If Jeter had played for the Rangers or the Twins, he would be less highly regarded. New York matters.

Just read this thread from the top.

All this Rivera talk reminds me of the John Sterling bleat. Yankees win. The e e e e e e e Yankees win. Oy. LOL. I'll give him credit, it was innovative.

"Rivera had a 5.94 ERA as a starter before the Yankees decided he was better suited to the bullpen."

Among the top 10 pitchers of all time, laughable!

.

Yeah, but Koufax was a 54-53 pitcher with an ERA well over 3.50 thru his first 7 seasons (1955-1961), so things could have changed for Mariano...

Dwight Gooden in reverse.

Sadly, yes.

Put Doc's first half and Koufax's second half together and you're right up there on a very short list.

Hahahaha, Doc first 7 plus Koufax last 5 is 230 wins and 80 losses. with 2935 strikeouts

haha! I don't mind it...sometimes!

And if you take Mo out of the Yankees lineup, are there as many post season victories?

Off the top of my head, I'd take:

Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Pedro Martinez
Sandy Koufax
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Clayton Kershaw
Cy Young
Tom Seaver
Roger Clemens

In a heartbeat over Rivera. Then there are guys I'd probably take. Pete Alexander, Bob Gibson, probably Christy Mathewson. I'd need to think for a bit more, as it's 3 am, but Rivera doesn't crack my top ten. Again, only one pitch. Great at a very specialized job, but give me a dominant starter over a closer every day of the week. If that starter is on his game, I don't need a closer.

Several in that list I would include before Ryan - among them Spahn and Seaver - but yeah your point holds regardless.

I have no problem calling Mo the greatest reliever of all time, but would agree with many others that it is hard to put great relievers into the same category as all-time great starters.

Bob Feller probably belongs in there somewhere as well.

Hard to place him, but I'm fairly confident in keeping him out of the top 10 but putting him somewhere in the top 50. I'd have him ranked higher than most here would.

I judge a player, regardless of position, and of sport for that matter, primarily by the extent to which he contributes to his team's win total. Obviously the more innings you have, the more opportunities you have to help or hurt your team. So where does that leave us?

On the one hand, nobody, Ruth included, did more per inning to help his team win than Mo did. On the other hand, several dozen pitchers did more per game, per season, and in their career totals.

I'll concede that if he had been forced to be a starter and pitch an average of 7 innings once every five days throughout his career that he likely wouldn't have made the Hall. Maybe he would have had a Koufax career arc, but I doubt it. On the other hand, I don't believe that WaJo or Grove or Seaver or Clemens would have done any better (or even as well) as a closer as Mo did, so while technically playing the same position I see discounting Mariano's greatness on the grounds that he wasn't and would not have been a commanding starting pitcher as akin to saying that Jim Brown wasn't such a great football player because he couldn't pass particularly well and only touched the ball about 20 times a game while other players (i.e., QBs) might touch the ball 70 times a game).

I'm not going to penalize a player for having been born into an era when managers realized their teams could win more games by using a platoon approach than by expecting starters to finish their games. If everyone in the 1990s was using PEDS and no one in the 1940s was it's not because the players of the 1940s were more ethical or more talented. It's just a cohort effect. By the same token, it may be that all of the great pitchers of the deadball era were pitching hundreds of innings per year, but that doesn't give us grounds to conclude that a 21st century pitcher who throws fewer than 100 innings per season isn't a great pitcher. If Rivera and Mussina switched roles, the Yankees would certainly have won fewer games, and indeed fewer World Series, not only because Rivera wouldn't have been as good a starter as Mussina, but perhaps even more so because Mussina would not have been as good a closer as Rivera.

It just blows my mind that a guy who was as elite as Rivera was in the modern game, one in which people on this very board who say things like Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Grover Alexander, etc are all unquestionably ahead of Rivera, are the same people who argue all the time about who would have been a star today.

Rivera was elite in today's game. The most multifaceted, specialized version of baseball there has ever been. He also competed against all comers, not only those MLB allowed to play in their time. And yet, despite all that you still doubt his abilities and put others ahead of him from a time and game whose merits are constantly debated.

