Best Reliever 04-09: Joe Nathan?

[micsmith]

Just looking over Joe Nathan's peak years, which seem to be 2004-this season and he really looks to be the best closer in baseball over that period. I would even go further and say he has been the best relief pitcher in baseball over that period. Hoffman, K-Rod, Lidge, Rivera, Billy Wagner are all close, but Nathan looks to be the best all-around.

I belive he has the lowest ERA of the bunch over those seasons. He has blown very few saves and has a ton of strikeouts. And he is right up there in total saves. I have always thought Nathan was very underrated and he has not gotten as much attention as he deserves, but now I think if he can continue for a couple more years, then I would have to say the best relief pitcher over a stretch like that should be considered for the Hall.

Take a look at his stats and tell me if you think he has been one of, if not the best, reliever since 2004.

[Brad Harris]

Best ERA+ of any pitcher in history (min. 80 IP) from age 27 thru age 34 seasons. Five more years like the last five and I'd say he's Hall material. Whether he ages as well as Rivera though remains to be seen.

[Fielding Marshall]

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

As Brad pointed out, Nathan's ERA+ stats are ridiculous. Did you know, for instance, that since becoming the Twins' closer in 2004, Nathan has only once recorded an ERA+ below 230? (2005, when he recorded a "mere" 165) In fact, if you remove 2005 and 2007, Nathan has not recorded an ERA+ below 283.

Last year, Nathan managed a healthy 305 (a career high), and so far this year, he's upped the ante to 338. I think it's safe to say that barring injury, he's not slowing down.

Nathan has also regularly struck out over a batter an inning, and his WHIP has only once topped 0.99 (in 2007, by 0.02). He's also kept his walk and HR rates to minimum.

In that span, only Rivera and Papelbon come close, and each falls short IMO. Rivera is closest, but his ERA+ numbers aren't quite at Nathan's level, his WHIP has topped 0.99 one more year than Nathan (and by a higher margin), and his K/9 stats fall below Nathan's standards. Papelbon's case is different, but he's pretty much in the same boat (and performs less consistently).

Not only would I say Nathan's the best reliever since 2004, but I'd argue he's in the midst of the best 6 year stretch of any reliever in the Eckersley era. If he can keep this up for the next 4-5 seasons, there's going to be the question of who was better, Nathan or Rivera.

And yes, it looks like he's headed to the Hall at some point.

[KCGHOST]

You need to get a grip here. Nathan Has been fabulous since 2003, but to start arguing he is better than Mariano is a bit much. Joe is in his 7th consecutive season of excellence, but Mariano is in his 14th consecutive season. Joe's career 159 OPS is stellar but pales in comparison to Rivera's 199. And Joe only has 650+ IP's to Mariano's 1050+.

Nobody is going to the HoF with just 650 IP's.

[RuthMayBond]

Papelbon, anyone? probably not enough IP

[Paul Wendt]

You need to get a grip here. Nathan Has been fabulous since 2003, but to start arguing he is better than Mariano is a bit much. Joe is in his 7th consecutive season of excellence, but Mariano is in his 14th consecutive season. Joe's career 159 OPS is stellar but pales in comparison to Rivera's 199.
Since he became a relief pitcher and returned to the majors, ERA+ 222 in 470 innings. So it's reasonable to equate his work with Mariano's in quality.

Rivera worked more innings early in his career but not during this time period, so it's reasonable to equate them overall during Nathan's relief career.

But it is only 6-1/2 seasons plus 3-2/3 innings, a comparison with less than half of Mariano's relief career, with Nathan younger.


originally,
if [Nathan] can continue for a couple more years, then I would have to say the best relief pitcher over a stretch like that should be considered for the Hall.
considered, sure.

No, "best over eight seasons" should not be enough to ensure election. First, that is bound to mean "arguably the best" in practice, with two or more people arguably the best. Maybe they will be Nathan and Papelbon for 2004-2011.

Second, there are too many eight-year spans in baseball history, providing too many down times between the careers of the best players, or barely overlapping the career beginnings and ends. No thirdbaseman in the Hall of Fame played a single game 1937-42. Maybe Stan Hack or Harlond Clift should be honored but not simply because he was the best 3Bman over eight seasons 1936-43 or some neighboring span of that length.

For another example look at the periods overlapping the start and the finish of Yogi Berra's time as a regular catcher. Should the "best over eight" catcher for 1960-67 or some neighboring span be honored, perhaps Elston Howard? Not simply for that achievement. Should the "best over eight" catcher for 1942-49 or some neighboring span be honored? Berra and Campanella enjoyed their prime seasons a few years later; Cochrane, Dickey, Hartnett, Ferrell, Lombardi, and Lopez were all in their primes during the 1930s.

[Cougar]

Nathan has been very, very good since 2003. Assuming the rest of 2009 holds to form, he'll have a seven-year peak as good as any closer one would care to stack up against him.

It's time to take notice. Nathan is anonymous up in Minnesota playing in that butt-ugly ballpark, but the usual lifespan for the typical closer's peak is 3-5 years. (In this, they are oddly similar to NFL running backs -- they burn out fast.) There are a lot of guys who are good for that long, and even very good, but then they fall off.

Nathan is now getting beyond that benchmark, and is in the midst of perhaps his best season. He's amassing enough great peak seasons to have a very good HOF argument. If he can get to 300 saves (which should be easy if he stays healthy) and 1000 innings (he'd probably need to be healthy a little longer -- probably through 2014 or so, when he's be nearly 40), I'd call him a lock.

[Fielding Marshall]

You need to get a grip here. Nathan Has been fabulous since 2003, but to start arguing he is better than Mariano is a bit much. Joe is in his 7th consecutive season of excellence, but Mariano is in his 14th consecutive season. Joe's career 159 OPS is stellar but pales in comparison to Rivera's 199. And Joe only has 650+ IP's to Mariano's 1050+.

Nobody is going to the HoF with just 650 IP's.

Actually, here's what I said:

If he can keep this up for the next 4-5 seasons, there's going to be the question of who was better, Nathan or Rivera.


You're right: as good as Nathan's been, it's hard to argue he's necessarily better than a guy who's not only had 14 consecutive years averaging a 199 ERA+, but has also been wildly successful in the postseason. I do think Nathan's been better since 2004, however.

[nerfan]

I don't think Nathan will catch Rivera or Hoyt Wilhelm.

[Cougar]

I don't think Nathan will catch Rivera or Hoyt Wilhelm.

On the other hand, he may blow right by Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter.

[Cougar]

On the other hand, he may blow right by Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter.

I shall now argue with myself. (No, this is not healthy.)

The usage patterns are so different between Wilhelm, Fingers, Sutter, and Rivera that a perfect comparison is hard to do. Nathan's rate statistics would almost certainly not be nearly as gaudy if he were used for two, three, or four innings at a time like Fingers often was. But...he might provide more value that way by pitching more innings.

So I might not want to diss Fingers and Sutter so cavalierly.

[nerfan]

On the other hand, he may blow right by Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter.

Bruce Sutter also had a relatively short career.

[jjpm74]

Joe Nathan is 0-2 with a 7.50 ERA and 1 save in 6 IP in the post season. Mariano Rivera is 8-1 with an 0.77 ERA, and 34 saves in 117.1 IPs in the post season. I don't often bring up post season work, but in this case, Mariano Rivera will get into the HOF on the 1st ballot based on his post season resume + his 14 years of dominance at his position, while Nathan, unless he can stay at his current level of dominance for another decade and shatter, not just break the current saves record will probably be 1 and done.

[Brad Harris]

I don't see what the issue is here, guys. Has anyone in this thread suggested Nathan has a Hall of Fame case similar to Mariano Rivera? If so, I must have missed that point in one of the posts. What's been suggested is that Nathan has been the best reliever in baseball since 2004 and there's a very good argument for that.

While that isn't necessarily sufficient as Nathan's only argument for a Hall case, it is a compelling one and a strong plank in his portfolio when the time comes to make his case. As several of us pointed out earlier, to really take advantage of that, he'll need to maintain this kind of performance another 4-5 seasons.

Nathan hasn't got far to go to surpass second-tier candidates like Tom Henke, John Wetteland or Troy Percival which will certainly put him in the discussion. Are there, even now, ten relievers outside the Hall who are clearly better candidates? I count Rivera, Quisenberry, Hoffman, Wagner, Lyle and Smith as likely filling that role. But name another four who are demonstrably superior candidates. And...assuming Nathan repeats this kind of performance even just 1-2 more seasons. How much further up the list does he move then, much less if he does it until 2013 or 2014?

Finally...Nathan doesn't have to be Mariano Rivera in order to deserve election to the Hall of Fame. I have to disagree with jjpm74 on this point. Another decade of dominance? Shatter the saves record? It's inconceivable to think that a relief pitcher - Nathan or anyone else - is going to need 600-700 saves and 15 years as the game's best closer in order to do better than "one and done" in BBWAA balloting. Maybe not first ballot, but surely more than five percent of the voters will recognize greatness when they see it.

[Brad Harris]

I don't see what the issue is here, guys. Has anyone in this thread suggested Nathan has a Hall of Fame case similar to Mariano Rivera? If so, I must have missed that point in one of the posts. What's been suggested is that Nathan has been the best reliever in baseball since 2004 and there's a very good argument for that.

