Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 3 of 4 pages
Maddux was a better pitcher for a period as long as Koufax's entire career. But in your view they were equally effective at preventing runs, because Maddux's ability to pitch for another 11 seasons reduced his career rate to match Koufax? Seriously?
OK, good so far. But can I also point out that from age 25-36, another 12-season stretch, Maddux put up an ERA+ of around 170? That is, would it be OK to mention in a discussion of these pitchers that for a period as long as Koufax's entire career, Maddux was MUCH better? Or must I then be shunned as methodologically impure?
What do you mean by "standard" advantage? The general estimate is that a reliever's ERA would rise by about 1 run as a starter.
I feel like this is getting a bit esoteric though. Traditionally, players are typically compared by either total career numbers or shorter defined peaks. Why not stick to that?
The Maddux/Koufax comparison is quite different, because it's explicitly not cherrypicked. You're comparing the same chunk of Maddux's career against Koufax's. Maddux then went to on to tack on a bunch of very effective work.
He has been able to stay as good as he is because he only pitches 70 innings a year
Not if your whole career also equals the same *quantity* as someone else's peak.
How many additional saves do we think would be blown? One per team is 30. I'll take the under.
He has been able to stay as good as he is because he only pitches 70 innings a year.
Replacement level for Rivera and other 9th inning "closers" is the next best reliever.
I must be misunderstanding something here. Koufax's numbers look so great precisely because he had no decline phase. He got hurt in his prime and then never pitched another game again. In order for the comparison to be fair to Maddux, it's only fair to cut off Maddux's post-age 30 seasons. Of course, it doesn't really matter as Maddux mops the floor with Koufax regardless. Maddux had a better ERA+ (132) than Koufax (131) although the former threw almost 2700 additional innings. If you just mirrored Koufax's career where his age-31 season looked like his age-30 season, his age-32 like his age-29, and so on so that his age-42 season mirrored his age-19 season, you would still have a pitcher that was inferior to Maddux on a rate basis (albeit only just) and still 350 innings behind Maddux. The difference would be someone with a career like Brian Wilson's (320 IP @ 129 ERA+).
jyjjy: Tango's estimate of reliever advantage is 1.00 (unless he's changed it recently).
That really should satisfy the pro-Rivera contingent in this thread.
Do you really believe Rivera's RA/9 would only have increased by 17% if he started?
Best pitcher ever on a rate basis or bust yo.
Best pitcher ever on a rate basis or bust yo.
That would be the guy who faced one batter in his career and struck him out, which is probably Wade Boggs or someone.
17% rather than the .6 runs just makes my case stronger.
Best pitcher ever on a rate basis or bust yo. It simply is what all the math says, or our current understanding of maths at least, if you will.
Absolutely true, and if we raise the innings threshold a little, it is Kimbrel, and if we raise it further it is Rivera, and if we raise it higher it becomes Pedro, and then Lefty Grove, and then Walter Johnson, and then Cy Young.
I think I'm the one firmly on the reservation. The statistical analysis is biased b/c only RP who teams think have a good shot at being good get to start. The fact that the Yankees never considered it should be taking as evidence.
If Rivera could have put up a 2.50 ERA as a SP in his era, he would have been the best SP ever. Even Pedro gave up a 2.93 ERA. How likely is that?
Which only proves my point. There's no reason to set the threshold at exactly the point where Rivera is the beneficiary.
And if my complaint about lack of similar opportunities for others to pile up innings in the postseason is invalid, why doesn't Sean include postseason innings in the seasonal and career totals?
"Exactly the point"? Rivera is number one from 160 innings to 1200 innings - that might be the largest spread of any of the names I listed.
And what number is he from 1400 innings to 5000 innings?
No, 17% makes it larger (.17 * 4.6 R/G = .8 runs). Read the thread at your link: Tango still has replacement level for relievers at 1.0 run better (lower) than for starters.
You need a better reason to dismiss such a thing than saying, "but he was a reliever!"
Seriously. If you are really all about quantity over quality
jyjjy: Look, if you are determined to compare relievers against starters in terms of total value (both quality and quantity), what matters is the baseline we are measuring these guys against.
B-Ref's WAR puts Rivera at 52.7, basically interchangeable with such near-contemporaries as Robin Ventura, Jeff Kent, Tim Hudson, and Will Clark.
Yes, his rate stat was higher. We agree on that point. But that doesn't mean he was better.
Do you not understand the concept of rate stats?
It means he was better on average at preventing the other team from scoring. This is sorta the goal of pitching. He was better at pitching on average for his career. Unless I'm vastly misinterpreting Tango the reliever advantage does not come close to making this incorrect in the case of Rivera vs anyone who has pitched.
None of GuyM's disdain for the NYY future HOFers made that press conference any less bittersweet. I am sure the farewell tour will fill you with rage all year.
"Blastin," what on earth are you talking about? What "disdain" have I expressed toward Rivera? I doubt you have any idea what I think of Rivera, or (for example) whether I think he belongs in the HOF. So please just speak for yourself, and stop characterizing my views....
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.9247 seconds, 53 querie(s) executed