Saint Mariano

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    None of which makes the postion of closer any less overrated.

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     

     

    Perhaps, but then again. one can say that about any position. So why bother even bringing it up? Including the sidetracked interlaced commentary, the answer is obvious. Otherwise, this is about as weak as claiming Lincoln was a bad president.

     

     




    No, one cannot say that about any position.

     

     

     

    Closer is the most overrated positon in sports, and there can only be one most overrated position, by defintion of the word most.

     

    I have noticed in the context of your arguments, you have focused on the "Rivera was great" aspect, and avoided making any statements tht counter closer being overrated.  Well, you made one try, but it actually supported the idea.

     

    I have never said Rivera isn;t the greatest closer.  I just think that closer itself is a very, very overrated position.  And it is.  Citing Rivera's post-season numbers and career ERA does not change this.

     

    You are not alone in this thinking closer is not overrated.  The entire BBWAA for some reason loves closers, but hates DHs.  They have never voted for a full time DH into Cooperstown.  They have never elected a DH as MVP. Closers have been voted for both by them.  (Interestingly enough, the managers and coaches are worse.  They once voted for a DH as a Gold Glove winner in Rafael Palmeiro.  So not playing the field means you cannot be the best player, but it can mean you are the best fielder.  Go figure.)

     

    So, Rivera is the greatest closer ever.  He is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  I agree with both those statements.  By virtue of the career numbers, David Ortiz is the greatest DH ever.  Is he a first ballot Hall of Famer, too?

     

     



    No, but more due to the PED cloud, ala Piazza, than the DH thing,; he'll get in on a subsequent try IMO. And, I could be wrong, and he could get in the 1st time; there is no doubt he deserves it, with the 2004 tale being the 1st sentence on his plaque.

     

     

     




     

     

     

    OK, so Edgar Martinez.  No PED cloud there.  He is easily the greatest Drug Free DH of all time.  Why wasn't he? 

     

    The answer is always "Because he did not play a postion."  Yet we all know most position players in the Hall are there for offensive merit alone.  That is why DHs do not get MVP.  You cal field badly and hurt your team and win an MVP, as long as you hit. 

     

    Now the closer - one inning with a lead of 3 runs or less.  Somehow THIS role is deemed worthy of MVP.  More closers have won MVP than starting pitchers.  YEs, some writers cop out with the "I do not think pitchers should be eligibe" BS.  Well they are wrong.  The rules for MVP voting explicitly state they are.

     

    So - simple question.  Since 1981 more closers (3) have won MVP than starting pitchers (2).  Do BBWAA members really think a closer is more important than a starting pitcher?  Do fans?  Are closers more important than starters?  Is this reflected in the way writers vote?

     

     




     

    And maybe now you can tell me if not for Mariano who the hell would have saved 635 games regular season and 42 post season games for the Yankees since 1997?




    So, I throw out there that the role of closer is overrated, and the return is the culumuation of that?

     

    They could go from closer to closer every eyar and have had almost all of them.  Closers almost never come in with the tying run on base anymore.  They throw the last inning and face 3 or 4 guys, usually with a lead of 1-3 runs.   Without Rivera, whoever the Yankees put in at closer would have probably gotten most of those.   I mean, how many blown saves per year do the worst closers get? 

     

    The al time leader in Blown SAves is a tie between Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon, each with 99.   Each took about 17 years to get that many.  So we are talking about 6 blown saves per year more without Rivera? 

     

    And not all blown saves are losses.   They would have been fine...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     




     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

    [/QUOTE]

    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to prknsdnld's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    None of which makes the postion of closer any less overrated.

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     

     

    Perhaps, but then again. one can say that about any position. So why bother even bringing it up? Including the sidetracked interlaced commentary, the answer is obvious. Otherwise, this is about as weak as claiming Lincoln was a bad president.

     

     




    No, one cannot say that about any position.

     

     

     

    Closer is the most overrated positon in sports, and there can only be one most overrated position, by defintion of the word most.

     

    I have noticed in the context of your arguments, you have focused on the "Rivera was great" aspect, and avoided making any statements tht counter closer being overrated.  Well, you made one try, but it actually supported the idea.

     

    I have never said Rivera isn;t the greatest closer.  I just think that closer itself is a very, very overrated position.  And it is.  Citing Rivera's post-season numbers and career ERA does not change this.

