Return to Baseball Leftovers

An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby StlSluggers » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:35 pm

ESPN decided to have a discussion about how goofy the save stat can be sometimes. Here's the highlight of the article:

ESPN.com wrote:So we would love to propose modifying the current save rule this way:

  • A save of one inning or less would require no more than a one-run lead to protect -- or the reliever would have to enter with the tying run on base or at the plate.
  • A save of between 1 1/3 and two innings would require no more than a two-run lead -- or the reliever would have to enter with the tying run on base or at the plate.
  • A save of more than two innings would use the definition in the Wes Littleton Rule -- no more than a three-run lead unless the tying run is at the plate or on deck.
One general manager was so enthusiastic about this idea, he told us he'd even be willing to propose this rule change at the GM meetings this fall. Wish him luck.

But there's also a downside to making a rule change that dramatic. It would, as one AL executive put it, screw up nearly 40 years worth of stat keeping. Granted, we're talking about often-misleading stat-keeping. But if we radically revamp this definition, what do we do about all those saves that have piled up since 1969 -- set fire to them? Tough question. So our third alternative is to suck it up and keep the current rule, but also add a stat that would reflect which relievers are truly getting the toughest outs in a game.

The same AL executive proposed this idea, and he would call it a "stop." To earn a stop, a reliever would have to enter with the tying run either on base or at the plate at any point in the game -- and then:

A. Retire at least one hitter.

B. Leave with the lead intact.

C. Get his team through the inning without any baserunner he was responsible for scoring.

While I'm not sure their ideas are great, I do think that it opens up some great discussion.

If you could make a single, fantasy-relevant stat that would replace the save, what would it be?
Image
Want an easy icon?
http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=133
All you have to do is beat a few guys at picking Sunday's winners.[/url]
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14415
(Past Year: -301)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby thedude » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:03 pm

It would be that hard to do 40 years of stat keeping. Just go back and look at the box scores. Just like someone did to calculate saves prior to the invention of the save rule.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
thedude
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 8014
(Past Year: -397)
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Good Life

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby Madison » Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:00 am

Nerfherders wrote:I was just going to post about this.

I like the idea of the stop rule. It would be a way for all relievers to be judged equally. It would also change strategy a bit where you might not bring in your closer for the last inning but perhaps in the seventh with runners on. If stops becomes what means $$ to relievers then it wouldnt matter if you had a 'closer'. You would simply have a #1 reliever who would come into the tighest spots. In fact, its possible that a #1 reliever would have as many stops as saves, if they used him in every instance where a stop rule would come into play - even as early as the 6th.

It's actually such a great idea, it makes me wish that there was a fantasy game site out there that allowed for making custom stats like this one.


I agree about stops being a very interesting new stat. ;-D

I disagree that managers will completely change their strategy due to a stat though. For example, Torre wouldn't bring Rivera into the game in the 7th inning, bases loaded, two outs, and up by one, just so Rivera could notch a "stop". I doubt any manager would... :-?
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 48715
(Past Year: -5140)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby davidmarver » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:34 pm

I don't really understand why changing the stat rule even matters. It's not going to affect the scores in games, and it's just going to be a nightmare trying to recalculate history. And even then, the order of the top saves leaders isn't likely to change. This is just an asthetic request.
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 5826
(Past Year: -328)
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby Brandaddy » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:16 pm

Madison wrote:
Nerfherders wrote:I was just going to post about this.

I like the idea of the stop rule. It would be a way for all relievers to be judged equally. It would also change strategy a bit where you might not bring in your closer for the last inning but perhaps in the seventh with runners on. If stops becomes what means $$ to relievers then it wouldnt matter if you had a 'closer'. You would simply have a #1 reliever who would come into the tighest spots. In fact, its possible that a #1 reliever would have as many stops as saves, if they used him in every instance where a stop rule would come into play - even as early as the 6th.

It's actually such a great idea, it makes me wish that there was a fantasy game site out there that allowed for making custom stats like this one.


I agree about stops being a very interesting new stat. ;-D

I disagree that managers will completely change their strategy due to a stat though. For example, Torre wouldn't bring Rivera into the game in the 7th inning, bases loaded, two outs, and up by one, just so Rivera could notch a "stop". I doubt any manager would... :-?


I also think that it would cause a problem because what if you bring in your ace stopper in the 6th, but then in the 7th or 8th your going to need another stopper,or what if you have the chance for the stop in the 6th and you don't use your stopper, then you don't get another stop chance all game and you didnt use the main guy. I think it would be like holds in a way that it would be kind of hard to tell who the best stop guys are due to them occuring in the middle of games.
I love my Diamondbacks!
Brandaddy
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 245
(Past Year: -5)
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Arizona/Wisconsin

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby ScarletP » Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:08 pm

I totally agree that the save stat needs to be modified. I think the win stat needs to as well, though. I think that in order for a pitcher to get a win, he needs to pitch at least 7 innings and give up no more than 2 earned runs. No more vulture wins.

Actually, the strikeout stat seems silly too. I mean, a pitcher can throw 3 bad pitches (balls) and 3 good pitches (strikes) and get credit for it? I think that in order to be credited with a strikeout, a pitcher can only have one ball on a batter when he strikes out. If a batter is called out on strikes with a 2 or more ball count, it is called a "miss-out" (MO).

And homeruns. It seems a bit easy for a batter to just hit the ball out of play and call it a homerun. The ball need to stay in play for it to be a homerun (previously called inside-the-park homerun). It the ball is hit over the fence, it is called a "ball out of play" (BOP).

Just my 2 cents...

;-7
Image
ScarletP
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 799
(Past Year: -57)
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby Archduke Chocula » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:23 am

StlSluggers wrote:A. Retire at least one hitter.


I recall a save where the closer picked off a hitter at 1B to get the lone out he needed to end the game. That was so awesome that I hope that counts as retiring a hitter.
Don't tase me, bro.
Archduke Chocula
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 179
Joined: 8 Jan 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby Noggy » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:43 am

ScarletP wrote:I totally agree that the save stat needs to be modified. I think the win stat needs to as well, though. I think that in order for a pitcher to get a win, he needs to pitch at least 7 innings and give up no more than 2 earned runs. No more vulture wins.

Actually, the strikeout stat seems silly too. I mean, a pitcher can throw 3 bad pitches (balls) and 3 good pitches (strikes) and get credit for it? I think that in order to be credited with a strikeout, a pitcher can only have one ball on a batter when he strikes out. If a batter is called out on strikes with a 2 or more ball count, it is called a "miss-out" (MO).

And homeruns. It seems a bit easy for a batter to just hit the ball out of play and call it a homerun. The ball need to stay in play for it to be a homerun (previously called inside-the-park homerun). It the ball is hit over the fence, it is called a "ball out of play" (BOP).

Just my 2 cents...

;-7


Don't forget the rule change for what is considered a perfect game. The pitcher must strikeout every hitter on three pitches (and no foul balls either).
Noggy
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 520
(Past Year: -7)
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: An Intriguing Article on ESPN. No, Seriously.

Postby Tavish » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:09 pm

Who cares what the stat is. If GMs know it is a BS stat they should quit paying people based on how many they get. Managers should quit dedicating their best relief pitcher to only appear in save situations. The save stat is basically nothing more than a bargaining tool for players anyways, if GMs want to fix it don't change the rule, just implement another "higher level" save.

If I were to implement something fantasy related it would likely be something having to do with inherited runners. Start getting people to draft guys like Rafael Perez or Frank Francisco.
Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 10554
(Past Year: -510)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Next

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron