He would be compared to the average reliever (not closer), right?

He should be compared to the average pitcher. His baseline is what an average starter could do as a pampered closer. The Eck showed definitively that a mediocre starter could be converted into a lights-out closer. Hell, there's no reason to believe Jack Morris couldn't have become a lights-out closer as his worse-starter contemporary, The Eck, did.

Closer is far to the right of the "pitching spectrum." WAR should downgrade for that, not upgrade for "clutch" and "leverage."

About an order of magnitude more frequently than 206 ERA+ relievers that perform at nearly the same level every year.

Again, given the nature of RP, that's not that valuable.

You're always planning on having 3 or 4 really good RP, and need 6 or 7 total. As long as a couple of them have good years, you can adjust the usage accordingly, and don't care which ones are good. There's no special benefit in having the same guys as the top RPs every year.

As long as a couple of them have good years, you can adjust the usage accordingly, and don't care which ones are good.

That's not how it works for a variety of reasons.

I should amend 101 to note that Rivera was, himself, a very mediocre starting pitcher.

Isn't the effect of moving from starting into the bullpen pretty well studied and quantified? It certainly isn't anything on the order of turning a below average starter into Dennis Eckersley; if it were, bullpens would be nearly impossible to score against as a general rule and bad relief pitchers simply wouldn't exist at all.

The Eck showed definitively that a mediocre starter could be converted into a lights-out closer. Hell, there's no reason to believe Jack Morris couldn't have become a lights-out closer as his worse-starter contemporary, The Eck, did.

umm, as a starter, Eckerlsey created more WAR in his 2400+ IP than Jack accumulated in his 3800+

One thing about Snapper's 'cake walk' point: I believe he is right, in that regard, about '98 and '99. If you put, say, Mike Jackson as the Yankees closer those two years, they probably still win the title. But I think Mariano was a very necessary ingredient in '96 and '00. And obviously, '01, they came very close to winning it again, with Mo a key component. I wouldn't say Snapper's point is totally invalid, but I disagree with it's blanket claim over Rivera's career. Hell, Rivera even had a great, pressure postseason performance in '95, before anyone even knew who he was, other than hardcore baseball fans.

Long live the number 42.

Obviously when Rivera retires, 42 will never be worn again by anybody on the Yanks. If they can't retire that number, will they just put up Rivera's name in the outfield alongside 3,4,5,7...?

If anybody could do what Mariano Rivera has done, then why hasn't anybody?

-with apologies to Yogi Berra

If anybody could do what Mariano Rivera has done, then why hasn't anybody?

Because the role of closer is vastly overrated and teams don't want to waste their best pitchers on such a marginal responsibility.

Rivera didn't cut it as a starter and has one pitch. He's tailor-made for the role, but unique.

Because the role of closer is vastly overrated and teams don't want to waste their best pitchers on such a marginal responsibility.

Those 2 clauses are contradictory because it has often been the teams themselves doing the overrating.

he Eck showed definitively that a mediocre starter could be converted into a lights-out closer.

1977, 247 IP 112 ERA+
1978, 268 IP 139 ERA+
1979, 246 IP 149 ERA+ (lead league)

then he had some arm (and other) troubles

but 1985, 169 IP, 129 ERA+
in 1986 his BABIP climbed 60 points (41 points above his career BABIP) and he turned in an 88 ERA+ in 201 IP (with peripherals consistent with his career to that point- that had garnered him a 113 ERA+ as a starter- higher than Jack Morris)

Eck was a better (albeit less durable) starter than Morris- which isn't to say that Morris would not have made a good closer, but I suspect that he wouldn't have been as great at it as Eck was,

I should amend 101 to note that Rivera was, himself, a very mediocre starting pitcher.

Was that before he started throwing his cutter?

Rivera discovered his cutter in June 1997, almost two years after his last start.

Closer is far to the right of the "pitching spectrum." WAR should downgrade for that, not upgrade for "clutch" and "leverage."

