And how many people will notice that Rivera was the second-best relief pitcher in this series -- and a distant second, at that?

Timlin?

Timlin: 5.1 IP, 6 K, 2 BB, 1 H, 0 R

Rivera: 8 IP, 6 K, 0 BB, 5 H, 1 R

Add in the "leverage" -- Rivera's 3 shutout innings to conclude Game Seven -- and I don't know that I'd say he was a "distant" second.

Recount! I earned the damned thing!

Oops, silly me, I was giving Timlin credit for 9 2/3 innings of one-hit ball, forgetting that four of those came in the Division Series, not the LCS.

Still, 5.33 innings of one-hit baseball is probably a better performance than Rivera's. Just not by much.

Leverage doesn't really count in measuring a player's greatness. That's a function of how he's used, not how he performs.

True, leverage is not a measure of a player's performance, but it's definitely a measure of how valuable that performance is.

Three scoreless innings in a 12-1 victory over the Devil Rays is not as valuable as the 9th, 10th, and 11th innings of Game 7 of the ALCS, even if all the pitching stats are the same.

But then, you knew that.

Oops, silly me, I was giving Timlin credit for 9 2/3 innings of one-hit ball

Ah. Yeah, he was fantastic.

Still, 5.33 innings of one-hit baseball is probably a better performance than Rivera's. Just not by much.

Maybe. Rivera's got more IP, at what I presume is much higher leverage -- five shutout innings at the end of two games with a lead of 1 run or less. And he only allowed a fifth-of-a-baserunner-per-inning more than Timlin (doing the math in my head, it should be about 0.56 for Timlin; 0.75 for Rivera.) Anyway, Timlin pitched great, but I'd give the nod to Rivera on leverage if nothing else.

Leverage doesn't really count in measuring a player's greatness. That's a function of how he's used, not how he performs.

Thanks, Darren. If the question is "who had the better series" -- and it probably should be -- leverage certainly does matter. If the question is "who had the more valuble series," leverage certainly does matter.

If question is "whose series is a better indicator of future success," I'd agree that leverage doesn't mean much. Of course, if that were the question, it would be a dumb question, as neither 5.3 nor 8 IP is predictive of much of anything.

True, leverage is not a measure of a player's performance, but it's definitely a measure of how valuable that performance is.

No, it's a measure of how and when he is used. For some reason, I'm not sure what it is, stats folks seem to keep this separate for hitters but not for relief pitchers. If you bat .330/.500/.700 and score 100 runs and knock in 100 runs, I'd say you're more valuable than the guy who hits .300/.350/.480 and scores 120 and knocks in 120. That's because the value lies in the person's ability to hit, not in the situations in which they hit.

Yet when it comes to relief pitching, people want to give credit to the pitcher for being used in high leverage situations. So that an Eric Gagne gets credit for pitching 200 innings (or something), when really he should get credit for the innings he pitched and his manager should get credit for doing a great job of leveraging those innings.

Thanks, Darren. If the question is "who had the better series" -- and it probably should be -- leverage certainly does matter. If the question is "who had the more valuble series," leverage certainly does matter.

I thought that was the question that Eric raised. My main point is that the trophy is going to go home with some individual, in this case Mariano (who pitched great and is as good a choice as anyone). But it shouldn't go home with him because Joe Torre maximized his value by pitching him in key innings (and other guys pitched well in low leverage innings to get to Mariano's high leverage innings).

If you want to give credit for coming through in the clutch, I can see that argument, but that's quite a different thing than giving credit for leverage.

would leverage apply if timlin is used in particular situations that favor him, such as against certain hitters, while the rivera is used regardless of favorable splits?

3 innings! going for two innings would make grant certain managers labels such as brave or daring or genius, but 3!

i don't know if rivera could do that consistently, but that is still 3 innings! i remember early in the series, boone asked if it was conceiveable that mariano would come in some time in the 7th, and one of the other two sucky announcers pointed out how rivera hadn't been used for 2 plus innings in save situations and it would be near impossible.

Maybe the best thing is to give all good relievers credit for a 1.5 LI (or whatever; the exact numbers I'm using here aren't that important), and all starting pitchers 1.0 and all good hitters 1.05.

But then you're kind of assuming that relievers deserve some credit for their innings happening to be the crucial ones. In fact, most evidence points to relieving being easier than starting, therefore, relief innings should be discounted.

Rivera is closing for the Lord. It's enough to make you believe.