     

    You are not alone in this thinking closer is not overrated.  The entire BBWAA for some reason loves closers, but hates DHs.  They have never voted for a full time DH into Cooperstown.  They have never elected a DH as MVP. Closers have been voted for both by them.  (Interestingly enough, the managers and coaches are worse.  They once voted for a DH as a Gold Glove winner in Rafael Palmeiro.  So not playing the field means you cannot be the best player, but it can mean you are the best fielder.  Go figure.)

     

    So, Rivera is the greatest closer ever.  He is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  I agree with both those statements.  By virtue of the career numbers, David Ortiz is the greatest DH ever.  Is he a first ballot Hall of Famer, too?

     

     



    No, but more due to the PED cloud, ala Piazza, than the DH thing,; he'll get in on a subsequent try IMO. And, I could be wrong, and he could get in the 1st time; there is no doubt he deserves it, with the 2004 tale being the 1st sentence on his plaque.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    OK, so Edgar Martinez.  No PED cloud there.  He is easily the greatest Drug Free DH of all time.  Why wasn't he? 

     

    The answer is always "Because he did not play a postion."  Yet we all know most position players in the Hall are there for offensive merit alone.  That is why DHs do not get MVP.  You cal field badly and hurt your team and win an MVP, as long as you hit. 

     

    Now the closer - one inning with a lead of 3 runs or less.  Somehow THIS role is deemed worthy of MVP.  More closers have won MVP than starting pitchers.  YEs, some writers cop out with the "I do not think pitchers should be eligibe" BS.  Well they are wrong.  The rules for MVP voting explicitly state they are.

     

    So - simple question.  Since 1981 more closers (3) have won MVP than starting pitchers (2).  Do BBWAA members really think a closer is more important than a starting pitcher?  Do fans?  Are closers more important than starters?  Is this reflected in the way writers vote?

     

     

     



    Yer wrong. Don Baylor won the MVP in the A.L. in '79 ( I believe), as D.H.

     

     

     




     

     

    Actually, I think Ortiz was clean, and Martinez was a juicer.  Players don't peak from ages 32 - 38.  Martinez raised his slugging pct more than 100 points during that time.

    Ortiz, on the other hand, peaked from ages 27 - 31, which is very normal, and his best years came after the testing policy went into effect.

    Ortiz's name was on "the list" but we know that at least 8 of the names on the list did not test positive, and many of the substances on the list could be found in over-the-counter energy drinks, appetite suppressants and cold medicines.  At the time, there would not have been any reason for a player to avoid these things.  And if the point of the leak was to 'expose' Ortiz as a cheater, why not leak the specifics of the substance in question?

     

     



    Here we go Mr. apologist is on the scene.

     

    Edgar's denials are no good, Arod's and Braun's denials no good, Bond's denials no good but Papi's are.

    I'm shocked.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    None of which makes the postion of closer any less overrated.

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     

     

    Perhaps, but then again. one can say that about any position. So why bother even bringing it up? Including the sidetracked interlaced commentary, the answer is obvious. Otherwise, this is about as weak as claiming Lincoln was a bad president.

     

     




    No, one cannot say that about any position.

     

     

     

    Closer is the most overrated positon in sports, and there can only be one most overrated position, by defintion of the word most.

     

    I have noticed in the context of your arguments, you have focused on the "Rivera was great" aspect, and avoided making any statements tht counter closer being overrated.  Well, you made one try, but it actually supported the idea.

     

    I have never said Rivera isn;t the greatest closer.  I just think that closer itself is a very, very overrated position.  And it is.  Citing Rivera's post-season numbers and career ERA does not change this.

     

    You are not alone in this thinking closer is not overrated.  The entire BBWAA for some reason loves closers, but hates DHs.  They have never voted for a full time DH into Cooperstown.  They have never elected a DH as MVP. Closers have been voted for both by them.  (Interestingly enough, the managers and coaches are worse.  They once voted for a DH as a Gold Glove winner in Rafael Palmeiro.  So not playing the field means you cannot be the best player, but it can mean you are the best fielder.  Go figure.)

     

    So, Rivera is the greatest closer ever.  He is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  I agree with both those statements.  By virtue of the career numbers, David Ortiz is the greatest DH ever.  Is he a first ballot Hall of Famer, too?

     

     



    No, but more due to the PED cloud, ala Piazza, than the DH thing,; he'll get in on a subsequent try IMO. And, I could be wrong, and he could get in the 1st time; there is no doubt he deserves it, with the 2004 tale being the 1st sentence on his plaque.

