Most BS MLB stat is...

[msn]

...the "Hold". Of course, my thread title is certainly arguable as there are lots of bad statistics (and lots of good ones!).

Twice in this young season I've seen guys come in, face one batter, fail to retire him, and get credit for a "Hold". What's worse, the team lost the game, and better yet the team lost the lead in the inning in which said pitcher failed to do his job!

I get the definition and how technically that qualifies as a "Hold", and that's why the "Hold" is BS, IMO.

Some of you purists and great baseball minds please come a dissect this, and call it stupid if it is--just be sure to tell me why! But this is how I'd like to see the "Hold" defined:

--Pitcher retires at least one batter
--Pitcher does not allow ANY inherited runners to score
    (in my book, if the lead was 3 and now it's 2,
    you did *not* "hold" the lead!)
--Pitcher is not credited with any earned runs.

That may be a little extreme, given that if Bork gives up a run late in a 7-5 win he won't get a "hold", but at least at season's end if you see a guy with 30 or 35 holds you'll know he was freaking nails.

Or, perhaps do away with it and just look at inherited runners scored, WHIP, ERA, and ERA+.

[ryan17wagner]

It's an unofficial stat.

[Nick]

A hold is stupid... but its not like free agents get paid because of how many holds they have. Its also not like the yearly holds leader is guaranteed to be an all-star, or the all-time holds leader deserves a spot in the HOF.

Its simply a statistic that was originally created in this era of "bullpen specialists" to try to lend weight to how important some of these guys are (and without a doubt, I think a dominant 8th inning guy is almost as valuable as the actual closer... especially in post-season play).

Frankly, W-L is still the most BS stat, since people actually lend weight to it REGARDLESS of looking at the WHIP or ERA. If Wandy went 20-5 with a 5.98 ERA in his FA year, somebody would give him 8 million dollars a year to pitch.

[rezdawg]

Originally Posted by msn But this is how I'd like to see the "Hold" defined: --Pitcher retires at least one batter --Pitcher does not allow ANY inherited runners to score     (in my book, if the lead was 3 and now it's 2,     you did *not* "hold" the lead!) --Pitcher is not credited with any earned runs.

I agree with the first 2 points, but the last was is iffy...much in the same way a closer can get credit for a save despite giving up earned runs, I think a middle reliever should still get credit for a hold if he gives up a run.

If said pitcher comes into a 7-5 game and leaves 7-6...he still held the lead. The score may have changed, but the lead is what counts. So, if you are gonna give a save to closer for only giving up a solo shot and still winning, then you should give a hold to Brad Lidge when he gives up 4 consecutive walks to start the inning...and the Stros still win despite his ineptitude as a pitcher. Then, in the clubhouse after the game, you can laugh it him that he's now aiming to get "holds"...a worthless stat. So basically, he sucks now as a baseball player.

But, yes, "holds" is a worthless stat...I agree.

[msn]

Originally Posted by rezdawg But, yes, "holds" is a worthless stat...I agree.

And, that's the whole point--is there a way to make it less worthless?

Probably not. Should probably stick with WHIP and ERA, and ERA+.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by msn And, that's the whole point--is there a way to make it less worthless? Probably not. Should probably stick with WHIP and ERA, and ERA+.

Who is putting big stock in holds? I rarely hear it EVER mentioned, and its a stat that only hardcore baseball junkies even know about.

[msn]

Originally Posted by Nick Who is putting big stock in holds?

No one that I know of. I see it in box scores, especially in the situation above, and I'm thinking, "what a load of hogwash."

[rezdawg]

I actually included it as a stat in my fantasy baseball league...introduces middle relievers into the whole scheme of things.

[LonghornFan]

Originally Posted by rezdawg I actually included it as a stat in my fantasy baseball league...introduces middle relievers into the whole scheme of things.

Yup, I've had the stat in my leagues for years now. Makes for a good "bitch" session once the draft starts.

