Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Very little pre-amble here. It's 2:31 am and I'm tired. So, let's get right to it.

I decided to research the performances of the American League closers, after some debate on the weekend when Miguel Batista nearly blew a save. Bauxites had varying opinions on his performance; this shall attempt to answer the questions. Enjoy!

All statistics are from, not counting Monday's games.

To start, I looked at the top 14 in saves. Here are the top 12:

Wickman     32
Rivera      31
Hermanson   30
Guardado    29
Nathan      29
Rodriguez   27
Ryan        26
Cordero     26
AVERAGE     25.5
Baez        25
Batista     21
MacDougal   15
Street      15
Note: Nobody from Boston or Detroit, because Foulke and Percival are hurt, Schilling's new to closing and Urbina's in the NL now. But we have 12 and that's good enough.

For this study, I'm classifying saves as Super, Tough, Regular and Cheap. These classifications come from tangotiger's Crucial Situations chart, where Super = Very High-Leverage, Tough = High-Leverage, and so on.

Each closer will get one point for a regular save, two points for a tough save, three for a super save and none for cheap saves. If the closer gives up runs but still gets the save, it doesn't matter. We're just concerned here with how good or bad the save or blown save was. Conversely, if a closer blows a regular save, he loses two points, one point for a tough save and three points for a cheap save.

In short, closers are not given credit for saving cheap saves, nor are they punished for blowing tough saves. The harder the save, the higher the point value awarded. Only save performance is considered in this section of analysis.

Enough talk, let's look at the Save Point results:

Closer	Super	Tough	Regular	Cheap	Total	SvPts
Wickman	0	6	20	6	32	32
Herman.	1	5	11	13	30	24
Nathan	0	8	8	13	29	24
Rivera	1	5	10	15	31	23
K-Rod	0	6	11	10	27	23
Guarda.	0	5	13	11	29	23
Baez	0	4	12	9	25	20
AVERAGE 0       5       9       11      25      19
Cordero	0	7	5	14	26	19
Batista	0       4	5	12	21	13
Ryan	0	3	6	17	26	12
Street	0	3	4	8	15	10
MacDoug.0	0	7	8	15	7

And now the blown saves. I'm not counting certain blown saves acquired by pitchers if they had no realistic chance to get the save. One example is Huston Street before he was named the closer -- I didn't count his blown save in the sixth or seventh inning. The results:

Closer	Super	Tough	Regular	Cheap	Total	BSvPts
Herman.	0	1	0	0	1	1
MacDoug.0	1	0	0	1	1
Guarda.	0	0	0	1	1	3
Nathan	0	3	0	0	3	3
Street	0	2	1	0	3	4
AVERAGE 0       2       1       1       4       5.8
Ryan	0	4	1	0	5	6
K-Rod	0	2	1	1	4	7
Rivera	0	0	2	1	3	7
Batista	0	1	2	1	4	8
Wickman	0	2	2	1	5	9
Baez	1	4	0	2	7	10
Cordero	0	2	3	1	6	11

Putting them together (SvPts minus BSvPts):

Closer    SvOppPts
Wickman     23 
Hermanson   23 
Nathan      21 
Guardado    20 
Rivera      16 
Rodriguez   16 
AVERAGE     13
Baez        10 
Cordero      8 
Ryan         6 
MacDougal    6 
Street       6 
Batista      5 

Despite that list, Batista is not the "worst" pitcher when it comes to this measure...

Closer     Diff
Hermanson    -7
Nathan       -8 
Wickman      -9 
Guardado     -9  
MacDougal    -9 
Street       -9
Rodriguez   -11
AVERAGE     -13.2
Rivera      -15 
Baez        -15 
Batista     -16
Cordero     -18 
Ryan        -20

...but he's close. Dustin Hermanson, Mike MacDougal and Eddie Guardado have only blown one save each, explaining their position at the top of this list of SaveOppPts (SOP) minus actual saves. What is worth noting is that every pitcher, even the very best, is below 0. Why? They all have cheap saves, my friend. As far as I'm concerned, they are lose-lose for good closers. If you get it, you should get it, it's an easy save; if you don't, you get penalized. Joe Nathan shows up in second because his three blown saves were all "tough saves."