     

     

     




     

     

     

    OK, so Edgar Martinez.  No PED cloud there.  He is easily the greatest Drug Free DH of all time.  Why wasn't he? 

     

    The answer is always "Because he did not play a postion."  Yet we all know most position players in the Hall are there for offensive merit alone.  That is why DHs do not get MVP.  You cal field badly and hurt your team and win an MVP, as long as you hit. 

     

    Now the closer - one inning with a lead of 3 runs or less.  Somehow THIS role is deemed worthy of MVP.  More closers have won MVP than starting pitchers.  YEs, some writers cop out with the "I do not think pitchers should be eligibe" BS.  Well they are wrong.  The rules for MVP voting explicitly state they are.

     

    So - simple question.  Since 1981 more closers (3) have won MVP than starting pitchers (2).  Do BBWAA members really think a closer is more important than a starting pitcher?  Do fans?  Are closers more important than starters?  Is this reflected in the way writers vote?

     

     




     

    And maybe now you can tell me if not for Mariano who the hell would have saved 635 games regular season and 42 post season games for the Yankees since 1997?

     




    So, I throw out there that the role of closer is overrated, and the return is the culumuation of that?

     

     

    They could go from closer to closer every eyar and have had almost all of them.  Closers almost never come in with the tying run on base anymore.  They throw the last inning and face 3 or 4 guys, usually with a lead of 1-3 runs.   Without Rivera, whoever the Yankees put in at closer would have probably gotten most of those.   I mean, how many blown saves per year do the worst closers get? 

     

    The al time leader in Blown SAves is a tie between Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon, each with 99.   Each took about 17 years to get that many.  So we are talking about 6 blown saves per year more without Rivera? 

     

    And not all blown saves are losses.   They would have been fine...

    [/QUOTE]


    With who?

    Who gives the Yankees those numbers?

    You can't name anyone.

    Hypothetical bs.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    You know damn well in today's game a great 9th inning guy gives you a distinct advantage.

    Shortens the game especially if you have an equally great set-up.

    And why there are few available long when they hit the market why a lot of fans here are missing Jon P.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    None of which makes the postion of closer any less overrated.

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     

     

    Perhaps, but then again. one can say that about any position. So why bother even bringing it up? Including the sidetracked interlaced commentary, the answer is obvious. Otherwise, this is about as weak as claiming Lincoln was a bad president.

     

     




    No, one cannot say that about any position.

     

     

     

    Closer is the most overrated positon in sports, and there can only be one most overrated position, by defintion of the word most.

     

    I have noticed in the context of your arguments, you have focused on the "Rivera was great" aspect, and avoided making any statements tht counter closer being overrated.  Well, you made one try, but it actually supported the idea.

     

    I have never said Rivera isn;t the greatest closer.  I just think that closer itself is a very, very overrated position.  And it is.  Citing Rivera's post-season numbers and career ERA does not change this.

     

    You are not alone in this thinking closer is not overrated.  The entire BBWAA for some reason loves closers, but hates DHs.  They have never voted for a full time DH into Cooperstown.  They have never elected a DH as MVP. Closers have been voted for both by them.  (Interestingly enough, the managers and coaches are worse.  They once voted for a DH as a Gold Glove winner in Rafael Palmeiro.  So not playing the field means you cannot be the best player, but it can mean you are the best fielder.  Go figure.)

     

    So, Rivera is the greatest closer ever.  He is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  I agree with both those statements.  By virtue of the career numbers, David Ortiz is the greatest DH ever.  Is he a first ballot Hall of Famer, too?

     

     



    No, but more due to the PED cloud, ala Piazza, than the DH thing,; he'll get in on a subsequent try IMO. And, I could be wrong, and he could get in the 1st time; there is no doubt he deserves it, with the 2004 tale being the 1st sentence on his plaque.

     

     

     




     

     

     

    OK, so Edgar Martinez.  No PED cloud there.  He is easily the greatest Drug Free DH of all time.  Why wasn't he? 

     

    The answer is always "Because he did not play a postion."  Yet we all know most position players in the Hall are there for offensive merit alone.  That is why DHs do not get MVP.  You cal field badly and hurt your team and win an MVP, as long as you hit. 

