Sometimes when you are constantly cut off when speaking by the aorta-boiling King of All Beige Dockers...mindless pyramidal off-track oozing like this can happen.

It's funny, Repoz, but I was just thinking the same thing in those very words myself.

My brain! It hurts!

How do you think teams feel when they see Rivera come into a game?

Usually pretty bad, because that generally means they're behind.

Which is why a lockdown closer is nowhere near as important as a big slugger.

The article is obviously stupid (have the 40's and 50's been wiped from the history books?), but you could probably come up with a non-laughable argument that he's the most important Yankees since Mantle. It's a stretch, but not insane.

Think about it. If the Yankees don’t win four World Series titles in five years, Mariano Rivera doesn't have 500+ leads to protect.

Sweeney murti is such a ####### fanboy.

Using this sort of reasoning, think about how many of those recent Yankee championships could be attributed to one player, because without him the Yankees would have needed to have come up with an instant replacement:


1977 - Sparky Lyle! (No long relief job in the ALCS game 4, and no Reggie Jackson World Series heroics)
1978 - Bucky Dent! (If that lazy fly drops down ten feet closer, the Curse of the Bambino goes kablooey)
1996 - Jim Leyritz! (And if Babe Ruth II hadn't managed to foul off just one of those many prior Mark Wohlers pitches, we might be talking about Atlanta being the dynasty of the 90's.

I wonder if the Yankee relief pitchers who combined for 500 saves before were as important as Ruth.

Doug Bird...c'mon down!

a non-laughable argument that he's the most important Yankees since Mantle. It's a stretch, but not insane

Yes, it would go something like "Rivera was the most important key player to be at the top of his game every year during the Yankees' pennant dynasty 1996-2003, their longest run of success since Mantle retired." That still leaves Jeter and Pettitte to contend with, but it narrows the terms. Unfortunately it narrows them beyond the point where it's such a spectacular status anymore :)

This is utter nonsense (and that's not meant to denigrate Rivera, a brilliant reliever).

While Babe Ruth put the Yankees on the map (as he revolutionized the way the game was played), in his final six years as a Yankee the team won only one pennant and World Series, and despite Gehrig's stellar play the Yankees weren't a factor in 1935 after Ruth left. It would have been understandable to think at the time that without Ruth, the Yankees might be good most of the time, but no longer dominant.

But once Joe DiMaggio arrived in '36, the team won four consecutive Series; he would be a part of nine WS winners in all. Simply put, DiMaggio made the Yankees the Yankees, and from that perspective is arguably the most important player in franchise history..

DiMaggio, eh?

But once Joe DiMaggio arrived in '36, the team won four consecutive Series; he would be a part of nine WS winners in all. Simply put, DiMaggio made the Yankees the Yankees, and from that perspective is arguably the most important player in franchise history.

I don't agree with that. Combining on the field contributions and historical significance, I'd rank the most "important" Yankees as (1) Ruth, (2) Mantle, (3) Berra, (4) Gehrig, and (5) Dimaggio.

Present indicative nightmare.

American sports commentators' inability to use either tense or mood -- particularly the subjunctive -- correctly is a source of endless irritation to me.

Where would Reggie Jackson be? He's the straw that broke the camel's back. The camel that the Yanks rode through a 14 year hejira in quest of their next ring. Oh, that's right. Greenies.

I would switch DiMag and Berra in your list, Yeaarrgghhhh.

I would say Mariano is easily, easily my favorite Yankee of recent memory. And in some circles, hugely underrated in importance. But come on, most important since Babe Ruth?

most important post-CBS ownership Yankees: (1) Jeter (2) ARod (3) Williams (4) Jackson (for entertainment/interest value) (5) Rivera

I don't agree with that. Combining on the field contributions and historical significance, I'd rank the most "important" Yankees as (1) Ruth, (2) Mantle, (3) Berra, (4) Gehrig, and (5) Dimaggio.

I concur that Ruth was the most important Yankee in terms of his overall impact on the game, but strictly in terms of solidifying the Yankee franchise, DiMaggio is the man. Without DiMag, the Yankees would have likely won a few pennants between 1936 and 1951, but chances are Detroit, Cleveland and Boston collectively might have won a few more.

but you could probably come up with a non-laughable argument that he's the most important Yankees since Mantle.

I would argue that Berra was more important than was Mantle to the 50s Yankees. The Yankees had a lot of nondescript pitchers who weren't very good when they weren't pitching in pinstripes - Grim, Kucks, Larsen, Sturdivant, Ditmar - post outstanding seasons while working with Berra. Granting that some of that was due to Casey, and some was due to the overall team defense, still that's a pretty impressive record, and many of the pitchers credited Berra both at the time and later.

-- MWE

Pretty laughably absurd. No way he's more important than Jeter in the 4-Championship run. It's not even close. I'd also argue that Bernie was more important, and Pettitte and O'Neill probably were also.

That's just the fact that an everday player or a SP is just so much more valuable than a reliever.

There's no real reason to think that if the Yankees had kept Wetteland instead of Rivera they'd have any fewer championships. (Hell, they might have more since Wetteland cost only money, and Rivera would have fetched some nice talent in a trade). After all in 1998-2000, when Rivera put up his gaudy stats, they won most of the playoff series easily, and reached the postseason easily.

