Fantasy Baseball Begins - Play Ball!

[Berzerker]

Holds have NO importance! They are a useless stat!

Hell, using that argument the only pitching stats that matter are wins and losses. All others have NO importance

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's silly... ERA, WHIP, BB, Ks all have importance . They indicate the worth of a player. Holds do not (neither really do saves).

[asleepathewheel]

to holds

[Berzerker]

Holds indicate a pitcher who can keep a lead which involves ERA etc... How about you ask managers how meaningless that is

[Imran Siddiqui]

Most managers would say it's meaningless. You get a hold for retiring ONE batter if it is a save situation and you don't finish the game. Retiring one batter warrents a statistical catagory?

No way!

And so far, you are the only one backing holds.

[Berzerker]

Most managers would say it's meaningless.

You polled them? I can watch how they manage and the fact they consistently rely on 1 or 2 guys when they have a small lead tells me they don't think its meaningless. If they are getting blown out they throw a 2nd tier of relievers instead of their goto guys. Consider the Yanks, the starter pitches 7 innings and Tom "Flash" Gordon comes in and pitches the 8th and Rivera pitches the 9th - just like clockwork. If holds were meaningless they'd throw any arm in there to set up the closer. Tell Joe Torre how irrelevant Gordon is to the Yanks...

You get a hold for retiring ONE batter if it is a save situation and you don't finish the game. Retiring one batter warrents a statistical catagory?

Thats true for closers and saves too, but the one guy those middle relievers are asked to get are often good hitters with runners on base and a small lead. Guys holding a lead pitch about as much as closers so the 1 out situation is not that common and usually only happens to finish out an inning where a predecessor got into trouble.

And so far, you are the only one backing holds.

Hmm...haven't you claimed holds are the "new buzz"? Now its just me? I'll bet I have ALL managers on my side and I don't need to make that up, all teams value closers and the set up guy. Lose a few games in the 7th or 8th because holds are meaningless and you'd start to see the light.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can watch how they manage and the fact they consistently rely on 1 or 2 guys when they have a small lead tells me they don't think its meaningless.

You think they go, well, Billy has 40 holds and Johnny only has 20, so we should go with Billy in this situation! You. Can't. Be. Serious.

If holds were meaningless they'd throw any arm in there to set up the closer.

Um.. what? Saves are meaningless, but they still have a closer (well... there is an argument if the closer should always be a 9th inning guy, but that's sometehing else). These stats don't tell you much of anything really. For example, I'd take Joe Nathan over Francisco Cordero, but if you looked at saves, you'd say Cordero is more important.

I'll bet I have ALL managers on my side and I don't need to make that up, all teams value closers and the set up guy.

WHAT DOES VALUING SET UP GUYS AND CLOSERS HAVE TO DO WITH THE VALUE OF HOLDS AND SAVES? They don't particularly show you who are the best relievers. The stats that do that are ERA, K/BB, K/9, WHIP.

Managers like speedy players, but I don't see them pouring over the 'triples' numbers to see who to play!

Chris Reitsma last year had 31 holds with a 4.07 ERA. Give me Julian Tarvarez who pitched similar number of innings and had 19 holds with a 2.38 ERA, or Juan Rincon who tied for his teams lead in holds with 16, but had a 2.63 ERA.

haven't you claimed holds are the "new buzz"?

Yeah, some moron decided to make it an official state since 1999. We should have been devaluing the save rather than introducing another useless stat.

[Berzerker]

You think they go, well, Billy has 40 holds and Johnny only has 20, so we should go with Billy in this situation! You. Can't. Be. Serious.

If I had 2 guys with those numbers I'd go with the guy with more holds (he's more used to the pressure) or the guy who matched up better against the hitters. But I sure wouldn't go with a guy I use to mop up in blow outs because holding a lead is "meaningless". Would you?

Um.. what? Saves are meaningless, but they still have a closer (well... there is an argument if the closer should always be a 9th inning guy, but that's sometehing else). These stats don't tell you much of anything really. For example, I'd take Joe Nathan over Francisco Cordero, but if you looked at saves, you'd say Cordero is more important.

Guys with lots of holds typically have good stats elsewhere (thats why they're set up guys), but claiming most managers think holds are meaningless is You didn't respond to my point, if holds are meaningless why dont managers just throw any reliever into the set up role? Because they want guys who keep leads intact instead of giving leads up. Closers wouldn't get much work if the set up guys sucked. Last year Cleveland was facing a problem - their set up guys kept blowing leads thereby making their best reliever serving as closer less effective and unused in many games.

