But when it does, the average for all teams saving the game is only 66%. So I don't really know what you're talking about when you try to diminish Rivera's ability to save the game.

When posting to the original question of is Mariano a top 10 pitcher and not to a quote, there will be no quote attached.

I agree with everything you said accept the last part. Based on conversations taking place since his unanimous induction it was a valid question, posed not so much to elicit a response but to make a point.

And I agree with your vote.

Ahha! Good point.

Doug

Strange that that list doesn't even contain the best pitcher of all time Roger Clemens.

I agree that Rivera is not a top 20 pitcher of all time but he is by far the best reliever of all time.

This argument leads to the conclusion that Mariano was over-utilized. He should have entered the game with the lead and two outs in the ninth. Instead of a one inning pitcher he could be immortalized as the 27th out pitcher. You can't win the game without the 27th out, right?

I would go another 20 starters at least before I got to my first reliever/closer. Who would be Rivera.

Or you could have saved him for the last strike. Lights out!!

Best pitcher at cheating. Gaylord Perry isn't on my list either because with cheaters you will never know how much of their success was skill and how much was because of their cheating.

Whitey Ford was allegedly masterful at scuffing up the ball, speaking of which.

Laughing out loud. Fantastic.

That's kind of where your twilight zone post was heading, I think.

Retrosheet founder (and my vote for unanimous induction to the HOF) David Smith found that the 9th may not be the most important inning :

https://www.retrosheet.org/Research/...0the%20Key.pdf

Good point, but if a pitcher is replaced while facing a batter due to injury or whatever, the count determines which pitcher gets the credit for the batter. If the batter has two strikes when the new pitcher enters the game, I believe the first pitcher gets credit for a strikeout.

So using this strategy Rivera could have saved 1500 games, with no strike outs and no innings pitched. Assuming a foul ball here and there his average pitch count would be 1.083.

Reductio ad absurdum arguments can lead to insight clarifying slightly less absurd premises.;)

Apologies if Smith's "The Myth of the Closer" has already been posted. The guy is a genius, makes Bill James look like a high school geek.

https://www.retrosheet.org/Research/...fTheCloser.pdf

I did not pick Mariano as one of the top 10 pitchers of all time. However, I'll add this. If I were playing something like an All Time All Star game, where me and someone else can pick any player from history for our teams to face each other in a best of 7 series, Mariano Rivera would be one of the top 5 pitchers that I would pick for my team. The reason is that most of the top pitchers on the list are starting pitchers, and wouldn't necessarily have the same success as a relief pitcher. Sure, some pitchers like Randy Johnson have worked well as closers, but others haven't. I'd still use Rivera to close out the last 2 innings over any pitcher if I had a choice.

Plus there are 2 guys on that list that if there was any way of really proving if and how many PEDs they done. I would bet the farm they done more PEDs than Roger Clemens.

I do completely understand his list and his right to pick who is on it and why. I know I am very bias when I make lists and talk a lot of smack about a few all-time greats as being PED users. Then other PED users I am a big fan of.:eek:

Thank you

Gary what starters other than Eck and Smoltz, both of whom were great closers, have enough of a track record that you can say they weren't effective as closers? A few games doesn't mean much at all due to sample size.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Save rate is not win rate. You can blow the save and still win the game so save rate is the more restrictive of the two. I think we can all agree that starter and closer are two different pitching positions. We can also agree that Mariano was by far the greatest closer ever. Mariano was superior to any other closer ever by more than the best starting pitcher ever (you fill in your choice)has been to the second best starting pitcher ever. I’ll stop there. If I had to get one hitter out and could pick one pitcher to do it it would be Mariano. If I needed a starting pitcher for game 7 of the World Series, and I would be hoping he could go deep into the game, it would not be Mariano.

Ahem.. Nolan Ryan

On a side note, I said yes. The ERA+ leader by a country mile, top 5 in WHIP and WPA. The guy was a beast.

I'm not comparing anything, I'm saying that while he was really really good at what he was asked to do, he was still very one dimensional and the difference between him and any other "closer" is best argued by the David Smith research paper that Peter posted below.

