Scott Brosius

I think this post at BTB illustrates that, as good as Rivera has been, he did only pitch 1-2 innings, suppressing his value. Gotta go with Jeter, who plays nine innings 162 times a year and has an impact both offensively and defensively.

I can't believe that the vote is that close(53-46 for Jetes when I voted), I love Mariano and think he is one of the greatest closers of all time, and hate the Jeter love to the point that a friend at the bar I go to knows he can get me to rant, just by mentioning Jeter, but there is absolutely no way that Rivera is more valuable in any way over Jeter.

Some peoples is stupid.

Why can't we just cut them in half and fuse them into a single, all-powerful Yankee to end all Yankees? Rivera's arm and lovely complexion, Jeter's smirk and flirty eyes, maybe dig up the remnants of Babe Ruth's brain and slop it in there too?

This is a ###### up quiz. 1st, Jeter is already selected, so for the incredibly lazy the vote is already slanted. 2nd, after I vote I am taken to a different article, about that Boston player with the big head and the disgusting unathletic body, instead of seeing the results.

Why can't we just cut them in half and fuse them into a single, all-powerful Yankee to end all Yankees? Rivera's arm and lovely complexion, Jeter's smirk and flirty eyes, maybe dig up the remnants of Babe Ruth's brain and slop it in there too?

the women in New York would never have a chance, heck between Jeter and Ruth, Chamberlain is a virgin.

This is a ###### up quiz. 1st, Jeter is already selected, so for the incredibly lazy the vote is already slanted. 2nd, after I vote I am taken to a different article, about that Boston player with the big head and the disgusting unathletic body, instead of seeing the results.

agreed, about the pre-selction, but you have to scroll down about three articles to get the result (it's the yahoo screw up design and they wonder how come Google, Facebook and others have surpassed them.

the women in New York would never have a chance, heck between Jeter and Ruth, Chamberlain is a virgin.

Add David Wells' mustache and Joe Pepitone's chin-cleft, and pregnancy occurs upon eye contact.

Boston player with the big head and the disgusting unathletic body, instead of seeing the results.

Youkilis? Ortiz? Mo Vaughn?

Jeter has provided more value over the years but I think Rivera is more irreplacable. He's just been outstanding and nearly flawless in the playoffs.

that Boston player with the big head and the disgusting unathletic body

You'll have to be more specific. That describes at least 3 players...

Hahaha, true nuff about all the Red Sox bobbleheads. I think I meant Youkilis, but I don't want to doublecheck.

There’s no doubt that both were the two biggest titans not named Joe Torre during the championship years and it’s hard to imagine the Yankees winning without either future Hall of Famer wearing pinstripes.

Bernie and Jorge say "hello".

Rivera's arm and lovely complexion, Jeter's smirk and flirty eyes, maybe dig up the remnants of Babe Ruth's brain and slop it in there too?
He vould have an enormous schwanzstucker.

Easy vote for Rivera.

Less regular season value, but much more post-season value. The ability to pitch 2 innings per game in the post-season is highly underrated by fans of teams who make the playoffs once a decade.

I would draw a distinction between valuable and important, the latter being the word used when this topic came up yesterday. Rivera's ability to dominate high leverage postseason innings was EXTREMELY important to the Yanks closing the deal year in, year out. I don't know if that's enough to make him more important than Jeter, but it's a reasonable argument. From 1995 to 2004, the Yankees won postseason series in which Jeter played poorly and lost postseason series in which Jeter excelled. When Rivera blew a save in a posteason game, the Yankees lost that series 3 out of 4 times. When he didn't, they lost the series 3 out of 19 times.

When you're the better team in baseball's postseason, it's more likely than not that you'll win, but there's no such thing as an upset. When you're the better team in baseball's postseason, plus you know that your closer will pitch 5 of the highest leverage innings in the series with a 50% chance he gives up no runs, 50% chance he gives up only one, you're in the f---ing driver's seat.

From 1995 to 2004, the Yankees won postseason series in which Jeter played poorly and lost postseason series in which Jeter excelled. When Rivera blew a save in a posteason game, the Yankees lost that series 3 out of 4 times. When he didn't, they lost the series 3 out of 19 times.

The problem with this analysis is that in the 3 World Series years when Mo was closer, there were very few close series, and he had very few saves. Any competent closer allows those teams to win, even if a few blown saves make the series 4-1 instead of 4-0.

Basically, when the Yankees had a margin for error, Mo was perfect, and when they didn't he blew some saves. You can't blame him for that. But to say they don't win those Championships without him is simply ignoring the historical record.

Edit: I posted this yesterday in another Mo thread.

1998: beat Tex. 3-0, Cle 4-2 (only 1 save-2-run lead for Mo), SD 4-0
1999: beat Tex. 3-0, Bos 4-1, Atl 4-0
2000: beat Oak. 3-2 (2 2-run saves), Sea 4-2 (1 2-run save), NYM 4-1.

