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

[Al C.risafulli]

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

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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.

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

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.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.....

[Al C.risafulli]

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

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

[Al C.risafulli]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

+1

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

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.