Rivera, Hoffman, and Saves

Mariano Rivera just broke the all-time saves record. By the end of his career, it'll be more like he smashed it, ground it into a fine powder, mixed it into his smoothie and drank it. I want so much to be able to refute all of the Yankees fans running around bragging about this. I want to be able to point out that Trevor Hoffman is still better or at least point to another closer. After all, the statistic has only been official since 1969. Surely there is someone else who is better. But there probably isn't.

I actually like Rivera. He goes about his business. Doesn't seems like an asshole or douchebag. I'm envious that the Yankees have had a solid closer for 15-odd years (except against the Red Sox, against whom he's blown the most saves, which is some solace). So instead of denigrating his achievement and, by proxy, the enthusiasm of Yankees fans, I'm going to denigrate the save statistic. It's the only way I can feel better about myself as the Red Sox have seen their Wild Card lead dwindle and the Yankees pull away.

But first, I can't help but try to poke some holes in Rivera's accomplishment even though it doesn't completely wash out. Rivera's numbers are, after all, slightly better than Hoffman's. I'll even forgive him for stealing another's entrance music (my entrance music would be Jeff Buckley's "Eternal Life", incidentally). However! Hoffman played for some pretty bad teams. Even though Hoffman, to this point, played more seasons than Rivera (he missed the 2003 season), his teams won a total of 1,243 games compared to the Yankees 1,460. Obviously, not every game the Yankees won had a save situation (same for the Padres), but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that Rivera has had more opportunities to save games than Hoffman. In fact, over Rivera's career as closer, the Yankees have had less than 90 wins twice. Hoffman's teams have had more than 90 wins twice. What happens if Hoffman had played for the Yankees and Rivera for the Padres(/Brewers)? No way to tell. But their numbers are close enough that the argument could be turned around. The tipping point of the argument could be that as of June 29, 2009 Rivera hit 110 saves of more than one inning whereas Hoffman only had 55. Of course, that also increases the arguments for the likes of Goose Gossage and Rollie Fingers.

But the save is a ridiculous stat to begin with. It's a way to value a closer, but with the advanced statistics that have been developed, there's no need for it to tell how good a pitcher is. Why not use WHIP (Walks + Hits/Inning Pitched), Strikeout to Walk ratios, ERA+ (adjusts ERA to player's ballpark), or WAR (Wins Above Replacement player)? Just look at the requirements to register a save:

1. He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team;
2. He is not the winning pitcher;
3. He is credited with at least ⅓ of an inning pitched; and
4. He satisfies one of the following conditions:
   1. He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning
   2. He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, at bat or on deck
   3. He pitches for at least three innings

"A lead of no more than three runs"? Are you kidding me? A good pitcher has an ERA of around 3.00.  That means he gives up about 3 runs for every nine inning game. So a closer shouldn't be expected to not give up three runs in one or two innings? That's ridiculous. Any major league pitcher should be able to hold a team scoreless for one inning most of the time. Additionally, I would expect closers to have lower ERAs than starters since they only pitch for one inning most of the time. Sure, it's generally a high pressure inning (though I'd argue that a three run lead in the 9th isn't exactly high pressure), but it's not like they have the same type of fatigue. And if they're doing their job, they're only throwing about 15-20 pitches.

Also, I person can get a save for pitching at least three innings. Even if the scoreboard looks like this?:

Condition 2 is really the only one that makes sense. If that seems strict... well it should be. If you want to compete at an elite level, then you've got to have higher standards