Mariano

[Jim65]

Mo was such a classy guy and the greatest closer ever but the fact that he was a failed starter, no way can I put him Top 10.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Mo was such a classy guy and the greatest closer ever but the fact that he was a failed starter, no way can I put him Top 10.

Failed starter...who turned into the greatest reliever of all time. I find it hard to believe that when evaluating him, many experts on the game are going to give a ton of consideration to the fact that he was ever a starter. To say that things turned out "all right" for Mo is quite an understatment.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Mo was such a classy guy and the greatest closer ever but the fact that he was a failed starter, no way can I put him Top 10.

Stop with all the "failed starter" BS. He got all of 10 chances at the major league level. The very next year he was a full time reliever and finished 3rd in Cy Young Award voting as a relief pitcher despite only getting 5 saves. Once you have that type of success in the bullpen, you aren't going to be stretched back out to become a starter again the next season (except in rare situations).

I always think about how dominant John Smoltz was as a reliever in the early 2000s and thinking, why did Atlanta move him back to the starting rotation. But he was amazing there too. The best starters are often pitching at 85-90% at the beginning of a game and then they bring it up a notch when the going gets tough and then they start registering some ridiculous numbers on the radar gun, despite being fatigued. The reliever has to be 95-100% the entire time they are out there. It's impossible to adequately compare the two.

I'm in agreement with most. Greatest reliever of all time and probably top 20 pitcher of all time. His post-season stats are lights out and can't be ignored in the context of evaluating his entire career.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

Stop with all the "failed starter" BS. He got all of 10 chances at the major league level. The very next year he was a full time reliever and finished 3rd in Cy Young Award voting as a relief pitcher despite only getting 5 saves. Once you have that type of success in the bullpen, you aren't going to be stretched back out to become a starter again the next season (except in rare situations).

I always think about how dominant John Smoltz was as a reliever in the early 2000s and thinking, why did Atlanta move him back to the starting rotation. But he was amazing there too. The best starters are often pitching at 85-90% at the beginning of a game and then they bring it up a notch when the going gets tough and then they start registering some ridiculous numbers on the radar gun, despite being fatigued. The reliever has to be 95-100% the entire time they are out there. It's impossible to adequately compare the two.

I'm in agreement with most. Greatest reliever of all time and probably top 20 pitcher of all time. His post-season stats are lights out and can't be ignored in the context of evaluating his entire career.

Well put.

[packs]

Nothing bothers me more than this "failed" perspective. It's such BS and not even worth talking about. Lefty O'Doul hit 398 in 1929 as an outfielder after he "failed" as a pitcher. Does that discount hitting 398?

Give me a break.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

Nothing bothers me more than this "failed" perspective. It's such BS and not even worth talking about. Lefty O'Doul hit 398 in 1929 as an outfielder after he "failed" as a pitcher. Does that discount hitting 398?

Give me a break.

Babe Ruth was a failed pitcher too. So bad he had to give it up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Nothing bothers me more than this "failed" perspective. It's such BS and not even worth talking about. Lefty O'Doul hit 398 in 1929 as an outfielder after he "failed" as a pitcher. Does that discount hitting 398?

Give me a break.

I would agree with you the numbers are not there to say anything about him as a starter. But that said, how do you explain his extremely low inherited runners number, why didn't the Yankees use him more in late inning crisis situations instead of almost exclusively as a guy to hold a lead in the 9th?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would agree with you the numbers are not there to say anything about him as a starter. But that said, how do you explain his extremely low inherited runners number, why didn't the Yankees use him more in late inning crisis situations instead of almost exclusively as a guy to hold a lead in the 9th?

Are you serious? Have you not even looked at his post-season numbers? Are you really suggesting the Yankees didn't have enough faith in his abilities to use him in high leverage situations?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Are you serious? Have you not even looked at his post-season numbers? Are you really suggesting the Yankees didn't have enough faith in his abilities to use him in high leverage situations?

Again, how do you explain his inherited runners statistic? I wasn't suggesting anything, I asked a question.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by packs

Are you serious? Have you not even looked at his post-season numbers? Are you really suggesting the Yankees didn't have enough faith in his abilities to use him in high leverage situations?

Mariano has the 2nd most blown saves in postseason history...

[Paul S]

Nevermind

[Peter_Spaeth]

As of 2011:
Since 1997, Rivera has inherited 323 runners, which is an average of 23 over a 162-game season. Ninety-four of the 323 inherited runners scored.

Does anyone know how that percentage compares to relievers other than Hoffman, who is mentioned in the article as being 9 percent better in that category?

[MichelaiTorres83]

Originally Posted by packs

Nothing bothers me more than this "failed" perspective. It's such BS and not even worth talking about. Lefty O'Doul hit 398 in 1929 as an outfielder after he "failed" as a pitcher. Does that discount hitting 398?

Give me a break.

No, but if he was asked to bunt all of the time would he be the best hitter ever if he could get on .300 percent of the time? Heck, raise that to say .400 career lifetime of bunting everything and he has the highest batting average of any player in history.

No, he would be the best bunter and maybe not even that, and he would have been a "failed" pitcher on top of that.

[packs]

Originally Posted by MichelaiTorres83

No, but if he was asked to bunt all of the time would he be the best hitter ever if he could get on .300 percent of the time? Heck, raise that to say .400 career lifetime of bunting everything and he has the highest batting average of any player in history.

No, he would be the best bunter and maybe not even that, and he would have been a "failed" pitcher on top of that.

Well, I'm sure old Lefty felt like a real failure at anything after he hit 398. Probably felt even worse when he led the league in hitting again in 1932 when he only hit 368. If only he had been a good starting pitcher, the rest of his career would have meant something.