Any modern save statistic?

[Snapolit1]

I am not a new stats guy, and probably never will be. Don't know why; I guess I am just happy with the stats I grew up with and maybe a few of the new ones.

I was curious if there is any new metric to measure how effective a relief pitcher actually is? I was on another board and someone was extolling the virtues of John Franco. I am a life long Mets fans and watched every one of Franco's seasons in NY. And I don't think he was anywhere near great. In fact I think he was probably good - very good overall. Certainly not dominant in any way like Rivera. He came in many games, farted around, gave up a run or two, and then was rewarded with a save. Is there any new metric people have developed to judge quality appearances by a relief pitcher? Obviously the save statistic is of very limited utility.

[dgo71]

I'm not sure if it has a fancy acronym yet and I'm not entirely sure it exists in any formal way, but I'd always thought it would be nice to see the % of inherited runners a reliever allowed to score... IRSP (inherited runners scored percentage?) Relievers, especially closers, often have very misleading ERAs since runners they allow to score are charged back to the previous pitcher. I suppose some of that might be gleaned from WHIP, but a high WHIP doesn't necessarily mean those runners scored.
And ultimately runs win (or lose) the game. When I think of truly effective relievers I think of the guy who comes in to the game in a jam and gets his team out of it. Of course, I guess there's something to be said for guys that come in to a clean inning because they are essentially shortening the game and thereby providing their team a better chance to win.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I'm not sure if it has a fancy acronym yet and I'm not entirely sure it exists in any formal way, but I'd always thought it would be nice to see the % of inherited runners a reliever allowed to score... IRSP (inherited runners scored percentage?) Relievers, especially closers, often have very misleading ERAs since runners they allow to score are charged back to the previous pitcher. I suppose some of that might be gleaned from WHIP, but a high WHIP doesn't necessarily mean those runners scored.
And ultimately runs win (or lose) the game. When I think of truly effective relievers I think of the guy who comes in to the game in a jam and gets his team out of it. Of course, I guess there's something to be said for guys that come in to a clean inning because they are essentially shortening the game and thereby providing their team a better chance to win.

Agree, percentage of inherited runners allowed to school would probably tell you more at the end of a season than saves or ERA.

[mckinneyj]

Except closers typically arrive on the scene in the ninth with the bases empty inheriting nothing... (IMO) many of them seem not to be able to pitch well with the distraction of runners on base.

[Jim65]

Inherited runners isn't fair either. Pitcher enters game with runner on third with one out, he gets the batter to groundout to second, runner scores. Pitcher did his job but gets a neg because inherited runner scored?

[AGuinness]

Not sure if you've looked at Wins Probability Added (WPA), but that might be something. It takes into account the context of the situation for the player and how their contributions add or detract to the probability of the team winning that game (I think I'm explaining it right). So a grand slam by a hitter in the bottom of the ninth with two outs when the team trails by three is a huge shift in WPA, both for the hitter and the pitcher who served it up.

Here's the Fangraph's WPA leader board for relievers in 2018:
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...ter=&players=0