Not only are we trying to compare players across eras, but we are essentially comparing marathoners to sprinters. Who's the greatest "runner" of all time, Haile Gebrselassie (marathoner from Ethiopia) or Usain Bolt (Jamaican sprinter)? Asking whether a certain pitcher is better than another across disciplines (and eras) is essentially asking the same thing. It's a silly and futile exercise, regardless of the metrics and WAR and other advanced stats that people can pull from their arses.

Relievers are sprinters, starters are long distance runners. There's room for both on today's squad. Don't try to compare them.

Yea...when I voted I wasn't thinking clearly. I think Mariano is without a doubt, one of the greatest RELIEVING pitchers of all time. But all time pitchers?!?! Not hardly. Can I change my vote?

No one is doubting his abilities. Everyone seems to agree that Rivera was outstanding at what he was asked to do. Someone suggested that Rivera was the greatest/best pitcher ever which opened up a debate involving every other person to ever pitch in a Major League Baseball game. Some people simply seem to think other pitchers were better. Wait until this conversation starts with another over rated Yankee, Jeter. :eek:

There have been other closers who were as good as Rivera at their peak. They just weren't able to remain at their peak for as long as Rivera. That makes Rivera the best closer ever. But not the best pitcher ever.

If he was really one of the top 10 pitchers of all time, he would have been a starter, something much more important than pitching one inning with the bases empty and no outs.

not even close....Hell no. Still dont know how he got 100% vote....Please

No Not a Starting Pitcher

Matiano
 

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.

Mariano
 

OK - based on your point, the great post WWII starters that pitched pre-1980 were BOTH sprinters & long distance runners (like the greatest racehorse ever Secretariat...LOL). Gibson, Seaver, Marichal, Koufax, Palmer, Hunter, Ryan, Carlton, etc. ran their 8 inning long distance races and then, for the most part, sprinted to the finish line in the 9th inning by finishing their own games. This is why Mariano cannot be mentioned in the same breath with these great starting pitchers. It really borders on insanity to think that Mariano can be compared to these starting pitcher studs.

It's madness. But so far 40 votes for top 10 pitchers ever.

The 40 votes all live less than 40 miles from the Bronx.;)

Ha! Great observation Watson.... no shit Sherlock......!

And Mike Piazza owned Roger Clemens who eventually showed his appreciation for that...:eek:

..

Peter- I’ve always loved that New Yorker cover, especially being a New Yorker born and bred.

BTW, I currently just fall under the 40 mile radius (38)... :)

I knew it.:D

If I’m right about 38 out of 40, will I be on the Hall of Fame ballot.;)

......or will I need 39

Opinion:

The save is a stupid stat. But so is the win. Both depend on your team creating a circumstance that has nothing to do with you.

I also think comparing Rivera to a starting pitcher and saying the starting pitcher is better because he has to pitch longer is irrelevant.

Point being: starting pitchers aren't asked to appear in 60 or 70 games in a season like closers are. Starting pitchers aren't asked to repeatedly pitch with the game on the line, in "close and late" situations. Starting pitchers aren't asked to appear in NINETY-SIX postseason games over the course of their career. But you won't catch me using any of those facts to denigrate a starting pitcher.

What's great is that we have statistics that can measure all pitchers and level the playing field. Stuff like ERA, WHIP, SO/W, etc. And in all those fields, Mariano Rivera has numbers that stack up with the greats of the game. A postseason ERA of 0.70 in 141 innings, with a WHIP of 0.759, against the top competition is a world-class achievement. It's greatness under extreme pressure, over 16 years. No other player has even come close.

Saying "If you had to win one game, who would you pitch: Sandy Koufax, or Mariano Rivera" is no different that saying "If you had to win one game, who would you pitch: Sandy Koufax, or Ted Williams?" Mariano Rivera was not a starting pitcher. He also was not a shortstop, a left fielder, or a manager. So why compare him to something he wasn't?

If you changed the question to "If you had to choose a single pitcher to get all the important outs for his team, for an entire season, who would it be?" change your answer? Because I don't see Sandy Koufax excelling in that situation. Nobody dominated like Koufax, but no way he could pitch at that level two or three days in a row, no way he could pitch on one day's rest. His arm would fall off by June.

