An Old Post Truer Today Than When Written

[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"

[mq711]

It takes too long for the managers to walk to the mound, all mound visits will be completed by drones.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

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

It appears that you don’t no what you no if you no what I mean. Yes or know?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

It appears that you don’t no what you no if you no what I mean. Yes or know?

I'm afraid I don't, Frank...

[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.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

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.

It's true that a hold is an incomplete save. But a pitcher who loses the lead and does not finish the game not only doesn't receive a hold he receives a blown save (according to current rules). The reason is that there is theoretically no way to know if the pitcher who came in for the hold would have continued to pitch until the end of the game (even though we all "know" he was just in for that inning). If he was in line for a save if he finished the game, and he blew the lead, he gets a blown save.

For example, this happened in yesterday's Nats-Reds game. Machado came in in the 7th with a one run lead and gave up a run, so he gets a blown save. This despite the fact that Machdao has 11 holds and no saves and was clearly not going to pitch the 7th, 8th, and 9th to earn the save. So it was a "blown hold" in the sense that we all "know" he was just there for the hold...except we really don't know...maybe he was going to be stretched out in that game...maybe the closer would have gotten injured warming up...maybe the game would have been called after 7 innings...maybe the Nats would have scored ten runs in the 8th and Martinez would have decided not to use other pitchers with such a big lead.

Anyway, that's how it works now...maybe the rules will change in the future.

Originally Posted by frankbmd

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.

If a pitcher who was in for a hold finishes the game with his team not having given up the lead, he gets a save not a hold. This takes away any need for clairvoyance because it is based on what happened in the game not what the manager's intention was.

Otherwise I agree with everything Frank says and am not looking to get in any arguments with him .

Originally Posted by frankbmd

...so I guess a blown hold is merely a blown save in disguise.

Oh wait...I do agree with Frank! Except for the "in disguise" part.

[frankbmd]

Oh wait...I do agree with Frank! Except for the "in disguise" part.

I hate to be derailed by the small print and stand by my box. See! I'm standing outside the box.

Has a relief pitcher ever been awarded a blown save for losing the lead in the 3rd inning? I'm sure many of you are saying that would be ridiculous, but is a blown hold/save in the 3rd inning any different that a blown hold/save in the eighth inning.

Furthermore if the current army of one inning relievers cannot pitch in more than one inning, I think they shouldn't receive any credit for anything they do. To pitch 40 2/3 innings in 55 appearances over the course of a 6 month season is hardly noteworthy. They don't even deserve an asterisk *****************. As far as paying them, I would vote for minimum wage.

[molenick]

I don't think you can get a hold or save (or blown save) if you enter in the third inning and you are the first relief pitcher in because there is no one for you to hold or save the game for...because the starter can't get a win if he is out by the third inning. Otherwise you could end up with a game with seven people getting holds but no one getting the win (and you can't get a win and also a hold/save).

However, if you enter in the third after two pitchers have pitched, and the second pitcher is in line for the win, you could get a hold or a blown save (unless you finish the game, in which case you would probably be awarded the win by the official scorer, although I guess in theory you could also get a very long save).

In fact, it looks like before the starter goes five innings, the second pitcher cannot get a hold or save or blown save no matter when he comes in. In this example, Maeda left after 4.1 inning with the lead but he couldn't get the win because he didn't go five. Duffey came in and held the lead but didn't get a hold. Then three pitchers came in and got holds (the hold was to preserve a win for Duffey, who presumably would have gotten the win if the Twins had held the lead). If any of those pitchers had given up the lead, they would have gotten a blown save. Then Colome came in for the "real" save in the ninth and got a "real" blown save.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

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

Perhaps this is a joke and I am missing the punchline, but these all have quite clear definitions.

Sticking to baseball, are you saying that you don't believe that WHIP exists, or that it is a mistake to believe that it is worth paying attention to?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Perhaps this is a joke and I am missing the punchline, but these all have quite clear definitions.

Sticking to baseball, are you saying that you don't believe that WHIP exists, or that it is a mistake to believe that it is worth paying attention to?

Based on Frank's past history, he's more often then not, just engaging in some wordplay.

He's likely not being very serious at all.

Perhaps even a little self-effacing.

Sometimes he hits the mark...and then sometimes...well...(insert dad joke here)

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Based on Frank's past history, he's more often then not, just engaging in some wordplay.

He's likely not being very serious at all.

Perhaps even a little self-effacing.

Sometimes he hits the mark...and then sometimes...well...(insert dad joke here)

Thanks, Dave, this makes sense