While that isn't necessarily sufficient as Nathan's only argument for a Hall case, it is a compelling one and a strong plank in his portfolio when the time comes to make his case. As several of us pointed out earlier, to really take advantage of that, he'll need to maintain this kind of performance another 4-5 seasons.

Nathan hasn't got far to go to surpass second-tier candidates like Tom Henke, John Wetteland or Troy Percival which will certainly put him in the discussion. Are there, even now, ten relievers outside the Hall who are clearly better candidates? I count Rivera, Quisenberry, Hoffman, Wagner, Lyle and Smith as likely filling that role. But name another four who are demonstrably superior candidates. And...assuming Nathan repeats this kind of performance even just 1-2 more seasons. How much further up the list does he move then, much less if he does it until 2013 or 2014?

Finally...Nathan doesn't have to be Mariano Rivera in order to deserve election to the Hall of Fame. I have to disagree with jjpm74 on this point. Another decade of dominance? Shatter the saves record? It's inconceivable to think that a relief pitcher - Nathan or anyone else - is going to need 600-700 saves and 15 years as the game's best closer in order to do better than "one and done" in BBWAA balloting. Maybe not first ballot, but surely more than five percent of the voters will recognize greatness when they see it.
Then again, this is the BBWAA we're talking about.

[jjpm74]

Then again, this is the BBWAA we're talking about.

If we're just talking about how far off Nathan is to our own personal hall, he's 3-4 years off for me. Sutter is my cutoff for relievers and Nathan has been dominant for a long enough time to make my personal hall if he can hold on for 3-4 more years and dominate the way he has to this point.

[Brad Harris]

If we're just talking about how far off Nathan is to our own personal hall, he's 3-4 years off for me. Sutter is my cutoff for relievers and Nathan has been dominant for a long enough time to make my personal hall if he can hold on for 3-4 more years and dominate the way he has to this point.
Important distinction. (And agreed.) Thanks. :)

Along those lines...how many here think the BBWAA will eventually elect Lee Smith? Or is he doomed to stay on the ballot 15 years without reaching 75 percent?

[Cougar]

Important distinction. (And agreed.) Thanks. :)

Along those lines...how many here think the BBWAA will eventually elect Lee Smith? Or is he doomed to stay on the ballot 15 years without reaching 75 percent?

Smith may have missed his best chance to get in while he still held the career saves record. He's now ensconced at #3, which, while still impressive, is a lot less compelling.

He's the kind of guy who might make a run at 75% starting in year 12; whether he makes it all the way there, I don't know.

[Fielding Marshall]

I think Smith will make it. The BBWAA seems to be increasingly accepting the role of the closer, and Smith will be the biggest closer candidate for some time. The BBWAA also seems to be looking more favorably upon older candidates due to the "steroid era," and Smith could draw support from that.

Bottom line, I think Smith draws increasing support until he sneaks in on one of his last years.

[NewYork NewYork]

Regular Season
Player G IP ERA+ WHIP K/9 BB/9 S SV% IR IS%
Rivera 381 416.2 228 0.93 8.6 1.5 228 93.1 112 25.0
Nathan 382 388.1 242 0.92 11.0 2.5 225 90.7 49 22.4
K-Rod 388 405.2 200 1.16 11.7 4.1 229 87.7 103 35.0
Paps 241 256.0 261 0.95 10.5 2.2 138 89.0 81 19.8

Post-Season
Player G IP H BB K ERA WHIP
Rivera 15 21.1 12 4 16 0.84 0.75
Nathan 4 5.2 3 5 6 3.18 1.41
K-Rod 10 13.0 17 9 13 4.85 2.00
Paps 16 25.0 10 6 22 0.00 0.64

There's no question about it, Nathan has been amazing since 2004 but I don't think he's been better than Rivera during this time period. He might have a slightly better ERA+ than Rivera, but I think Rivera makes up for it by pitching in tougher situations. Despite pitching in 1 less Game than Nathan during this time period, Rivera has pitched 28.1 more IP. This shows that Rivera comes into the game in the 8th inning much more often than Nathan. Another thing that proves this is the lack of Inherited Runners (number of runners on base when pitcher entered the game), Nathan has a very low total compared to the other elite closers of this era. While he does a very good job at making sure those inherited runners don't score, the lack of IR's in the first place is a knock on Nathan. Nathan simply pitches in easier situations than the other 3 closers on this list. While Rivera, Papelbon, and K-Rod (although not as much as the other two) will go more than 1.0 innings to win a game, Nathan is the definition of a 1 inning only closer.