He was a really really good 1 inning pitcher when staked to a lead.

We never really got to see him pitch much in other situations.

Doug

Terrific stuff there! I wonder if anyone has taken this further by analyzing whether relief pitching itself is actually effective other than in situations where the starting pitcher has been hurt or isn't feeling well. In other words, when pitchers are getting bombed and are relieved, are the results any better than when they stay in and finish the game? You can't tell me that on the rare occasions when Walter Johnson was taken out of a game, every batter in the other dugout didn't say a little "thank you" under their breaths. Also, there must be a corollary analysis somewhere of how much or even whether starting pitchers do worse as the game goes into the last few innings. Ironically, Johnson himself appears to be the beneficiary of the first great example of relief specialization in 1924-25 when the big rookie Fred Marberry would come in to spell him in the 8th or 9th innings of close games. Of course, age as a reason for taking a starting pitcher out might be more accurately lumped in with the categories of injury or illness. In his latter days as a pitcher and then especially in his 7-year stint as a manager, Johnson got to witness the early days of the phenomenon of the relief specialist, and he didn't think much of it. "If pitchers aren't allowed to go deep into games, they will lose the ability to go deep into games," is a reasonable paraphrase of his attitude and quotes on the subject. To get back to Rivera, he was a dominating pitcher, there's no question about that. But if it turns out on close analysis that closing--or relief pitching itself--is an ineffective strategy even for the best of them, just how great can his career or that of any other relief pitcher be considered?

Yes.

Doug "That's all I have been saying" Goodman



PS - "He was really really good at what he was asked to do"

You have to wonder at his remarkably low inherited runner total. If he was indeed the best ever at getting that one batter out, why wasn't he used more in emergency situations, as opposed to starting the ninth with a lead? 8th inning, two men on, none out, down by a run, don't you want your best pitcher in there to keep the game in check? But I think Rivera was rarely the guy who got that call.

I'm really dreading the discussion that comes about when Jeter goes in. I'm sure he'll be considered the greatest ever by someone.

At least he played entire games...

It will be very hard to argue he was better than Wagner or Ripken or (assuming you count him as a SS) ARod. For Jeter I think much of your rating depends on how much you count defense for a SS -- if you count it a lot, that's going to take away from him because he was pretty average all told.

I would not say he is the greatest ever or even the best shortstop but I doubt you can name a singe player that tried harder while playing.:)

If you take Jeter out of the Yankees lineup, does Mariano have nearly as many save opportunities?

Depends on where you put the cutoff for IP. Craig Kimbrel has a 211 ERA+ (admittedly in 750 fewer innings).

Billy Wagner had a career 187 ERA+ that would be a fair bit higher without his injury-riddled 2000 season. Career 2.31 ERA. Career WHIP of 0.998 (better than Mariano). 86% save %.

Mariano was better. He wasn't MILES better.

An interesting read :

http://www.baseballgreatness.com/201...no-rivera.html

If Jeter had played for the Rangers or the Twins, he would be less highly regarded. New York matters.

Just read this thread from the top.

All this Rivera talk reminds me of the John Sterling bleat. Yankees win. The e e e e e e e Yankees win. Oy. LOL. I'll give him credit, it was innovative.

"Rivera had a 5.94 ERA as a starter before the Yankees decided he was better suited to the bullpen."

Among the top 10 pitchers of all time, laughable!

.

Yeah, but Koufax was a 54-53 pitcher with an ERA well over 3.50 thru his first 7 seasons (1955-1961), so things could have changed for Mariano...

Dwight Gooden in reverse.

Sadly, yes.

Put Doc's first half and Koufax's second half together and you're right up there on a very short list.

Hahahaha, Doc first 7 plus Koufax last 5 is 230 wins and 80 losses. with 2935 strikeouts

haha! I don't mind it...sometimes!

And if you take Mo out of the Yankees lineup, are there as many post season victories?

Off the top of my head, I'd take:

Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Pedro Martinez
Sandy Koufax
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Clayton Kershaw
Cy Young
Tom Seaver
Roger Clemens

In a heartbeat over Rivera. Then there are guys I'd probably take. Pete Alexander, Bob Gibson, probably Christy Mathewson. I'd need to think for a bit more, as it's 3 am, but Rivera doesn't crack my top ten. Again, only one pitch. Great at a very specialized job, but give me a dominant starter over a closer every day of the week. If that starter is on his game, I don't need a closer.

