How Can Cy Young Possibly Have Had 19 Saves In His Career? (1 Viewer)

[David Von Pein]

Seeing as how no major-league baseball pitcher EVER was credited with a "Save" until the year 1969.....can someone explain the fact that the great Link Removed is shown with a career count of 19 saves....even though his career ended 58 years BEFORE the save was even introduced!??
This, of course, isn't limited to just Mr. Young's statistics. All pitchers that ever played in the majors have had their records retroactively changed to show saves that they WOULD have been credited with (had the saves rule been in effect during their playing days).
I would think it would have been nearly impossible to re-construct every game in ML history, and award saves where warranted. How was this done? And I was wondering how many YEARS it took to do this? And the bigger question: WHY in the wide, wide world of sports was it done??!!
IMO, it's STUPID!!
The pitchers in the 1920s and 1930s did NOT earn a save at the time of those games, because the rule was NON-EXISTENT! So WHY do we now show them with saves in their stats? Very dumb!!!
Based on this type of toying around with past records....I guess now we should have to re-evaluate EVERY game in history due to the fact that the official strike zone has changed multiple times since the 1960s! Because a whole bunch of those pitches that were "Balls" in 1905 are most certainly "Strikes" today! So, let's change everybody's stats again! Lunacy!
Anybody else think this is ridiculous??
BTW.....
HERE'S AN INTERESTING ARTICLE ON THE "INVENTOR" OF THE SAVE.

 

[Patrick_S]

Anybody else think this is ridiculous??

Nope not at all, the only thing ridiculous is your statement concerning the changing of everyone’s stats because the strike zone has changed.

Going back and awarding saves after the fact would in reality be quite simple. Once the guidelines are set as to what is a save and what is not you could simply go back and review baseball's extensive archives. These box scores would easily tell you if a pitcher earned a save or not and it does not change the result of the game.

Changing players stats in regards to balls and strikes would be impossible because is theory any changes could change the out come of the game.

Since awarding a save after the fact does not affect the outcome of the game it is hardly the alarmist trend you have made it out to be.

 

[David Von Pein]

Since awarding a save after the fact does not affect the outcome of the game it is hardly the alarmist trend you have made it out to be.

Of course, I realize it's not the end of the world as we know it to change a baseball stat!
But WHY give somebody a save 50 years after the game that did not exist at the time of the contest?
There was no such thing as a save in 1900, so the pitcher should not get a save in 1969! Dumb!

The same thing could also happen with the fairly recent stolen-base rule. Today, a steal is NOT credited if the defense is completely indifferent to the player's advance. It's now a "fielder's choice/fielder's indifference".
But in 1927, this WAS an SB! So...do we now go back into the archives and change all those steals to FC's?? (Which would be impossible to figure out decades later.)

Changing the box scores decades later because of rules changes is DUMB, PERIOD!!

 

[Agee Bassett]

But WHY give somebody a save 50 years after the game that did not exist at the time of the contest?

Because what has always been a popular aspect of baseball record-keeping is the accumulation and submissal of this form of numerical data for the purpose of cross-era comparison. By universally standardizing the definition of what constitutes a recognized stat (barring conflict with rules; as in the difference between the pre- and post-1898 stolen base rule), the serious baseball statistician endeavors to create a wholly arbitrary and artificially leveled playing field; via which he hopes to be able to justify and legitimize conclusions he may draw from the provided data. (After all, what is the purpose of stats but as an attempt to legitimize a boy's game?
In this way, a vital part of our nation's continual fascination with baseball is how the publishing and bantering of statistics can cause them to take on a life on their own (fantasy baseball, anyone?). You mention that Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs one season, you merely share an interesting tidbit of data. Someone conters that Babe Ruth once hit 60, you have the stimulus to an argument.
Perhaps even more intriguing than this train of argument is the fact that a pitcher who made the Hall of Fame as the sturdiest starting pitcher in history, also somehow found the resilience to diversify his duties into accumulating 19 saves as a bullpen fireman.

 

[Agee Bassett]

BTW, while we're at it, lets also mention that the pitchers' statistic ERA didn't exist prior to 1911 (which, barring recreation, would cost Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown a close second place finish for lowest ever for a single season; 1.04, in 1904 [min. 162 innings.]).

 

[Bill Slack]

I've never seen stats CHANGED, except for factual reasons. For instance, Ted Williams .406 season would actually be ~.417 today, because of the sack-fly rule.

Now, if saves had existed in the earler half of the 1900's, it would be one thing, but they didn't. So we just add that stat to their line, without have any real effect (where as using a globaly consistent sack-fly rule would make records very difficult to deal with, since the batting average leader for the year could end up changing, etc.)

Stats doesn't just do it to make the players look better on paper or anything, they do it to better reflect a pitchers performance without sacrificing any historical signifiance.

I'm sure they would list a seperate average for the sack-fly rule, but it's fairly minor thing, and the relative to league percentage is already generally listed. Though, I don't know if anyone has ever done an exhaustine sack-fly calculation throughout the ages, though I believe a pretty complete historical analysis of saves HAS been done. At least with saves you can figure it via box scores (which I'm should be entered into a database already); all the sack-flys would have to be calculated based on the actual game stories that appeared in the paper.

 

[David Von Pein]

By universally standardizing the definition of what constitutes a recognized stat .... the serious baseball statistician endeavors to create a wholly arbitrary and artificially leveled playing field......

I guess then we're gonna need to go back and add retroactive "Holds" for pitchers now, too, huh?? Give this thing its head, and it'll never stop! :rolleyes
I don't care what you say...if Cy Young DIDN'T get a save at the time of the game by the 1899 Official Scorer, then I do not think he should be credited with a save EVER.

 

[Marvin]

I guess then we're gonna need to go back and add retroactive "Holds" for pitchers now, too, huh??

Nah.."holds" are too trivial a stat, even for now. On the other hand, haven't they gone back and, with the help of box scores, figured out RBIs (RsBI?) for games played before this stat was officially created? (I'm too lazy to look it up now.)

 

[John Welch]

Hold is not an official statistic.Yet.

On the other hand, haven't they gone back and, with the help of box scores, figured out RBIs (RsBI?) for games played before this stat was officially created? (I'm too lazy to look it up now.)

Yes they have, since this didn't become an official statistic until 1920.

 

[Brook K]

You can thank the people at www.retrosheet.com for their tireless efforts in compiling all known box scores and data analysis. This has given researchers an invaluable aid in player evaluations and comparisons. It was in the last year or two that they discovered Babe Ruth should have been credited with 2 additional walks, increasing his all-time record (since surpassed by Rickey Henderson).
David, you should find the answer to all your questions there.

 

[Brian Perry]

For instance, Ted Williams .406 season would actually be ~.417 today, because of the sack-fly rule.

I did not know that.

If that is the case, I wonder whether there will be a movement to credit Williams with a higher on-base percentage, since his all-time seasonal mark of .551 is being challenged this year by Barry Bonds.