Correct. Rivera would have the same ERA+ if he pitched the 5th inning instead of the 9th, save for the odd pinch hitter, which happens relatively infrequently in the AL anyway. Everything we know says that it's virtually just as easy to pitch the ninth as it is to pitch any other inning. There is no good reason to overrate !!!!!!NINTH INNING!!!!! AOOGA!!!!! AOOOOOO0000OOGA!!!!!.

Certainly "manager decision" - and that's all this is - is not a good reason to add a massive chunk to his WAR.

And his ERA+ already gets a boost, because it's damned easier to pitch in 1+ inning bursts than it is to go at it multiple times through the lineup.

People have vastly missed the boat here. He comes in with a 2-run lead to pitch the ninth and people hugely value that? It would take an ERA of 18.00 in that inning to blow that save - just to blow it, not necessarily to lose the game. If he posts a 9.00 ERA in the inning, he gets credited with a SAVE. Why is this valued in the form of LI?

"I have been recalled to my home planet."

Obviously when Rivera retires, 42 will never be worn again by anybody on the Yanks. If they can't retire that number, will they just put up Rivera's name in the outfield alongside 3,4,5,7...?

No, they'll retire his number, and put up a second 42. There's already a precedent: They've got two 8's on the wall, one for Bill Dickey and one for Yogi Berra. Or, at least they did in the old stadium; I assume, but do not know for sure, that they've got them in the new stadium too.

Nicest star athlete I ever had the pleasure of meeting. 11 years ago when I was working in Charlotte with the Hornets (NBA) and Sting (WNBA), I was traveling with our WNBA team to Minnesota for a preseason game. When we arrived at the hotel, there seemed to be extra hotel security everywhere, and turns out it was there because the Yankees were staying there.

After our game that evening, our trainer and I decided to go down to the hotel bar to play some pool and have a drink or two. In the middle of our playing, the hotel staff started cordoning off the area at the bar by the pool table. Shortly thereafter, Mariano, Ramiro Mendoza, El Duque, Charlie Steiner and a few members of the Yankees traveling party, came into the bar. Since we were already using the pool table, we were essentially locked in with the Yankees and their entourage while other hotel patrons stared in and gawked.

Mariano is a decent pool player, and we started playing with him and a few other members of the group.

I remember having a shot to win one of the games we played against him, and I wanted to bank the shot, but our trainer convinced me to cut it. I missed, and Mariano put his arm around me and essentially advised me to always go with my gut in those situations otherwise I'd always be second guessing myself.

This was six months after he'd given up the bloop to Gonzalez to lose the 2001 World Series, and I flashed back to that moment thinking that that was probably how he felt about that pitch. He threw the best pitch he had and didn't have any regrets about getting beat by it. He'd throw it again 100 times out of 100. Probably get Gonzalez out 99 of those times too.

Two months later, we were getting off a plane in Cleveland, and who was at the luggage carousel but Mariano Rivera. He had been having shoulder issues and as I recall was in Tampa for a while getting evaluated before rejoining the team. We spoke to him for a while, and the next day, he and El Duque came to our noon WNBA game and they had a great time sitting behind our bench. We went to the Yankees Indians game that night, and afterwards went out and shot pool with him again at a local billiards joint.

As we were leaving the manager of the place asked Mariano to sign a pool ball for him. Somehow he produced a perfectly clean signature on a cue ball.

Class personified, and I am sad to see him go.

So he shot pool with you without being a jackass, and that earned him credit.

Standards are low.

BUT RAY, DOES MARIANO HAVE HONOR

This is a minor point, but--as possibly Rivera's biggest fanboy here--it's a pet peeve of mine. Rivera came in to that game in the 8th inning, 1st-and-3rd, no one out, Yankees leading by one. He gave up a SF, G3 and K. The next inning was 1B (CS), 6-3, F8. He got tagged with a BS, but his WPA for the game was actually positive (.307).