     

    Now the closer - one inning with a lead of 3 runs or less.  Somehow THIS role is deemed worthy of MVP.  More closers have won MVP than starting pitchers.  YEs, some writers cop out with the "I do not think pitchers should be eligibe" BS.  Well they are wrong.  The rules for MVP voting explicitly state they are.

     

    So - simple question.  Since 1981 more closers (3) have won MVP than starting pitchers (2).  Do BBWAA members really think a closer is more important than a starting pitcher?  Do fans?  Are closers more important than starters?  Is this reflected in the way writers vote?

     

     




     

    And maybe now you can tell me if not for Mariano who the hell would have saved 635 games regular season and 42 post season games for the Yankees since 1997?

     




    So, I throw out there that the role of closer is overrated, and the return is the culumuation of that?

     

     

    They could go from closer to closer every eyar and have had almost all of them.  Closers almost never come in with the tying run on base anymore.  They throw the last inning and face 3 or 4 guys, usually with a lead of 1-3 runs.   Without Rivera, whoever the Yankees put in at closer would have probably gotten most of those.   I mean, how many blown saves per year do the worst closers get? 

     

    The al time leader in Blown SAves is a tie between Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon, each with 99.   Each took about 17 years to get that many.  So we are talking about 6 blown saves per year more without Rivera? 

     

    And not all blown saves are losses.   They would have been fine...

    [/QUOTE]

    In 1999, four more losses would have given the Red Sox the division - who knows what happens if the Yankees face the Indians, and lose home field advantage?

    In 2000, three losses would have been the difference between making the post-season at all.

    I agree with you that the closer is over-rated, but Rivera did it so well for so long, and when push came to shove, he would come in in the 8th inning, and almost always have success.  He really was a game-changer.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...

    [/QUOTE]

    Then why was he only the 2nd reliever ever to win a WS MVP in '99?

    You can't make this stuff up.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     



    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     



    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

     




    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...




     

    Wake me up when you name the alternative plan to Mo that the Yankees could have used since 1997.

    All the rest of this speculation is pure bs based in theory with an un-named strawman closing for the Yankees and one putting up hof numbers to boot.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     



    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     



    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

     




    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...




     

    Wake me up when you name the alternative plan to Mo that the Yankees could have used since 1997.

    All the rest of this speculation is pure bs based in theory with an un-named strawman closing for the Yankees and one putting up hof numbers to boot.



    In 1927,'28, the NYY swept both WS, and the pennant by a bunch. 

     

    It sounds like they could have done it without Ruth or Gehrig.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano


    Spirited debate, good luck tonight guys.

    Pray for good umps, no punching below the belt.

    Later :-)

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    Wow!

    Did someone insult the Pope?

     

    Oh, a Yankee player.

    Heaven forbid...

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to prknsdnld's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    None of which makes the postion of closer any less overrated.

     

     

    “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me. Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

    -Shel Silverstein

     

     

    Perhaps, but then again. one can say that about any position. So why bother even bringing it up? Including the sidetracked interlaced commentary, the answer is obvious. Otherwise, this is about as weak as claiming Lincoln was a bad president.

     

     




    No, one cannot say that about any position.

     

     

     

    Closer is the most overrated positon in sports, and there can only be one most overrated position, by defintion of the word most.

     

    I have noticed in the context of your arguments, you have focused on the "Rivera was great" aspect, and avoided making any statements tht counter closer being overrated.  Well, you made one try, but it actually supported the idea.

     

    I have never said Rivera isn;t the greatest closer.  I just think that closer itself is a very, very overrated position.  And it is.  Citing Rivera's post-season numbers and career ERA does not change this.

     

    You are not alone in this thinking closer is not overrated.  The entire BBWAA for some reason loves closers, but hates DHs.  They have never voted for a full time DH into Cooperstown.  They have never elected a DH as MVP. Closers have been voted for both by them.  (Interestingly enough, the managers and coaches are worse.  They once voted for a DH as a Gold Glove winner in Rafael Palmeiro.  So not playing the field means you cannot be the best player, but it can mean you are the best fielder.  Go figure.)

     

    So, Rivera is the greatest closer ever.  He is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  I agree with both those statements.  By virtue of the career numbers, David Ortiz is the greatest DH ever.  Is he a first ballot Hall of Famer, too?

     

     



    No, but more due to the PED cloud, ala Piazza, than the DH thing,; he'll get in on a subsequent try IMO. And, I could be wrong, and he could get in the 1st time; there is no doubt he deserves it, with the 2004 tale being the 1st sentence on his plaque.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    OK, so Edgar Martinez.  No PED cloud there.  He is easily the greatest Drug Free DH of all time.  Why wasn't he? 