[meh]

Hold isn't the most BS stat for the simple fact that NOBODY thinks it's worth anything. It has to be considered important by many for a stat to be BS. There are certainly very many of these in baseball, but the most prominent one is the Hold's much more celebrated older brother... the "Save".

[BranJ17]

Originally Posted by meh Hold isn't the most BS stat for the simple fact that NOBODY thinks it's worth anything. It has to be considered important by many for a stat to be BS. There are certainly very many of these in baseball, but the most prominent one is the Hold's much more celebrated older brother... the "Save".

EXACTLY MEH!!! Whenever the SAVE stat came into existence this is exactly how people responded then and NOW look at how its blown out of proportion. Frankly the entire CLOSER role is blown out of proportion. You tell me what wins the team more games over 162 game season....

Your BEST relief pitcher coming into the game in the most critical situation whether it be 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th inning?

OR

Your BEST relief pitcher coming into the game everytime you have a 3 run or less lead in the 9th inning?

[kaleidosky]

Originally Posted by LonghornFan Yup, I've had the stat in my leagues for years now. Makes for a good "bitch" session once the draft starts.

I'd MUCH prefer a fantasy league that just credits appearances instead of holds. That's the best way to incorporate middle relievers imo.. you can grab guys that get a lot of appearances and suck, but you'll lose points in a pts league on earned runs, walks, hits, etc... and you'll lose your other stats in a roto league (K's, ERA, WHIP, etc.). So the only way you benefit is by getting the best middle relievers that are in games a lot but also do their job very well.

[lalala902102001]

Before I clicked on the topic, the answer in my head was..."Hold". :D

[BigM]

like nick said W/L is the most meaningless of the statistics people actually talk about.

[BranJ17]

There are a lot of meaningless "traditional" stats that don't really weigh the value of the player very well; saves, wins, batting avg, rbis, runs, etc.

[msn]

Originally Posted by BranJ17 There are a lot of meaningless "traditional" stats that don't really weigh the value of the player very well; saves, wins, batting avg, rbis, runs, etc.

I agree for the most part, except RBIs and to a lesser extent runs. Because while you need your teammates to accomplish either (except for HR), runs (scored or batted in) are half of what it takes to win a game.

[Nick]

I can see why RBIs can cloud the judgement of a player, since sometimes its more a function of the team he plays on... but its still somewhat valuable.

But batting average? C'mon... I know there are rare exceptions like Willy T, but for the most part, a .300 hitter is going to be a good hitter.

[msn]

Originally Posted by Nick But batting average? C'mon... I know there are rare exceptions like Willy T, but for the most part, a .300 hitter is going to be a good hitter.

...and so is a .290 hitter. The difference is a surprisingly small number of hits.

I believe you have to measure different types of players different ways. A great example is the oft-repeated Ensberg argument last season. Dude was in the five slot and hitting for low average and precious few RBI's, but some folks wanted to sing his praise because of a modestly above-average OBP. Doesn't make sense. It's good to see Mo in the two-hole some this year, if that's how he's going to "hit".

[Joe Joe]

Originally Posted by Nick But batting average? C'mon... I know there are rare exceptions like Willy T, but for the most part, a .300 hitter is going to be a good hitter.

Batting average is a great stat if you have walking percentage or on base percentage next to it. By having both stats, you can see the Taveras's (good BA, horrible walking percentage) and 2006 Ensberg's (horrible BA, great walking percentage).

[Nick]

Originally Posted by msn ...and so is a .290 hitter. The difference is a surprisingly small number of hits. I believe you have to measure different types of players different ways. A great example is the oft-repeated Ensberg argument last season. Dude was in the five slot and hitting for low average and precious few RBI's, but some folks wanted to sing his praise because of a modestly above-average OBP. Doesn't make sense. It's good to see Mo in the two-hole some this year, if that's how he's going to "hit".

Agreed. Also, when I said .300 hitter, I meant LIFETIME .300 hitter. Look up and down that list, and most of those guys are either future HOFers, in the HOF, or at the very least, an all-star at some point during their career.