Save Opportunity

[Guest holychicken]

There was a discussion elsewhere where someone said something about Heilman blowing 13 of his 16 save opportunities. I thought this was odd because I was under the impression that if you came in in a save situation, didn't blow the save, but were relieved yourself, you got a hold.

However, a guy linked to a stat that said Heilman had only 19 career save opportunities.

So I went to wikipedia to see what the definition of a save opportunity was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_opportunity

Clearly this is wrong. It basically states what a save is, and not a save opportunity. So both my mind and that page needs to be fixed.

[metsmarathon]

blown holds also count, i think, as save opportunities.

[Guest holychicken]

]Heilman is 1-6 with a 5.25 ERA while blowing his only two save opportunities in 58 relief appearances this season. He recorded only one save in six chances last season and has only six in 19 chances over his six-year career. If Heilman struggles in the role, rookie Eddie Kunz could replace him.

http://sny.stats.com/mlb/playerstats.asp?id=7065

Then what the hell are they talking about?

[Benjamin Grimm]

A hold is a save opportunity in which you don't finish the game, but also don't give up the lead.

[metsmarathon]

heilman's first blown save came on april 10th against the phillies. he came into a 3-1 game in the 8th inning, and gave up two runs in one inning of work. had he held on and not allowed those runs, he likely would not have remained in the game for the ninth and would have earned a hold while billy wagner would've had the save opportunity.

heilman's second blown save came on may 30th against the dodgers where heilman again came into the 8th inning, with a 5-4 lead, allowed an inherited baserunner to score, had two more score on his watch, and bequeathed two further runners to schoeneweis who then allowed them to score. the "save" was blown on the first inherited baserunner. had he held on, stranded that runner and gotten through the inning unscathed, he likely would not have remained in the game for the ninth and would have earned a hold while billy wagner would've had the save opportunity.

for that reason, saves versus save opportunities is a tremendously misleading stat for non-closing relievers, when presented outside the context of the hold.not once this season has aaron heilman entered the game in the ninth inning of a ball game with the mets up by three or fewer runs; therefore he has not yet had a true opportunity to "close" a game.

a more true measure of his ability to function in close games would be to look at saves plus holds versus save opps plus holds. here, heilman is (6+66) / (19+66) or 72 for 85, which comes out to about 85% for his career, and 87% this season. for comparison, billy wagner is about 87% in save opportunities from '99 to present (323 sv + 3 hld / 370 svo + 3 hld), and 79% this season.

[Guest AG/DC]

In other words, that "analysis" displays extreme prejudice.

[smg58]

You can get credited with a hold and the loss in the same game, if you leave with the lead but you've put the go-ahead run on base. So you do have to be careful about how you interpret those stats.

[metsmarathon]

well, that's certainly true, and i haven't gone that deep into the analysis to figure it out.

i would suggest that the hold stat should be amended such that coming in, allowing the tying run to reach base, and bequeathing that run to a subsequent pitcher should not be considered a hold. nor should coming in with the tying or go ahead run on base, adding another baserunner or two, and bequeathing those two or three baserunners to a subsequent pitcher should also not get you credit for a hold.

but coming in with the tying or go ahead runner on base, getting an out, and bequeathing only those runners you inherited to a subsequent pitcher should still merit a hold.

i should look in to how many times heilman has gotten a hold in which he contributed to the loss...

on july 2nd, heilman came into a 7-5 game, and got through his first inning of work. the next inning, he hits hte first batter, and is relieved by feliciano. feliciano allows a homer, and heilman's runner scores. that's still legit enough hold, as the hit batter was not the tying run.

the remainder of heilman's holds this season came in wins, so i didn't look at them.

last year, on july 31, heilman came into a 2-1 game in the 8th inning. he allowed a leadoff single and got the next batter to fly out. again, he was relieved by feliciano, who hit the next batter and was relieved by mota. mota allowed a ground rule double in which heilman's runner scored the tying run. that fits my suggested definition of "not a hold"

the remainder of heilman's holds came in met wins, so i didnt look at them.

in 2006, on august 19th, heilman came into a 4-6 game in the 7th inning. the rockies had scored 4 runs against starter dave williams, but in the bottom of the 6th inning, the mets scored 6 runs themselves. heilman pitched two scoreless innings for the hold. he also was awarded a win. i thought i'd mention this 'cos it looked weird.
on august 1st, heilman came into a 5-4 game in the 8th inning, and allowed no runs. wagner came in in the ninth and gave up two runs. this was a legit hold.
on june 21, heilman came into a 5-4 game in the eight, allowed no runs, and saw wagner blow the save in the ninth. another legit hold.
and finally on april 5, heilman came into a 4-3 game in the eighth, allowed no runs, and saw yet another billy wagner blown save.
the remainder of his holds came in wins, so i didnt look at them.

so, in three years, we have, what, five heilman holds in met losses, and only one of them, last year, was an illegitimate hold.

i don't think his hold/save percentage is appreciably inflated by the peculiarities of the hold rule.

[RealityChuck]

holychicken wrote: Clearly this is wrong. It basically states what a save is, and not a save opportunity. So both my mind and that page needs to be fixed.

So fix it. That's the point of Wikipedia.

I'm surprised how many people will say that Wikipedia is wrong about something, but who never mention correcting it.