Wickman has blown five, but he doesn't benefit from cheap saves as much as everyone else does, so he's tied for third. Well, he's actually tied for first, as I put more weight in the "SvOppPts" chart than I do the previous one. But enough about Wickman...for now.

What surprised me about these lists is that Batista is below average on each and every one of them. I know some of the measures are just derivatives of the others and the ordering would be the same, but Batista, Francisco Cordero and B.J. Ryan are the only ones below average on every list. Danys Baez is close, but he pitches for Tampa Bay and therefore nobody cares about him. These measures only take save opportunities into account, so it's clear that they consider Batista to be a below-average closer. As for a below average reliever (because those terms are very, very different), let's look at the more traditional measures.

I'll conclude this part by saying that Bob Wickman is the best closer in the American League, with Joe Nathan a close second. Now, Wickman is not the best relief pitcher in the AL -- nor among these pitchers -- but that's why I separated these parts.

Once again, the statistics are from and do not include Monday's games. In this case, they take every inning into account, not just saves and blown saves. We've already established the "closer" rating of these closers, now let's see how well they actually pitch. Some Bauxites predictions are included.

VBF: He's probably 10th in ERA.

Pitcher     ERA
Guardado    1.32
Rivera      1.33
Street      1.42
Hermanson   1.60
Rodriguez   2.60
Nathan      2.72
Ryan        2.81
Baez        2.91
Wickman     3.09
Batista     3.10 
Cordero     3.33
MacDougal   4.13

Give that man a prize! Batista is, in fact, 10th among these closers in ERA. And, poor Mike MacDougal.

Can he do it again? VBF: [Batista is] 6th in Opponent Average.

Pitcher     BAA
Rodriguez   .157    
Rivera      .165
Street      .184
Nathan      .189
Guardado    .189
Ryan        .208
Hermanson   .216
Cordero     .228
Baez        .247
Batista     .258
MacDougal   .262
Wickman     .264

Ouch. Maybe not. The rubber match for VBF: 6th in WHIP.

Pitcher     WHIP
Rivera      0.79
Guardado    0.90
Street      0.95
Rodriguez   1.00
Nathan      1.07
Hermanson   1.09
Ryan        1.11
Batista     1.29
Cordero     1.31
Wickman     1.35
Baez        1.35
MacDougal   1.41

VBF was close on this one (Batista was 8th) but the WHIP difference is huge -- 1.09 vs 1.29. One more table:

Pitcher     DIPS
Rivera      1.99
Ryan        2.19
Nathan      2.57
Street      2.65
Rodriguez   2.73
Guardado    3.04
Cordero     3.23
MacDougal   3.42
Batista     3.79
Hermanson   3.80
Baez        4.27
Wickman     5.19

Once again, all statistics are from

You can see that Batista, while being in the top of the league in saves, is in the middle or bottom of that group by most definitions. What that means is basically what we already knew: he's a second-tier closer, which is no knock to Miguel Batista. It's very hard to be top-10 in saves and not be any good -- any manager would remove a really bad pitcher from the closer's role before long.

So let's deal with some other reader predictions. Ron says "Off the top of my head, it appears a lot Batista's saves come when the Jays have at least a 2 run lead."

Ron, you're right. 12 of Batista's 21 saves are "cheap" saves, which means he entered the game with a three-run lead or a two-run lead at home. That 57% (12 of 21) is second highest among these closers: B.J. Ryan has 65% (17 of 26). Here's that table:

Cheap Save %
Wickman    19
Baez       36
Rodriguez  37
Guardado   38
Hermanson  43
Nathan     45
Rivera     48
MacDougal  53
Street     53
Cordero    54
Batista    57
Ryan       65

Bob Wickman, while being low on the lists of every non-save measure, is not only leading the league in saves, he has the fewest cheap saves relative to his save total. It's remarkably low, that percentage. (It's not a misprint, I triple-checked it.) The obvious explanation is he's doing what Jack Morris was rumoured to do, just in relief. If it's not a tough or regular save situation, Wickman doesn't "bear down" or whatever cliche you wish to use. I don't know what the answer is, because that would require adding up all his save and non-save hits, walks, etc. Magpie can do that if he wants, but this is time-consuming as it is.

