Is Mariano Rivera REALLY a HOFer?

[tigers527]

With the inception of Goose Gossage into the HOF, it got me thinking to then and now.....

....Is Mariano Rivera really a HOFer? I think he is. Beyond him are any closers worthy of that recognition?

"Back in the day", closers often worked up to 3IP to collect a save. HOFer Bruce Sutter who only played 12 yrs had 1042.3IP, and Goose Gossage who played 22 yrs pitched a total of 1809.3IP (even if you minus his mostly a starter 1976 season with the CWS 224IP) you get 1585.3IP.

These days it is not so impressive, even Mariano only has 999.3IP (with 174IP as mainly set-up man) in 14 yrs.

To be fair Trevor Hoffman (another sure HOFer) only has 975IP over 16 yrs.

If the BBWAA is going to start letting in these guys, they need to define a save to at least include facing 2 of the 1-5 hitters. Otherwise the HOF should include pinch batters too, and I nominate Gates Brown.

[Zito75]

Interesting discussion, can we move it to the HOF forum?

[tigers527]

Interesting discussion, can we move it to the HOF forum?
But I rarely look there? :D (but do what you mods do)....I thought it a CE with Goose's lone induction this year.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The relief pitcher has changed since the days of Sutter, Gossage and Fingers.
The save has been the same since 1969, pretty much. What has changed is the way pitchers are used to get it. That's not the fault of the pitchers. And, in this day, Rivera has done that better than anyone else.

[bob]

Rivera is without doubt a HOFer, although i dont think many other closers from this era have a big shot. Hoffman has the counting numbers so he'll stand a good chance.

[metfan13]

Rivera - No doubt.

[Afterglow]

Rivera is the best closer of all-time.

There is no doubt in my mind that he is a Hall of Famer.

[PVNICK]

Rivera is among the most dominant players of this generation. He's the very definition fo a Hall of Famer.

[KCGHOST]

By today's thinking Rivera is a stone cold lock for the HoFer. Sure its ridiculous to put a guy in with only 1000 IP's, but with Sutter's election the flood gates are now open. And Rivera has been more dominant than Sutter for a much longer period of time..

[MyDogSparty]

And Rivera has been more dominant than Sutter for a much longer period of time..

Another thing I like about him is that, like Sutter's fork/split finger fastball, he made a certain pitch famous. The "CUT" fastball. They didn't invent them but they made them famous.

Rivera is HOFer without question.

[hellborn]

Mo is a HOFer to me, no question.
No pinch hitter has ever been as important to his team as Mo has been to the Yanks.
Besides, he smiled and laughed when he got a standing O at the Fenway Home Opener in '05...you gotta like a guy like that.
:cap:

[Imgran]

If nothing else, Rivera played a TREMENDOUS role in the Yankee dynasty and should get a boost because of that.

Consider the fact that he isn't even freakin' SLOWING DOWN yet and you have a guy who'll probably get in -- sometime in 2015-2016

[TheMadDog31]

Rivera is the very essence of relief pitching. He is without a doubt the greatest closer of all-time, and has even been mentioned among the greatest pitchers of all-time. Let's just run through his list of accomplishments.

Has the lowest postseason ERA of all-time (0.77 ERA)
Holds the record for most postseason saves of all-time (34)
Holds the record for lowest career adjusted ERA+ of all-time (198)
Holds the record for lowest career ERA among closers with 150 saves (2.30)
Holds MLB record for for consecutive scoreless postseason innings (34 1/3)
Holds MLB record for most consecutive postseason saves converted (23)
One of just two pitchers to have 40 or more saves in six different seasons
Third all-time in career saves, second among active closers (469)
One of two pitchers to record 400 saves with one team
One of two pitchers to record 50 or more saves in two seperate seasons
Holds MLB record for two-inning postseason saves (12)
Holds American League record for career saves (469)
Holds MLB record for World Series saves (9)
Holds MLB record for lowest ERA in division series history (0.38)
Only reliever to win ALCS MVP (2003) and World Series MVP (1999) awards
Holds MLB record for most seasons with 20+ saves and a sub-2.00 ERA (11)
9-time All-Star ('97, '99, '00, '01, '02, '04, '05, '06, '08)
4-time World Series champion ('96, '98, '99, '00)
Holds MLB record for most appearences in postseason (76)
Yankees all-time leader in WHIP (1.03), saves (469), and appearences (830)
One of two pitchers to saves three All-Star games ('97, '05, '06)
Only pitcher to close out three World Series

That's a lot of accomplishments. Not to mention the fact that he has quite possibly the single most devastating pitch in the history of baseball. Now, Trevor Hoffman may be the all-time saves leader, but he blows up in the big situations and right now as I see it, Rivera is the only truly sure Hall of Fame reliever right now. Hoffman will probably get in, as will Billy Wagner some day.

[deadball-era-rules]

I know my opinion of Rivera probably won't be the popular one, but here's my thoughts on the situation. Rivera is one of the premier closers of his generation, no doubt, but honestly I would never cast a HOF vote for any reliever, ever. Holy cow he went out there and threw two innings last night, did you see that?! He's pitched almost 80 innings this season, what a work horse! I'm just not impressed by closers. Same goes for DH's. When Ortiz gets voted in along with Rivera I won't be sure whether to laugh or scoff.

[sturg1dj]

the slope is becoming more slippery every year with the hall of fame.

Fingers
Sutter
Gossage


Rivera
Hoffman


Lee Smith
Tom Henke
Billy Wagner
John Franco
Jeff Reardon
Randy Myers

These men were the best at a legitimate position, but yet they weren't all-round players. You could go a 4-game series and not face any of these guys while you would have to face a starter once.


Is Mariano the reason for the Yankees' success or is his status because he was a great pitcher who was in the right place at the right time. What if Billy Wagner was pitching for the Yanks this whole time and Rivera had been traded to the Tigers back in the mid-90's? Would Rivera's skills have transcended the quality of his team?

These are important points.

[TheMadDog31]

Holy cow he went out there and threw two innings last night, did you see that?!

I would like to see you try it. Especially in the nerve racking situations that he has had to pitch in. Getting three outs with men on base in the deciding game of the World Series is extremely tough.

He's pitched almost 80 innings this season, what a work horse!

Yeah they may pitch only 80 innings, but that generally comes from pitching in 80 games. More often than not, closers will do their job one day, and then come back out the next day and the next day and the next. Unlike starters nowadays, closers are not pampered. They obviously don't throw as many innings as they used, but compared to starters who only go five or six innings and only have to pitch every five days, closers are used for many days at a time.

I'm just not impressed by closers.

For the kind of situations that a lot of them have to pitch in, I am very impressed by closers.

Same goes for DH's. When Ortiz gets voted in along with Rivera I won't be sure whether to laugh or scoff.

So, what you're saying is that Rivera doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame at all?

[Mattingly]

Let me move this to the Cooperstown forum.

Zito, can ya hold that wayward Tigers fan down for me 'tik I get there? I didn't see him praise Mo the great sufficiently. :D

[TheMadDog31]

Is Mariano the reason for the Yankees' success or is his status because he was a great pitcher who was in the right place at the right time.

Mariano is one of the many reasons why the Yankees were successful during their run. I honestly don't think that the fact that Rivera pitched for the Yankees made him as good as he is, but it did obviously have an effect on his career. If he had played for a subpar team in his prime, his stats would more than likely be different.

What if Billy Wagner was pitching for the Yanks this whole time and Rivera had been traded to the Tigers back in the mid-90's?

I don't think Billy Wagner is a very good comparison because Wagner has had an extremely successful career himself. Like I said, teams have some effect but they don't have how good the player is. Skills are skills.

Would Rivera's skills have transcended the quality of his team?

They may have, but we don't know that, so we definetly can't say for sure.

These are important points.

Indeed they are, but they don't have sure answers. We can assume that if someone like Wagner closed for the Yankees, his career would have been like Rivera's, but we can also assume that they are two totally different pitchers and only Rivera could have the kind of success that he has had. You bring up some extremely good points.

[Mild Sauce]

He obviously deserves to be in the hall, the question I have is if he's actually better than Hoffman. If you reverse the teams between the two I guarantee that it's Hoffman that's considered the best closer ever. However, there's not much behind that since things are the way they are.

[sturg1dj]

Mariano is one of the many reasons why the Yankees were successful during their run. I honestly don't think that the fact that Rivera pitched for the Yankees made him as good as he is, but it did obviously have an effect on his career. If he had played for a subpar team in his prime, his stats would more than likely be different.



I don't think Billy Wagner is a very good comparison because Wagner has had an extremely successful career himself. Like I said, teams have some effect but they don't have how good the player is. Skills are skills.



They may have, but we don't know that, so we definetly can't say for sure.



Indeed they are, but they don't have sure answers. We can assume that if someone like Wagner closed for the Yankees, his career would have been like Rivera's, but we can also assume that they are two totally different pitchers and only Rivera could have the kind of success that he has had. You bring up some extremely good points.


I chose Wagner for that exact reason. He has had a fine career...an excellent career. But he is not discussed the same way as Rivera. Switch the teams and we would be talking about Wagner being the greatest...or Hoffman.

[parlo]

He obviously deserves to be in the hall, the question I have is if he's actually better than Hoffman. If you reverse the teams between the two I guarantee that it's Hoffman that's considered the best closer ever. However, there's not much behind that since things are the way they are.I strongly disagree.

Hoffman: 2.79ERA, 4.02 LGE ERA, 144 ERA+
Rivera : 2.30ERA, 4.54 LGE ERA, 197 ERA+

[Fuzzy Bear]

If we're going to assume that relievers are more than guys who aren't good enough to start, then, yes, Rivera is a HOFer.

I think he's a lot better than many of the relievers proposed. He's about even with Hoffman, and might surpass him eventually.

I doubt very much that Rivera would have been a successful starter, but that's water over the dam now. The floodgates for relievers have been opened, and I doubt there'll be any turning back.

[Los Bravos]

Anyone who thinks Trevor Hoffman should be mentioned in the same breath with Rivera has spent too much time in the sun. I know the very concept of "clutch" is disdained around here, but one of them has come through time and time again in important situations and the other has failed in them, over and over.

[STLCards2]

As pure closers, Rivera and Gossage are the only pitchers which are easy HOF guys for me. Wilhelm and Eckersley threw so many innings in various roles, that they are far past the HOf mark as well.

Like fuzzy, I am not sure what to make out of the Hoffmans, Fingers, Smiths, Quizenberrys, Sutters, Wagners, and Fracnos of the world. I have them ranked pretty high, but am strongly considering lowering all of them for the reasons Fuzzy mentioned.

[henrich]

As pure closers, Rivera and Gossage are the only pitchers which are easy HOF guys for me. Wilhelm and Eckersley threw so many innings in various roles, that they are far past the HOf mark as well.

Like fuzzy, I am not sure what to make out of the Hoffmans, Fingers, Smiths, Quizenberrys, Sutters, Wagners, and Fracnos of the world. I have them ranked pretty high, but am strongly considering lowering all of them for the reasons Fuzzy mentioned.

I think Hoffman, Rivera, Lee Smith definitely get in with Franco right on the borderline just in. I have Randy Myers just out, and at this time Billy Wagner needs to do a lot more to get in.

[Dodgerfan1]

I agree that it's silly to induct someone with only 1000 IP in the Hall of Fame, but that precedent has pretty much been set now. It's almost as if the voters feel obligated to induct at least one player every year, deserving or not. The quality of HOF players over the past several years has gone the way of television and public education. Way downhill in a hurry. So we're voting closers into the HOF? Fine. If that's the case, then I suppose Rivera belongs, too.

But he really doesn't.

[SamtheBravesFan]

We can't just deny a player from the Hall of Fame because he plays a role we don't care for: a one inning or less closer or a DH especially. This means we have to ask: Who is the best of that kind of player?

[Dodgerfan1]

We can't just deny a player from the Hall of Fame because he plays a role we don't care for: a one inning or less closer or a DH especially. This means we have to ask: Who is the best of that kind of player?

Oh, I don't know about this, personally. If Designated Runner Herb Washington had stolen a ton of bases, some of them very important, would you consider him for the HOF? Not me. Too one dimensional. Those guys don't belong, IMO. Pinch-hitters too. No dice.

[TheMadDog31]

I think Hoffman, Rivera, Lee Smith definitely get in with Franco right on the borderline just in. I have Randy Myers just out, and at this time Billy Wagner needs to do a lot more to get in.

I don't think Hoffman should get in on the first ballot. Lee Smith, in my opinion, doesn't deserve to get in at all. John Franco is one of the greatest left-handed closers of all-time, and he definetly deserves to get in. Randy Myers' career ERA is pretty high for a reliever and I don't think he should get in.

Billy Wagner needs to do more? He's already possibly the greatest left-handed closer ever.

However...and this is a big however, he can easily be compared to Hoffman in the playoffs. He has blown up many times. So many that his ERA in his playoff career is a miserable 8.71. And that is exactly why I think that if you put Billy Wagner in a Yankees uniform and had him pitch in the situations that Rivera pitched in, the Yankees wouldn't have won four World Series.

[TheMadDog31]

We can't just deny a player from the Hall of Fame because he plays a role we don't care for: a one inning or less closer or a DH especially. This means we have to ask: Who is the best of that kind of player?

Exactly.

And Mariano Rivera is the definition of the closer.

[highpockets]

As a thought experiment, suppose in Rivera's prime conditions were such that a trade for him was feasible. Assuming the contract and other issues balance out, what position player might the two GM's agree on?

[tigers527]

So far it has not reached a point where someone wholly undeserving has gotten in, but sooner or later it will. As pitchers become more and more specialized there will be some stat "cherry picker" that gets in based on shear number of saves, while not even pitching a years worth of innings in his career (1458 innings not including lost innings from 9th inning leads of home team, rainouts etc...).

Sooner or later the Football Hall of Fame will elect a punter/kicker too. They put everyone in there and have yet to put in any of that "specialist".

[tigers527]

Exactly.

And Mariano Rivera is the definition of the closer.
I contend that Mariano is the Tony LaRussa definition of closer, as before him most closers worked up to 3 innings for the save. I am not slighting Mariano, I am just saying things are different now, and Riveria has been the BEST of this era, times being what they are.

[TheMadDog31]

I contend that Mariano is the Tony LaRussa definition of closer, as before him most closers worked up to 3 innings for the save. I am not slighting Mariano, I am just saying things are different now, and Riveria has been the BEST of this era, times being what they are.

Yeah, I completely understand what you're saying, but I still believe that Rivera is hands-down the greatest closer in the history of baseball. Just based on what he's done for the Yankees organization and his inhuman performance in the playoffs, I would definetly take him over any other pitcher you give me in the big situations.

[sturg1dj]

I think you need to put an * next to his name and stats because he had Tommy John surgery and came back and his arm was stronger. Players who played before the surgery happened didn't have the luxury of having it, and we're not even sure they would have opted for it since they were so much more natural then the players today.

all players who have had Tommy John surgery should have an * next to their names.



I hope you get what I am saying here

[cavalier1968]

Yeah, I completely understand what you're saying, but I still believe that Rivera is hands-down the greatest closer in the history of baseball. Just based on what he's done for the Yankees organization and his inhuman performance in the playoffs, I would definetly take him over any other pitcher you give me in the big situations.

Mad dog, do you think Rivera is as valuable as Maddux?

Cav

[Brad Harris]

all players who have had Tommy John surgery should have an * next to their names.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[hellborn]

I think you need to put an * next to his name and stats because he had Tommy John surgery and came back and his arm was stronger. Players who played before the surgery happened didn't have the luxury of having it, and we're not even sure they would have opted for it since they were so much more natural then the players today.

all players who have had Tommy John surgery should have an * next to their names.

I hope you get what I am saying here

All of those guys who didn't have to play against black players and didn't have to play at night should get *s, also.
Do you get what I'm saying?

[tigers527]

Yeah, I completely understand what you're saying, but I still believe that Rivera is hands-down the greatest closer in the history of baseball. Just based on what he's done for the Yankees organization and his inhuman performance in the playoffs, I would definetly take him over any other pitcher you give me in the big situations.
Personally, I would take 1984 Willie Hernandez after all he pitched 140+ innings that season.

I was being a little tongue in cheek there, I know you mean entire career, and for that you are right.

[tigers527]

I think you need to put an * next to his name and stats because he had Tommy John surgery and came back and his arm was stronger. Players who played before the surgery happened didn't have the luxury of having it, and we're not even sure they would have opted for it since they were so much more natural then the players today.

all players who have had Tommy John surgery should have an * next to their names.



I hope you get what I am saying here
Personally, I think Tommy John deserves to be in the HOF for simply holding down the "most career wins after Tommy John surgery" for as long as he now has. Even without that, he is still pretty close to the HOF IMO, but with that little fact he should get in for changing the game.

[parlo]

Personally, I think Tommy John deserves to be in the HOF for simply holding down the "most career wins after Tommy John surgery" for as long as he now has. Even without that, he is still pretty close to the HOF IMO, but with that little fact he should get in for changing the game.Perhaps we should induct TOMMY JOHN SURGERY into the HOF.
That might help open the door for TOMMY JOHN to be inducted later on.

Oh boy, I am really getting off topic now.

Back to Rivera. I dont buy into the idea that he is only good because he played for the Yankees. His numbers are better. If anything, its the other way around. A big part of the Yankees success in their championship run was Rivera.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Oh, I don't know about this, personally. If Designated Runner Herb Washington had stolen a ton of bases, some of them very important, would you consider him for the HOF? Not me. Too one dimensional. Those guys don't belong, IMO. Pinch-hitters too. No dice.

It's not the same thing. A closer has much more impact than a pinch-hitter, who appears in the game just once, sometimes twice if his team bats around in an inning. Even if it is just for one out (for the record, I don't like garbage saves), the closer IS finishing the game. There is a little value in that. If a closer finishes lots of games on a consistent basis with so few runs given up, then that should be applauded.

Herb Washington was an anamoly. Even if he was good enough to steal bases for 20 years, he wouldn't have had as much as, say, Otis Nixon.

In effect, what has been happening is that we are penalizing for an era where the roles of players are different. We can't compare Rivera directly to Goose Gossage because they played in different times: Rivera comes in for just one inning: Gossage usually went two or three because it was common in the time to do so. Even Bruce Sutter did that too as late as the mid 1980s with the Braves. Why should Rivera be penalized because he is told to just pitch one inning?

[gman5431]

I think eventually there will be way to many 1 inning relievers in the HOF. The closer is one of the more over rated "positions" in baseball IMO. I think Gossage and Sutter were marginal HOFers at best and i only give them a benefit of the doubt because they werent 3 out-only pitchers. The 3 out 3 run save cheapens things for me. I think Rivera and Hoffman are slam dunks for the HOF. I think eventually, over time, other semi-deserving relievers will get in also.

G Man

[parlo]

It's not the same thing. A closer has much more impact than a pinch-hitter, who appears in the game just once, sometimes twice if his team bats around in an inning. Even if it is just for one out (for the record, I don't like garbage saves), the closer IS finishing the game. There is a little value in that. If a closer finishes lots of games on a consistent basis with so few runs given up, then that should be applauded.

Herb Washington was an anamoly. Even if he was good enough to steal bases for 20 years, he wouldn't have had as much as, say, Otis Nixon.

In effect, what has been happening is that we are penalizing for an era where the roles of players are different. We can't compare Rivera directly to Goose Gossage because they played in different times: Rivera comes in for just one inning: Gossage usually went two or three because it was common in the time to do so. Even Bruce Sutter did that too as late as the mid 1980s with the Braves. Why should Rivera be penalized because he is told to just pitch one inning?Keep in mind Rivera has been used in big games and post season games for more than one inning a fair number of times. Its still not the same role as Rollie Fingers, but Rivera is not the cheap save specialist that some closers have been.
On a side note, take a look sometime at Tug McGraws and Fingers IP in the 1973 World Series. Its amazing how much they were used.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Sooner or later the Football Hall of Fame will elect a punter/kicker too. They put everyone in there and have yet to put in any of that "specialist".

Yes, actually, they should. The punter and kicker are the equivalents of the crazy uncle in the attic no one talks about. It's long overdue for them.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think eventually there will be way to many 1 inning relievers in the HOF. The closer is one of the more over rated "positions" in baseball IMO. I think Gossage and Sutter were marginal HOFers at best and i only give them a benefit of the doubt because they werent 3 out-only pitchers. The 3 out 3 run save cheapens things for me. I think Rivera and Hoffman are slam dunks for the HOF. I think eventually, over time, other semi-deserving relievers will get in also.

G Man

A lot of good releivers have been off the ballot after one year. Based on that, I don't share your concern. Gossage and Sutter were regarded as among the very best of their time, as was Fingers, as was Wilhelm, as was Eckersley. When guys like Jeff reardon, Dan Quisenberry and Randy Myers get dumped so quickly, there's no reason to believe we're due for a flood. Outside of Rivera and Hoffman, maybe Billy Wagner has a shot. I don't see anyone else, including John Franco, as being close.

[Dodgerfan1]

We can't compare Rivera directly to Goose Gossage because they played in different times: Rivera comes in for just one inning: Gossage usually went two or three because it was common in the time to do so. Even Bruce Sutter did that too as late as the mid 1980s with the Braves. Why should Rivera be penalized because he is told to just pitch one inning?

I don't think Rivera, in particular, should be penalized for anything. I just don't believe the very one-dimensional position of closer, by its very nature, lends itself to HOF consideration. It's nothing personal against any of the players themselves.

I have been notorious on these boards for being a stickler as regards HOF qualifications. I think only great players belong. As far as closers go, Rivera is great. Unfortunately, I don't think that position is one that is deserving of Hall of Fame recognition (DH either, for that matter), so I don't believe any of them belong. I prefer to induct complete ballplayers.

[DoubleX]

I don't think Hoffman should get in on the first ballot. Lee Smith, in my opinion, doesn't deserve to get in at all. John Franco is one of the greatest left-handed closers of all-time, and he definetly deserves to get in. Randy Myers' career ERA is pretty high for a reliever and I don't think he should get in.

You'd put Franco in before Hoffman and Smith? Franco can be one of the most overrated relievers, IMO. There's a sentiment out there that he's an all time great closer, but he really is the epitome of the one inning (or less) closer, picking up a ton of easy saves. In the last 15 years of his career, he did not once pitch more than 70 innings. Not once. Just 3 times did he even reach 60 innings or more. How can a guy be a dominant closer when he rarely pitches even 60 innings? In his 14 seasons with the Mets, he averaged 50 IP per year.

Then his WHIP is all the way up at 1.33 and his ERA+ is 137 in 1245 IP, which is not that impressive for a supposedly dominant closer.

[Paul Wendt]

>>
In effect, what has been happening is that we are penalizing for an era where the roles of players are different. We can't compare Rivera directly to Goose Gossage because they played in different times: Rivera comes in for just one inning: Gossage usually went two or three because it was common in the time to do so. Even Bruce Sutter did that too as late as the mid 1980s with the Braves. Why should Rivera be penalized because he is told to just pitch one inning?
<<

Baseball Fevrists recognize lots of eras. I was a "paper boy" in 1968 and 1969. Those were the nicknamed "year of the pitcher" and the celebrated professional baseball centennial. In 1969 there were rule changes (trim the mound from 15" to 10", trim the strike zone from armpits to letters), expansion by four teams and two divisions, introduction of playoffs. How many baseball "eras" have I lived through?

Rollie Fingers pitched once for Oakland in 1968: four outs, four runs. Next year he pitched sixty games. Today he is in the Hall of Fame. Three more recent pitchers have entered the Hall of Fame too.

Last first,
1876-05-09 Bruce Sutter
1875-04-12 Dennis Eckersley
1872-04-16 Rich Gossage
1868-09-15 Rollie Fingers

That isn't the list of relief pitchers, that's the list of pitchers.

Keep in mind Rivera has been used in big games and post season games for more than one inning a fair number of times. Its still not the same role as Rollie Fingers, but Rivera is not the cheap save specialist that some closers have been.

On a side note, take a look sometime at Tug McGraws and Fingers IP in the 1973 World Series. Its amazing how much they were used.
At the same time A's lefty Darold Knowles worked in all 7 games. Maybe they should put Dick Williams in the Hall of Fame.

Fingers worked in 6, 6, and 4 World Series games for the Finley A's, sitting out one in each Series.

As far as closers go, Rivera is great. Unfortunately, I don't think that position is one that is deserving of Hall of Fame recognition (DH either, for that matter), so I don't believe any of them belong. I prefer to induct complete ballplayers.
The voters seem to share that sentiment regarding the starting pitchers.


Retrosheet provides split career records for all players in my eras.
For examples,
Knowles faced about 3100 righty batters, 1400 lefty
Franco faced about 4000 righty, 1200 lefty (not many jobs to go get one lefty batter)

I don't have time to put such numbers in context. Eg, in leagues with more switch-hitters, lefty pitchers face more righty batters.

[highpockets]

Here's another way to look at it: Both Mariano Rivera and Bernie Williams started out with the Yankees. When they got into their peak earning years, the Yankees paid Rivera around $10 million a year over the past 7 years. Over a similar span, they paid Bernie Williams a little over $12 million.

Do these figures seem out of line? If not, is someone worth 5/6 of Bernie Williams a Hall of Famer?

Of course Rivera isn't done yet, and many things besides player worth go into player contracts, but except for their specific roles, their situations with the Yankees were similar.

[jjpm74]

As a thought experiment, suppose in Rivera's prime conditions were such that a trade for him was feasible. Assuming the contract and other issues balance out, what position player might the two GM's agree on?

That's a moot point. Rivera has already announced his intention to retire a Yankee and the Yankees have already given him a contract to ensure that. But if that unlikely scenario ever happened, it'd take someone like CC Sabathia or Roy Halladay to entice the Yankees to trade away a closer as valuable as Rivera.

Oh, I don't know about this, personally. If Designated Runner Herb Washington had stolen a ton of bases, some of them very important, would you consider him for the HOF? Not me. Too one dimensional. Those guys don't belong, IMO. Pinch-hitters too. No dice.

Except that Herb Washington isn't being asked to come into a 1 run game with the World Series on the line and runners on second and third with no one out to get 6 outs. Rivera is and knows how to pitch in those situations better than anyone else in the game. That's what makes him a HOFer. I agree with you that a pinch hitter or pinch runner has no place in the HOF. Where I disagree is the belief that relievers are one dimensional players with no value.

