23 August, 2007

how on earth...

did a texas pitcher earn a save in a 30-3 win? really. it's baffling. i guess the sabrmetric contention that saves are a wildly overrated stat has some teeth.

5 comments:

august said...

You know, this game has me upset about a number of things, but that wasn't one of them.

Being an Oriole fan makes it hard to enjoy baseball. Sure, I'll catch an occasional Met game on the radio, but basically, any sustained attention to the game just reminds me of Baltimore's pitiful state, and I get, well, like this.

Uggh.

twiffer said...

on the plus side, you have a nice ballpark.

and cal! don't forget cal!

Claude Scales said...

As near as I can tell, what happened was that the Rangers' starter was taken out early, when the score was still within save range, and the guy who relieved him stayed on through the ninth, and benefited from all those runs.

Archaeopteryx said...

Apparently, Littleton received a save because he pitched the last three innings.

I don't see any more of a problem assigning a save in such a game than when a pitcher gives up five runs in five innings, but still gets a win because the opposing pitcher gave up six.

twiffer said...

arch: completely different situation. win/loss means just that. if you win 30-29, you still won the game. you are simply describing why w/l record is not a good indicator of a pitcher's skill. it's an old argument. a pitcher with a 10-0 record, 6.00 era and whip around 2.00 is far worse a pitcher than one with a 0-10 record, 2.50 era and whip around .80.

on the other hand, saving a game implies you are in a situation where you could easily lose. 30-3 is not such a situation.