The Effect of Devastating Blown Saves

It’s a pretty well documented sabremetric notion that pitching your closer when you have a three run lead in the ninth is probably wasting him. You’re likely going to win the game anyways, since the vast majority of pretty much everyone allowed to throw baseballs in the major leagues is going to be able to keep the other team from scoring three runs.

But we still see it all the time. Teams keep holding on to their closer and waiting until they have a lead in the ninth to trot him out there. One of the reasons for this is that blowing a lead in the ninth is devastating—it’ll hurt team morale more to blow a lead in the ninth than to slip behind in the seventh. And then this decrease in morale will cause for the players to play more poorly in the future, which will result in more losses.

Or will it?

We’re going to look at how teams play following games that they devastatingly lose to see if there’s any noticeable drop in performance. The “devastating blown save” stat can be defined as any game in which a team blows the lead in the ninth and then goes on to lose. Our methodology is going to look at team records in both the following game as well as the following three games to see if there’s any worsening of play. If the traditional thought is right (hey, it’s a possibility!), it will show up in the numbers. Let’s take a look.

All Games (2000-2012)

9+ Inning Games

Devastating BS’s

Devastating BS%

Following Game W%

Three Game W%

31,405

1,333

4.24%

.497

.484

In the following game, the team win percentage was very, very close to 50%. Over a sample size of 1,333 that’s completely insignificant. But what about the following three games, where the win percentage drops down to roughly 48.4%? Well, that’s a pretty small deviation from the 50% baseline, and is of questionable statistical significance. And wouldn’t it make sense that if the devastating blow save effect existed at all it would occur in the directly following game, and not wait until later to manifest itself? It seems safe to say that the “morale drop” of devastatingly losing is likely nonexistent—or at most incredibly small. We’re dealing with grown men after all. They can take it.

Another thing you might want to consider when looking at these numbers is that teams with lots of blown saves are probably more likely to be subpar. Not so fast. The win% of teams weighted to their amount of blown 9th innings over the years is .505. This is probably because better teams are more likely to be ahead in the first place, and so they are going to be on the bubble to blow saves more often even if they blow them a smaller percentage of the time. Just for the fun of seeing how devastation-prone your team has been over the past 13 years, however, here’s a table of individual team results.

 Devastating Blown Saves By Team (2000-2012)

Team

Devastating Blown Saves

Next Game W%

Milwaukee

63

0.460

Chicago Cubs

60

0.4

Kansas City

57

0.315

Toronto

54

0.592

Chicago White Sox

52

0.615

Houston

51

0.372

NY Mets

50

0.56

St. Louis

48

0.625

Texas

46

0.543

Cleveland

46

0.586

Texas

46

0.543

Florida

45

0.511

Baltimore

45

0.377

Oakland

44

0.545

Seattle

44

0.5

Boston

41

0.585

Cincinnati

41

0.585

Los Angeles

40

0.425

Detroit

39

0.384

Atlanta

39

0.743

Detroit

39

0.384

San Diego

35

0.4

Anaheim

34

0.529

New York Yankees

33

0.666

Minnesota

33

0.515

Pittsburgh

32

0.468

Montreal

25

0.2

Washington

18

0.555

Miami (post-change)

8

0.375

Congratulations Pittsburgh, you’ve been the least devastated full-time team over the past 13 years! Now if there’s a more fun argument against the effects of devastating losses than that previous sentence, I want to hear it. Meanwhile the Braves have lived up to their nickname, winning in an outstanding 74.3% of games following devastating losses (it looks like we’ve finally found our algorithm for calculating grit, ladies and gentleman) while the hapless Expos rebounded in just 20% of their games. Milwaukee leads the league in single-game heartbreak, etc. etc. Just read the table. These numbers are fun. Mostly meaningless, but fun.

Back to the point: team records following devastating losses tend to hover very, very close to .500. Managers shouldn’t worry about how their teams lose games—they should worry about if their teams lose games. Because, in the end, that’s all that matters.


Raw data courtesy of Retrosheet.




Print This Post

Brandon Reppert is a computer "scientist" who finds talking about himself in the third-person peculiar.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
james wilson
Guest
james wilson

Anybody who blows up conventional wisdom that thoroughly outta be shot. Next you’ll be proving that left-handed relief pitchers aren’t flaky.

james wilson
Guest
james wilson

No, that was just right. It’s more interesting to be blown up than proven right.

I am convinced though, from talking to pitchers, that the whole ninth inning thing is deeply into their heads. That might be a different story.

Mike
Guest
Mike

Good point. While this data shows that DBSs don’t seem to have any effect on the entire team, it’d be interesting to see how the individual pitchers performed in their next appearance following a DBS.

jay
Guest
jay

Philadelphia, Arizona, and Colorado are absent from the list

filihok
Member

Not that it’d make _much_difference but shouldn’t the after winning % be weighted by the overall winning % of each team. Perusing the leaders in devastating blown saves, those don’t look like teams that would be expected to win 50% of their games between 2000 and 2013.

ben
Guest
ben

nicely done!

PXF
Member
Member
PXF

Not that I’m looking for ways to focus on that .484 over three games figure… But if some of those Devastating Blown Saves did indeed lead to extra innings losses, it could be an effect of the bullpen being overused in that one game. Probably (?) someone has already done a similar study showing how teams performed after extra innings games, even those without Devastating Blown Saves?

T
Guest
T

I think comparing effects after a “devastating losses” versus effects another specific game ending would strengthen your argument. Of course there’s so many game endings to compare it may be hard to choose ( after a blown save? A normal save? Game with no saves? After a win? ( Oh wait there’s no such thing as winning streaks ) ) How about effects of the other team who won during the “devastating loss?” I’m assuming a small fraction of the next (or next 3) games were with a different team, thus would not simply be 1 – 0.497 or 1-0.484. My gut feeling though is that there would be still no significant difference.

wpDiscuz