RFI: Scoring question regarding saves

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

How come Shingo Takatsu didn't get the save for this game (in which he closed out the 9th preserving a 3 run lead), but every other reliever gets a hold? Scoring is confusing. Help me understand why.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 8 September 2004 04:33 (twenty-one years ago)

He did get the save (as noted in the game recap). The boxscore and play-by-play entries are screwed up ... the latter shows the final score as 11-4, for instance.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 8 September 2004 05:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Save rule (if memory serves):
The pitcher must
1) finish the game
2) not be the winning pitcher
3) either
a) pitch at least three innings (regardless of the final score)
b) enter the game with at most a three run lead
c) enter the game with the tying or go-ahead run either at the plate or in the on-deck circle

So in this case, Takatsu entered with a three run lead and finished the game, so he gets the save. Note that there was also a runner on 1st at the time so therefore the tying run was in the on-deck circle so he qualified according to 3c as well as 3b.

Using 3c, someone could earn a save by entering with a five-run lead if he entered with the bases loaded.

Also, since the important thing is *when the pitcher enters the game*, not the final score, then a guy could get a save in, say, a 9-0 game. This doesn't happen much anymore since closers rarely pitch more than one inning, but the closer could enter in the 8th with a 1-0 lead, not allow any runs, watch his team score eight runs in the ninth, and then get the final three outs to "preserve" the 9-0 win.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 8 September 2004 05:23 (twenty-one years ago)

That is odd because the AP (Associated Press), ESPN, MLB and Yahoo!* box scores all show Takatsu NOT getting the save.

*Important for Fantasy Purposes.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 8 September 2004 06:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm ... I was fairly sure I was correct about the rule. Unless there's a minimum number of outs you need. That would definitely be a recent change if that were the case. Espn is still reporting that the got the save.

I'll have to check the official rules ...

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 8 September 2004 11:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Foulke was given a save last night for the Red Sox for coming in with two out in the bottom of the ninth, leading 8-3, b/c the bases were loaded. Yeah, he got one out with a five-run lead. Ooh, I'm impressed.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 9 September 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

We're supposed to save that sort of disdain for Gagne's saves.

― Leeeter van den Hoogenband (Leee), Friday, 10 September 2004 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

hee hee. Actually, it's not so much disdain from me as the sense that it's one of those less-than-reliable stats that everyone treats as some great indicator of success/failure. I'm just an ERA kinda guy, I guess.

I do come down pretty hard on the "Gagne should never have won the Cy Young" side of the fence, for the record.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Friday, 10 September 2004 23:34 (twenty-one years ago)

              IP     H       R
Miller        3.2    6       5
File           2     2       2
Chulk         1.1    0       0
Frasor         1     0       0
Speier         1     0       0

There's nothing to cheer for with the Blue Jays these days, but at least we can be amused by uncommon scoring decisions such as these. Miller left the game with the lead and it was never relinquished (Jays 9, Rays 7).

But Miller can't get the win, since he didn't pitch five innings. So the scorer gets to award the win to reliever he feels was the most effective.

Clearly, that leaves the final three pitchers. But Speier isn't eligible, since he entered in a save situation and finished the game. So it's down to Chulk and Frasor, with Chulk getting the nod presumably for recording one more out than Frasor did.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 19 September 2004 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry, my pitching table didn't turn out.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 19 September 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

fixed.

― gygax! (gygax!), Sunday, 19 September 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, thanks (and the HTML you used has been noted!)

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 19 September 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Is the five-inning requirement sure to be changed? Should it be?

― Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Sunday, 19 September 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think it should. The W-L has worse problems than the five-inning rule for starters.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 19 September 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Such as?

― Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Sunday, 19 September 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

The W-L rule is essentially "the guy who is pitching when the go ahead (fall behind) run is scored is the winning (losing) pitcher". So it doesn't take into account how they actually pitched.

For instance, a guy could get shelled for three innings and give up seven runs, then a long reliever comes and shut the door, meanwhile his team comes back to tie the game 7-7, then the reliever gives up one run and the team loses 8-7. So the reliever gave up one run but otherwise pitched great, and he gets the loss. The starter gave up seven and pitched horribly, but he gets the no-decision.

More common, however, is the case where the reliever coughs up the lead but still ends up with the win when the his team takes the lead immediately afterward. This happens to short relievers and closers a lot.

The W-L stat was created with starters in mind, so it's no wonder that it's flawed when assigning decisions to relievers.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 19 September 2004 22:59 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.