     

    The answer is always "Because he did not play a postion."  Yet we all know most position players in the Hall are there for offensive merit alone.  That is why DHs do not get MVP.  You cal field badly and hurt your team and win an MVP, as long as you hit. 

     

    Now the closer - one inning with a lead of 3 runs or less.  Somehow THIS role is deemed worthy of MVP.  More closers have won MVP than starting pitchers.  YEs, some writers cop out with the "I do not think pitchers should be eligibe" BS.  Well they are wrong.  The rules for MVP voting explicitly state they are.

     

    So - simple question.  Since 1981 more closers (3) have won MVP than starting pitchers (2).  Do BBWAA members really think a closer is more important than a starting pitcher?  Do fans?  Are closers more important than starters?  Is this reflected in the way writers vote?

     

     

     



    Yer wrong. Don Baylor won the MVP in the A.L. in '79 ( I believe), as D.H.

     

     

     




     

     

    Actually, I think Ortiz was clean, and Martinez was a juicer.  Players don't peak from ages 32 - 38.  Martinez raised his slugging pct more than 100 points during that time.

    Ortiz, on the other hand, peaked from ages 27 - 31, which is very normal, and his best years came after the testing policy went into effect.

    Ortiz's name was on "the list" but we know that at least 8 of the names on the list did not test positive, and many of the substances on the list could be found in over-the-counter energy drinks, appetite suppressants and cold medicines.  At the time, there would not have been any reason for a player to avoid these things.  And if the point of the leak was to 'expose' Ortiz as a cheater, why not leak the specifics of the substance in question?

     

     



    Here we go Mr. apologist is on the scene.

     

    Edgar's denials are no good, Arod's and Braun's denials no good, Bond's denials no good but Papi's are.

    I'm shocked.



    I don't think anybody ever accused Edgar.

    A-rod confessed, and it looks like he and Braun were caught red-handed in Biogenesis.

    Bonds was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

    There's no other name on "the list" that has tainted a career without a subsequent positive test or an accompanying allegation, like the Canseco book or the Balco investigation or the Mitchell Report.  Only Ortiz.  Doesn't he at least deserve the exact substance to be leaked?  What if it was Sudafed - should he be excluded from the HOF?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    I personally did not see his name on that list. I don't care if it's mango juice. He wasn't on it.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     



    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     



    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

     




    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...




     

    Wake me up when you name the alternative plan to Mo that the Yankees could have used since 1997.

    All the rest of this speculation is pure bs based in theory with an un-named strawman closing for the Yankees and one putting up hof numbers to boot.

     



    In 1927,'28, the NYY swept both WS, and the pennant by a bunch. 

     

     

    It sounds like they could have done it without Ruth or Gehrig.

    [/QUOTE]


    That makes zero sense.

     

    The entire point is that CLOSERS are overrated as a whole.  Are we comparing them to cleanup hitters and 3-spot hitters now?  You know, the guys who BUILD the lead for the first 8 innings of the game.  

    Even if you want to turn it into a playing time issue, hitters get over 600 plate appearances a year.  Closers face 300 hitters on a good year.  And this does not account for defensive plays.

     

    Ruth had a 1.244 OPS and 7 RBI in the 1927 World Series.  Gehrig had an 1.158 OPS and 4 RBI in 1927, and an insanve 2.433 OPS in the 1928 WS.  The Yankees scored 27 runs in 1927, and these two drive in over 40% of them.  I think replacing that production is more difficult than a guy had 2 IP, whose contribution was managing to not give up 3 runs in either appearance...

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     



    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     



    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

     




    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...




     

    Wake me up when you name the alternative plan to Mo that the Yankees could have used since 1997.

    All the rest of this speculation is pure bs based in theory with an un-named strawman closing for the Yankees and one putting up hof numbers to boot.




    The argument is not about HOF numbers Rivera put up, but about how closers are overrated.  Please explain to me how a team than went 11-1 in the post-season would suddenly not win with another closer.

     

    Whether or not Rivera was the best ever is not the debate, and not really much of one.   He was, and I acknowledged that several times in this thread.  The issue is that the role itself is way overvalued, and nothing you have said has disproved that.  

     

    In fact, most of it has further enforced my opinion about how ridiculously overvalued closers are...

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     



    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     



    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

     




    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...




