Eckersley? Billy Wagner? Hoyt Wilhelm? Lee Smith? Gossage? Trevor "Master of the 1/3 inning save" Hoffman? Sutter? etc etc


discuss.

You put Billy freakin' Wagner into this discussion?:eek:

he's had one hell of a career and still has gas left

and should finish quite high on the career saves list baring injury

Eck

I will save Yank fans the effort.

Calvin Schiraldi.

I will save Yank fans the effort.

Calvin Schiraldi.

21 career saves and an ERA+ thats 10 points BELOW league average

yep, gotta be him.

I admit I am biased, but I loved Gossage.

Otherwise, Eck or Sutter.

Eck

Papelbon! C,mon, guys! He is the second coming of Christ, or haven't you heard?

Papelbon! C,mon, guys! He is the second coming of Christ, or haven't you heard?

I already filled the wise quota for this thread.

Wilhelm is the 2nd best reliever of all-time. No question.

I will save Yank fans the effort.

Calvin Schiraldi.

Very good.:cheers:

Dennis Eckersley, and it's not even close. The man was amazing, and never walked anyone.

Goose was up there, as was Sutter and Fingers. After these 3 and Mo, there is a big dropoff for the next level.

So the top level is Mo.

Next comes Eck.

The 3rd level is Goose, Sutter and Fingers.

Then there's all the rest.

Byung-Hyun Kim

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/2001/worldseries/news/2001/11/01/game_five_ap/lg_knoblauch_ap-01.jpg

Dennis Eckersley, and it's not even close. The man was amazing, and never walked anyone.

Goose was up there, as was Sutter and Fingers. After these 3 and Mo, there is a big dropoff for the next level.

So the top level is Mo.

Next comes Eck.

The 3rd level is Goose, Sutter and Fingers.

Then there's all the rest.


i think you're forgetting Hoyt Wilhelm

To compare a Rollie Fingers or a Goose Gossage with a Mariano Rivera is an utterly fruitless and impossible task.

The modern save is a totally different animal that has taken form in teh last 20 years or less.

there is no comparison.

The expectations of a "closer" from 25 years ago to today are totally differnt. As are the way stats are accumulated.

if you put Mariano Rivera in teh situations of closers in say, 1976, his numbers would look very different.

Would he be ineffective? Of course not. But the numbers would not be as overpowering as they are.

To compare a Rollie Fingers or a Goose Gossage with a Mariano Rivera is an utterly fruitless and impossible task.

The modern save is a totally different animal that has taken form in teh last 20 years or less.

there is no comparison.

The expectations of a "closer" from 25 years ago to today are totally differnt. As are the way stats are accumulated.

if you put Mariano Rivera in teh situations of closers in say, 1976, his numbers would look very different.

Would he be ineffective? Of course not. But the numbers would not be as overpowering as they are.

Bad example but I do get your point. The "old" closers were often called upon to pitch when the outs counted the most. Whether that be the 7th 8th or 9th.

Eck is a better example because he was a one inning pitcher. But when you talk about Mariano he has been used more in the traditional form than anybody else out there right now.

Need big outs in the 8th? Bring him in. That is what makes Mo the best. He kind of fits in to both generations.

Todd Jones, case closed. :p

Bad example but I do get your point. The "old" closers were often called upon to pitch when the outs counted the most. Whether that be the 7th 8th or 9th.

Eck is a better example because he was a one inning pitcher. But when you talk about Mariano he has been used more in the traditional form than anybody else out there right now.

Need big outs in the 8th? Bring him in. That is what makes Mo the best. He kind of fits in to both generations.

Max, those were 3 inning 2 inning saves at times.

Complete games were also much more in vogue in those days, and if a pitcher had a 3 run lead, he was expected to finish the game, rather than wheel out the golf cart with a cap on top of it , swing open the gate and allow a cheesy stat called the save to take place. There were just not as many cheap, stat compiling saves in that era as there are today. Relievers also were required to piotch many more inning.

Left off this list was also Dan Quisenberry, who was awesome for a stretch with KC.

If you want to call Mariano the best post season closer of all time, I could not disagree.

Except for that night that he effectively ended the last Yankee dynasty.

I also find it hilarious that people want to name Hoyt Wilhelm. Who here saw Hoyt Wilhelm pitch?

