but nobody takes established starters and moves them to fill a gap at closer.

Curt Schilling, Brett Myers...

When Rivera got hurt last year, the Yankees didn't consider moving CC Sabathia , or even Phil Hughes, to the pen.

If you are appealing to the Yankees' authority, they were the ones choosing to spend more than $20m in a year for closers when, in addition to Robertson, they presumably have plenty of failed starters to choose from.

You're just hung up on "best ERA+ = best pitcher ever"

It seems like everyone else is hung up on that, I don't think he has said that once (but maybe I missed it).

Curt Schilling, Brett Myers...

Myers is the one case in recent years. Before that, Dave Righetti maybe?

When was Schiiling moved to closer? His only seasons with saves came very early in his career, much before he was an established anything.

Team certainly use young SP in relief while breaking them in. That's always been the case.

Hell Phil Hughes, who is a thoroughly mediocre SP, was a lights out RP for the Yankees in 2009.

When was Schiiling moved to closer? His only seasons with saves came very early in his career, much before he was an established anything.

Team certainly use young SP in relief while breaking them in. That's always been the case.

Hell Phil Hughes, who is a thoroughly mediocre SP, was a lights out RP for the Yankees in 2009.

Schilling was used as closer for a little when Foulke was out in 2005. Smoltz was a closer for 3 years, so it wasn't all about health and building back arm strength.

Phil Hughes had a 3.00 ERA, that is not lights-out for a starter or reliever.

It seems like everyone else is hung up on that, I don't think he has said that once (but maybe I missed it).

He says "best at preventing runs", without admitting any modification for quantity of innings, or the reduced scoring context for one IP RPs.

I think there is less to argue about here than it appears? Does anyone seriously disagree that:
1) Teams need both starters and relievers, and pitchers can provide value in both roles:
2) Starting pitchers are, in general, more valuable and more skilled pitchers (as shown by the fact that talented pitchers will usually be moved to the bullpen only if they cannot succeed as starters);
3) Pitching in relief gives most pitchers an advantage, and we must account for that in evaluating relievers (and if you are a pitcher who cannot do better in relief, you should either start or find another profession);
4) Pitching well in high leverage situations does increase a pitcher's contribution to the team, but leverage is to some extent a "team resource" that will always be given to (at least) a decent pitcher.

We can certainly argue about the details of #3 and #4 (how to adjust replacement level and how to handle leverage). But it doesn't seem that the basic principles should be much in dispute at this point.

Phil Hughes had a 3.00 ERA, that is not lights-out for a starter or reliever.

His ERA as a RP in 2009 was 1.40.

Even the 3.00 ERA, which includes 7 lousy starts (5.45 ERA) was a 152 ERA+, which is pretty lights out.

Everything I've said is true.

And totally meaningless. Soriano had a middling year as a setup man... all of a sudden he doesn't count as a very successful highly paid closer when he returns to the role and excels at it because management doesn't have a clue, much like yourself on this topic it seems. Your responses show so little respect for closers that when discussing them your brain shuts off and all of sudden other people making demonstrably incorrect decisions is proof that they know what they are doing to a degree that you insist it proves contrary ideas wrong, with no other real evidence.

His ERA as a RP in 2009 was 1.40.

my mistake

He says "best at preventing runs", without admitting any modification for quantity of innings, or the reduced scoring context for one IP RPs.

That is clearly totally different than "best ERA+ = best pitcher ever"

Schilling was used as closer for a little when Foulke was out in 2005.

Interesting. He was coming off an injury, and three horrific April starts, when they tried him at closer in July/Aug.

That is clearly totally different than "best ERA+ = best pitcher ever"

On the printed page, yes, but not so much the way it's been argued.

Anyway, I pretty much agree 100% with GuyM, and he's bringing the data, so I'm going to drop out of this one. We're just talking past each other and getting nasty for no reason.

He says "best at preventing runs", without admitting any modification for quantity of innings, or the reduced scoring context for one IP RPs.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am saying Rivera has been the best pitcher at preventing the other team from scoring on a rate basis when everything, including role, is taken into account with the appropriate "quantity" aspect being enough data to establish a statistically significant appraisal of the pitcher's true talent level and I believe Rivera's body of work does meet that criteria. All you seem to be saying on the other hand boils down to, "closers are all just teh sukky starters guys, derp."

I am saying Rivera has been the best pitcher at preventing the other team from scoring on a rate basis when everything, including role, is taken into account

But that's not true if you adjust for the fact that it's ~1 run of ERA easier to be a short-RP.

