MLB stat question

[Reality]

Zig, dabods or others who know for a fact,

Trevor Hoffman has 6 losses.  Yet espn records him as having only 4 blown saves.
Are both a blown save and a loss registered as one each seperately when a reliever does both?
(Which a closer will do 90% of the time in a loss).

[ziggy]

Not every appearance is a save opportunity. 
Lead by 3 runs or less;
ahead by more than 3 runs and the leading run (or tying not sure which) is in the in deck circle;
These are save opportunities, no others are.

Hoffman can get a loss when he comes in when the game is tied, and they lose.  That is not a blown save.
Hoffman can blow a save, and then the Pads can come back and get the win.  He can get a win or a no decision.  Not a blown save, and a potential win or a no decision.
Hoffman can start an inning with a 4 run lead, and lose, he gets a loss and no blown save.
He comes in with 2 out in the 8th and the Pads trail.  He gets the out, Pads then bat, and take the lead.  He then pitches the 9th and loses.  That is a loss, but not a blown save, because he was eligible for the win and not the save.

If you blow a save and get a loss they are both recorded as separate stats, just like a HR is a HR, a run, a an RBI, an extra base hit, a hit, 4 tb etc.

[Wolverine]

Not every appearance is a save opportunity. 
Lead by 3 runs or less;
ahead by more than 3 runs and the leading run (or tying not sure which) is in the in deck circle;
These are save opportunities, no others are.

Incorrect.

There's a third and final way to earn a save: if you're not the winning pitcher and have pitched for at least three innings.

This also constitutes a save.

[JoMal]

Zig, dabods or others who know for a fact,

Trevor Hoffman has 6 losses.  Yet espn records him as having only 4 blown saves.
Are both a blown save and a loss registered as one each seperately when a reliever does both?
(Which a closer will do 90% of the time in a loss).

Yes. You also can win the game and get a blown save, which Hoffman did in his last appearance.

Also, only two of his loses came in save situations.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/4975/gamelog;_ylt=AloBps2aXByFGMETphEMd2iFCLcF

[jemagee]

Ah the save, and its bastard cousin, the hold, two of the dumber stats that guide managers...don't bring your 'closer' in in the most LEVERAGED situation, it must be a save situation...so if the heart of the order is up in the 8th, instead of 9th, don't use closer...stupid stat

[ziggy]

Not every appearance is a save opportunity. 
Lead by 3 runs or less;
ahead by more than 3 runs and the leading run (or tying not sure which) is in the in deck circle;
These are save opportunities, no others are.

Incorrect.

There's a third and final way to earn a save: if you're not the winning pitcher and have pitched for at least three innings.

This also constitutes a save.

Caleb is correct, I missed stated.

[jemagee]

That's a part I love...pitcher comes into a 15-0 game, if he gives up 10 runs but pitches the last 3 innings, he gets a save

[JoMal]

That's a part I love...pitcher comes into a 15-0 game, if he gives up 10 runs but pitches the last 3 innings, he gets a save

Um....no. He would not.

[ziggy]

That's a part I love...pitcher comes into a 15-0 game, if he gives up 10 runs but pitches the last 3 innings, he gets a save

Actually there is some discretion given to the official scorer, and they are not "required" to give a save, even if the criteria is officially met.  In your case it would be at the discretion of the official scorer, and I doubt the official scorer would give a save given that players performance.

As to similar but other extreme situations, a circumstance similar to what you refer to happens on an extremely rare basis, perhaps 1 time per season or less, maybe 1 time in every 2,430 games.  You set a criteria by which to measure a performance by, and recognize that it is possible that in extreme cases something ridiculous could happen.  Rather than get caught up in the minutia of the extremely rare, you accept the possibility and move on.  It measures what it was intended to measure very well, except for very, very rare occasions.  So while you allow your contrariness to limit the information with which to evaluate performance, I prefer to save the baby and not flush it out with the bath water.

[jemagee]

My problem with the save is not the 3 inning save, it's the situation i mentioned before, it pigeonholes your highest caliber relief pitcher to be used not necessarily in the highest leveraged situation but in the 'save' situation (if you even get there) because he's your closer.

THere's a lot of people out there smarter than me who have made the argument for the ridiculousness of the save stat and the 'closer' - giving the save such ridiculous value and having your 'closer' means that only the most forward thinking (and there are so few of them) managers (and franchises) would consider bringing the 'closer' in if the higher leverage situation is in the 8th as opposed to the 9th

IOW - the 'power' and 'importance' of the save restricts the use of your best non starting pitcher (usually), and that's just silly to me...the fact that you can get a 3 inning save is silly too....it's not as silly as the hold but it's probably worse than judging a pitchers performance as good or bad purely  on his win loss record and ERA

[ziggy]

My problem with the save is not the 3 inning save, it's the situation i mentioned before, it pigeonholes your highest caliber relief pitcher to be used not necessarily in the highest leveraged situation but in the 'save' situation (if you even get there) because he's your closer.

I agree with you here.

There are a lot of mediocre relief pitchers who get saves, so the measurement of the best relief should not be based upon saves, though saves can and should be a part of the calculation.  Mariano Rivera has lead the league in saves only 3 times in 13 seasons, but he was probably the best relief pitcher in every one of those seasons.  Last year Rafael Betancourt was probably the best relief pitcher in the American league, but he had 3 saves and Joe Borowski had 45 with a 5.07 era.  Cleveland went to the playoffs in large measure because they pitched Betancourt in a manner similar to (quite by accident I am sure) what you refer to, which is similar to the Bill James philosophy, which I believe is greatly misunderstood, and the best way to manage a bullpen.  Dollars being what they are though, can cause perverse incentives, which can lead to poor decision making.

[jemagee]

Bill James is greatly misunderstood in general I believe.  I don't even think it's misunderstood, it's just that there are so many 'old school' guys who just don't want to believe that there's anything new in baseball (or football or basketball, but baseball has a longer tradition)...there's a deep divide in baseball, and the franchises that are adjusting to the 'new order' faster are the ones doing well (i mean, for god sakes, the red sox HIRED bill james)...sadly my team seems a little slow to come around, and probably never will until they fire that idiot dallas green, oh yeah and sell the franchise.

It's nice that the yankees ownership is still clueless though.

[jemagee]

Interesting (to me) read on the save today

http://mvn.com/mlb-stats/2008/09/03/holds-saves-and-blown-saves/#more-611

[ziggy]

Interesting (to me) read on the save today

http://mvn.com/mlb-stats/2008/09/03/holds-saves-and-blown-saves/#more-611

Interesting article, and it does support the Bill James philosophy.  It also shows that Mariano Rivera is the best relief pitcher in baseball last 5 seasons, and Joe Nathan is #2.

I also am of the opinion that an effort are more effectively applying inherited runners scored to ERA would be a positive change.  I have always had a problem with that, and the fact that starting pitchers get 100% of the "cost" of the inherited runner, while the relief pitcher who actually allowed the run to score absorbs no "cost".  Early this year Hideki Okajima looked awesome, based upon ERA, but when you included inherited runners scored he was actually pretty marginal.

[jemagee]

  Early this year Hideki Okajima looked awesome, based upon ERA, but when you included inherited runners scored he was actually pretty marginal.

ANd if you looked at his walk rate it didn't matter, cause that was god awful.

You can come up with a lot of examples as to why evaluating a pitcher by his ERA (and W/L record) is probably not even a 'good' way to evaluate a pitcher any more than looking at HR and RBI is the best way to evaluate an offensive player (yeah you ryan howard)