An Old Post Truer Today Than When Written

[D. Bergin]

LOL, I love the 0-82 record, with a 0.89 ERA. Made me think for a sec......then I went "Oh yeahhhhhh."

Mike Marshall might have had a 50 win season in 1974, in the future-verse.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

LOL, I love the 0-82 record, with a 0.89 ERA. Made me think for a sec......then I went "Oh yeahhhhhh."

Mike Marshall might have had a 50 win season in 1974, in the future-verse.

I believe that happens the last several years already.

On the Mets when Degrom pitches

[Peter_Spaeth]

Obsessed much with starting pitchers not pitching as many innings into the game as they used to?

I do think if things continue on the absurd path you project, baseball will eliminate the notion of winning and losing pitchers altogether.

[carlsonjok]

This is all nonsense.

We already know that 2042 is the final season for professional baseball.

[D. Bergin]

It all depends on roster allocation. If the people in charge of baseball just decide, through market research or whatever other viewership or fan driven analytics they want to use, not to allow additional roster spots on teams, for more pitchers......this "doomsday" scenario (according to many fans anyways) will never come into play.

If they really want teams to figure out how to extend pitchers back out, they can take away a roster spot (or give it to a position player instead, to satisfy the players union), and limit back and forth minor league options.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Obsessed much with starting pitchers not pitching as many innings into the game as they used to?

I do think if things continue on the absurd path you project, baseball will eliminate the notion of winning and losing pitchers altogether.

It does feel a lot like the pitching win is going the way of the GWRBI.

It doesn’t feel like that long ago people railed against the “quality start”. Now if you get through 6 having allowed 3 or fewer and use less than 3 pitchers, you’re thrilled.

As opposed to pitchers not winning games, they’ll probably just change the rule to 2 innings or 3.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I do think if things continue on the absurd path you project, baseball will eliminate the notion of winning and losing pitchers altogether.

They already created the "hold" statistic for relief pitchers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by todeen

They already created the "hold" statistic for relief pitchers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I wonder if anyone will be considered hall of fame worthy because of their career “hold” totals. Without “blown holds” (???) being factored in somehow,
I doubt it.

[Leon]

Where there is a will there is a way.

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I wonder if anyone will be considered hall of fame worthy because of their career “hold” totals. Without “blown holds” (???) being factored in somehow,
I doubt it.

[rats60]

Frank you forgot his teammate Mike Marshal IV who pitched in middle relief of Arnold. 100 games pitched, 200 innings and became MLB's first 30 game winner since 1968.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I wonder if anyone will be considered hall of fame worthy because of their career “hold” totals. Without “blown holds” (???) being factored in somehow,
I doubt it.

There is no such thing as a "blown hold"–only a blown save.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

There is no such thing as a "blown hold"–only a blown save.

I no there are no Blown Holds in Baseball but I do know of a lot of "Blow Holes"

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

There is no such thing as a "blown hold"–only a blown save.

Think outside the box, Bobby.

A "hold" is merely an incomplete save that is terminated by the manager before the end of the game. Any pitcher who is pitching for the winning team, but does not finish the game or lose the lead is awarded a hold. Any pitcher who loses the lead and does not finish the game does not receive a hold. He has earned a blown hold (in theory) in much the same way that a blown save is awarded.

The interesting artificial distinction is that any pitcher who is awarded a hold, could in fact finish the game and earn a save. So any pitcher entering the game in the late innings could be a "holder" or a "saver". To award a hold the official scorer has to be clairvoyant and agree with the manager that the "holder" when he entered the game had no intention of finishing the game and earning a save.
Maybe we should call a holder, a save saver instead. Put that in your pipe and blow it.

Remember that before there was a "hold" statistic, it didn't exist.
Just because a "blown hold" statistic doesn't exist, doesn't mean it won't.

The next question then becomes distinguishing between a blown hold and a blown save. Is the only distinction here whether it occurs in the last inning of a game? Does the manager have to specify that a pitcher brought in the eighth inning will not pitch in the ninth and thus only be qualified to get a hold rather than a save? The answer is no, so I guess a blown hold is merely a blown save in disguise.

I rest my case. Don't ask me to explain the fallacies of BABIP, WHIP, RISP or LGBTQ. It's all alphabet soup.