And that's before we even take into account the post-season where Rivera raised his game to another level while Nathan was mediocre (although this is a small sample size). Nathan is an awesome closer who's currently having a hell of a year but I don't think he's been as good as Rivera since 2004, although he's been close. I think K-Rod, despite being a great closer himself is clearly behind Rivera and Nathan. He's not quite as dominant as the other elite closers, often times making games interesting by walking a couple of batters before getting the job done.

Papelbon is the most interesting candidate though. He didn't truly start until the 2006 season which is why his totals are so much lower than the totals of the other three guys. But he has them all beat if you just go by rate stats, with a ridiculous 261 ERA+ as a reliever. He's also actually been even more dominant than Rivera in the post-season during this time period. Papelbon has an absurd 0.64 WHIP and has allowed 0 ER through his first 25 post-season innings, and his 25 IP in 16 games show that he's gone multiple innings plenty of times. But Papelbon still has a long way to go before we can fairly compare him to Mariano Rivera. Rivera has been doing this for a long long time and has not shown any signs of decline. Papelbon is already showing some signs of decline this year (don't let that 1.71 ERA fool you) and the Red Sox front office has long wodered if Papelbon could last several years, which is why they likely won't go after Papelbon when he becomes a Free Agent in a couple of years (they believe Bard is their future closer).

Since 2004 I'd have to say the Best Closer in Baseball is either Mariano Rivera or Jonathan Papelbon. Papelbon has been the most dominant but has pitched in far less games and innings than the other 3 candidates because he started in 2006. But if you don't believe Papelbon has pitched enough to fairly compare him to the other 3 guys, I'd go with Rivera over Nathan. Despite the slightly better ERA+ and WHIP, Nathan has pitched in easier situations and hasn't made an impact in the post-season like Mo. K-Rod is dominant but I think Nathan has been better than him.

[White Knight]

If he can keep this up for the next 4-5 seasons, there's going to be the question of who was better, Nathan or Rivera.

In 100 years someone might say that some reliever is better than Mo. They'll be wrong, no one will surpass him ever.

He's 39 and STILL in his peak.

[Captain Cold Nose]

In 100 years someone might say that some reliever is better than Mo. They'll be wrong, no one will surpass him ever.

In 100 years, I highly doubt that. If there are legit counter-arguments to Ruth, then, yeah, Rivera can be surpassed. I'm not convinced he's that far ahead of everyone else right now.

[RuthMayBond]

In 100 years someone might say that some reliever is better than Mo. They'll be wrong, no one will surpass him ever.Yep, no one will ever
break Ruth's single-season or career HR record
outsteal Brock
have more strikeouts than Walter Johnson
have more career hits than Cobb
have more consecutive games than Gehrig
:blah::blah:

[White Knight]

In 100 years, I highly doubt that. If there are legit counter-arguments to Ruth, then, yeah, Rivera can be surpassed. I'm not convinced he's that far ahead of everyone else right now.

Mo is better as a reliever than Ruth was as a position player. You can argue (although I disagree) that Bonds, Williams, Cobb, or Wagner were better than Ruth, but it's pretty unanimous that Mo is the best closer in history. No one with any credibility says otherwise.

[mwiggins]

[ Papelbon is already showing some signs of decline this year (don't let that 1.71 ERA fool you) and the Red Sox front office has long wodered if Papelbon could last several years, which is why they likely won't go after Papelbon when he becomes a Free Agent in a couple of years (they believe Bard is their future closer).



While Nathan is not yet showing any signs of decline. At age 34, he's probably having his 2nd best season - unlike Paps, who's been far less dominant this year. Nathan's shown an amazing apptitude, for a closer, to adapt and adjust to stay ahead of hitters. He throws 5 different pitches now on a regular basis. Even as his stuff has become less filthy, he's been able to remain dominant by adding new pitches - like his 2-seamer and cutter - and by making adjustments to how he attacks hitters. He's very much the "anti-Rivera", in terms of style, though he's been nearly as effective.

[mwiggins]

Mo is better as a reliever than Ruth was as a position player. You can argue (although I disagree) that Bonds, Williams, Cobb, or Wagner were better than Ruth, but it's pretty unanimous that Mo is the best closer in history. No one with any credibility says otherwise.

That's apples and oranges. It's also pretty unanimous that Ruth is the best RF ever. Ruth is also usually considered the best position player ever, while I've yet to run across anyone who considers Mo the best pitcher ever.

[White Knight]

Yep, no one will ever
break Ruth's single-season or career HR record
outsteal Brock
have more strikeouts than Walter Johnson
have more career hits than Cobb
have more consecutive games than Gehrig
:blah::blah:

I'm not saying his records won't be broken in 100 years, I'm saying no reliever will be better.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Mo is better as a reliever than Ruth was as a position player. You can argue (although I disagree) that Bonds, Williams, Cobb, or Wagner were better than Ruth, but it's pretty unanimous that Mo is the best closer in history. No one with any credibility says otherwise.

