Red Thunder: I see your point, but Williamson's "blown saves" performance wasn't as bad as you'd suggest. It wasn't particularly good, but not horrible.
Remember, "blown saves" aren't always given in true save situations. IIRC, when a player relinquishes the lead anytime after the 5th inning, it's a blown save (maybe it's after the 6th inning - I forget). I think a fairer (though still flawed) way to evaluate set up men is to count holds+saves and compare that number to blown saves. Because, after all, I believe that most if not all of Williamson's blown saves were actually "blown holds."
Williamson in 2002:
4 Blown Saves
Success% - 80%
Again, 80% is NOT GOOD (regardless of what Rob Dibble says0, but it's better than 8 out of 12. Further, this doesn't even account for any games where the Reds may have been behind for one run, and then Williamson came in and kept things from getting worse.
By comparison, Danny Graves was 82% in 2002 - just one blown save away from 80%.
Last point. I got to see Mike Williams pitch a lot last year, and I'd be shocked if has the same save% this year.
How, then, are those people of the future—who are taking steroids every day—going to look back on baseball players who used steroids? They're going to look back on them as pioneers. They're going to look back at it and say "So what?" - Bill James, Cooperstown and the 'Roids