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

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No more so than in any other inning.

3 in the first count the same as 3 in the ninth. Etc.

Is that right? I don't remember a game ending after someone got 3 outs in the first inning.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by packs

Is that right? I don't remember a game ending after someone got 3 outs in the first inning.

But it could end in the 6th, and Mariano wouldn't be warmed up...

So I guess your point is that the 9th inning is more important than the 1st inning?

Ok.

I respectfully disagree.

[packs]

My point is the 9th inning wins you the game. You can talk about the 6th inning all you want. You aren't going to win the game because someone pitched well 3 innings ago. You only win after the 9th.

[MichelaiTorres83]

Originally Posted by packs

My point is the 9th inning wins you the game. You can talk about the 6th inning all you want. You aren't going to win the game because someone pitched well 3 innings ago. You only win after the 9th.

You blew right past his point riding on top of a rocket ship. A game can be called after the 5th inning if the ump calls the game. Or the 6th, 7th, 8th and yes also 9th inning before the bottom of the inning.

https://goo.gl/images/HoUPbW

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by MichelaiTorres83

https://goo.gl/images/HoUPbW

Hahahaha, amazing.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by packs

My point is the 9th inning wins you the game. You can talk about the 6th inning all you want. You aren't going to win the game because someone pitched well 3 innings ago. You only win after the 9th.

This argument leads to the conclusion that Mariano was over-utilized. He should have entered the game with the lead and two outs in the ninth. Instead of a one inning pitcher he could be immortalized as the 27th out pitcher. You can't win the game without the 27th out, right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

This argument leads to the conclusion that Mariano was over-utilized. He should have entered the game with the lead and two outs in the ninth. Instead of a one inning pitcher he could be immortalized as the 27th out pitcher. You can't win the game without the 27th out, right?

Or you could have saved him for the last strike. Lights out!!

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or you could have saved him for the last strike. Lights out!!

Good point, but if a pitcher is replaced while facing a batter due to injury or whatever, the count determines which pitcher gets the credit for the batter. If the batter has two strikes when the new pitcher enters the game, I believe the first pitcher gets credit for a strikeout.

So using this strategy Rivera could have saved 1500 games, with no strike outs and no innings pitched. Assuming a foul ball here and there his average pitch count would be 1.083.

Reductio ad absurdum arguments can lead to insight clarifying slightly less absurd premises.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

This argument leads to the conclusion that Mariano was over-utilized. He should have entered the game with the lead and two outs in the ninth. Instead of a one inning pitcher he could be immortalized as the 27th out pitcher. You can't win the game without the 27th out, right?

Laughing out loud. Fantastic.

That's kind of where your twilight zone post was heading, I think.

Retrosheet founder (and my vote for unanimous induction to the HOF) David Smith found that the 9th may not be the most important inning :

https://www.retrosheet.org/Research/...0the%20Key.pdf

[Peter_Spaeth]

Apologies if Smith's "The Myth of the Closer" has already been posted. The guy is a genius, makes Bill James look like a high school geek.

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

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Apologies if Smith's "The Myth of the Closer" has already been posted. The guy is a genius, makes Bill James look like a high school geek.

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

Thank you

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Apologies if Smith's "The Myth of the Closer" has already been posted. The guy is a genius, makes Bill James look like a high school geek.

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

Terrific stuff there! I wonder if anyone has taken this further by analyzing whether relief pitching itself is actually effective other than in situations where the starting pitcher has been hurt or isn't feeling well. In other words, when pitchers are getting bombed and are relieved, are the results any better than when they stay in and finish the game? You can't tell me that on the rare occasions when Walter Johnson was taken out of a game, every batter in the other dugout didn't say a little "thank you" under their breaths. Also, there must be a corollary analysis somewhere of how much or even whether starting pitchers do worse as the game goes into the last few innings. Ironically, Johnson himself appears to be the beneficiary of the first great example of relief specialization in 1924-25 when the big rookie Fred Marberry would come in to spell him in the 8th or 9th innings of close games. Of course, age as a reason for taking a starting pitcher out might be more accurately lumped in with the categories of injury or illness. In his latter days as a pitcher and then especially in his 7-year stint as a manager, Johnson got to witness the early days of the phenomenon of the relief specialist, and he didn't think much of it. "If pitchers aren't allowed to go deep into games, they will lose the ability to go deep into games," is a reasonable paraphrase of his attitude and quotes on the subject. To get back to Rivera, he was a dominating pitcher, there's no question about that. But if it turns out on close analysis that closing--or relief pitching itself--is an ineffective strategy even for the best of them, just how great can his career or that of any other relief pitcher be considered?

