An Old Post Truer Today Than When Written

[frankbmd]

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is the area 54 which we call the Twilight Zone.

The year is 2049. Arnold Hefflinger has just been elected into the shrine of baseball excellence in Cooperstown, New York. Arnold pitched for 12 years in Yankee stadium and was the premier three inning starter in the game during his tenure, despite undergoing 6 virtual Tommy John procedures that required him to spend up to ten days on the disabled list each time. Notably he was a modern day workhorse usually pitching with 2 days rest. He started over 50 games for the Bronx Bombers in all but three years of his pinstripe career. “Hoss” was his nickname given to him for by a baseball history junkie for reasons unknown.

Arnold’s career record was a respectable 0-82 with an ERA of 0.89. It’s been more than a decade since a starting pitcher has pitched more than five innings in a game. Losing less than 10 games a year for a 50 game starter has become the benchmark of success.

Sabermetrics has evolved and created several new metrics for the modern three inning starter. The MNN (mini no-no), consisting of three no hit innings, is generally accepted as measure of success for this three inning specialists and Arnold has 117 MNNs in his twelve career and is the all-time leader in this category.

The modern Perfect Game was redefined in 2032 and consists of nine consecutive strike outs, a feat that Arnold has accomplished on 13 occasions.

Arnold’s fastball has been clocked at 113 mph and his career average of whiffs per inning of 1.84 is generally considered unassailable.

No starting pitcher has actually won a game since 2038, when Nolan Ryan III recorded the last five inning start. Yes, the game has changed, with the advent of the three inning start by all major league teams, it has become necessary to increase the physical size of the bull pens to accommodate up to 15 relief pitchers for each game. Hitters have all become dead pull hitters, so many teams utilize the “an RP shift” where not only infielders but relief pitchers who cannot find a seat in the bullpen are shifted from one side of the field to the other depending on whether a right or left handed hitter is batting, minimizing their fielding deficiencies,

Managers who cannot walk to the mound 15 times a game for pitching changes find their managerial careers shortened.

Baseball is a game of conquest, but the tools of conquest are ever changing and do not necessarily come from bombs and explosions and fallout. Their tools are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own; for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to The Twilight Zone.

[KCRfan1]

Yes, The Monsters ( or the Monster ) Are Due On Maple Street.

[brian1961]

Frank, I think it would be a good time to dig out my favorite episode of The Twilight Zone, "Walking Distance". If you have the series on DVD, it is quite simple to locate---season 1, episode 5. It will make you think. Enjoy it, pal. Cheers. --- Brian Powell

[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"

[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?

[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

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...

[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