If I had to win one game, I might have a handful of pitchers I'd chose. If I had to get a big stolen base in a tough situation, I might bring in Jackie Robinson, Rickey Henderson, Vince Coleman. If I needed a three-run home run, I might bring up Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays. If I needed a single to drive in the game-winning run, maybe I'd pick Rose, Cobb, Boggs, Gwynn, Keeler, or some other contact hitter.

But if I needed to close out a game, there's only one guy I'd pick. One guy. And I'd pick him every time, under every circumstance, and I think most would agree. And that makes him the greatest ever.

When we're answering the question "who was the greatest hitter ever?" we don't factor Ty Cobb out of the equation because he didn't hit home runs. We don't factor Ted Williams out of the equation because his defense was suspect. We're just asking who was the greatest HITTER.

Similarly, we're asking here, "who was the greatest pitcher?" And if Mo's career numbers: 2.21 ERA, 1.00 WHIP, plus the aforementioned postseason numbers - don't clearly position him among the greatest pitchers of all-time, I'm not sure what does.

-Al

No one has mentioned Feller 3 no hitters 13 one hitters and out of baseball for three years for the navy

I live less than 40 miles from the Bronx, but voted that way just to tick people off:D

This.

Does he belong in the Hall? Probably. But what I'm still scratching my head at is that he's the first unanimous guy ever, in the history of the game. How the f*** did that happen?

Absolutely -- and don't sleep on Warren Spahn, who is one of the most underappreciated pitchers in MLB history.

Post 94.

If picking the greatest hitter ever, would you include someone who exclusively pinch hit but had a .400 lifetime average in 25 percent as many at bats as an everyday player? That's the better analogy, and I am guessing the answer is no.

I just can’t understand why Manny Mota is not in the HOF, Seriously.....:eek::rolleyes:

You're right, the answer is no. But I don't like the analogy.

Mariano Rivera was not a pinch hitter. He wasn't a defensive replacement. He wasn't a pinch runner. He was not asked to come into the game and get one out, every once in a while, or keep the infield tight. He pitched in pressure situations, several days a week, for nearly 20 years.

BTW, I'm about 70 miles from the Bronx.

-Al

+1

To me the analogy is reasonable based on number of innings pitched vs. a top line starter, coupled with my belief that all innings are equally important even if some seem to be more dramatic than others. In any case this has generated some great discussion that is only possible in the context of baseball; no other sport comes close.

I don't agree that 9th inning, bases empty, with a lead is a pressure situation.

Up 3-0 in the 9th against the 2000 Devil Rays, I agree.

Up 1-0 in the 9th against the 2000 Red Sox, I disagree.

Similarly, Koufax starting and winning against the 1963 Mets is no big deal. Starting and winning two against Whitey Ford in the World Series is.

I also dispute the idea that all innings are equal. I understand the concept, but I disagree with it. Giving up three runs in the first inning, you've still got eight innings to get those back. Giving up three in the ninth is a different story. Watching the Red Sox with Byung Hyun Kim in 2003 vs. Keith Foulke in 2004 was all the convincing I needed about the importance of a closer.

-Al

And the other team has eight innings to score more. I'd be interested to see the odds of winning a game down 3-0 after 1.

Closers are like goal line backs in the NFL. Their value is greatly exaggerated, Rivera included.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Absolutely one of the ten greatest pitchers ever.

Mariano
 

Al - hi it’s JoeT and I hope all is well. I am going to try and simplify this for everyone the best I can. More than not, without a fine performance from a starting pitcher, there is typically no game to save. Rivera’s capabilities would be rendered useless because there is no lead to protect. That’s the MAJOR disparity between a starter and a closer. A closer is typically dependent on his team’s prior pitchers making a game of it. A good starting pitcher sets the tempo for the game, with superb performances typically dictating the results. A closer has ZERO control over that. And, like I’ve said in other posts, the pre-1980 great pitchers didn’t need a closer for the most part because they finished their games. Honestly Al, I can barely remember games that pitchers like Gibson, Koufax, Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Marichal, Hunter, etc. blew leads in the 9th inning. They went out for the 9th innings and closed out their own games. Based on that notion, how anyone can possibly compare a 1-inning pitcher to these incredible starters that went the distance is beyond reason. Makes zero sense. Closers are totally dependent on their teams putting them in a position to save a game, and the starting pitcher usually bears a large portion of that burden.

