Peter Gammons on Mo Rivera (Warning, Yankee haters DO NOT READ)
softparade
Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Will the world ever forgive me for posting some content that is pro New York Yankee 
Best of the era? Try Riveraposted: Friday, March 31, 2006
So, if the George Mitchell commission truly does its due diligence, putting the entire steroids era -- from the late 1980s in Oakland to the Rangers and Phillies of the early '90s to the blotch that is the post-strike era to what owners knew what and when, and whether owners aren't more culpable than players -- in its proper perspective, it might take us long past the Barry Bonds run to Henry Aaron, and whatever that now means.
And if we put what was once sport's most sacred record in the same category as the NHL assist mark, so be it. The fact that Bonds (third), Sammy Sosa (fifth), Mark McGwire (seventh) and Rafael Palmeiro (ninth) are at the top of the career home run leaderboard at worst depreciates the era's home run record.
If Bonds gets to No. 756, the record is his. No asterisk, perhaps little or no glory. In the real world, the record will not be about the romance of the game or fathers playing catch with their sons. It will be about greed, avarice, the hundred-something million Bonds made and the millions upon millions he made for the Giants, which includes his lasting legacy -- the best stadium in sports, which he built. In time, his legacy may stabilize, but at the present he has fanned the hysterical flames of the angry white faction in a sport whose (amateur) infrastructure has essentially closed the doors to African-Americans.
One can forever argue Bonds' place in baseball history. Yes, for nine years (1990-98) he was the best player in the game. Period. In an era when hundreds of hitters and pitchers were juiced, he was the best player.
But the public may never accept that, which raises the question: Who was the dominant figure of this era? Cases can be made for Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux (with Pedro Martinez not far behind), who in the five-man rotation, offensive era will be seventh and 10th all-time in wins -- presuming Maddux wins 12 more games.
Or one can make the argument for the most important Yankee of this glorious decade of four world championships, six pennants and nine first-place finishes, Mariano Rivera. In what is too often a slothful sports world, Rivera is the essence of elegance, like Sandy Koufax. He is always accountable. Modest. And, most of all, the model of reliability in a position that is the most difficult in terms of remaining reliable.
There is no question Rivera is the greatest reliever in the history of the sport, and what makes his 10-year record even greater is that, beginning as a rookie in 1995, he has pitched in 11 consecutive Octobers. Considering the most intense six-out work is always in September and October, to do what he has done is even more remarkable. In 1996, he was arguably the MVP setting up John Wetteland -- 107 2/3 IP, 73 H, 34 BB, 130 K. In the last nine seasons he has 374 saves. His postseason ERA is 0.81. 0.81.
Consider the volatility of the closer role. At this time last year, the White Sox had no idea Bobby Jenks would close out three October series and they have no idea today what he'll do this season. Eric Gagne became a dominant figure overnight, but the Dodgers don't know he'll be that good again.
Other than Rivera, how many closers are considered lockdowns for 2006? Frankie Rodriguez in Anaheim, Huston Street in Oakland, Brian Fuentes in Colorado, Trevor Hoffman in San Diego, Francisco Cordero in Texas, Brad Lidge in Houston, Joe Nathan in Minnesota, Billy Wagner in Queens, Jason Isringhausen in St. Louis and Chad Cordero in Washington.
And, in reality, the only guarantee for that group of 11 is that at least two will break down during the season. Check Wagner's finger.
Ryan Dempster has a great makeup and was dominant for the Cubs last season, but a sure thing? Jenks, Keith Foulke, Everyday Eddie Guardado, Armando Benitez, B.J. Ryan, Tom Gordon, Todd Jones, Derrick Turnbow and Bob Wickman sure things?
Most people in baseball think Arizona's Jose Valverde and Pittsburgh's Mike Gonzalez can be outstanding closers.
The Braves may have a 40-save closer in Oscar Villarreal, but they don't know. Ditto Chris Ray in Baltimore. Kansas City, Cincinnati, Florida and Tampa Bay will be works in progress.
Rivera is the definition of reliability in an unreliable role, the model of stability in a volatile era, the picture of modest distinction in an exhibitionist era and the most important player on the dominant team of the era.
He, not Bonds or any other slugger, deserves serious consideration as the poster boy of this era.
Peter Gammons
Best of the era? Try Riveraposted: Friday, March 31, 2006
So, if the George Mitchell commission truly does its due diligence, putting the entire steroids era -- from the late 1980s in Oakland to the Rangers and Phillies of the early '90s to the blotch that is the post-strike era to what owners knew what and when, and whether owners aren't more culpable than players -- in its proper perspective, it might take us long past the Barry Bonds run to Henry Aaron, and whatever that now means.
And if we put what was once sport's most sacred record in the same category as the NHL assist mark, so be it. The fact that Bonds (third), Sammy Sosa (fifth), Mark McGwire (seventh) and Rafael Palmeiro (ninth) are at the top of the career home run leaderboard at worst depreciates the era's home run record.
If Bonds gets to No. 756, the record is his. No asterisk, perhaps little or no glory. In the real world, the record will not be about the romance of the game or fathers playing catch with their sons. It will be about greed, avarice, the hundred-something million Bonds made and the millions upon millions he made for the Giants, which includes his lasting legacy -- the best stadium in sports, which he built. In time, his legacy may stabilize, but at the present he has fanned the hysterical flames of the angry white faction in a sport whose (amateur) infrastructure has essentially closed the doors to African-Americans.
One can forever argue Bonds' place in baseball history. Yes, for nine years (1990-98) he was the best player in the game. Period. In an era when hundreds of hitters and pitchers were juiced, he was the best player.
But the public may never accept that, which raises the question: Who was the dominant figure of this era? Cases can be made for Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux (with Pedro Martinez not far behind), who in the five-man rotation, offensive era will be seventh and 10th all-time in wins -- presuming Maddux wins 12 more games.
Or one can make the argument for the most important Yankee of this glorious decade of four world championships, six pennants and nine first-place finishes, Mariano Rivera. In what is too often a slothful sports world, Rivera is the essence of elegance, like Sandy Koufax. He is always accountable. Modest. And, most of all, the model of reliability in a position that is the most difficult in terms of remaining reliable.
There is no question Rivera is the greatest reliever in the history of the sport, and what makes his 10-year record even greater is that, beginning as a rookie in 1995, he has pitched in 11 consecutive Octobers. Considering the most intense six-out work is always in September and October, to do what he has done is even more remarkable. In 1996, he was arguably the MVP setting up John Wetteland -- 107 2/3 IP, 73 H, 34 BB, 130 K. In the last nine seasons he has 374 saves. His postseason ERA is 0.81. 0.81.
Consider the volatility of the closer role. At this time last year, the White Sox had no idea Bobby Jenks would close out three October series and they have no idea today what he'll do this season. Eric Gagne became a dominant figure overnight, but the Dodgers don't know he'll be that good again.
Other than Rivera, how many closers are considered lockdowns for 2006? Frankie Rodriguez in Anaheim, Huston Street in Oakland, Brian Fuentes in Colorado, Trevor Hoffman in San Diego, Francisco Cordero in Texas, Brad Lidge in Houston, Joe Nathan in Minnesota, Billy Wagner in Queens, Jason Isringhausen in St. Louis and Chad Cordero in Washington.
