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

[BicycleSpokes]

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

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

Absolutely one of the ten greatest pitchers ever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Absolutely one of the ten greatest pitchers ever.

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.

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

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BicycleSpokes

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

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

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?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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 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.

[frankbmd]

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.