Mariano

[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.

[tothrk]

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.

[bbcard1]

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.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

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.

Bingo.

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

[packs]

Originally Posted by tothrk

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.

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.

[tothrk]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tothrk

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.

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.

[frankbmd]

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.

[pgellis]

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".

[tothrk]

Originally Posted by pgellis

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.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by pgellis

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".

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

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.

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 (Since rescinded by a redefinition of no-Hitter)

[ejharrington]

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.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by steve B

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 (Since rescinded by a redefinition of no-Hitter)

I'm good with whatever you meant just as long as I am not rescinded.

[steve B]

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...

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

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

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.