Talk:Save (baseball)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Who's the ^&&*^&*#%&%# ?[edit]

Resolved: Fixed ... until the next edit.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Some yahoo keeps updating/has updated Mariano Rivera's lifetime Saves but did not update the "Stats updated through" date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talkcontribs) 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Clarification Edit Suggestion[edit]

Resolved: Worded per official rules.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Under the definition of a Save, condition 4, subpoint 2. "He enters the game, regardless of count". Count refers to number of balls and strikes. I think it would more informative to say "regardless of the number of outs". I have heard people say that you don't count the 'on deck' batter when you have 2 outs so I think its important to correct this belief. I am new to wiki so will defer to others on making the change. Hiramham (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiramham, I vote we keep the language as it is for two reasons: 1) the definition here is the same that is in the MLB Rule Book; and 2) I think it's important to say "count" as opposed to "outs" because "count" is making it clearer that a pitcher could potentially still get a save if he enters the game with the bases loaded and a 0-2 count. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambig[edit]

Resolved: Baseball is no longer primary topic.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I came here prompted by a comment at the Village Pump. I'm surprised that this isn't a disambiguation page. I'm trying to think of all the different definitions of Save

Granted, each of these doesn't deserve an article on its own, but each would deserve a line in a disambiguation article pointing to file management, rescue operation, etc, or whatever the appropriate article is. -- Chuq 06:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definately, the current content is far too specific for such a general term. As an aside, I would use Save (baseball) and Save (computing) instead of the two above, and Save (spiritual) might be better off pointing to Salvation. TPK 09:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not being from the US I don't think of baseball when I think of the term "Save". I totally agree with changing this to a disambig page. I've updated your list from Save (economics) to Saving (economics). There's also "to prevent the loss of" such as to save ones eyesight. violet/riga (t) 09:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For meanings of the verb save, perhaps we should add to Saving.--Patrick 12:58, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

For the Village Pump comment (and ensuing discussion) Chuq was talking about, see Talk:Computer file management. - dcljr 01:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking for an easy way to make a comment on the original article. Probably exists, easy as can be, but not obvious enough for me. It seems to me that a bit more history is in order, since the idea of what constitutes a save appears to have been modified over time, and bastardized in the process. Of course a pitcher who qualifies for a "vulture win" can't get a save; if he comes into the game with a lead, gives it up, and then his team's batters win anyway, the pitcher qualifies for the win, no?, which precludes him for the win without exception, correct? It seems to me that the real meaning of the save is that the pitcher comes in with the tying run at the plate and "saves" the winning pitcher's win. The whole "comes in with a lead of no more that 3 runs and preserves the win" seems totally fake and arbitrary. Has this always been part of the definition (I doubt it), or has the definition of the term changed over time? Forgive me if the answer is in the article.

Nice try ;) =[edit]

Resolved: Multiple issues here, all resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just made a little edit to the baseball bit. The original read -

Save leaders in Major League Baseball Bold denotes active players. Italics denotes best player.

Career Lee Smith - 479 John Franco - 424 Trevor Hoffman - 418 Dennis Eckersley - 390 Jeff Reardon - 367 Mariano Rivera - 361

- with Rivera's name italicised. Now don't get me wrong, he's good, but that's not very wikipedia, is it? :)

Also, I think the hockey and soccer sections could be spiced up a bit. Pictures of saves, anyone?

As a die-hard baseball fan, i know for a fact that one does not have to "pitch three 'effect' innings'" to earn a save. They don't have to pitch even one full inning to record a save. They have to only to pitch 1/3 of an inning. Infact the article even contridicts its own statement when it notes that modern day closers rarely pitch more than two innings. i plan on editing this article. If anyone has any problems with this, please tell UTforever22

I'm not sure about needing to pitch an entire inning, but as for the 3 innings, that is only if his team is up by more than 3 runs(or 4 or five with bases loaded). Say a closer comes in in the 7th inning, with his team up by 8 runs. If he finishes the game, and the other team does not tie it, he gets a save. A pitcher coming in in the same situation in the 8th or 9th would not get a save. Aericanwizard 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with wizard here. However, other than that instance, a pitcher who records a save only has to record the final out. He does not need to pitch one inning with a three run lead. The Cardinals' pitcher Wainright got a save in Game 2 of the NLCS vs. the Mets after he came into the game with a three run lead and nobody on base with one out in the ninth inning. He pitched two thirds of an inning and got the save.Politician818 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know what a "HoFer" is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC) A HoFer is a "Hall of Famer" Krohn211 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Rivera?[edit]

