The Save: If It's So Overrated, Why Do So Many People Care?

Quick quiz: in the 2001 World Series, arguably the most dramatic Series of the last three decades, was it the Diamondbacks middle relief that failed them in the early morning on November first? No, it was Byung-Hyun Kim, their closer.

And, in Game Seven of that Series, was it the guy the Yankees needed to get them out of a jam in the seventh that held his head in his glove as Luis Gonzalez seemingly floated to first base? No, it was Mariano Rivera, their closer.

And in 2006, was it the long relief that got whiplash watching Albert Pujols' home run leave the yard? No, it was Brad Lidge, the Astros' closer.

Did Joe Carter take a middle man deep? No, that was Mitch Williams, the Phillies closer.

Do I need to continue?

Fans remember not the beginning, nor the middle of legendary games. It is the end, the final three outs, that make all the difference.

Apparently general managers across baseball believe that middle relief is significantly less important than finding a shut-down closer, just like the memories of of historical losses come at the hands of closers.

Francisco Rodriguez saved a ridiculous 62 games last year. His reward? A three-year, $37 million contract with a $17.5 million option for 2012.

Scot Shields led baseball last year with 31 holds. He, meanwhile, is in the middle of a three-year, $14.6 million contract.

Anyone see a pattern there as well?

Now I'll depart from the anecdotal numbers and names to build my point that the save, and indeed the closer, is not over rated.

First, the disclaimer section.

A point can be made that a closer is only as good as the team of which he's a part. I will concur that it takes a team winning games to have save opportunities available. But consider the following from last year: 

• Joakim Soria was third in all of baseball with 42 saves for the 75-win Kansas City Royals.
• Brian Wilson tied for fourth in baseball with 41 saves for the 72-win San Francisco Giants.

So, while I agree that a team needs to win games for a closer to get saves, the opportunities for a closer to accumulate saves is limited to games that are close enough for the closer to qualify for the stat.

Teams that win by more than three runs, like the Cubs did many times last year, might not see as many opportunities as a team that wins closer games like Kansas City.

Secondly, a point has been made that saves are over rated because it takes a pitching staff to get to the closer. I will concede this point, but will challenge the follow-up argument that the player designated "closer" isn't the most important pitcher in the bullpen.

If the closer role was over rated, and the best pitcher in the bullpen should get crucial outs in the sixth, seventh or eighth innings, then why is Mariano Rivera a Hall of Famer who only sees the eighth if he's getting a four-out save?

To that thought, how many middle relievers are in the Hall of Fame?

Indeed, how many make the All Star team each year? Maybe one?

Last year, the Cubs' Carlos Marmol made the mid-summer classic by dominating National League hitters; the Cubs closer at the time, Kerry Wood, also made the roster.

Now, the argument.

The closer is the most important role in the bullpen because he is the person who is called upon to end games.

A closer does not get saves if the starting pitcher and the middle relief corps do not get a lead to the ninth inning, so I will tip my cap (again) to those that want to point out that it takes a staff to earn wins and saves.

Teams that win championships have a combination of the threes areas on a pitching staff: the starters, the bridge pitchers, and the closer.

If the starters give the game away, the relievers mean very little. If the middle relief blows a lead, the closer becomes inconsequential. And if the closer blows the save, what good is getting out of a tight spot in the sixth, seventh or eighth inning?

The reality of any pitching staff in Major League Baseball is that it is a team sport. Without a full staff being effective, it doesn't matter who pitches when.

But closing out a game, and earning a save, is in no way over rated. And neither is the hold. The two, while being independent of each other, are together hallmark statistics of quality, winning teams.

The wild card of this debate, and the catalyst that determines the quality of both the statistical accumulation of holds and saves as well as the innings pitched by a bullpen staff, is the team's manager.

Many pundits questioned Angels' manager Mike Soscia's handling of Rodriguez last year. Why pitch him in so many regular season games? The manager definitely played a role in the number of saves Rodriguez had last year.

How any manager handles his pitching staff, and the talent available to him, is significant in deciding how games are won.

There are very few teams that have a good closer AND a legit, shut-down middle man. The Chicago Cubs and, after a nice winter shopping spree, the New York Mets are two such teams in the National League, while the Chicago White Sox and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are two in the American League.

Most teams, though, do not have the luxury of having someone who can come in with closer-type stuff and get a team out of a jam in the late innings with another pitcher ready to end the game later. Obviously, in the American League with the designated hitter rules in play, it's easier to run a reliever out for longer than one inning.

Fans will always second guess managers, it's our job. But when a team has only one shut down pitcher in their bullpen, that player is going to be their closer.