About Me
RSS Icon
Contact Me

B4B

Winners Don’t Provide More Save Opportunities

Posted on January 21st, 2008 by dchase

This table represents Average Team Save Opportunities from 2005-2007:

RK Team Avg
1 Milwaukee 67.7
2 San Diego 67.7
3 Chicago AL 67.0
4 Washington 65.7
5 San Francisco 64.3
6 Florida 64.0
7 Los Angeles AL 63.7
8 Oakland 63.7
9 Colorado 63.3
10 Philadelphia 63.3
11 Texas 63.0
12 Toronto 62.3
13 Detroit 61.3
14 Seattle 61.3
15 Arizona 60.7
16 Boston 60.7
17 New York AL 60.7
18 Houston 60.3
19 Atlanta 60.0
20 Los Angeles NL 60.0
21 Cleveland 58.7
22 New York NL 57.7
23 Tampa Bay 57.3
24 Cincinnati 56.3
25 Baltimore 56.0
26 St Louis 55.7
27 Kansas City 54.3
28 Minnesota 54.0
29 Pittsburgh 52.7
30 Chicago NL 52.3

The top 10 teams (less the A’s & Angels) have been mostly “.500 ball clubs” over the 3 years represented. There’s good teams at the bottom, middle and top of the table, and excellent teams (Yankees & Sox) couldn’t be more in the middle.

Next time you’re undecided between Closer A, and Closer B, choose based on the Closers’ ability to miss bats not the quality of the team.

9 Responses to “Winners Don’t Provide More Save Opportunities”

  1. comment number 1 by: fireorlime

    7 out of the top 10 teams are NL teams. Nothing too revelatory there - just interesting to note.

  2. comment number 2 by: dchase

    I noticed the bottom 5 had two of the worst teams over that time span (a distinction I failed to make earlier)

    Going off this basic research I’d probably knock Jakim Soria & Matt Capps down a little bit.

  3. comment number 3 by: RPS

    You can never go wrong drafting closers who K people, but I don’t think your results necessarily take quality of the team out of the equation (not that you claimed that was the case). I would be interested to see how these numbers match up year by year with run differential. One theory would be that middlin teams who score as many runs as they give up tend to play in more close games and thus create more save ops. Or there could be no pattern whatsoever.

  4. comment number 4 by: Mathew Sisson

    I don’t see the value in this list. Save totals fluctuate from year to year even for the top closers. Saves have more to do with team performance than player performance.

  5. comment number 5 by: dchase

    Granted this isn’t the most comprehensive way of looking at the situation, but it’s a “in a box” look at how many total save opportunities a baseball team yields on average over the last 3 seasons.

    The yankees and red sox have been some of the most successful teams over the time span represented in the table, yet, have only provided an average of 60 SvOs for their bullpen.

    Many fantasy managers bump closers up on their list that play for a quality team, I’d advise staying away from the really bad teams, but not over valuing a closer because his team is a lock for 95+ wins.

    Wins don’t equal save opportunities.

    eg. I’ll take Saito over Mariano Rivera (with all else equal), yet Rivera is going much higher in ADP.

  6. comment number 6 by: charlie

    Is there a possibility that there is some correlation between runs scored or park size?

    For example there are less runs scored in a park like petco. Pitching battles with lower scores tend to be closer and therefore create more save opportunities? it’d be interesting to see what the graph would look like with runs scored neutralized.

  7. comment number 7 by: dchase

    charlie, send me an email. let’s talk about adding your ideas and making this more comprehensive.

  8. comment number 8 by: Mathew Sisson

    I would have to say that projected runs scored and allowed or projected W-L would be a better indicator to try and base projected saves with.


  9. […] Winning Teams Don’t Provide More Save Opportunities for Their Closers […]

Join the Discussion! Leave a Reply:

Name

Mail (never published)

Website