WHAT DOES VALUING SET UP GUYS AND CLOSERS HAVE TO DO WITH THE VALUE OF HOLDS AND SAVES?

Holds and saves have value because they translate into wins. We value set up guys and closers when they have holds and saves, both stats reflect value.

They don't particularly show you who are the best relievers. The stats that do that are ERA, K/BB, K/9, WHIP.

The best relievers close games and set up closers. K/BB and K/9 are nice wrt stats but I'd rather have the guy with 40 holds than the guy with nice Ks who blows leads.

Managers like speedy players, but I don't see them pouring over the 'triples' numbers to see who to play!

You're mixing apples and oranges, triples are not holds. Since when do you see what managers are doing anyway, you think most of them don't even value holds.

Chris Reitsma last year had 31 holds with a 4.07 ERA. Give me Julian Tarvarez who pitched similar number of innings and had 19 holds with a 2.38 ERA, or Juan Rincon who tied for his teams lead in holds with 16, but had a 2.63 ERA.

The Reds had poorer setup men across the board and that hurt them. Rincon shared set up duties with another guy (Romero) who had good numbers allowing the manager to go with the guy who was hot at the time. I'll bet Tavares also shared that duty with another guy...

Yeah, some moron decided to make it an official state since 1999. We should have been devaluing the save rather than introducing another useless stat.

That "moron" merely "invented" a stat managers already recognised. Contrary to your claim that most managers think holds are meaningless, we knew how important it was to have a reliever come in and hold a lead back in high school and college.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but claiming most managers think holds are meaningless is

'' meaning true? Managers don't look at who had more holds to see who to put in. They look to see who has better numbers for that situation.

You didn't respond to my point, if holds are meaningless why dont managers just throw any reliever into the set up role?

Because you are confusing issues! Holds do not equal the best reliever for the job, just as saves do not. For example, we can look at the 1995 Yankees, where John Wetteland was saving games because he was the 'closer' even though the more valuable reliever was Rivera. Just because you have more saves or holds doesn't make you better. Rivera had better ERA, K/BB, K/9, but since he didn't have the 'saves', was Wetteland better? Of course not.

Another example from last year was Octavio Dotel started as the closer for Houston last year, with Brad Lidge as set up. 'Cause Dotel had more saves was he better? No... Lidge had better K/BB, K/9, and ERA numbers. That is what determines the value of a picture, NOT saves or holds or wins or losses.

The Reds had poorer setup men across the board and that hurt them.

Um... Reitsma played for the Braves last year... all of last year. And according to your theory, wouldn't a reliever who was in the top 5 in holds be a 'great reliever'? After all, you are making the case that holds count for something.

Btw, both Alfonseca and Grybowski on the Braves had significantly less holds, but better ERAs. Give me them over Reitsma.

we knew how important it was to have a reliever come in and hold a lead back in high school and college.

And once again, does that mean the reliever with the most holds is the best non-closer in the bullpen? Does that mean the reliever with the most saves is the best reliever in the bullpen?

Nope, of course not.


And, of course, www.baseballreference.com, ie, baseball's free stat mecca has no references to Holds, while it does look at league ERA and ERA+ numbers, as well as HBP and WP numbers, and salaries among many other stats.

[Berzerker]

meaning true?

at your assertion makes you think its true?

Managers don't look at who had more holds to see who to put in. They look to see who has better numbers for that situation.

Holds are one of the numbers they look at.

[quote]Because you are confusing issues! Holds do not equal the best reliever for the job, just as saves do not.[quote]

Holds and saves are 2 ways managers determine who will pitch. Some teams lack decent options or have several decent options and you're citing these cases as evidence holds and saves are meaningless. The ONLY stats that typically matter are ERA and the ratio of holds/saves to blown leads. You can throw a mop up reliever with a good ERA into the set up role and he can do worse than the guy with the higher ERA and more holds because pressure is a factor. You cited Atlanta and ignored that you were comparing a southpaw(s) with a RH. Lefties tend to be used more selectively, i.e., against lefties. That could account for the difference in ERA.

For example, we can look at the 1995 Yankees, where John Wetteland was saving games because he was the 'closer' even though the more valuable reliever was Rivera. Just because you have more saves or holds doesn't make you better. Rivera had better ERA, K/BB, K/9, but since he didn't have the 'saves', was Wetteland better? Of course not.

