K-Rod ties saves record

[Angola!]

How many save opportunities did he have in 2004 when he saved 53?

 

[nmmetsfan]

Rivera: 4 blown saves in 04

 

[Angola!]

Rivera: 4 blown saves in 04

How did you find that?

 

[outofplace]

Rivera: 4 blown saves in 04

How did you find that?

Even if he had not blown any, that still would have been nine fewer opportunities than Rodriguez already has this season, and that is with more than two weeks to go.

 

[a_rosenthal]

I understand, spnited. Not saying that a Rivera or Nathan is going to make a bad offense good. My point is that having Mo back changes both teams' strategies sometimes -- would you agree with that? And my larger point is that there are too many instances of players changing teams and not putting up the same numbers to assume that any good closer on this year's Angels would have had 60 saves. Too many players have proven otherwise -- the game is not played in a vacuum.

Some people are also assuming that Rivera would keep up his same save conversion rate even with a much higher number of appearances. As the number of chances goes up, the chances of blowing a few goes up as well.

Don't get me wrong. I do think Rivera is the better closer. But we have never seen what he would do with that many save opportunities in a season, so there is some guessing going on here to say he would already have 60 saves if he and Rodriguez changed places.

Not really. It's a percentage that has been calculated over hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities. I feel comfortable assuming that Rivera would keep up his career save rate for another team.

 

[hockeybeat]

I understand, spnited. Not saying that a Rivera or Nathan is going to make a bad offense good. My point is that having Mo back changes both teams' strategies sometimes -- would you agree with that? And my larger point is that there are too many instances of players changing teams and not putting up the same numbers to assume that any good closer on this year's Angels would have had 60 saves. Too many players have proven otherwise -- the game is not played in a vacuum.

Some people are also assuming that Rivera would keep up his same save conversion rate even with a much higher number of appearances. As the number of chances goes up, the chances of blowing a few goes up as well.

Don't get me wrong. I do think Rivera is the better closer. But we have never seen what he would do with that many save opportunities in a season, so there is some guessing going on here to say he would already have 60 saves if he and Rodriguez changed places.

Not really. It's a percentage that has been calculated over hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities. I feel comfortable assuming that Rivera would keep up his career save rate for another team.

Yeah, I'm sure Rivera would have the same save rate if he pitched for the Pirates or Royals instead of the Yankees.

 

[outofplace]

I understand, spnited. Not saying that a Rivera or Nathan is going to make a bad offense good. My point is that having Mo back changes both teams' strategies sometimes -- would you agree with that? And my larger point is that there are too many instances of players changing teams and not putting up the same numbers to assume that any good closer on this year's Angels would have had 60 saves. Too many players have proven otherwise -- the game is not played in a vacuum.

Some people are also assuming that Rivera would keep up his same save conversion rate even with a much higher number of appearances. As the number of chances goes up, the chances of blowing a few goes up as well.

Don't get me wrong. I do think Rivera is the better closer. But we have never seen what he would do with that many save opportunities in a season, so there is some guessing going on here to say he would already have 60 saves if he and Rodriguez changed places.

Not really. It's a percentage that has been calculated over hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities. I feel comfortable assuming that Rivera would keep up his career save rate for another team.

You're missing my point. I'm saying having a higher number of opportunities in one single season could hurt his percentage, as it could any closer's percentage. We have never seen how Rivera would do with 62 save chances in one season (Rodriguez's current total), so at that point you are making educated guesses, not dealing in actual facts.

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

I understand, spnited. Not saying that a Rivera or Nathan is going to make a bad offense good. My point is that having Mo back changes both teams' strategies sometimes -- would you agree with that? And my larger point is that there are too many instances of players changing teams and not putting up the same numbers to assume that any good closer on this year's Angels would have had 60 saves. Too many players have proven otherwise -- the game is not played in a vacuum.

Some people are also assuming that Rivera would keep up his same save conversion rate even with a much higher number of appearances. As the number of chances goes up, the chances of blowing a few goes up as well.

Don't get me wrong. I do think Rivera is the better closer. But we have never seen what he would do with that many save opportunities in a season, so there is some guessing going on here to say he would already have 60 saves if he and Rodriguez changed places.

Not really. It's a percentage that has been calculated over hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities. I feel comfortable assuming that Rivera would keep up his career save rate for another team.

Yeah, I'm sure Rivera would have the same save rate if he pitched for the Pirates or Royals instead of the Yankees.

He would have more opportunities to pitch. Kansas City has put Soria on the mound 39 times with a chance to lock down a save. Hell, San Francisco has given Wilson 42 save opportunities. New York's been in the position with Rivera 34 times.

 

[nmmetsfan]

Rivera: 4 blown saves in 04

How did you find that?

wikiAnswers

 

[hockeybeat]

I understand, spnited. Not saying that a Rivera or Nathan is going to make a bad offense good. My point is that having Mo back changes both teams' strategies sometimes -- would you agree with that? And my larger point is that there are too many instances of players changing teams and not putting up the same numbers to assume that any good closer on this year's Angels would have had 60 saves. Too many players have proven otherwise -- the game is not played in a vacuum.

Some people are also assuming that Rivera would keep up his same save conversion rate even with a much higher number of appearances. As the number of chances goes up, the chances of blowing a few goes up as well.

Don't get me wrong. I do think Rivera is the better closer. But we have never seen what he would do with that many save opportunities in a season, so there is some guessing going on here to say he would already have 60 saves if he and Rodriguez changed places.

Not really. It's a percentage that has been calculated over hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities. I feel comfortable assuming that Rivera would keep up his career save rate for another team.

Yeah, I'm sure Rivera would have the same save rate if he pitched for the Pirates or Royals instead of the Yankees.

He would have more opportunities to pitch. Kansas City has put Soria on the mound 39 times with a chance to lock down a save. Hell, San Francisco has given Wilson 42 save opportunities. New York's been in the position with Rivera 34 times.

Those stat are from this season. If you go back over the course of Rivera's career, there is no way that Rivera equals his save rate ratio if he pitched for one of MLB's weaker sisters.

 

[Editude]

Ace relievers' ERAs can sway from year to year (more errors than usual behind him, a five-run wasted appearance in a 10-3 needs-work game), but save percentages are a good barometer, regardless of team. Billy Wagner converts between 88 and 95 percent of his save opportunities each year, whether it's with the Astros, Phillies or Mets. So, he would be that successful, in the modern-day use of closers, no matter what team he was on. He might be 28 of 32 for a bad team and 41 of 47 for a good team, but the relative success is similar.