Replace Rivera with John Wetteland (which was a very real possibility) and I'm 95% confident the Yankees win all 3 World Series titles. Mo's perfection really wasn't critical.

I think Jeter, Williams, Pettitte and maybe Cone and O'Neill were more important in the Championship run. Even though Mo has had a far more impressive career than any of them other than Jeter.

Less regular season value, but much more post-season value. The ability to pitch 2 innings per game in the post-season is highly underrated by fans of teams who make the playoffs once a decade.

Which is exactly what you're going to end up with based on decisions like taking Rivera over Jeter

Basically, when the Yankees had a margin for error, Mo was perfect, and when they didn't he blew some saves. You can't blame him for that. But to say they don't win those Championships without him is simply ignoring the historical record.

I'm not saying he's the reason for all their championships. They were the best team in baseball for just about all of those years ... sure you can win 1 or 2 without any given player. The odds are strongly against any team, unless it's just head and shoulders above the competition, winning 4 and losing 2 World Series in an 8 year period. Rivera was their trump card.

Hell, I notice you're cherrypicking and only mentioning Rivera's saves in what, on paper, were close series. You basically whitewash his contribution in the 2000 World Series, because the Yankees presumably won easily in 5, when he (i) threw a scoreless 9th down 3-2, threw a scoreless 10th, allowing the Yankees to win Game 1 in 12; (ii) got the last out in Game 2 after coming in with the tying run on deck (granted, after giving up a HR to make it a one-run game); (iii) threw two shutout innings to close out a 3-2 win in Game 4; and (iv) preserved a 2-run lead with a scoreless 9th in Game 5. His WPA as 0.7 in that 5-game series, plus in the Oakland series that year his saves (2 run wins ... YAWN!), were (A) 6 outs, coming in with a 1-run lead, followed by (B) 5 outs, coming in with the tying run at the plate -- combined WPA of 0.45 in those 2 games. He had a 0.63 against the Indians in '98.

I'm not saying you can't make your case, but you seem to be relying on the argument that he was perfect when they didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they won easily, though they won easily in no small part because he was perfect.

I'm not saying you can't make your case, but you seem to be relying on the argument that he was perfect when they didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they won easily, though they won easily in no small part because he was perfect.

Right, but if you give him a blown save in each and every one of those 3-0, 4-0, and 4-1 series, which is unlikely for any closer, they still are very likely to win them all.

He was very valuable, but not necessary to victory.

Edit: I posted this yesterday in another Mo thread.

1998: beat Tex. 3-0, Cle 4-2 (only 1 save-2-run lead for Mo), SD 4-0
1999: beat Tex. 3-0, Bos 4-1, Atl 4-0
2000: beat Oak. 3-2 (2 2-run saves), Sea 4-2 (1 2-run save), NYM 4-1.

Replace Rivera with John Wetteland (which was a very real possibility) and I'm 95% confident the Yankees win all 3 World Series titles. Mo's perfection really wasn't critical.

I'm not so sure about replacing him with Wetteland those last two years.

1999: Wetteland's ERA 3.68 - Rivera's ERA 1.83 (postseason 0.00)
2000: Wetteland's ERA 4.20 - Rivera's ERA 2.85 (postseason 0.00 in the DS; 1.93 in the LCS; 3.00 in the WS, with all the damage in one game where he still got the final out)

I'm not saying he's the reason for all their championships. They were the best team in baseball for just about all of those years ... sure you can win 1 or 2 without any given player. The odds are strongly against any team, unless it's just head and shoulders above the competition, winning 4 and losing 2 World Series in an 8 year period. Rivera was their trump card.

Hell, I notice you're cherrypicking and only mentioning Rivera's saves in what, on paper, were close series. You basically whitewash his contribution in the 2000 World Series, because the Yankees presumably won easily in 5, when he (i) threw a scoreless 9th down 3-2, threw a scoreless 10th, allowing the Yankees to win Game 1 in 12; (ii) got the last out in Game 2 after coming in with the tying run on deck (granted, after giving up a HR to make it a one-run game); (iii) threw two shutout innings to close out a 3-2 win in Game 4; and (iv) preserved a 2-run lead with a scoreless 9th in Game 5. His WPA as 0.7 in that 5-game series, plus in the Oakland series that year his saves (2 run wins ... YAWN!), were (A) 6 outs, coming in with a 1-run lead, followed by (B) 5 outs, coming in with the tying run at the plate -- combined WPA of 0.45 in those 2 games. He had a 0.63 against the Indians in '98.

I'm not saying you can't make your case, but you seem to be relying on the argument that he was perfect when they didn't need him, as evidenced by the fact that they won easily, though they won easily in no small part because he was perfect.

