Toughest Hall of Fame pitch to hit in major league history?
| Nolan Ryan's fastball |  32 (19.88%) |
| Bert Blyleven's curve | 5 (3.11%) |
| Phil Niekro's knuckler | 15 (9.32%) |
| Mariano Rivera's cutter | 70 (43.48%) |
| Pedro Martinez's changeup | 30 (18.63%) |
| Other (specify) | 9 (5.59%) |
Yes, yes, only two of those guys are in the HOF. But Rivera and Martinez will be and Blyleven should be, so get over it!
Great question. I went with Rivera's cutter, because it was just a killer pitch, thrown in the clutchest of situations. Blyleven's curve was a very close second.
Ryan's fastball was of course very hard to hit, but it was also very hard for Ryan to control until late in his career. I didn't want to vote for a pitch that neither the batter nor the hurler could cope with. Ryan's curve was, in some ways, his more unhittable pitch -- he could throw it for strikes, it was really good, and batters bracing for a 100 mph heater couldn't come near it.
A couple of other good candidates from recenty history?
Randy Johnson's slider
Roger Clemens' splitter
That Koufax fella was hard to hit, as I recall. Fatsball and a curve, both pretty nasty.
I would also say that Jack Morris' splitter was incredible too.
Just my thoughts.
Some others that come to mind: Dwight Gooden's curveball, Bryan Harvey's forkball [at least according to Baseball Digest back in the day], and the change-up of both Maddux and Hoffman. Jason Grimsley's steroidball, perhaps? Bob Feller's fastball.
There's an argument to be made, one I think I ought to make soon, that Mariano Rivera is the greatest pitcher in history.
There's another argument to be made that it's not even particularly close. You could quite easily and consistently argue that Rivera is further ahead of the #2 guy than the #2 guy is ahead of the #50 guy.
There's another argument to be made that it's not even particularly close. You could quite easily and consistently argue that Rivera is further ahead of the #2 guy than the #2 guy is ahead of the #50 guy.
I would be very interested in reading these arguments. I was just to post a comment that I didn't think that Rivera should be a Hall of Famer, and probably wouldn't be if he wasn't a Yankee.
In terms of Win Shares analysis here is how Rivera stacks up with a few on the best current pitchers (excluding 2006 stats):
Clemens
Total Career Win Shares 423.5
Best Three Seasons - 31.9, 28.8, 28.1
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 131.6
Career Value - 953
Maddux
Total Career Win Shares 371.6
Best Three Seasons - 29.9, 27.4, 26.0
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 134.3
Career Value - 890
Unit
Total Career Win Shares 302.4
Best Three Seasons - 29.0, 26.2, 25.9
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 132.0
Career Value - 810
Pedro
Total Career Win Shares 244.8
Best Three Seasons - 28.9, 26.9, 26.4
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 124.1
Career Value - 740
Mariano
Total Career Win Shares 162.0
Best Three Seasons - 18.7, 17.9, 17.5
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 87.0
Career Value - 498
And if we're just sticking with full-time relievers, here's the best ever.
Goose Gossage
Total Career Win Shares 222.4
Best Three Seasons - 26.0, 22.8, 22.1
Best Five Consecutive Seasons - 90.0
Career Value - 609
I'd also like to hear this argument. Clearly no one would consider Rivera the most valuable - he's pitched far too few innings to be of the same value as, say, Randy Johnson or Pedro Martinez. Presumably the argument would be that he's soo good, in such a big hitting era, and he's had so much success that he's been greater than everyone else. I don't buy it personally - you'd have a hard time convincing me that Rivera was better than Pedro, let alone way better, or even that significantly better than, say, Trevor Hoffman or Billy Wagner.
I'll do this in short form now, and then make a longer version (probably for publication at The Hardball Times) for wider consumption.
Essentially, what I'll want to say is that when we are considering "greatness" or "excellence" or "quality", or when we are looking for the "best" pitcher, it's an entirely different question from looking at what a player's "value" is. In other words, I I'll do this in short form now, and then make a longer version (probably for publication at The Hardball Times) for wider consumption.
Essentially, what I'll want to say is that when we are considering "greatness" or "excellence" or "quality", or when we are looking for the "best" pitcher, it's an entirely different question from looking at what a player's "value" is. In other words, I would want to locate a pitcher's quality in terms of the question - if you had to pitch to one batter and one batter alone and get him out, who do you pick? That, to me, is the ultimate measure of a pitcher's quality - how 'good' he is, as it were, or more to the point, how good his pitching is.
