The save statistic is simplistic and stupid

[SumnerH]

"Now, here’s the crazy part: no team in baseball history has ever had a better option for this specific situation than the 2016 Orioles."

Think about that for a little while before arguing Buck didn't out-Grady Grady on this one. Your season ending run is 90 feet away and you have the best option IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL available to you...and you don't take it.

Note that "IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL" actually means "since 2002", and that even with that caveat they don't even bother to actually look at the sensational claim they made.

The claim is that a K is most important and a GB is second. The data only looks at GB% since 2002, ignoring K rate entirely. And it doesn't correct GB% to account for BIP%, so K rate is doubly discounted.

The decision is still dumb, obviously, but that article is somewhere between lazy and misleading.

 

[Lowrielicious]

yeah I didn't realise that 2002 caveat. Fangraphs are generally more precise when making such claims, shame on me for not adding fine print on that one.

Even so, 3 out of the top 4 ground ball percentage years go to Britton since 2002 is a pretty amazing stat.
K rate isn't ignored entirely they do mention that K-rate is well in Brittons favour: "Even putting aside that Britton was far more likely to strike Encarnacion out — the best outcome possible".
(Britton K% this year 29.1, Ubaldo 19.6)

Britton was much more likely to get a K (technically the best result for the Orioles in that situation).
And the most likely out of anyone who has pitched since 2002 to get a ground ball to get to the second best outcome.

But yes, if you want the BEST EVER option you probably want the guy most likely to get the best result (K), and there are better guys for that than Britton.