Come on man....It's obvious that he was loved by the writers, and not stats...He is a relief pitcher.....Both players being the same age, would you take Rivera or Griffey Jr.? Simple question.....

Your focus is on who didn’t get 100 percent of the vote rather than what the guy did in his career who did get it. Respect the career man. Rivera was from another planet.

The guys pitched an average of 71 innings a year.

He only pitched 62 more innings than Babe Ruth in his career.

His team played at least 1,458 innings a year.

If he was so fucking good why did they sit him on the bench for for more than 95% of their games?

Closers are a joke.

Him being elected unanimously is a joke.

I hate the new ways of baseball.

Doug "I'm just annoyed because the Dodgers sat half their team for half their games because of 'matchups' in the WS" Goodman

For me, I would take Rivera over Griffey Jr every day of the week and twice on Sunday. As long as we are talking their whole careers.

You can’t use ERA+ for relief pitchers because they don’t put in any innings to qualify on a yearly basis. For example, a relief pitcher who has 1 appearance for the year and doesn’t let in a run has an ERA+ of infinity (I think, although dividing by zero screws thing up). In fact, Rivera’s career ERA+ was 11 before his final year of 194.

Dumb stat for low inning relief pitchers. Probably a dumb stat regardless.

I guess I’m glad it was Joe Torre in the dug out because the way some of you guys are talking about Rivera it makes me wonder if he would have even been on the team with you there instead.

He was used in ideal situations that when compared to the league as a whole in the same situations showed that statistically he was just marginally better than average. Half his saves were 9th inning only with 2 or more run lead.

Only 1 save with 7 recorded outs or more. Gossage had 52.

Despite the longevity of his career, he is only 142nd in Inherited Runners. Should be top 3. No inherited runners = higher percentage chance of making the save. Just wasn’t used much in risky situations.

Statistically, one of the most overrated players of all time.

Character-wise, a great player and teammate.

Eric-With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Wow....Just, Wow!!! A reliever over one of the best regular players of all time, a guy that plays every day....Really???? I thought you knew baseball Ben.....

Mariano isn't the best pitcher ever in my opinion, but I would put him somewhere in the #10 - #20 range all time for pitchers. I value relievers more than most in here (obviously), but the value of an elite reliever is off the charts in terms of actually winning baseball games. And the point is to win baseball games. A team with a near 0 +\- run differential can be significantly over .500 with an elite closer finishing one run games. I'm a M's fan, and this happened last year with the M's and Edwin Diaz. By every metric we should have been a .500 team, but we finished 89-73. The idea that elite closers are somehow overrated is bizarre to me. And as the best closer ever by a wide margin, the idea that Mariano is somehow overrated blows my mind.

For one batter I guess I'd take J.R. Richard.

I think Adam Vinatieri is a good football comparison to Rivera. Clutch kicker for a great team.

The Astros won a World Series without a closer 2 years ago. In the book, 'Moneyball' didn't they say "trade the closer"? You can close with Bud Norris and win a championship.

The Rays pitched Snell normally because he was all they had. If they had other good starters they would not do the "opener" stuff.

There are a few all-time greats I see differently than most. Another reason is Rivera had a very consistent high level career and Griffey Jr was very inconstant.

You can't rationally pick a guy who pitches the 9th inning every third game or a little more frequently over a guy who hit 600 HR in his career. No way.

And I think you can only compare Rivera to relievers, not starters. They're essentially different positions, a guy who pitches the 9th every third game or so and a guy who goes 200 innings plus.

Tony Gwynn???

What? You mean he had hitting streaks right? Sometimes he was great, and other times he was awesome?

If you choose to look at it this way then you are going to have to ask more than 400 people why they were "stupid." The answer would be at a high level someone either gets into the HOF or doesn't and that is the yardstick, not ballots or votes. But instead we are human and have to take it degrees further than that. Player X is better than player Y because they were first ballot and not second, or received 95.3 percent of the vote instead of 89.2. Speaking of stupid...where do we draw the line? To insist that a player's vote demographics always precisely reflects how "great" they were or were not on the field is a bit of an unreasonable ask. What goes into the vote often has nothing to do with that, and this has been true virtually since time immemorial. I'm over it.

Just a weird observation but what with the special election vote 2 to 3 months after the tragic death of Mr Clemente and now the unanimous vote for Mr Rivera, perhaps HOF/MLB is sending out a message that priority will be given to community service over stats/status?
By the way congratulations to Mr Rivera.