This is like answering the question, "bases loaded, bottom of the ninth, two out, up one run in Game 7 of the World Series, and you have all of history as your bullpen - who comes out to pitch?" or "ninth inning, tie game on the road with the pennant on the line, who do you want on the mound?"
I think the answer to these questions is Mariano Rivera, and in fact it may not be particularly close (as I said above). To me, Mariano Rivera is head and shoulders above anyone else in answering these questions. Not merely because he is undoubtedly the best money pitcher (with nods to Bob Gibson and Christy Mathewson) of this or any other era but because statistically, he's harder to score runs off of than any other pitcher, ever. Easily.
And that's a pitcher's job - to make it hard to score runs off him. All else is secondary in determinations of quality.
A few numbers to build his case...
First, I want to assert that we absolutely need to look to years after 1894, when the pitcher's mound was moved back to 60'6" (and by which time contemporary overhand pitching motions had become well-established) to answer this question. Second, I think it's important to assert that pitchers early in the 20th century did not need to work as hard, because of the deader ball, than later pitchers. I think it's fair to say that in general, pitchers from 1900-1920 were of somewhat lower quality than their later counterparts. I won't bother "timelining" after that - and I don't need to anyway, but it's probably fairer to later pitchers. Also, I want to look at pitchers who pitched at least 10 seasons, so I set a 750-inning cutoff (which is about what a good contemporary reliever will pitch in ten full seasons).
In terms of a pitcher's ratio of runs allowed to his league's average (RA+), here are the top ten pitchers of all time:
RA+
1 Mariano Rivera 199
2 Pedro Martinez 163
3 Tom Henke 160
4 Trevor Hoffman 153
5 Ed Walsh 146
6 Walter Johnson 145
7 Dan Quisenberry 145
8 Lefty Grove 142
9 Johan Santana 141
10 Roger Clemens 139
Note that Rivera is 36% above Pedro Martinez... who in turn is 35% above the #50 men, including "Gettysburg Eddie" Plank and Goose Gossage. Also, Blue Jays fans should note the #3 man in passing.
The same numbers for earned runs, instead of just runs, looks similar:
ERA+ PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Mariano Rivera 200 2.33 4.67
2 Pedro Martinez 164 2.72 4.45
3 Tom Henke 156 2.67 4.15
4 Trevor Hoffman 155 2.76 4.27
5 Ed Walsh 152 1.82 2.76
6 Walter Johnson 149 2.17 3.24
7 Hoyt Wilhelm 149 2.52 3.76
8 Joe Wood 147 2.03 2.97
9 John Wetteland 146 2.93 4.28
10 Dan Quisenberry 145 2.76 4.01
Again, Mariano Rivera is so far above the rest of the crowd that it's mind-boggling.
But these numbers count only regular-season play. Rivera has also pitched 111.2 innings in the playoffs and World Series. In which he has an ERA of 0.81. Note that - and remember that no pitcher in history has had a season where he pitched 100 innings and had a better ERA. (Ferdie Schupp in 1916 comes closest - a 0.90 ERA.)
Mariano Rivera's 72 playoff appearances, if it were a season, would be the single greatest pitcher season of all time. And it's not even counted in his utter dominance that we calculated above.
Throw in his postseason performance, and Mariano Rivera's ERA+ would be 218.
Which would place him as far above Pedro Martinez, the second-best pitcher of all time, by as far as Pedro Martinez is ahead of C.C. Sabathia. Who is #332 in the list.
In baseball, we have become very used to looking at questions of quality in terms that muddle up those questions with measures of quantity. I don't think that's always appropriate. Measures of quality should also have their place, untainted by patterns of usage or dollar value or stuff like that. There should be a place, I think, for the rhetorical question "how freakin' great was that!?" When you ask questions like that, Mariano Rivera merits a nod in the discussions of the best pitcher - and the best player - in the history of the game.
Things that this doesn't touch...
The timeline point, which I actually did want to raise but forgot.
The fact that Rivera pitches most of the toughest innings and faces a harder lineup of hitters.
The fact that Rivera's very high run-scoring era, makes his ERA+ or RA+ excellence even more valuable - because he's so hard to score runs off of in a high-offense era, he actually adds more value than a similarly tough pitcher in a low-offense era. (The "Pythagenport" theory shows this - the exponent is higher in a higher-scoring era, meaning that Mariano's ratio of runs allowed actually has more win impact than a player with a similar ratio in a lower-scoring era).
