The Anatomy of the Save
posted in Analysis, Q&A, Random |I’m still browsing all the free stuff I can read on Baseball Prospectus. I like numbers. Numbers like me. So with all the debate about the need for a good closer and whether or not Jones’ closing 18 of 21 successfully means anything were both questions answered by BP. (And by the way, did you know Fox Sports powerranker Dayn Baker writes for them?)
First off, do Jones’ 18 saves mean anything?
A pure closer is a reliever who only comes in to protect a one- to three-run lead, only in the ninth. The worst pitcher in baseball stands a great chance of pitching the ninth inning without giving up three runs. With no outs, a team with an average offense against an average pitcher can expect to score half a run. (BP)
Jones has three saves with a 1-run lead, seven with a 2-run lead, and a whopping eight with a 3-run lead. Two saves were blown with 1-run leads, and the game against Toronto, I just can’t credit to anyone specifically even if he earned the BS.
Does it really matter?
Woolner’s study also found that a perfect closer–one who never gives up a run pitching the ninth every time his team is ahead–only gives his team four more games in the standings. (BP)
So, a little bit, anyway. It’s possible that makes the difference between playoffs and watching from the golf clubhouse but maybe he doesn’t. Offensive players and starting pitchers both matter more than the closer.
Is Jim Leyland misusing his bullpen?
This reaches back to Ye Good Old Days, when teams didn’t have closers, they had ’stoppers’, the firemen who came in not just when the game was close, but when the starter was faltering. These brave souls would come in not with a lead and no one on, but with the game tied and two runners on–situations where being dominant and getting the outs has a clear and significant impact on the game’s final score.
Resources should always be deployed where they can do the most good, and modern closers as blood-lusting Gods of War, along with their Phobos/Deimos setup men (one lefty, one righty), are a bad use of resources. (BP)
My take: Although the statistics show deplaying your closer in the ninth inning still makes the most sense, having Joel Zumaya available to come out before then and shut down an opposing team’s comeback is a pretty valuable resource for Leyland. And I think we’ve seen Zumaya used just like that. Using him exclusively in the ninth inning would almost be a waste of resources.
In any case, Jones hasn’t been a very good pitcher most of the year but doesn’t pitch long enough for it to bite him in the butt. But there’s a lot of info in the article. You may draw a different conclusion and I welcome you sharing what you come up with in the comments!
Sphere It
Thanks for pulling this together, Kurt. I really need to sift through this because, as I posted on my blog week, Jones (and other closers) sure do get some cheapies. There’s got to be a better way.
It kind of reminds me of the old “game-winning RBI” stat in the late 1970s, early ’80s. You could drive in two runs in the first inning, the other team could score one in the seventh and you would be credited for a “game-winning RBI.” Lame. Glad they did away with that one.
Keep ‘er going.
Mike