Mariano

[Ricky]

I have to agree. Rivera was arguably the best closer ever, but the first unanimous selection ever? Should not have been. Twenty writers left Willie Mays off their ballots. Nine left Hank Aaron off. Ridiculous. The other thing to take into account is, had Rivera been just as good, but had come up with the Milwaukee Brewers or San Diego Padres and spent his career there instead of a dominant team surrounding him like the Yankees, would he have recorded 652 saves? Would he have had the same number of opportunities? How would that have affected the way he's regarded?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Being unanimous is meaningless, they just decided finally to abandon the stupid tradition of having someone vote no on obvious choices, likely because Mariano is so universally liked.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being unanimous is meaningless, they just decided finally to abandon the stupid tradition of having someone vote no on obvious choices, likely because Mariano is so universally liked.

+1

[oldjudge]

Being a Yankee certainly helped Mariano. He had more save opportunities and a lot of chances to participate in post season games. However, given these opportunities he reached heights that no other reliever ever did.
Relievers and starters are really different positions. It is unfair to compare the two. However, if you had one batter that you wanted to get out over the history of baseball, whether it be Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Bonds, Mays, or whoever, what pitcher would be your first pick to get them out. Mine would be Mariano over anyone else in baseball history.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Being a Yankee certainly helped Mariano. He had more save opportunities and a lot of chances to participate in post season games. However, given these opportunities he reached heights that no other reliever ever did.
Relievers and starters are really different positions. It is unfair to compare the two. However, if you had one batter that you wanted to get out over the history of baseball, whether it be Ruth, Cobb, Williams, Bonds, Mays, or whoever, what pitcher would be your first pick to get them out. Mine would be Mariano over anyone else in baseball history.

You'd pick Mariano over pitchers like Sandy Koufax, Tom Seaver, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, etc.? I love Mariano but not me.

Greatest reliever of all time? Yes. Greatest pitcher of all time. No way.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Ricky

You'd pick Mariano over pitchers like Sandy Koufax, Tom Seaver, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, etc.? I love Mariano but not me.

To pitch to one batter—absolutely

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

To pitch to one batter—absolutely

Keep in mind, Rivera wasn't unhittable. In fact, against the Red Sox, the Yankees prime rivals and usually a tough offensive team, he sometimes struggled. His career numbers against them are very good, but not mind-blowing, as they are against other, lesser teams.

From Pinstripe Alley:
"It's true that Rivera's had more bad times against the Red Sox than most other teams. His 2.86 regular-season ERA vs. Boston and his 1.25 WHIP rank well beneath his career norms, and the .644 OPS Red Sox hitters have managed is the second best of any team Mo's faced more than ten times. David Ortiz has been a particular thorn in the great one's side, with a triple-slash line of .342/.375/.500, and the Sox have touched him up for 18 blown saves, including the playoffs. The most memorable of those, of course, were in that 2004 series which may or may not have actually happened, and came courtesy of a Dave Roberts steal and a Bill Mueller single followed the next night by a sac fly when Rivera tried to clean up Tom Gordon's first-and-third, no-out mess."

Keep in mind this is a one inning, three batter pitcher we're talking about. The greatest at his defined role, but not the greatest pitcher of all time.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

I have to agree. Rivera was arguably the best closer ever, but the first unanimous selection ever? Should not have been. Twenty writers left Willie Mays off their ballots. Nine left Hank Aaron off. Ridiculous. The other thing to take into account is, had Rivera been just as good, but had come up with the Milwaukee Brewers or San Diego Padres and spent his career there instead of a dominant team surrounding him like the Yankees, would he have recorded 652 saves? Would he have had the same number of opportunities? How would that have affected the way he's regarded?

If you watched Mariano's career and all you took away from it was a number of saves, I am sincerely sorry you missed out on so much more. The if and but argument over what other teams he might have played for misses out entirely on the fact that on the biggest stage in the game for the biggest team in the game he excelled to a degree that made him the greatest of all time. How can you discount something like that? Do you think it could have been just anyone out there?

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

If you watched Mariano's career and all you took away from it was a number of saves, I am sincerely sorry you missed out on so much more. The if and but argument over what other teams he might have played for misses out entirely on the fact that on the biggest stage in the game for the biggest team in the game he excelled to a degree that made him the greatest of all time. How can you discount something like that? Do you think it could have been just anyone out there?

As I said, Mariano was arguably the best closer of all time. I saw his entire career and he was phenomenal and well deserving of the Hall. I do think that who you play for does affect how you are regarded and being on a dynastic team allowed him to excel and show off his talent in ways that, had he been on a lesser team, wouldn't have happened. Throughout Hank Aaron's career, and I remember this well, up until the very late 1960s, he was extremely underrated, never garnering the fame or popularity of Mays or Mantle, despite racking up dominant numbers season after season. The difference? They were, in some ways, flashier and more importantly, they were in New York City, Aaron was in Milwaukee. Rivera also benefits from the Big Stage that is New York City and a legendary franchise like the Yankees.

[packs]

A benefit isn't really a benefit if you can't take advantage of it. Like I said, that argument unfairly discounts what he did on the field. He was on the stage and he dominated it. Not just anyone was going to do that, only Mariano Rivera could. That kind of greatness transcends any one team. You can rest assured he would have been the same pitcher no matter what team he was on.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by packs

A benefit isn't really a benefit if you can't take advantage of it. Like I said, that argument unfairly discounts what he did on the field. He was on the stage and he dominated it. Not just anyone was going to do that, only Mariano Rivera could. That kind of greatness transcends any one team. You can rest assured he would have been the same pitcher no matter what team he was on.

As a long-suffering Reds fan, I just cannot buy into that. If a lifelong Red, he would have somehow blown more saves (and had far fewer save opportunities). And he probably would've gotten some career-altering injury early in his career.

I believe that being a Yankee, and playing in that market at that time contributed immensely to his unanimous selection.

[ALR-bishop]

But are saves a "stupid" stat ?

[AndrewJerome]

HOF votes finally are public information. I think this is the first year (or maybe the second?) that votes are made public. Voters can't hide behind their votes anymore. I believe the number of people voting has also decreased by quite a bit since this change was made. Perhaps this is because old school voters (who refused to vote for anyone on the first ballot etc.) have stopped voting since they don't want their votes made public?

Anyway, all of this is a big reason for elite players getting near 100% and now at 100% for Mariano. Now a non-vote actually his repercussions, including a social media fire storm from angry fans. We can expect elite players to get near 100% from here on out. As it should be in my opinion. What reason would there be for not voting for a slam dunk HOFer?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Ricky

I have to agree. Rivera was arguably the best closer ever, but the first unanimous selection ever? Should not have been. Twenty writers left Willie Mays off their ballots. Nine left Hank Aaron off. Ridiculous. The other thing to take into account is, had Rivera been just as good, but had come up with the Milwaukee Brewers or San Diego Padres and spent his career there instead of a dominant team surrounding him like the Yankees, would he have recorded 652 saves? Would he have had the same number of opportunities? How would that have affected the way he's regarded?

Rivera getting 100% has everything to do with it being 2019 and virtually nothing to do with how you feel he might compare to Willie Mays or Henry Aaron. The times are simply changing.