The fact that Rivera is #1 all-time in preventing baserunners (i.e. his WHIP+ is #1 all-time) and also #1 all-time in preventing home runs allowed (i.e. his HRA+ is #1 all-time). That's gobsmackingly incredible - no one else is in both Top 20 lists except Addie Joss, but Mariano is number one in both. He's the most complete pitcher, in terms of how many different ways he shuts hitters down, of anyone ever.
Other: Sandy Koufax's fastball.
Sure, and if wishes were horses, beggars would ride...
I think that walking down the counterfactual path isn't necessary here, though obviously I understand the desire to do it. If I say that when we look to what the players actually accomplished, Rivera is the best ever - does that help? I don't want my point to be inconsistent, I'm just developing the position, as it were.
There's a level of complexity that we don't get to, which is to figure out how much better good starters get when they move to the pen. That would help answer the question somewhat.
Rivera as the best pitcher ever?
If Rivera is in fact the greatest pitcher of all time using him as a closer all these years has been a tragic waste of his potential.
Mariano's K rates as a closer have always been solid but unspectacular. He gets a lot of groundball outs but in a bases loaded game breaking situation I want a guy who flat out misses bats (witness Rivera's blowing of the 2001 World Series).
Comparing dominant starters to dominant closers isn't an apples to apples comparison. Brad Penny mowed down the AL All-Stars in the first inning with pure heat. Could he post sub 1.00 WHIPs and rack up 100 K's in 75 innings doing that 2.5 times a week? yeah probably and so could 30 or 40 other current big league starters.
Rivera as the greatest closer ever, sure I'm sold. No way he's the greatest pitcher of all time however.
If Rivera is in fact the greatest pitcher of all time using him as a closer all these years has been a tragic waste of his potential.
Not if he's best suited to that usage pattern and it allows him to be most effective. Rivera wasn't able to go deep into games as a starter, which is why he was converted to relief in the first place. That doesn't mean he hasn't pitched better than anyone else ever.
As to the other point, you may be right, but the counter to that is John Smoltz. Smoltz is one of the five (ten at most) greatest starting pitchers of the last 20 years. He successfully made the transition to a closer and was absolutely brilliant in the role, pitching better than ever. He was so good in the role that he was reconverted into a starter, for the reasons you suggest (too valuable to be in the pen). And he still wasn't as good as Rivera. Not even close to as good as Rivera. So if there are pitchers out there who would be better than Rivera if switched to the pen, all I can say is that they'll be mighty thin on the ground.
As you suggest, one thing can be said with absolute, irrefutable certainty: the numbers Rivera has put up in the innings he's pitched are vastly superior to those that anyone else in the history of the game has ever put up in the innings they've pitched.
That is a remarkable fact.
That so many closers from this era populate the top 10 in your rankings suggest that the modern role of "closer" is conducive to posting historically exceptional WHIP and RA numbers. This is where the bar stool debate comes in.
100% agreed on both counts.
The barstool debate is in fact the most interesting one and I need more ammo before I can win that one, I think.
Doesn't the fact that Rivera had to be limited to 90 IP a year seem a strange reason to regard him as a greater pitcher than someone like Smoltz? Which is in effect what's going on. It really suggests that Rivera was sheltered from failure, that he needed to be protected from situations and types of usage where he wasn't likely to succeed, that didn't play into his strength. To a far, far greater degree than just about every great pitcher in the history of the game.
Rich Gossage actually was forced to try to succeed as a starting pitcher in the majors, and it pollutes his record to this day, along with the fact that we have the record of his long Decline Phase as well. I think Rivera's greatness is of the same kind of Gossage's. I think Gossage is a No-Doubt Hall of Famer, and that the Sandman is even better than the Goose. But I simply can't compare these Oranges to the Apples who work 200 IP or more in a season.
Still... Sandy Koufax probably would have made a helluva LOOGY.
If you believe that 111 innings of 0.81 ERA really is a better pitching performace than 304 inings of 1.12 ERA, or 346 innings of 1.14, etc etc
Who's bigger? Randy Johnson or Cecil Fielder?
Apples and Oranges, I'm saying!
There's another argument to be made that it's not even particularly close. You could quite easily and consistently argue that Rivera is further ahead of the #2 guy than the #2 guy is ahead of the #50 guy.