He's the best closer in history. But not by a huge margin. Don't talk about credibility. Your statement that he'll still hold that position in a hundred years isn't the least bit credible. Not to mention how rooted in bias it is. That's another hit on credibility.

[mwiggins]

He's the best closer in history. But not by a huge margin.

And how special is that really? The closer position hasn't really existed for too much of baseball history. Mo hasn't been strictly a 9th inning specialist, but he's pretty much a modern closer in the mold that Eck and Larussa developed back in the late 80's. You can say he's better than Wilhelm, but they didn't play the same position.

[White Knight]

He's the best closer in history. But not by a huge margin. Don't talk about credibility. Your statement that he'll still hold that position in a hundred years isn't the least bit credible. Not to mention how rooted in bias it is. That's another hit on credibility.

A 39 year old having a clean season like this is flat out amazing. He had surgery in November too. The way he showed K-Rod up last month was stunning.

Mo: Gets a four out save.
K-Rod: Gives up a run by walking his superior with the bases loaded.

[Milt on Tilt]

A 39 year old having a clean season like this is flat out amazing. He had surgery in November too. The way he showed K-Rod up last month was stunning.

Mo: Gets a four out save.
K-Rod: Gives up a run by walking his superior with the bases loaded.

Yeah. Not bias at all. Mo drew a walk. Greatest closer there will ever be.

[RuthMayBond]

Yeah. Not bias at all. Mo drew a walk. Greatest closer there will ever be.I'm pretty sure that K-Rod was petrified of Mo's innumerable titanic blasts out of every stadium

[Milt on Tilt]

[code]
There's no question about it, Nathan has been amazing since 2004 but I don't think he's been better than Rivera during this time period. He might have a slightly better ERA+ than Rivera, but I think Rivera makes up for it by pitching in tougher situations.

I'm not going to hold this against Nathan since it's Gardenhire's misuse of his asset. Playoffs though you can put blame on his shoulders.

[Milt on Tilt]

http://www.bb-ref.com/play-index/shareit/CEha

Maybe not the best way of doing it, but I looked at the best modern day performances of a closer from their age 29-34 since Nathan's career pretty much rebooted at 29.

Compares favorably, no? Now just have to find out how Mariano figured out how not to age.

[Captain Cold Nose]

A 39 year old having a clean season like this is flat out amazing. He had surgery in November too. The way he showed K-Rod up last month was stunning.

Mo: Gets a four out save.
K-Rod: Gives up a run by walking his superior with the bases loaded.

How do you know he's clean?

[White Knight]

How do you know he's clean?

If he's not, that would be a major blow to baseball, and the Eck would move back into first place all-time.

[Milt on Tilt]

If he's not, that would be a major blow to baseball, and the Eck would move back into first place all-time.

Eh. Bigger than Manny? Rodriguez? Doubt it.

[White Knight]

Eh. Bigger than Manny? Rodriguez? Doubt it.

Manny was not liked by many, especially after last year in Boston, so it didn't matter much, so yes way bigger than him. A-Rod also had his haters, and certainly doesn't have the squeaky clean image of Mo. Mo, Ripken, Jeter, Nolan, or Cal, all would be huge.

[RuthMayBond]

If he's not, that would be a major blow to baseball, and the Eck would move back into first place all-time.Eck's gotta get in line behind several

[White Knight]

Eck's gotta get in line behind several

Like who? Several better?

[mwiggins]

Like who? Several better?

Hoffman and Quisenberry, to name two. Nathan's certainly on his way, but he needs more innings to match Eck.

And if you're talking all relief pitchers, not just closers, I'd put Wilhelm and Gossage ahead of Eck too.

But Eck certainly rates highly given that he didn't become a closer until he was 32.

[White Knight]

Hoffman and Quisenberry, to name two. Nathan's certainly on his way, but he needs more innings to match Eck.

And if you're talking all relief pitchers, not just closers, I'd put Wilhelm and Gossage ahead of Eck too.

But Eck certainly rates highly given that he didn't become a closer until he was 32.

Yeah, Eck is an interesting case. His peak as a reliever is far above Hoffman, but starting at age 32 it's hard to compete with someone who has nearly 600 saves. Yet to some, Hoffman is still borderline.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Manny was not liked by many, especially after last year in Boston, so it didn't matter much, so yes way bigger than him. A-Rod also had his haters, and certainly doesn't have the squeaky clean image of Mo. Mo, Ripken, Jeter, Nolan, or Cal, all would be huge.

