Talk:Hold (baseball)

"...just as all pitchers who earn saves enter the game with an opportunity to earn a hold." This is not true, and I have removed it. For instance, if a pitcher enters at the beginning of the 7th inning with his team up by more than 3 runs, then he cannot pitch three innings (and thus be eligible for a hold or save) without finishing the game. FourteenDays 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three problems in the argument above and all three are fatal to its validity.

First, the phrase "all pitchers who earn saves enter the game with an opportunity to earn a hold" is actually a true statement.

After entering the game (but before some subsequent thing happens to destroy the opportunity), each pitcher who goes on to earn a save at the end of his stint had a very real opportunity to earn a hold at the outset of his stint on the mound. This opportunity can be lost, but it still exists from the time the pitcher steps on the mound until some subsequent event occurs causing the opportunity to be lost. If the pitcher earns a save, the opportunity to earn a hold is of course lost.

In fact, every pitcher who earns a save can be said to have lost his opportunity to earn a hold. By definition, a hold requires a save situation at the outset, before the other requirements for a hold can be met. If a pitcher with an opportunity to earn a save records at least one out and is pulled from the game (without giving up the lead) by his coach in favor of another pitcher, this pitcher loses his opportunity to earn a save but makes good on his opportunity to earn a hold (an opportunity which he had from the outset and never relinquished).

Second, the argument proceeds not by logical or rational demonstration, but by an inapt example. In attempting to reveal falsity in the quoted phrase, the example posits an irrelevant situation. It presents a scenario where the pitcher is ineligible for either a save or a hold upon entering a game. The example does not address the language of the quoted phrase.

Third, even if we pretend the example is at all relevant to the quoted phrase, it remains fatally flawed because a pitcher who enters a game in the 7th inning (with his team up by more than three runs) is perfectly capable of pitching three innings without finishing the game. All that is required is that the pitcher be replaced by another pitcher during the top half of any inning after the 9th inning. This is a familiar occurrence in extra inning games. (The pitcher can also be replaced in the bottom half of the inning, so long as the score is tied. otherwise the other team would have already won.)

The bi-conditional of the quoted phrase is also true, for the reasons explained above. David19 00:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is still incorrect. First, remember that a pitcher can earn a save by pitching at least three innings, regardless of the score, if he enters with the lead, never relinquishes it, and finishes the game. Hence, a pitcher who enters at the beginning of the 7th can record a save if he never gives up the lead and finishes the game. Second, if he never relinquishes the lead, then the game cannot go to extra innings. It is impossible for a pitcher who enters in these conditions to (a) pitch at least three innings, (b) not relinquish the lead, and (c) not finish the game. Hence this pitcher cannot receive a hold. --FourteenDays 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't stray from the argument, FourteenDays. All we're doing here is disputing the validity of a highly specific phrase: "every pitcher who earns a hold enters the game with an opportunity to earn a save." The phrase contains two distinct time referents: (1) conclusion at the end of the game and (2) opportunity at the beginning of a pitcher's stint on the mound.

If (as in your example) the pitcher doesn't earn a hold at all but earns a save instead, then we'd be disputing the validity of a different phrase, a phrase that never appeared in the Wikipedia entry. Let's revisit the phrase again, shall we? Every pitcher who goes on to earn a hold has, by definition, entered the game with an opportunity to earn a save. If this phrase were false, then the definition of a hold in the Wikipedia entry would have to be false. The phrase simply paraphrases the definition. Attacking the validity of the phrase is tantamount to attacking the validity of the definition. The phrase is unassailable unless the definition of a hold is reworked to remove the rule requiring entering the game in a save situation. Try to dispute the following phrase: "every pitcher who enters the game in a save situation has an opportunity to earn a save when he enters the game." Or this one: "a save situation is a situation where a pitcher enters the game with an opportunity to earn a save." I'd be very interested to understand your arguments for why these two phrases are invalid. David19 09:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've been talking about the opposite throughout this discussion.

- "Every pitcher who earns a hold enters the game with an opportunity to earn a save" is true, and no one has been arguing that.

- "Every pitcher who earns a save enters the game with an opportunity to earn a hold" is false, as I showed above, which is why I removed it and posted the original comment here.

--FourteenDays 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

...