Given the comments of some folks in this thread, I'm getting the impression that at least a few people haven't seen Rivera come into a tight and important game. I'd like Rivera's detractors to name one closer in the history of the game who has been more effective in important situations.

[Dodgerfan1]

Given the comments of some folks in this thread, I'm getting the impression that at least a few people haven't seen Rivera come into a tight and important game. I'd like Rivera's detractors to name one closer in the history of the game who has been more effective in important situations.

Not sure if you saw it, but I addressed this in a previous post. As a closer, Rivera is one of the greatest of all-time. I just don't believe that closers, being as one-dimensional as they are, belong in the HOF, regardless of how good they are at it.

[highpockets]

That's a moot point. Rivera has already announced his intention to retire a Yankee and the Yankees have already given him a contract to ensure that. But if that unlikely scenario ever happened, it'd take someone like CC Sabathia or Roy Halladay to entice the Yankees to trade away a closer as valuable as Rivera.

Yes, it's just a mental exercise to estimate Rivera's value and the merits of the "greatest closer ever" vs "no closers never" positions. That's why I wrote "in Rivera's prime."

Who's a non-closer you'd swap for Rivera? Is that player a Hall-of-Fame type player? To keep it honest, you don't know whether you're trading him or trading for him.

That seems to me to be an easier way to get an intuitive fix on his value than comparing him to Sutter, Maddux, or Herb Washington, who come into the discussion because they are different in value.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Not sure if you saw it, but I addressed this in a previous post. As a closer, Rivera is one of the greatest of all-time. I just don't believe that closers, being as one-dimensional as they are, belong in the HOF, regardless of how good they are at it.

They're pitchers with a specific duty, finishing up the game and ensuring the opposition doesn't come back and win it. I would call that specialized, not one-dimensional. A bot more important than pinch-runners. Although I'm sure there are some who feel Dave Roberts belongs.

I'd swap an all-star caliber middle infielder who can hit, like Chase Utely, for a closer of Rivera's ilk.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I
I have been notorious on these boards for being a stickler as regards HOF qualifications. I think only great players belong. As far as closers go, Rivera is great. Unfortunately, I don't think that position is one that is deserving of Hall of Fame recognition (DH either, for that matter), so I don't believe any of them belong. I prefer to induct complete ballplayers.

That's what I'm talking about. Closers may be overrated in a general sense, and I believe they are, but that doesn't make them any less deserving.

[jjpm74]

Not sure if you saw it, but I addressed this in a previous post. As a closer, Rivera is one of the greatest of all-time. I just don't believe that closers, being as one-dimensional as they are, belong in the HOF, regardless of how good they are at it.

You say relievers are one dimensional. Please explain how Rivera is a one dimensional player.

[Dodgerfan1]

You say relievers are one dimensional. Please explain how Rivera is a one dimensional player.

I don't know how else to say it. Closers come into a game, get three outs, and their day is done. They don't hit. They don't run. Sure, they have to field their positions but that's not my point. I would think the statement speaks for itself, but there you are.

[highpockets]

Another way of getting a line on Rivera's value: During Rivera's remarkable run, from 1996 to 2006, the Yankees were 47 games over their pythagorean projection (their expected record based on their runs scored and allowed). They were under once, by one game, in '97. In '04 they were 12 games over. Nobody's that lucky.

Teams outperform their pythagorean projection when they do better than expected in high-leverage situations ("when the game is on the line") and worse than expected in low leverage situations (e.g. in blowouts).

Granted, a closer is not always used when the leverage is highest, but he isn't used in low-leverage situations either. Either some of that remarkable record is due to Rivera's performance as a closer, or it's a remarkable coincidence.

In 2007, when Rivera posted a so-so 3.15 ERA, the Yankees were 3 games under their pythagorean projection--and two games out of first place.

[jjpm74]

I don't know how else to say it. Closers come into a game, get three outs, and their day is done. They don't hit. They don't run. Sure, they have to field their positions but that's not my point. I would think the statement speaks for itself, but there you are.

The only problem with that is you are wrong. Rivera frequently comes in to get 5 or 6 outs, comes in in tie games, comes in with the winning run on 2nd and the tying run on 3rd with no one out and has pitched 3+ innings several times in relief when it was needed.

[henrich]

I think this an excellent piece of data to prove the point of Rivera's worth.

Another way of getting a line on Rivera's value: During Rivera's remarkable run, from 1996 to 2006, the Yankees were 47 games over their pythagorean projection (their expected record based on their runs scored and allowed). They were under once, by one game, in '97. In '04 they were 12 games over. Nobody's that lucky.

Teams outperform their pythagorean projection when they do better than expected in high-leverage situations ("when the game is on the line") and worse than expected in low leverage situations (e.g. in blowouts).

Granted, a closer is not always used when the leverage is highest, but he isn't used in low-leverage situations either. Either some of that remarkable record is due to Rivera's performance as a closer, or it's a remarkable coincidence.

In 2007, when Rivera posted a so-so 3.15 ERA, the Yankees were 3 games under their pythagorean projection--and two games out of first place.

[Los Bravos]

I don't know how else to say it. Closers come into a game, get three outs, and their day is done. And those are just like any other random outs in the game? No pressure, nothing on the line?

Anyone who can maintain that a closer is unimportant and that the role could be filled by any competent pitcher, (or, as often seems to be suggested around here, pretty much any random warm body) is someone who has never had to watch a team try to function, especially in postseason, without one.

[JessePopHaines16]

Rivera is the best postseason closer ever and ranks among the leaders in career saves during the regular season. How can he not be a hall of famer?

[Fuzzy Bear]

And those are just like any other random outs in the game? No pressure, nothing on the line?

Anyone who can maintain that a closer is unimportant and that the role could be filled by any competent pitcher, (or, as often seems to be suggested around here, pretty much any random warm body) is someone who has never had to watch a team try to function, especially in postseason, without one.

It comes down to this, IMO: A starting pitcher is FAR more likely to be able to perform a reliever's job than a relief pitcher is likely to perform a starting pitcher's job.

There are several reasons why talented pitchers are channelled into relief roles:


They have an excellent "out" pitch (usually a fastball), but the rest of their stuff is limited (often to only two pitches).

They have issues with arm stamina.

They have issues with injuries and durability.

[parlo]

>>
In effect, what has been happening is that we are penalizing for an era where the roles of players are different. We can't compare Rivera directly to Goose Gossage because they played in different times: Rivera comes in for just one inning: Gossage usually went two or three because it was common in the time to do so. Even Bruce Sutter did that too as late as the mid 1980s with the Braves. Why should Rivera be penalized because he is told to just pitch one inning?
<<

Baseball Fevrists recognize lots of eras. I was a "paper boy" in 1968 and 1969. Those were the nicknamed "year of the pitcher" and the celebrated professional baseball centennial. In 1969 there were rule changes (trim the mound from 15" to 10", trim the strike zone from armpits to letters), expansion by four teams and two divisions, introduction of playoffs. How many baseball "eras" have I lived through?

Rollie Fingers pitched once for Oakland in 1968: four outs, four runs. Next year he pitched sixty games. Today he is in the Hall of Fame. Three more recent pitchers have entered the Hall of Fame too.

Last first,
1876-05-09 Bruce Sutter
1875-04-12 Dennis Eckersley
1872-04-16 Rich Gossage
1868-09-15 Rollie Fingers

That isn't the list of relief pitchers, that's the list of pitchers.


At the same time A's lefty Darold Knowles worked in all 7 games. Maybe they should put Dick Williams in the Hall of Fame.

Fingers worked in 6, 6, and 4 World Series games for the Finley A's, sitting out one in each Series.


The voters seem to share that sentiment regarding the starting pitchers.


Retrosheet provides split career records for all players in my eras.
For examples,
Knowles faced about 3100 righty batters, 1400 lefty
Franco faced about 4000 righty, 1200 lefty (not many jobs to go get one lefty batter)

I don't have time to put such numbers in context. Eg, in leagues with more switch-hitters, lefty pitchers face more righty batters.Thats absurd!
Darrel Knowles made an appearance in all 7 games, but Fingers and McGraw put in lots of innings for relievers. You obviously didnt look at the gamelogs

[parlo]

Here's another way to look at it: Both Mariano Rivera and Bernie Williams started out with the Yankees. When they got into their peak earning years, the Yankees paid Rivera around $10 million a year over the past 7 years. Over a similar span, they paid Bernie Williams a little over $12 million.

Do these figures seem out of line? If not, is someone worth 5/6 of Bernie Williams a Hall of Famer?

Of course Rivera isn't done yet, and many things besides player worth go into player contracts, but except for their specific roles, their situations with the Yankees were similar.I am not sure that is the best argument. George Foster and Bobby Bonnila were both the highest paid players at one time. That doesnt mean they were the most valuable

[highpockets]

I am not sure that is the best argument. George Foster and Bobby Bonnila were both the highest paid players at one time. That doesnt mean they were the most valuable
In Bonilla's case I'd guess it was when he was signed by the Mets as a free agent. He took a cut in his next contract. I don't know Foster's salary history, but I imagine his went down as well.