Exactly. And what makes Rivera even more important is that the odds against being able successfully to replace him with a comparable reliever for 13 (or 14, if you count 1996) straight years are so great as to be nearly nonexistent, especially if you throw in his postseasons. That's what makes him so incredibly unusual and special, even if we all acknowledge that a position player or starter of comparable talent is more valuable, and even if we acknowledge that in any given year, there will likely be a handful of relievers who are nearly as good or better. But let's see how Papelbon and K-Rod look at the end of their careers; let's see if they've performed as well in every single year as Mo has.

Exactly. And what makes Rivera even more important is that the odds against being able successfully to replace him with a comparable reliever for 13 (or 14, if you count 1996) straight years are so great as to be nearly nonexistent, especially if you throw in his postseasons. That's what makes him so incredibly unusual and special, even if we all acknowledge that a position player or starter of comparable talent is more valuable, and even if we acknowledge that in any given year, there will likely be a handful of relievers who are nearly as good or better. But let's see how Papelbon and K-Rod look at the end of their careers; let's see if they've performed as well in every single year as Mo has.

I'm not questioning the value of his career, he's the best reliever ever.

The point being argued was value in the title run (1996-2000). What he did after has no bearing on the number of WS the Yankees have won.

Right, but if you give him a blown save in each and every one of those 3-0, 4-0, and 4-1 series, which is unlikely for any closer, they still are very likely to win them all.

OK, but I don't understand why you keep arguing against Rivera by citing that they won their series so overwhelmingly in 1998 through 2000. Doesn't that undercut the argument that ANY YANKEE was the most important/valuable? How does that argument make the case for Jeter, O'Neill, Bernie, Pettite, and Cone being more important/valuable? Hell, they won so overwhelmingly in '98 and '99, despite the fact that Jeter was awful in the '98 postseason and despite the fact that neither Bernie nor O'Neill broke a .740 OPS in the '98 thru '00 postseasons. Pettitte had a good ERA those years, but he allowed 97 baserunners in 69 innings.

You seem to be relying on the assumption that sweeping or winning 4 out of 5 suggests that there weren't many high leverage innings in which Rivera was needed, but a review of the entire postseason record those years (including some of those sweeps and 4-1 series) shows otherwise. If he blew a save or two in the 1998 Cleveland series or the 2000 Oakland series, it becomes doubtful that they would have gotten the opportunity to take 4 of 4 from the Padres or 4 of 5 from the Mets.

Doesn't that undercut the argument that ANY YANKEE was the most important/valuable?

isn't that kinda the point, Rivera had no more value than any Yankee and if you insist on saying someone was more valuable then why not go with someone that figured in a little more of the game. I mean in the 2000 series Jeter posted .409 .480 .864 1.344, 6 out of 19 runs scored.

The point being argued was value in the title run (1996-2000). What he did after has no bearing on the number of WS the Yankees have won.

It did in 2001.

Which is exactly what you're going to end up with based on decisions like taking Rivera over Jeter

I don't understand why there's this need for people on this site to prove their brilliance by arguing against the value of a closer.

Saves are meaningless. Shitty Todd Jonesian closers are worthless.

But great multi-inning closers, like playoff Rivera, are incredibly valuable. Hell, Rivera comes in the 8th every so often in the regular season in high leveage situations, mostly in high leverage games (against Boston and in recent years, Tampa).

Rivera will give you 7 or 8 IP in a 7 game series. Those IP are the highest leverage innings. His post-season ERA is 0.77.

The typical late-inning pitcher type (high K, high BB, 4-seamer) is particularly vulnerable to a top AL lineup (high HR/FB ratio, high BB/PA). The effective difference b/w Rivera and, say, Tom Gordon or Phil Coke or Kyle Farnsworth in the 9th inning of a tie game against Boston in the ALCS is way more than the raw, full-season statistical difference between the two.

On top of that, based on how they've performed in the last season and a half I think Rivera's got a much better chance to last till his 40's than Jeter.

On top of that, based on how they've performed in the last season and a half I think Rivera's got a much better chance to last till his 40's than Jeter.

I'm not arguing Rivera vs Jeter, but it is interesting that in 2008 Mariano put up the best ERA, the best ERA+, and the lowest WHIP numbers of his entire career. And this year his WHIP number is his 5th best ever, and his strikeout to walk ratio is at his all-time high.

On top of that, based on how they've performed in the last season and a half I think Rivera's got a much better chance to last till his 40's than Jeter.

Well, Rivera is closer to 40, so he has a better chance from that perspective, but neither has slowed down this season. You'd think it'd be harder for an every day player, especially a shortstop to play regularly at an advanced age. On the other hand, it doesn't take that much to do in a pitcher's arm. If Jeter plays until he's 40, he's likely over 3500 hits, and might even have a shot at the 2nd most career hits by an AL player.