GuyM showed it, comparing Rivera to Pedro, but I can't find the post right now.

Edit: Here you go

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/mariano_rivera_plans_to_retire_after_2013_season/P300/

Thank you kindly for pointing out a post(or rather the page a post is on...) which I have already responded to. Very useful.

@ 143: Maybe someone will match him, but there are a lot of reliver bodies on the side of the road that say otherwise. Exactly!

When Rivera got hurt last year, the Yankees didn't consider moving CC Sabathia , or even Phil Hughes, to the pen.

Jesus man. Do you even stop to think before you say these things? They already had purposely signed a back up closer for big money. That you have constantly ignored this to make points even after you have been reminded of it repeatedly is one of the most blatantly willfully intellectually dishonest things I've encountered in a while and I have been speaking with Ray.

Ok: Who is the last ace starter at the top of his game and without injury concerns to be moved to the closer's role because the closer went down?

Really Ray? I set snapper's strawman on fire and you douse it and prop it up again just to reclaim the role of most tediously stubborn? Why would anyone think a team would do that and what is your goal in asking the question?

The point is that teams _don't_ do that, because they know that ace starters are more valuable than ace closers.

This is reflected as well in the length/salary of starter contracts vs. closer contracts.

Maybe. The "position" of "short-inning reliever" is still quite new and only a handful of players have even played the position for their entire careers.

A great point; Walt's post 115 is excellent. People act as if Rivera's role has been around for 100+ years and he's been the best at it. It's been around for 20+ years and he's been the best at it. Massive difference.

I think what sets Rivera apart is his durability.

Yeah, it was the fact that he did it every year for 16 years. But, as I said in the other thread, so what? Teams don't plan their roster for 15 years into the future, or sign closers - or anyone - to 15 year contracts.

The Yankees' job is not to "find a closer who can replace Mo for the next 15 years," as the media and the pro-Rivera contingent seem to think that it is. You can sign a top closer to a four year contract, as the Phillies did with Papelbon, and be reasonably confident that he can pitch well for the foreseeable future.

Since Rivera is used as a closer, you don't need to replace him with someone with the same ERA+. You just need to replace him with someone with a comparable save percentage.

And Snapper is correct: I can't imagine an easier job than closer. Everything is set up for him to succeed. He typically comes in with a lead. Typically with the bases empty. Typically with a margin for error, and typically with a sizeable (2-3 run) margin for error. Typically for only 1 inning. Then when he succeeds, as he will the vast majority of the time, he accepts the accolades at the end when everyone else did all the hard work.

So he doesn't have to come in with men on the bases in the 7th/8th and the game hanging in the balance.

And for all of this, the only difficult thing he has to deal with compared to other pitchers is the higher frequency of pinch hitters, although it's probably not that much higher since managers don't PH much even with the game on the line.

The point is that teams _don't_ do that, because they know that ace starters are more valuable than ace closers.

Excellent. We are breaking new ground here. Shall we all agree that the sky is blue next? What other mysteries that have plagued the world shall we conquer now that we have put our differences behind us?

EDIT: Just looked outside and it's getting dark and the sky is kinda purplish rather than blue. I know it only stays that way for a little bit but I fear I'm admiring it more on a rate basis despite that blue skies are more valuable... the world's mysteries will have to wait I guess while we go for round two.

the fact that he did it every year for 16 years. But, as I said in the other thread, so what?

Well, as I was saying in the other thread, guys who are great for 16 years tend to be widely admired as ballplayers, and guys who are great for one year tend to be barely remembered :)

Who is the last ace starter at the top of his game and without injury concerns to be moved to the closer's role

That in itself is an interesting question (the "closer going down" part seems to be a red herring, though). Unless I'm forgetting a lot of guys, there are few enough examples of even decent starters being converted to closer without an injury intervening (as it did with Aguilera, Smoltz, Isringhausen). Dave Righetti and Jeff Russell are among the few apposite examples I remember, neither one a great starter, though. Without getting into the argument per se, I'd like to know other examples from people with better memories :)

Eckersley was all over the place as a starter, but occasionally pretty great.

Eck was a fine starter, but had reached the end of his rope with the Cubs – not via injury but via drink. I'd put him in the category of something bad intervening; in any case he was not anywhere near the top of his game when converted to relief.