     

    Wake me up when you name the alternative plan to Mo that the Yankees could have used since 1997.

    All the rest of this speculation is pure bs based in theory with an un-named strawman closing for the Yankees and one putting up hof numbers to boot.

     

     



    In 1927,'28, the NYY swept both WS, and the pennant by a bunch. 

     

     

     

    It sounds like they could have done it without Ruth or Gehrig.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    That makes zero sense.

     

     

    The entire point is that CLOSERS are overrated as a whole.  Are we comparing them to cleanup hitters and 3-spot hitters now?  You know, the guys who BUILD the lead for the first 8 innings of the game.  

    Even if you want to turn it into a playing time issue, hitters get over 600 plate appearances a year.  Closers face 300 hitters on a good year.  And this does not account for defensive plays.

     

    Ruth had a 1.244 OPS and 7 RBI in the 1927 World Series.  Gehrig had an 1.158 OPS and 4 RBI in 1927, and an insanve 2.433 OPS in the 1928 WS.  The Yankees scored 27 runs in 1927, and these two drive in over 40% of them.  I think replacing that production is more difficult than a guy had 2 IP, whose contribution was managing to not give up 3 runs in either appearance...

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right, but I was trying to make zero sense to prove a point. And if a closer faces 300 hitters in a season, it's often with the game on the line. Let's just leave it that we don't agree on closer value. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

       Good to see that this thread has generated a lot of discussion. My point was that Mariano was , without question , the greatest closer of all time, a first ballot Hall of Famer and , as far as we know , a very nice guy. But this kind of over the top love affair has been way too much to stomach.  It has not been done to this extent for other great players. Why now ?  Also , full disclosure , it was meant to rile Yankee fans. It did that. One even went so far as to describe the great, first ballot Hall of Famer, Pedro Martinez as a " punk " .  Was that Karim Garcia posting under an alias ?  Lighten up folks. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     



    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     



    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

     




    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...




     

    Wake me up when you name the alternative plan to Mo that the Yankees could have used since 1997.

    All the rest of this speculation is pure bs based in theory with an un-named strawman closing for the Yankees and one putting up hof numbers to boot.

     

     

     



    In 1927,'28, the NYY swept both WS, and the pennant by a bunch. 

     

     

     

     

    It sounds like they could have done it without Ruth or Gehrig.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    That makes zero sense.

     

     

     

    The entire point is that CLOSERS are overrated as a whole.  Are we comparing them to cleanup hitters and 3-spot hitters now?  You know, the guys who BUILD the lead for the first 8 innings of the game.  

    Even if you want to turn it into a playing time issue, hitters get over 600 plate appearances a year.  Closers face 300 hitters on a good year.  And this does not account for defensive plays.

     

    Ruth had a 1.244 OPS and 7 RBI in the 1927 World Series.  Gehrig had an 1.158 OPS and 4 RBI in 1927, and an insanve 2.433 OPS in the 1928 WS.  The Yankees scored 27 runs in 1927, and these two drive in over 40% of them.  I think replacing that production is more difficult than a guy had 2 IP, whose contribution was managing to not give up 3 runs in either appearance...

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right, but I was trying to make zero sense to prove a point. And if a closer faces 300 hitters in a season, it's often with the game on the line. Let's just leave it that we don't agree on closer value. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Clearly we do not, although interestngly WAR calculations do agree on my side, giving them fewer WAR for their reduced role. So Sabermetrcians say "closer is overrated."  BBWAA says "closer is uber important."  Mariano Rivera fans say "closers are more important than Triple Crown winners and oxygen."

    And "game on the line" gets thrown around a lot with closers, which is another part of my point.  I mean, is the game really on the line if you have a 3 run lead and 3 outs to go?   We need the "Tough Save" category to be a lot more prevalent.  (A tough save save when the tying run is on base when the closer enters.  The league leader every year will have like 4 of them.) 

    Saves themselves are far too overrated and the rule changes have taken away the "game on the line" aspect most ofthe time.  Did you catch Edward Mujica's one pitch save with a 4-run lead last week?  And the stupid 3-inning rule.  Doesn't Adam Warren have a save this season in a game that the Yankees won like 7-0?  Was that game really "on the line"?

     

     

    Also, bear in kind that my positn is that closers are "overrated."  I can concede that this does not mean they are unimportant, which many seem to feel is a synonym of the word overrated, when clearly it is not.