Resolved: He now #1 in saves as well—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Rivera pictured when he's #4 all time? Doesn't make sense to have #1 all time as the person in the photo? #4 is important, but #1 all time is far much more important. --BadFishStan, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Yankees fan, and I'm quite a knowledgeable baseball mind, but even I realize that more people have heard of Mariano Rivera than have heard of Trevor Hoffman. Though I do agree with your question. -- KirinX 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It could just be an east coast vs west coast thing? The Yankees are the biggest market baseball team, highest payroll for several years, that could be why as well. Regardless of how well people know a player, #1 all time should be the featured photo. --BadFishStan
While I see your point of view, and it does make sense, it also makes sense to have the world's most known closer as the featured picture. It is a true debate, and one that calls for more consensus. -- KirinX 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed... Wikipedia doesn't even have a picture of Hoffman, the point seems to be moot, for now at least. -- KirinX 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I had added the image of Rivera simply because it was the best free-use image of a professional closer I could find on wikipedia. - Mattingly23 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as a diehard Hoffman fan I was going to object (even though Rivera is great!) until I looked at the good alternatives with free photos and realized there weren't any. There is now a fair use picture of Hoffman on his article, but it's used specifically to show that at least one major magazine has called him the best closer ever (yeah of course I know it's debatable; it's what makes the cover newsworthy), so it can't be used as a general picture of him in other articles.
I'll also resist--and ask other Trevor fans to resist--making a separate 500-save club table whenever (this weekend?) he inaugurates that club. Speaking of which -- should we put an "as of X date" on the table and then try to only update it if we update all the stats? I'll admit that though I check that Mariano's stats are still right when I update Hoffman's, but I don't always check the rest. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare their postseason performance. Enough said.

The tying run[edit]

There should a separate entry for "tying run". My fellow students (and I) are using it in papers/assignments quite often out of context - imlying hope, resurrection, surge or sometimes retaliation. However the meaning is out of grasp for non-baseball/international audience. Go RedSox !

Seem like standard English, a word with multiple meanings :-) —Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Gordon's entry in the Consecutive save list should be denoted as being across 2 seasons.[edit]

Resolved: Years listed for consecutive save table.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It struck me as odd that Gordon with 54 consecutive saves, not denoted as occurring in 2 or more seasons, would not be on the single season list. Checking with Baseball Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gordoto01.shtml), Tom had 46 saves in 1998 and 11 in 1999, the 2 years referenced in the consecutive saves list.

I'm left to conclude that his entry on this list should be marked with the double asteriks. I'm new to Wiki and this is my 1st comment so I was hesitant to make the change directly.

-lou 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right! Thanks for fixing this. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

Resolved: Looks like it has been merged already.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that save opportunity be merged here; it's a short article whose content could easily be merged with this one and redirected. Chubbles 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Relievers[edit]

Resolved: 300 save club has been spun out—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The 300 Save Club list should ideally incorporate all the all-time save leaders. It does not. It should denote which of those are hall of famers and also mention the HOF relief pitchers who did not get 300 saves.

They five relief pitchers in the Hall are (year inducted in parentheses): Hoyt Wilhelm (1985), Rollie Fingers (1992), Dennis Eckersley (2004), Bruce Sutter (2006), Rick "Goose" Gossage (2008).

There may be a more direct source but http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3186626 has the information cited above. Bbentrup (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Ben

When official?[edit]

Resolved: Sources say 1969—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This article says it became official in 1969. The Jerome Holtzman article says it was created in 1959 and became official in 1966. Why the discrepancy? -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


The Holtzman article lists it as becoming official in 1969, not 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.168.134 (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Added Back "At Least One Inning" to 3.1[edit]

Resolved: Already in article—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems there was confusion about 3.1 so I added back the "and pitches for at least one inning" to this requirement for the save. This is directly from the MLB rulebook.

Someone earlier mentioned Cardinals/Mets Game 2 of the NLCS in 2006, but the box score for that game definitely shows that Wainwright did not get credited a save in that situation (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=261013121). -- SpedInFargo (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Longest possible save?[edit]

Resolved: Inaction for two years and seems trivial. Being bold and closing—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I figure that eight innings would be the maximum length for a save.