Several in that list I would include before Ryan - among them Spahn and Seaver - but yeah your point holds regardless.

I have no problem calling Mo the greatest reliever of all time, but would agree with many others that it is hard to put great relievers into the same category as all-time great starters.

Bob Feller probably belongs in there somewhere as well.

Hard to place him, but I'm fairly confident in keeping him out of the top 10 but putting him somewhere in the top 50. I'd have him ranked higher than most here would.

I judge a player, regardless of position, and of sport for that matter, primarily by the extent to which he contributes to his team's win total. Obviously the more innings you have, the more opportunities you have to help or hurt your team. So where does that leave us?

On the one hand, nobody, Ruth included, did more per inning to help his team win than Mo did. On the other hand, several dozen pitchers did more per game, per season, and in their career totals.

I'll concede that if he had been forced to be a starter and pitch an average of 7 innings once every five days throughout his career that he likely wouldn't have made the Hall. Maybe he would have had a Koufax career arc, but I doubt it. On the other hand, I don't believe that WaJo or Grove or Seaver or Clemens would have done any better (or even as well) as a closer as Mo did, so while technically playing the same position I see discounting Mariano's greatness on the grounds that he wasn't and would not have been a commanding starting pitcher as akin to saying that Jim Brown wasn't such a great football player because he couldn't pass particularly well and only touched the ball about 20 times a game while other players (i.e., QBs) might touch the ball 70 times a game).

I'm not going to penalize a player for having been born into an era when managers realized their teams could win more games by using a platoon approach than by expecting starters to finish their games. If everyone in the 1990s was using PEDS and no one in the 1940s was it's not because the players of the 1940s were more ethical or more talented. It's just a cohort effect. By the same token, it may be that all of the great pitchers of the deadball era were pitching hundreds of innings per year, but that doesn't give us grounds to conclude that a 21st century pitcher who throws fewer than 100 innings per season isn't a great pitcher. If Rivera and Mussina switched roles, the Yankees would certainly have won fewer games, and indeed fewer World Series, not only because Rivera wouldn't have been as good a starter as Mussina, but perhaps even more so because Mussina would not have been as good a closer as Rivera.

It just blows my mind that a guy who was as elite as Rivera was in the modern game, one in which people on this very board who say things like Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Grover Alexander, etc are all unquestionably ahead of Rivera, are the same people who argue all the time about who would have been a star today.

Rivera was elite in today's game. The most multifaceted, specialized version of baseball there has ever been. He also competed against all comers, not only those MLB allowed to play in their time. And yet, despite all that you still doubt his abilities and put others ahead of him from a time and game whose merits are constantly debated.

Not only are we trying to compare players across eras, but we are essentially comparing marathoners to sprinters. Who's the greatest "runner" of all time, Haile Gebrselassie (marathoner from Ethiopia) or Usain Bolt (Jamaican sprinter)? Asking whether a certain pitcher is better than another across disciplines (and eras) is essentially asking the same thing. It's a silly and futile exercise, regardless of the metrics and WAR and other advanced stats that people can pull from their arses.

Relievers are sprinters, starters are long distance runners. There's room for both on today's squad. Don't try to compare them.

Yea...when I voted I wasn't thinking clearly. I think Mariano is without a doubt, one of the greatest RELIEVING pitchers of all time. But all time pitchers?!?! Not hardly. Can I change my vote?

No one is doubting his abilities. Everyone seems to agree that Rivera was outstanding at what he was asked to do. Someone suggested that Rivera was the greatest/best pitcher ever which opened up a debate involving every other person to ever pitch in a Major League Baseball game. Some people simply seem to think other pitchers were better. Wait until this conversation starts with another over rated Yankee, Jeter. :eek:

There have been other closers who were as good as Rivera at their peak. They just weren't able to remain at their peak for as long as Rivera. That makes Rivera the best closer ever. But not the best pitcher ever.