SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 22, 2011 11:59:24 GMT -5
Ok, I guess I'm gonna be the bomb thrower here. If Mariano played his whole career for horrible teams in San Diego, while Trevor was in pinstripes, would everyone still think Mariano was the best ever? Trevor and Mo have almost identical save percentages, and for years, when Hells Bells or Enter Sandman played, the other team started packing. The only real difference between the two is playoff saves, but that is entirely due to the fact that Mo was making deep playoff runs nearly every year in his career, while Trevor was watching at home. So, the question again, if Trevor was the one with all the playoff saves for the most famous team in sports, while Mariano could only prove his stuff with a small market West Coast team that got to the first round of the playoffs roughly once every 5 years, who would be the greatest ever? I think Rivera was/is better. One, the playoffs aren't simply opportunity -- while Trevor hasn't had the opportunity that doesn't erase the fact that Mariano was devastatingly good in the playoffs. Second, Rivera has simply been just a little bit better all the time. Not every year, and not by a lot always, but just better. He has a career 2.22 ERA and 0.71 in the postseason. Hoffman is at 2.87 and 3.46 in the postseason. Now, admittedly, Trevor has a bad year there dragging him down at the end, but that's not the half a run difference. Now, if they were switched, would people think Hoffman was better? Plenty would. But I really think Rivera was/is a better pitcher.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 22, 2011 12:10:27 GMT -5
Mariano vs Hoffman? Not even close. That's not a shot at Trevor, it's just a reality check on how incredible Rivera has been his entire career. And not just compared to Relief pitchers, but to all pitchers. Linked below is just one article, this one by Cliff Corcoran for SI, that delves into the kind of stats SFHoya generally reveres. OK, yes, I am a Yankee fan and a huge fan of Mo in particular. But the numbers speak for themselves. Excerpts: When Hoffman retired in January, I attempted to determine where he ranked among the game's greatest relief pitchers, but what was most striking about what I found was just how completely Rivera dominated the field.... a consistency and longevity unmatched in the game's history. ----------
Then there's the postseason. That's right, Rivera dominates his field that completely without even factoring in the 139 2/3 innings of a 0.71 ERA that he has contributed in the most important games of his career. That's the equivalent of two more seasons of some of the best pitching of his career against some of the stiffest competition...and, considering the milestone that prompted this piece, saved 42 additional games. ---------
Here are Rivera's stats for the last 16 years combined:
2.03 ERA (224 ERA+), 0.97 WHIP, 0.4 HR/9, 8.3 K/9, 1.9 BB/9, 4.32 K/BB
Rivera has averaged 71 innings pitched per season over those 16 years. Over that span, only three pitchers have equaled or bettered each of those rates in a single season of 50 or more innings pitched: Pedro Martinez in 1999, John Smoltz as a closer in 2003, and Jonathan Papelbon in 2006. Rivera has put those rates up over 16 seasons. ............ Since 2003, Rivera has had an ERA+ below 200 in just one season and has put up these rates over the last nine years combined:
1.88 ERA (237 ERA+), 0.93 WHIP, 0.4 HR/9, 8.4 K/9, 1.5 BB/9, 5.47 K/BB -- over 588 games by a pitcher in his age 33 to 41 seasons. ...........
Need more? Well, Rivera's career ERA+ of 205 is the all-time record among pitchers with at least 1,000 innings pitched. Pedro Martinez is second at the list at 154, not even close, and the next relievers on the list are Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry at 147. Read more: sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/cliff_corcoran/09/13/mariano.rivera.stats/index.html#ixzz1Yds7jBneIt kinda does, but he's wildly disingenuous at times in that article. Why he cuts off Rivera's career excluding some of it makes no sense -- merely to lower his career ERA -- is silly. And they've pitched more or less the same number of seasons. Rivera has more innings, but it's mostly managers/team winning and not necessarily capability. Furthermore, I'm nowhere near elevating Rivera past the point of single-inning reliever. Not because it's ludicrous to say he was better than Hoyt Wilhelm or Dan Quisenberry but because it's more of a game of what-if than Trevor v Rivera concerning the postseason. Rivera's success is almost entirely attributable to his cutter. Starting pitchers -- who usually have three pitchers they can use -- decline in effectiveness each time through the lineup and often quicker than that. One pitch pitchers tend to struggle the longer they go. I simply don't know if Rivera was in a 2-4 inning usage pattern that the batters would be so fooled by the pitch. Can I see a world where they were? Of course. Can I see a world where it breaks down? Of course. Eric Gagne was juicing, but he also went from pitching six innings to pitching one, and he attained a level of dominance at points that even Rivera didn't reach. There's a huge advantage to how closers are used now -- that's why they are used that way. It's a reason why it's not entirely an invalid argument that no relievers belong in the Hall. But if any recent closers do, it is Rivera and Hoffman. His article loses all credibility when comparing Mariano to say, Pedro Martinez or Greg Maddux. Gag. That's ignoring that all closers are basically coddled to death in usage. EDIT: More examples of statistical dishonesty. Why is Trevor's peak nine years, ending in 2003, a season in which he was injured? 2004 - 2007, he never had less than 40 saves or an ERA over 3.00. Kinda feels like he's intentionally cutting it short to claim lack of longevity. Then he starts comparing Rivera's full career to his erroneously severed 9-year peaks of Hoffman and cohorts. What? You're right, Barry Bonds was better than half of Babe Ruth's career. Way to prove something, Cliff.
|
|