Since an average closer converts more than 80% of his opportunities, I can't see why a blown save shouldn't be worth three times as much as a save.
By valuing them equally, a closer who blows half of his opportunities winds up with a net of "0", when he should be deep in the minus column for a performance like that.
A average starter, on the other hand, wins slightly less than 50% of his decisions, so a win should be worth slightly more than a loss so a starter who has a .500 W-L record winds up slightly on the plus side.
As far as my problem with MLB scoring goes, yeah, I think it stinks and I think that saves are a way overvalued statistic.
After all, how important or hard is it to get a save when the average closer does it 80% of the time?
So yes, I made a save less valuable than what the public perception of what the value of a save is.
It's almost like stolen bases in a Roto scoring format.
Some scoring systems give a stolen base with the same value as a home run.
If you have a guy with 40 steals and no homers, and I have a guy with 40 homers and no steals, we each "win" a category, but there isn't a person in the world that thinks the stolen base guy is more valuable to a team than the home run guy is, is there?
"JMO is" "Just my opinion" I guess. What is "YMMV"?