Was Rivera setting him up or mopping up in blow outs? Was Rivera a rookie or inexperienced? According to your argument it wouldn't matter because holds are meaningless. How did K-Rod prove himself amenable to the closer role before Percival was injured? By holding leads... What would have happened if K-Rod got into the set up role and started blowing leads? Depending on their options, he may not have become the closer.

Another example from last year was Octavio Dotel started as the closer for Houston last year, with Brad Lidge as set up. 'Cause Dotel had more saves was he better? No... Lidge had better K/BB, K/9, and ERA numbers. That is what determines the value of a picture, NOT saves or holds or wins or losses.

How are you helping your argument? I never said all closers are better than all set up guys, only that holds and saves reflect value. You said holds are meaningless and you're citing guys with lots of holds who ended up supplanting closers as your proof. There were other factors in Houston's decision to trade Dotel, all things being equal they would have loved to keep him as either the closer or set up guy.

Would you say Lidge's performance as set up guy or closer was based on his ability to hold leads or save games? Of course, why? Because holding leads is what managers want in a set up guy. Thats their job after all. Of course managers look at other numbers to get an idea about a guy's potential at holding leads, but if they get the job and can't hold enough leads, the manager will look for a guy who can hold leads even if the first guy had better numbers.

Um... Reitsma played for the Braves last year... all of last year. And according to your theory, wouldn't a reliever who was in the top 5 in holds be a 'great reliever'? After all, you are making the case that holds count for something.

Holds do count for something, they hand leads to closers and not everyone is suited to the role of set up man.

Btw, both Alfonseca and Grybowski on the Braves had significantly less holds, but better ERAs. Give me them over Reitsma.

Citing a guy with a better ERA than the set up guy doesn't prove holds dont reflect value.

And once again, does that mean the reliever with the most holds is the best non-closer in the bullpen?

It depends, managers do make mistakes when looking for set up men. But they do want to find a guy who can consistently hand leads over to closers and that is a special talent. The ability to handle pressure is a big factor...

[Berzerker]

And, of course, www.baseballreference.com, ie, baseball's free stat mecca has no references to Holds, while it does look at league ERA and ERA+ numbers, as well as HBP and WP numbers, and salaries among many other stats.

And managers rely exclusively on this site? Nope, managers understand the value of a guy who can hold leads.

Basicly your argument is that holds and saves are a (meaningless) consequence of a guy with good numbers in other situations. Thats how managers view potential, but not how they view success. If I had to choose between a guy with a 4.0 ERA and mediocre strikeout totals who was 30 for 32 in saves or holds and a guy with a 3.0 ERA and nice Ks but 5 blown holds or saves, the answer would become obvious.

The guys with good numbers elsewhere may get a shot at setting up or closing, but thats no gaurantee those previous numbers will translate into success in their new role. Why? Pressure... There's a big difference between a guy with better numbers mopping up games and a guy who successfully sets up or closes games. There's a difference between a southpaw who is used mainly to get lefties out and a guy who can handle the pressure of repeatedly holding leads. Thats why teams try to find a regular closer and set up man. To argue that holds are meaningless is to argue pressure (success) is meaningless...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The ONLY stats that typically matter are ERA and the ratio of holds/saves to blown leads. You can throw a mop up reliever with a good ERA into the set up role and he can do worse than the guy with the higher ERA and more holds because pressure is a factor. You cited Atlanta and ignored that you were comparing a southpaw(s) with a RH. Lefties tend to be used more selectively, i.e., against lefties. That could account for the difference in ERA.

"Pressure" is an overrated factor. How many times has a team plugged in a closer and its worked fine (think Todd Jones with the Tigers for instance). Some pitchers can't do well pitching against both right and left handers, perhaps, but people use the choak word too much. Apparently Armando Benitez is a choaker, even though he has great regular season numbers because he doesn't do that well in the playoffs. It could be because of better hitting talent against him, but nah, that's too simple. He's gotta be a choaker. Mariano Rivera is so clutch, so clutch. What happened with Arizona in 2001? What about Boston this year? If pressure is the big thing with a closer and he did save the most games, why is he choaking? Not handling the pressure? Come on.

And as for Atlanta... that's bunk. Reitsma AND Grybowski AND Alfonseca were all right handed relievers who pitched similar innings (Grybowski somewhat less). Alfonseca was much better in ERA, but trailed badly in Holds, same with Grybowski.

Was Rivera setting him up or mopping up in blow outs? Was Rivera a rookie or inexperienced? According to your argument it wouldn't matter because holds are meaningless.