This makes about as much sense and uses the same thought process as awarding the batting title to somebody with 200 PA and a .387 BA, or awarding the HR and RBI title on a per/game played basis. Or awarding the ERA title to a reliever every season as long as he posts 60 IP or some such thing. This kind of rationale would result in evaluating an 1.000 OPS guy with 200 PA as a better "hitter" than someone with 700 PA and a .900 OPS.
Or like saying that a high school girl who runs a 12.0 sec 100 metre is a faster runner than the world record holder in the 800 metres because it takes him 13.0 on average to cover 100 metres.
It also doesn't recognize the fact that starting pitching and relief pitchers are two completely distinct and different positions. And further, relief pitchers (including the great Rivera) are failed starters to begin with. Eric Gagne couldn't even win the 5th starters job for the Dodger's and next thing we know he's the greatest pitcher on the planet, much better than Rivera when he was healthy.
If we are to consider all pitchers as one position we should also consider all hitters as one position, thus reducing baseball to two positions - hitter and pitcher. When comparing the relative skills involved in starting and relieving one needs to consider how many starters become great relievers and how many relievers become great starters. I think we're still waiting for our first one.
In terms of a pitcher's ratio of runs allowed to his league's average (RA+), here are the top four pitchers of all time:
RA+
1 Mariano Rivera 199
2 Pedro Martinez 163
3 Tom Henke 160
4 Trevor Hoffman 153
I guess this is a good illustration of what a silly statistic RA+ is. There wouln't be any inherent bias in this stat towards modern day pitchers or towards relievers would there. If Tom Henke and Trevor Hoffman are really the third and fourth best pitchers of all-time then I guess it makes sense that Rivera is number one. That Pedro is sure something, he is the only starting pitcher who could beat out most of the relievers, although he is still a country mile behind Mariano.
Otherwise, we are to believe that all four of the top pitchers of all-time have pitched in the last fifteen years, three of them are still active, and three of them are relievers. Wow!!
This is like answering the question, "bases loaded, bottom of the ninth, two out, up one run in Game 7 of the World Series, and you have all of history as your bullpen - who comes out to pitch?" or "ninth inning, tie game on the road with the pennant on the line, who do you want on the mound?"
Well I think most knowlegeable baseball would much, much rather have a rested Koufax, Gibson, Johnson (Walter or Randy), Clemens, or Pedro than Rivera. This statement seems to imply we have to choose between a "tired" starter versus a rested Mariano. I'm sure there are hundred's of starters in history who could be more effective than Rivera if babied in the same way.
In 1968 Bob Gibson pitched 304 IP with a 1.12 ERA. Even while being coddled like a baby with a strenuous 70 IP (one inning at a time) per season Rivera has "never" come within shouting distance of a 1.12 ERA. In the one season he was actually used as a starter he allowed 11 HR in 67 IP and posted a 5.51 ERA. I guess this starting thing is not quite as easy as it looks is it, Mariano.
The combination of macho rhetoric and meaningless statistics (pitcher wins, saves) makes it so hard for teams to develop sensible approaches to pitching. Pitching is much more physically demanding than any role in the game. Throwing an inning every other day is hard. Throwing 7 innings every 5 days is damn hard. There are ways of dealing with this and thereby reduce injury and increase effectiveness, but the first steps are to lose the rhetoric and to ignore the meaningless statistics.
At the risk of getting into an "is too, is not" debate - no it's not. What makes a pitcher great is getting through the inning and preventing the opposition from scoring, until either the game is over or the manager comes to get the ball from him. All else is usage patterns, volume, etcetera.
Doesn't the fact that Rivera had to be limited to 90 IP a year seem a strange reason to regard him as a greater pitcher than someone like Smoltz?
Careful here... Rivera's "limitations" (and he is a noticeably durable and hard-working reliever) aren't a reason for his excellence. They are the conditions under which it's achieved, but we shouldn't confuse that with a reason. We know why Mo is great - he's bloody impossible to get a hit off.
I simply can't compare these Oranges to the Apples who work 200 IP or more in a season
Believe me, I have tremendous sympathy for your position. Nevertheless, we need to find a way to compare them. I have suggested one - is there a reason it's not legitimate beyond the fact it makes us uncomfortable?
Yes, Mike, but the "macho rhetoric" sure makes it easy to pick out the idiots at a place like this.
You know, in your quest to ridicule and belittle me you completely missed 80% of the argument.