Say that Abel starts for the home team, but hurts his arm during the first inning, and is replaced by Baker, who finishes the inning with no scoring. The home team scores a run to take the lead in the bottom of the first. Charles replaces Baker to start the second inning. Charles hurls eight hitless innings and the final score is 1-0.

As a starter who didn't go five innings Abel can't get the win, but Baker is eligible for it.

Since Baker gets the win, Charles earns an 8-inning save. There have been saves of five or more innings in baseball history based upon similar scenarios: I just stretched it a bit. (Could Baker be the legitimate pitcher-of-record even if he didn't finish the first inning?)

Of course, if the game goes to extra innings, it would have to be tied after nine, and that would take all earlier departed pitchers out of consideration for the win.

Since the mid-1960s, the official scorer has been empowered to rule out someone who pitches "briefly and ineffectively." This would permit him to pass over Baker and award the win to Charles. The length of a possible save would now depend upon the interpretation of "briefly and ineffectively" and how much effectiveness balances off the brevity. WHPratt (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the longest save: 8 innings (from 1954 until now). Here's a list of the longest saves. Cool stuff. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! Pretty much as I suggested it might be. WHPratt (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
How would you folks feel about adding the following item to the article? I'll wait for comment and suggestions before doing so. (The winning runs came on a homer by the eventually infamous Marvelous Marv Throneberry, but sadly, I didn't think I should mention this.) WHPratt (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dick Hall of the Baltimore Orioles recorded an eight inning save at Cleveland on June 18, 1961. The Indians rudely greeted starter Jack Fisher with five quick runs, and he gave way to Wes Stock, who finished off the first inning. The Orioles, however, struck back immediately with eight runs in the top of the second. Stock would be removed for a pinch hitter, so Hall took over and went on to pitch eight scoreless innings, allowing only two hits and no walks as the Orioles won 8-5.

Stock was the pitcher of record when Baltimore took the lead; the rules require a starting pitcher to last at least five innings to qualify for a win, but the restriction does not apply to a reliever. Therefore, the official scorer had no choice but to credit Stock with the win and Hall with a save.

Rule 10.17(c), adopted prior to the 1979 season allows the scorer to pass over "a relief pitcher who is ineffective in a brief appearance, when at least one succeeding relief pitcher pitches effectively in helping his team maintain its lead. In such a case, the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the succeeding relief pitcher who was most effective, in the judgment of the official scorer." Stock faced just two batters, walking one and getting a double play out of the next, so his brief appearance could have been deemed ineffective, or at least less effective than Hall's superb turn. Had this rule been in effect, the scorer could have designated Hall the winning pitcher without too much dissent.

Note that this is the maximum possible length for a save. Had Hall relieved any earlier, he'd have gotten the last out in the first inning and would ultimately have been the winning pitcher. Had the game gone to extra innings, the fact that it was tied after nine would have made Hall eligible for a win rather than a save.


WHPratt (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't you get a longer save? Suppose the Red Sox score 8 runs in the top of the first. In the bottom half, Michael Bowden walks the first four batters and is replaced by Hideki Okajima who gets the first batter to hit an easy ground ball which Julio Lugo bobbles for an error. Now Tim Wakefield is brought in to pitch the rest of the game, 9 innings. Okajima has to get the win, as he pitched effectively, so Wakefield gets the save. (If you don't consider that effective pitching by Okajima, make it a strikeout and so Wakefield pitches 8 2/3 innings.) Matchups 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, no, I can't find any flaw in that logic, except that today the scorer could probably justify giving Wakefield the win without much dissent -- but he'd be boxed in by the old rule. You'd think that when they wrote in the five-inning requirement for a starter, they'd have required a reliever to at least take the game past the fifth.
A more extreme case would involve the visiting starter hurting his arm during warmup (see the entry on Larry Yount), and a second pitcher doing likewise. The third pitcher could hurl the remainder of the game, all the pitches, and only save the game on behalf of the second pitcher. However, "brief and ineffective" would seem to be covered by "no pitches and did nothing" to any rational scorer. WHPratt (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1/3 inning requirement[edit]

Resolved: Correct per MLB official rules —Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The current definition in the article says that, to earn a save, the pitcher must be credited with at least 1/3 of an inning pitched. The at MLB.com does not have that requirement.

