Do you think "save percentage" would be a more informative stat than just "saves" for a closer?
Question:It seems to me that we should judge a closer on how many saves divided by save opportunities and put it in a percentage just like we do with batting average OBP etc... I never understood why people make such a big deal about how many saves a closer gets without mentioning the blown ones.
Answers:
Watching TV .is there a way to watch live TV like news from the bay area .?
That's why they count blown saves (BS), it's an official number too, ya know...and then you can do the math yourself. But a true statistic of whether someone is doing their job well is WHIP, which shows how often the pitcher lets someone on base...that is the most accurate way to know how a guy is doingDo starting Major League baseball catchers lift weights during the season?
yes that would be a good idea but then stats become no fun. its one thing to remember someone's batting average, but how can you remeber save percentage and winning percentage and all that confusing stuff.What is the moscot of the tampa bay devil rays,not his name?
Mmm.I don't know, you'd have to ask over 100 years of tradition.How to throw a baseball fast.?
Saves are a result stat -- a simple count of successful end-product. But only one pitcher can collect one S per game. What about earlier relievers?Starting pitcher Allen goes into the eighth. Baker relieves him, entering the game in a save situation, and finishes the inning without allowing any scoring. Closer Carruthers takes over to open the ninth with the save situation still in effect, nails it down, gets the S.
Carruthers is 1 for 1 in save opps.
What about Baker? Is he zero for one? Entered in a save situation, but didn't get the save.
Which city has the most knowledgeable fans in baseball?
yes it would indicate a good closer, but then again so does save totalRoger Clemens's deal-agree with it? Disagree? Don't care?
The number of saves and save oppurtunities is low enough that you can just look at blown saves and saves and know what is happening. There is no real need for an official stat that divides one by the other.That being said, it is important to look at blown saves when you look at saves.
What year did jackie robinson join the dodgers as the first african american baseball player?
Absolutely, pitching statistics are so skewered, many do not reflect the pitchers performance, but reflect the teams performance while the pitcher is inWhat information can you give me on Frank Mulroney who pitched for the Boston Red Sox in 1930?
I think the two stats should be used in conjuncture with one another. It is important to note that a closer had 40 saves but also 16 blown saves in a season. But also remember that save percentage is nothing more than an average that is affected by appearances / chances. If I'm a middle reliever that gets called upon to close games while the closer is on the 15 day DL and I save 4 out of 4 chances then statistically I look like a hero with a 100% save percentage - if nobody keeps records of chances vs saves. Both stats complement each other and tell two sides of a closer's performance. I don't think you can say one is better to use than the other; they should both be mentioned in the same sentenceWhat if Barry Bonds makes gets to the homerun record, but doesn't break it?
Well, the only problem I see is will the percentages be too close, or possibly vary too much, for it to be a good stat for comparisons.Last year Trevor Hoffman had a SVPCT of 90.2%, and Franciso Rodriguez had a SVPCT of 92.2%. You know what the difference was for the 2%? They both had as many save opportunities, but Hoffman had 46 saves and Franky had 47. Bobby Jenks had a 91.11%, and had the exact same number of BS as Rodriguez, but 6 less SVs. Billy Wagner had the same number of SV opportunities as Jenks, but converted 1 less SV, giving him a 88.89%. Now Mike Gonzalez was a perfect 24/24. Let's say he blew one SV in there, that would give him a 95.83%. Or, let's say he had one more opportunity, but blew that. He'd have an even 96%. Now, does that mean Gonzo is a better closer than Wagner, Hoffman, KRod, and Jenks (well, I think he's better than Jenks at least). How about some of the other lights out guys last year? Pappelbon would have an 85.37% (35/41). Rivera had a 91.2% (34/37). Ryan was 90.48% (38/42). Would you take Gonzo over all 3 of those guys? Heck, Lidge was 84.21% (32/38). Do you think his year last year was really THAT close to Pappelbon's? Tom Gordon was 87.2% (34/39). Does anyone seriously think Tom Gordon, as the closer, is better than Pappelbon was, and almost was good as Wagner? Bob Wickman was 89.19% (33/37) for the year. Can anyone really say that Bob Wickman is the better choice between him, Wagner, and Pappelbon? Or that he is almost as good a choice as Ryan?
It is an interesting stat to look at, but unfortunately it isn't the best stat for comparison (not that SVs are) in practical application.
I think it makes more sense, in my opinion, to look at both SVs and BSs (or SVO for save opportunities) at the same time, rather than break it down into just SVPCT.
Oh, and Davimi, I don't think it bucks 100 years of tradition, just because it wasn't an official stat for 100 years.
There is no number that gets put up without a stat behind it. Check up on it
More Questions & Answers...