Next conclusion: Bob Wickman is a bad reliever. But he's a good closer. B.J. Ryan appears to be the opposite, while Mariano Rivera is just unhittable. But you knew that last one.

I just don't understand that Wickman thing, though. He's actively defying all of my accepted knowledge about closers. Is it small sample size (each of these guys is around 50 innings pitched)? Does he pitch differently in save situations? Is he remarkably lucky? Any Cleveland fans here who can help me out?

Overall, Batista looks bad compared to the elite closers, but that's not a fair comparison -- it's the opposite of damning with faint praise. I am confident in his ability to close out games, and I believe he is an above-average reliever.

I'll take a look at the 2004 AL closers in a future Game Report. Maybe even NL, but probably not. It would be all "Gagne and Smoltz ROOL!!!1!1" and I don't follow the NL that much, anyway. This might be done in the offseason, if I'm lazy about researching from Retrosheet. I wonder if anyone will show up as a Bob Wickman Pitcher? If so, I think we have a new term and a new award for closers who get the job done with bad numbers across the board.

Your comments, criticism and suggestions are appreciated. Updated stats for all these closers are available from ESPN here, hopefully sorted by total saves so you can see all the closers on the same page.

Looking over last night's games, Mariano Rivera once again got a cheap save, but with that bullpen, Torre almost has to go with Mo all the time. Okay, he doesn't (he's already used starters on their throw days, and Randy Johnson was going to close out Sunday's game if needed), but still...couldn't someone pitch an inning without giving up three runs? I refuse to believe that the New York bullpen (or any bullpen) has only one pitcher with an ERA under 27. And don't get me started on the "five run lead with bases loaded" save.

Oh yeah, and how about that ballgame?

We had the best chat of the season, easily. New "on the road" silence rules are in place, though:
1. In the bottom half of innings, only two people are allowed to say anything in the chat. VBF will give us all a warning, or, in his absence, some other Wells fan.
2. If the opposition gets a baserunner, Magpie must leave the chat. If he is not in the chat, Rule 2 does not apply.
3. "Skills" is not allowed near the chat in close games.
It is not known if these rules apply in home games or games played before 10:00 Eastern.

I disagree with the move to bring in Pete Walker, even if Miguel Batista was tired from Sunday. If the Jays took the lead, Batista would have been in there for the save, no doubt. It was a bad move by John Gibbons (I said "terrible" earlier, downgrade it to "bad") in either case. Even if Batista was not ready to pitch today and he had to go with Walker, Gibbons is still at fault. Batista was tired? Well, why did Gibbons bring him in on Sunday in a low-pressure situation, a 7-4 lead?

Because Batista is the closer. And closers get saves. That was a 3-run lead on Sunday and 3-run leads mean saves. No matter what you think about using Walker last night (this morning), Gibbons was a Slave To The Save at least once in the last two games.

And for my money, it was twice. Two times too many.

It doesn't take anything away from this ballgame, though. Extra innings, two Molina! brothers, an ejection...a fun game it was.

Up Close With Closers | 24 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Named For Hank - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 10:26 AM EDT (#125698) #
I'll ask this again in this thread: is Walker suddenly awful? I was under the impression that he was quite good out of the bullpen this year, an idea reinforced by his extended stretch filling in a spot on my fantasy team.

And, as you say, if Batista really isn't a great closer, why is it such a big mistake to not bring him in?
Sheldon - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:01 PM EDT (#125730) #
Interesting stuff. Thanks Rob!
Rob - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 01:15 PM EDT (#125732) #
And, as you say, if Batista really isn't a great closer, why is it such a big mistake to not bring him in?

Actually, I said Batista was a "below-average" closer. :) However, I also said "I am confident in [Batista's] ability to close out games, and I believe he is an above-average reliever."

See, "below-average closer" is a relative term, comparing him to very good pitchers, and none of these other pitchers are members of the Toronto bullpen. If this was an All-Star Game and Joe Torre (sorry, Terry Francona -- old habits die hard) had to pick one of these pitchers in the top of the 11th, then the rankings matter.