I cannot think of a way that one could be the finishing pitcher in a game, and not have pitched at least 1/3 of an inning. So that requirement, besides not being part of current MLB rules, appears to be redundant. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to amend the article. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Matchups 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should add the requirement back in. While the 1/3 requirement isn't in the summary rule page you linked to, it is in the official rules. Here are a list of games where the pitcher finished the game won by his team and did not record an out. None of the pitchers that entered the game in a "save situation" were credited with the save. Most (all?) of the games were suspended for whatever reason. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to a source that includes this requirement? I gather you are saying that, without the 1/3 inning requirement, a pitcher could be credited with a save if he got no one out, but the game was suspended and not resumed? Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah Marc, that's what I'm saying. Here's the "official" MLB Rule 10.19. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
A pitcher could come in with a man on first, 2 out, and pick off the man on first without having thrown a pitch. I believe I have heard this happened once in a MLB game, but I don't remember the details. Wschart (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
But in that case, the pitcher records an out (as he would if a runner was caught stealing, for example). I think the issue here is whether a pitcher can get a save without recording an out in any form. Mindmatrix 15:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I can think of two ways a pitcher could be the finishing pitcher and not record an out. The first is if the game is called by rain before he has a chance to record an out. (But the disposition of such a game has varied over the years; the game may be suspended, the final result may revert to the previous completed inning, etc.) The other is if he enters the game in the middle of an at-bat with a two-strike count on the batter. If the batter strikes out, the previous pitcher would get credited with the strikeout. Jimpoz (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Saves as saves[edit]

Resolved: Talk page is for improving the article, not a forum about the subject of the article—Bagumba (talk)

In the 20 inning game between the Mets and Cardinals Pelfrey got the save and Rodriguez the win. The comment on si was why this was so seeing as Rodriguez gave up the tying run. They wanted Pelfrey to get the win and not the save. Did the commenter misunderstand how the rule works or is there a feeling this is how things should be interpreted? Or changed to reflect?86.43.110.186 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blown save/Save possibility?[edit]

Resolved: Text remove as its incorrect and rules were already stated beforehand. —Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In the usage section, this statement is made:

"Once a pitcher blows a save, he is no longer eligible to earn a save in that game."

Consider the following scenario, Bob enters the game in the top of the 8th with 1 out. His team is up 4-3. If Bob gets 5 outs, he gets the save so he is in a save situation. Instead, Bob gives up 2 solo home runs and his team is down 4-5. Bob has just blown the save (by the definition of blown save in the usage section: A blown save (abbreviated BS or B) is charged to a pitcher who enters a game in a situation which permits him to earn a save, but who instead allows the tying run to score.) A new pitcher, Jim, is brought in and pitches the remainder of the 8th. Bob is not taken out of the game but is moved to left field and the left fielder is taken out of the game. In the bottom of the 8th Jim and Bob's team scores 2 runs. The score is now 6-5. Jim comes back out in the top of the 9th and strikes out 1 batter. Jim is clearly the pitcher of record. Bob replaces Jim on the mound and gets 2 strikeouts in a row. Bob's team wins. Jim gets the win and Bob gets the save because:

(a) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team; (b) He is not the winning pitcher; (c) He is credited with at least a third of an inning pitched; and (d) He satisfies the following condition: (2) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batters he faces)

All of the above are true so Bob should get the save. But by the blown save definition he also blew the save. Which brings me back to my concern about the statement above. Krohn211 (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you and I agree that this situation should somehow make its way into the article. 67.169.69.193 (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Billy Wagner[edit]

Resolved: There is no longer a team column—Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC))

He's listed as playing for the Mets. What are the reasons? Why should he not be listed with the team he retired as? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.200.78 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Question About Saves[edit]

If a relief pitcher enters the game with a three run lead and no one on base, does he need to pitch a complete inning to get the save or just 1/3 of an inning?76.126.138.82 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Condition #4 under Usage should answer your question. If not, discuss where the confusion is so it can be improved.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?[edit]

