This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego articles
Regarding this deletion, it's quite notable that few closers are in HOF, as past history indicates it's not necessarily a given that closer's are recognized. Gives a balanced sense of obstacle facing Hoffman's induction into HOF.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much information on the value of relievers, closers, and saves in the body of the article. The info does not give a "sense of obstacle facing Hoffman's induction into the HOF". That would be your own analysis of the info. With the information before it, it actually just makes Hoffman seem like a great player, which would make it the opposite of a sense of obstacle. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my analysis. Look at the Shea source[1] among the many others that discuss difficulties he may have. Hoffman is "a great player" as you claim the article makes it seem. However, we also need to be neutral and present his shortcomings as well. This is not a case of all-or-nothing. Hoffman being a closer, we inevitably need to discuss his position in determining his legacy. Some information might need to be further summarized in closer or save (baseball), but it does need to be explained in this article to a reasonable extent as well.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is your own analysis because it is not inherently given that the info is an obstacle. Information taken out of context from the source has different meaning when read alone. The info on relievers in the HoF in the intro does nothing to make the case less all-or-nothing and actually has the effect of making Hoffman seem valuable for his position when stated after the info that he is likely to make the HoF. If you want to give additional meaning to info, you have to actually write it because it is not obvious to the reader. The source you provided doesn't even contain the info that only 5 relievers have been inducted, let alone look at the info as an obstacle. You have to use the information from the source to support the source's claim. If you think the sentence in the intro is imbalanced, then you should remove it or add proper balance, which the statement on relievers in the HoF does not do. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty straight forward and meaningful that there are only five closers in the HOF. However, leads are not meant to be controversial, so we can leave it out unless others support it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sourced statement that Rivera is considered the best closer ever was removed. If the biggest knock against Hoffman is that he is not Rivera, it seems relevant to mention the standard that Hoffman is being compared against.—Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the many other sentences about Rivera are enough? The removed sentence was removed because it was very poor and not mentioned in the sources. Considered by most what? People? Analysts and fans? I looked in the sources, but the info was not there. Based on the sources, a statement on Rivera being the best would have to be attributed to the authors of the sources. This could have been done by either listing their names or using the word "many", not "most". This[2] is a better source because it says that Rivera is the gold standard. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources[3][4], though they don't show it as a reason of why Rivera is compared to Hoffman, so don't use. Just showing examples of sources that use "many", unlike the currently-used sources.(talk) 18:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with "many" in the interim. On the flip side, the lack of sources identified that say the contrary seems to support that "most" consider Rivera the best.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources for something is not valid reasoning for the contrary. Support should be made with sources, not original research. "Most" is not the same as "many". 198.151.130.66 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more sources calling Rivera the greatest closer of all time.[5][6][7][8][9] I'm not sure many reference on anything ever specify whther it's "People? Analysts and fans?" holding the opinion. When this many sources unconditionally state that he is the best, it seems like Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue to argue that "most" believe Rivera is the greatest.—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it relevant to Hoffman to call Rivera "the greatest closer"? That is a subjective statement and sourcing it to various opinion pieces doesn't make it noteworthy to an encyclopedia.. And how does it improve the Hoffman article to include it? The article already spends a great deal of time with factual comparisons.. I don't see how adding the subjective opinion of various contemporary journalists benefits or ads anything to this article. Spanneraol (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It provides a general perspective for the credentials of the pitcher Hoffman is often compared to. Keep in mind that many readers will not be that familiar with baseball or its statistics, so a general non-technical statement will help them more than the following statistical breakdown. Paling in comparison to someone considered the greatest is different than if Rivera were just a very good pitcher.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you include language like that you need to quote it like the other remarks in the section... according to so and so from Sports Illustrated..Spanneraol (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want it to become too heavy on Rivera praise, but didn't want to avoid the topic either for neutrality.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it may not be necessary to discuss Rivera's relative ranking amongst relievers in this section, as the key point being made is that Hoffman's lack of playoff saves relative to Rivera is related to fewer opportunities and not Rivera's skill level. Also, the introductory sentence (aside from being a copyright violation at the moment) is not well integrated into the rest of the paragraph. The information on Padres having leads during the postseason seems suspect; in 1998 the Padres won the LDS, with Hoffman saving two games, and the Padres obviously having a lead in the third (though due to the size of their lead, it was not a save opportunity for Hoffman. I propose removing the first sentence and rewording the paragraph as follows:
Hoffman held the record for career regular-season saves (601) until 2011, when he was passed by Mariano Rivera. Hoffman had four playoff saves, all with San Diego, who appeared in the postseason four times during Hoffman's tenure with the team. During Hoffman's only World Series appearance in 1998, he surrendered the lead in Game 3 and was the losing pitcher. In the three other playoffs appearances, the Padres only managed one win in total (saved by Hoffman).