I didn't say Mariano was the best ever because he had the best RA+. That was an illustration of how his run prevention ability is head and shoulders above every other pitcher, ever. It's one brick in the argument - don't forget that Mo also faces the toughest group of hitters (much tougher than any starter ever does), he's the best pitcher at preventing baserunners ever, he's the best pitcher at preventing home runs ever, he's the best money pitcher ever and the best postseason performer of all time, pitcher, hitter, or whoever. I presented arguments - you presented ridicule and buffoonery. Does that mean I win? :)
Anyway, you guys have completely missed the #1 argument against this position... but hell, I ain't going to argue against my own position.
Is this a trick question, Magpie? The 100m runner is faster because he reaches a higher speed. I'm not saying that the 100m is the "canonical race"; I'm saying that we all know what the word "fast" means.
If the tortoise beats the hare in the 10000 metres at the Aesop Games, does that make the tortoise faster than the hare? Or does he just run longer?
Your assertion that he faces the toughest group of hitters (much tougher than any starter ever does) seems a bit of a stretch. Do closers really face tougher opponents than starters by that much? It's not like there are a lot of great pinch hitters out there. Or has Rivera just been used in that way? Managers have also played into Rivera's hand, constantly putting up lefties to face him, when he's actually better against lefties. Plus, anyone else in the division during his career, with the exception of possibly some Red Sox pitchers, have faced tougher hitters. Rivera never pitches against the Yankees, so he can't be facing the toughest opposition of all time. Finally, starters must face the same hitters multiple times. Rivera presents a radically different pitch to a hitter once. If he had to go around the order 2 or 3 or 4 times, would his cutter be as devastating? No way to know for sure, but I think hitters would adjust to it if they could see it more than once a game.
He hasn't ended his career yet. Someone metioned this upthread, but without a decline phase, which will happen eventually unless he just retires first, it's not fair to compare a career stat like this against retired players.
Pedro has a better WHIP than he does (going into this year), so he's not clearly the greatest all time at keeping runners off base.
In general, closers often get the best defensive team possible on the field while they are pitching. I don't know how much overall effect this would have on numbers, but it does partially explain why closers have better numbers.
Total career value is important. Throw 4000 innings on top of Rivera's numbers, make those innings at a 3.28 era, and you get to Roger Clemens. You seem to be dismissing this point, while providing us with hypothetical situations like ninth inning, tie game on the road with the pennant on the line, who do you want on the mound? This is no more a valid situation to present for pitchers than Seventh game, world series, tie game in the first, who do you want on the mound?
Taking another look at it, Pedro, in his first 30 pitches over his career, has 744 innings pitched, 582 hits, 195 walks, 71 hr, 845 Ks and a WHIP of 1.04. This is while he is strong, but still conserving energy for later. Pedro's career numbers look like this until his pitch counts get much higher. Except for a few more homers, Pedro numbers look like Rivera's (Oh, and Pedro strikes out a lot more guys). With all of history as my bullpen, I'd take prime rested Pedro for one batter, especially if a strikeout might be required.
On the Hardballtimes recently, someone wrote an article saying that relieving was, approximately, 10% easier, and every peripheral stat got better (as I recall).
Finally, closer ERAs are greatly helped by rallies ending as soon as they give up a run or two (on the road at least). So when a closer "doesn't have it", the damage is often greatly limited. Bases loaded, tie game, bottom ninth, pitcher gives up a liner off the wall...one run scores, the end. For a starter during the game, 2-3 runs score, and the inning continues. Which reminds me, closers can also suck, blow a game, and not give up any runs at all. So bases loaded, tie game, bottom ninth, closer comes in, walks someone, game ends, closer ERA doesn't change at all. These types of situations, I would think, significantly affect closer ERAs.
Well, I'm done...it's a fun discussion to have, and I do see your point, I'm just throwing some other things out there. And I eagerly await your full article
Is the best pitcher the best pitcher for this at-bat? This inning? Or this game? (Leaving out season, leaving out career...)
You can certainly argue for Rivera for the first two, as the best pitcher to work this particular inning, this particular at-bat. I just can't shake off my prejudice in favour of the guys who would be the best pitcher for the whole game.
It could also be argued that ‘who would you want to start game seven of the World Series’ should be the ultimate test of greatness.
Craig is trying to identify a peak of pitching greatness. I'm not sure that career numbers are the appropriate measure to do the job.