Give the MVP to anyone, just so long as it isn't a Yankee.

Maybe the anonymous poster, didn't read where I wrote: Mariano (who pitched great and is as good a choice as anyone).

Actually, I think we might know - some pitchers pitch significantly better with no one on base. Thus, they aren't as valuable when asked to relieve with men on - I believe Gagne is just this type. For one - he doesn't come to a stop half the time - he balks.

Well, there are lots of guys who balk every time. They don't bother actually coming set and never get called on it. But I think you're right that some guys pitch better out of the stretch than others, are more likely to get DPs, etc.

I thought the MVP was Todd Walker.

some pitchers pitch significantly better with no one on base. Thus, they aren't as valuable when asked to relieve with men on - I believe Gagne is just this type.

In a word, no.

Gagne with bases empty: .139/.205/.178

Before the game, I bet a lot people thought that arguably the best pitcher of our generation would win the game. They were right.

I think there is even less of a case for the former than there is for the latter.

I posted this on the other thread:

bruceM, don't you mean former, oppose to latter.

he is a lock for the famed halls, but best of his generation is another level entirely.

Well if any career closers get in, I can't imagine him not getting in. His IP totals are a function of his era, and it seems hardly fair to compare him to Fingers, Gossage, Sutter, etc. (like comparing Clemens to Cy Young).

In terms of whether or not pitcher's should be given extra credit for being used well, this comes from Gary Huckabay's chat on Monday (emphasis mine, link above):

Derek Martin (Montreal): I've asked this question a million times to BP with no response. Why evaluate relief pitchers, in a large part, by their inherited runners scored, while eschewing batters success with RISP? Seems like a direct contradiction. Cheers.

Gary Huckabay: This answer comes from one of the new interns at Baseball Prospectus, Adam Katz...

It seems contradictory to judge relievers based on situations and ignore RBI and other team-dependent stats for hitters or wins for starting pitchers, but it does make intuitive sense, at least to me. There is no way to control when a hitter comes up. Sure you can maximize Manny's RBI totals by batting him 4th behind 3 high-OBP guys, but there's no guarantee that he'll be up with RISP. But you can select when a reliever is brought into the game - and though the reliever isn't the one making the decisions, you can have Chad Bradford come in when you need him. You can't have Manny Ramirez bat when you need him.

RBI is a team-dependent stat. Stranding inherited runners is not.

====================================

My guess is that Tango's WPA would give Rivera more value than Timlin in this series.

It's debatable whether Rivera is even the best relief pitcher of his generation. He's better than Billy Wagner, but he's not clearly better than Trevor Hoffman. Rivera has been more spectacular than Hoffman, but Hoffman has been more durable, 2003 notwithstanding. I'd give the edge to Rivera, but only because of his postseason hijinks.

(Of course, if Gagne continues to pitch like this for another 7-8 years, there will be no doubt as to who the best reliever in baseball history is. But that's a big "if.")

1)Jeter may make the HOF

I think Mariano, if he pitches well the next two or three years, is definitely in the hall of fame. He may get there if he retires today, but that's debatable, although I think Hall voters would give a ton of weight to his unbelievable post-seasons.

However, to the other lads ...

Who else of current Yankees fame looks like an HOFer

The Yankees lose the series without Rivera, you can't say that about Boston and Timlin.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you can say that about Boston and Timlin.

Anyone know when the last time Rivera went three or more innings was?

I never thought I'd see a larger strike zone for a pitcher than Greg Maddux usually gets, but Rivera could have thrown the ball into the dugout and been given credit for a strike.

There was a long, interminable discussion of the Rivera-DBacks scoring decision on SABR-L shortly after it happened. I tuned out a bit early, so I can't remember what the conclusions were, but I do remember that the official scorer from that game (SABR member Rodney Johnson, if I recall) got involved in the discussion and explained his rationale. SABR members can probably find it by searching the SABR-L archives.

Anyone know when the last time Rivera went three or more innings was?

I think -- think -- Fox said last night that Rivera went 3 innings in 2000 in, I believe, an early-season game. Presumably an extra-innings/few pitchers available situation.

Unfortunately, I can't find confirmation, and may be misremembering.

He went 2.2 innings in this game, so maybe that's what I'm thinking of.

On the HOF candidates:

(1) Jeter: needs 5 more years at or near these current rates and he's a mortal lock - that would get him to 2500 hits, 1500 runs, and close to 1000 rbi's with a BA above 300. Add the "clutch god" label and you only have to ask which profile to use on the bust.