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.

I'm pretty confident that replacing Rivera with any competent closer does not change the outcome of those postseasons.

None of this means to diminish Rivera's greatness, just to disprove the laughable idea that he was the uber-critical piece to the championship run.

If the Yankees don’t win four World Series titles in five years and draw 3-4 million fans every year for the last decade they don’t erect that shiny new building that in the Bronx.

That premise seems doubtful. The Mets got a new stadium without similar achievements.

I concur that Ruth was the most important Yankee in terms of his overall impact on the game, but strictly in terms of solidifying the Yankee franchise, DiMaggio is the man. Without DiMag, the Yankees would have likely won a few pennants between 1936 and 1951, but chances are Detroit, Cleveland and Boston collectively might have won a few more.

A fair point.

Still, though, the attempt to boil down the success of a team over a long period of years to the contribution of any single player (let alone a closer) is a long reach; baseball is a true team sport. Certainly, DiMaggio was the best player on the Yankee teams in the 1936-51 period, but the reason they won so many pennants is that they had DiMaggio and a great supporting cast, of Gordon/Keller/Henrich/Chandler/Rizzuto etc. etc. Baseball teams win because they have a central superstar or two and a strong lineup surrounding them; it's nearly impossible to sustain championship-level success for any length of time without both elements, equally crucial.

But once Joe DiMaggio arrived in '36, the team won four consecutive Series; he would be a part of nine WS winners in all. Simply put, DiMaggio made the Yankees the Yankees, and from that perspective is arguably the most important player in franchise history.

There was only 1 Babe Ruth, but there's certainly something to be said for DiMaggio being the key to elevating the Yankees to semi-permanent elite status within MLB. That's not quite the same as being the best player, and there's room for some doubt as to the exact order that Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio, Berra and others follow Ruth.

Another thing about Mariano, he definitely lost them a few series.

1997- gave up the home run in game 4 against Cleveland.
2001- lost series to Diamondbacks with blown save in 7th game
2004- blew 2 saves, either one would have put the Yanks in the World Series.

Dusty Rhodes. The most important Giant since 1933.

1997- gave up the home run in game 4 against Cleveland.
2001- lost series to Diamondbacks with blown save in 7th game
2004- blew 2 saves, either one would have put the Yanks in the World Series.

Much as I love Mariano, this is true. I'm not sure why the (fairly large) blemishes on his record are completely glossed over.

Also, the article forgets that Mariano was NOT the closer in 1996. Maybe his impact was greater in the role he was in, but just saying...

Here’s another important aspect to Rivera’s greatness. By nature of the position he occupies, every one of the 500 saves he’s racked up obviously resulted in Yankee victories. The math is a little fuzzy from the Ruth era, but I’m quite certain he hit plenty of home runs in games the Yankees lost.

Words fail me. Shooty nailed it with #2.

NYM 4-1.

Huge job though in Game 4 recording a six-out save to give the Yankees a 3-1 lead.

2004- blew 2 saves, either one would have put the Yanks in the World Series.

The second blown save is strictly bookkeeping. Gordon put Rivera in a nearly impossible spot, first and third, one run lead, nobody out.

agreed on that 2nd 'blown save.'

of course, Rivera' save pct is so high overall because he never gets put in that spot like the 1950s-1970s "firemen" did.

in that antiquated era, managers were more focused on trying to win the game than in keeping the closer's save pct as high as possible.

I would argue that Berra was more important than was Mantle to the 50s Yankees. The Yankees had a lot of nondescript pitchers who weren't very good when they weren't pitching in pinstripes - Grim, Kucks, Larsen, Sturdivant, Ditmar - post outstanding seasons while working with Berra. Granting that some of that was due to Casey, and some was due to the overall team defense, still that's a pretty impressive record, and many of the pitchers credited Berra both at the time and later.

-- MWE

Using almost exactly the same argument that you do about the Yankee pitching staff of the 50's (a good one IMO), Allen Barra once made the case that Berra was the most valuable team player in any sport in the 20th century. His choices for basketball and football were Jordan (by a cunt hair over Russell) and Bart Starr (in a virtual tie with Joe Montana).

#### hair

The nanny lets this by but I can't type ######## normally?

Edit: Hmmm. Did Andy cut and paste just to get that in there so he could say something about Bill Russell?

I don't buy Barra's argument about Bart Starr. Both went to Bama and I think Barra's a little biased.

Tim, you might be right about Barra's Bama bias, but he presents a pretty strong case for Starr that IIRC rests on two main pillars: Starr's extraordinary passing efficiency, as measured in average yards gained per pass attempt; and the fact that in the Packers' last three championships he didn't have nearly the running game to back him up the way he did when Jim Taylor was in his prime. Whether or not Starr deserves the "greatest team player in football" honor, I do think that he's certainly the most underrated quarterback I can think of.

Edit: Hmmm. Did Andy cut and paste just to get that in there so he could say something about Bill Russell?

