Redefining the Save and Hold Statistics

[kq76]

A recent subtopic in one of the popular OOTP9 threads got me thinking:

If you could redefine the save statistic, how would you do it? What about holds?

For those a little rusty on the two:
Save (baseball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Hold (baseball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
ESPN.com: MLB - FAQ and other stuff

What should matter?

I realize some would disagree with crediting a save to someone who gave up say 4 runs in an inning of work, but I'm good with just making sure the pitcher didn't give up the lead meaning you can't give up the tieing run. I think the whole point of the statistic should be that you saved the game from being lost and so even if you gave up a boatload of runs, but still preserved the win, I think you should get the save.

I don't think I have a problem with a 1 out save counting as much as say a 15 out save, but I think you should have to get at least 1 out.

Likewise, I don't think we should care if baserunners are already on when the pitcher takes the mound or not.

I _do_ think you should have to have finished the game (I like a separate hold statistic for those relievers who don't) and I don't think you should get it when having started the game.

As for holds I think everything should be the same except you can't get a hold starting nor finishing the game.

Now yeah, this statistic wouldn't be a good evaluator like some other statistics, but I don't think it needs to be nor should be. Winning the game is the most important thing and so so what if you gave up a tonne of runs and only got 1 out? If you saved the win, you saved the win and should get some kind of credit for it. If you want a better indicator of a reliever's true value, just use a different stat. The problem with the save statistic as it is now is that it tries to be more than what it can be (by including the three save situation criteria). However, make it simpler and I think you've got something that actually might be worth looking at.

[mikev]

I don't know if I could disagree any more than I do now.

A pitcher who comes into a game and gives up 4 runs in one inning of work did a flat out horrible, terrible job. "Crediting" them with a save or a hold makes no sense because there is nothing at all good about what that guy did aside from not give up the lead.

Frankly, I think holds, and saves shouldn't be credited to relief pitchers at all. I'm MUCH more interested in strikeouts:walks, inherited runners allowed to score, and possibly *blown* saves.

Giving an "atta boy" stat for doing what's expected just doesn't make sense.

[Dagrims]

I think it would be difficult to redefine the concept of a save or hold without making it subjective, and that opens up new controversies. I'm in favor of leaving both statistics calculated the way they currently are, and being knowledgable about the limitations of both statistics to measure effectiveness. A closer with 45 saves might have obtained a few saves over the course of a season without being tremendously effective, but if that statistic is taken in conjunction with blown saves, homeruns allowed, and WHIP, you can make a pretty fair assessment of the quality of the closer.

The only part of the save definition that I don't think makes much sense is the "pitches at least three innings" condition.

[zekester91]

I'd keep save as it is.

I'd change hold so that you have to be eligable to get a save to get a hold, IE if the game had ended you would have gotten the save, but another pitcher came in.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

I think it would be difficult to redefine the concept of a save or hold without making it subjective, and that opens up new controversies. I'm in favor of leaving both statistics calculated the way they currently are, and being knowledgable about the limitations of both statistics to measure effectiveness. A closer with 45 saves might have obtained a few saves over the course of a season without being tremendously effective, but if that statistic is taken in conjunction with blown saves, homeruns allowed, and WHIP, you can make a pretty fair assessment of the quality of the closer.

The only part of the save definition that I don't think makes much sense is the "pitches at least three innings" condition.

Actually, i like the 3 inning thing. Sure, its quirky to get a save for pitching the final 3 innings of a blow out. But, how many saves will be put up by a team in a year like that. 1, maybe 2? And it'll be a middle reliever who wont get many chances anyway.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by zekester91

I'd keep save as it is.

I'd change hold so that you have to be eligable to get a save to get a hold, IE if the game had ended you would have gotten the save, but another pitcher came in.

Seconded.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Actually, i like the 3 inning thing. Sure, its quirky to get a save for pitching the final 3 innings of a blow out. But, how many saves will be put up by a team in a year like that. 1, maybe 2? And it'll be a middle reliever who wont get many chances anyway.

Not that I care, but it diminishes the point of the stat. Theoretically we would see that he got a save, which would mean something. So he pitched 3 innings of shutout ball when his team was winning 27-2... so what?? It doesn't show up in his stat line that he had a 3 inning save, 27-2... it shows up that he got a save. Whether it amounts to 1 save or 50 in a year doesn't matter... the question is there as to whether he earned the stat or not.


Bases loaded, bottom of the ninth, tie game, batter hits one to the wall. It's an easy double at any other time in the ball game, but he gets credit for a single. Why wouldn't the guy on second get credit for a run scored? Because none of that is earned, once it's down the defense gives up since they lost.

If the batter hits a ball, and takes second on an errant throw, why wouldn't the batter get a double? Because he didn't earn it.

Why do we make hitters earn their stats but give out saves for getting one out at times, or for pitching 3 innings when they can't possibly lose? Make it so these stats are actually earned, and then there won't be the question.