His ERA+s before the conversion;

144, 101, 112, 139, 149, 99, 91, 116, 78, 110, 129, 88

His last year is not good but not really awful and he had a 129 in 300+ innings with the Cubs right before that. I'd think the conversion was just LaRussa being LaRussa more so than alcoholism forcing the switch in some odd way. But yeah, great isn't the word to describe him at that point.

Ryan Dempster and Kelvim Escobar both followed a similar career path (well, sort of). They started out in the rotation, where they had some early success before struggling. They moved to the bullpen and ended up as the closer, which went okay. Then they went back to the rotation and settled in as good starters.

What happened with Scott Williamson? The Reds converted him to a starter in mid-2000, and he pitched very well in that role, but he started the 2001 season in the bullpen.

The team pretty much has to trade Cano, don't they?

The team pretty much has to trade Cano, don't they?

If they're sub-.500 in July, they need to trade Cano, Granderson, Kuroda, and Hughes (if they don't plan on extending him).

@180: why? I don't follow the Yanks except incidentally. Is this the CW, or...?

@180: why? I don't follow the Yanks except incidentally. Is this the CW, or...?

Because they're all FA, and the team seems hell bent on getting below the luxury tax threshold in 2014.

There's basically no chance they resign Granderson, Kuroda, or Hughes (and stay under the cap), so if you're out of it, you might as well get some talent back. You trade Cano because he wants 10/250 and is a 30 y.o. 2B.

Brett Myers was the Phillies' ace going into 2007 (Cole Hamels had yet to establish himself at that level), yet they made him the closer. I'm not going to say it wasn't really stupid, but they did do it.

(EDIT: Whoops, I see that in all this nonsense, that was mentioned and I missed it. Schilling was used as closer [and was awful] because he was coming back from injury and they doubted his stamina. That type of thing presumably shouldn't count.)

There was also the strange situation in 1950-51 when "firemen" were just beginning to take off and the Red Sox transitioned Ellis Kinder, who had gone 23-6 with a 130 ERA+ in 1949, into a part-time and later into a full-time reliever. Of course, this also could be deemed inapplicable for several reasons.

Again, ultimately, who cares? Anyone sensible acknowledges that most pitchers can perform better per inning as relievers than as starters. That still doesn't mean that the best reliever ever can't be as good as a very good starter. There needs to be less anecdotal evidence and baloney here, and more specific claims about how statistics should be adjusted.

Re: Cano: I do think the Yankees might as well re-sign him. I realize they want to stay under $189 million/yr, but they have basically overshot their target there: They are currently only committed to spend $80M or so (not counting arbitration cases) in '14. There's certainly no reason for them not to spend $189M. So if you go cheap at 2B, how do you propose to productively spend the other $100M or so?

There's basically no chance they resign Granderson, Kuroda, or Hughes (and stay under the cap), so if you're out of it, you might as well get some talent back. You trade Cano because he wants 10/250 and is a 30 y.o. 2B.

The Yankees will recoup considerable payroll room with Rivera's retirement, Andy Pettitte's probable retirement, and passing on Kuroda if he doesn't retire. Getting under the "cap" may require them to develop in-house replacements for those folks, but if they do, they could re-sign Cano and Granderson. And I wouldn't count on the Yanks being out of the race, so Cano's mid-season departure is unlikely.

@182: interesting. I was also interested in what YC would have to say. 10/250 for Cano does indeed seem preposterous. I can't see the Yankees not topping David Wright's deal, probably by a fair amount given that Wright has only been terrific in one year of the last four. No way Cano doesn't get eight years. Would you go, say, 8/184? And, is there any chance Cano could be had for that? No idea if he's tied to NY the way, say, Jeter or Rivera is.

They are currently only committed to spend $80M or so (not counting arbitration cases) in '14.

It will likely be more like 100 mill after arbitration and Jeter's option. And they'll have a rotation that includes CC and... Nova... Phelps/Pineda w/shoulder duct taped together? and a pen that is Robertson... and no one else particularly worth mentioning along with a hole in the OF, 2B, C, DH and A-Rod will be 38, Jeter and Ichiro 40 and Teixeira 34 and he has been declining for years already. None of the top prospects are likely to be ready to fill any of these slots before at least the second half of the year. It's looking pretty ugly.

Manishevitz. The Mets owe 83m to 11 players, won't go much over 1m for anyone else, and of that 83m, 50m is going to Santana, Buck, and Bay, three guys who might add up to 0.0 WAR in 2013. That's ugly, ugly stuff. I can't believe the Mets had to pick up all of Buck's 6m salary AND give up Josh Thole, who will put up some averagey, ML-regular seasons before his career is over.