Setting up, and while young, obviously had better stuff than Wetteland.

There were other factors in Houston's decision to trade Dotel, all things being equal they would have loved to keep him as either the closer or set up guy.

They would have kept Dotel as closer, no matter how good Lidge got, as long as Dotel was on the ballclub. Lidge was ready for prime time. And it wasn't because he was getting 'holds'. It was because he was striking people out at amazing rates and not walking people that much.

Holds do count for something, they hand leads to closers and not everyone is suited to the role of set up man.

How many holds did John Smoltz and Eric Gagne have before they became closers? Jason Isringhausen has 1 hold in his entire career. If they had to show they could handle late game pressure (except for Smoltz who knew), should they have been set up men according to your theory?

People that have high holds numbers don't necessarily lead to future closers... the ones that do are ones who should have been closers but some idiot manager is sticking with the veteran.

Saves as well are overrated stats... especially the guy who comes in for a 1-2-3 ninth innning and everyone is saying how great he is.

They may not be as meaningless for how good a pitcher is as wins and losses (tell Randy Johnson that wins gives you the true measure of a pitcher), but they are pretty devoid of use. Unfortunetly, wins, losses, and saves are pretty integrated into fantasy baseball. Though one day I'd love to run a league with those things taken out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I had to choose between a guy with a 4.0 ERA and mediocre strikeout totals who was 30 for 32 in saves or holds and a guy with a 3.0 ERA and nice Ks but 5 blown holds or saves, the answer would become obvious.

Yeah, it is obvious... you pick the later. The guy with the better Ks will eventually be the better star reliever.

[Berzerker]

Pressure is over rated now? Have you ever played baseball at the high school or college level? I have, I was a starting pitcher. Pressure is not over rated, its under rated by people who don't know whats its like to face good hitters with runners in scoring position.

Setting up, and while young, obviously had better stuff than Wetteland.

I thought so. They eased him into the role by gradually increasing the pressure cooker. If he had cracked he wouldn't have replaced Wettleland.

They would have kept Dotel as closer, no matter how good Lidge got, as long as Dotel was on the ballclub. Lidge was ready for prime time. And it wasn't because he was getting 'holds'. It was because he was striking people out at amazing rates and not walking people that much

No Imran, it was because he was getting holds. Why? He could handle the pressure. Raw talent doesn't mean much for a set up man or closer if he cracks under pressure.

How many holds did John Smoltz and Eric Gagne have before they became closers? Jason Isringhausen has 1 hold in his entire career. If they had to show they could handle late game pressure (except for Smoltz who knew), should they have been set up men according to your theory?

Not every team has the luxury of easing young talent into the closer role by letting them set up games first, but I suspect Gagne was already an ace reliever in college. And Smoltz had already proven himself so it wasn't much of a gamble to have him close games...

People that have high holds numbers don't necessarily lead to future closers... the ones that do are ones who should have been closers but some idiot manager is sticking with the veteran.

The pressure is different for each role. Some guys handle the pressure at both, some dont have the same success, some cant handle it at all and fail inspite of their talent.

Saves as well are overrated stats... especially the guy who comes in for a 1-2-3 ninth innning and everyone is saying how great he is.

I agree, but you said these stats were meaningless. There's a difference between being over rated and meaningless.

They may not be as meaningless for how good a pitcher is as wins and losses (tell Randy Johnson that wins gives you the true measure of a pitcher), but they are pretty devoid of use. Unfortunetly, wins, losses, and saves are pretty integrated into fantasy baseball. Though one day I'd love to run a league with those things taken out.

SPs aren't the only people who may be to blame for not winning, but not winning isn't a viable substitute for winning regardless of who is to blame. Big Unit on an average team will win more than he loses. You keep citing exceptions to the rule and ignoring the rule.

Yeah, it is obvious... you pick the later. The guy with the better Ks will eventually be the better star reliever.

So you value speculation over reality. This debate is pointless, we disagree and nothing will change that. There's not much I can tell someone who thinks managers ignore holds and who thinks pressure is "over rated"... But I'll tell you what, I got to bat against Mike Norris (Cy Young winner) when I was 18 and the pressure was not over rated. There are few pitchers who can stare down an Albert Pujols in a win or lose situation and not feel the pressure.

[Berzerker]

Btw, look at Reitsma and Gryboski closer. Reitsma had a much better K and whip record. Gryboski had 24 Ks and 23 BBs and a much better ERA.