They're Lucky They Have Him
| 20
|
by Tmizzle
No introductory paragraph here. This is what's bothering me today:
The qualifications for a save are ( via MLB.com)
"1) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning;
2) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batters he faces), or
3) He pitches for at least three innings."
I personally think that the definition of a save should only include the second qualification. If you're a major league pitcher and you can't get three batters out without giving up three runs, you really shouldn't be a major league pitcher. The second qualification actually involves "saving" the game, as the game is actually in jeopardy in such a situation. The third qualification is extremely ridiculous. Pitch the last three innings and you get a save? Are you kidding me?
Tonight, the Texas Rangers beat the Baltimore Orioles in the first game of a doubleheader. The final score was 30-3. Now, the final score in itself is outrageous, but if you looked at the box score, you'd find that Kason Gabbard picked up the win (talk about run support), and Daniel Cabrera took the loss. You'll also see that Wes Littleton picked up the save. In a 30-3 ballgame, there was a save earned. Now, sure, Texas scored 10 runs in the 8th and 6 runs in the 9th to end up with the 30 runs. Even so, when Littleton entered the game, the score was 14-3. I think Sammy Sosa could have earned the save at that point.
The save is a outdated, overrated statistic, and hopefully the time will come where it will either be revised or eliminated completely as a measure of effectiveness for closers.
