[frankbmd]

The terms “closer” and “save” are both narrowly defined constructs of analytical baseball and create some arbitrary management decisions based on their definitions.

The “closer” has evolved to be the ninth inning pitcher who only enters the game with a lead of 1-3 runs.

The “save” has a slightly broader definition, allowing for up to three innings pitched at the end of the game.

What about the guy who enters the game in the ninth with the score tied or with his team behind by a run or two. The valuable “closer” is infrequently seen in this situation except perhaps in the post season. But is the alternate who preserves the status quo in games that his team eventually wins any less valuable.

Take the way back machine back to 1959 in Pittsburgh. Roy Face pitched in 57 games finishing 47. There were no saves in 1959, but retrospectively he was awarded 10 saves by applying arbitrary rules that were introduced later after 1959.

If the Bucs were close in the late innings, Roy was the “finisher”. He wasn’t used by Murtaugh only when the Bucs had the lead. Actually they didn’t have the lead that often and when they did, they had a few starters who could actually pitch a complete game.

So how did Roy fair in this undefined relief role. Pretty well as he recorded 18 wins out of the bullpen. He lost 1 game.

Granted he didn’t have a 20 year career with comparable results. You could also say 1959 was a fluke. But has any modern closer come close to helping his team win 18 games that they otherwise would have lost. Obviously not because the definitions create the pattern in which they are used.

It has been shown previously in this thread, that the difference between the best closer and a very good closer is perhaps 2 to 3 games per year for his team.

In Roy’s case it was 18 games, if only for one year.