Not really; I only mentioned Russell and Montana because in both cases Barra rated them as only a ##### hair behind his #1 picks, whereas Berra was rated a somewhat thicker pubic over Johnny Bench.

I'm not sure why the (fairly large) blemishes on his record are completely glossed over.

The Luis Gonzalez blown save was also of the flukish variety (throwing error, broken bat). However, it directly led to the Yankees signing Tony Womack, and thus may have been the most damaging pitching performance ever.

The Luis Gonzalez blown save was also of the flukish variety (throwing error

Yeah, but it was his throwing error.

I'm not sure why the (fairly large) blemishes on his record are completely glossed over.

The Luis Gonzalez blown save was also of the flukish variety (throwing error, broken bat). However, it directly led to the Yankees signing Tony Womack, and thus may have been the most damaging pitching performance ever.

Fluke? The throwing error was his own. He still gave up two runs with a failed sac bunt for the only out. He gave up a line drive two run double to TONY WOMACK. He was a made man by that point, so I guess it didn't stick though.

I'm not sure why the (fairly large) blemishes on his record are completely glossed over.

I don't know. Maybe because his postseason ERA is 0.77 in 117 innings, and any imperfection in those situations will cause a fairly large blemish?

Berra and the 1949-53 Yankees are certainly an interesting case. The only 5 time champ, and everyone wants to talk about Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle et al. Both DiMaggio and Mantle were on those teams, but DiMaggio was hurt in 1949, good in 1950, just okay in 1951. Mantle was just okay in 1951, good but not great in 1952, better than that in 1953. Combined, they certainly contributed but were hardly essential.

Really, they won five straight because they were the deepest team of all time. Sherm Lollar and Gus Triandos couldn't make the team. Jackie Jensen couldn't make the team. Bob Porterfield couldn't make the team. The Yankees weren't particularly astute traders, at least before the Kansas City travesty, so they didn't always get value for these guys back, but when you have two to three solutions for every position it's hard to go wrong. The Indians of that era were a hell of a team but if a player had a bad year they just had to live with it. The Yankees could plug someone else in without skipping a beat.

Berra is one of the few, if the only one, that would have been difficult to replace. Jim Hegan was a fine catcher but was no comparision offensively. And Berra never got hurt and never had a bad year.

The 1949-53 Yankees are one of the big reasons I tend not to place much emphasis on peak value. Peak value just isn't particularly important to winning. Witness the Ruthian Yankees. Ruth was the most dominant Yankee ever, but he was just one player. Even when Ruth towered over the league they still didn't win every year. Later on Foxx was almost as good, and the other parts of the team were mediocre. The 1949-53 Yankees didn't have weaknesses.

A rib-tickler from the comments:

Excellent, well stated case, sweeney. Mo's greatness lies in his effortless saves, which ISN'T the norm.I just finished Tom Verducci's book (which kind of makes the same point). When will Brian Cashman realize that there is more to baseball than stats. Baseball has a heart. On the Yankees its name is "Rivera".

I think I need a side-eotomy.

Tremendous post, Jay Z (#40).

Good post, Jay Z, although in truth Mantle was quite a bit better in 52 than in 53. The Big Four in that run was Berra, Raschi, Reynolds and Lopat, and you're absolutely correct that the key to their success was their depth and their all-around play. The Indians had outstanding overall pitching and the league's best offense, but their defense cost them at least one pennant and possibly two.

One of my favorite bits of trivia about that team was to look at the record of Bob Porterfield and Frank Shea in 1953, two Senators whom they had acquired from the Yankees.

In 1953, when the Yanks won their only easy pennant of the five, by 8 1/2 games over the second place Indians, here were Porterfield's and Shea's records against the Yanks, and against Cleveland:

Porterfield vs. New York: 2-5

Porterfield vs Cleveland: 5-0

Shea vs New York: 0-1 (the infamous 22-1 game)

Shea vs Cleveland: 4-0

Combined: 2-6 vs the Yankees, and 9-0 against Cleveland. Reverse that and the Indians win the pennant. In one of the baseball annuals the next year, there was a cartoon depicting Porterfield and Shea tying a rope around an Indian's neck and about to hang him on a limb. It wasn't far from the truth.

Mantle was just okay in 1951, good but not great in 1952, better than that in 1953.

Folks may have been a little slow to recognize how great Mantle was because he wasn't Joe DiMaggio, but Mickey led the league in OPS+ (162) in 1952 and was "only" 5th in '53 (143).

Mantle's first big breakthrough came when he was the de facto MVP of the 1952 World Series, a fact acknowledged by Jackie Robinson. And then when in the first week or so of the 1953 season he hit that 565 ft. home run in Washington, he was elevated to near-Ruthian levels by the press, to an extent that he wouldn't again enjoy until his triple crown year in 1956.

His problem in the intervening years was simple: He wasn't Joe Dimaggio. He'd set the bar too high; he didn't hit a home run every time up; he struck out a lot; and he was perceived as a big underachiever, compared to his seeming ability to hit 400 home runs a year if he only would stop blowing bubble gum in the outfield. By the time September of 1953 came around he was tabloid fodder, and there were articles in SPORT with titles like "Why They Boo Mickey Mantle."