Closing.. I Mean C'mon How Difficult Can it Be?

[scottbdoug]

It is extremely difficult to save games at a high percentage. My definition of a high percentage is 90%.

To put it in perspective. An average team vs. and average pitcher will score at least one run in a given inning about 28% of the time. If there is one out then that drops to 16%, two outs its 7%. So even with two outs being up by a run an avg. pitcher will have a save% of 93%. Now we know closers aren't avg. pitchers, but we also must remember that closers come in quite often with runners on base which significantly raises the chances of the opposing team scoring.

For example with no outs and a runner on 1st base, an avg. team vs. an avg. pitcher will score 44% of the time, if the runner is at 2nd instead of 1st its 63% of the time, and at 3rd its 84% of the time. These situations with two outs still come out as 13%, 22% and 28% respectively. You can see how it becomes quite difficult even with a great pitcher to save games at 90%.

Rather than theory, lets look at real life. I will give you some closers that were thought of a great over the history of baseball and what their save% was. In fact why dont we start with the all time save leaders:

1. Mariano Rivera
2. Trevor Hoffman
3. Lee Smith
4. Francisco Rodriguez
5. John Franco
6. Billy Wagner
7. Dennis Eckersley
8. Joe Nathan
9. Jonathan Papelbon
10. Jeff Reardon
11. Troy Percival
12. Randy Myers
13. Rollie Fingers
14. John Wetteland
15. Francisco Cordero
16. Roberto Hernandez
17. Huston Street
18. Jose Mesa
19. Todd Jones
20. Rick Aguilera
21. Robb Nen
22. Tom Henke
23. Rich Gossage
24. Jeff Montgomery
25. Doug Jones
26. Jason Isringhausen
Bruce Sutter

Of this list can you name the ones who have a save percentage of 90% or better?

You are right, you can't. Mariano Rivera, the greatest closer of all time has a save percentage of 89.07% (652/732).

Trevor Hoffman 88.77% (601/677)

Joe Nathan 89.12% (377/423)

Going through the rest I will let you do. Maybe I missed someone but to my knowledge no reliever has ever converted 90% or more of his save opportunities in his career (taking away those who are just starting out of course)

Aroldis Chapman, one of the more dominant closers recently, is at 89.65 for his career and he hasn't hit his older years yet.

Given that the greatest closers have not reached 90% as a career. And if you look many are even below 85%, you can see that a great closer is a commodity worth pursuing if he shows he can close games in the high 80s percentile. And if you can get him in the peak years when he does save above 90% of his games then you are in a enviable position.

Of course given the fact that trying to find a closer that will be as consistent as he has been the previous year or few years can be a crap shoot. Its why the Riveras of the world command top dollar.

[Prenticles]

I'm not trying to be rude but Aroldis Chapman's saves in the World Series were pretty good. BUT...
Chapman blew the 3 run lead in game 7 (granted he was pitched too much before).

[bojack]

I don't really think the save statistic is all that important or telling. While you've done a good job of explaining the reasons why the percentages are what they are, you're basically implying that the better the save percentage, the better the closer. I don't think anyone would say Joe Nathan was marginally better than Rivera.

[Skipscards]

First, saves are one of the most (possibly the most) over-rated stats in all of baseball. That being said, I think your entire argument is undermined by your opening statement. If no one saves games at 90% then 90% isn't a high percentage.

It would be like this:
It is extremely difficult to hit for a high batting average. My definition of a high batting average is .400.

The best hitters in history with the highest career batting averages, guess which one got a hit 40% of the time? That's right, none.

1. Ty Cobb
2. Rogers Hornsby
3. Shoeless Joe Jackson
4. Lefty O'Doul
5. Ed Delahanty
6. Tris Speaker
7. Billy Hamilton
Ted Williams
9. Dan Brouthers
Babe Ruth

Etc

[Ottomatic]

Protecting leads is really important, no matter the inning.

[jmscoggin]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

First, saves are one of the most (possibly the most) over-rated stats in all of baseball. That being said, I think your entire argument is undermined by your opening statement. If no one saves games at 90% then 90% isn't a high percentage.

It would be like this:
It is extremely difficult to hit for a high batting average. My definition of a high batting average is .400.

The best hitters in history with the highest career batting averages, guess which one got a hit 40% of the time? That's right, none.