I suggest you talk to member SteveJRogers about how squeaky clean Rivera is. I won't go so far as he does (or the Mets board, as he says) but he's hardly shining brightly. And he's nowhere near the level of Ripken, Jeter or Ryan in terms of popularity or recogniton. That's as far-fetched as the murderer tag that Mets board has hung on him for electrifying his pool, leading to the death of a couple people.

[mwiggins]

Yeah, Eck is an interesting case. His peak as a reliever is far above Hoffman, but starting at age 32 it's hard to compete with someone who has nearly 600 saves. Yet to some, Hoffman is still borderline.

As a Hall of Famer, I'd put Eck ahead of Hoffman for sure. But strickly as a closer, I'd have to rank Hoffman ahead. Though Eck circa 1989/1990 was better than Hoffman ever was, and Mo too, for that matter.

[leecemark]

Important distinction. (And agreed.) Thanks. :)

Along those lines...how many here think the BBWAA will eventually elect Lee Smith? Or is he doomed to stay on the ballot 15 years without reaching 75 percent?

--Do you think Smith should be elected? Personally I think very few relievers will ever belong and Smith is not in their ranks. Wilhelm, Gossage and Eckersley were solid selections. Fingers and Sutter more dubious. Rivera should be a slam dunk. Hoffman deserves consideration. Nobody else makes it for me - even though some do have reasonable arguments as equal to or better than Fingers and Sutter. Nathan may enter that territroy in a few years, but still needs a good long strech of dominance before I'd actually advocate for him.

[RuthMayBond]

Like who? Several better?As far as their relieving career

Wilhelm
Gossage
Smith
Quiz
Franco
Tekulve
Hoffman
Sutter
Fingers
Wagner
Hiller
Doug Jones
Henke
Lyle
Marshall
Orosco
McGraw
Reardon

possibly others

[Freakshow]

What really makes Eckersley a HOFer are his peaks, as a starter 1975-79 (128 ERA+ in 1148 IP) and especially as a reliever 1988-92 (198 ERA+ in 360 IP). Here are his career totals in each role:Role W - L W-L% ERA ERA+ G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK BF WHIP SO/9 SO/BB
SP 149-130 .534 3.71 111 361 361 0 100 20 0 2478.1 2396 1104 1023 268 612 62 1609 56 13 10330 1.214 5.8 2.63
RP 48-41 .539 2.85 136 710 0 577 0 0 390 807.1 680 278 256 79 126 29 792 19 3 3204 0.998 8.8 6.29

[White Knight]

As far as their relieving career

Wilhelm
Gossage
Smith
Quiz
Franco
Tekulve
Hoffman
Sutter
Fingers
Wagner
Hiller
Doug Jones
Henke
Lyle
Marshall
Orosco
McGraw
Reardon

possibly others

I won't go down that whole list, as they are not all closers, but Franco is not better than Eck by a long shot.

[White Knight]

I suggest you talk to member SteveJRogers about how squeaky clean Rivera is. I won't go so far as he does (or the Mets board, as he says) but he's hardly shining brightly. And he's nowhere near the level of Ripken, Jeter or Ryan in terms of popularity or recogniton. That's as far-fetched as the murderer tag that Mets board has hung on him for electrifying his pool, leading to the death of a couple people.

I'd love to hear what he has to say about Mo, haven't heard any negatives ever.

Jeter is more popular, but he has his haters. I know many fans think he is overrated and can't stand him. I have some die-hard Mets fans who feel this way, and all tell me they respect Mo more than anyone on that team.

[RuthMayBond]

I won't go down that whole list, as they are not all closers, but Franco is not better than Eck by a long shot.The thread subject is closers.
And I'm actually including other than peak

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'd love to hear what he has to say about Mo, haven't heard any negatives ever.

Jeter is more popular, but he has his haters. I know many fans think he is overrated and can't stand him. I have some die-hard Mets fans who feel this way, and all tell me they respect Mo more than anyone on that team.

Check this out. Not saying I agree . . .

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84382&highlight=mariano+rivera&page=2

Now, being respected doesn't necessarily make him one of baseball's true icons. He's not at the level of acclaim, on and off the field as Jeter, Ripken or Ryan. It doesn't matter whether they're hated or not. Closers don't get high Q ratings.

[Paul Wendt]

Another October night, two more bad showings, one in the ninth and another in the tenth.
Career playoff record: ten hits, seven walks, seven runs in 7-1/3 innings, seven games.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Another October night, two more bad showings, one in the ninth and another in the tenth.
Career playoff record: ten hits, seven walks, seven runs in 7-1/3 innings, seven games.

Yup, Nathan REALLY blew it last night, giving up the game tying HR to one of baseball worst star clutch performers: Alex Rodriguez. Its going to be very tough for Nathan to make the HOF if he keeps turding out in the post season, even if he does have another 5 or 6 great individual regular seasons.

