Dempster - only 9 of his 24 saves were 1 run leads.

[frostwyrm]

I freakin' hate the save as a stat.

[Mark Priors Calves]

how many of those were 2 or 3 run saves that he turned into a 1 run save?

[Sammy Sofa]

Too many.

[rynefan]

Yeah. We joke here at home that Dempster needs AT LEAST two runs when he comes in, and that's no joke (and usually that's not enough).

[TheDude]

For this observation to have any relevance whatsoever, you have to list the baseline value, such as an NL or MLB 1-run save percentage.

 

Without that, how do we know Dempster doesn't actually have more 1-run saves than the league average? I don't get the point of this thread.

[frostwyrm]

I don't get the point of this thread.

The point is that Dempster has contributed very very little this year, despite having 24 saves. I'll also add that even successful closers are overvalued and overpaid, and when closers are less than totally successful they are absolutely hideous in terms of bang for the buck.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't get the point of this thread.

The point is that Dempster has contributed very very little this year, despite having 24 saves. I'll also add that even successful closers are overvalued and overpaid, and when closers are less than totally successful they are absolutely hideous in terms of bang for the buck.

 

There are only a handful of players on the team that have contributed more than very little.

[TheDude]

I don't get the point of this thread.

The point is that Dempster has contributed very very little this year, despite having 24 saves. I'll also add that even successful closers are overvalued and overpaid, and when closers are less than totally successful they are absolutely hideous in terms of bang for the buck.

 

How many closers on a .400 team do? Seriously. Mike Gonzalez is a talented young arm who gets little attention and has little value in Pittsburg, but that doesn't mean he isn't worth keeping in the closers role.

 

Closers only have value on winning teams anyway, which is why I don't understand the thread. It seems to me you're beating up on a guy just because his team has been terrible.

[Bote McBoteface]

This is the worst thread ever.

[Guest]

This is the worst thread ever.

 

not even close.

[CubinNY]

I don't get the point of this thread.

The point is that Dempster has contributed very very little this year, despite having 24 saves. I'll also add that even successful closers are overvalued and overpaid, and when closers are less than totally successful they are absolutely hideous in terms of bang for the buck.

 

How many closers on a .400 team do? Seriously. Mike Gonzalez is a talented young arm who gets little attention and has little value in Pittsburg, but that doesn't mean he isn't worth keeping in the closers role.

 

Closers only have value on winning teams anyway, which is why I don't understand the thread. It seems to me you're beating up on a guy just because his team has been terrible.

 

You are missing the point. The save stat is useless. It doesn't matter if Dempster was on a winning team or not.

 

Simply giving the pitcher who pitched last in a close game a save is stupid.

[Guest]

I think the greater point is to leverage your bullpen to get the maximum value out of each pitcher. saves are meaningless and bullpens are mismanaged to accomodate the stat.

[CubinNY]

I think the greater point is to leverage your bullpen to get the maximum value out of each pitcher. saves are meaningless and bullpens are mismanaged to accomodate the stat.

 

Agreed.

 

The only exception that I can think of is Marino Rivera who still pitches two innings on some occasions.

[frostwyrm]

The closer concept is designed to put your most expensive and best reliever in mostly non-critical situations while lesser relievers play fireman and do the real work of saving the game. Most of us know how stupid that is but unfortunately every team feels the needs to have a closer so we end up debating who should close when we know it really shouldn't even be a big deal.