Is it just me or is the "Hold" one of the silliest stats in baseball. I was just looking at a pitcher's line: 0.1 innings pitched, 1 h, 4 r, 4 er, 3 bb. For this performance he earned both the loss and a hold. Cms479 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, can you think of a better way to quantify a relief pitcher's performance in a single number? Especially for short relievers, ERA can get blown way out of proportion way too fast (one bad outing can inflate numbers for an otherwise very dependable short man, for example). Sliver7 13:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

some combination of k/9, k/bb, ERA, WHIP etc. would be good. David19 02:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

leaders?

I see this stat appear in box scores, but I never see who the end of the year leaders are in this category. I realize that this is not an official MLB stat, but the stats are being compiled. So who are the season leaders through history and who are the all time leaders? Kingturtle 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this page edited back and forth between Mike Stanton and Arthur Rhodes. I've added a table of the holds leaders that includes holds that would have been earned before 1999. Even though these holds aren't recognized by MLB.com, holds isn't an offcial statistic anyway. I think this second table adds more information, includes players who should be recognized as holds leaders, and can hopefully avert an edit war.

But please note that Baseball-reference has no sortable leaders table for holds leaders, so this list may be incomplete, which is one reason I omitted ranking numbers. Each player must be investigated individually. I looked up totals for likely candidates from the MLB list of holds leaders, high hold totals for 1999 and years just after, and leaders in pitching appearances. But please add anyone I may have missed.VinnieAntonelli (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this right?

"there are at least three innings remaining in the game but no more than four." this makes it seem you can only get a save in the 6th inning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.59.45 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If a pitcher comes into the game during the 5th inning with the lead and never relinquishes the lead he actually earns the win. The starting pitcher gets a no decision because he could not make it through 5 innings. 5 innings in a game must be played before it is official. If it is rained out before the 5th inning it is not an official game and must be replayed or resumed. If 5 innings have been played and the game then gets rained out, the score is final. I only mention all this to explain the significance of that 5th inning in regards to pitchers.Jaylectricity (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in first condition

Condition 1 states that to earn a hold, the pitcher "Enters the game in a save situation," and of course by definition a save situation requires that the pitcher enters with a lead. However, the article goes on to define the the save situation as it applies to the Hold, and there is a corner case where a pitcher can combine all the stated conditions without ever appearing in a save situation: 1a, 1b, and 1c(iii).

I saw this in a game last night: a pitcher entered the game down 11-5, pitched perfect sixth, seventh, and eighth innings, and left the game still down 11-10 after the eighth. Though he was never in a save situation, he appeared in relief, was not the winning pitcher, and certainly pitched effectively for three innings (he also met conditions 2 (recording at least one out) and 3 (never relinquishing (since they never held) the lead, and of course didn't record a save). Does he earn a hold for pitching effectively and keeping his team in the game while they mounted a comeback (and does the fact that his team earned a win in the 9th help or hurt his case, or is it irrelevant?), or is he actually ineligible because he didn't enter in a save situation?

Either "enters the game in a save situation" should be removed, or 1c or 1c(iii) should be modified to add something like "He enters the game with his team leading and <existing text>." Which is the correct edit to make?

Also, can anyone find more citations for the definition of a Hold? The espn.go.com ("Rob Neyer FAQ") link doesn't work tonight, and the mlb.com link doesn't say anything about '3 effective innings' (but does state that you must enter with the lead to earn a Hold). Drewbenn (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Amended 1(a). A pitcher has to enter with a lead and maintain it for a save or hold.

As for the definition, it's a personal value judgment call IMO. If you want to stick to the shorter definition "just like a save, except that the relief is not the closer", the definition as it stands on the page is correct (note that in the rules of scoring, a save requires an out made in all cases - not that it matters for saves). The MLB.com version, for some reason, removes the "1 IP" requirement for the "3-run lead or less" path (which doesn't matter if the pitcher inherits any runner) and the "3 IP regardless of size of lead" path, and this is likely the criteria it uses for its box scores.

Which one do I keep? The ESPN link gives its reasons to favor the former definition, but two of them are historical reasons and the other one does not address the removal of the "3 IP regardless of size of lead" path. MLB makes the rules of baseball themselves, but Hold is not in the rulebook... I'm torn, so right now I'm leaving the text on the page as it is (save for the edit mentioned earlier) and leave it other editors to figure (or argue) it out.--TroyGab (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)