For Rodriguez however, maybe he can start to put some sort of a PS resume together with that clutch dinger, even though he has a ways to go to reverse previous failures over the past 4 seasons. Given his reputation as non-clutch, I was surprised to learn his aggregate PS numbers are actually pretty good, although significantly lower than regular season performance (which is not that unusual). Really the worst that can be said is that he doesn't rise above in big games, like the true greats do, but his numbers say he doesn't tank either - at least not in the PS.

[micsmith]

One thing that Nathan has over Rivera is:

Rivera never once had to face the Yankees lineup, which pretty much since Rivera was a rookie has been overall the most dominant lineup in the league.

[Paul Wendt]

One thing that Nathan has over Rivera is:

Rivera never once had to face the Yankees lineup, which pretty much since Rivera was a rookie has been overall the most dominant lineup in the league.

most dominant? That has been roughly true since Joe Nathan joined the Twins and Alex Rodriguez joined the Yankees (2004) or even since 2002 but it was't true when Mariano Rivera made his name.

: Yankees rank in league by OPS+, 1995-2009 (';' marks 2003/2004)
: 7 7t 4 1 1t 6 7t 1 2 ; 1t 1 1 1 5t 1

Furthermore the league-best batting team ('1' in the table) commonly scores only 10-15% more runs than league-average. In turn the fortunate teammate pitching staff faces batter-runners who are merely 1% below league average in aggregate. (Adjusted statistics such as ERA+ account for that small effect.)

Finally, when the Yankees lineup dominates it does not yield many save opportunities. A blown save commonly represents a poor showing by the Closer relative to his own staffmates, as Friday night when the Yankees scored only once in 8 innings before the Twins turned to Nathan.

[nyykan_t]

With his postseason failure, he needs to get 400SV to have a chance.

[PVNICK]

I would think every voter will have a hard time shaking the image that constipated look on his face in Game 2 and worse the net result.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I will say (sadly) that Nathan's postseason this year was rather Reardon-esque.

Nathan got a late start, and is in his mid-thirties, so it's fair to speculate how long he'll hold up. As such, he's going to be a Sutter-type selection. There are several things I notice about Sutter's selection:

1. Sutter won a Cy Young Award. Indeed, winning a Cy Young Award is very important in a reliever making the HOF, period.

2. Sutter was a key pitcher on a World Championship team.

3. Sutter was a dominant power pitcher, with an image of bringing heat.

Nathan's not won a Cy Young Award, has been a flop in the postseason, and does not project the image of a power pitcher. He's never led the league in saves. The perception that he's the best reliever in baseball, IMO, took a big hit with his recent conspicuous failure, and he'll have to do A LOT to restore his image in certain circles.

I'm not a big fan of relievers in the HOF, as I tend to believe they relieve because they CAN'T start. So here's my question: If Joe Nathan, why not Sparky Lyle, who DID win a Cy Young Award. If Joe Nathan, why not Dan Quisenberry, who was more reliable in the postseason? If Joe Nathan, why not John Franco, who had a much longer career? If Joe Nathan, why not John Wetteland on peak value? I don't see a whole lot of this changing if Nathan fills out his career with what he might reasonably project out to, given what he's done to date.

[Paul Wendt]

Which of these is not like the others?

Ryan Franklin
Brad Lidge
Joe Nathan
Jonathan Papelbon

[PVNICK]

Which of these is not like the others?

Ryan Franklin
Brad Lidge
Joe Nathan
Jonathan Papelbon
Did Lidge come through in his save situation, b/c the other 3 sure didn't?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Did Lidge come through in his save situation, b/c the other 3 sure didn't?

If a single very key save situation is going to knock out a closer then Mariano is out for 2001, Eck is out for the Gibson HR, Gossage is out for the Gibson HR . . .

[PVNICK]

If a single very key save situation is going to knock out a closer then Mariano is out for 2001, Eck is out for the Gibson HR, Gossage is out for the Gibson HR . . . Gossage was already out for the Brett HR.:happy:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Gossage was already out for the Brett HR.:happy:

So he was. Consistency is consistency.

[Cougar]

Which of these is not like the others?

Ryan Franklin
Brad Lidge
Joe Nathan
Jonathan Papelbon

Taking it seriously, Ryan Franklin is the only one of these who has never really been considered elite.

But I don't think that's what you were going for.

[Paul Wendt]

Right on.

During the bottom of the eighth at a pub tonight, I thought to myself,
Don't make me buy another beer (extra innings) ...
If no one has answered my question, I'll add Ryan Madson.

During the top of the ninth I thought to myself,
I hope I need to buy another beer ...
If no one has answered yet, I'll add Huston Street.

