It's been interesting reading this.
That he should be a hall of famer is pretty much not disputable.
That there was also at least a fairly long stretch where he probably wasn't going to blowing a save isn't either.
I don't think of him as a "best pitcher ever", but that sort of hype is typical NY.
I do think he was the best reliever of his time. And that comparing relievers across eras is more difficult than it is for other players. The way relievers are used has changed so much it's almost a different job than it was even 20 years ago.
One of the points was about whether relieving was easy. That's a very mixed thing.
Having seen teams struggle to find a good closer, I think a lot of it comes down to the way the player thinks. Some players just don't have a "closer" mindset. Eckersley is unusual because he was able to transition successfully. Many players haven't been able to do that. I read an article about that transition a few years ago, and it basically said that his pitching mindset was one of being flat out the whole time. No holding anything back or pacing himself. Once he got older he couldn't go deep enough in games that way and a manager told him he should try closing because he could float as a not so successful older starting pitcher for a couple years, Or follow his mindset and throw hard for an inning or two more often and be good at it.
Most players can't make that transition.
A couple who have been closers and didn't do well have said it takes a whole different way of thinking from starting, or from middle relief.
Saves are to me only an ok stat. Lee Smith had a lot of saves, but at least when he was in Boston, nearly every one was an adventure. 3 run lead? Coming in with 2 on and no outs? Ok, lets let those two in then get it shut down...
|