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

[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?

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

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?

Yes.

Doug "That's all I have been saying" Goodman



PS - "He was really really good at what he was asked to do"

[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.