Entertainment desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 3

Saving pitcher in baseball

I dabble a bit in American sports, mostly football, but occasionally baseball. I've heard the term "save" and never understood it, so headed to our article.

This section, which attempts to define a save, gave me a headache. Point 2 was especially trying. I read it three times before I wanted to jump out of the window. Can someone explain it simply so even a Limey understands it?

In return, I promise not to explain this unless you ask really nicely. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that before. It helps to already understand how it works. :) And it could be worse. At least they didn't title it "the old in-and-out". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The save, like many baseball stats, is convoluted, but the simple premise is that a pitcher can earn a save by meeting certain requirements for having preserved his team's win. He basically has to be the last pitcher of the game, and have one of three conditions met. ANY of these three qualify:

The game is has a 3 run or less difference when he enters, and he pitches 1 full inning. (that is, if he enters the game at 4-1, he can earn a save, but not 5-1)
The potential game-tying run is at least on-deck (i.e. the next batter) when he enters, and he throws at least 1 pitch, or
He pitches at least 3 innings, regardless of the score (that is, it could be a 10-0 lead, but if he pitches the last 3 innings, he gets a save).

So long as the lead is preserved until the end of the game (i.e. the batting team never ties the game) the pitcher earns a save. --Jayron 32 16:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the third item used to say "pitches effectively" for at least three innings. Obviously a highly subjective rule. But if the closer's team was leading 10-0 and the final score was 10-9, then theoretically the closer was "sufficiently" effective, i.e. the manager kept him in there and he didn't blow the save. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the three-inning save is more-or-less automatic. The definition of "effective" for all three cases is "did not give up the lead". I could be wrong, but I've never heard of a 3-inning save being withheld by the scorekeeper if he preserved a lead for that time, no matter how big. If a pitcher gives up the lead, they can only earn a win, loss, or no-decision from that point on. --Jayron 32 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were occasionally cases when a pitcher pitching the final three innings did not get credit with a save, if he had not met the subjective "pitched effectively" criteria t which Bugs alluded. That is no longer the case. Anyway, only a small percentage of saves are earned under that third criteria. Also note that once a pitcher comes into a game with any of the three conditions in effect, it remains a save situation as long as he finishes the game and his team remains in the lead until the end. For example, if he enters the game in the 8th with a 3-1 lead (a save situation) and then his teammates score 10 runs in the bottom of the inning, it remains a save situation for him even though he is now working with a huge 13-1 lead. If he gets the final three outs, he has earned a save, but if any other pitcher replaces him, it is no longer a save situation, because by now the lead to be saved has become to large to qualify under item 1 or 2. Xuxl (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to pinpoint exactly when the "effectively" part was removed from the definition, but it appears to have been fairly recently, within the last few years. As to the general subject, the save was an unofficial stat for some time before it became official. I recall Jim Brosnan referring to it in one of his books, probably Pennant Race. When it became official, enterprising historians tried to retro-fit it going back to 1876. Of course, it became a lot more meaningful as the role of the "closer" developed in the 1970s. In the distant past, pitchers were usually substituted only as mop-up men or in case of injury. For a mind-boggling comparison with today's approach to pitching, consider the 1905 World Series, in which the Giants' Christy Mathewson pitched three complete-game shutouts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about not being the "winning" pitcher. Is that to prevent people becoming both the winning and saving pitcher in the same game? If it is the same person, it seems that they're the winning pitcher, so is that the higher accolade? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your role. In the old-old days, the winner was typically a starter, and saves were fairly rare. The closer's job nowadays is to finish off the opposing team and preserve the win for someone else. If you're a starter, normally you want the win, to enhance your standing as a starter. And if you're a reliever, you'd like to get a save and enhance your standing as a closer. Overall, no matter what your role, be it starter, closer, or "middle relief", you'd like to have a low earned run average, which is a good measure of your pitching ability in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To more directly answer the first part of your question: yes. If you win the game, the sense of also saving it doesn't really make sense. So, a pitcher who tosses a complete game 1-0 shutout only gets credit for the win - no save would be earned in that game by anyone. Now that "save" is firmly understood, the next piece to tackle is hold, which strives to be even less comprehensible (and succeeds). Matt Deres (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That looks terrifying. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of these stats is to have some way to quantify the value of various specialized positions. The "hold" by the way is just the "save", with the criteria applied to any pitcher except the first and last pitcher. The three stats are meant to give a way to assess the value of the three types of pitchers: starting pitcher, Middle relief pitcher, and closing pitcher. As pitchers have become restricted by pitch count, more pitchers now pitch in each game. Whereas 50-60 years ago, most starters completed many of their games, nowadays, most starters don't pitch more than 5-6 innings, even if they are winning. The starter has their win-loss record, the closer has saves, but the middle relievers had no stat. The hold is an attempt to give them something. If you understand a "save", you understand a "hold", which as I noted has the same basic criteria, excepting that you aren't the last pitcher. --Jayron 32 17:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French movies with french subtitles