[glchen]

I did not pick Mariano as one of the top 10 pitchers of all time. However, I'll add this. If I were playing something like an All Time All Star game, where me and someone else can pick any player from history for our teams to face each other in a best of 7 series, Mariano Rivera would be one of the top 5 pitchers that I would pick for my team. The reason is that most of the top pitchers on the list are starting pitchers, and wouldn't necessarily have the same success as a relief pitcher. Sure, some pitchers like Randy Johnson have worked well as closers, but others haven't. I'd still use Rivera to close out the last 2 innings over any pitcher if I had a choice.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

I did not pick Mariano as one of the top 10 pitchers of all time. However, I'll add this. If I were playing something like an All Time All Star game, where me and someone else can pick any player from history for our teams to face each other in a best of 7 series, Mariano Rivera would be one of the top 5 pitchers that I would pick for my team. The reason is that most of the top pitchers on the list are starting pitchers, and wouldn't necessarily have the same success as a relief pitcher. Sure, some pitchers like Randy Johnson have worked well as closers, but others haven't. I'd still use Rivera to close out the last 2 innings over any pitcher if I had a choice.

Gary what starters other than Eck and Smoltz, both of whom were great closers, have enough of a track record that you can say they weren't effective as closers? A few games doesn't mean much at all due to sample size.

[Ricky]

packs, how do you think Rivera would have fared as a starting pitcher? How long would he have been able to maintain a peak performance as a starter? Would he have been as effective going 7 or 8 innings?

And, if you're all about the 9th inning, what if Rivera had pitched for a team that had the lead to protect much less frequently than the Yankees?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

packs, how do you think Rivera would have fared as a starting pitcher? How long would he have been able to maintain a peak performance as a starter? Would he have been as effective going 7 or 8 innings?

And, if you're all about the 9th inning, what if Rivera had pitched for a team that had the lead to protect much less frequently than the Yankees?

None of that matters. You don't win the game without closing out the 9th inning. The question is who is the pitcher you want on the mound for the most important inning of the game. The answer is Mariano Rivera.

[Ricky]

Yes, Rivera is the greatest one inning closer ever. We all agree on that. What we don't agree on is that he is the greatest pitcher of all time... or in the Top 10.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Yes, Rivera is the greatest one inning closer ever. We all agree on that. What we don't agree on is that he is the greatest pitcher of all time... or in the Top 10.

Define pitcher. Because if its the pitcher who wins you the game, Mariano is the best hands down.

[Ricky]

Cy Young and his 511 wins say hello.

[packs]

I think we can agree on this point: getting the win and winning the game are not the same thing.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by packs

Define pitcher. Because if its the pitcher who wins you the game, Mariano is the best hands down.

Your hands may be down, I'm thinking that Cy Young (and others) have a different hand position...

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by packs

Define pitcher. Because if its the pitcher who wins you the game, Mariano is the best hands down.

Stealing from the ESPN story from 2013 that Paul posted a link to below :

Let me again cite the work of Project Retrosheet founder Dave Smith:


Teams leading by one run after eight innings have gone on to win 85.7 percent of the time. That number goes up to 93.7 percent when leading by two runs, and 97.5 percent when leading by three runs.

Mull that over, and then please tell me why Rivera is so amazing for having an 89.1 percent career save rate (which, by the way, is lower than Joe Nathan's). Because, basically, Rivera was not used except in games the Yankees were going to win 88 percent of the time anyway. Actually, the percentages were usually higher than that. According to Elias, of Rivera's 652 career saves, just under a third (210) were with a one-run lead when he took the mound while 216 were with a two-run lead, 180 with a three-run lead and 46 with a lead of at least four runs.


To paraphrase, Mariano has :
210 saves when he came in with an 85.7% chance of winning
216 saves when he came in with a 93.7% chance of winning
180 saves when he came in with a 97.5% chance of winning
46 saves when he came in with better than a 97.5% chance of winning

The save is a stupid stat.

As I said before, he was really really good, probably the best, at the job he was asked to do.

Doug

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Stealing from the ESPN story from 2013 that Paul posted a link to below :

Let me again cite the work of Project Retrosheet founder Dave Smith:


Teams leading by one run after eight innings have gone on to win 85.7 percent of the time. That number goes up to 93.7 percent when leading by two runs, and 97.5 percent when leading by three runs.

Mull that over, and then please tell me why Rivera is so amazing for having an 89.1 percent career save rate (which, by the way, is lower than Joe Nathan's). Because, basically, Rivera was not used except in games the Yankees were going to win 88 percent of the time anyway. Actually, the percentages were usually higher than that. According to Elias, of Rivera's 652 career saves, just under a third (210) were with a one-run lead when he took the mound while 216 were with a two-run lead, 180 with a three-run lead and 46 with a lead of at least four runs.


To paraphrase, Mariano has :
210 saves when he came in with an 85.7% chance of winning
216 saves when he came in with a 93.7% chance of winning
180 saves when he came in with a 97.5% chance of winning
46 saves when he came in with better than a 97.5% chance of winning

The save is a stupid stat.

As I said before, he was really really good, probably the best, at the job he was asked to do.