Max, those were 3 inning 2 inning saves at times.

Complete games were also much more in vogue in those days, and if a pitcher had a 3 run lead, he was expected to finish the game, rather than wheel out the golf cart with a cap on top of it , swing open the gate and allow a cheesy stat called the save to take place. There were just not as many cheap, stat compiling saves in that era as there are today. Relievers also were required to piotch many more inning.

Left off this list was also Dan Quisenberry, who was awesome for a stretch with KC.

If you want to call Mariano the best post season closer of all time, I could not disagree.

Except for that night that he effectively ended the last Yankee dynasty.

I also find it hilarious that people want to name Hoyt Wilhelm. Who here saw Hoyt Wilhelm pitch?

Mo has pitched 2 inning saves many times. Actually, too many times for my comfort, but he has only a limited number of multiple inning appearances this season, so far.

He also went 3 innings in 2003, Game 7, ALCS. Folks forget about that. Mo can handle any closer situation, a rarity in today's game. He fits in as the best ever, over whatever time-frame you care to bring up.

i think you're forgetting Hoyt Wilhelm
No, I didn't.

Hoyt is an example of a guy who was very good. But the best ever, not at all. He is in the Jeff Reardon, Dan Quiesenbery category. A few levels below the top guys.

Todd Jones, case closed. :p

Even over Matt Anderson ? :puke:

Mo has pitched 2 inning saves many times. Actually, too many times for my comfort, but he has only a limited number of multiple inning appearances this season, so far.

He also went 3 innings in 2003, Game 7, ALCS. Folks forget about that. Mo can handle any closer situation, a rarity in today's game. He fits in as the best ever, over whatever time-frame you care to bring up.

MBN- Rollie Fingers, over 11 years that were considered his "best closing years" '72-'82 : 1203 Innings pitched

Mariano Rivera over the last 11 years : 740 IP

The comparisons and to say that the jobs that they performed and resulting stats are comparable is not a fair statement.

A reliever was a totally differnt animal.

Mo's IP is a product of the times he plays in. ALL closers are expected to only pitch one inning saves.

Do they get 2 inning saves? yes, sometimes they will. but no manager choses to put the closer in for 2 innings anymore.

Mo's IP is a product of the times he plays in. ALL closers are expected to only pitch one inning saves.

Do they get 2 inning saves? yes, sometimes they will. but no manager choses to put the closer in for 2 innings anymore.

That is kinda the point I was making.

How do you compare 2 totally different eras, when the expectations were so dramatically differennt?

And that being so-How can someone then be crowned "best ever". The criteria are totally different.

MBN- Rollie Fingers, over 11 years that were considered his "best closing years" '72-'82 : 1203 Innings pitched

Mariano Rivera over the last 11 years : 740 IP

The comparisons and to say that the jobs that they performed and resulting stats are comparable is not a fair statement.

A reliever was a totally differnt animal.


So Babe Ruth's HR totals are different then Hank Aarons? Because he played in a different era? So his were more meaningful?

Can't let it work that way. Each has to perform in his era, as best as he can, and Mo in his era has shown that he is the best ever.

and Mo in his era has shown that he is the best ever.

That is a contradiction in terms.

So Babe Ruth's HR totals are different then Hank Aarons? Because he played in a different era? So his were more meaningful?

Can't let it work that way. Each has to perform in his era, as best as he can, and Mo in his era has shown that he is the best ever.

Did Hank Aaron get almost twice as many at bats in a game as Babe Ruth? If so, how did that reflect performance?

If you want, I can go into a diatribe of how pitching more innings in a set number of games will affect stats and performance. I thought that was a given, but we can get into it.

That is kinda the point I was making.

How do you compare 2 totally different eras, when the expectations were so dramatically differennt?

And that being so-How can someone then be crowned "best ever". The criteria are totally different.

Because Mariano has been the most effective and dominant in his era despite the higher levels of offense?

Because Mariano has been the most effective and dominant in his era despite the higher levels of offense?

You guys are now changing the criteria.

First you said "ever" and now you are saying "era".

I can agree that he is the best of this era, which I will place at 20 years. 20 years does not equal "ever".

I am saying that over 20 years ago, the closer role was thought of totally differnt and teh responsibilities and "stat compiling" was radically thought of differently.

Which are you areguing, because you are intermixing terms that are intrinsic to the discussion.

Rollie Fingers and Mariano Rivera are not from teh same era, particularly when you talk closers and their resposnibilities.

You guys are now changing the criteria.

First you said "ever" and now you are saying "era".

I can agree that he is the best of this era, which I will place at 20 years. 20 years does not equal "ever".

I am saying that over 20 years ago, the closer role was thought of totally differnt and teh responsibilities and "stat compiling" was radically thought of differently.

Which are you areguing, because you are intermixing terms that are intrinsic to the discussion.

Rollie Fingers and Mariano Rivera are not from teh same era, particularly when you talk closers and their resposnibilities.
So what you are saying is that we can never compare any player with another from some 20 years earlier or later.

The game is alot different then it was in the 70's

We all know that guys like Gossage, Fingers, Lyle and the such would go 2 sometimes 3 innings to get a save. It all depended on the situation.

Relievers back then were basically guys were not successful as starters but could come in and give you 2-3 innings of relief.

The only reason I would put Mariano up there as the greatest in this.

The guy has never EVER had a bad season. Not one in 12 seasons. That is mind boggling. Guys like Fingers, or a Gossage may have had a year or two where they were not dominant. Now that could be because of the total amount of innings they worked or amount of games they pitched but Mo has never even had an off year. (Unless you consider 2000 or 2002 where his ERA was in the 2.70 range)

Basically you are arguing apples and oranges though. Two different eras, different types of relivers.

The game is alot different then it was in the 70's

We all know that guys like Gossage, Fingers, Lyle and the such would go 2 sometimes 3 innings to get a save. It all depended on the situation.

Relievers back then were basically guys were not successful as starters but could come in and give you 2-3 innings of relief.

The only reason I would put Mariano up there as the greatest in this.

The guy has never EVER had a bad season. Not one in 12 seasons. That is mind boggling. Guys like Fingers, or a Gossage may have had a year or two where they were not dominant. Now that could be because of the total amount of innings they worked or amount of games they pitched but Mo has never even had an off year. (Unless you consider 2000 or 2002 where his ERA was in the 2.70 range)

Basically you are arguing apples and oranges though. Two different eras, different types of relivers.
Plus he pretty much does it with 1 pitch. Which is also mind boggling.

Max, those were 3 inning 2 inning saves at times.

Complete games were also much more in vogue in those days, and if a pitcher had a 3 run lead, he was expected to finish the game, rather than wheel out the golf cart with a cap on top of it , swing open the gate and allow a cheesy stat called the save to take place. There were just not as many cheap, stat compiling saves in that era as there are today. Relievers also were required to piotch many more inning.

Left off this list was also Dan Quisenberry, who was awesome for a stretch with KC.

If you want to call Mariano the best post season closer of all time, I could not disagree.

Except for that night that he effectively ended the last Yankee dynasty.

I also find it hilarious that people want to name Hoyt Wilhelm. Who here saw Hoyt Wilhelm pitch?

I agree that the game is different now. And I think we both agree that Mariano could have probably done whatever his team needed and been the best at it!

Mo didn't end the dynasty. Torre did. The middle infielders should have been at double play depth!

Wait, wait, wait.......




How can we talk about mariano being the greatest ever, when BlowSux said he was just the 3rd best closer in the division?

So what you are saying is that we can never compare any player with another from some 20 years earlier or later.

MBN-The greatest disparity in talking baseball from 25 years ago to today is pitchers and how they are used and what is expected from them.

Do you argue that?

Batters still get generally 4 to 5 at bats, depending where they hit in the order and there are 9 batting spots in theorder. The DH has changed some machinations of that premise, but it generally holds true to the general mechanics.

look at pitching. Do an analysis of complete games from today to 30 years ago. Look how much "closers" had in innings pitched, to today's closers. Look at the group that was responsible for "middle inning" work in comparison to today.

The whole scheme of a bullpen, how a bullpen is used and how you use your closers and starters has totally changed. Do you deny this.

Go back in a time machine to 1976 and ask Sparky Anderson how many "holds" his bullpen has. He will look at you like you are Johnny Bench on Qualuuds.

The premise-Closers have FAR MORE of a finite role in today's bullpen than 30 years ago. They are much more situational than ever before in teh game.

I am not saying that is a bad or good thing. BUT, if you want talk about relative value of "closers" in comparing eras, you are talking about 2 very differnt animals. Closesrs of that day could not "just' get by in throwing 15-20 pitches in an all out effort and know that they did not need to conserve.

Tell me what you disagree with.

The game is alot different then it was in the 70's

We all know that guys like Gossage, Fingers, Lyle and the such would go 2 sometimes 3 innings to get a save. It all depended on the situation.

Relievers back then were basically guys were not successful as starters but could come in and give you 2-3 innings of relief.

The only reason I would put Mariano up there as the greatest in this.

The guy has never EVER had a bad season. Not one in 12 seasons. That is mind boggling. Guys like Fingers, or a Gossage may have had a year or two where they were not dominant. Now that could be because of the total amount of innings they worked or amount of games they pitched but Mo has never even had an off year. (Unless you consider 2000 or 2002 where his ERA was in the 2.70 range)

Basically you are arguing apples and oranges though. Two different eras, different types of relivers.

Shawn, in the modern era of bullpens, which I will generously go back 20 years, I cannot deny Mariano his due.

MBN-The greatest disparity in talking baseball from 25 years ago to today is pitchers and how they are used and what is expected from them.

Do you argue that?

Batters still get generally 4 to 5 at bats, depending where they hit in the order and there are 9 batting spots in theorder. The DH has changed some machinations of that premise, but it generally holds true to the general mechanics.

look at pitching. Do an analysis of complete games from today to 30 years ago. Look how much "closers" had in innings pitched, to today's closers. Look at the group that was responsible for "middle inning" work in comparison to today.

The whole scheme of a bullpen, how a bullpen is used and how you use your closers and starters has totally changed. Do you deny this.

Go back in a time machine to 1976 and ask Sparky Anderson how many "holds" his bullpen has. He will look at you like you are Johnny Bench on Qualuuds.

The premise-Closers have FAR MORE of a finite role in today's bullpen than 30 years ago. They are much more situational than ever before in teh game.

I am not saying that is a bad or good thing. BUT, if you want talk about relative value of "closers" in comparing eras, you are talking about 2 very differnt animals. Closesrs of that day could not "just' get by in throwing 15-20 pitches in an all out effort and know that they did not need to conserve.

Tell me what you disagree with.

I disagree with just this.

Mo has shown, when asked, that he can give you more then the typical 1 inning that closers do these days. That is why, while Pitching has changed in the past 20 years (after all, who gets 10 complete games a year these days, or pitches 300 innings, or pitches on 3 days rest instead of 4??), Mo has displayed some of the tendencys of the greats from the past. Therefore, IMO, he would have been dominant in any era, and should sit on top of the heap, when talking about "closers".

Shawn also has another point that is so true. Mo has had 11 dominant years. 11!! I doubt any relief pitcher has done that, ever. Not 1 bad year thrown in there. Unreal.

Mo didn't end the dynasty. Torre did. The middle infielders should have been at double play depth!

Bull. I am as big a fan of Mariano as you will find. Mariano created that disaster of an inning. He is the reason the Yankees had a dynasty to be gin with, but he also killed it. He was given the pill with his work cut out for him that night. He failed. No one is perfect and I doubt many Yankee fans will hold that against him. But you must call it as it is. Mariano lost that WS for us.

I disagree with just this.

Mo has shown, when asked, that he can give you more then the typical 1 inning that closers do these days. That is why, while Pitching has changed in the past 20 years (after all, who gets 10 complete games a year these days, or pitches 300 innings, or pitches on 3 days rest instead of 4??), Mo has displayed some of the tendencys of the greats from the past. Therefore, IMO, he would have been dominant in any era, and should sit on top of the heap, when talking about "closers".

Shawn also has another point that is so true. Mo has had 11 dominant years. 11!! I doubt any relief pitcher has done that, ever. Not 1 bad year thrown in there. Unreal.

MBN- You are talking about "displaying tendencies" and believing what Mariano could have been then. That is precisely the problem-We are relying on beliefs and forecasting, which is a dangerous business to be in. They do not always pass the litmus test.