It's not that minor of a point. A WPA of .307 is not just positive, it's very large; for instance, it's the 11th-highest posted by Rivera in his 96 postseason games.

Speaking of WPA - if you weight by importance of game relative to winning a championship (so Game 7 of the WS is weighted 1.0, Game 6 of WS and Game 7 of LCS are 0.5, and so on) and add up championship probability added, Rivera isn't just in first - he's something like 50% higher than the next-best pitcher. If you don't believe in postseason credit for Rivera, you don't believe in postseason credit.

If he posts a 9.00 ERA in the inning, he gets credited with a SAVE. Why is this valued in the form of LI?

Leverage is a multiplier, not an added term. Which means that if a pitcher regularly posts an ERA of 9.00 in high-leverage situations, accounting for leverage will punish him more for sucking.

Standards are low.

What a joy you are to have around.

Gee, think Yankee fans are spoiled?

Sure, it's easy to replace the best closer in the game with your setup man when you pay $10+ million a year for someone else's awesome closer to be your setup man. Oh, and by the way, that setup guy had a 4.12 ERA the previous season.

I agree that Mariano's regular season value is overstated by BWAR, but the idea that it's easy to go out and find an awesome reliever to close for you every year is pretty silly. Sure, it's easy to go on baseball-reference at the end of the year and determine who the awesome relievers were. It's more difficult to do it at the beginning of the season, every season, for 15 straight years. I mean, congratulations on identifying Fernando Rodney as a great closer who was available cheaply. Where were you before the season, when the guy was coming off a 5-year stretch with a 98 ERA+, and a season in which he BB'd more guys than he K'd? The fact that he was available for $1.75 million is proof that no team, and especially not the Yankees, had any idea how good he'd be.

The 2009 World Series was hardly a cake walk. Six tough games. Rivera allowed no runs in four games.

I would also note that the Yankees might not have made the playoffs in 2000 or 2005 without Rivera.

I wanted to bank the shot, but our trainer convinced me to cut it. I missed, and Mariano put his arm around me and essentially advised me to always go with my gut

One would have thought Mariano would have also gone with the cutter.

(Eck)then he had some arm (and other) troubles


Yeah, that mullet was awful.

I wanted to bank the shot, but our trainer convinced me to cut it. I missed, and Mariano put his arm around me and essentially advised me to always go with my gut

One would have thought Mariano would have also gone with the cutter.

Mo knew how difficult it was for a mere mortal to perfect a cutter.

So he shot pool with you without being a jackass, and that earned him credit.
Standards are low.

Holy cow, Ray, did you step on a dead rat in your building's hallway or something?

Wow, he pitched about two of his regular seasons' innings worth of postseason innings, with an ERA of about half of his best regular season ERA.

So he shot pool with you without being a jackass, and that earned him credit.
Standards are low.

Holy cow, Ray, did you step on a dead rat in your building's hallway or something?

You think lawyers don't believe in professional courtesy?

I would hope that Rivera would pitch as long as he is Rivera, but if this year is the end, he retires as The Greatest Closer Ever and a certain Hall of Famer -- almost surely on the 1st ballot unless the voting process becomes hopelessly broken. Might be a closer call without the postseason record, but postseason matters an awful lot.

Might be a closer call without the postseason record, but postseason matters an awful lot.

I discard postseason record completely for all players when evaluating a HOF case, but even in so doing I don't think this is a close call. When he only had 750 innings I in fact argued it was a close call (and I was met with the same type of crazed reaction that I am met with regard to Ichiro's case). But now with 1200 innings it's a close call no longer. Rivera is a HOFer by the standards set out for relievers. They wouldn't be _my_ standards, but they are the standards.

Is Pedro a HOFer had he only pitched from 1998-2001? 780 IP, 214 ERA+.

What about 1997-2002? 1221 IP, 213 ERA+.