I'm not saying that salaries are always a good indicator of value. Rivera and Williams do invite comparison: Each broke in with the Yankees and played for them throughout his prime. Not "at one time," but over the length of their peak earning years, each signed a couple of contracts, and the Yankees, at any rate, thought Bernie was worth more.

It's hard to get a handle on the value of a closer. It's obviously NOT the best argument; it's just one piece of evidence.

[Los Bravos]

It comes down to this, IMO: A starting pitcher is FAR more likely to be able to perform a reliever's job than a relief pitcher is likely to perform a starting pitcher's job.

There are several reasons why talented pitchers are channelled into relief roles:


They have an excellent "out" pitch (usually a fastball), but the rest of their stuff is limited (often to only two pitches).

They have issues with arm stamina.

They have issues with injuries and durability.
I can't say I disagree with any of that, but I still don't see it as being any sort of major argument against the role of closers.

I wasn't really talking about the points you raise, anyway. As I said, all of them are sound. I doubt Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera would have been especially spectacular starters.

My main point is that that one inning that so many people seem to think is no big deal is often the most important one in the game and there seems to be a lot of support around here for the recently in vogue idea that pitchers out of the pen are essentially interchangeable and everyone stands about the same chance of success or failure, which I find quite absurd.

[JDD]

Not only do I think he is a HOFer, I can imagine him sliding into Cooperstown on no more than three tries.

[TheMadDog31]

Mad dog, do you think Rivera is as valuable as Maddux?

Cav

This is impossible to answer. Rivera is a closer. Maddux is a starter. It is impossible to compare the two.

The two are arguably the best of their position, and if I want a guy to start a game and completely dominate, I'm taking Maddux. If it's the ninth inning in the deciding game of the World Series, Rivera goes in.

[White Knight]

After a somewhat rough first month (understandable, considering he is a 39 year old coming off rotator cuff surgery), he is back in form dominating. Arguably still the best closer in baseball, he totally showed up a much younger K-Rod last month. Does anyone still believe he doesn't deserve to get into the HOF?

[BC227]

I think Mariano deserves to be voted in, no questions asked.

I know the bulk of this thread is a year old, but I want to know what this "complete" ballplayer jazz is all about. I can understand someone not liking the DH for it being a rule change, yadda yadda yadda - but really, to detract from a guys talent because he plays a certain position I think is wrong. Is Rivera less talented because he so perfectly fills the bill and is the best at a position that is today viewed as very important, even if this position was not viewed as important in the past?

Views of the game change (homeruns weren't important before Ruth) - the closer is considered very important today, and the guy who plays this position better then anyone in history should certainly be enshrined.

To only conduct "complete" players is ridiculous. Ted Williams is in - is he "complete" just because he took up space in the outfield and thought about hitting as his team attempted to play defense? Are all A.L. pitchers in the last 30 years disqualified for not being "complete" because they don't go to the plate and wave a bat around foolishly three times a game? A "complete" player hall of fame would have about 5 guys in it, maybe. The players who excel far and away in certain areas get rewarded, you don't need to excel at all of them to be enshrined.

I consider myself lucky to have been able to witness a great baseball talent like Mariano Rivera in my lifetime and I happily await his future hall of fame induction.

[sturg1dj]

I only like 2 Yankees....Mariano and Jorge Posada....and watching the 9th innings this weekend vs. the Tigers left me both angry and in awe...the man is amazing!

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Not only do I think he is a HOFer, I can imagine him sliding into Cooperstown on no more than three tries.

He's first ballot ALL THE WAY. I would be money he's over 82% in his first year of eligibility. Probably around 85%

[brett]

Rivera is the best closer of all-time.

There is no doubt in my mind that he is a Hall of Famer.

True and easily. Hoffmann was never as good, and no one else was able to close even at a good level for 15 years.

I will state though that I consider him to be a closer (like you said)-not a reliever. I make a distinction here. A reliever was a pitcher who typically replaced the starter in a close game, often in the middle of the 7th or 8th.

[dominik]

Of course he is a HOFer. the value of a single relief pitcher is limited, but if not rivera no reliever should ever go to the hall. He is the best reliever ever by far.

I know some traditionalists love complete games and hate relievers and everyone likes to say how much tougher the old guys where.

But relief ist now a big part of the game and will be forever. The game has developed, get over it. If it would really make sense to let starters pitch 9 innings every start managers would do it, they are no idiots.

Of course pitchting 5 innings is bad also, but relief has improved the quality of pitching and they need to because the hitters are much better(not better than babe ruth, but better than the SS or C from babes team). there are simply no easy outs today so that pitching is more challenged.

Relief pitching has won(and lost) many WS and pennants in the last 25 years, so it's time to accept relievers as a part of the game and give them their credit they deserve. Times have changed...

Plus: he's a yankee and probably the most famous pitcher in yankees history. This will get him in even easier. The will be an easy first ballot HOFer.

[brett]

Rivera has pitched 546 innings in his 500 saves. Hoffman has had 577 innings in his 575 saves.

In contrast, Gossage had 310 saves and pitched only a little under 500 in those games. Fingers had over 540 innings in his 341 saves. Quiz had 422 innings in his 244 saves.

I think that innings pitched in saves is much more important than actual saves, especially considering that the longer the appearance, the harder it is to keep the save (80% used to be phenomenal when guys were pitching 2+ innings a lot).

I would much prefer that a save be called a "close". Its not really "relieving" anyone now in most cases. The relief pitcher used to be the guy who relieved the starter in a close game, and usually with men on base.

Rivera should get in, but 300 saves in the 70s and 80s was still more significant than 500 saves today. Fingers had almost exactly as many innings in his saves as Hoffman has had in his, plus Fingers had more blown saves because he had to last longer.

A save should be when a guy comes in with the tying run on base and gets out of the inning, or with the tying run at bat and goes at least 1 out more than 1 full inning, or with the tying run on-deck and goes 2 1/3 or more.

(and doesn't give up the lead, whether he finishes the game or not).

A guy could get just a save, just a close, or both.

[STLCards2]

Despite having done a lot of research on WPA, I am still having a difficult time deciding how much leveraging a reliever should be credited with. If leveraging is not considered, Mivera, or any other "closer" would have very little case of getting into the HOF (with the exception of Eck, who received half of his value as a starter). If you leverage Mo as much as WPA does, he is in the same career-value league as guys like Palmer, Marichal, Mussina, Glavine, Schilling, Jenkins and others.

I bet the truth is somewhere in the middle. However, despite whatever I may believe, the HOF itself, popular opinion, many Sabermetric sources, and baseball legacy/lore, have all agreed that closers have a place in the HOF. I will submit to their viewpoint of the validity of HOF closers. I will put them in my personal HOF based on how the top closers relate to each other and not necessarily to starters.

That being said, if any closer is deserving, it is certainly Rivera - who is the best "closer" the game has ever seen.

[brett]

One formula "projects" what starters would do as relievers and approximately, if done in reverse would say that in terms of difficulty, Rivera is about equivalent to a guy with 2500 IP and a 132 ERA+ or about 4300 IP and a 116 ERA+. Its not based on value of course.

[STLCards2]

One formula "projects" what starters would do as relievers and approximately, if done in reverse would say that in terms of difficulty, Rivera is about equivalent to a guy with 2500 IP and a 132 ERA+ or about 4300 IP and a 116 ERA+. Its not based on value of course.

Do you have a source for this formula? I would love to check it out.

[White Knight]

He's first ballot ALL THE WAY. I would be money he's over 82% in his first year of eligibility. Probably around 85%

Ha, I can't believe someone earlier had said it will take him three tries. I agree, first year, but I say in the area of 95%.

[dominik]

One formula "projects" what starters would do as relievers and approximately, if done in reverse would say that in terms of difficulty, Rivera is about equivalent to a guy with 2500 IP and a 132 ERA+ or about 4300 IP and a 116 ERA+. Its not based on value of course.

When you go for strict value a closer can't compete with a starter, because he pitches less than half the inning of a starter per season.
But should you really punish them for that? I agree that the standards for a closer should be higher than for a starter because their task is somewhat "easier".

But they are a part of the game and they decide games. A closer who has 70 appearances can easily win or loose a PO spot with getting 5 sv more or less.
You should give him some credit for the high pressure situation, a shutout in the 9th puts a higher pressure on you than a shutout inning in the 2nd. Having that pressure day after day should not be underestimated, even if the work done every day is not that big.

No position in baseball that is that crucial for deciding many games and championships should be ruled out from the HOF even if the strict sabermetric value.

Plus I think that the impact in winning games of rivera is not as little as one might think.

A great starter wins 20 games, a bad starter wins 10 games. So he creates 10 games+ value in a season.

Mariano might come close to getting ten more save(with a comparable amout of opportunities) than a bad closer.

Does anyone have statistics on this?(how many saves does a bad closer blow more than mariano)

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

When you go for strict value a closer can't compete with a starter, because he pitches less than half the inning of a starter per season.
But should you really punish them for that? I agree that the standards for a closer should be higher than for a starter because their task is somewhat "easier".

