Edwin Diaz on track for single season saves record

[WhyMarinersWhy]

Originally Posted by rman112

The point still is that you need both to win.

Of course. But it speaks to the fact that being a closer isn't some impossible task. 6th inning or 9th, it's still 3 outs. There are a lot of guys who were bad starters who ended up having long careers as closers.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by WhyMarinersWhy

Of course. But it speaks to the fact that being a closer isn't some impossible task. 6th inning or 9th, it's still 3 outs. There are a lot of guys who were bad starters who ended up having long careers as closers.

Only on paper is 3 outs in the 9th equal to 3 puts anywhere else. Tough spot earlier in the game? I can see the comparison. That guy's still not the last line of defense, though. Are there any teams that use their "best guy" earlier than the 9th, that also don't have a capable 9th inning closer?

It's also true that bad starters can become good closers. But if the turnaround were that easy, we wouldn't see multiple teams in the running for a closer every trade deadline. How many failed starters are there? They're everywhere. How many legit closers are there year in and year out? Not many.

[WhyMarinersWhy]

Originally Posted by rman112

Only on paper is 3 outs in the 9th equal to 3 puts anywhere else. Tough spot earlier in the game? I can see the comparison. That guy's still not the last line of defense, though. Are there any teams that use their "best guy" earlier than the 9th, that also don't have a capable 9th inning closer?

It's also true that bad starters can become good closers. But if the turnaround were that easy, we wouldn't see multiple teams in the running for a closer every trade deadline. How many failed starters are there? They're everywhere. How many legit closers are there year in and year out? Not many.

As of right now, I think pretty much every team uses their closer in a "traditional" sense. But this is kind of what I've been getting at -- with the way analytics is taking over the game I really don't see that trend continuing. A few years ago there was no such thing as major infield defensive shifts, but now every team is doing it. It's hard for me to believe that teams who are employing a staff of analytical researchers are going to continue to use their best pitchers in sub-optimal situations. When you look at the numbers it just doesn't make sense. Bottom of the 9th and you're up by 1 run and have to face the middle of the Yankees order? Yeah, you absolutely want Diaz in that spot. Bottom of the 9th and you're up 3 against the 7-8-9 hitters on the Royals? Literally any reliever on the M's can get that save. Some saves are really tough to get, others are really easy.

As for legit closers, I guess that depends on your definition of legit. If you're going by saves I don't think that's a very good barometer of how good a pitcher is, no moreso than using HR or RBIs is for a hitter.

[rman112]

With the 3 run save thing, it's easy to say that now because of how good Diaz has been. I keep bringing it up over and over, but look at the Dodgers lately. No Jansen? Complete mess. They literally blew a 3-0 lead in the 8th just last night.

How many good closers would you say there are in any given year? 10-12? Even that seems a bit high.

How many failed starters would you say there are?

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

You are wrong on all counts.

The fact that you think I am entirely incorrect actually makes me more confident than ever.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

That would be correct. You get through high leverage situations as they come. It is statistically the best strategy to win. The game is changing, we are seeing that with shifting. You will see relief role s change drastically in the next few years much to the chagrin of the super agents as the closer role will become less important and salaries for that position will dwindle

Oh, wow. I was kind of joking. You're actually an advocate for the idea that you use your best reliever in the very first high leverage situation. Ouch.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by WhyMarinersWhy

I want to use my best reliever in the highest leverage situations.

How do you know in the 5th inning if this is going to be the highest leverage situation?

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by WhyMarinersWhy

My point was that if Diaz were to get injured, needed a day off, whatever, somebody else would fill that role and more often than not they would also able to close games out. They wouldn't do it as well or as often, but they would absolutely be able to get saves. And the reason they wouldn't be able to do it as well is almost always going to come down to the fact that Diaz is just better than they are, not anything mental.

So the team would lose more games without Diaz closing than with Diaz closing. Kind of a big point there.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by WhyMarinersWhy

That's just a weird post. I'm not sure what you were going for there, but trying to compare basketball to baseball is apples and oranges. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that since Jordan is the best player, he should be used in the highest-leverage situations.

Don't you remember the post saying there shouldn't be any pressure if you're a big leaguer? Same goes for other big leagues, right?

As for the "highest leverage situations", funny how you admitted that the end of the game was the highest leverage situation without even knowing the score.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by WhyMarinersWhy

Bottom of the 9th and you're up by 1 run and have to face the middle of the Yankees order? Yeah, you absolutely want Diaz in that spot.

But you used Diaz in the 6th inning because it was a "high leverage situation". Can't use him again. And you didn't have the foresight to recognize that we might face the middle of the Yankees order in the 9th and now we're trotting Juan Nicasio out there.

[abide]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

Whymarlinswhy has the right idea here. After the starter exits, your best reliever needs to enter the game in the first high leverage situation. Then the next best enters to extinguish the next high leverage situation. You need to make it to the ninth with the lead first. each of the 27 outs are worth an equal amount, except the high leverage ones.

Let's look at some statistics. A high leverage save is one where the tying run is on base in the ninth. These are the saves which are valuable and you need your best reliever out there. Most consider Rivera the greatest closer of all time. Well, since high leverage saves have been recorded (2000), riveras best single season total was in 2005 when 8 of his 43 saves were high leverage. In 2004 when he recorded 53 saves, 2 where high leverage. That means he was wasted in most games when he could have been used in real save situations that occurred before the ninth because the manager was saving him because of tradition. Most of his "saves" were nothing of the sort. The numbers get even worse. When Francisco Rodriguez set the saves record at 62, guess how many where actually in high leverage situations? One. What a valueless stat.