1. Ty Cobb
2. Rogers Hornsby
3. Shoeless Joe Jackson
4. Lefty O'Doul
5. Ed Delahanty
6. Tris Speaker
7. Billy Hamilton
Ted Williams
9. Dan Brouthers
Babe Ruth

Etc

Jeff, you had me at hello.

[smapdi]

I agree, you started with an arbitrary, subjective hypothesis (that "high percentage" means 90%) then failed to find anyone who met that standard. Complicating that is the stat you're measuring, save percentage/opportunity, is derived from one of the most artificial stats around, the save. Its an agent's stat, a color commentstor's stat, something designed to tell a story, but of little value in evaluating a ball player. It is true that the game has evolved into incredibly specialized roles, so there is a need to evaluate performance in those roles to be the best personnel to help win. But the save isn't the solution there. You can get a save without throwing a single pitch. Not very useful.

Anyway, if you've done these calculations and find that the high end of the spectrum for top performance over a significant sample size is 90%, you could then say that perhaps 81% is "high percentage" as that would be 90% of 90%. Still subjective but gives you some sort of baseline that is difficult but not impossible to achieve.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by jmscoggin

Jeff, you had me at hello.

[scottbdoug]

i thought at the beginning of my thinking process that saving games is an easy thing to do. If you can come into an inning with no one on base and be up by 3 runs and get a save by getting three outs, then c'mon how difficult is that? Or if you come into an inning and the tying run is on deck and there are two outs, then c'mon how difficult can it be.

Well then I did some research and it looks like my thinking was correct. An avg. pitcher will stop his opponent from tying the game in these situations is over 93%. So you would figure an above avg. pitcher it will be higher. And it is. But these two situations do not happen very often. Most times the closer comes in in situations where their team is up by only a run, or are in trouble with opponents on base.

Knowing that an average pitcher pitching with the bases empty and no one out will give up a run, and therefore the save 28% of the time or a save % of 72% then that would be approximately the baseline. With one out it becomes 84%, two outs its 93%. If you think a good closer is better than the avg. pitcher, and who wouldn't, then 85%, 94% and 100% is not too difficult to imagine in the three situations given, or 90% overall.

90% career-wise might be too tough of a measure. But if you are a manager up by a run in the 9th inning and you bring in your closer, you want it to be automatic. If its 8 of 10 it doesn't cut it. And in any given season 90% is achievable by any good closer in his prime. But even if it is lower, all I was saying is 90% is what you want and even for the greatest closers it is hard to achieve. But originally I didn't think it was. Looking closer at it I realized it is not.

Point being, those who think saves are an arbitrary and pointless stat, is incorrect, at least as an evaluation tool of a great reliever. It shows someone who can pitch at his best at the time in the game where the most pressure is felt.

If closing games wasn't difficult, then you wouldn't have such a turnover at the role. Guys close for a year, maybe two, they crack and cant continue to do it. The pitcher who can close year after year, at a high save % is very rare. Many great relievers can do it for a season or two, but very few can do it over a large number of years.

So a relief pitcher who closes games at a consistently high rate can command money similar to great starters, although for me because of the large difference in innings (usually about a third of the innings for the closer), the starter should earn more.

[scottbdoug]

i thought at the beginning of my thinking process that saving games is an easy thing to do. If you can come into an inning with no one on base and be up by 3 runs and get a save by getting three outs, then c'mon how difficult is that? Or if you come into an inning and the tying run is on deck and there are two outs, then c'mon how difficult can it be.

Well then I did some research and it looks like my thinking was correct. An avg. pitcher will stop his opponent from tying the game in these situations is over 93%. So you would figure an above avg. pitcher it will be higher. And it is. But these two situations do not happen very often. Most times the closer comes in in situations where their team is up by only a run, or are in trouble with opponents on base.

Knowing that an average pitcher pitching with the bases empty and no one out will give up a run, and therefore the save 28% of the time or a save % of 72% then that would be approximately the baseline. With one out it becomes 84%, two outs its 93%. If you think a good closer is better than the avg. pitcher, and who wouldn't, then 85%, 94% and 100% is not too difficult to imagine in the three situations given, or 90% overall.