Change "pitchers" to "closers" and we agree. I get that it's just a matter of opinion, but I don't see how any knowledgeable baseball fan can have this opinion.:D

A guy who pitched 2-3 innings a week and only with a lead is just NOT a top ten of all time pitcher.

That is a fair assessment.

Great pitcher but like many have said not one of the best all time.
Great entrance music though so maybe that came into play with
the voters.

I thought of Feller. Just forgot to add him. It was 3 am.

Now that I've had more time to reflect on it, if I had to be more specific, I'd rank Rivera in the 15th-20th range, along with Blyleven, Niekro, and Mussina, excellent pitchers with excellent careers and definitely worthy of the Hall in my book, but clearly a step down from Seaver, Grove, et al. in the top 10.

There's no reason in principle that a closer couldn't be considered the greatest pitcher of all time, but he'd just have to put up even better numbers than Mariano did. If a hypothetical closer converted 95% of 800 save opportunities over 20 years with an ERA+ of 250 and a 0.8 WHIP, I'd declare him a greater pitcher than Walter Johnson. It's possible we'll see that someday, but that's significantly better than Mariano, and I think I'm more likely to see someone put together a 57 game hitting streak this year than I am to see a closer that good in the next 40 years or however long I may live.

Exactly. A run is a run, whether it is scored in the third inning, the fifth inning, or the ninth inning. There is nothing that makes the ninth inning more difficult or challenging to pitch than any other inning. So pitching a scoreless ninth to close out a 3-2 win is no different than pitching a clean third inning in a 3-2 win.

A guy who can pitch well here and there, get a few batters out, is no doubt valuable, but you would need 5 or 6 such pitchers just to win one game. A guy like Koufax or Gibson could come out and give you that every 4 days all by himself.

When has anyone ever won the game in the third inning? When has anyone ever won a football game after only getting to the goal line? Neither analogy makes sense.

A game ends 1-0. What difference does it make if the losing pitcher gave up that run in the third or ninth inning?

I guess the difference is you only win the game after the 9th inning.

Right. And that is arbitrary. It doesn't mean it is easier or more difficult to get 'em out in the ninth as opposed to any other inning. And runs yielded in the ninth, or fourth, or seventh innings hurt you just as much; not more, not less.

The terms “closer” and “save” are both narrowly defined constructs of analytical baseball and create some arbitrary management decisions based on their definitions.

The “closer” has evolved to be the ninth inning pitcher who only enters the game with a lead of 1-3 runs.

The “save” has a slightly broader definition, allowing for up to three innings pitched at the end of the game.

What about the guy who enters the game in the ninth with the score tied or with his team behind by a run or two. The valuable “closer” is infrequently seen in this situation except perhaps in the post season. But is the alternate who preserves the status quo in games that his team eventually wins any less valuable.

Take the way back machine back to 1959 in Pittsburgh. Roy Face pitched in 57 games finishing 47. There were no saves in 1959, but retrospectively he was awarded 10 saves by applying arbitrary rules that were introduced later after 1959.

If the Bucs were close in the late innings, Roy was the “finisher”. He wasn’t used by Murtaugh only when the Bucs had the lead. Actually they didn’t have the lead that often and when they did, they had a few starters who could actually pitch a complete game.

So how did Roy fair in this undefined relief role. Pretty well as he recorded 18 wins out of the bullpen. He lost 1 game.

Granted he didn’t have a 20 year career with comparable results. You could also say 1959 was a fluke. But has any modern closer come close to helping his team win 18 games that they otherwise would have lost. Obviously not because the definitions create the pattern in which they are used.

It has been shown previously in this thread, that the difference between the best closer and a very good closer is perhaps 2 to 3 games per year for his team.

In Roy’s case it was 18 games, if only for one year.

The only difference is that the ninth feels more dramatic. Just like every frame in bowling counts equally, but the last one may be more exciting. The analogy to getting the ball only to the goal line is wholly misplaced.

Well said. The ninth inning "feels" more important. But that is all.

Also agree the football analogy is not valid. Players are more compressed when the offense has the ball near the goal line, so it is much more difficult to get that last yard then it is to get one yard at, say, the 47 yard line (holding the offense to a one yard gain at midfield would in fact be a victory for the defense.)