Poll: is Mariano Rivera one of the top 10 pitchers of all time?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the majority will vote no but let's see.

[AGuinness]

With almost no thought, I can name 4 pitchers in his own era that were better by leaps and bounds (if not more): Pedro, Clemens, Big Unit and Maddux....

[Cmount76]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

With almost no thought, I can name 4 pitchers in his own era that were better by leaps and bounds (if not more): Pedro, Clemens, Big Unit and Maddux....

+1 - Add to that Young, Matty, WaJo, Gibson, and Ryan and without even thinking about it, he's off the list.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To make a more immediate comparison, I would take Halladay over Rivera and probably Mussina if I thought about it. To me a HOF caliber starter is more valuable than the best one inning relief pitcher.

[AGuinness]

And for the record, and as a Red Sox fan, Rivera was the greatest reliever of all-time, no doubt and a slam-dunk Hall of Fame player. His body of work speaks for itself and I don't want to take anything away from his brilliant career.
Perhaps an interesting follow-up question, though, would be if Rivera's cutter was one of the top-10 pitches of all time...

Not in the top 40.

****as a side note, Mussina getting in is nearly as much of a disgrace as Baines/Trammel/Morris. Very disheartening trend for the sanctity of the HOF.

[CurtisFlood]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

And for the record, and as a Red Sox fan, Rivera was the greatest reliever of all-time, no doubt and a slam-dunk Hall of Fame player. His body of work speaks for itself and I don't want to take anything away from his brilliant career.
Perhaps an interesting follow-up question, though, would be if Rivera's cutter was one of the top-10 pitches of all time...

That is a fair assessment.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by Cmount76

+1 - Add to that Young, Matty, WaJo, Gibson, and Ryan and without even thinking about it, he's off the list.

Add Koufax, Grove, Seaver, Carlton, Randy Johnson...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Cmount76

+1 - Add to that Young, Matty, WaJo, Gibson, and Ryan and without even thinking about it, he's off the list.

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.

[darwinbulldog]

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.

[packs]

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.

[the 'stache]

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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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.

Bob Feller probably belongs in there somewhere as well.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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.

No one has mentioned Feller 3 no hitters 13 one hitters and out of baseball for three years for the navy

[icollectDCsports]

Originally Posted by shelly

No one has mentioned Feller 3 no hitters 13 one hitters and out of baseball for three years for the navy

Absolutely -- and don't sleep on Warren Spahn, who is one of the most underappreciated pitchers in MLB history.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by shelly

No one has mentioned Feller 3 no hitters 13 one hitters and out of baseball for three years for the navy

Post 94.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by shelly

No one has mentioned Feller 3 no hitters 13 one hitters and out of baseball for three years for the navy

I thought of Feller. Just forgot to add him. It was 3 am.

[darwinbulldog]

Now that I've had more time to reflect on it, if I had to be more specific, I'd rank Rivera in the 15th-20th range, along with Blyleven, Niekro, and Mussina, excellent pitchers with excellent careers and definitely worthy of the Hall in my book, but clearly a step down from Seaver, Grove, et al. in the top 10.

There's no reason in principle that a closer couldn't be considered the greatest pitcher of all time, but he'd just have to put up even better numbers than Mariano did. If a hypothetical closer converted 95% of 800 save opportunities over 20 years with an ERA+ of 250 and a 0.8 WHIP, I'd declare him a greater pitcher than Walter Johnson. It's possible we'll see that someday, but that's significantly better than Mariano, and I think I'm more likely to see someone put together a 57 game hitting streak this year than I am to see a closer that good in the next 40 years or however long I may live.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the majority will vote no but let's see.

not even close....Hell no. Still dont know how he got 100% vote....Please

[BicycleSpokes]

Closers are like goal line backs in the NFL. Their value is greatly exaggerated, Rivera included.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

Absolutely one of the ten greatest pitchers ever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Absolutely one of the ten greatest pitchers ever.

Change "pitchers" to "closers" and we agree. I get that it's just a matter of opinion, but I don't see how any knowledgeable baseball fan can have this opinion.

A guy who pitched 2-3 innings a week and only with a lead is just NOT a top ten of all time pitcher.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BicycleSpokes

Closers are like goal line backs in the NFL. Their value is greatly exaggerated, Rivera included.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Exactly. A run is a run, whether it is scored in the third inning, the fifth inning, or the ninth inning. There is nothing that makes the ninth inning more difficult or challenging to pitch than any other inning. So pitching a scoreless ninth to close out a 3-2 win is no different than pitching a clean third inning in a 3-2 win.

A guy who can pitch well here and there, get a few batters out, is no doubt valuable, but you would need 5 or 6 such pitchers just to win one game. A guy like Koufax or Gibson could come out and give you that every 4 days all by himself.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Exactly. A run is a run, whether it is scored in the third inning, the fifth inning, or the ninth inning. There is nothing that makes the ninth inning more difficult or challenging to pitch than any other inning. So pitching a scoreless ninth to close out a 3-2 win is no different than pitching a clean third inning in a 3-2 win.

A guy who can pitch well here and there, get a few batters out, is no doubt valuable, but you would need 5 or 6 such pitchers just to win one game. A guy like Koufax or Gibson could come out and give you that every 4 days all by himself.

When has anyone ever won the game in the third inning? When has anyone ever won a football game after only getting to the goal line? Neither analogy makes sense.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

When has anyone ever won the game in the third inning? When has anyone ever won a football game after only getting to the goal line? Neither analogy makes sense.

A game ends 1-0. What difference does it make if the losing pitcher gave up that run in the third or ninth inning?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

A game ends 1-0. What difference does it make if the losing pitcher gave up that run in the third or ninth inning?

I guess the difference is you only win the game after the 9th inning.