Pardon my stoopid question (I am an ill-informed foreign type, you know), but can't he only get a save in a tight game?

I mean, if we're 11-0 up, and BB comes in to pitch the 9th, does he qualify for a Save?

That'll limit his 'Save Opportunities', surely?

There is only one scenario of which a relief pitcher may record a save in cases of blow-outs. That pitcher must pitch at least the final three full innings of the game in order to record a save. In that case, the score is irrelevent. The relief pitcher may pick up a save regardless of the score. I highly doubt Ozzie would use him in that situation; but, instead, he'd use others to close the game out if the starter has too many pitches to his count.

Chips
05-29-2006, 04:31 PM
Pardon my stoopid question (I am an ill-informed foreign type, you know), but can't he only get a save in a tight game?

I mean, if we're 11-0 up, and BB comes in to pitch the 9th, does he qualify for a Save?

That'll limit his 'Save Opportunities', surely?

Saves:
Rule 10.20 in the Official Rule Book states:
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.

Daver
05-29-2006, 04:34 PM
The save is a useless stat that was invented by STATS inc. about 20 years ago to increase the market price for relief pitchers.

SoxEd
05-29-2006, 04:38 PM
The save is a useless stat that was invented by STATS inc. about 20 years ago to increase the market price for relief pitchers.
Do I hear the sound of a man whose career BA was adversely affected by the efforts of Closers?

:duck:

EDIT: thanks also to CSF & Chips for clarification, but I was basically joking - saying that if our offense continues to play like it did today, ol' Bobby ain't gonna be able to get himself many saves.

Daver
05-29-2006, 04:48 PM
Do I hear the sound of a man whose career BA was adversely affected by the efforts of Closers?

:duck:



No, I couldn't hit starters either.

If I didn't learn the fine art of "leaning into one" I never would have got on base.

chisoxfanatic
05-29-2006, 04:49 PM
If I didn't learn the fine art of "leaning into one" I never would have got on base.

You wouldn't go up to bat every time with your elephant gun? I'm sure that would frighten every pitcher you would face, giving you immediate "free passes"!

samram
05-29-2006, 04:52 PM
Saves, by themselves, are not a good stat because you need save situations to earn them. You get save situations because your team's offense is not producing. Blown saves is a stat that is more illustrative of a Closer's ability.

Everytime I Papelbon leading the AL in saves, I think "Red Sox need some 'O'."

What if Papelbon is coming into every game with the Red Sox leading 9-7?

ChiSoxLifer
05-29-2006, 04:53 PM
I say he gets maybe 5 more saves. The Sox are blowing out too many teams.

viagracat
05-29-2006, 05:36 PM
44. First number that popped to mind.

I also think the Sox will win 98 games this season. Also the first number that popped into mind.

Wsoxmike59
05-29-2006, 07:48 PM
The save is a useless stat that was invented by STATS inc. about 20 years ago to increase the market price for relief pitchers.

That's not quite right Daver. I heard the SAVE statistic was invented by Chicago sportswriter Jerome Holtzman in the 1960's.

He thought relievers should get some type of credit for finishing a game out and protecting the lead.

************************************

Origins of the SAVE?

The Save was invented by Jerome Holtzman in the 1960's. It was first published regularly in The Sporting News, and was made an official statistic in 1969.

http://venus.lunarpages.com/~double2/History/mvpint3.html#sv

CynicSox
05-29-2006, 08:02 PM
I voted 36-40, but I'd rather he stay at 14 the rest of the season.....as the SOX in an unbridled fury win the remaining 112 straight games by 5-10 runs every time.

Daver
05-29-2006, 08:03 PM
That's not quite right Daver. I heard the SAVE statistic was invented by Chicago sportswriter Jerome Holtzman in the 1960's.

He thought relievers should get some type of credit for finishing a game out and protecting the lead.

************************************

Origins of the SAVE?

The Save was invented by Jerome Holtzman in the 1960's. It was first published regularly in The Sporting News, and was made an official statistic in 1969.

http://venus.lunarpages.com/~double2/History/mvpint3.html#sv (http://venus.lunarpages.com/%7Edouble2/History/mvpint3.html#sv)

You are correct, I had it confused with a hold.

Another useless stat.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 08:17 PM
You are correct, I had it confused with a hold.