90% career-wise might be too tough of a measure. But if you are a manager up by a run in the 9th inning and you bring in your closer, you want it to be automatic. If its 8 of 10 it doesn't cut it. And in any given season 90% is achievable by any good closer in his prime. But even if it is lower, all I was saying is 90% is what you want and even for the greatest closers it is hard to achieve. But originally I didn't think it was. Looking closer at it I realized it is not.

Point being, those who think saves are an arbitrary and pointless stat, is incorrect, at least as an evaluation tool of a great reliever. It shows someone who can pitch at his best at the time in the game where the most pressure is felt.

If closing games wasn't difficult, then you wouldn't have such a turnover at the role. Guys close for a year, maybe two, they crack and cant continue to do it. The pitcher who can close year after year, at a high save % is very rare. Many great relievers can do it for a season or two, but very few can do it over a large number of years.

So a relief pitcher who closes games at a consistently high rate can command money similar to great starters, although for me because of the large difference in innings (usually about a third of the innings for the closer), the starter should earn more.

[RedSoxFan28]

Kimbrel is at 91.1%, 256/281

[petillo64]

Dennis Eckersley is the the second greatest closer of all time... FACT

For many of these closers... The reality is, it is much easier to close out a game with 10,000 fans in the crowd, while your team is already 10+ games out of it at the all-star break...

Mariano- Dominance despite complete pressure in a highly competitive club on the biggest stage
Eck- Supreme dominance, despite the hobbling #@#@#@#@-turd named Gibson. This is offset by him winning both the Cy Young and AL MVP in the same year.

Those are the two elite closers in my mind. Total saves or percentages be damned.

[VandyCards]

Yeah, if Rivera had played for any other team, he wouldn't be a HOFer.

People generally don't know how to evaluate closers, or what makes a good one. Longevity is hard, I suppose, but Rivera did worse on pure save conversion than average. I think someone broke down his numbers by actually close saves (one run leads in 1-2 innings, rather than the absurd 3 run lead save) and it was similarly unimpressive.

Great gentleman, great guy, but not a particularly transcendent pitcher.

[scottbdoug]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

Kimbrel is at 91.1%, 256/281

Kimbrel is on a great pace, if he continues he will be considered one of the greatest.

[Ashieft]

Saves as an important stat.... lol

[Prenticles]

If he put the original # around 80-85%, it wouldn't be as bad. But, just saying, this was worded wrong. I understand the topic, but 90% is too high

[teosdesserts]

Zach Britton is around 93% thus far. Granted he has ~60 less saves than Chapman, but he should have better longevity.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by scottbdoug

i thought at the beginning of my thinking process that saving games is an easy thing to do. If you can come into an inning with no one on base and be up by 3 runs and get a save by getting three outs, then c'mon how difficult is that? Or if you come into an inning and the tying run is on deck and there are two outs, then c'mon how difficult can it be.

Well then I did some research and it looks like my thinking was correct. An avg. pitcher will stop his opponent from tying the game in these situations is over 93%. So you would figure an above avg. pitcher it will be higher. And it is. But these two situations do not happen very often. Most times the closer comes in in situations where their team is up by only a run, or are in trouble with opponents on base.

Knowing that an average pitcher pitching with the bases empty and no one out will give up a run, and therefore the save 28% of the time or a save % of 72% then that would be approximately the baseline. With one out it becomes 84%, two outs its 93%. If you think a good closer is better than the avg. pitcher, and who wouldn't, then 85%, 94% and 100% is not too difficult to imagine in the three situations given, or 90% overall.

90% career-wise might be too tough of a measure. But if you are a manager up by a run in the 9th inning and you bring in your closer, you want it to be automatic. If its 8 of 10 it doesn't cut it. And in any given season 90% is achievable by any good closer in his prime. But even if it is lower, all I was saying is 90% is what you want and even for the greatest closers it is hard to achieve. But originally I didn't think it was. Looking closer at it I realized it is not.

Point being, those who think saves are an arbitrary and pointless stat, is incorrect, at least as an evaluation tool of a great reliever. It shows someone who can pitch at his best at the time in the game where the most pressure is felt.

If closing games wasn't difficult, then you wouldn't have such a turnover at the role. Guys close for a year, maybe two, they crack and cant continue to do it. The pitcher who can close year after year, at a high save % is very rare. Many great relievers can do it for a season or two, but very few can do it over a large number of years.