Just because Mariano has at times been able to pitch a more than 1 inning save, still has no comparison to what relievers in the "other" era were expected to do. They are not the same comparison.

MBN, I value your baseball accumen more than any other in the board, but talking closers today to 30 years ago is talking apple and oranges.

Does that mean that Mariano would not have been dominant in that role? Of course not. But, there is no guarantee he would be posting as strong of numbers as he does today.

His arm would have more exposure, his outings would have been longer, batters would have seen his pitches more often (sometimes even twice in a game), and those would effect his stellar numbers.

Listen, it is not his fault and he has done everything he can do to be the dominant closer in today's game. That does not mean though, that he could slip into the Big Red Machine's bullpen, and the results would be the same.

Eckersley? Billy Wagner? Hoyt Wilhelm? Lee Smith? Gossage? Trevor "Master of the 1/3 inning save" Hoffman? Sutter? etc etc


discuss.
Manny Goldberg of the 1919 Phillies

Manny Goldberg of the 1919 Phillies

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1919.shtml

huh?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/1919.shtml

huh?

93 complete games from that squad, ehh!! Not much need for a closer.;)

93 complete games from that squad, ehh!! Not much need for a closer.;)
I heard last night during a game that compete games were 2.8% for the entire year.

Not a surprise, but a pace for teh lowest ever, I believe.

I wonder what thhe % was for 1968?

I heard last night during a game that compete games were 2.8% for the entire year.

Not a surprise, but a pace for teh lowest ever, I believe.

I wonder what thhe % was for 1968?

I don't know, but that was a dominant year for pitching. I'll bet it was around 10-15 percent.

Interesting article, inherent to this conversation:
http://www.birdsinthebelfry.com/vanishing_art.htm

Basball is VERY different

Interesting article, inherent to this conversation:
http://www.birdsinthebelfry.com/vanishing_art.htm

Basball is VERY different
Nice article. The vanishing numbers of CGs is something else. And the author is dead on about starters. No more 300 inning guys. No one is even close.

Nice article. The vanishing numbers of CGs is something else. And the author is dead on about starters. No more 300 inning guys. No one is even close.

I really believe that the advent of the pitch count has had something to do with this phenomonon. Pitchers now have a psychological barrier as well as a physical one.

I would tend to agree that there are more pitches per at bat, and certainly more pitches per inning, but some of these pitchers are incedibly pampered.

I can understand the younger arms being pampered, but now all arms are. I guess big money contracts will lend you to those decisions.

I didn't realize that the 5 man rotation was first conceived as late as 1970. That is amazing. It soon became gospel.

Anybody know what year the revised save rule came into effect?

I didn't realize that the 5 man rotation was first conceived as late as 1970. That is amazing. It soon became gospel.



i once heard Tom Seaver comment that since the 5 man rotation came into effect, pitchers became more prone to injuries, as they did not throw as often as they used to. His theory was that the more pitchers throw, the more they "toughen" their arms. Katt has stated the same thing on YES telecasts.

i once heard Tom Seaver comment that since the 5 man rotation came into effect, pitchers became more prone to injuries, as they did not throw as often as they used to. His theory was that the more pitchers throw, the more they "toughen" their arms. Katt has stated the same thing on YES telecasts.


To put that to test I'd love to know what percentage of Japanese pitchers suffer major arm injuries. I remember reading when Nomo came to the U.S. about how pitchers in Japan throw hundreds of pitches between starts for that very reason. They feel that the more you throw, the more conditioned your arm will be. Interesting theory and it makes sense.

To put that to test I'd love to know what percentage of Japanese pitchers suffer major arm injuries. I remember reading when Nomo came to the U.S. about how pitchers in Japan throw hundreds of pitches between starts for that very reason. They feel that the more you throw, the more conditioned your arm will be. Interesting theory and it makes sense.

We never seemed to have some many arm injuries back in the 1960s into the 1970s. It has been a more recent phonemenon. I really think this is a cause of it.

BTW - Leo Mauzzone is a firm believer in pitchers throwing a lot between starts. And he is quite successful. Cause and effect?

I once met Tommy John, when he was a member of the Yankees, near the end of his career. He mentioned that he believed in throwing every other day, as a solid regiment for keeping the arm in shape.