Sure, it's easy to replace the best closer in the game with your setup man when you pay $10+ million a year for someone else's awesome closer to be your setup man. Oh, and by the way, that setup guy had a 4.12 ERA the previous season

I was waiting for someone to point this out but this is way too weak of a response. Soriano was not a "setup man," he was a closer, a rather good one, purposely signed as a backup for Rivera as he entered his 40s, for closer money and he has now been signed by the Nats to be their closer, at closer money. Referring to him as, "the next guy on the bench" and saying that he replaced Rivera effectively for the season shows how easy it is to replace a good closer is... well, sorry, but the best word here is just idiotic.

As for the debate at large Rivera has been the best pitcher of all time at preventing the other team from scoring on a rate basis vs average. By a LOT. As those arguing that this is diminished by the "reliever advantage" should already know the subject has been studied and the typical advantage simply doesn't come close to making up the difference between his career ERA+(208) vs number two, Pedro(154.) That the gap is so huge and the second player on the list isn't also a reliever... very clear hint that Rivera being a reliever likely does not cover the spread without even looking into studies on the subject which show it clearly. You can say “Pedro could have done it" all you want but that is idle speculation without any serious numbers to support as far as I can tell.

He may not be the most valuable pitcher of all time but the numbers show he was the most effective. Throw in that he was also the most dominant post season pitcher of all time and there he DOES also have the innings to also make him the most "valuable" and I cannot not see any plausible reason to deny him entry to the hall as soon as eligible.

You can say “Pedro could have done it" all you want but that is idle speculation without any serious numbers to support as far as I can tell.

But that's what you're saying, in reverse. You're saying "Rivera could have done it." Do you think Rivera would have posted a 154 ERA+ in 3000+ innings? What ERA+ _do_ you think Rivera would have posted in 3,000+ innings, starting every 5th game, going through the lineup multiple times a game (with one pitch), throwing 90-130 pitches an outing, throwing 200 IP a year?

You can say “Pedro could have done it" all you want but that is idle speculation without any serious numbers to support as far as I can tell.

Also, even if true, this is hardly an insult to a pitcher.

But that's what you're saying, in reverse. You're saying "Rivera could have done it." Do you think Rivera would have posted a 154 ERA+ in 3000+ innings? What ERA+ _do_ you think Rivera would have posted in 3,000+ innings, starting every 5th game, going through the lineup multiple times a game (with one pitch), throwing 90-130 pitches an outing, throwing 200 IP a year?

No, that is not what I said at all. I said the subject has been studied as empirically as we can manage, repeatedly, and those numbers show that unless Pedro and/or Rivera are extreme outliers in this regard(the idle speculation I mentioned) there's no data to support that the gap between their performance can be washed away by the way they were used.

The personal insults aside, I'm finding a lot of the pro/con Mariano interesting and even fresh in some cases, which I would not have expected...

No, that is not what I said at all. I said the subject has been studied as empirically as we can manage, repeatedly, and those numbers show that unless Pedro and/or Rivera are extreme outliers in this regard(the idle speculation I mentioned) there's no data to support that the gap between their performance can be washed away by the way they were used.

I guess I'm not really grasping what you're saying here, or why my characterization was wrong. But so be it.

I do think Rivera is an extreme outlier. Who else relies on one pitch?

That the gap is so huge and the second player on the list isn't also a reliever... very clear hint that Rivera being a reliever likely does not cover the spread without even looking into studies on the subject which show it clearly.

I'm generally on board with you here jy, but this is a bit misleading. The reason the second person on the list isn't a reliever isn't because there's no one close to Mo in terms of effectiveness, but because most relievers get tripped up by the 1,000 innings cutoff. It's still a decent gap between him and Billy Wagner (187 in 900 IP), but it's not light years (though the gap widens further when you look at the postseason, which you obviously should in a case like his).

(though the gap widens further when you look at the postseason, which you obviously should in a case like his).

It's not really so obvious. What other reliever has had the chance to pile up 140 freaking relief innings in the postseason?

