Why do people always say the save stat is over rated?

you are right that not everybody can be a great closer.

but i still think it is a overated stat

and its more of people put too much into one basket thing.

K-rod has sixtey something saves this year

and people were crowning him the greatest closer ever

no incorect

just like when judging hitters dont look at RBI's too see how good a hitter is look at different stats liek OBP or Slugging

Rbi's are more a compilation of your team and the players batting in front of you.

so people see k rod had sixtey something saves they think this is the greatest year for a closer ever.

no once again you are wrong k rod might of been the 4th best closer in his own league behind mariano rivera who had his best season and best year for a closer in a while,and behind joe nathan,papelbon,then maybe you could put k rod there.

but league average era is about 4.25 so if you take a league average pitcher and put him into a closer spot most times he will get the save.but true not everybody has the stones to be a closer so that eliminates about 30% of pitchers.

i am not saying it is easy to get a save but i think stupid monkey baseball writers put too much stock into saves like they do with rbi's

actualy analyze the stats like k's per 9 in and era and you will see that k rods year was not that good

and also your a A's fan

billy beane maybe the smartest GM ever he takes an average pitcher puts him into a closer spot that pitcher gets alot of saves then unloads him to a team then that pitcher ends up blowing up.

The role has changed over the years from were all relievers were just starters who were not quite good enough, to some what of a specialty role. I think over rated is maybe a little inaccurate, but overpaid is probably the right term to use. A closer is important because the 9th inning is the hardest, you got to think that this is the inning were the manager will do the most things like pinch hit, sacrifice, pinch run, bunt, steal, pretty much do anything along with the fact that mentally the players always step it up when the game is on the line. Look, between you and I, if the guy has good stuff then he's got good stuff, we all know guys like Rivera, Papelbon, Nen, etc those guys are just plain hard to hit and opposing batters will tell you this but this does not mean they would make excellent starters because a starter really shows his worth when facing the same batters 3 or 4 times over a game. Also consider the record KROD broke, Bobby Thigpen, well that guy was not that good and if he can get that many saves, then well maybe the stat is a little bit overrated.

seriously an A's fan asking this?

okay fine i'll explain it

First off closers are overrated because, when would you rather have your best RP pitching. bottom of the ninth 3 run lead nobody on base. or bottom of the sixth, bases loaded 1 run lead. I would much rather have my best RP pitch in REAL pressure situations.

The save stat is overrated because players with the most saves tend to be on a good team. closers on a bad team do not get as many save situations so they do not get as many saves.

all those pitchers you mentioned are great pitchers but you can not judge them by how many saves they have.

edit- the reason there aren't a ton of great closers (by closers i mean closers who rack up the save stat) because there aren't a ton of great teams to give you that save situation

edit #2(because i have time)-

IF (key word if) you only use the save stat to solely judge a RP, it will show you how inaccurate it is. Example:

Brian Wilson - 41 saves

Joe Nathan - 39 saves

saves would tell you wilson is better BUT he had a 4.62 ERA (absolutely horrible). Nathan had a 1.33 ERA

just showing how the save stat could be misleading

edit- when people say because your an a's fan its because A's fans know sabermetrics. you don't even need to be a sabermetrician to know saves suck.

sabermetrics do work btw. Theo Epstein was the first large market team to use it and look how good it turned out for the red sox

Primarily because saves ARE overrated. Oh, not all of them, and the stat isn't meaningless, but it is probably the only stat where its mere existence drives the manager's in-game roster decisions.

If (save situation == TRUE); then (enter CLOSER); else (do nothing).

And, if the so-called closer is the best pitcher in the bullpen, he should be used for the most critical situation in the game where a reliever is needed, not just for the last inning. But few managers do this, and none do this consistently.

The flip side of the "saves are overrated" crowd is the "saves reveal Ultimate Truth" crowd, and they are by far the more loopy and deranged of the two. Neither is spot-on but the overrated guys are closer to the point.

People call the save statistic overrated because back in the days before saves like in the early seventies closers would come in 3,4, sometimes even 5 innings earlier than the ninth. Many baseball purists still believe that a closer should come in that much earlier to shut down opponents.I dont agree with that but i can see why they think it is unfair that a pitcher can come in for an inning and get millions of dollars for it

You must be way too young to remember the first generation of great closers.I'm talking about the Goose,The Mad Hungarian(Al Hrabosky) and Bruce Sutter.Those guys and a few others changed the way the game is pitched/played.In you own statement/question you admit that a three run lead isn't so hard to hold.Pitching one inning?Try two like they did back in the day.Stats are becoming an over-rated idea of too many agents trying to get money for their clients.When did the "hold" become an all-important stat?And whose idea was it?you can make a case for any stat you want,if you try hard enough.

I don't think it's overrated, I think that a Save takes a lot out of pitchers mentally than it does physically. I mean, although closers typically pitch only 1 or 2 innings, throwing at most like 20-25 pitches on a bad day, the fact that the fate of the game now rests in your hands in the next 10-20 pitches you are about to throw takes quite a toll on a pitcher mentally. Like you said, these closers are going to be pretty nervous when they're on enemy turf. Think about Mariano Rivera trying to close a game at Fenway or Jonathan Papelbon trying to close a game at Yankee Stadium. The crowd absolutely hates one or the other (depending on the pitcher and the ballpark).

It's the most overrated stat in sports and I'll give you an example.

Smoltz comes in the ninth, he has a 2 run lead. He ends up giving up three hits, 1 run and barely gets out of the game and the announcers are raving about Smoltz getting his 40th save. True story.

The save is too easy to get. Krod is another. He gives up a lot of hits and runs. They need to revamp how to get a save and make it harder. Tying run, one run lead, none of this coming in the ninth with a three run lead is for the birds. Cleary when you see someone with 40 saves and an ERA at 4.90, that should tell you the save is an overrated stat.

wrong. they(closers) come in most of the time with no one on base. they are asked to get three outs. the middle reliever usually comes in a tougher situation, with men on base, and, pitch longer(at times).

There are few good closers because most good pitchers are starters. Most relievers are starters who could not make the grade.

They are over hyped and overpaid(se Mets Billy Wagner, who stinks, but earns $10 million per year).

I think people call the stat overrated because the player only comes in for usually three outs and gets credit with a save. but it is not overrated, and with all the pressure of the 9th inning, i dont see how it could be called overrated.