The Yankees are going to be so far out of contention this year that they might as well shoot for the # 1 draft pick and start trying to rebuild the farm system. I say that only half facetiously. The idea that they can lose virtually every 2012 home run threat** for a big chunk of the season, or the entire season altogether, and still contend with a fast-aging pitching staff has got to be one of the greater testimonies to the hold that aura and mystique apparently still command among allegedly non-superstitious people.

But unless they're going to want to throw in the towel for beyond 2013-14, they're going to have to sign Cano, who'll be affordable after the dead wood contracts expire.

** Teixeira, A-Rod, Swisher, Granderson, Chavez and Ibanez. Only Cano is likely to be in the lineup for the first month or two of the season. Their replacements are either flyers coming off bad seasons or injuries, or they're banjo hitters with little or no power.

Would you go, say, 8/184?

That'd be about my maximum.

But unless they're going to want to throw in the towel for beyond 2013-14, they're going to have to sign Cano,

That's nonsense. You'll get an A prospect plus more for Cano at the deadline. You'll get B-B+ guys for Kuroda and Granderson. Any of those guys could potentially replace Cano's production by 2015. Plus your own posepcts, plus future FAs.

Cano's is not going to be a 6 WAR guy for most of his next deal. You're not trying to replace the 29 y.o. Cano. You're trying to replace the 32-37 y.o. Cano, who's likely to not produce much..

Personally, I've been waiting 20 years for the Yankees to stink!

You'll get an A prospect plus more for Cano at the deadline.

That's debatable. I think it's pretty clear that an A prospect is more than the going rate for a half-season of a star.

Yeah, an A is unlikely unless an extension is involved perhaps.

That's debatable. I think it's pretty clear that an A prospect is more than the going rate for a half-season of a star.

The Mets got a A-prospect (Harvey) for half a season of Beltran.

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Jeter_Rivera_are_Yankee_greats_but_which_one_is_king_of_the_heap.html?page=all

That's Klapisch on who is greater, Jeter or Rivera?

#releasethehounds

I think his post-season stats pale before Gibson or Koufax's. Even Curt Schilling's post-season stats impress me more.

FWIW, according to BB-Ref Rivera has about 3 times the Postseason WPA of anyone else in history as far as I can tell:

Rivera* -- 11.7
Schilling* -- 4.1
Smoltz* -- 3.6
Pettitte* -- 3.5
Pujols# -- 2.9
Hershiser* -- 2.8
Ruth*# -- 2.8
Berkman# -- 2.7
Nehf* -- 2.7
Rose# -- 2.6
Ruffing* -- 2.5
Clemens* -- 2.5
Reynolds* -- 2.4
Pennock* -- 2.4
Gehrig# -- 2.3

* Pitching
# Batting

Koufax is 1.5. Most HOMers and candidates are either negative, zero or at the most +1-ish as far as I can tell. Granted it may not be a repeatable skill but being the greatest postseason clutch performer of all time by such a gigantic margin has to be worth something in HOF votes. Even if you raise the bar from 50% as WPA has it to 85% -- where most closers are in converting save chances -- he's still better than Schilling and everyone else.

FWIW, according to BB-Ref Rivera has about 3 times the Postseason WPA of anyone else in history as far as I can tell:

This is going to be biased in favor of recent pitchers, as the postseason is longer than it used to be - but if you weight by importance of game toward winning the championship, Rivera still leads all pitchers (players, actually) by an enormous margin.

It's debatable. I think it's pretty clear that an A prospect is more than the going rate for a half-season of a star.

The Mets got a A-prospect (Harvey) for half a season of Beltran.

Double quibble. It was Wheeler, and he probably was not an "A-prospect" when he was traded. Sickels, for example, had him rated as a "B" prospect in the offseason before 2011, the year he was traded. BA had him as the #55 prospect in the game at the same time, having moved backwards a few slots since the previous year. At the time of the trade Wheeler had a 3.99 ERA and had bad control problems - basically identical numbers to his previous year, the year that caused him to move backwards on the BA list, and the year which Sickels called "not a great year." The moment he put on a Mets uniform he solved his control problems, and he's been flying up the charts since then.

IIRC the other name being bandied about was Gary Brown - who was also ranked "B" by Sickels, and was #38 in the country by BA - if Wheeler was an A prospect, so was Gary Brown and about 50 other guys.