But they are a part of the game and they decide games. A closer who has 70 appearances can easily win or loose a PO spot with getting 5 sv more or less.
You should give him some credit for the high pressure situation, a shutout in the 9th puts a higher pressure on you than a shutout inning in the 2nd. Having that pressure day after day should not be underestimated, even if the work done every day is not that big.

No position in baseball that is that crucial for deciding many games and championships should be ruled out from the HOF even if the strict sabermetric value.

Plus I think that the impact in winning games of rivera is not as little as one might think.

A great starter wins 20 games, a bad starter wins 10 games. So he creates 10 games+ value in a season.

Mariano might come close to getting ten more save(with a comparable amout of opportunities) than a bad closer.

Does anyone have statistics on this?(how many saves does a bad closer blow more than mariano)

Good post. I don't hear relievers get enough credit for the high-pressure, make-it-or-break-it situations they constantly pitch in. Getting those 3 big outs in the ninth is of greater consequence than getting those outs in the first, second or third no doubt. Granted, the bar should be set much higher with all the advantages RP's have, but they still belong in the HOF.

For me, a good (albeit subjective) reference point for RP HOF candidacy would be: at least 15 years of ERA 1.25+ better than league average & save percentage >90% or hold percentage >90% or combination thereof. I believe this year will be Rivera's 14 consecutive outstanding year, fitting all the criteria above, except that his ERA is usually 1.7-2.9 BETTER than league average - every year. Combine this with his historic postseason results and his HOF place is already cemented.

[brett]

Do you have a source for this formula? I would love to check it out.

It was baseball prospectus. I'll try to find the way that the formula appears. They actually based it on the effects of batter familiarity and situational differences, and then they took I believe 100 pitchers who went from starters to relievers and got the same results.

They also predict that an average ML starter would have a 128 ERA+ as a reliever with 40% as many innings.

Unfortunately that would make Gossage equivalent to a 100 ERA+ over 4600 innings. That still is not a terrible estimate as far as considering him as a hall of famer. Matt has his DNRA relatively better, and an average ERA+ for a starter is actually around 97 for his career I think. Plus, as the actual length of each appearance grows the adjustment should fall. ERA+ in 2 inning appearances has got to be higher than in 1 inning appearances. And he started a little.

I also remember by the way Ron Guidry moved to the bullpen one year, and was phenomenal.

Here's the wierd value v. greatness thing. BBPro estimates that most relievers came from a pool of basically about 90 ERA+ starters, but relievers SAVE RUNS because they get an immediate edge in only having to face a batter one time per game so they save about 7-11% runs. Its kind of like having a #5 starter with a 90 ERA+. He's not a great pitcher but he's worth a lot to a team.

[brett]

When you go for strict value a closer can't compete with a starter, because he pitches less than half the inning of a starter per season.
But should you really punish them for that? I agree that the standards for a closer should be higher than for a starter because their task is somewhat "easier".

But they are a part of the game and they decide games. A closer who has 70 appearances can easily win or loose a PO spot with getting 5 sv more or less.
You should give him some credit for the high pressure situation, a shutout in the 9th puts a higher pressure on you than a shutout inning in the 2nd. Having that pressure day after day should not be underestimated, even if the work done every day is not that big.

No position in baseball that is that crucial for deciding many games and championships should be ruled out from the HOF even if the strict sabermetric value.

Plus I think that the impact in winning games of rivera is not as little as one might think.

A great starter wins 20 games, a bad starter wins 10 games. So he creates 10 games+ value in a season.

Mariano might come close to getting ten more save(with a comparable amout of opportunities) than a bad closer.

Does anyone have statistics on this?(how many saves does a bad closer blow more than mariano)


In today's game, 90% is the gold standard, and I'd say 70% would be horrible. 80% is not that special today, but maybe acceptable. If he goes 40-5 and a struggling team is getting 31-14 in those situations, that's pretty good (though a blown save is not necessarily a loss).

One thing is that saves always come in wins. From a win-shares perspective, you could argue that a reliever should have his value based on the wins that he participates in.

Also, is there a strategic or psychological advantage to a team to have an automatic guy? Does it give the starter confidence? Does it let his team play for 1 run sometimes because of the marginal value.

I mean, if nothing else, Rivera is just rarely used in blowout games either way. Just cut those extreme meaningless innings off of the top and the value has to rise a little.

[SABR Matt]

You don't need any of this leverage index doo doo to see Rivera's HOF worthiness. From a strict value-based assessment, once you recognize that greatness is not linear in wins created but pythagorean in equivalent winning percentage, then you must realize that Rivera is a slam dunk first ballot HOFer. His career 191 DNRA+ is #1 all time for any pitcher with at least 3000 outs.

[dominik]

You don't need any of this leverage index doo doo to see Rivera's HOF worthiness. From a strict value-based assessment, once you recognize that greatness is not linear in wins created but pythagorean in equivalent winning percentage, then you must realize that Rivera is a slam dunk first ballot HOFer. His career 191 DNRA+ is #1 all time for any pitcher with at least 3000 outs.

Wow. Don't really know what you are talking about, but sounds impressive.:D

[SABR Matt]

DNRA is my play by play based defense independent pitching metric...DNRA+ is like ERA+ only ignoring the influence of the fielders and the parks. Basically, a career 191 DNRA+ is the equivalent of allowing half as many runs as your league for your entire career. Which is a phenomenal accomplishment.

[Paul Wendt]

They also predict that an average ML starter would have a 128 ERA+ as a reliever with 40% as many innings.

Unfortunately that [in reverse] would make Gossage equivalent to a 100 ERA+ over 4600 innings. That still is not a terrible estimate as far as considering him as a hall of famer. Matt has his DNRA relatively better, and an average ERA+ for a starter is actually around 97 for his career I think. Plus, as the actual length of each appearance grows the adjustment should fall. ERA+ in 2 inning appearances has got to be higher than in 1 inning appearances. And he started a little.

Rich Gossage played one full season as a starting pitcher and it was a disaster for his career rate statistics. That was 1976, comprising 29 of his 37 career starts, when he pitched 224 innings (one-eighth of career 1809) at ERA+ 91. His eight other starting assignments were during his first three years 1972-74, when he worked mainly in relief, another 220 total innings, and he was not very good.

He did not start in 1975 or 1977-94.
ERA+ innings
212 : _141 : 1975
146 : 1224 : 1977-94

[STLCards2]

DNRA is my play by play based defense independent pitching metric...DNRA+ is like ERA+ only ignoring the influence of the fielders and the parks. Basically, a career 191 DNRA+ is the equivalent of allowing half as many runs as your league for your entire career. Which is a phenomenal accomplishment.

You are right about Rivera - question is, without leveraging, is there any other reliever besides Rivera and Eckersley (with starting included) that has DNRA marker value of a legit HOFer?

[brett]

Rich Gossage played one full season as a starting pitcher and it was a disaster for his career rate statistics. That was 1976, comprising 29 of his 37 career starts, when he pitched 224 innings (one-eighth of career 1809) at ERA+ 91. His eight other starting assignments were during his first three years 1972-74, when he worked mainly in relief, another 220 total innings, and he was not very good.

He did not start in 1975 or 1977-94.
ERA+ innings
212 : 141 : 1975
146 : 1224 : 1977-94


I must say that that makes him look a lot more impressive. That's about a 1400 inning period with better than a 146 ERA+. His 126 overall really makes him look less impressive.

Eckersley also looks better when his innings are split. A 116 ERA+ for 3200 innings is probably below a statistical hall of fame borderline, but if you double either his time as a starter OR his time as a reliever, he is has a pretty good case either way.

[STLCards2]

I must say that that makes him look a lot more impressive. That's about a 1400 inning period with better than a 146 ERA+. His 126 overall really makes him look less impressive.

Eckersley also looks better when his innings are split. A 116 ERA+ for 3200 innings is probably below a statistical hall of fame borderline, but if you double either his time as a starter OR his time as a reliever, he is has a pretty good case either way.

Without even fully leveraging his reliever numbers, Eck has 58 WAR, which seems well into HOF range.

[brett]

You are right about Rivera - question is, without leveraging, is there any other reliever besides Rivera and Eckersley (with starting included) that has DNRA marker value of a legit HOFer?

Wilhelm has to. 146 ERA+ for 2200 innings.

Thinking about Rivera, lets just take his DNRA+ of 191. That means he allowed about half as many runs as a starter in those innings, or saved half as many as a starter would allow. If he saved only 1/3 as many runs per inning for 3x as many innings you get a value equivalent to 3200 IP and a 120 DNRA+ which still looks borderline to me-probably in, but not.

Or a 191 DNRA+ for 1060+ innings would be like cutting the oppositions runs in half for 120 complete games. I don't really get it. It looks to me like a team that allowed only half the average runs for 120 games would win only about 20 or so more (about 80-20) than 50%. Now if you distribute the same runs saved over 800 games, it comes out to more like 50-55 wins.