So a relief pitcher who closes games at a consistently high rate can command money similar to great starters, although for me because of the large difference in innings (usually about a third of the innings for the closer), the starter should earn more.

When Buck Showalter first got to the Os there was a game, early in his tenure, where he used his closer in a non-save situation and they won the game. After the game a reporter asked Buck, "Aren't use aware of the Save rule?" To which Buck replied, "I care more about the winning rule."

The reality is, I could just as easily argue that turnover in the role is attributable to how interchangeable all these guys are. Also, injuries happen. Most closers just go in there and throw as hard as they can. Injuries are inevitable, causing turnover.

Then, when you wrote this:

Originally Posted by scottbdoug

Knowing that an average pitcher pitching with the bases empty and no one out will give up a run,...

Huh? If that were true, then he average ERA would be 9.00.

Let's not forget, closers are essentially failed starters, nothing more.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by VandyCards

Yeah, if Rivera had played for any other team, he wouldn't be a HOFer.

People generally don't know how to evaluate closers, or what makes a good one. Longevity is hard, I suppose, but Rivera did worse on pure save conversion than average. I think someone broke down his numbers by actually close saves (one run leads in 1-2 innings, rather than the absurd 3 run lead save) and it was similarly unimpressive.

Great gentleman, great guy, but not a particularly transcendent pitcher.

I think team is irrelevant. Trevor Hoffman and Lee Smith routinely played for mediocre teams and logged more saves than just about anyone in history. Meh.

[mfw13]

Don't remember where I read it, probably on ESPN somewhere a while ago, but:

Prior to the existence of closers, teams won roughly 89% of all games where they had a one, two, or three run lead entering the 9th inning.

Since the advent of closers, teams have also won roughly 89% of all games where they had a one, two, or three run lead entering the 9th inning.

By my reading, that data tells me that specialized closers aren't any better at protecting 9th inning leads than the guys who did the job prior to the existence of closers.

[StraWMyerS]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Don't remember where I read it, probably on ESPN somewhere a while ago, but:

Prior to the existence of closers, teams won roughly 89% of all games where they had a one, two, or three run lead entering the 9th inning.

Since the advent of closers, teams have also won roughly 89% of all games where they had a one, two, or three run lead entering the 9th inning.

By my reading, that data tells me that specialized closers aren't any better at protecting 9th inning leads than the guys who did the job prior to the existence of closers.

They took our jobs!!

[scottbdoug]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Don't remember where I read it, probably on ESPN somewhere a while ago, but:

Prior to the existence of closers, teams won roughly 89% of all games where they had a one, two, or three run lead entering the 9th inning.

Since the advent of closers, teams have also won roughly 89% of all games where they had a one, two, or three run lead entering the 9th inning.

By my reading, that data tells me that specialized closers aren't any better at protecting 9th inning leads than the guys who did the job prior to the existence of closers.

the avg pitcher going into any inning will give up a run 27.5% of the time. that means a good closer will fair about 16% better over his career. Given that even great teams win/loss is 60/40 you can see how a closer would significantly improve a teams chances.

But its true there were guys coming out of the bullpen to stop other teams in the late innings before the invention of the closer. And those were usually their best relievers, or even rested starters, which would explain the 89% if it is a true stat.

I also agree that saves aren't an important stat per se, a great reliever is a great reliever, whether he has 40 saves or 2 saves. But the guy who can save games year after year is a good indication that he can pitch just as well under pressure which some great relievers cant.

Also the extra respect a starting pitcher gets compared to relievers is not much warranted in an age where starters are lucky to stay in past the 5th inning. And the trend is continuing where in the future the word starter will only mean the pitcher who happens to be the first of the 7 or 8 pitchers who enter the game that day.

[TimBuckTwo]

Your knowledge and stats are impressive and this is a very interesting subject you have presented.

When I think of closers I think of in no particular order and starting back in time...

Goose Gossage, Rollie Fingers, Denis Eckersley, Mariano Rivera

[VandyCards]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

I think team is irrelevant. Trevor Hoffman and Lee Smith routinely played for mediocre teams and logged more saves than just about anyone in history. Meh.

Perhaps not for numbers (I mean the difference between a good team and a bad team is what, 20 wins? and of those how many are close? 5? 10?), but certainly for fame. Quite relevant for fame, and also the opportunity to "shine" in the post season