At least Phil Mushnick has the honesty to publicize the "Saves" stat farce

'A save, on the other hand, makes no distinction between perfect and awful. A closer can strike out the side on nine pitches or allow two home runs, a triple and two walks - both worth a save.'

• Phil's right--recently an AL closer gave up 2 homeruns and still got the 'save'
• I wonder how Bartolo Colon deduced Mariano didn't win the AL Cy Young last year because he didn't have enough 'saves?' I mean, where would Bartolo have gotten that idea? Even Bill James & Rob Neyer had Mariano rated as clearly the #1 choice, & their computations took in quite a bit more than "number of regular season saves." I guess Colon must get his information from MLB, ESPN, or Fox.

Phil notes Tim McCarver & Joe Buck's discussion of whether Livan Hernandez had a 'quality start' & compares that to lack of quality in the "total saves" stat:

'Compare the two categories:

A quality start is awarded for a minimum of six innings pitched with three or fewer earned runs. Thus, the worst one can do for the day and be credited with a quality start is a 4.50 ERA. So a starter can't be credited with a quality start after being shelled.

Now which is the more ridiculous category, the save or the quality start? And what's wrong with trying to distinguish effective pitching despite a loss or a no-decision?

Yet, McCarver, who recites save totals as if they're indicators of jobs well done, dismisses quality starts as complete nonsense. Cashews, almonds and pistachios, we've all gone nuts.'

from the New York Post 7/24/06

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon