Posted by deanod on 5/8/2012 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/8/2012 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Did you guys miss the part where I said Rivera was clearly better than Wagner?  My point is that they aren't too far apart.  And I don't even have to use newer stats to show it.  Their career WHIPs are exactly the same.  Their career ERAs are 0.1 different.

According to MikeT's "Catfish Hunter was just as good as Steve Carlton" (TM) logic, they were the same pitcher.

The whole point is that Rivera was very good, a Hall of Famer, the best reliever ever.  But he was still just a relief pitcher.  A little better than Billy Wagner.  The skinniest kid at fat camp.  Not one of the four best Yankees of all time.  Not an inner circle Hall of Famer.

First of all Mt Rushmore isn't necessarily the same thing as "four best."

Second, Olney is the only one who said it that he belong on Yankee Rushmore

Third, skinniest kid at fat camp is a bad analogy for so many reasons.  Fat camp is a decidedly NEGATIVE place to be in because it means you're fat an unattractive.  Closers have a less positive impact than other players, but the good ones still have a decidedly positive impact.  And if you're alluding to the fact that all RP's are failed starters blah blah blah...then why haven't any other failed starters been nearly as effective as Mariano?  Do you really think any random #2/3 SP would mirror his success if they were stuck in the closers role?  Hell, would Roy Halladay or CC Sabathia even necessarily have as successful of a career as a closer?  It's not certain that they would.

Olney put Rivera ahead of Mantle.  If that's not top 4, I don't know what is.

Rivera was great.  And I'm not arguing that any random #2 or #3 would have been just as good.  But a lot of his legend is a matter of opportunity.  He played on great teams that afforded him a lot of save opportunities and a lot of postseason appearances.  He still had to perform in those opportunities and should get credit for it, but most of the time he was pitching one inning with a lead.  

Someone else posted a Hardball times article that Rivera closed roughly two games a year more than the Yankees bullpen would have closed anyway.

Engaging jrd in the forums is like poking a caged monkey with a stick.  It gets him all riled up and is perversely entertaining.  But he's still a monkey.

He clearly knows little about baseball beyond numbers on a piece of paper or a web page.  Yet he poses as Mr. Know-It-All here in the forums.

As a guy who I used to work with used to say: this is free entertainment.  We don't even have to buy a ticket.

Ummm you seem to be hung up on the "four" part of Mt Rushmore instead of the "best"

Mt Rushmore is moreso about best legacy instead of sortbyWARbecomeMLBexpert.

One might say he got that opportunity because nobody could ******* hit him.    Discount saves altogether.    Do his core stats beyond that say he was really good?  I think they do.

He pitched 1360 innings.   I wonder, if you took the best 1360 innings of every pitcher who threw 1360 innings since 1995 and isolated them, how many would mirror Rivera?    Pedro threw about 2500.   Less than double.    He was pretty good, right?  Take his 1100 worst innings out and see where he stands.  I'm sure he'll be better but how much better?

Of course, if I said "1200" best and removed Rivera's 160 worst, his ERA is likely zero with a WHIP of .021.

If we're going with legacy, what about Jeter?  He was the captain, and had all those memorable postseason moments.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/4/2012 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Just when you think people can't get dumber......

Rivera changed the way managers managed and team played.  From the 6th inning on.   There is no question, in the Book of Yankees, that Rivera gets a chapter, A-Rod get a paragraph. 

As for a Yankee Mt. Rushmore, it's impossible.   Not enough stone heads.

This.

Ruth and Gehrig are guaranteed spots on the Mt. Rushmore.    No one else is.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Ruth and Gehrig are guaranteed spots on the Mt. Rushmore.    No one else is.

Not Mantle?  Dimaggio?

Not the best SS EVAHHHHH!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/8/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Ruth and Gehrig are guaranteed spots on the Mt. Rushmore.    No one else is.

Not Mantle?  Dimaggio?

Can't read?

Posted by deanod on 5/8/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Not the best SS EVAHHHHH!!?!?!?!?!?!?

He'd build the ***** and stand on top screaming "I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' STONE HEAD!!!!!  EVERYONE KNOWS I'M THE GREATEST YANKEE EVER!!!!!"

Statistically, Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, and DiMaggio are far ahead of any other Yankees.  I can't speak to legacy, because I'm not a Yankee fan.  Maybe someone who is can tell us how DiMaggio and Mantle are treated in Yankee lore.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:00:00 PM (view original):
One might say he got that opportunity because nobody could ******* hit him.    Discount saves altogether.    Do his core stats beyond that say he was really good?  I think they do.

He pitched 1360 innings.   I wonder, if you took the best 1360 innings of every pitcher who threw 1360 innings since 1995 and isolated them, how many would mirror Rivera?    Pedro threw about 2500.   Less than double.    He was pretty good, right?  Take his 1100 worst innings out and see where he stands.  I'm sure he'll be better but how much better?

He was very, very good.  I've already said he's a Hall of Famer.  What more do you want?

And to take you up on your "I wonder," from 1997-2003 Pedro threw 1408 IP, they are consecutive, I wasn't able in just a couple minutes to pick out his best 1400 innings, but his stats are:

2.20 ERA
0.94 WHIP
213 ERA+ (with a peak of 291)
11.3 K/9
0.6 HR/9
2.0 BB/9
1761 K

That's almost exactly the same as Rivera:

2.21 ERA
0.998 WHIP
206 ERA+ (with a peak of 316)
8.3 K/9
0.5 HR/9
2.0 BB/9
1119 K

I don't know that DiMaggio is far ahead of other Yankees stats-wise.   He missed 3 years to military service.    With those three years, he might be.    He is viewed a little oddly by many.   Mr. Coffee, Marilyn Monroe, the song, etc, etc.   Perhaps a bit too "Hollywood" for the era.  And, I guess, he's perceived as having a bit of a prickly personality.
Mantle is viewed as a good ol' boy hero who probably limited himself with his partying.    Like Ruth, he's given a bit of a pass for that because he still cranked out huge numbers.   Definitely not a prickly personality. 

FWIW, Rivera was more responsible than anyone for the Yanks run of 4 WS in 5 years.   He certainly didn't "carry" them to the playoffs but was ridiculous once they got there.   Better than regular season against the best.  Jeter was the same guy, which is still an accomplishment, but didn't make nearly the dent as Rivera.