In the words of the great Clemens (that's Samuel, not Roger -- or "Mark Twain" to most folks), there's three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

If there's one statistic in baseball which is more misunderstood by analysts and fans and more abused by spin doctors than the "save," it's the save's bastard cousin, the "blown save."

Teams LOVE to point out that their "closer" blew "only" four or seven or nine saves, but the rest of the bullpen was 9-for-26 or (in this case) 3-for-24 or some other such nonsense.

OF COURSE THEY WERE.

If a "save situation" (blecchhh) arises any time a pitcher enters the game after the fifth inning with his team ahead and the tying run in the hole, then many more saves will be blown in the middle innings than in the ninth. Let me count the ways, off the top of my head, this is a bogus stat to call out:

- There are more "save opportunities" in the sixth through eighth innings in which the opposing team will have chances to close the gap.
- "Closers" will pump up their own "save percentage" (speaking of bogus stats) with several one-inning, two- or three-run lead situations per year.
- Middle relievers and setup men don't GET "easy saves" because managers are legally required by The LaRussa Act of 1987 to bring in their "closer" to "nail down" the ninth inning.

Here's a "save" -- Blue Jays are up 5-2 over Boston. Kelvim Escobar enters in the ninth with nobody on and punches out Jason Varitek and gets Mike Lansing to pop up. Then Kevin Millar doubles and David Ortiz homers. But Jeremy Giambi strikes out to end the game. A SAVE! WOOHOO! (And, I think, a familiar scenario to many on this blog.)

Here's a "blown save" -- Yankees lead Texas 3-2 after five innings when aging, wheezing David Wells has to leave the game due to the heartbreak of psoriasis. Jeff Weaver comes in and throws four innings of two-hit, one-run ball, walking none and striking out seven. The Yankees win in the 10th inning, giving a "vulture" win to Juan Acevado. Weaver, in one of the great ironic truisms of baseball box scores, gets a "BS" next to his name and pitching line.

Extreme examples, yes. But which would you rather have your pitcher doing?

To add to what Mick is saying, if a closer comes into the 9th to record a save, the middle reliever that pitched effectively before the 9th will have his save taken away by the closer.

So if the Jays lead 3-2 and Politte retires the side in the 8th, and Escobar comes and finishes the game in the 9th, Escobar gets the save.

In the same situation if Politte gives up a run in the 8th he gets a blown save.

In the first example Politte is 0-0 in save chances. In the second example he's 0-1 in save chances.

While not perfect, (saves + holds)/blown saves would be better to look at than just save percentage.

http://economics.about.com
Is there such a statistic as "blown holds"?

Mike

If I'm not mistaken, holds are essentially the same criteria as saves, except it is credited to a player who doesn't finish a game which his team eventually goes on to win.

In that sense if you do look at (holds + saves)/save opportunties as Pistol suggests, you get a more complete picture of 'blown holds'.

It won't differentiate difficult holds versus easy holds though. And since IMO there is a vast difference, I'm not sure how much value that stat by itself has.

No such thing as a blown hold. The requirement for a hold is even sillier than for a save.

And, it's possible to have more than one blown save per game.

AND! I can prove it in one box score.

Seattle v. Texas, 15 Apr 2002

On April 15, 2002, Jeff Nelson of Seattle is pitching against Texas in the bottom of the 7th with Seattle ahead 10-7. He allows a walk, a double and a single while retiring two batters, and he leaves with the M's up 10-8 but with the tying runs on base. For this display, he receives a hold because the M's were ahead when he departed, despite the trouble in which he left them.

Arthur Rhodes comes in, allows a triple to tie the game, and receives a blown save.

Seattle scores in the top of the 9th, but Sasaki allows the Rangers to tie it in the bottom of the 9th. Another blown save. But Sasaki also received the win when Seattle took the lead for good in the 10th off (sigh...) Dan Miceli.

So, Nelson allowed three earned runs but got a hold, and Rhodes allowed zero earned runs but got a blown save.

You gotta love Fordin's comprehensiveness!

Spencer Fordin is threatening to become the best Jays beat writer around, if he isn't that already. I don't know the degree to which his employer (MLB) ever puts him in conflicts of interest -- I know what it's like to publish for people who have a particular agenda they like to see in print -- but if his work is compromised, I've seen no evidence of it. Comprehensive, indeed.

I've been wondering when someone would mention that Catalanotto's season ended when his new teammate Mark shattered some hand bones with a fastball. That better be a nice steak dinner Cat's getting.

Fordin's at it again with this piece about Sturtze.

As one of the reasons for going to a bullpen-by-committee rather than re-signing Ugueth Urbina, Theo Epstein pointed out that U-Squared had to protect a small number of one-run games (which he blew a number of) but many three-run leads. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm sure this is a common tactic used in arbitration hearings.

Which reminds me of another excerpt from The Year I Owned the Yankees. The Yankees closer in the book (or it might have been a starting pitcher; either way, I can't remember the guy's name! Help, Coach!) goes to arbitration, and he is coming off a brilliant year. Well, one of the arguments the Yankees used was that the Nameless Closer or Possible Starter had given up a home run to Walt Weiss, who had only two homers that year.

"How many home runs did Walt Weiss hit last year? Two. Count 'em. One. Two."

Highly-recommended reading, right up there with Ulysses.

Gitz, that was closer Tums Taft in the hearing. The team's lawyer laughed and said, "Pay you a million dollars? I've seen you pitch. You stink!"