Doug

You are comparing apples and oranges. Save rate is not win rate. You can blow the save and still win the game so save rate is the more restrictive of the two. I think we can all agree that starter and closer are two different pitching positions. We can also agree that Mariano was by far the greatest closer ever. Mariano was superior to any other closer ever by more than the best starting pitcher ever (you fill in your choice)has been to the second best starting pitcher ever. I’ll stop there. If I had to get one hitter out and could pick one pitcher to do it it would be Mariano. If I needed a starting pitcher for game 7 of the World Series, and I would be hoping he could go deep into the game, it would not be Mariano.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by packs

Define pitcher. Because if its the pitcher who wins you the game, Mariano is the best hands down.

Mariano is NOT winning the game....he is SAVING the game by getting 3 outs of the 27 needed to complete a 9 inning game. That’s why he gets a SAVE and NOT a WIN! Very simple reasoning here. If you are trying to say a pitcher who closes out a game by getting 3 outs with no men on base when he enters the game is more important than the pitcher who recorded 24 outs over 8 innings to put his team in a win situation, then I really don’t what to say???? Your stance makes absolutely ZERO sense. Plus, add the fact that the great pre-1980 starting pitchers completed all 9 innings for many of their wins, Mariano cannot even be mentioned in the SAME BREATH as these great starters. The pre-1980 starting pitchers were closing out their own games after throwing 100+ pitches. Mariano closed out games throwing 15-20’pitches at 100% capacity. No need to pace himself, no need to make batter adjustments because this is the 2nd/3rd/4th time you are facing the same hitter, etc. FYI, for the record I am a HUGE Yankee fan and worshiped Rivera. However, him being the greatest closer ever will never cloud my judgement regarding Rivera’s all-time stature vs. a great starting pitcher. No contest whatsoever. He cannot even be mentioned in the same breath with baseball’s great starting pitchers. Case closed.

[rats60]

I would have these guys ahead of Rivera
Grover Alexander
Steve Carlton
Dizzy Dean
Bob Feller
Whitey Ford
Bob Gibson
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Randy Johnson
Walter Johnson
Sandy Koufax
Greg Maddux
Juan Marichal
Pedro Martinez
Christy Mathewson
Jim Palmer
Eddie Plank
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Warren Spahn
Cy Young

So #22 on my list.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I would have these guys ahead of Rivera
Grover Alexander
Steve Carlton
Dizzy Dean
Bob Feller
Whitey Ford
Bob Gibson
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Randy Johnson
Walter Johnson
Sandy Koufax
Greg Maddux
Juan Marichal
Pedro Martinez
Christy Mathewson
Jim Palmer
Eddie Plank
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Warren Spahn
Cy Young

So #22 on my list.

Strange that that list doesn't even contain the best pitcher of all time Roger Clemens.

I agree that Rivera is not a top 20 pitcher of all time but he is by far the best reliever of all time.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Strange that that list doesn't even contain the best pitcher of all time Roger Clemens.

I agree that Rivera is not a top 20 pitcher of all time but he is by far the best reliever of all time.

Best pitcher at cheating. Gaylord Perry isn't on my list either because with cheaters you will never know how much of their success was skill and how much was because of their cheating.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Best pitcher at cheating. Gaylord Perry isn't on my list either because with cheaters you will never know how much of their success was skill and how much was because of their cheating.

Whitey Ford was allegedly masterful at scuffing up the ball, speaking of which.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whitey Ford was allegedly masterful at scuffing up the ball, speaking of which.

Plus there are 2 guys on that list that if there was any way of really proving if and how many PEDs they done. I would bet the farm they done more PEDs than Roger Clemens.

I do completely understand his list and his right to pick who is on it and why. I know I am very bias when I make lists and talk a lot of smack about a few all-time greats as being PED users. Then other PED users I am a big fan of.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by rats60

Best pitcher at cheating. Gaylord Perry isn't on my list either because with cheaters you will never know how much of their success was skill and how much was because of their cheating.

Ahem.. Nolan Ryan

On a side note, I said yes. The ERA+ leader by a country mile, top 5 in WHIP and WPA. The guy was a beast.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Ahem.. Nolan Ryan

On a side note, I said yes. The ERA+ leader by a country mile, top 5 in WHIP and WPA. The guy was a beast.

Depends on where you put the cutoff for IP. Craig Kimbrel has a 211 ERA+ (admittedly in 750 fewer innings).

Billy Wagner had a career 187 ERA+ that would be a fair bit higher without his injury-riddled 2000 season. Career 2.31 ERA. Career WHIP of 0.998 (better than Mariano). 86% save %.

Mariano was better. He wasn't MILES better.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I would have these guys ahead of Rivera
Grover Alexander
Steve Carlton
Dizzy Dean
Bob Feller
Whitey Ford
Bob Gibson
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Randy Johnson
Walter Johnson
Sandy Koufax
Greg Maddux
Juan Marichal
Pedro Martinez
Christy Mathewson
Jim Palmer
Eddie Plank
Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Warren Spahn
Cy Young

So #22 on my list.

I would go another 20 starters at least before I got to my first reliever/closer. Who would be Rivera.