Graves's "Save"

Cincinnati closer Danny Graves was credited with his first save of the year on Thursday, in a game that the Reds won 6-1. While that fact is noteworthy in and of itself, it should also be noted that Graves faced only one batter, who he retired, for a grand total of
1/3 of an inning pitched. In fact, he only threw two pitches, total. So how can Graves earn a save in a game that he entered while the Reds led by five, with two outs in the ninth inning? At first glance, it just seems wrong.

Upon further review, it still looks ugly, and perhaps constitutes an improper application of baseball's save rule.

Obviously, we'll turn to check major league baseball's save rule (10.20) for an explanation. According to the rulebook, a pitcher is credited with a save when he records the final out of a game that his team wins (well, obviously), and in which he is not also the winning pitcher. (So sorry, Chad Cordero - you only get a win for yesterday's effort, not a win and a save.) In addition, the game-finishing pitcher must qualify under one of the following conditions:

(a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or

(b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batsmen he faces); or

(c) He pitches effectively for at least three innings.

Condition (a) is the save that we see the most often - the stopper comes out to start the 9th inning when his team leads by 3 or fewer runs, and slams the door. Condition (c) is relatively rare - you really only see it a handful of times a year. It typically involves a mop-up reliever finishing the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings of a blowout victory. Danny Graves' save falls under Condition (b) - but only arguably.

What isn't arguable is that Graves' performance against the Mets stretches the save definition to its very limit. David Weathers started the ninth inning for the Reds, and recorded two outs. He also gave up a hit and walked two men, loading the bases. The Reds were ahead by five. The bases were loaded (three potential runs), Graves faced the player at-bat (the fourth potential run), and the batter representing the fifth run - the potential tying run - was in the on-deck circle.

Even if we consider Condition (b), it is arguable that Graves should not have been awarded a save. Condition (b) of the save rule requires that the potential tying run is "one of the first two batsmen that (the finishing pitcher) faces." Obviously, Graves never faced the hitter representing the potential tying run... he never had to, because Weathers had already recorded two outs! Graves retired the only batter he faced, and the potential tying run was left in the on-deck circle.

While it is possible - but not certain - that Graves' Save falls under the letter of the save rule, this situation clearly does not fall within the spirit of the rule. It also serves to establish that a revision to the save rule is required - immediately - in order to bring the save rule into accordance with what its designers had originally intended.

If a pitcher enters a game for a "normal" (Condition (a)) save situation, there are zero outs and a maximum three-run lead. As such, the potential tying run is, at the very least, "in the hole" - due up third in the inning.

Simple logic indicates that if a pitcher enters a game with one out in the ninth inning, the tying run should have to be, at a minimum, on deck in order for the pitcher to qualify for a save. Following that same logic, if a pitcher enters a game with two outs in the ninth inning, the pitcher should not qualify for a save unless the batter representing the tying run is actually at the plate.

If Graves had given up a grand-slam homer to the batter he faced, he *still* could have qualified for the save, simply by retiring one of the next few hitters. While MLB has refined and revised the save rule throughout the years, today's events make it clear that an additional revision is most certainly required.