Posted by jrd_x on 5/8/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):

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

IOW, during Pedro's peak 6 seasons, he was as good as Rivera over 15 years?

Pedro = GOAT

Legacy ruined by his slapstick routine with Millar during the 100th anniversary celebration. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:31:00 PM (view original):
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.

I think a pretty important factor to consider is that in the playoffs the value of the closer probably goes up.  Better teams = fewer ****** pitchers = fewer 12-4 slugfests = more close games.  Also with more off days + greater urgency to win, you can stretch them out to be used more frequently with more appearances > 1 IP.

OTOH you can't give position players more PA's or more fielding chances.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/8/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):

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

IOW, during Pedro's peak 6 seasons, he was as good as Rivera over 15 years?

Pedro is an inner circle Hall of Famer.  Arguably one of the top 4 or 5 pitchers of all time.

Rivera threw half as many innings over 15 years, most often at a rate of one inning per game.  I'd be willing to bet every dollar in my bank accounts that, had their roles been reversed, Pedro would have been even more dominant than Rivera as a closer, and Rivera would have been a very mediocre starter.

I think we know what Rivera was a starter.    No idea what Pedro would have been as a closer.  If you don't think it requires a different mindset, I don't know what to tell you.

Naw Pedro would have posted like a 0.02 career ERA as a closer.  GOAT gonna GOAT.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I think we know what Rivera was a starter.    No idea what Pedro would have been as a closer.  If you don't think it requires a different mindset, I don't know what to tell you.

I think the primary difference is that starting requires a different skill set.  I'm not an expert on this subject, but I'm pretty sure you need multiple useful pitches to succeed as a starter and the failed starters who translate well to the RP role do so because they only have 1 or 2 pitches, but those 1 or 2 pitches are damn good.

Mo's cutter was arguably the best pitch of any MLB'er over the past 15 years, so it's a bit silly to assume that anybody (outside of Pedro) would have automatically been a better closer

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I think we know what Rivera was a starter.    No idea what Pedro would have been as a closer.  If you don't think it requires a different mindset, I don't know what to tell you.

Sure it takes a different mindset.  You only have to get three guys out and your team already has the lead.

But I don't think you can argue that Pedro didn't have the skill set to close.  We know Rivera didn't have the skill set to start.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/8/2012 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I think we know what Rivera was a starter.    No idea what Pedro would have been as a closer.  If you don't think it requires a different mindset, I don't know what to tell you.

Sure it takes a different mindset.  You only have to get three guys out and your team already has the lead.

But I don't think you can argue that Pedro didn't have the skill set to close.  We know Rivera didn't have the skill set to start.

I can argue that we don't know.

SP have a routine because they know they're pitching every 5th day.   Closers sit around, doing nothing for 7 innings, sometimes for days on end.   Pedro may have gotten fat on mangos in that role.   He may not have been able to throw 15 pitches and be ready to enter the game.    He might have lacked the mental focus to do nothing then enter a high pressure situation.

But I'm sure you know he could have done it.   I just don't know how you know this.

Posted by deanod on 5/8/2012 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I think we know what Rivera was a starter.    No idea what Pedro would have been as a closer.  If you don't think it requires a different mindset, I don't know what to tell you.

I think the primary difference is that starting requires a different skill set.  I'm not an expert on this subject, but I'm pretty sure you need multiple useful pitches to succeed as a starter and the failed starters who translate well to the RP role do so because they only have 1 or 2 pitches, but those 1 or 2 pitches are damn good.

Mo's cutter was arguably the best pitch of any MLB'er over the past 15 years, so it's a bit silly to assume that anybody (outside of Pedro) would have automatically been a better closer

FWIW this is why the skinniest kid at fat camp argument is horrible.

There have been thousands of failed SP's over Rivera's career.  Some of them failed as RP's, some were OK as RP's, some were good as RP's.  But there was only one Mariano, and the analogy implies that a high % of the pitchers who stuck as SP's would have been Mariano's equal or better as RP.  That seems like a really bad assumption to make.

And the fact that you think that A-Rod might belong ahead of him just shows that you have no sense of context; anybody can go to fangraphs or bb-ref and sort by WAR, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily central to the argument at hand.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/8/2012 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I think we know what Rivera was a starter.    No idea what Pedro would have been as a closer.  If you don't think it requires a different mindset, I don't know what to tell you.

Sure it takes a different mindset.  You only have to get three guys out and your team already has the lead.

But I don't think you can argue that Pedro didn't have the skill set to close.  We know Rivera didn't have the skill set to start.

I can argue that we don't know.

SP have a routine because they know they're pitching every 5th day.   Closers sit around, doing nothing for 7 innings, sometimes for days on end.   Pedro may have gotten fat on mangos in that role.   He may not have been able to throw 15 pitches and be ready to enter the game.    He might have lacked the mental focus to do nothing then enter a high pressure situation.

But I'm sure you know he could have done it.   I just don't know how you know this.

Sure, it's possible that Pedro wouldn't have had the mentality to succeed as a closer but it's unlikely enough such that it's safe to assume that he would have been great.  You'd have to have a very, very weird personality to be able to dominate as a SP like he did but not translate to the bullpen.

Gagne was pretty damn good for a few years after converting from failed SP to closer.   Then not so much.    Rivera didn't have a couple of good seasons.  He had a lot of them.

Probably because Gagne ran out of roids.

Posted by deanod on 5/8/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/8/2012 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/8/2012 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I think we know what Rivera was a starter.    No idea what Pedro would have been as a closer.  If you don't think it requires a different mindset, I don't know what to tell you.

Sure it takes a different mindset.  You only have to get three guys out and your team already has the lead.

But I don't think you can argue that Pedro didn't have the skill set to close.  We know Rivera didn't have the skill set to start.

I can argue that we don't know.

SP have a routine because they know they're pitching every 5th day.   Closers sit around, doing nothing for 7 innings, sometimes for days on end.   Pedro may have gotten fat on mangos in that role.   He may not have been able to throw 15 pitches and be ready to enter the game.    He might have lacked the mental focus to do nothing then enter a high pressure situation.

But I'm sure you know he could have done it.   I just don't know how you know this.

Sure, it's possible that Pedro wouldn't have had the mentality to succeed as a closer but it's unlikely enough such that it's safe to assume that he would have been great.  You'd have to have a very, very weird personality to be able to dominate as a SP like he did but not translate to the bullpen.

So a dude toting a midget around doesn't have a very weird personality?   Or a guy that slams Humpty Dumpty to the ground doesn't have a very weird personality?  or a guy who says "I'll play baseball or sit under the mango trees.  I'll be happy either way" doesn't have some personality quirks?