Another useless stat.The save and hold are WORSE than useless. They're counter-productive. Even before the save was invented there were pitchers who were commonly used in late game situations, but the closer role didn't become really specialized until after the save was invented. It's a consequence of the "if you measure it, someone will specialize in it" phenomenon because agents have a ready statistic use in their negotiations. It's no accident that the guy who can get through one lousy inning without blowing a 3-run lead generally makes more money than the guy you call on in the 7th inning when the other team is rallying. Now we have to listen to regular nonsense about how you never use your closer except in save situations, never in the middle of the inning, blah, blah, blah.

Wsoxmike59
05-29-2006, 09:43 PM
Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't MLB go back in time prior to 1969 and check the old box scores and issue Saves to pitchers who actually qualified for one in a game but were never credited for it originally? (e.g. Hoyt Wilhelm, Yankee fire baller Joe Page and The Monster Dick Radatz for example.)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/42561/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/43479/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/41527/

I've been following the Sox religously since 1969 and the Save statistic has been around since that time. I'm just wondering about the pre-1969 bullpen guys and how they got their Save statistics. Was the stat kept prior to that, but it just didn't count as an "official" Save, or did MLB go back and correct the old box scores to show Saves?

DumpJerry
05-29-2006, 09:57 PM
What if Papelbon is coming into every game with the Red Sox leading 9-7?
Then the Sawk need to improve to avoid all those close games.

Also, another reason why the save stat is for morons: the definition has changed over time. It used to be you had to face the tying run and could not pitch yourself into a save situation (i.e., Thigpen enters with a 2-0 lead in the 9th. Gives up two hits. Now he is in a save situation).

I think for closers, the main stat is the Loss. The fewer losses, the more effective the guy is on the job. Baserunners to innings pitched ration is also a good indicator. I'm not completely sold on ERA because there are factors beyond the pitcher's control that can raise the ERA in a one inning situation.

viagracat
05-29-2006, 10:11 PM
Saves and holds are fairly bogus stats to be sure, but not as bad as the "Game-Winning RBI" that was around in--late '80s, wasn't it? :?:

chisoxfanatic
05-29-2006, 11:44 PM
He's on pace to get over 40, and I see no reason for him not to get 46 or more saves.

samram
05-30-2006, 10:42 AM
Then the Sawk need to improve to avoid all those close games.

I'm not saying Boston doesn't need to improve anywhere, but this just doesn't make any sense. The Sox have one more one-run game than Boston does (13 to 12) and Texas and Oakland are around 20 each, so Boston doesn't have that many. Further, the Sox were 35-19 in one-run games last year and they won the World Series. My point is that having a relatively large number of save opportunities, no matter how you feel about the stat itself, is not an indicator that a team needs to get better.

DumpJerry
05-30-2006, 10:47 AM
I'm not saying Boston doesn't need to improve anywhere, but this just doesn't make any sense. The Sox have one more one-run game than Boston does (13 to 12) and Texas and Oakland are around 20 each, so Boston doesn't have that many. Further, the Sox were 35-19 in one-run games last year and they won the World Series. My point is that having a relatively large number of save opportunities, no matter how you feel about the stat itself, is not an indicator that a team needs to get better.
I was going to use teal, but I thought my point was obvious. My bad. The bottom line of what I am saying overall is that the save stat is meaningless because it depends on a team being in close games most of the time (something beyond the closer's control) and it does not reflect on a pitcher's ability. This is why save leaders change so much year-to-year. Most of it is luck and circumstance.

I'm not saying let's dump Bobby, we need him to finish off the game when the starter is done for the night.

DumpJerry
05-30-2006, 10:49 AM
He's on pace to get over 40, and I see no reason for him not to get 46 or more saves.
I see plenty of reasons. Namely the Sox may not create enough save opportunities. If we win more games like yestreday (11-0), Bobby will not get save opportunities.

fquaye149
05-30-2006, 11:05 AM
Gut feel. you talking about his?

(rim shot):cool:

samram
05-30-2006, 11:56 AM
I was going to use teal, but I thought my point was obvious. My bad. The bottom line of what I am saying overall is that the save stat is meaningless because it depends on a team being in close games most of the time (something beyond the closer's control) and it does not reflect on a pitcher's ability. This is why save leaders change so much year-to-year. Most of it is luck and circumstance.

I'm not saying let's dump Bobby, we need him to finish off the game when the starter is done for the night.

Cool. I wouldn't get rid of Bobby either. I will say that while the save stat seems arbitrary and there are different players among the leaders every year, there are guys who are there every year (Rivera, KRod, Wagner, Nathan) and I think those guys do bring some value to their teams that you couldn't just get from any old pitcher you throw out there for an inning. It's more mental than physical, IMO.