Mariano

[packs]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

What?? Greatest pitcher of all time? You have got to be kidding.....This is a relief pitcher for crying out loud.....

You say that like winning championships doesn't matter. A "relief pitcher" who held all opponents to an ERA under 1 over 140 innings in games that mattered the most. I would venture to guess that no one on the Yankees saw Rivera as a "relief pitcher".

People love advanced stats so here's an advanced stat for you. Rivera leads all pitchers all time in ERA +. Pedro Martinez holds the single season record for starting pitchers with an ERA + of 291 in 2000. Rivera eclipses 291 twice during his career and his ERA + of 205 is over 50 points higher than Pedro Martinez's 154, which leads all starting pitchers.

So you tell me how good Rivera was.

[Touch'EmAll]

Here is a different way to think about his greatness. Lets say you have to come up with your all time best team one player at a time - kinda like when you were a kid on the playground and the captains each took turn choosing their team one player at at time. Would you pick Rivera with your very first pick? Second pick? Or way down the list after you pick guys like Cobb, Ruth Williams, Walter Johnson, etc.?

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Here is a different way to think about his greatness. Lets say you have to come up with your all time best team one player at a time - kinda like when you were a kid on the playground and the captains each took turn choosing their team one player at at time. Would you pick Rivera with your very first pick? Second pick? Or way down the list after you pick guys like Cobb, Ruth Williams, Walter Johnson, etc.?

I would pick no pitcher in the beginning, starter or reliever. Mariano would certainly be the first reliever I take. If I am planning to use no pitcher more than a few innings like how the game is going now, he would be my first pitcher overall.

[egbeachley]

Since WW2, teams leading by 1-run after the 8th inning won 85.7% of the time. When leading by 2-runs it was 93.7%. When 3-runs it was 95.7%.

Over 2/3 (442] of Rivera’s 652 saves came with a 2-run (210), 3-run (180), or 4-run (46) lead when entering the game.

Basically, his 89.1% career save percentage was due to his team already having a 88% or better chance of winning anyway, according to league averages.

[oldjudge]

Eric--So are you saying that Mariano was worse than the average reliever? I think maybe you should relook at your numbers.

[packs]

Where does that number come from? I just looked at the team pitching stats from last season and there are only 3 teams in all of baseball with a save percentage 85 % or higher.

http://proxy.espn.com/mlb/stats/team...ded&order=true

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by packs

Where does that number come from? I just looked at the team pitching stats from last season and there are only 3 teams in all of baseball with a save percentage 85 % or higher.

http://proxy.espn.com/mlb/stats/team...ded&order=true

Different stat. Wins can be without a reliever, blown save then a win, etc.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by packs

You say that like winning championships doesn't matter. A "relief pitcher" who held all opponents to an ERA under 1 over 140 innings in games that mattered the most. I would venture to guess that no one on the Yankees saw Rivera as a "relief pitcher".

People love advanced stats so here's an advanced stat for you. Rivera leads all pitchers all time in ERA +. Pedro Martinez holds the single season record for starting pitchers with an ERA + of 291 in 2000. Rivera eclipses 291 twice during his career and his ERA + of 205 is over 50 points higher than Pedro Martinez's 154, which leads all starting pitchers.

So you tell me how good Rivera was.

Rivera was great. But, packs, I don't care if it's ERA + or any other stat, it's very misleading and difficult to compare a reliever who only had to face three or less batters at a time with a starter like Pedro who often went eight innings and threw 100plus pitches every time out.

I have a feeling that next year at this time you'll be telling us that Derek Jeter was the greatest shortstop of all time... ��

[oldjudge]

I'm a Yankee fan, and while Jeter was a extremely good hitting shortstop (and an adequate fielder) he was not even the best shortstop of his era. He should not be a unanimous selection, although he will be in the upper nineties percentage wise. Plus, I know one sportscaster who has reservations about Jeter's late career comeback.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I'm a Yankee fan, and while Jeter was a extremely good hitting shortstop (and an adequate fielder) he was not even the best shortstop of his era. He should not be a unanimous selection, although he will be in the upper nineties percentage wise. Plus, I know one sportscaster who has reservations about Jeter's late career comeback.

What principled basis is there not to vote for Jeter? Nobody on this earth could make out a case why he shouldn't be in the HOF. It's all just a stupid tradition this not voting for a guy the first time so he isn't unanimous, if a guy is an obvious HOF choice then everyone should vote for him.

[CMIZ5290]

I'm still blown away by the stupid writers giving a relief pitcher 100% of the vote....What a crock of shit.....How in the Hell did Griffey Jr. not get 100%????? How is it that the first 100% vote getter is a relief pitcher? Please, waiting for answers....The Yankees have always been the best team money can buy, period....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I'm still blown away by the stupid writers giving a relief pitcher 100% of the vote....What a crock of shit.....How in the Hell did Griffey Jr. not get 100%????? How is it that the first 100% vote getter is a relief pitcher? Please, waiting for answers....

It was a stupid tradition not to make anyone unanimous. Who the hell didn't vote for Mays? Aaron? Mantle? Ted? Ripken? Maddux? etc. etc.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was a stupid tradition not to make anyone unanimous. Who the hell didn't vote for Mays? Aaron? Mantle? Ted? Ripken? Maddux? etc. etc.

+1....Well said Pete

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I'm still blown away by the stupid writers giving a relief pitcher 100% of the vote....What a crock of shit.....How in the Hell did Griffey Jr. not get 100%????? How is it that the first 100% vote getter is a relief pitcher? Please, waiting for answers....The Yankees have always been the best team money can buy, period....

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.

[pitchernut]

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.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

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

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

So please explain how a relief pitcher with a career record of 82-60 gets 100% of the vote, but guys like Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, T. Williams, Joe D., Mantle, Mathewson, Johnson, Hornsby dont....Doesn't even make sense......Let me go one step further....What about Nolan Ryan? He played on shitty teams most of his career....Mariano was on the best teams money can buy....Guys this discussion is a joke....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Relief pitcher ERA stats are always going to be misleading, because they don't get charged when runners they inherit score.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Rivera was great. But, packs, I don't care if it's ERA + or any other stat, it's very misleading and difficult to compare a reliever who only had to face three or less batters at a time with a starter like Pedro who often went eight innings and threw 100plus pitches every time out.

I have a feeling that next year at this time you'll be telling us that Derek Jeter was the greatest shortstop of all time... ��

It is not misleading at all. To demonstrate the point, the highest ERA + I found for another HOF relief pitcher was Trevor Hoffman’s 141. Rivera is 205. That’s not even close. The guy was other worldly.

[Ricky]

Except against the Sox and David Ortiz...

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by packs

It is not misleading at all. To demonstrate the point, the highest ERA + I found for another HOF relief pitcher was Trevor Hoffman’s 141. Rivera is 205. That’s not even close. The guy was other worldly.

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.....

[packs]

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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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.....

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.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

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.

[oldjudge]

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

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

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.....

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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.....

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.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

/face palm

[egbeachley]

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.

[packs]

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.

[doug.goodman]

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

It is not misleading at all. To demonstrate the point, the highest ERA + I found for another HOF relief pitcher was Trevor Hoffman’s 141. Rivera is 205. That’s not even close. The guy was other worldly.

Small sample since there are so few HOF relievers.

Craig Kimbrel - 211.
Billy Wagner - 187.

To name two others.

[AndrewJerome]

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.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome

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.

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.

[AndrewJerome]

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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Small sample since there are so few HOF relievers.

Craig Kimbrel - 211.
Billy Wagner - 187.

To name two others.

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.