To paraphrase P. T. Barnum, finding 400 stupid people isn't all that difficult.

Rivera was asked to pitch one inning once every two or three days in a game his team was already winning. I can’t even imagine what the career numbers for the all time great starters would look like if you spotted them a lead every time they pitched.

of course, I'm fine with Rivera for the HOF. A poster in a group I am in on Facebook made the point that he was probably the first unanimous only because the ballots are no longer anonymous, meaning no one had to cop to not voting for Williams or Mays but would now be held accountable. You'll see lots more in the near future.

I guess you don't care about winning either since you value winning so little. Let me ask you something, if its so easy to do what Rivera did, why is no one able to touch what he did on the field? Rivera's career WAR is almost 10 points higher than Hoyt Wilhem's, and still only 6 points lower than Eckersley, who was a starter for the first 12 years of his career.

Please explain how such a disparity can exist between one man and everyone else throughout history and why that distance means so little to you.

Eck may be a good indication -- from solid starter to one of the top few relievers of all time. One suspects elite starters would have been even better than Eck and Rivera, but it's all of course just debate and speculation.

My take is still that a guy throwing 200 innings is more important than a guy throwing 60, so you're going to want the better pitcher for the 200.

The drama in a lot of ninth innings does put the spotlight on relievers more than the guy who pitched the third and fourth. But a run scored then means just as much to the outcome.

I imagine that Rivera never faced the same batter twice in a game, at least as a reliever.

When complete games were more in vogue, starters were obliged to face the same batter four or or five times in a single game. Batters catch on and adjust, so those starters had to adjust and vary their approach in subsequent at bats. The good starters prevailed in subsequent at bats. The not so good starters became progressively less effective. Perhaps a little too simplistic, but a starter may use his fastball as an out pitch the first time through the line up and his curve or slider the second time through the line up. In Men At Work, George Will writes about Orel Hershiser's approach as he progressed through a game, which details his approach to batters the second and third time through the line up.

Pitch counts and analytics have shortened the starters time on the mound, but today's good starters can still be expected to face some of the same hitters at least three times on a good day.

If a batter faces roughly 5 pitches per at bat, then in the ninth inning he sees only five of the closers pitches. In the first eight innings, if the starter is on his game, he must throw that same batter 15-20 pitches and retire him three or four times.

Rivera was a very good ninth inning pitcher, perhaps the best we've seen, but to compare him to the best starters of any era is a stretch in my opinion.

As I suggested in the Twilight Zone, analytics going forward may lead to continued and further shortening of the starter's time on the mound. When we get to the point where no pitcher faces the same batter twice in a single game, then it might be reasonable to compare starters and relievers on a more level playing field.;)

I didn’t say I didn’t care about winning. The team was already winning when Rivera got around to putting his glove on. I’m not diminishing his skills or stats or WAR or ERA + or whatever stat they invent next. You are allowed to place higher value on a one inning guy just like I am allowed to place higher value on a starter. I basically lost interest in modern baseball during the steroid era. However I do recall John Smoltz being a great starter who had tommy john surgery. When he came back as a closer he had something like 53 or 55 saves his first year.

I don't think anyone is questioning Rivera being a HOFer. People are questioning two things (one opinion and one fact) with him though.

Fact that he is the first unanimously elected HOFer is very surprising for many reasons. Rivera never won a Cy Young or an MVP, and that is the guy that becomes the first unanimously elected HOFer? Very surprising. I mean he was never voted the best pitcher in the American League (never mind all of MLB) in any season.

Second, the opinion that he is the greatest pitcher of all-time is a joke. Again, he never won a Cy Young award or an MVP. I don't know why people today are so quick to label everybody the "greatest of all time".

I think you have relayed my thoughts in a more eloquent manner than I.

Bingo.

Olbermann made the same point on ESPN radio the other night.

Yankees fans became ingrained with the idea that Rivera was "otherworldly" or "an alien dominating mere mortals." Statistics like WAR or ERA + just aren't as reliable with relievers as they are with everyday players. If you look at players in terms of peak value and career value, other relievers over the years matched Rivera in terms of peak value. What no reliever has done is match Rivera in career value - he held his peak performance level over a longer period of time than any other closer. But also consider that he pitched in the era of one inning saves. The game has changed and Rivera didn't have to come in for a six or nine out save the way Rollie Fingers or Bruce Sutter or Goose Gossage did. Had some of those relievers been way more limited in their usage, the way Rivera was, maybe they would have held their peak performance level longer, too.