I see this page has a Neutrality tag on the "Value" section but no discussion of it. Would the neutrality issue go away if the "Value" section was simply renamed "Criticism"? Chris La Mantia (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably not considered good article structure. It needs to be balanced with views from proponents. I had made some effort in Closer (baseball)#Strategy to include the points in the save article, with the hopes of eventually removing it from the saves article aside from a brief mention and link. Its interesting whether to view it as the save statistic being the problem or the strategy of using closers, though some say the save invented the closer.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I dont think neutrality is an issue anymore, though the originator ever provided specifics. There may be a better way to organize in conjunction with Closer (baseball)#Strategy, but that's a different issue. I'm removing the tag for lack of any identified issues.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarify the 'Most Consecutive' and 'Most in a Single Season' sections[edit]

Resolved: Now noted for regular season.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear whether the stats under the 'Most Consecutive' and 'Most in a Single Season' sections include postseason saves or not. I am not sure which is the correct way to total it, however I think it would be good to clarify that with a note. Max Hollister (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Blown Save definition makes no sense[edit]

Since a guy who comes in the the sixth inning with a 3-2 lead can earn a save, does that mean it's a blown save if he gives up a run? That's how it reads. NjtoTX (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely can happen.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Longest save in history?[edit]

It currently says ...

"On September 3, 2002, Joaquin Benoit earned the longest save in history when the Texas Rangers won 7-1 over the Baltimore Orioles. Benoit relieved Todd Van Poppel at the start of the third inning, and finished the game after pitching seven one-hit innings. Van Poppel was awarded the win, and Benoit the save."

This can't be correct. See the paragraph above on Longest Possible Save, where an 8-inning save is referenced. Now, maybe it's the longest save since the statistic was made official: that is, the longest save known to be a save at the time, but that should be stated as such. WHPratt (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting it from a stats database is a bit of original research if it isn't mentioned in prose. Since they are awarded retroactively, it might be a WP:UNDUE to mention it if there isnt a standard on how to credit past saves. At best, someone can add a footnote saying that B-R.com awarded the 8-inning save retroactively to Hall, while providing the URL with the query for longest save (the link at #Longest_possible_save.3F doesnt give any results and/or you need to be a subscriber).—Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


Of course, contemporary accounts of the game wouldn't have mentioned a "save" at all. I believe that it became a save only in 1969 when the MacMillan baseball encyclopedia awarded saves retroactively based upon the 1969 criteria. There may have been other saves as long (or longer) than Hall's, but it's clearly wrong to state that Benoit's is the longest ever. WHPratt (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Understand your concern, but WP is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If it was worth mentioning, I would figure sources would have mentioned it after the point that saves were applied retroactively. Otherwise, I would consider it a minority view point at best. What do you think of the idea to add an explanatory footnote?—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Alternatively, it seems like a trivial stat, and I wouldnt have a problem removing mention of it altogether.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that the longest/shortest of something like this is more than trivial. It's not a matter of opinion that Hall's was a save, as the official encyclopedias count it. Nor is it a matter of opinion that 8 is more than 7. But, unless I can find a place where someone like Jerome Holtzman wrote "Oh look, an 8-inninhg save," it doesn't count? WHPratt (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I did find refs that mentioned the 1969 qualifier, so I modified the text in the article. I also added a footnote about b-r.com retroactively crediting saves; there are now 3 pitchers with 8-inning saves–the site is always adding more data, and is currently searchable back to 1916. With all the stats that are searchable from primary source databases, I think we do need to give more weight to data that authors actually mention in prose. A similar discussion on research from stats sites was at Talk:Greg_Maddux#statistics_notes.—Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Very nice rewrite!! WHPratt (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Rivera in the lead[edit]

This happens all the time where Rivera's saves are updated in the body and someone else needs to synchronize it in the lead. I would suggest either:

  1. Removing Rivera from the lead and keep it a general baseball intro (NYY fans wont like it)
  2. Mention Rivera but without his constantly changing total in the lead.

Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the definition[edit]

It currently reads "In baseball, a save (abbreviated SV or S or "SVO" for a save opportunity) is credited ... "

The introduction of "save opportunity" at this point is (in my opinion) unwise. Following on the "SV or S" with another "or" suggests that what follows is yet another abbreviation for "save," though it's really another related concept being tagged on. True, every save is also a save opportunity, but the reverse is not true. Save Opportunity should be defined separately and removed from this sentence. WHPratt (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)