Any modern save statistic?

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Granted modern closers usually start the ninth inning with the bases empty.

But remember that inherited runners do not impact the ERA of the "closer" or whoever is on the mound when the inherited runner scores. For this reason, relief pitchers who are not really that good can have deceptively lowered ERAs.

I think this is one reason why WPA could be a help, as relievers who come in and are true "Firemen," getting big outs with runners on base and the score close, would rack up more WPA than a closer who always comes in with a three-run lead and the bases empty to start the ninth.

[nat]

ERA+ together with innings pitched is probably good enough. It's true that it doesn't account for inherited runners, but, first, after enough innings pitched, that difference will usually come out in the wash, and, second, in extreme cases, you can do a little mental adjustment. The adjustment shouldn't be that big - pitching well is more important than holding runners.

There are many (many many many) problems with the save statistic, but one of them is that it doesn't tell you anything about middle relievers, who are sometimes quite good. An ERA-based metric won't ignore them.

Whether to pay attention to WPA depends on what you want. If you want to know how skilled a pitcher is then WPA just introduces noise that you don't want. A pitcher who gives up a meatball with the bases empty is just as bad of a pitcher as one who gives up a meatball with the bases loaded. If you want to tell the story of a team, or a player, or a pennant race, then it's useful, because it'll tell you who swung the odds the most (even if there was a lot of randomness involved).

(ERA+ takes ERA, adjusts it for the park in which the player was pitching, and compares it to league average, which is automatically set at 100. Higher is better. The normalizations allow for cross-era comparisons.)

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by nat

ERA+ together with innings pitched is probably good enough.

Whether to pay attention to WPA depends on what you want. If you want to know how skilled a pitcher is then WPA just introduces noise that you don't want. A pitcher who gives up a meatball with the bases empty is just as bad of a pitcher as one who gives up a meatball with the bases loaded. If you want to tell the story of a team, or a player, or a pennant race, then it's useful, because it'll tell you who swung the odds the most (even if there was a lot of randomness involved).

(ERA+ takes ERA, adjusts it for the park in which the player was pitching, and compares it to league average, which is automatically set at 100. Higher is better. The normalizations allow for cross-era comparisons.)

ERA+, in my opinion, would not be the best stat for reliever-to-reliever comparisons, since ERA+ would offer a baseline that includes all pitchers in the league.

I think what you describe as "noise" can be helpful for reliever-to-reliever comparisons, because the better relievers would be put into situations where there is higher leverage and by succeeding, accumulate more WPA. (WPA, in my opinion, wouldn't be very useful for starter-to-reliever comparisons)

Either way, ERA- would be better than ERA+, since the former describes the difference between the pitcher to the rest of his league, while the latter describes the difference between the rest of the league to the pitcher. Anyone who isn't SABR-minded, disregard, but here's the explanation: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...s-vs-era-minus

And I hope Jack Morris supporters don't read the bit about serving up meatballs with bases empty versus bases loaded, it might not sit well with the "pitch to the score" narrative about him... ;P