The As did that and got a no-Hitter out of it. (Since rescinded by a redefinition of no-Hitter)

I watched him throughout his career. Rivera was an absolute stud. I believe he is, by far, the best reliever of all time based on not only the stats but the eye test. This is coming from a Red Sox fan.

I understand the fact he only typically pitched an inning per game, but the last three outs are generally the hardest to get, especially in high leverage situations where a save is counted if successful.

I'm good with whatever you meant just as long as I am not rescinded.;):D

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...

As long as I am in attendance there would only have to be 399 more people.

Brian (stupid is as stupid does, and calling me stupid is an insult to stupid people, and they are not easily insulted).

"Best Pitcher of All-Time" does not correspond to relievers. Rivera can easily make a bid for "Best Reliever of All-Time" but to compare against starters is not serious conversation.

If anyone needs clarification, they may conduct a salary comparison between relievers and starters.

In 2019 relief pitching is still a "fall back" for pitchers who cannot sustain the rigors of being a starter (including Rivera). This does not mean that they do not undergo quicker specialization but they would all be starters if they could.

Agreed

I posted this in the poll thread :

So what.

Are you telling me that if you had one of the 10 best pitchers of all time on your team you would only let him pitch 70 innings a season, most (if not all) coming in when you had a lead?

Seriously?

He was really really good, probably the best, at the job he was asked to do, I'll acknowledge that, but top 10 of all pitchers all time?

Come on.

Doug "Roy Gleason has a lifetime batting average of 1.000, slugging percentage of 2.000 and OPS of 3.000" Goodman

I will gain a bit of solace knowing that when he walks to the podium in Cooperstown he will think to himself, "ugh, not this stupid song again"...


From Rolling Stone :
Rivera also addressed the subject of his former walk-up music. “If that was me, I would have never picked that song,” he said of “Enter Sandman.” “It would’ve been Christian music … It should have been something that put people to sleep.”

I researched, but could not find the MLB all-time save percentage leaders in listed format ranking from highest career percentage on down. Really curious how Rivera compares on this one particular stat - and if he is statistically significantly superior on this one stat. After all, the #1 job of a closer is to NOT blow the save.

Huge thanks if anyone could post this ranking list.

I would venture to guess he compares pretty well considering he finished the most games in history, saved the most games in history, and has an 0.70 ERA in 141 of the most important innings a guy can pitch in the post-season.

I hope it's okay with Graig, and whoever was lucky enough to purchase this masterpiece, for me to post a scan of it from his website.

Entitled, 'Enter Sandman' :

Attachment 342025

Found some numbers. Career Save Percentage, only contemporaries:

Aroldis Chapman 90%
Trevor Hoffman 89%
Mariano Rivera 89%
Joe Nathan 89%
Billy Wagner 86%
Francisco Rodriguez 85%
Lee Smith 82%
John Franco 81%

And I like the stat "when leading by one run after 8th inning", odds of winning are 85%. 2 runs 93%. 3 runs 95%.

So you are going to win 4 out of 100 times more than the average when Rivera comes in to start the 9th with a 1 run lead.

Rivera's avg. games per season was 67. That translates out to Rivera being worth 2.7 additional wins per season over the league average.

Every win is gold in the world of MLB, especially in a pennant race. His 89% Saves is really good, but not necessarily super head and shoulders above other top relievers.

Say what you will about Riviera, but it's pretty simple. I would've given anything to have him closing games for my Mets.

Using that logic :

And 4 out of 100 times LESS than average with a 2 run lead

And 6 out of 100 times LESS than average with a 3 run lead

doug, I don't know what % of his games he came in with 1, 2, or 3 run leads - didn't find that stat to compare 2 & 3 run games. I just assumed all 1 run games to keep it simple. How would you figure it?

In 2013 (the only year I looked at) they still would have finished third.

Shoeless_Moe posted a link to an ESPN story in the other Mo thread :

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/9...oved-respected

The numbers used there, attributed to David Smith (Retrosheet founder) are :
210 saves when he came in with an 85.7% chance of winning (1 run lead)
216 saves when he came in with a 93.7% chance of winning (2 run lead)
180 saves when he came in with a 97.5% chance of winning (3 run lead)
46 saves when he came in with better than a 97.5% chance of winning (4 runs or more)

David Smith posted a research paper on the retrosheet website :

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

With the following conclusions :
1. The entry of a new pitcher to start the 9th inning has increased dramatically since 1980.
2. The presence of this new pitcher has had almost no effect on a team’s chances to win.
3. Ace closers bring slightly more wins than other 9th inning pitchers (92% vs 88%)
4. Performance of 9th inning pitchers is almost indistinguishable between closers and others.
5. Increased use 9th inning pitchers correlates with overall increase of relief pitchers.
6. Pitchers have had progressively shorter stints for over 100 years.
7. Current pattern of closer usage is not justified by their contributions to team wins.

I obviously meant it as a generality, but let's do some logical thinking then regarding the human element. If the Mets had the Rivera bullet in the chamber, who knows what other aspects of their game would have improved? Think of the confidence the Yankees had all of those years knowing the door would be slammed shut in the ninth with Rivera. (Yes, they had other fine players, but so did the Mets many, many times.) We all saw it. It happened with us watching, unlike theorizing about games from the 20's where cold stats alone have to tell the entire story. Uber confidence. Contrast that with the Mets. Each and every game they're in with a lead has us slump-shouldered fans (and I'm sure the entire team) thinking, "My God. What reliever is going to come in now and blow it??!!!" (Yes, I know, you'd have to get middle relievers who can actually get someone out.) Having Mariano as your go-to guy would have eliminated so much of that.

You may have felt better but you would have generally had the same season outcomes. See David Smith's research paper on closers linked in my post below.

So by these stats the HOFer Lee Smith was significantly worse than the league average? I think there's an apples and oranges thing going on here though I can't articulate it.

Just a lapse in logic. The season outcomes may or may not have been the same, but your reliance on pure stats is funny. Mariano wasn't on the Mets, so there's no way to know what coulda/woulda/shoulda happened. It is all theoretical, as my thoughts on his probable positive impact are. But again, WE WERE ALIVE ACTUALLY WATCHING THE GAMES HE WAS IN, and saw what Rivera brought to the table. Just hearing "Enter Sandman" come on, you knew the game was virtually over. Reading black and white numbers on a page doesn't include what impact he would have had on the team as a whole.

I go to games.

I get it.

We had Gagne in LA for a few years. He had 152 saves in 3 years, while also going 13-7.

Mariano's best three year run was 136 saves, while going 16-8.

So I have experienced pretty similar talent (at least for a short run) in person, so I understand the "here he comes no way we can lose" fan thinking.

That doesn't change any of my posts.

Yep -- the numbers show that the game is virtually over no matter who comes in. If you're a fan watching and Rivera gets a save, of course the tendency is to credit Rivera, but the real question for the student of the game is what happens in alternative scenarios.

Exactly, and the David Smith study says that it's pretty much the same in the situations that Mariano was coming in to pitch.

An interesting read :

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

Small sample since there are so few HOF relievers.

Craig Kimbrel - 211.
Billy Wagner - 187.

To name two others.

Guys, this is getting silly.

So the argument now is that the Yankees would have won the same amount of games without Mariano, and instead with an average closer? The guy had a 205 ERA+ (the best all time for all pitchers), and pitched most of his innings with the game on the line in the 9th inning or extras. How could that dominance in the late innings mean nothing in terms of winning games?

How about Mariano’s post season performances? Would the Yankees also be just as well off with an average closer in those situations? His 0.70 post season ERA in 141 post season innings also means nothing? They would have won the same number of playoff games with an average closer? Come on.

Maybe we should do another poll:
Without Mariano, the Yankees would have:
a) won the same amount of games (because he didn’t matter at all to them winning games);
b) won less games; or
c) won a lot less games

A few comments about the stats arguments being floated in here:

1) You can't compare Mariano's save % to the probable win %. This is the 88% vs. 89% being thrown around in here to say Mariano is worthless. You instead need to compare the probable win % to Mariano’s actual win % for the games he came into in a save situation. Some of his blown saves ended up as Yankee wins. Certainly every BS didn't result in a loss. So you need to add in the number of Yankee wins after his BS, and re-run the calculation. I'm guessing this would end up at something like 95% for Mariano’s win %. Who knows if this can even be figured out. Then to make a valid comparison you would compare this new Mariano win % to the 88% or whatever average probable win %. Mariano’s certainly has to be much higher than the league average when this new calculation is made. Anything else would just be statistical nonsense. If Mariano is only average, then who in the world is above average? I would like to see some names and calculations of the above average closers.