How do you tell the win value (PCA wins) of someone like Rivera without taking into mathematical account how many actual games the saved runs occur over? Or does PCA take that into accout?

[brett]

Without even fully leveraging his reliever numbers, Eck has 58 WAR, which seems well into HOF range.


I know that, I'm just saying that when you combine starting and relief innings and ERA+ the combined totals don't seem to look as impressive.

[STLCards2]

Wilhelm has to. 146 ERA+ for 2200 innings.

[/B]


Yeah, but I sometimes don't inlcude him in the "reliever as we currently see it" category since he pitched so many multi-inning games. I agree that his inlusion should be definite. He even started full time a couple of seasons, right? I know he did one year and was not suprisingly fantastic. I guess I should be asking if Hoffman, Smith, Gossage, Fingers, Sutter, Quizenebrry, Franco, Wagner, etc. would be anything near the HOF without leveraging.

[Paul Wendt]

Rich Gossage played one full season as a starting pitcher and it was a disaster for his career rate statistics. That was 1976, comprising 29 of his 37 career starts, when he pitched 224 innings (one-eighth of career 1809) at ERA+ 91. His eight other starting assignments were during his first three years 1972-74, when he worked mainly in relief, another 220 total innings, and he was not very good.

He did not start in 1975 or 1977-94.
ERA+ innings
212 : _141 : 1975
146 : 1224 : 1977-94

Brett replied, "I must say that that makes him look a lot more impressive. That's about a 1400 inning period with better than a 146 ERA+. His 126 overall really makes him look less impressive."

Here let me take it a step further.
1809.3 126 Rich Gossage, career '72-94
Innings ERA+
443.0 81 mixed '72-74 and starting '76 roles
974.7 184 pure relief, prime seasons '75, '77-85
391.7 104 pure relief, '86-94

[Paul Wendt]

How much does it matter whether Roger Clemens could have been a relief pitcher like Mariano Rivera or the Panamanian Devil could have been a starting pitcher like the Rocket? Suppose I guess the probabilities are 20% for Clemens and 1% for Rivera, or 50% and 0%. What next?

Someone recently asked about ranking Paul Waner and Roberto Clemente, among others. Suppose we judge that Waner and Clemente were both great rightfielders but Waner alone could have been a great centerfielder. How should we account for that?

[Paul Wendt]

Or a 191 DNRA+ for 1060+ innings [Rivera] would be like cutting the oppositions runs in half for 120 complete games. I don't really get it. It looks to me like a team that allowed only half the average runs for 120 games would win only about 20 or so more (about 80-20) than 50%.
I suppose you mean 100-20 or 96-24 (80%-20%), so 40 or 36 wins above .500.

Now if you distribute the same runs saved over 800 games, it comes out to more like 50-55 wins.

How do you tell the win value (PCA wins) of someone like Rivera without taking into mathematical account how many actual games the saved runs occur over? Or does PCA take that into accout?
crucial question

[dominik]

Of course his era (or DRNA) is much lowe than a starter but we can't compare that because he only has to pitch one inning.

But then again we shouldn't calculate his value down to a starting job. A starter has also many "easy" innings when his team is down or ahead by a lot.

Mariano on the other hand comes only in in game deciding, high pressure and close game situations. That's a big difference and we wouldn't know how a starter would do under this situation. The he has a better chance than other way round is obvious.

Thus we shouldn't try to calculate how Marianos value would have translated to a starter.

Closer is a different position, we wouldn't ask how ted williams would have done a a catcher, don't we?

[SABR Matt]

Wilhelm has to. 146 ERA+ for 2200 innings.

Thinking about Rivera, lets just take his DNRA+ of 191. That means he allowed about half as many runs as a starter in those innings, or saved half as many as a starter would allow. If he saved only 1/3 as many runs per inning for 3x as many innings you get a value equivalent to 3200 IP and a 120 DNRA+ which still looks borderline to me-probably in, but not.

Or a 191 DNRA+ for 1060+ innings would be like cutting the oppositions runs in half for 120 complete games. I don't really get it. It looks to me like a team that allowed only half the average runs for 120 games would win only about 20 or so more (about 80-20) than 50%. Now if you distribute the same runs saved over 800 games, it comes out to more like 50-55 wins.

How do you tell the win value (PCA wins) of someone like Rivera without taking into mathematical account how many actual games the saved runs occur over? Or does PCA take that into accout?

PCA accounts for playing time...not game counts. Rivera is given about 250 outs per year on average...that's the thing PCA picks up. Keep in mind that a marginal run value is based directly on out counts (the playing time metric for a baseball game)...the more outs you make, the more runs we expect you to allow 9or score if you're a batter). So if Rivera accumulated the same number of marginal runs but did so over more outs pitched, his value would be the same, but his DNRA+ would drop considerably. Remember value is not linear...it's pythagorean. The more innings you pitch, the harder it is to keep your DNRA+ up, the more runs we expect you to allow and the easier it gets to allow 50 runs fewer than expected (50 RSAA) or prevent 50 offense-equivalent marginal runs.

If you took Mo's marginal run value in the DNRA database and spread it over 3200 innings instead of 2000-ish, his DNRA+ would probably drop all the way down into the 130s or 120s even...and his DNRA marker score would suffer (because he wasn't as far above average even accumulating the same marginal value).

[Paul Wendt]

I think brett means that that approach seems flawed.

If one pitcher saves 1/2 run in one inning 600 times and another saves 3 runs in six innings 100 times, isn't the first a more valuable performance?

Opportunities do not occur just as one may wish but the manager can ensure that perhaps 500 of those 600 short outings are opportune.

[SABR Matt]

That would be the lone argument for using leverage index to adjust reliever value. That certainly should be considered if you are trying to numerically explain team wins...but should that be used to rate the pitching skill for any particular player? The argument would have to rest on high-leverage pitching being more stressful and therefore requiring a workload adjustment similar to the one I would give to a starting pitcher for throwing a lot more innings than other candidates for the hall. The reliever cannot control what leverage he gets...that's a team factor controlled by the manager, the reliever partially (the better you are, the more you'll get used when it matters most), and the rest of his team (there have to be close, winnable games for you to pitch in).

[STLCards2]

That would be the lone argument for using leverage index to adjust reliever value. That certainly should be considered if you are trying to numerically explain team wins...but should that be used to rate the pitching skill for any particular player? The argument would have to rest on high-leverage pitching being more stressful and therefore requiring a workload adjustment similar to the one I would give to a starting pitcher for throwing a lot more innings than other candidates for the hall. The reliever cannot control what leverage he gets...that's a team factor controlled by the manager, the reliever partially (the better you are, the more you'll get used when it matters most), and the rest of his team (there have to be close, winnable games for you to pitch in).

I see you are a big WPA fan! :laugh

[Paul Wendt]

blahblah said,
"The most valuable player ever in baseball. He may be right."


add (close of inning 11 top)
But he's no Cliff Lee. They don't let him bat.

[White Knight]

How he got out of that inning was amazing. Yes, he mad a bad throw, but he got himself out of the mess with all ground balls.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Mariano Rivera is just an incredible pitcher period. What an unbelievable post season resume: 8-1; 0.72 ERA; 77 H in 125 IP; 0.766 WHIP; only 2 HR allowed. I mean, it doesn't get any better than that. I doubt this performance from anybody with over 100 IP can ever be topped.

[whoisonit]

re: this must be yankee radio;
blahblah said,
"The most valuable player ever in baseball. He may be right."



Yes that is yankee radio, ugh. The blowhard homer, sounding as if he were having an orgasm because Rivera, the closer, escaped an inning without allowing a run to score, finished his climax by reverently informing his victim listeners " a friend of mine, from the sport, has characterized Mariano Rivera as The Most Valuable Player in Baseball History. He may be right !".

[White Knight]

re: this must be yankee radio;


Yes that is yankee radio, ugh. The blowhard homer, sounding as if he were having an orgasm because Rivera, the closer, escaped an inning without allowing a run to score, finished his climax by reverently informing his victim listeners " a friend of mine, from the sport, has characterized Mariano Rivera as The Most Valuable Player in Baseball History. He may be right !".

That wasn't just any inning, that was a major jam.

[PVNICK]

Didn't he exacerbate the jam by throwing wildly to third? And at any rate a lot of credit should go Tex's way. Imagine if Giambino was still at 1B.

[EdTarbusz]

I found it ironic that the most valuable player in MLB history was pulled for a pinch-hitter.

[White Knight]

Didn't he exacerbate the jam by throwing wildly to third? And at any rate a lot of credit should go Tex's way. Imagine if Giambino was still at 1B.

Yes he did. But he did get himself out of it. Tex is amazing, he also helped a lot. Only Donnie played a better Yankee defense in my lifetime.

[dgarza]

Yes he did. But he did get himself out of it. Tex is amazing, he also helped a lot. Only Donnie played a better Yankee defense in my lifetime.Tino Martinez was right up there. And (depending on how old you are) Chris Chambliss played some GG 1B.

