Talk:Trevor Hoffman

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's not my analysis.  Look at the Shea source 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Closers in HOF

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hells Bells