And, in reality, the only guarantee for that group of 11 is that at least two will break down during the season. Check Wagner's finger.
Ryan Dempster has a great makeup and was dominant for the Cubs last season, but a sure thing? Jenks, Keith Foulke, Everyday Eddie Guardado, Armando Benitez, B.J. Ryan, Tom Gordon, Todd Jones, Derrick Turnbow and Bob Wickman sure things?
Most people in baseball think Arizona's Jose Valverde and Pittsburgh's Mike Gonzalez can be outstanding closers.
The Braves may have a 40-save closer in Oscar Villarreal, but they don't know. Ditto Chris Ray in Baltimore. Kansas City, Cincinnati, Florida and Tampa Bay will be works in progress.
Rivera is the definition of reliability in an unreliable role, the model of stability in a volatile era, the picture of modest distinction in an exhibitionist era and the most important player on the dominant team of the era.
He, not Bonds or any other slugger, deserves serious consideration as the poster boy of this era.
Peter Gammons
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
0
Comments
Shane
<< <i>I heard Peter say that on the radio yesterday. I thought, "Man, have you fell and hit your head?" Ok, Rivera is a great closer, but c'mon, he is not the poster boy of this era. >>
Maybe not, but he is one of the finest relief pitchers the game has ever seen. Although I do think there's a bit of an 'East Coast Bias' at work in the fact that Trevor Hoffman never get these kinds of write ups.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>As much as there may be an east coast bias towards several players I think there is an equal amount of people outside the NY area who try to place players much higher than they deserve. Perfect example is Trevor Hoffman. How in the world can anyone be so clueless as to compare him to Mariano Rivera ? C'mon already, Hoffman was and maybe still is a great closer, but he is not in the same WORLD as Rivera. Anyone who tries to compare the two or claim a bias towards Rivera when comparing the two just doesnt understand the game. Rivera has done it big time on the biggest stage year after year after year. You just cant compare what Hoffman has done in the regular season to that, not to mention the fact that he got smacked in his one chance on the big stage. He has no business being mentioned in the same breath as Mariano, period. >>
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind"- Lord Kelvin.
Never heard of Lord Kelvin? Look him up. I guarantee he's smarter than you.
Trevor Hoffman career stats: ERA- 2.76. WHIP- 1.05 BAA- .205
Mariano Rivera career stats: ERA- 2.33 WHIP- 1.05 BAA- .212
The two have comparable talent. Hoffman had one shot in the post season-- 1996. Only someone who has no understanding of the importance of sample sizes when making assessments would conclude that Riviera is unequivocably better than Hoffman because of their post season numbers.
no
<< <i>He, not Bonds or any other slugger, deserves serious consideration as the poster boy of this era. >>
What the heck was Gammons smoking when he wrote that? Or, is this an April Fools Day post, and I missed it?
Rivera is a great reliever - but then again, so are Hoffman and about 10 other guys. Rivera's legend has grown because of all of the post-seasons he was fortunate enough to have pitched in. If Hoffman was in 4 or 5 post-seasons, and not just one, I'd bet he would be spoken of with the same reverence as "Mo".
<< <i>
<< <i>As much as there may be an east coast bias towards several players I think there is an equal amount of people outside the NY area who try to place players much higher than they deserve. Perfect example is Trevor Hoffman. How in the world can anyone be so clueless as to compare him to Mariano Rivera ? C'mon already, Hoffman was and maybe still is a great closer, but he is not in the same WORLD as Rivera. Anyone who tries to compare the two or claim a bias towards Rivera when comparing the two just doesnt understand the game. Rivera has done it big time on the biggest stage year after year after year. You just cant compare what Hoffman has done in the regular season to that, not to mention the fact that he got smacked in his one chance on the big stage. He has no business being mentioned in the same breath as Mariano, period. >>
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind"- Lord Kelvin.
Never heard of Lord Kelvin? Look him up. I guarantee he's smarter than you.
Trevor Hoffman career stats: ERA- 2.76. WHIP- 1.05 BAA- .205
Mariano Rivera career stats: ERA- 2.33 WHIP- 1.05 BAA- .212
The two have comparable talent. Hoffman had one shot in the post season-- 1996. Only someone who has no understanding of the importance of sample sizes when making assessments would conclude that Riviera is unequivocably better than Hoffman because of their post season numbers.
no >>
I guarantee Lord Kelvin is smarter than us all. Maybe he would have pointed out to you that Riveras ERA is nearly a half point better for his career than Hoffmans, while doing it in a league whose ERA is over a half point higher on average than Hoffmans, making him a clear standout as far as career ERA. I would say that is a fair sample size of numbers to go by.
-- Yogi Berra
Stever Carlton's career ERA: 3.22
Would you consider them comparable talents?
Also, ERA is usually not considered a very good indicator of a pitcher's efficiency.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As much as there may be an east coast bias towards several players I think there is an equal amount of people outside the NY area who try to place players much higher than they deserve. Perfect example is Trevor Hoffman. How in the world can anyone be so clueless as to compare him to Mariano Rivera ? C'mon already, Hoffman was and maybe still is a great closer, but he is not in the same WORLD as Rivera. Anyone who tries to compare the two or claim a bias towards Rivera when comparing the two just doesnt understand the game. Rivera has done it big time on the biggest stage year after year after year. You just cant compare what Hoffman has done in the regular season to that, not to mention the fact that he got smacked in his one chance on the big stage. He has no business being mentioned in the same breath as Mariano, period. >>
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind"- Lord Kelvin.
Never heard of Lord Kelvin? Look him up. I guarantee he's smarter than you.
Trevor Hoffman career stats: ERA- 2.76. WHIP- 1.05 BAA- .205
Mariano Rivera career stats: ERA- 2.33 WHIP- 1.05 BAA- .212
The two have comparable talent. Hoffman had one shot in the post season-- 1996. Only someone who has no understanding of the importance of sample sizes when making assessments would conclude that Riviera is unequivocably better than Hoffman because of their post season numbers.
no >>
I guarantee Lord Kelvin is smarter than us all. Maybe he would have pointed out to you that Riveras ERA is nearly a half point better for his career than Hoffmans, while doing it in a league whose ERA is over a half point higher on average than Hoffmans, making him a clear standout as far as career ERA. I would say that is a fair sample size of numbers to go by. >>
Each pitcher only has 850 innings or so. Take a look at Doc Gooden's first 850 innings, then come back and tell us all about how he's one of the greatest pitchers of all time.
850 innings is not a very large sample size. If you don't believe me think of all the mediocre starting pitchers who've had great four year runs, or the excellent starting pither's who've 'underacheived' for four consecutive years.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>No, I would consider Seaver to have been the better pitcher hands down actually. And now you are bringing Gooden into it ? Just that alone points out the fact that you have no clue. You are trying to compare a starting pitcher and two relievers based on earned run average. That is like apples and oranges and just has absolutely no worth in this discussion. >>
All I'm saying is that Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera are comparable talents. Is Mariano Rivera better than Hoffman? I think he probably is. But it's closer than most people realize, and my initial point was that the disparity in their talents-- whatever that disparity may be-- is not proportionate to the disparity in the amount of ink that has been spilled writing about each of them. I've tried to introduce some numbers-- and, by extension, a measure of rationality to the argument-- so that we can have an intelligent debate about it. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But you need to do something other than announce that 'I have no clue'. Give us some numbers that support your reasoning, and I'll be happy to listen and discuss the matter further. If you're not willing to do this then I'll effectively consider this debate closed.
In any event, I think you'll have a hard time proving to anyone that Trevor Hoffman isn't in the same WORLD has Mariano Rivera. But, I could be wrong. Take your best shot.
<< <i>In any event, I think you'll have a hard time proving to anyone that Trevor Hoffman isn't in the same WORLD has Mariano Rivera. But, I could be wrong. Take your best shot.
>>
Mariano Rivera was the man responsible more than ANY Yankee for 4 World Series rings and SIX World Series appearances. His combined 0.81 post season ERA in 11 straight post seasons is MORE than enough to separate him from EVERYBODY. A 0.81 ERA in 111+ post season innings pitched.That combined with the fact that Trevor Hoffman was OWNED by the Yankees in the 1998 World Series without a doubt puts down the idea that he is or was in the same class as Rivera.
In a nutshell ..... 111 innings pitched by Mariano in the post season with a 0.81 ERA. THAT is just incredible ....
1998 World Series:
Trevor Hoffman 2 IP 9.00 ERA 0 K's
Mariano Rivera 5.0 IP 0.00 ERA 4 K's
I don't toot the horn for too many of my beloved Yankee individual players. Mariano Rivera is worth sticking my Yankee fan neck out for. HE IS IN A CLASS BY HIMSELF
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Tom Seaver's career ERA: 2.76
Stever Carlton's career ERA: 3.22
Would you consider them comparable talents?
Also, ERA is usually not considered a very good indicator of a pitcher's efficiency. >>
I don't think many people at all would consider Seaver and Carlton to be comparable talents, they are really not even that close.
And, if not ERA, what is "usually" considered the best way to measure a pitcher's efficiency. I would say that ERA is almost always considered the best measure, and for very good reason - it IS the best measure. OK, the park and league adjusted ERA+ is better, but I don't think that's what you meant.
If you compared Rivera and Hoffman each to an average pitcher you would see that Rivera's margin over the average pitcher is about twice Hoffman's margin. I'm no big fan of relief pitchers in general or Rivera in particular, and I think Gammons was either making a joke or drunk as a skunk, but Rivera is a MUCH better pitcher than Hoffman. Not Seaver-Carlton better, but more like Seaver-Bunning better.
<< <i>
<< <i>Tom Seaver's career ERA: 2.76
Stever Carlton's career ERA: 3.22
Would you consider them comparable talents?
Also, ERA is usually not considered a very good indicator of a pitcher's efficiency. >>
I don't think many people at all would consider Seaver and Carlton to be comparable talents, they are really not even that close.
And, if not ERA, what is "usually" considered the best way to measure a pitcher's efficiency. I would say that ERA is almost always considered the best measure, and for very good reason - it IS the best measure. OK, the park and league adjusted ERA+ is better, but I don't think that's what you meant.
If you compared Rivera and Hoffman each to an average pitcher you would see that Rivera's margin over the average pitcher is about twice Hoffman's margin. I'm no big fan of relief pitchers in general or Rivera in particular, and I think Gammons was either making a joke or drunk as a skunk, but Rivera is a MUCH better pitcher than Hoffman. Not Seaver-Carlton better, but more like Seaver-Bunning better. >>
How would you measure Hoffman and Riveras margin over average pitchers?
<< <i>
<< <i>Tom Seaver's career ERA: 2.76
Stever Carlton's career ERA: 3.22
Would you consider them comparable talents?
Also, ERA is usually not considered a very good indicator of a pitcher's efficiency. >>
I don't think many people at all would consider Seaver and Carlton to be comparable talents, they are really not even that close.
And, if not ERA, what is "usually" considered the best way to measure a pitcher's efficiency. I would say that ERA is almost always considered the best measure, and for very good reason - it IS the best measure. OK, the park and league adjusted ERA+ is better, but I don't think that's what you meant.
If you compared Rivera and Hoffman each to an average pitcher you would see that Rivera's margin over the average pitcher is about twice Hoffman's margin. I'm no big fan of relief pitchers in general or Rivera in particular, and I think Gammons was either making a joke or drunk as a skunk, but Rivera is a MUCH better pitcher than Hoffman. Not Seaver-Carlton better, but more like Seaver-Bunning better. >>
Also, another point on this subject which I would appreciate if you would address. Do you consider about 900 innings a satisfactory sample size for comparing pitchers? You're an actuary (I assume), so I'm guessing you have the statistical background needed to determine what the margin for error would be for ERA numbers over a sample of this size.
Regarding the innings pitched, your question seems to imply (since you mention that I am an actuary) that 900 is in some way a sample that we might use to estimate how good a pitcher is. It's not, and 900 innings might as well be 9,000 innings if they are used to compare pitchers who have each pitched about 900 innings.
I don't think 900 innings is anywhere near enough to get a pitcher in the HOF, but that's a different question.
<< <i>Regarding the innings pitched, your question seems to imply (since you mention that I am an actuary) that 900 is in some way a sample that we might use to estimate how good a pitcher is. It's not, and 900 innings might as well be 9,000 innings if they are used to compare pitchers who have each pitched about 900 innings.
>>
I don't follow you here. Not that you don't have a point, just that I don't understand what you're saying.
When you talk of comparing pitchers I assume you're referring to park adjusted ERA's. If so, then Riviera's ERA has been about 50% of the AL average for his career, while Hoffman's has been about 68% fo the NL average. Re: Seaver, Carlton and Bunning, Seaver's career ERA (again, adjusted) was 79% of the league average, while Carlton and Bunning were both about 87%.
In the end this comes down to a question of semantics. Is a pitcher with an ERA that's 68% of the league average 'comparable in talent' to a pitcher with 50%? I think so, although obviously 'comparable' means different things to different people. Ditto for Seaver, Carlton and Bunning. If all you look at is there ERA's, then yeah-- I think those ERA's are comparable, and I would be surprised if the disparities in both of these comparisons aren't within the margin of error for the sample sizes we're discussing. Note that in the two other pertinent statistics I brought up (BAA and WHIP) Hoffman and Riviera are almost identical, while Hoffman has recorded more K/9. For someone to say that Hoffman isn't in the same world as Riviera is, I think, a stretch, although if you have more numbers you want to share that fortify your argument I would very much like to see them.
One other thing: I don't buy into the 'clutch pitching' BS, so WS accomplishments don't mean more to me then regular season stats when we're comparing players. If you feel otherwise, then that's fine-- we'll just have to peacefully disagree.
Put Hoffman in that number of postseason appearances, and it's likely he would have fared just as well. But we'll never know.
Just because a player wears pinstripes, boys, doesn't make him the best or most dominant automatically, just like it doesn't make any tom dick or harry who was a yankee a hall of famer.
The faster you yankee nuts get over that, the less the rest of us real baseball fans will despise your arrogance.
<< <i>I wonder if those on Rivera's nuts (and you all know who you are) would have a leg to stand on if he didn't play on the richest team in baseball, and have been afforded all those playoff appearances.
Put Hoffman in that number of postseason appearances, and it's likely he would have fared just as well. But we'll never know.
Just because a player wears pinstripes, boys, doesn't make him the best or most dominant automatically, just like it doesn't make any tom dick or harry who was a yankee a hall of famer.
The faster you yankee nuts get over that, the less the rest of us real baseball fans will despise your arrogance. >>
They probably would. Mariano Rivera is a gifted pitcher-- I don't see how anyone can argue that. The question at hand- or, at least the question I proposed-- is whether or not Trevor Hoffman is a comparable (not necessarily equal) talent.
<< <i>I wonder if those on Rivera's nuts (and you all know who you are) would have a leg to stand on if he didn't play on the richest team in baseball, and have been afforded all those playoff appearances.
Put Hoffman in that number of postseason appearances, and it's likely he would have fared just as well. But we'll never know.
Just because a player wears pinstripes, boys, doesn't make him the best or most dominant automatically, just like it doesn't make any tom dick or harry who was a yankee a hall of famer.
The faster you yankee nuts get over that, the less the rest of us real baseball fans will despise your arrogance. >>
Axtell, for once could you please stay out of a thread? You are a threads poison. This has NOTHING to do with any Yankee fans drinking the pinstripe Kool Aid, or arguing about Hall of Fame potential. You are a broken record and extremely predictable with your whine fests anymore.
<< <i> Just because a player wears pinstripes, boys, doesn't make him the best or most dominant automatically, just like it doesn't make any tom dick or harry who was a yankee a hall of famer. >>
Where did you get THIS from???? This is a legit thread, not some pom pom ra ra thread thread. But see, ANY TIME something is said in a positive light you react this way. Also, nobody is more arrogant around here than you Axtell. You are a CANCER to this forum and I BET at least 80% of those who post here would agree.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
One other thing: I don't buy into the 'clutch pitching' BS, so WS accomplishments don't mean more to me then regular season stats when we're comparing players. If you feel otherwise, then that's fine-- we'll just have to peacefully disagree. >>
I find it hard to believe that anybody wouldn't hold post season performances to a higher standard then the regular season. You are certainly entightled to that opinion but it makes no sense. The post season is a different level of play by far. Sure it is nice to have great stats all regular season playing the likes of Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Milwaukee, etc over and over again to pad the numbers. The post season these guys are playing the best day in and day out.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>Regarding the innings pitched, your question seems to imply (since you mention that I am an actuary) that 900 is in some way a sample that we might use to estimate how good a pitcher is. It's not, and 900 innings might as well be 9,000 innings if they are used to compare pitchers who have each pitched about 900 innings.
>>
I don't follow you here. Not that you don't have a point, just that I don't understand what you're saying.
When you talk of comparing pitchers I assume you're referring to park adjusted ERA's. If so, then Riviera's ERA has been about 50% of the AL average for his career, while Hoffman's has been about 68% fo the NL average. Re: Seaver, Carlton and Bunning, Seaver's career ERA (again, adjusted) was 79% of the league average, while Carlton and Bunning were both about 87%.
>>
Rivera's career ERA+ is 197 (97% better than an average ERA+ of 100) and Hoffman's is 146. These are the inverses of the approximate 50% and 68% figures you calculated. Whichever direction you divide you are obviously measuring the same thing - there are a great many pitchers with adjusted ERAs that fall within the very large gap between Rivera and Hoffman.
Regarding the 900 innings question, what I'm saying is that "sample size" is a statistical concept whose only use is in constructing a random sample. If you asked me which of two pitchers I had never heard of had the lower ERA and gave me nothing but game films to determine the answer, I would not watch every inning of every game. If they had each pitched about 900 innings, I would watch a random sample of about 50 innings for each pitcher and I would know - with almost near certainty - what the right answer was. 50, in this case, would be my "sample size".
I suspect that you mean something else when you use the phrase "sample size". In any case, 900 innings equals 100% of the careers of Rivera and Hoffman; saying that that is "not enough" to tell who is better seems odd since there is nothing else.
<< <i>I find it hard to believe that anybody wouldn't hold post season performances to a higher standard then the regular season. You are certainly entightled to that opinion but it makes no sense. The post season is a different level of play by far. Sure it is nice to have great stats all regular season playing the likes of Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Milwaukee, etc over and over again to pad the numbers. The post season these guys are playing the best day in and day out. >>
The problem is that most pitchers have no chance at appearing in a postseason game in any given season, and a great deal have no chance over their entire careers, no matter how well they pitch.
I think it is perfectly valid to compare the postseason performances of two pitchers who each have been there many times. But I think it is entirely invalid to include the postseason in a comparison if one of the two pitches has never, or very rarely, been there. How would Fergie Jenkins have done in the postseason? I don't know, but I suspect he would have been one of the best ever. To give another pitcher an edge over Jenkins for postseason pitching would make no sense, IMO.
<< <i>I wonder if those on Rivera's nuts (and you all know who you are) would have a leg to stand on if he didn't play on the richest team in baseball, and have been afforded all those playoff appearances.
Put Hoffman in that number of postseason appearances, and it's likely he would have fared just as well. But we'll never know.
Just because a player wears pinstripes, boys, doesn't make him the best or most dominant automatically, just like it doesn't make any tom dick or harry who was a yankee a hall of famer.
The faster you yankee nuts get over that, the less the rest of us real baseball fans will despise your arrogance. >>
I dont think anyone here claims that just because you wear pinstripes you are automatically the best or most dominant. It is true in Riveras case though, and there is no denying that. In as much as you, as you describe yourself " real baseball fans" despise your perceived arrogance of NY'ers, there is an equal amount of people who consider themselves " real baseball fans " who automatically ignore everything that is spewed by a NY hater as biased and just plain ridiculous.
And to claim that if Hoffman had been put in the same situation as Rivera that he would likely do the same is just stupid. You dont know he would, I dont know he would, Nobody knows he would. All we have to go by was what Hoffman DID do when he got his one crack at it, and that was explode. Now, maybe that wouldnt be the case every time, but its all we have to go by now. He did not succeed when on the biggest stage, which Rivera has done year in and year out for 10 years. Hoffman also has the advantage of playing in relative obscurity over the years, with nothing on the line, no media/press scrutiny. To claim the difference between what Rivera has done in an intense, pressure filled enviornment to that of Hoffman is like comparing someone doing community theater to someone headlining on Broadway. Its just not even a contest.
-- Yogi Berra
The Yankees obviously have had a HUGE payroll since 1996. Even with that the Yankees are NO WHERE NEAR as successful without Mariano Rivera. Argueably he has been the real MVP of the American League the past 11 years, and that is what Peter Gammons is saying.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Regarding the innings pitched, your question seems to imply (since you mention that I am an actuary) that 900 is in some way a sample that we might use to estimate how good a pitcher is. It's not, and 900 innings might as well be 9,000 innings if they are used to compare pitchers who have each pitched about 900 innings.
>>
I don't follow you here. Not that you don't have a point, just that I don't understand what you're saying.
When you talk of comparing pitchers I assume you're referring to park adjusted ERA's. If so, then Riviera's ERA has been about 50% of the AL average for his career, while Hoffman's has been about 68% fo the NL average. Re: Seaver, Carlton and Bunning, Seaver's career ERA (again, adjusted) was 79% of the league average, while Carlton and Bunning were both about 87%.
