Talk:Setup man

List of set-up pitchers[edit]

Should pitchers such as Mariano Rivera and Francisco Rodríguez be on the list of set-up pitchers. Rodriguez only set up for two seasons, and Rivera only one. Additionally, both pitchers are known for being closers, not set-up men.

Notable setup pitchers[edit]

The notability standard for the list of notable setup pitchers is the typical one across the hundreds or thousands of such lists across the project. The person is notable, by wp standards. As evidenced either by a wp article, and/or RS refs. And the person belongs in the category -- here, the category of setup pitchers. That is reflected in each case in this list, at the moment, by an appropriate ref which refers to the pitcher as such. See wp:listpeople, and various such lists among those at Lists of people. Lists of this nature are typically non-exclusive; that's the nature of such lists. Obviously -- one need only look at other, similar lists across the Project. No need to delete the list for having that typical characteristic, or to tag-bomb the list. See as an example List of people from Illinois or any other such list to understand how this works at wp, and see wp:listpeople for further discussion, and if you have a problem raise it there.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting the MOS. WP:LISTPEOPLE is only for articles that are comprised entirely of lists, not articles about a topic. There is no criteria set forth as to what makes a setup man notable. The only criteria I can tell from this list is "you were mentioned as a setup man once in a reference". That's not a valid criteria, especially since a pitcher's role can change. It's not like a list of academy award winners where there is an obvious criteria.

I'm for including obviously notable setup men, but none on the current list had RSs that establish that. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's true -- the standard for list inclusion is the same. The only difference in embedded lists is that they are in a general article, and format issues attend that, but content is the same -- it has to meet the wp:listpeople criteria. And yes -- the criteria set forth above is both the standard criteria for such lists (see the list of Illinois people and the hundreds of others I pointed you to), and see the wp:listpeople criteria. And the fact that a person's role can change is no different than the fact that an Illinois resident can move to China ... so what? That's not an issue in the least. This is precisely the same as a list of people from Illinois, etc., and like hundreds of lists across the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an WP:EXAMPLEFARM. The article should generically describe the setup role. It already has a list of All-Stats, which should be sufficient for examples of truly exceptional setupmen. After that, it would be unwieldy to list any player that has served in a setup role.—Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you cite to is merely an essay. The essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I don't support deletion, and I certainly don't support it on the basis of an essay -- I can just as easily that says quite the opposite, on pertinent points. All the people on the list have appropriate RS refs. And as far as it being potentially unwieldy -- we have lists on wikipedia that are far, far longer than this lost could ever possibly be. Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we operate on WP:CONSENSUS, a policy.—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Are you referring to the 2-1 discussion, here? Anyway, looking at the refs, at least one of them (by looking at the very title) focuses on the "setup man" status of the pitcher -- I think there is room for similarly reflecting that setup man and others. That can't be an unwieldy list. See for example the much larger list at List of Major League Baseball players from the Dominican Republic. Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at WT:BASEBALL about this discussion. The list being debated, which I had deleted, can be found here.—Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guidance on the notability of lists within articles is applicable in this situation; a member of the list should be sufficiently notable with respect to the subject such that a mention is warranted within the main text of the article. Given the open-ended nature of such a list and the inevitable arguments on whether or not a pitcher is sufficiently notable to be included, I'm uncertain if it adds additional value beyond the existing references within the text to notable examples of setup relievers. A category may be more suitable, with a link to it from this article. isaacl (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not followed baseball that closely lately and find the list of set-up men all stars to be to long to be believed. The article should only name players that have WP:ICs from WP:RS saying that they were setup men in the years that they were all-stars. All other names should be removed from the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of All-Stars is more selective and a notable accomplishment, and I have no objection if people want it to remain—adding sources as needed. However, we need more prose ~~like "Justin Duchscherer and Tyler Clippard are the only players to have been named All-Stars twice as a setup pitcher."[1]~~, which can be more educational to readers than wading through exhaustive lists.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the part about Duchscherer and Clippard. Duchscherer was a starter in his second AS year[2].—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rivera and Hoffman were setup men at various points in their career; would they belong here? The case of long-time closers might lead to one decision, but what if a player was a middle or long reliever most of their career? This is more difficult than listing a player under a position. At least there are stats on number of games played at a position. No such data exists for pitching roles. Lets not subjectively look at stats like holds, either.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The data does in fact exist: the inning in which the pitcher entered, and whether or not the team was leading, tied, or trailing. However, following the guidance I referred to, we would be relying on reliable, independent, non-promotional sources anyway to identify notable examples. If a pitcher's work as a setup pitcher is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article text, then it ought to be included regardless of any other roles the pitcher fulfilled. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Isaac's point -- I think that we would look to the identification of the person as a setup man in the RSs to determine whether he falls into that list or category, and is notable for it. Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Rodriguez[edit]

I notice that my removal of Rodriguez' paragraph was reverted. I would like to note that, despite the newspaper article cited, Rodriguez did not fit the definition of setup reliever provided on this page either during the season or during the playoffs. Did the term have a different definition in 2002? Or was Curry talking out of his rear end because he wasn't familiar with the player (who had only pitched in 5 MLB games before the 2002 postseason)? -Dewelar (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across multiple articles that called him a setup man in 2002. It's likely an indication that the term is used loosely, as most roles are. We could remove it on the technicality, but I'd say due weight of sources merits him being considered a setup pitcher. I have ideas on when people "really" use the term setup, but that would be pure WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources.[3][4][5][6]—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the "setup" designation is based on his role in his 11 games in the playoffs[7], not his regular season role.—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, that usage pattern doesn't look like the role as defined in this article either. I think the fact that the definition of the role is somewhat fluid should be better expressed therein. Also, why the heck is the article title "setup pitcher"? "Setup man" is heard much more commonly, I'd say. -Dewelar (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording has qualifiers like "usually" and "often". Can you provide specific examples? We should make sure any changes are verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what I'm looking for is more of a rephrasing to define what a setup man is when he's not what's defined in the article. As far as the article title, I'd refer you first to the links you provided about Rodriguez, in which the term "setup man/men" is used in all four to describe the role (including a mention of an MLB poll where voters determined the "Setup Man of the Year") while "setup pitcher" is used in only one. -Dewelar (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on article title; feel free to boldly move the article.—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the definition, maybe you can name a clear-cut setup man and explain how that fails the definition as currently written.—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]