(2) Bernie: highly unlikely and I don't believe he deserves it. The decline this year makes him seem done so projecting forward he will probably only hurt his chances more; His power numbers aren't good enough and his defense is now taking a lot of hits; as time passes, his star will fade some more and he'll be lumped with Paul O'Neill or Dwight Evans. Championship-level starters, but not HOF.

(3) Mariano: as sure a lock as you will find unless he collapses and destroys his stats; Put another way, I have no doubt that if Rivera pitches two more seasons and retires, he's in. Asking whether he's the best pitcher of his generation is splitting a hair that the HOF committee will not split; he is the greatest relief pitcher of his generation - Hoffman may have better regular season stats, but with the intense pressure of the biggest stage, Rivera has actually performed better than his norms in the post-season. In my mind, he's even more of a lock than Jeter who still has work to do;

(4) Giambi - probably needs to get to 500 hrs to have a chance; his career BA is 302, but that's likely to decline with the rest of his performance; Plays a marginal position and will be DH'ing a lot over the next few years; A very long-shot in my mind.

(5) Soriano -- IMO, needs to radically change his approach to maintain his current level -- I dont' think he's Vlad Guerrero redux, but who knows? So (a) he has to maintain his level and (b) to do so, a fundamental change in approach is probably needed. Odds:very long.

baudib, I hear you, it's tough to refute that what Sori has done confounds the available logic so far. On the other hand, I was in Philly when Samuel came along and the bubble burst at age 27. If you look at Sori's comparable batters, the guys who were HOF class had much better discipline (Chipper, Gordon, Lazzeri, throw in Thome for fun). Only Banks didn't but his low K total indicates some control of the plate. Furthermore, unless Soriano improves his defense fairly quickly, I can see a move to the OF which would put him against a different calibre of competition. I'd want at least 60-1 if I were going to Vegas to bet on him..

No bet on a 25 year old to make the hall is a good one. They turned down Sandberg last year, saying someone with 3 seasons under his belt will make it is extremely premature.

The hall hasn't taken a reliever from this "generation" of relievers yet. Wilhelm and Fingers both had drastically different usage patterns. We're going to have to see if the voters consider this sort of player "eligable" for hall induction. (Of course they're eligable, but there are those - say, long relievers, who wouldn't get in no matter how well they pitched. My point is that it's yet to be determined whether or not "closers" fall into that sort of catagory.) The first real test here will be Eck.

Jeter is money. He'd make it on reputation alone.

Just as a rough and ready comparison, Bernie looks kinda like Andre Dawson type candidate to me, w/better OBP and less power. Dawson didn't score 100+ runs a year, but he didn't play in the late 90's-early 00's either. If Williams doesn't totally collapse he'll be a marginal candidate, say, 50-50 chance maybe. If his recent decline continues then he's out.

Giambi is off to a good start, an OBP over 400 is impresive, but I think he's going to need 3 more years before we can really project what sort of qualifications he'll have.

I don't know about Mussina. His ERA+ is nice, his W% is excellent, but B-R's list of comparisons doesn't include anyone who even looks like a HOFer.

I guess my evaluations aren't too helpful:

It seems contradictory to judge relievers based on situations and ignore RBI and other team-dependent stats for hitters or wins for starting pitchers, but it does make intuitive sense, at least to me. There is no way to control when a hitter comes up. Sure you can maximize Manny's RBI totals by batting him 4th behind 3 high-OBP guys, but there's no guarantee that he'll be up with RISP. But you can select when a reliever is brought into the game - and though the reliever isn't the one making the decisions, you can have Chad Bradford come in when you need him. You can't have Manny Ramirez bat when you need him.

There are a few big problems with this. First, the big one: it's not true. You can use Manny Ramirez exactly as selectively as you use Chad Bradford. You could wait until you have a bases loaded situation and bring him in to pinch hit. Of course, there are many reason why you don't do this. One, you realize that you're probably better off with Manny in for the duration of the game. Why wouldn't you do the same for Bradford? Well, in a general sense, a guy becomes a reliever because he a) doesn't have the pitch variety to start or b) doesn't have the stamina or c) both. Relievers are generally guys who could not start. Therefore, they're used in shorter stints when they're more effective. Therefore, their manager can cherry pick situations in which to use them (matchups, etc).

