I mean all you are doing is pitching one inning of allowing no runs.
What do you think?
2007-07-19 05:10:58 · 10 answers · asked by #1 New York Yankees Fan 6 in Sports ➔ Baseball
In a way it is. YOu need only pitch 1 inning with a 3 run or less lead, and I believe that qualifies as a save.
Didn't it used to be that you had to pitch 2 or 3 innings to qualify for a save? I don't know. All stats are meaningless.
2007-07-19 05:15:01 · answer #1 · answered by d7602002 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm an old school guy. When I first started watching baseball in the 60's relief pitchers were almost exclusively pitchers who were not good enough to start. Most of the best relief pitchers at that time such as Hoyt Wilhelm had done some starting at some time. That being said I think a guy who can come in and hold a lead in the 9th inning is valuable.
2007-07-19 12:16:53 · answer #2 · answered by ligoneskiing 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
not even allowing no runs just not letting them pass your score. yeah its highly overrated. i think the setup guys are much more valuable and receive no credit for their role. ive seen some of these guys come in and kick the crap out of opposing lineup get run support and no credit brcause todd jones (insert irritating closer here) pitched one inning. i think they should have to pitch two innings minimum to receive save credit. if a starter can pitch 5+ innings why does a closer only pitch one.
my apologies to pabelbon and rivera.
2007-07-19 12:17:40 · answer #3 · answered by j-v 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Bill James did a study and found that if you're leading in the 9th inning, you will win 95% of the time regardless of who pitches for you. He found that it makes more sense to put your best reliever in in the 7th inning in a close game, when the game has more time to turn around.
2007-07-19 13:09:35 · answer #4 · answered by Sam N 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im not sure but saves have only been a recorded stat for about 30 years. Anyways pitchers in the early years of baseball usually pitch complete games now they have all this stupid pitch counts
2007-07-19 12:16:59 · answer #5 · answered by Victor A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what you mean by "overrated". Overrated as compared to what" You know as well as all of us that a save represents the closers ability to hold on to the win for his team and the number of saves represents his ability to do his job. It is up to each fan to come to his own conclusion as to its importance.
2007-07-19 12:41:08 · answer #6 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe it is. The winning pitcher wins the game, all youy have to do is not f--k up. It is "valuable" to have good relief pitchers, but having saves on your record shouldn't mean as much as it's cracked up to be. So yes, saves are over rated.
2007-07-19 12:25:57 · answer #7 · answered by Carter F 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some saves are tougher than others. You could say the same thing about a win sometimes. I believe post-season saves are very sweet.
2007-07-19 12:19:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well if its a 3 run save not really but a 1 run save its a less easier and trust me sometimes there not perfect they blow saves to but in the postseason a save you have to have your stuff
2007-07-19 16:27:36 · answer #9 · answered by Janet ♥(YFFL) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
PRESSURE
2007-07-19 12:19:43 · answer #10 · answered by SK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