>>
Rivera's career ERA+ is 197 (97% better than an average ERA+ of 100) and Hoffman's is 146. These are the inverses of the approximate 50% and 68% figures you calculated. Whichever direction you divide you are obviously measuring the same thing - there are a great many pitchers with adjusted ERAs that fall within the very large gap between Rivera and Hoffman.
Regarding the 900 innings question, what I'm saying is that "sample size" is a statistical concept whose only use is in constructing a random sample. If you asked me which of two pitchers I had never heard of had the lower ERA and gave me nothing but game films to determine the answer, I would not watch every inning of every game. If they had each pitched about 900 innings, I would watch a random sample of about 50 innings for each pitcher and I would know - with almost near certainty - what the right answer was. 50, in this case, would be my "sample size".
I suspect that you mean something else when you use the phrase "sample size". In any case, 900 innings equals 100% of the careers of Rivera and Hoffman; saying that that is "not enough" to tell who is better seems odd since there is nothing else. >>
One other thing to consider is that the disparities between the respective league ERA's (the NL being about a half point better) should, if not be ignored, at least be mitigated in the case of relievers, since it's very uncommon for a 9th inning closer to find himself facing an opppsing pitcher at the plate.
Re: Sample size. What I'm trying to get at is that there has to be some margin for error within the 800-900 innings that each pitcher has pitched. In other words, after 800 innings a pitcher of Mariano Rivera's talents will have an ERA between 'x' and 'y' (say, 1.25 and 4.60, for example) 99.9% of the time. If both Rivera and Hoffman's ERA's fall towards the middle of this range, then it's hard to use ERA has the ultimate barometer of their respective talents.
Here's an example from my own life which may better illustrate what I'm trying to get at. In Texas Hold 'em you need around 60,000 hands or so to get any kind of realistic idea of what your win rate going forward will be. Anything less than that and you run the risk of over (or under) estimating your expectation. There's a range of results within 60,000 hands that a player with an expectation of 'x' can expect to acheive, and that range is pretty damn big. I suspect the same thing is true for pitcher's ERA's, and that this range needs to be respected when using ERA as a way to guage 'who's better'.
If I have two poker players, one with a win rate of .7 big bets per hour, and one with a win rate of .85, I would be reluctant to draw any conclusions about who was the superior player unless those results were acheived over a large number of hands. The same thing must, on some level, apply to baseball pitchers as well.
Dan- I just do not believe that some players can be predicted to acheive above and beyond their average simply because it's a 'big game'. If you do believe this then that's fine, but it's not something that we can effectively debate because we don't have any numbers to back up our arguments.
Also, if Rivera was a Brewer, nobody would give a rat's rear end about him, and that's the truth. Pinstripes give him some of the perceived glory.
<< <i>dallas, that fine BUT the level of play in the post season is of a much higher level then regular season. You are absolutley right that many great players don't get to perform on that stage, however, that is no reason IMO to hold regular and post season performance in the same light.
The Yankees obviously have had a HUGE payroll since 1996. Even with that the Yankees are NO WHERE NEAR as successful without Mariano Rivera. Argueably he has been the real MVP of the American League the past 11 years, and that is what Peter Gammons is saying. >>
Dan, I think we agree more than we disagree. When comparing pitchers, I think it is completely fair to have a regular season and a postseason comparison - and to weight the postseason for relatively more because of the level of competition and the stakes involved. I just don't think it's reasonable to compare, say, Catfish Hunter to Fergie Jenkins and give Hunter additional credit for something Jenkins never had the opportunity to do. But if you're comparing Hunter to Jim Palmer, then by all means include the postseason.
In the end, no mater how you do the comparison, Rivera is going to come out way ahead of anybody else.
<< <i>Also, if Rivera was a Brewer, nobody would give a rat's rear end about him, and that's the truth. Pinstripes give him some of the perceived glory. >>
and IF the world was flat, Columbus just might have fell off
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Re: Sample size. What I'm trying to get at is that there has to be some margin for error within the 800-900 innings that each pitcher has pitched. In other words, after 800 innings a pitcher of Mariano Rivera's talents will have an ERA between 'x' and 'y' (say, 1.25 and 4.60, for example) 99.9% of the time. If both Rivera and Hoffman's ERA's fall towards the middle of this range, then it's hard to use ERA has the ultimate barometer of their respective talents.
Here's an example from my own life which may better illustrate what I'm trying to get at. In Texas Hold 'em you need around 60,000 hands or so to get any kind of realistic idea of what your win rate going forward will be. Anything less than that and you run the risk of over (or under) estimating your expectation. There's a range of results within 60,000 hands that a player with an expectation of 'x' can expect to acheive, and that range is pretty damn big. I suspect the same thing is true for pitcher's ERA's, and that this range needs to be respected when using ERA as a way to guage 'who's better'. >>
I think the key distinction between poker and pitching is that poker hands are random. Your analogy only works if whether a pitcher has a good or bad outing is a random event, and surely it isn't.
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, if Rivera was a Brewer, nobody would give a rat's rear end about him, and that's the truth. Pinstripes give him some of the perceived glory. >>
and IF the world was flat, Columbus just might have fell off >>
There's a difference, the world isn't flat. And if he were a brewer, and didn't have all those postseason appearances, he'd be just another top level reliever.
Why do you yankee nutjobs have to have the impression that because a certain player plays for you, they must be the best of all time? You guys want to get on top of Bernie Williams because he has the most postseason hits.
Get over yourselves.
<< <i> .
Why do you yankee nutjobs have to have the impression that because a certain player plays for you, they must be the best of all time? You guys want to get on top of Bernie Williams because he has the most postseason hits.
>>
Hey dingleberry, why don't YOU show me ANYTHING in this thread that was discussing Rivera being "the best of all time". Last I checked it was a debate between Rivera and Trevor Hoffman. Again, you have to conjure up lies to support the sickness you have regarding the Yankees.
Get lost, this is a great thread without you posting your empty headed nonsense.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
-- Yogi Berra
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
They have similar innings so you can compare what they can control as to who has more talent.
Rivera K's 8.1 per nine - Hoffman K's 10.0 per nine
Rivera walks 2.4 per nine - Hoffman walks 2.6 per nine
Rivera has only allowed 42 homers in his career which is an unbelievably low amount. Hoffman has allowed 74. That is the biggest difference between them.
Both have worked over an inning per appearance as relievers.
If you discount the post-season Rivera has been slightly more dominant.
The post-season brilliance and opportunities, of course, gives Rivera the edge over all other closers.
I just dont see how people can not get the fact that Rivera has done what he has done in his career while doing it in such an incredibly difficult enviornment. There is constant pressure from fans and media, constant attention, etc. All that stuff that Hoffman just does not and has not had to go through. Maybe there are no numbers to validate that difference, but you just cant be blind to it either. Playing for a first place team that is expected to win the series every year, in a packed house of 55,000 every day, in a city that can rip your heart out if you arent strong enough to handle the pressure, in comparison to a guy who plays in front of half full stadiums in relatively meaningless games, with virtually zero pressure and scrutiny from the press and fans. Big difference IMO.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>
<< <i>Re: Sample size. What I'm trying to get at is that there has to be some margin for error within the 800-900 innings that each pitcher has pitched. In other words, after 800 innings a pitcher of Mariano Rivera's talents will have an ERA between 'x' and 'y' (say, 1.25 and 4.60, for example) 99.9% of the time. If both Rivera and Hoffman's ERA's fall towards the middle of this range, then it's hard to use ERA has the ultimate barometer of their respective talents.
Here's an example from my own life which may better illustrate what I'm trying to get at. In Texas Hold 'em you need around 60,000 hands or so to get any kind of realistic idea of what your win rate going forward will be. Anything less than that and you run the risk of over (or under) estimating your expectation. There's a range of results within 60,000 hands that a player with an expectation of 'x' can expect to acheive, and that range is pretty damn big. I suspect the same thing is true for pitcher's ERA's, and that this range needs to be respected when using ERA as a way to guage 'who's better'. >>
I think the key distinction between poker and pitching is that poker hands are random. Your analogy only works if whether a pitcher has a good or bad outing is a random event, and surely it isn't. >>
There is without question a random element to pitching; the question is how long would it take for this random element to be absorbed by the 'long run'. I don't know the answer to this, but my feeling is that it would be longer than 800 innings.
Think of all the things that can happen to a pitcher over which he has no control; a Texas Leaguer lands five feet over the second baseman's head with two outs, scoring two runs. A liner down the right field line is six inches foul instead of three inches fair. The wind is blowing out the day they face David Ortiz, blowing in the day they face Juan Pierre, and so on and so on.
I don't think you can construct an argument that dumb luck does not play a role in the success of one ballplayer over another. The only real question, then, is how long do you need to go in order to be confident that the luck factor has evened out. With two pitchers (in this case Hoffman and Riveria) who's career stats are this close together I suspect 800 innings is not enough to declare that one pitcher is light years better than the other.
<< <i>There is without question a random element to pitching; the question is how long would it take for this random element to be absorbed by the 'long run'. I don't know the answer to this, but my feeling is that it would be longer than 800 innings.
Think of all the things that can happen to a pitcher over which he has no control; a Texas Leaguer lands five feet over the second baseman's head with two outs, scoring two runs. A liner down the right field line is six inches foul instead of three inches fair. The wind is blowing out the day they face David Ortiz, blowing in the day they face Juan Pierre, and so on and so on.
I don't think you can construct an argument that dumb luck does not play a role in the success of one ballplayer over another. The only real question, then, is how long do you need to go in order to be confident that the luck factor has evened out. With two pitchers (in this case Hoffman and Riveria) who's career stats are this close together I suspect 800 innings is not enough to declare that one pitcher is light years better than the other. >>
I may be wrong, but you seem to be saying that when the Yankees agreed to pay Rivera $7 mil plus in 2000, when he had pitched fewer than 400 innings to date, that they got "lucky" when he continued to put up the same kind of numbers after that. Or that when the Cubs made Greg Maddux one of the ten highest paid players in baseball in 1992 based on about 1,000 innings they, too, were lucky he kept pitching so well. Ditto for Boston and Pedro in 1998 after about 900 innings, Clemens in 1989 after 1,000 innings, and so on and so on.
Truth is, the random element in pitching is very small indeed and almost always works itself to near-zero over the course of one season, let alone 900 innings. Bill James did a mini-analysis on the phenomenon of pitchers who had abnormally lower or higher than expected ERAs based on how many non-HR balls opposing batters put in play and in every case he looked at the phenomenon was gone the following season. And while "this close" is subjective, I'll say again that I do not believe that Rivera and Hoffman are "this close". 800-900 innings has created a large and ever-increasing gap between them. And have you noticed just how much larger the gap between them is if you throw out Rivera's failed attempt as a starting pitcher his rookie season? Rivera's ERA+ as a reliever is about 225 (44% of the adjusted average). No insult intended to Hoffman - no relief pitcher is even remotely close to Rivera, let alone "this close".
I'll put it this way - if you are made GM of a major league team you are going to get handed your hat very quickly if you make deals based on the belief that any players' stats reflect "luck". Exception: a pitcher's wins can reflect a tremendous amount of luck, which is why they are useless as a comparative statistic; all other stats - if properly park-adjusted - are virtually luck-free.
Look, I never said Rivera wasn't a great pitcher. But I find it hillarious that Gammons, the same guy you yankee fans have blasted in the past for being too pro Red Sox, now is your new best friend since he (a) picked the yankees to win the division and (b) wrote this article.
Why is it so difficult for you to compare a pitcher not in a yankee uniform, and possibly accept they might be comparable. Because Rivera was fortunate enough to find himself in multiple playoff appearances?
Difficult environment? That's your deciding factor? Come on, get over yourselves! Being a closer is a 'difficult environment' ANYWHERE, not just your precious NY.
Hoffman is every bit as good as Rivera. Put Hoffman in Rivera's position with the gluttony of playoff appearances and it's likely he'd have performed just as well as Rivera.
<< <i>
<< <i>There is without question a random element to pitching; the question is how long would it take for this random element to be absorbed by the 'long run'. I don't know the answer to this, but my feeling is that it would be longer than 800 innings.
Think of all the things that can happen to a pitcher over which he has no control; a Texas Leaguer lands five feet over the second baseman's head with two outs, scoring two runs. A liner down the right field line is six inches foul instead of three inches fair. The wind is blowing out the day they face David Ortiz, blowing in the day they face Juan Pierre, and so on and so on.
I don't think you can construct an argument that dumb luck does not play a role in the success of one ballplayer over another. The only real question, then, is how long do you need to go in order to be confident that the luck factor has evened out. With two pitchers (in this case Hoffman and Riveria) who's career stats are this close together I suspect 800 innings is not enough to declare that one pitcher is light years better than the other. >>
I may be wrong, but you seem to be saying that when the Yankees agreed to pay Rivera $7 mil plus in 2000, when he had pitched fewer than 400 innings to date, that they got "lucky" when he continued to put up the same kind of numbers after that. Or that when the Cubs made Greg Maddux one of the ten highest paid players in baseball in 1992 based on about 1,000 innings they, too, were lucky he kept pitching so well. Ditto for Boston and Pedro in 1998 after about 900 innings, Clemens in 1989 after 1,000 innings, and so on and so on.
Truth is, the random element in pitching is very small indeed and almost always works itself to near-zero over the course of one season, let alone 900 innings. Bill James did a mini-analysis on the phenomenon of pitchers who had abnormally lower or higher than expected ERAs based on how many non-HR balls opposing batters put in play and in every case he looked at the phenomenon was gone the following season. And while "this close" is subjective, I'll say again that I do not believe that Rivera and Hoffman are "this close". 800-900 innings has created a large and ever-increasing gap between them. And have you noticed just how much larger the gap between them is if you throw out Rivera's failed attempt as a starting pitcher his rookie season? Rivera's ERA+ as a reliever is about 225 (44% of the adjusted average). No insult intended to Hoffman - no relief pitcher is even remotely close to Rivera, let alone "this close".
I'll put it this way - if you are made GM of a major league team you are going to get handed your hat very quickly if you make deals based on the belief that any players' stats reflect "luck". Exception: a pitcher's wins can reflect a tremendous amount of luck, which is why they are useless as a comparative statistic; all other stats - if properly park-adjusted - are virtually luck-free. >>
Very good points. Here are a couple more that I think are worth considering.
1) As I mentioned earlier, I think there is some validity to the argument that adjusting ERA's in order to take into account the NL and Al is not as valuable for comparing relief pitchers in different leagues as it is starting pitchers, by virtue of the fact that NL relievers in save situations are virtually never going to pitch to an opposing pitcher.
2) Hoffman and Rivera has virtually identical WHIP and BAA numbers, and Hoffman's K/9 is slightly superior. The difference in their ERA's, as aro13 pointed out, is mostly in the long ball. Is 800 innings enough to be comfortable asserting that Hoffman, going forward, will give up more HR's than Rivera (assuming neither pitcher's skill decline)? If Bill James looked at non-HR hits as the metric for gauging pitcher's consistency and effectiveness, then it seems this HR disparity may not be attributed to a chasm in skill level between the two pitchers. In fact, I suspect that if we looked at non-HR ERA's then Rivera and Hoffman are very close.
3)Are Qualcomm and Jack Murphy more 'homer parks' then Yankee stadium? (I have no idea, I'm just tossing it out there for discussion).
4) To answer your question, I think it's impossible to determine whether or not the Yankees got 'lucky' when they signed Mariano Rivera to a multi million dollar deal. There are variables at work that nobody can quantify; most notably, whether or not a given player will improve as his career progresses. I don't think anyone can predict that with any reasonable degree of accuracy. I do, however, think it's within the realm of possibility that the Yankees got lucky with Rivera, and the Cubs with Maddux, and the Red Sox with Clemens, and the Cardinals with Isringhausen, and so on and so on, just as I think it's possible that the Yankees got 'unlucky' with Ed Whitson and Carl Pavano (so far) and Kevin Brown, The Mets with Dwight Gooden and Sid Fernandez, etc.
Here's the problem as I see it. We base a pitcher's effectiveness on his stats, and I'm not sure that the length of trials which most pitching and hitting statistics deal with are significant enough to overcome the effects of standard deviation. As I alluded to earlier, I think it's possible that a pitcher with Riviera's talents could, after 800 innnings, have an ERA between 'x' and 'y'. and that the difference between 'x' and 'y' is bigger than most people would initially suspect. For instance, given an infinite number of trials, Mariano Rivera's ERA could, at this point in his career, be anywhere between 1.75 and 2.45 (I'm just tossing these numbers out there to illustrate, as I really have no idea what that range could be, if in fact a range exists at all).
Why do some pitchers (and hitters) seem to just fall off the map, while others continue to thrive (or get better)? Look at Kevin Seitzer; what happened to him? Or Will Clark, or Mark Langston, or Ron Darling? Or, on the other side of the coin, Jesse Orosco or Julio Franco? If it's simply a matter of their skills going into premature decline (or continuing to improve) then yes, I agree with you 100%, since we could then assume that, had their skill sets not changed they would have continued to put up the kind of numbers that we saw in the beginning of their careers. But is it possible that while their skill sets remained constant they simply began to get either unusually lucky or unlucky later in their careers, and their statistics simply ended up on one of the extreme ends of the variance curve? That the bloop singles that Seitzer was getting in 1987 or 1988 suddenly started falling into the glove of the left fielder, or the hanging curves that Orosco used to put up became deep flies instead of HR's?
Lastly, I want to address the isssue of semantics. Earlier I compared Seaver and Carlton, and you said there was no comparison between the two. Both are HOF's, and both were in the top 5-10% of pitchers in their era. When someone says that player A is not in the same world as player B, I think of Bob Walk vs. Nolan Ryan- I don't think of two elite HOF's. Ditto for Hoffman and Rivera. Rivera may be a better pitcher, but say any comparison between he and Hoffman is laughable doesn't jibe, as both been highly effective closers for many years (although Hoffman is nearing the end of the road).
<< <i>Two words..... "Enter Sandman"
If a thread doesn't interest you then just skip over it. There's no need to be a smart ass.
<< <i>1) As I mentioned earlier, I think there is some validity to the argument that adjusting ERA's in order to take into account the NL and Al is not as valuable for comparing relief pitchers in different leagues as it is starting pitchers, by virtue of the fact that NL relievers in save situations are virtually never going to pitch to an opposing pitcher. >>
You are probably right to some degree, but I have no idea what that degree might be. As a guess, Hoffman faces the pitcher's spot in the order 11% of the time, the pitcher does not bat 90% of the time, and the increased likelihood that a non-pitcher will get on base over the likelihood for the pitcher is about 20% (.200 difference in OBP). That means he is giving up 2% more base runners because of the phenomenon you describe - or 6 base runners based on an average of 300 BFP per season. Of course, the league average pitching stats include the fact that relievers face pinch hitters quite a bit, so let's lower that to 5 baserunners a season, or about 6% of Hoffman's baserunners per season. If that means that 6% of his runs are also due to this, then his ERA+ should also go up 6%, from 146 to 155. I'm not uncomfortable with that quickie analysis, and 155 is still a healthy distance from Rivera.
<< <i>2) Hoffman and Rivera has virtually identical WHIP and BAA numbers, and Hoffman's K/9 is slightly superior. The difference in their ERA's, as aro13 pointed out, is mostly in the long ball. Is 800 innings enough to be comfortable asserting that Hoffman, going forward, will give up more HR's than Rivera (assuming neither pitcher's skill decline)? If Bill James looked at non-HR hits as the metric for gauging pitcher's consistency and effectiveness, then it seems this HR disparity may not be attributed to a chasm in skill level between the two pitchers. In fact, I suspect that if we looked at non-HR ERA's then Rivera and Hoffman are very close. >>
I think I oversimplified James' analysis. He has a formula for determining an expected ERA based on a pitcher's non-HR balls in play plus HR with the assumption that the HR part of the equation is not at all based on luck. And that formula almost always predicts a pitcher's ERA very well. When it doesn't in a given season - when "luck", either good or bad, has played a significant part - it virtually always does a good job of predicting again the next year. That is, James could not find a pitcher who was consistently lucky or unlucky over a stretch of two seasons.
<< <i>3)Are Qualcomm and Jack Murphy more 'homer parks' then Yankee stadium? (I have no idea, I'm just tossing it out there for discussion). >>
On the contrary, San Diego stadiums are among the most pitcher-friendly in baseball, even in the history of baseball. Which is why the fact that Hoffman gives up more HR than Rivera is so significant. In fact, since you have noted that their WHIP are so similar, the additional HR is THE reason that Hoffman gives up more runs than Rivera. Statistically, the difference is enormous - Hoffman gives up twice as many HR (on a park-adjusted basis) than does Rivera. One could say, "well, that's just one thing Rivera does better", but as the results show, HR is one very important thing.
<< <i>4) To answer your question, I think it's impossible to determine whether or not the Yankees got 'lucky' when they signed Mariano Rivera to a multi million dollar deal. There are variables at work that nobody can quantify; most notably, whether or not a given player will improve as his career progresses. I don't think anyone can predict that with any reasonable degree of accuracy. I do, however, think it's within the realm of possibility that the Yankees got lucky with Rivera, and the Cubs with Maddux, and the Red Sox with Clemens, and the Cardinals with Isringhausen, and so on and so on, just as I think it's possible that the Yankees got 'unlucky' with Ed Whitson and Carl Pavano (so far) and Kevin Brown, The Mets with Dwight Gooden and Sid Fernandez, etc. >>
The Yankees did not get that "unlucky" with Ed Whitson; Whitson was an erratic, not very good pitcher before he came to NY, while he was in NY, and after he left NY. Check out his 1978-1984 records - good one year, bad the next. When NY signed him he was "due" for a bad year - and he had one. Pavano was good the year before NY got him, but awful the three years before that. I'm not sure why you reference Fernandez - his career was consistently in the above-average-but-not-great range until his arm wore out, and the reasons for Gooden's decline had nothing to do with luck. In other words, I don't think mediocre erratic pitchers and drug abusers are strong arguments against my position that once a pitcher shows greatness for even two seasons that luck has nothing to do with it.
<< <i>Here's the problem as I see it. We base a pitcher's effectiveness on his stats, and I'm not sure that the length of trials which most pitching and hitting statistics deal with are significant enough to overcome the effects of standard deviation. As I alluded to earlier, I think it's possible that a pitcher with Riviera's talents could, after 800 innnings, have an ERA between 'x' and 'y'. and that the difference between 'x' and 'y' is bigger than most people would initially suspect. For instance, given an infinite number of trials, Mariano Rivera's ERA could, at this point in his career, be anywhere between 1.75 and 2.45 (I'm just tossing these numbers out there to illustrate, as I really have no idea what that range could be, if in fact a range exists at all). >>
Here, again, your argument only works if pitching results are random. Otherwise, the concept of standard deviation is meaningless. And I see no reason to believe that Rivera's, or any pitcher's, results are random.
<< <i>Why do some pitchers (and hitters) seem to just fall off the map, while others continue to thrive (or get better)? Look at Kevin Seitzer; what happened to him? Or Will Clark, or Mark Langston, or Ron Darling? Or, on the other side of the coin, Jesse Orosco or Julio Franco? If it's simply a matter of their skills going into premature decline (or continuing to improve) then yes, I agree with you 100%, since we could then assume that, had their skill sets not changed they would have continued to put up the kind of numbers that we saw in the beginning of their careers. But is it possible that while their skill sets remained constant they simply began to get either unusually lucky or unlucky later in their careers, and their statistics simply ended up on one of the extreme ends of the variance curve? That the bloop singles that Seitzer was getting in 1987 or 1988 suddenly started falling into the glove of the left fielder, or the hanging curves that Orosco used to put up became deep flies instead of HR's? >>
Here, you are just documenting that players' ability to perform when they get older varies a great deal. I'm not going to argue that point, and I'm sure the Yankees will be more cautious when they sign Rivera to long-term contracts as he gets older for that very reason. In a sense, this can be called "luck", but of an entirely different kind than we have been talking about up to now. I'll revise my position a bit: absent injury or the wear and tear of playing for many years luck has nothing to do with pitching results.
<< <i>Lastly, I want to address the isssue of semantics. Earlier I compared Seaver and Carlton, and you said there was no comparison between the two. Both are HOF's, and both were in the top 5-10% of pitchers in their era. When someone says that player A is not in the same world as player B, I think of Bob Walk vs. Nolan Ryan- I don't think of two elite HOF's. Ditto for Hoffman and Rivera. Rivera may be a better pitcher, but say any comparison between he and Hoffman is laughable doesn't jibe, as both been highly effective closers for many years (although Hoffman is nearing the end of the road). >>
Yes, this is just a semantic issue. Bob Walk is in the top 1/10 of 1% in pitching ability in the past century - he made the major leagues and stayed there over 10 years. Within the context of major league pitchers who lasted more than 10 years, he is one of the worst and within that context Seaver and Carlton are very close. But, within the context of HOF pitchers with 20 year careers, there is a clear and significant gap between Seaver and Carlton. And within the context of baseball's current crop of effective closers, there is as large a gap between Rivera and Hoffman. I would not say that comparing Rivera and Hoffman is laughable - hell, I've spent too much time comparing them to say that - but I would say that within the context of just those two pitchers, the determination of who is the better pitcher is laughably easy. That's not to say it is Ryan-Walk easy, just Seaver-Carlton, or Seaver-Bunning, easy.
If there is a clear and significant gap between Seaver and Carlton, then who would fit in between them? We agree on the chasm between Bob Walk and Nolan Ryan, but only because we can list so many pitchers that were better than Walk, but worse than Ryan. In other words, I think the difference between them is defined by the volume of players with abilities in between the two pitchers in question. I'm having trouble coming up with a significant number of pitchers whose talents were superior to Carlton's, but inferior to Seaver's.
Over about 800 innings Hoffman has allowed 74 HR's. Over a like number of innings Rivera has allowed 45. That's 39 HR's over 800 innings. Now that's certainly a significant disparity, and I would be very surprised to discover that this isn't conclusive evidence that Rivera's expected HR/9 ratio isn't lower than Hoffman's. But how much lower is the question? And, from there, is the difference meaningful enough for us to say that Rivera is, talent wise, in a whole different league than Hoffman?
Maybe it is. I don't have a strong enough background in statistics to be able to conclude one way or another, but I readily concede that it's possible. Which really brings us back to the semantic issue again.
One other thing. If you have the time and inclination I would be very interested in seeing who you think are, say, the 10 best pitchers in MLB. Or, aside from that, 10 pitchers who you think are close in talent.
<< <i>One other thing. If you have the time and inclination I would be very interested in seeing who you think are, say, the 10 best pitchers in MLB. Or, aside from that, 10 pitchers who you think are close in talent. >>
I actually posted that in a different thread a while back - I'll look for it later. I do know that Seaver was in my top 10 and Carlton was not.
But we're getting down to purely a semantic issue now. To even see Ryan and Walk in the same frame requires a wide-angle lens, if you will follow me on a strained analogy, and they appear 5.5 inches apart in the 4x6 picture. Use a zoom lens instead, and focus only on the very best pitchers of all time, and another 4x6 will show Seaver and Carlton maybe 4.5 inches apart. There won't be nearly as many pitchers between them, of course, because there are only 30 or so pitchers in the whole picture.
Carlton is a great pitcher, Hoffman is a great reliever, but if you use the right lens it is not hard at all to see the gaps between them.
<< <i>
<< <i>Two words..... "Enter Sandman"
If a thread doesn't interest you then just skip over it. There's no need to be a smart ass. >>
Boopots
I think you misunderstood the meaning of "Enter Sandman". That is my support for Mariano Rivera...its the song they play when he enters the game.
I wasnt meaning that this was a boring thread.
My feeling is that difference between Rivera and Hoffman, which by certain metrics may be substantial, is nevertheless overexaggerated by most baseball fans-- due in large part to the national press' coverage of the Yankees. That does NOT mean the Yankees don't deserve that coverage-- only that we hear far more about them then we do the Padres, and that, by extension, means we hear far more about Rivera than Hoffman.
If Hoffman had allowed 39 fewer HR's in his career this discussion never would have started. And I cannot believe that those 39 HR's are the only reason why Rivera is discussed so much more than Hoffman.
Also, I was looking through the statistics of some of the games most reliable starters and I think you're right; luck, as we've come to define it, plays a very small role in the relative successes of major league ball players when we consider their entire careers.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Two words..... "Enter Sandman"
If a thread doesn't interest you then just skip over it. There's no need to be a smart ass. >>
Boopots
I think you misunderstood the meaning of "Enter Sandman". That is my support for Mariano Rivera...its the song they play when he enters the game.
I wasnt meaning that this was a boring thread. >>
Ah! I didnt know that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.