2) The probable win % also does not factor in collateral damage to the bullpen / starting pitchers. It is much better to slam the door and win a game in the 9th inning with an elite closer. If a below average closer blows more games, but you win anyway in extra innings, there is all sorts of collateral damage to the bullpen. If a game goes 15 innings and you win that game even though your closer sucks, you have 6 more innings of bullpen use, and you may have to use tomorrow’s starter, and the end result could be you lose the next day 8-0, or even lose additional future games. There is no way to factor all this in of course. But it’s another reason why it’s better to have an elite closer, and why the probable win % is misleading.

3) The argument that the 9th inning is just another inning is silly. The pressure is on, the fans are going nuts, and there is no time to settle in. There are lots of starting pitchers that give up runs early in the game, and then settle in and find their way to a nice 6 or 7 innings. You can’t do that as a reliever. You give up a single run in your first inning of work and the game could be completely blown. You don’t get to settle in because the game is already over and everyone is going home. There are even guys who pitch great in the 8th inning, but can’t do it in the 9th. Dellin Betances comes to mind. He’s lights out in the 8th, but has a much worse track record in the 9th trying to close. His ERA goes up significantly in the 9th. Is this just his bad luck? To say the 9th is just another inning is correct statistically (runs in the 1st inning count the same as runs in the 9th inning etc.), but completely ignores the human element that makes baseball great.

Anyway, as for all time rankings, starters clearly have more value due to innings pitched. I just don't understand all the hatred towards relievers in general and Mariano in particular. The dude was lights out. ERA+ counts for all pitchers, not sure why it wouldn't matter for relievers. Given his prolonged dominance, I would put Mariano around #20 all time for pitchers. Certainly not #100 or whatever like many of you seem to think, but also not near #1.

Another reason the 9th inning is different than the others is the way that managers handle their offensive lineup in the 9th vs other innings. More pinch hitters, even pinch runners. Albert Pujols is not running in the 9th inning of a close game if his team is behind. And some .220 hitting middle infielder is not batting.

That's exactly right. Teams are going to do everything they can do to win or tie it in the 9th. This is much different than just setting a lineup and having your top 3 in the order hit in the 1st inning.

Exactly what I would have said.

Bites tongue. Walks away.

/face palm

Calling Rivera the "greatest pitcher of all-time" is just absurd.

Greatest reliever? Debatable, certainly, but I think he is.

But Rivera had one pitch. The cut fastball. That's it. That he is the "greatest of all-time", and closing games instead of starting them should be telling.

What if he were a starter? On the mound in the first inning, his one pitch is hitting maximum velocity. For a few innings, he might be able to keep it close to peak. But soon, that velocity starts to drop as fatigue sets in. And a Mariano Rivera with no other pitch to keep hitters off balance is a dead man walking. To employ Boston vernacular, "Rivera woulda gotten tuned up."

A designated hitter isn't DHing because he's the bestest hitter in the world. He's doing it because the guys on the field can do something he can't. Taken as a whole, his hitting and poor fielding provides less value than the starters on the field. A starting pitcher can do what a closer cannot. The closer provides less value, just as the DH.

Look at the Brewers' Josh Hader. Two seasons in Milwaukee. A 183 ERA+. His 2018 FIP of 2.23 would represent the fifth best of Rivera's career. His 0.811 WHIP would be the second best of Rivera's career. Hader struck out 143 batters in 81 1/3 IP, or 15.8/9 IP. The Major League record for strikeouts in a nine inning game is 20. Hader averages about 16 Ks per 9 innings.

Does anybody here think that Hader would be nearly that effective as a starter? I sure as hell don't. That there's a debate on Brewers forums, "should we keep him in the pen, or let him start" speaks volumes. If you had a pitcher that could throw six to seven innings, thirty-three times a season, and strike out 15.8 batters per 9 innings, you're seriously going to tell me you'd keep him in the pen? Say Hader threw 200 innings as a starter, keeping that K rate. That would put him at about 350 strikeouts.

And you're going to keep him in the pen? 350 strikeouts in 200 innings, with a sub 0.900 WHIP and a FIP below 2.25 is a Cy Young-winning top-of-the-rotation starter.