I've been trying to learn French the lazy way for years on and off. I'm have a few French movies I like, and I think I might make some progress when watching them with French subtitles on. But I have a very hard time finding them. Is it unusual in France to have French subtitles? Or is it so common that no-one finds it worth to mention it? Most of my German DVDs have several audio tracks and usually corresponding subtitles - so I can have English audio, English subtitles (useful if the speakers have a heavy accent ;-) or French audio, Spanish subtitles (if I want to completely fry my brain). But my favourite French DVDs only come with (quite badly translated, as far as I can figure out) Englisch subtitles. Am I just unlucky? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised they wouldn't have closed-captioning. There must be at least some native French speakers who are hearing-impaired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I wonder is whether your DVDs are actually targeting the English markets hence the English subtitles instead of being produced for the French market?

Anyway it seems you're not the first to find this [1] [2] [3] [4]. Some of these suggest it a common problem. My conclusion from the discussions is unfortunately quite a few do not have French subtitles, and this includes TV programmes and others where subtitles were part of the broadcast to meet legal requirements. And unfortunately there's often no info on the packaging whether it includes subtitles and sometimes the info that is there is wrong.

While I can't recommend the option of illicit downloads recommended in some of the earlier links I will say even with DVDs if you're playing them with computers you can use an external .srt or .sub file to provide subtitles. You may have minor sync problems. Assuming the movie isn't a different editor's cut you should hopefully only have to push a key until you get them into sync and then it's all good. If not, again, assuming it's not a different cut, the likely problem is if it's a .srt file or otherwise uses timecodes and it was designed for PAL or a 23.97fps movie and your version is the opposite. Since PAL is normally sped up, you will find your subtitles will slow get out of sync. In that case, you need to fix the frame rate of the subtitles or convert them into a frame based format at the right frame rate.

Of course fan subs even ones which are simply transcribing the original audio can often be crap quality, and good quality ones maybe copyvio. (I guess the timing and simplifications and especially for closed captioning word choices for scene descriptions etc are probably unique enough to be copyrightable.) I provide no guidance on how to navigate that dilemma.

Anyway beyond movies mentioned in the earlier discussions, this [5] mentions 14 with subtitles although it provides no guidance on what versions includes subtitles. BTW BluRays can be somewhat fancier sometimes with quite a few audio streams and subtitles. If you have a compatible player, it may be worth exploring BluRays if you don't have luck with DVDs. It's also possible some streaming services etc may be more diligent at tracking down and getting the rights to available subtitles.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot so far. I've checked Blue Rays, but for the two movies I'm currently most interested in (Qu’est-ce qu’on a fait au Bon Dieu? and L’ami de mon amie I could not find versions with French subtitles there, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon listing for Qu’est-ce qu’on a fait au Bon Dieu [6] says that the DVD includes French subtitles for the hard of hearing. --Viennese Waltz 08:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing out another possibility: buy the DVDs from Canada. Almost all commercial material in Canada, including DVDs, are required to be bilingual. I have not specifically looked for French subtitles, but in all the times I've looked at the menu, I've never not seen that option; it's just as standard as English subtitles are. Québécois French is not quite the same as Parisian French, but perhaps it will be close enough to suit you? Matt Deres (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]