During the bottom of the ninth I thought to myself,
Don't make me buy another beer ...
Ha! and that guy at baseball-fever doesn't think these guys are great pitchers!

[Paul Wendt]

Mariano Rivera pitched reasonably well in the 2001 WS and 2004 ALCS.

Did Lidge come through in his save situation, b/c the other 3 sure didn't?
Lidge was such a spectacle with the kerosene this season. It's amusing that "everyone" else blew up this week. Not merely blown saves but loads of runs and runners. Two runs against Nathan, then first & third with one out in the tenth. Two inherited runs against Papelbon, then three of his own. When I wrote I misremembered three runs against Franklin, overcoming a 2-0 lead. Oops, that was only a 2-1 lead and two runs. Yesterday, three runs against Madson, then three against Street.

The condiments --passed ball (Franklin), wild pickoff (Nathan), wild pitch (Madson)-- cast extra doubt on the truism that people do feel pressure and many break, but none of those people advance to the major leagues.

[dgarza]

How did this get to the HOF forum?

[henrich]

Mo is better as a reliever than Ruth was as a position player. You can argue (although I disagree) that Bonds, Williams, Cobb, or Wagner were better than Ruth, but it's pretty unanimous that Mo is the best closer in history. No one with any credibility says otherwise.

Hoffman may beg to differ.

To answer another question posted earlier, i believe lee smith gets in through the writers vote in much the same way rice did. Someone alluded to older guys getting in due to the steroid controversy, I concur.

[White Knight]

Hoffman may beg to differ.



I'm pretty sure even Hoffman himself would admit Mo was and is still better than him as a closer.

[PVNICK]

Hoffman may beg to differ.
He may have to do more than beg to get anyone to believe him.

Hoffman ERA+ 147. Post season 12 G 2-1 4 Saves 3.46 ERA 13 IP 11 H 5 BB 14K nice numbers
Rivera ERA+ 202 (not a typo) Post Season 79 Games 8-1 35 saves 0.74 ERA 121 IP 76 H 17 BB 100 K
it's not even on the same continent.

[Milt on Tilt]

"Mo is better as a reliever than Ruth was as a position player. You can argue (although I disagree) that Bonds, Williams, Cobb, or Wagner were better than Ruth, but it's pretty unanimous that Mo is the best closer in history. No one with any credibility says otherwise."

Mariano is the best ever at a position that has been in existence for 20 years. This is a ridiculous comparison.

[RuthMayBond]

Mo is better as a reliever than Ruth was as a position player. You can argue (although I disagree) that Bonds, Williams, Cobb, or Wagner were better than Ruth, but it's pretty unanimous that Mo is the best closer in history. No one with any credibility says otherwise.I'm guessing Hoyt Wilhelm has more credibility than you. When Mo gets to Hoyt's almost 2000 innings as a reliever, then we can talk about unanimous.

[nyykan_t]

To me, Mo is the best closer ever. Hoyt Wilhelm is the best reliever ever.

[White Knight]

I'm guessing Hoyt Wilhelm has more credibility than you. When Mo gets to Hoyt's almost 2000 innings as a reliever, then we can talk about unanimous.

Different positions. Mo is primarily a 9th inning closer, and it is unanimous.

[nyykan_t]

Different positions. Mo is primarily a 9th inning closer, and it is unanimous.
No arguement here. He is the best 9th inning closer ever. It should be unanimoues. But if we are talking about the best reliever ever, that will be a totally different case.

[henrich]

I would venture to say that the yankees had more wins than the padres (brewers) in the time period that rivera and hoffman were there. I would say it would be a significant difference, yet hoffman has more saves right? I know it's one dimensional, and I'm not even saying that I disagree that Rivera was more dominant, just saying that it's a bit of an overstatement to claim that it's not even close as it doesn't cover all the angles, unless i have my facts wrong on this particular issue.

[White Knight]

I would venture to say that the yankees had more wins than the padres (brewers) in the time period that rivera and hoffman were there. I would say it would be a significant difference, yet hoffman has more saves right? I know it's one dimensional, and I'm not even saying that I disagree that Rivera was more dominant, just saying that it's a bit of an overstatement to claim that it's not even close as it doesn't cover all the angles, unless i have my facts wrong on this particular issue.

Three things:

1) It's not Rivera's fault if he is not used as much as Hoffman, blame management.

2) The Yankees were a lot better during those years, and many times were ahead by more than 5 runs, so it's not a save situation. You can tell by blown saves. Mo this year had just 44 saves, however, it's not his fault he didn't get the record (62 saves). He blew just two (yes, two) saves all year, so even if he was perfect, that's still only 46 saves.

3) Hoffman started before Mo if I remember right, and had a head start on Mo.

So in conclusion, I think there is massive evidance that Mo has had the better career.