Problem 2: Leverage != ability to pitch with men on base. If Bradford enters in the 9th, no one on, in a one run game, that's a fairly high leverage situation. But there's no particular skill associated with that situation, as there might be with 'pitching well with runners on base.' Similarly, if I come into an inning with a guy on 1st base, and I get three Ks, the BP guys would give me less credit than if I did the same thing with the bases loaded.

Problem 3: Even if you want to give guys credit for clutch pitching, or preventing inherited runners from scoring, it seems wrong to me to give credit to pitchers for being too flawed to be starters. Starters do the heavy lifting to prepare the game for the high leverage guys. A starter goes 7 innings, gives up 2 runs, and leaves leading 3-2. He creates two very high leverage innings on his departure. If instead he goes 7 IP, 7 runs, and leaves trailing 7-3, there's no high leverage innings to be had.

Lastly, there's still not a really strong case that the relief pitcher himself, and not the manager, should get credit for that leverage.

Somewhat unrelated but regarding my "namesake" Mussina -- watching the way his knucklecurve was falling off the table in that relief stint against the Red Sox (when his velocity was down) was eye-opening even to someone who's watched him pitch all these years. Along with his command of the curve, he seems a good bet to pitch effectively for a number of years since he has the weapons to counter the loss of velocity.

Darren, the leverage argument was brought into this discussion by way of determining whether or not Rivera or Timlin had performed better in the LCS, so the question, to my mind, is whether or not leverage is important to consider when comparing the work of relievers to each other--we're comparing Rivera to Timlin here, not Rivera to Wakefield (games one and four version).

The nature of a great reliever's talent allows him to be used in a way that maximizes his value. Eric Gagne is (basically) used only in high leverage situations because he's invincible for 3-4 batters per night. Is it really rocket science for the manager to figure out that he can use Gagne only in high leverage outings? Why shouldn't Gagne get credit for having a talent that is perfectly suited for important innings? Perhaps these questions are mainly philosophical, but I think the "a reliever is a failed starter, and an IP is an IP whenever it occurs" argument is reductive analysis.

Interesting points BWC. I may have strayed off topic a bit in my comparisons of SP and RP, when it comes to LI. I find it a pretty interesting topic.

The nature of a great reliever's talent allows him to be used in a way that maximizes his value.

I would argue that it forces him to be used in that way.

Is it really rocket science for the manager to figure out that he can use Gagne only in high leverage outings?

It seems pretty tough for Grady Little. He had Kim coming into 14-6 games after pitching 4 days in a row.

Why shouldn't Gagne get credit for having a talent that is perfectly suited for important innings?

This is a very good question. Maybe you're right, I'm not sure. But I would ask: Is Gagne really perfectly suited for the important innings or is it his limitations that place him in that role? IOW, does he have something that Tim Hudson or Mark Prior lack? I don't see much evidence that this is the case and therefore wouldn't want to give the credit to Gagne.

I may have given too much credit for the leverage to the manager, but I'm not convinced it should go to the player.

One other thing I meant to add: you say that it's not rocket science knowing to use Gagne in high leverage situations, but I think there are a lot of subtleties to this. Some managers get a leveraged index of 1.4 out of their closers and some get 1.8. That's a really big difference.

It would be a really neat way to grade how a manager is handling a pen. Look at LI * IP for each reliever. The highest numbers should be going to the best relievers.

It's a tough question, isn't it? I mean, my guess is that if you used Mark Prior for an inning at a time he'd be pretty unhittable, but that you'd win fewer games than you would with him in the starting rotation. I wouldn't put too much stock in a system that rated even a great reliever season anywhere close to, say, Pedro in '99 or Clemens in '97. Obviously there's no comparison.

Grady Little might be the low end of bullpen management. And you're right in saying that not all managers leverage their relievers with the same efficiency. On the other hand, is any manager out there looking at a guy like Gagne or Rivera and deciding to pitch him in the 6th and leaving some shlub to pitch the 9th? Maybe Houston...

If Pitcher A is 20 runs above average with a 1.5 LI and Pitcher B is 10 runs above average with a 1.2 LI in the same total IP, do we say that Pitcher A is 10 runs better than than Pitcher B, or is he 18 runs better? If you know that Pitcher A is enough better than Pitcher B that he should be used in higher LI situations, doesn't that give him extra worth? I don't have a good answer, but I guess I lean towards giving Pitcher A extra credit.