Andrew Miller's role a few years ago was light years more valuable than any traditional closer.

"A high leverage save is one where the tying run is on base in the ninth."

It seems to me that a 1 run game is automatically high leverage, runners on or not. If a home run will tie the game, if giving up a home run results in a blown save, then no reason why throwing an inning to preserve the win should not result in a save.

Having said that, the argument that the most high leverage situation for a reliever might be in the earlier innings is legit. And for that reason I'm all in favor of a new stat for the 6th, 7th and 8th inning relievers. I would call it the "Quality Hold." I would define that as not giving up a run, when a reliever enters the game with their team down 1 run, tied, or up by 3 or less.

I'll remind everyone, that one reason that the 9th inning has traditionally been considered the only one that mattered to relievers, or maybe that is too much, but the one that mattered most, is because the 9th inning, last chance to tie or get the lead, has been when managers resorted to the pinch hitter. Typically pinch hitting for the weaker part of the lineup, 7th /8th / 9th batting order guys, and perhaps making the inning just as tough on a reliever as if they were pitching to the heart of the order. Particularly the NL with no DH.

In innings earlier than the 9th, you don't see as much pinch hitting, because you might weaken the defense, but the 9th is when a manager says F it, we need to score, and we'll worry about the D later.

Further, a couple of points not yet discussed in this thread, some "old school baseball observations"

Hitters concentrate on every at bat, but in theory, they concentrate a little harder in the 9th.

Hitters swing for the fences on every at bat, but in theory, they cut down on their swing, and just try to reach base one way or another in the 9th.

[pgisback]

Originally Posted by abide

Hitters concentrate on every at bat, but in theory, they concentrate a little harder in the 9th.

Hitters swing for the fences on every at bat, but in theory, they cut down on their swing, and just try to reach base one way or another in the 9th.

For a game that is so mental, this is what I believe also. Everything is more high leverage the last 3 outs of a game. Pinch hitters, pinch runners, batters knowing exactly what they need to do, they are more patient at the plate, more willing to take walks, etc, etc. There is a reason teams pay big dollars for guys that can get the last 3 outs.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by abide

"A high leverage save is one where the tying run is on base in the ninth."

Hitters swing for the fences on every at bat, but in theory, they cut down on their swing, and just try to reach base one way or another in the 9th.

Maybe 20 years ago,but not today. Hitters are always trying to hit a HR. They would rather strike out with no outs, runner on third, in a tie game than try to put the ball in play to give their team the lead or win the game.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Oh, wow. I was kind of joking. You're actually an advocate for the idea that you use your best reliever in the very first high leverage situation. Ouch.

Of course, it's the best strategy. You really don't know too much about baseball there do you "coach". You probably still care about rbi and batting average too huh?

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

Of course, it's the best strategy. You really don't know too much about baseball there do you "coach". You probably still care about rbi and batting average too huh?

Right, it's the best strategy if you think the most important high leverage situation is the FIRST high leverage situation. Because that's how baseball works.

Ease up on the textbook strawman argument approach. Makes you look desperate. Everyone else has been civil. If you want to compare resumes, shoot me a PM.

[coachnip13]

Still waiting for davey to explain how a one run lead with Betts, Benintendi, and Martinez coming up isn't high leverage.

[daveyc1]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Right, it's the best strategy if you think the most important high leverage situation is the FIRST high leverage situation. Because that's how baseball works.

Ease up on the textbook strawman argument approach. Makes you look desperate. Everyone else has been civil. If you want to compare resumes, shoot me a PM.

I do believe I have been just as civil as you sir. I am sure if I PMed you would let me know all about your mlb coaching gig. Most internet tough guys have amazing resumes.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by daveyc1

I do believe I have been just as civil as you sir. I am sure if I PMed you would let me know all about your mlb coaching gig. Most internet tough guys have amazing resumes.

That's ironic.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Still waiting for davey to explain how a one run lead with Betts, Benintendi, and Martinez coming up isn't high leverage.

Honestly, it doesn't even need to be that extreme.

HR per game in the big leagues:
2018 - 1.15
2017 - 1.26
2016 - 1.16

We're seeing homers more than ever. Even during the 'steroid era', the highest was 1.17 in 2000.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by rman112

Honestly, it doesn't even need to be that extreme.

HR per game in the big leagues:
2018 - 1.15
2017 - 1.26
2016 - 1.16

We're seeing homers more than ever. Even during the 'steroid era', the highest was 1.17 in 2000.

Agreed. The batter is already in scoring position these days.

[moose84]

50 saves right now

31 games left, 12 saves needed to tie record, 13 to break it

[djohn]

Originally Posted by moose84

50 saves right now

31 games left, 12 saves needed to tie record, 13 to break it

He is still on track based on his save rate to get 12 more saves, so it's going to be close.

[lambeauleap87]

I found a Topps Black rookie /65 of Diaz over the weekend, I now thing saves are super important until someone buys it from me.

[djohn]

So far he has 56 saves, good for 2nd place all time. However with 12 games left, he is going to have to save at least half of them to tie the record. I honestly don't see it happening, but it would be pretty nice if it did.

[crtsports]

Originally Posted by djohn

So far he has 56 saves, good for 2nd place all time. However with 12 games left, he is going to have to save at least half of them to tie the record. I honestly don't see it happening, but it would be pretty nice if it did.

To think this team wasted a potentially 60 save reliever this year is maddening.