If Rivera has to face the same lineup three or four times in a game, with one pitch, there's not a chance in hell he maintains his effectiveness. He couldn't do the starter's job. But there are multiple starters in today's game that, if they assumed a closer's role, could do a job comparable to Rivera or Hader. Clayton Kershaw from a year or two ago, prior to his injuries, would absolutely baffle batters for an inning. Toss Chris Sale out there. Corey Kluber. Jacob deGrom had a 216 ERA+ over 32 starts and 217 IP. 1.70 ERA and a 1.99 FIP! Would you want to face him fresh, in the ninth inning, down by a run? Here, coach. Take my bat, and find somebody else. I'm going to look like John Kruk against Randy Johnson.

Rivera is not the best pitcher to ever play the game. Just stop it.

There are 3506 views of this thread, and I think maybe 1 person saying he's the best overall pitcher ever. A more interesting question is his place in baseball history, i.e. what value do relievers have in MLB.

Nearly 40% of current major league rosters are relief pitchers, aka one inning wonders. In the next 40 years will 40% of the Hall of Fame inductees be relief pitchers. If you think so, I have a lot near Area 51 that I would gladly show you. It’s a deal.;)

Mo was such a classy guy and the greatest closer ever but the fact that he was a failed starter, no way can I put him Top 10.

Same regular season outcomes but there is a good chance the Mets would have won the 2006 NL pennant if they had Rivera as their closer instead of Billy Wagner.

Failed starter...who turned into the greatest reliever of all time. I find it hard to believe that when evaluating him, many experts on the game are going to give a ton of consideration to the fact that he was ever a starter. To say that things turned out "all right" for Mo is quite an understatment.

There's a reason one of my friends always referred to him as Lee "lets make it interesting" Smith.

Neither of these players qualify for discussion. You must pitch at least 1,000 innings. So, let Kimbrel duplicate his career twice and then we can talk about him comparing to Rivera. We all know he won't be able to do that. Wagner already retired and will never qualify.

Every HOF relief pitcher has thrown at least 1,000 innings.

He was good on the Sox in the brief time he was here, but yeah he was not the model of consistency.

Stop with all the "failed starter" BS. He got all of 10 chances at the major league level. The very next year he was a full time reliever and finished 3rd in Cy Young Award voting as a relief pitcher despite only getting 5 saves. Once you have that type of success in the bullpen, you aren't going to be stretched back out to become a starter again the next season (except in rare situations).

I always think about how dominant John Smoltz was as a reliever in the early 2000s and thinking, why did Atlanta move him back to the starting rotation. But he was amazing there too. The best starters are often pitching at 85-90% at the beginning of a game and then they bring it up a notch when the going gets tough and then they start registering some ridiculous numbers on the radar gun, despite being fatigued. The reliever has to be 95-100% the entire time they are out there. It's impossible to adequately compare the two.

I'm in agreement with most. Greatest reliever of all time and probably top 20 pitcher of all time. His post-season stats are lights out and can't be ignored in the context of evaluating his entire career.

Well put.

Nothing bothers me more than this "failed" perspective. It's such BS and not even worth talking about. Lefty O'Doul hit 398 in 1929 as an outfielder after he "failed" as a pitcher. Does that discount hitting 398?

Give me a break.

Babe Ruth was a failed pitcher too. So bad he had to give it up. :)

I would agree with you the numbers are not there to say anything about him as a starter. But that said, how do you explain his extremely low inherited runners number, why didn't the Yankees use him more in late inning crisis situations instead of almost exclusively as a guy to hold a lead in the 9th?

Are you serious? Have you not even looked at his post-season numbers? Are you really suggesting the Yankees didn't have enough faith in his abilities to use him in high leverage situations?

Again, how do you explain his inherited runners statistic? I wasn't suggesting anything, I asked a question.

What other explanation can there be other than that was what happened during the game? I don't even know what you're asking. It's like saying why was the sun out that afternoon.

As I stated earlier, I lost interest in modern baseball during the steroid era but I was wondering if anyone invented a statistic yet that showed how great you were compared to your salary? I’m all for anybody making as much money as they legally can but if some guy walked into my office and said “I want 12 million per year and I’m 90% sure I can give you two or three solid innings per week” , i’d do my best Hue Jackson impersonation and tell him “get the **** out of my office”

No, the stat obviously reflects that he was not brought into a lot of situations with men on base, and I am curious why the Yankees chose not to do that. To me the highest and best use of a great reliever would be to pitch out of a jam, not just preserve a lead.