The rankings of Batista, Rivera and Nathan aren't relevant in any way when the choice was Batista, Walker or League.

Oh, and I have decided that the 2004 study will include all relievers, not just the top 12-14 in saves. It's not really fair to Mike MacDougal to be compared with these guys, because he won't come out on top. Or in the middle...

Named For Hank - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM EDT (#125749) #
That still doesn't address why Walker was a mistake -- is he really, really bad and I just didn't realize it? Is the idea that the game could run for a bunch more innings just not something to be taken into account?

I just don't get how it's a mistake. Walker has been very strong out of the 'pen and can go multiple innings. In hindsight it didn't work, but that doesn't make it a bad play. What, aside from hindsight, makes you say it was a mistake?
R Romero Vaughan - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#125751) #
Interesting stuff.

12 out of 21 'cheap saves' would be about what I'd be expecting.

As one of the 'anons' not overly enamoured with Batista's performances I feel somewhat vindicated.

Now, if I may, I'd like to open the net a bit wider and explain why it matters. A second tier closer on a team with a first tier offensive line-up/pitching staff would be acceptable.

As it is, average is not really good enough is it? You need to have (at least) one area of real and great strength, ideally overwhelming strength, especially in the AL East.

The Yankees: 4 x .900 OPS (and 2 that average 1.000) guys + Rivera
The Sox: 2x .950 OPS guys
The Blue Jays: No dominant area, aside an Ace (when healthy)

I think people should be a little less content with 'average', 'second tier' or whatever adjective you care to employ.

I'd be happy with Batista if he was a relative weak link, as it is he represents the mediocre-good ensemble of the team.

This is not to sound overly pesimistic- I've seen lots of great things this year which have made me happy.

I just think we need to be more realistic about what we're going to need to get into those play-off things. 'Batista-closer' level performances across the board aren't going to do it.
westcoast dude - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#125753) #
I blame Gibbons bullpen management for the loss. Speier for the 7th was good and what a battle for the bagle that turned out to be. Frasor should have been next, he was fresher than Chulk and when he did come in he was lights out. So then in the 9th, would he have gone to Batista and would it have worked? We'll never know. One thing we do know is that KRod is terrified of Rios. He pitched around him to load the bases in the 9th with one out for Wells and Hilly, and it worked! I don't need to remind everyone of the Other Guy who got pitched around; it's pretty good company, I'd say.
VBF - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT (#125755) #
Yea, if anyone read the log that was one weird chat.

I disown any rules created though, Rob. We did lose the game so something didn't work.

Sean - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 02:55 PM EDT (#125756) #
I just watched the replay of the game on and right at the end of the game the announcer for FSN says "wow theres a big gap in left center" and sure enough 2 seconds later Erstad doubles in the winning run to left center. Now thats good color commentary.
Chuck - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#125758) #
I'll ask this again in this thread: is Walker suddenly awful? I was under the impression that he was quite good out of the bullpen this year

I think there are two separate questions. Has Walker been effective this year? Yes, absolutely. Will he continue to be effective? Er, maybe, maybe not. Given his decidely unsexy peripherals and career track record, one has to temper the predictive value of his 70 innings of sub-3 ERA.

Magpie - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#125763) #
Well done, and of course it suggests all kinds of supplementary and related things for me to follow-up on. You'll be getting a Data Table from me, I promise!

I have a philosophical quibble - the awarding of 0 points for a Cheap Save. It's an accomplishment, it does have actual value. So to warm up for my future labours, I prepared a Data Table of your Save Points using a sliding scale of 1-3-5-7 for the various Saves (and reversing it for the Blown Saves.) When we do that, they line up like this:

                  DOING THE JOB               - NOT GETTING IT DONE
Closer	         S   T   R   C   TOT   +Pts	S   T   R   C   TOT   -Pts   TOTAL
Hermanson        1   5  11  13    30     78	0   1   0   0     1      3     75
Wickman	         0   6  20   6    32     96	0   2   2   1     5     23     73
Nathan	         0   8   8  13    29     77	0   3   0   0     3      9     68
Guardado	 0   5  13  11    29     75	0   0   0   1     1      7     68
Rivera	         1   5  10  15    31     77     0   0   2   1     3     17     60
Rodriguez	 0   6  11  10    27     73	0   2   1   1     4     18     55
Baez	         0   4  12   9    25     65	1   4   0   2     7     27     38
Cordero	         0   7   5  14    26     64	0   2   3   1     6     28     36
Ryan	         0   3   6  17    26     50	0   4   1   0     5     17     33
Batista	         0   4   5  12    21     47     0   1   2   1     4     20     27
Street	         0   3   4   8    15     35	0   2   1   0     3     11     24
MacDougal        0   0   7   8    15	 29	1   0   0   1     1      8     21

Miguel's still not looking very good, is he? I'm thinking that despite my hosannahs and praise for Mariano a couple of weeks back, the best AL closers this year have been Joe Nathan and Dustin Hermanson.

Hermanson? Hermanson?

Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:05 PM EDT (#125766) #
The one problem with the method above is, like RBIs, it favours the guys with the most opportunities. Not completely, of course, since there are penalties for failure.

Anyhow, I thought it would be interesting to see what rate these guys are saving games at in each category. I combined the S & T categories, since there weren't enough datapoints in S to make this exercise interesting. Anyhow, here's what I found:

Closer	S&T%	R%	C%
Hermy	85.71%	100.00%	100.00%
Wickman	75.00%	90.91%	85.71%
Nathan	72.73%	100.00%	100.00%
Eddie	100.00%	100.00%	91.67%
Rivera	100.00%	83.33%	93.75%
K-Rod	75.00%	91.67%	90.91%
Baez	44.44%	100.00%	81.82%
Cordero	77.78%	62.50%	93.33%
Ryan	42.86%	85.71%	100.00%
Batista	80.00%	71.43%	92.31%
Street	60.00%	80.00%	100.00%
MacD	0.00%	100.00%	88.89%
Batista has been quite good in tough opportunities - he just hasn't had all that many of them. The medium leverage ones are what's really holding him back.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#125768) #
I forgot to mention: The average, weighted for opportunity, in the three categories are: 71.60%, 90.32%, and 93.79%.
Mike Green - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT (#125771) #
Many stats-hounds insist that the improvement in the Sox' run prevention is mostly due to the pitchers-Buehrle, Garland, Garcia, Hermanson...I am not so sure. Rowand seems to be fabulous, and I haven't seen enough of Iguchi to know if he is also. I do know this. The team opponent's K, BB and HR rates are pretty much league average, the team opponent's line-drive rate is higher than league average and yet the team is right there with the Angels in the AL for fewest runs surrendered. My instinct is that the defence is playing a larger role than the pitching improvement. I'll await the UZRs to see what they say about it.
Rob - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#125776) #
Well, it's not like there's a lot of difference in our lists...
Magpie          Rob
Hermanson	Wickman
Wickman		Hermanson
Nathan		Nathan
Guardado	Guardado
Rivera	 	Rivera
Rodriguez	Rodriguez
Baez	  	Baez
Cordero	  	Cordero
Ryan	  	Ryan
Batista	  	MacDougal
Street	  	Street
MacDougal 	Batista

...though I do like the 1-3-5-7 better than 0-1-2-3. I'll use that in the future, with no intention of crediting you with it. It yields an average of 48.6, meaning there is a large gap between the top-tier and bottom-tier closers -- Rodriguez and Baez being the "border," so to speak, for their respective tiers. My system does not show that gap, and I think yours is more realistic and accurate.

(By the way, your MacDougal value is off. I have him penalized as follows for blown saves: 0-1-0-0. You have 1-0-0-1. He should be the same as Hermanson, and this changes his total from 21 to 26 and puts him ahead of Street. Poor Mike MacDougal, always shortchanged.)

Pepper, I don't mind that this gives more points to those who pitch more often -- as you said, it's not a true counting stat. There are plenty of rate stats for relievers, but I can't think of any that account for playing time aside from saves and holds, both of which are flawed. I'm happy with Save Opportunity Points, though I wish it had a better acronym than SOP.

Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:32 PM EDT (#125777) #
I suppose that's true, Rob. I think you guys are vastly overestimating Wickman. If you look at his conversion percentages, it's clear that his high point total is almost entirely a function of opportunity. His rates have been pretty average. In fact, Everyday Eddie beats him across the board.

On the flip side, there's MacDougal who gets punished for blowing a very difficult save and not having many opportunities. Is there any real difference between Wickman and MacDougal, other than opportunity?
Rob - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:42 PM EDT (#125781) #
I said Wickman was a good closer but a bad reliever. With SOP, I'm only concerned with the closers, so it's not going to be exact. It's not a predictive measure.

If you asked me who I wanted as my closer next year, and I had to pick either MacDougal or Wickman, I would pick MacDougal. That doesn't change the fact that Wickman has been better this year -- as a closer. MacDougal has obviously been the better relief pitcher. Past tense is the key.

Think of Game Scores -- they aren't perfect, but they tell you how well someone did in a specific role, starting. In this case, the role is closing games.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 04:51 PM EDT (#125782) #
Here's a measure that takes opportunity out of the equation.

What you do is compare the number of saves the guy got in each situation compared to the number of saves the "average" closer would have gotten, given the AL averages I presented above.

Then using Magpie's 5-3-1 weighting, calculate points. Here's the new list:

Eddie	5	13	11	3.58	11.739	11.256	5	13	12	10.627
Herm	6	11	13	5.012	9.933	12.194	7	11	13	8.947
Rivera	6	10	15	4.296	10.836	15.008	6	12	16	6.004
Nathan	8	8	13	7.876	7.224	12.194	11	8	13	3.754
K-Rod	6	11	10	5.728	10.836	10.318	8	12	11	1.534
Wickman	6	20	6	5.728	19.866	6.566	8	22	7	1.196
MacD	0	7	8	0.716	6.321	8.442	1	7	9	-1.985
Batista	4	5	12	3.58	6.321	12.194	5	7	13	-2.057
Street	3	4	8	3.58	4.515	7.504	5	5	8	-3.949
Cordero	7	5	14	6.444	7.224	14.07	9	8	15	-3.962
Ryan	3	6	17	5.012	6.321	15.946	7	7	17	-9.969
Baez	4	12	9	6.444	10.836	10.318	9	12	11	-10.046
This makes a lot more sense to me. Now Wickman doesn't rack up a high total simply by appearing in a ton of games and MacDougal isn't punished for the same reason.

Magpie - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:16 PM EDT (#125785) #
your MacDougal value is off

I knew something had gone awry with the old cut-and-paste, quickly followed by is-this-the-right-column?

Rob - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:17 PM EDT (#125786) #
Beautiful, Prof. Mo' Phat. This is exactly what I was trying to do. "Weighted Saves Above Average." Not bad. It will get even more accurate once I look up the 2004 "conversion rates" and combine them with the 2005 ones. There's nothing wrong with combining 2004 and 2005 in this manner, right?
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 05:33 PM EDT (#125789) #
Not at all. I'll send you the Excel sheet, though you may want to re-calculate the averages that you use. :)
Ron - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 06:28 PM EDT (#125793) #
Excellent work on the closers.

I'm not suprised by the high amount of cheap saves by Batista. I rarely see the Jays in one run games when Batista enters.

Skills - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT (#125797) #
Just to let you guys know. Rob's assessment of luck based on my presence in the chat room was incorrect. I left, we lost. So don't blame Gibbons, blame Rob. Hehehe.
DepecheJay - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:29 PM EDT (#125810) #
I don't know Skills... the team did do pretty well when you were sent packing. I kid of course. For the value of that chat last night, the Jays surely deserved a win. Still, a great time was had by all.
Dr. Zarco - Tuesday, August 16 2005 @ 09:33 PM EDT (#125813) #
The man of the day, Mariano Rivera, just blew a save. He gave up a solo HR to Eduardo Perez (ha!), his second (double ha!) of the day. 3-3 bottom 9 in St. Pete.
Up Close With Closers | 24 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.