[White Knight]

Tino Martinez was right up there. And (depending on how old you are) Chris Chambliss played some GG 1B.

I'm 36. I think Tex is better at defense than Tino. I forgot about Doug Mientkiewicz though, he was amazing.

[whoisonit]

I found it ironic that the most valuable player in MLB history was pulled for a pinch-hitter.

This made me laugh ! :clapping

[Bravesfan1984]

Even though I am not a big fan of putting relievers in the HOF Rivera defintly should go due to his dominace in the regular and postseason.

[Los Bravos]

And (depending on how old you are) Chris Chambliss played some GG 1B.Yes, he did :nod:

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Yanks are about to win the WS with Rivera on the mound, so he will, in all likelihood, be adding to his legend.

Mariano's a HOFer, and a 1st ballot pick, I predict.

[White Knight]

The Yanks are about to win the WS with Rivera on the mound, so he will, in all likelihood, be adding to his legend.

Mariano's a HOFer, and a 1st ballot pick, I predict.

Not only is he 100% certain to be 1st ballot HOFer, but he is going in with 95%+ of the the vote.

[J W]

Yeah; I think the only thing to debate at this point is where Rivera would place among pitchers in MLB history, including starting pitchers. And that's a difficult argument to quantify.

Rivera is the #1 closer in the history of baseball... and the only relief pitcher with a case against him is the ageless Hoyt Wilhelm.

[brett]

I think Hoffman, Rivera, Lee Smith definitely get in with Franco right on the borderline just in. I have Randy Myers just out, and at this time Billy Wagner needs to do a lot more to get in.

I put in Wilhelm and Eck for their combined work as starters and relievers.

And I put Rivera in. No one had compared to his dominance for as long even though he is really a "closer". Gossage would be the only real career "fireman" in the hall then and he probably deserves it. He has a 127 ERA+ for around 1800 innings but his ERA+ gets dominated by a couple of early developmental years as a starter (because the higher innings take over his rates).

He had a 139 ERA+ for nearly 1600 innings starting in '75 and a 146 ERA+ for over 1200 innings starting in '77. 155 for over 1000 innings from '77 though '89.

I would not put in anyone else, and definitely not Sutter, or Fingers or Smith. Hoffmann may deserve it on record setting.

[PVNICK]

I put in Wilhelm and Eck for their combined work as starters and relievers.

And I put Rivera in. No one had compared to his dominance for as long even though he is really a "closer". Gossage would be the only real career "fireman" in the hall then and he probably deserves it. He has a 127 ERA+ for around 1800 innings but his ERA+ gets dominated by a couple of early developmental years as a starter (because the higher innings take over his rates).

He had a 139 ERA+ for nearly 1600 innings starting in '75 and a 146 ERA+ for over 1200 innings starting in '77. 155 for over 1000 innings from '77 though '89.

I would not put in anyone else, and definitely not Sutter, or Fingers or Smith. Hoffmann may deserve it on record setting.

Why down on Fingers? Sutter gets a lot of flak but he had only a 10 year career total so I can see that.

[J W]

I don't get it either. To me it's either both Gossage and Fingers, or neither. They are each other's most similar pitcher.

[PVNICK]

Its not really just Brett, i've seen it whenver the topic gets discussed.

[dgarza]

I would not put in anyone else, and definitely not Sutter, or Fingers or Smith. Hoffmann may deserve it on record setting.If Hoffman may deserve on record setting (a 4 year feat), then Fingers and Smith should as well (12+ year feats).

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Just taking another look at Rivera's post season escapes is a thing to behold. This past playoffs, he pitched 16 IP only yielding 1 ER and 10 hits. For his career, he is now 8-1 in 133 IP with 39 SV and an 0.773 WHIP! I don't think they'll ever be a more dominant showing over similar innings in my lifetime - all done in the most crucial game situations and often more 1 2/3 innings or more.

It's been asked many times before but I still haven't found the answer: How can someone who throws the same pitch over & over continue to dominate hitters so thoroughly? I'm still dumbfounded by his results considering a batter only has to look for 1 pitch. That cut fastball is probably the single most dominant pitch by any pitcher in baseball history.

[Ace Venom]

I would not put in anyone else, and definitely not Sutter, or Fingers or Smith. Hoffmann may deserve it on record setting.

If you wouldn't put Lee Smith in for having the career saves record at one point, then there's zero reason to put Hoffmann in just because he has it. It certainly didn't help Lee Smith's case when he held the record, only to be passed by Hoffmann and later Rivera. As it stands, I would throw Hoffmann in there as well as Smith. Rivera to me is a no brainer.

[dgarza]

Mariano's off to a great "start"!

How have pitchers fared through their 1000th IP season?

Cnt Player ERA+ IP From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+-----+
1 Mariano Rivera 199 1023.2 1995 2008 25-38
2 Mordecai Brown 158 1172.2 1903 1907 26-30
3 Joe Wood 155 1001.2 1908 1912 18-22
4 John Clarkson 153 1231.2 1882 1886 20-24
5 Dan Quisenberry 150 1036.2 1979 1989 26-36
6 Trevor Hoffman 147 1042 1993 2009 25-41
7 John Franco 147 1000.2 1984 1998 23-37
8 Kid Nichols 146 1302.1 1890 1892 20-22
9 Bob Caruthers 146 1293.1 1884 1887 20-23
10 Al Spalding 146 1159.2 1871 1873 20-22

[brett]

If Hoffman may deserve on record setting (a 4 year feat), then Fingers and Smith should as well (12+ year feats).

Hoffman is better than Fingers, Smith or Sutter.

Fingers has a 119 ERA+. Relievers as a group are historically in the 120s!

Fingers IP/ERA+ stretches
1701/119
1377/130
1137/134
Career WHIP: 1.156
Saves: 341

Smith
1289/131
1007/136
Saves 478

Gossage
1198/156
1315/149
1590/139

Sutter
890/152
1042/136

Quisenberry
726/171
895/162
1043/146

Hoffman
1042/147
952/153
Career WHIP: 1.041
Saves 591

Some comparisons:

1) Quiz matches Sutter in IP with a better ERA+ 146 to 136.

2) Quiz and Hoffman are two of just 7 pitchers not in the hall who are not topped by anyone outside the hall in both IP and ERA+. The list:

Blylevin, Kevin Brown, Schilling, Quiz, SJ Wood, Hoffman, Rivera

Hoffman has extended the record by over 100. He has been the first to 500 and will be the first to 600. 4 years ago I never would have voted for him, but when someone continues to be effective beyond expectations it improves their case.

I still would stick with this:

Mixed roles:
Eck and Wilhelm deserve it but need their relief and starting time.

Closers:
Rivera is by FAR the most dominant CLOSER ever. He deserves it. Hoffman is FAR behind. Smith might be as good. I'll grant that Smith could probably have had almost 600 saves in the current short save environment. Neither should be in based on value, but Hoffman is an active pitcher extending the record. OK lets say neither.

Firemen: (guys who put out rallies, and literally saved games with 1+ innings of work primarily)

Gossage has a hall of fame stretch
1198/156
1315/149
1590/139
which is held down by a few early developmental years as a starter. He is by FAR the best of the 1+ save men-well Wilhelm was probably as good as a fireman and also proved he was a good starter.

[J W]

Good call on Quisenberry. One day perhaps the new Vet Committee will take a close look at his career.

[J W]

Just taking another look at Rivera's post season escapes is a thing to behold. This past playoffs, he pitched 16 IP only yielding 1 ER and 10 hits. For his career, he is now 8-1 in 133 IP with 39 SV and an 0.773 WHIP! I don't think they'll ever be a more dominant showing over similar innings in my lifetime - all done in the most crucial game situations and often more 1 2/3 innings or more.

It's been asked many times before but I still haven't found the answer: How can someone who throws the same pitch over & over continue to dominate hitters so thoroughly? I'm still dumbfounded by his results considering a batter only has to look for 1 pitch. That cut fastball is probably the single most dominant pitch by any pitcher in baseball history.

As a lifetime Oriole fan, I anxiously await the day that Mariano Rivera announces his retirement.

[dgarza]

Fingers has a 119 ERA+. Relievers as a group are historically in the 120s!

Actually, this is too high of an estimate.

80% of career as a reliever:

1500+ IP = median 115-116 ERA+

1000+ IP = 112 ERA+

500+ IP = 109 ERA+

250+ IP = 105 ERA+

100+ IP = 101 ERA+

[beisbolfiebre]

Future Famer - no doubt, there.

[RyanExpress30]

In a word, YES. In three words, without a doubt.

[dabigyankeeman]

If the point of this thread is to ask whether or not Mariano Rivera is a hall of famer, than this is really thread is a moot point (no offense to the starter of the thread or the posters here), because if anybody ever deserved to be in the hall, its Mo.

As to other relievers getting in the hall, i think you have to judge each player by comparing them to the players who also played that position, so therefore i think more relief specialists should be in the hall.