It's not like Billy Wagner was chopped liver, as you note. He had a long and successful career as a reliever.

And yet Wagner got just 12 innings in the postseason.

I do think Rivera is an extreme outlier. Who else relies on one pitch?

Rivera most certainly did not just throw cutters and there are a number quite effective starters and relievers with one standout pitch and nothing else to write home about, knuckleballers being the obvious place to start.

It's not really so obvious. What other reliever has had the chance to pile up 140 freaking relief innings in the postseason?

Well, it's not as if Billy Wagner was sitting home every October. His teams made seven postseason appearances. They won one series. Of course, if his teams' ace reliever hadn't pitched so crappy in the playoffs (unlike the Yankees' guy), they might have won a few more games.

But we've been over this before. You know the arguments about the postseason, particularly as it relates to pitching. You choose to ignore them because, well, some folks are just irrational like that.

Well, it's not like Billy Wagner was sitting home every October. His teams made seven postseason appearances. They won one series. Of course, if his teams' ace reliever hadn't pitched so crappy in the playoffs (unlike the Yankees' guy), they might have won a few more games.

Uh huh. How about Papelbon, then? He is Rivera's equal in terms of rate stats (192 ERA+ for his career). He's pitched for 8 years, mostly on contending teams. He has a 1.00 ERA in the postseason.

And yet he has gotten just 27 postseason innings. Double that to match the length of Rivera's useful career (16 seasons) and Papelbon gets 54 postseason innings. Miles from 140.

And that matches with one of my objections to including postseason performance to a HOF case, item 1) on this list:

1) Lack of similar opportunity for other players;
2) Lack of any evidence that performing in the postseason is a special skill.
3) Small sample of games skewing a player's postseason results.
4) Exhibition games the stats of which by convention are not incorporated into a player's career stats.

I discard postseason record completely for all players when evaluating a HOF case . . .

Yeah, "glorified exhibition" and all that, but that is a stance that very few share - perhaps just 1 person. A lot of players don't have enough of a postseason resume to matter, but for Rivera I think it removes any doubt about his 1st ballot status even among those who maintain a higher standard for the initial election and/or have reservations about relief pitchers being Hall-worthy.

It's not really so obvious

That you think the most important games played against the toughest competition should be thrown out when evaluating someone's worthiness to enter the hall of "fame" is a personal mental issue of yours. If Rivera had been mediocre or bad in the post season he would have also, appropriately, be held accountable for that when being considered for the hall. Ignoring that the most effective pitcher of all time (arguably I'll give you) put up numbers over many years and innings in the post season that make his usual performance look like trash is ridiculous simply because we don't know if Wagner could have done the same. The innings Wagner did put up are more like the awfulness of let's say Lidge gone bad than Rivera and if I recall often he was the direct cause of his team not getting more post season games for him to pitch in.

A lot of players don't have enough of a postseason resume to matter,

That's precisely the point.

It's not really so obvious. What other reliever has had the chance to pile up 140 freaking relief innings in the postseason?

It's not like Billy Wagner was chopped liver, as you note. He had a long and successful career as a reliever.

And yet Wagner got just 12 innings in the postseason.

Wagner: 13 RA in 11.2 postseason innings

Rivera: 13 RA in 141 postseason innings

I understand why you don't consider playoff stats when you consider someone's HOF case, but it'll never seem reasonable to me. Those extra 130 innings of scoreless baseball happened. It doesn't matter to me that those opportunities are due to things beyond his control. You say you ignore them because you don't want to punish Wagner, but you're just punishing Rivera instead.

Wagner: 13 RA in 11.2 postseason innings

Rivera: 13 RA in 141 postseason innings

Do people seriously believe this gap represents an actual difference in ability level re the postseason?

See my item 3) in post 145. I can scarcely imagine anything more absurd than thinking Wagner's true ability level in the playoffs was a 10 ERA. And if you don't think that, then we're back to my item 3) -- a small sample of games skewing the results.