I'm not really sure what to do with all of the sportswriter quotes. Perhaps some of them would fit better in the next paragraph, when discussing Hoffman's Hall of Fame potential. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure was to discuss comparisons Rivera as the all-time greatest closer, and then deal with the more general HOF issue. Feel free to offer new suggestions or just edit directly.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be made clear that Rivera is considered the best mainly because of his postseason record. Even if Rivera didn't pass him in regular season saves, he still would be considered better. Rivera holding the record just cinched the discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Hoffman's performance in the playoffs is not directly comparable to Rivera's due to different opportunities, I don't think a discussion of Rivera is really warranted in this section. I also don't think it is necessary to make any reasons clear on why Rivera is considered the best, as I believe this is a matter better taken up in Rivera's article. (Plus I don't necessarily agree with this premise; there are statistical measures relying on regular season stats only that put Rivera ahead of Hoffman.) isaacl (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the comparison is "directly comparable" should not be the point. The fact that numerous sources made the comparison, should warrant due weight to the comparison being discussed. The fact that SI called Hoffman "the best closer (ever)" on it's cover in 2002—and there was a time that he was in the discussion as being the best—should be addressed, even if it needs to be condensed from its current form.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated below, I think it would be better to keep a discussion on Hoffman's postseason performance focused on this, and to put a comparison between Hoffman and other relievers in a section that focuses on that. Right now the paragraph discussing Hoffman's postseason play is a bit scattered in its content. isaacl (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I initially misunderstood your comment below. Are you suggesting to take the current paragraph and make two paragraphs: one dedicated to Hoffman's postseason performance, and another dealing with comparisons to Rivera?—Bagumba (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be better to have a paragraph that focuses solely on Hoffman's postseason accomplishments (such as the proposed paragraph I wrote above), with any comparisons to others placed in a separate section. I'm not quite sure what is the best approach for this: it could be tied to Hoffman's inevitable Hall of Fame candidacy, which could be dealt with in a new top-level section, or it could be a subsection/new paragraph within the "Legacy" section. My writing style leans towards conciseness, so personally I'd trim down the sportswriters quotes considerably. I'm happy to work on these changes, though at the moment I can't commit to a specific timeframe. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the matter is still under discussion, perhaps further edits could be avoided, so that text in question isn't a moving target? The paragraph, as currently written, reads like an apology for Hoffman's playoff performance. I think it is stronger writing to focus it solely on Hoffman's post-season results, and perhaps have a comparison to Rivera in the following paragraph, where it is more directly relevant, since the two did not have equal playoff opportunities. isaacl (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original dispute was phrasing of "many" vs "most" believing Rivera is the greatest. If the structure of the Hoffman–Rivera comparison is now being questioned also, I can certainly hold off on any more edits, though that was all I had in mind until the "most" issue was resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Many"/"most" is a tricky slope. If it were up to me, I would just say "Rivera is generally considered the best by those within baseball". However, I don't think the prose needs to take things that far because this article doesn't need to do a topic by topic comparison to Rivera. Almost half the legacy section is spent trying to put his career in perspective in comparison to Rivera. I think it would be best to avoid these comparisons and say something along the lines of "Hoffman was frequently compared to one of his contemporaries, Yankees closer Mariano Rivera, who surpassed many of Hoffman's numbers while having more opportunities to pitch in the postseason." etc etc. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JimKaatFan: I saw your edit removing Hoffman's entrace being a "forerunner" for metal closer theme music because Wagner was using "Enter Sandman" 2 years earlier. I don't think "forerunner" is limited to meaning the first. Was that was your objection?—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that section that will be fine without the sentence "Anthony Tarantino, writing for the San Diego Union-Tribune, once stated that 'the Padres have become a forerunner in the closer-theme explosion' " - since that's the only guy to offer the opinion that a salesman in the Padres front office innovated the idea of playing hard rock/heavy metal when a closer came out from the bullpen. Which was wrong, anyway. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