     

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Saint Mariano

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     


    And you're comparing a DH a borderline Hofer that is if the ped stuff is overlooked to one of the greatest ever to play the game.

    I know that won't gain much traction on Sox blog but it happens to be the truth.

    Mariano could be the best ballplayer to come out of this era.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even if you want ot keep the PEDs in it, despite the testing being prior any actual program in MLB, and players on agreed to it on the condition that it be anonymous.   All I have to do is insert the name "Edgar Martinez" where David Ortiz was.

     

    And don't cvome out with those easy "are you really comapring Ortiz to Rivera" cop outs.  I wasn't.  I was comparing closer to DH. 

    I do think Rivera is the greatst closer, but to call him the greatest player of this generation really furthers my point about how people overvalue closers.  In fact, it only shows that people overvalue far, far, far more than I actually thought.

     

    And yet all those coming to defense of the closer and citing Rivera as the greatest player since, well, hmm, yet no one wants to answer how well the Yankees woul have done without him from 1995 through 2001. 

     

    I realize it is speculative answers, but I think we all know the reason no one wants to speculate...

     

     

     

     



    Ok i'll speculate without Mariano they re-sign Wetteland closing 1996 and keep him not having MO and then win again in 98 and that's it.

     

     

     

     

     

    Don't forget Mo has gotten them to 6 WS their closer 1 as a set guy there's 7 WS.

    5 WS wins 2 losses with Mariano the opposite without Mariano 2 WS wins 5 losses.

    If if, they could even get to the WS those other 5 times without Mo which I doubt they would  have.

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

    So you think, without Rivera, they cannot beat the Braves in 1999 or the Mets in 2001?  They won those series by a combined 8-1!!!!!

     

    They SWEPT the Braves in 1999!!!   Rivera had 2 saves. Both games, he came in witha 4-1 lead!   Are you saying that without Rivera, the Yankees bullpen was incapable of holding a 3-run lead?? Twice?!!  

     

    Or are you saying that without Rivera, they lose to the Red Sox in the ALCS?  Or the Rangers in the ALDS?  They won both those series handily, 4-1 and 3-0 respectively.  Which do they lose without Rivera?

     

    You do realize that in the entire 1998 through 2001 run by the Yankees, they only played ONE SERIES that went the maximum number of games?  That would be the 2001 World Series, which they lost.  This means the rest of the Yankees were actually a very good team that was capable of winning a lot of games.  Rivera did hold  a lead when they gave it to him.  But they also gave him the lead ALOT.  And another closer in that role might have blown a save here or there in the post-season.  But I think winning 4 games to 1 or 4 games to 2 instead of sweeping would have gone over pretty well with everyone on that team...

     

     



    The 2000 ALDS A's series (Giambi's non-slide) went the max.  And Rivera was instrumental in saving two of those games, both times coming in in the 8th inning.

     

     

     

     

     




    OK, this one I am wrong on.  I should look this stuff up.

     

     

     

    MAYBE without Rivera they lose in the 2000 ALDS.

     

    But they went 11-1 in the 1999 post-season.  Absolutely no way they lose any of those series regardless of the closer,

     

    They went 11-2 in 1998.  Again, no way they lose regardless of closer...




     

    Wake me up when you name the alternative plan to Mo that the Yankees could have used since 1997.

    All the rest of this speculation is pure bs based in theory with an un-named strawman closing for the Yankees and one putting up hof numbers to boot.

     

     

     

     



    In 1927,'28, the NYY swept both WS, and the pennant by a bunch. 

     

     

     

     

     

    It sounds like they could have done it without Ruth or Gehrig.

     

     




    That makes zero sense.

     

     

     

     

    The entire point is that CLOSERS are overrated as a whole.  Are we comparing them to cleanup hitters and 3-spot hitters now?  You know, the guys who BUILD the lead for the first 8 innings of the game.  

    Even if you want to turn it into a playing time issue, hitters get over 600 plate appearances a year.  Closers face 300 hitters on a good year.  And this does not account for defensive plays.

     

    Ruth had a 1.244 OPS and 7 RBI in the 1927 World Series.  Gehrig had an 1.158 OPS and 4 RBI in 1927, and an insanve 2.433 OPS in the 1928 WS.  The Yankees scored 27 runs in 1927, and these two drive in over 40% of them.  I think replacing that production is more difficult than a guy had 2 IP, whose contribution was managing to not give up 3 runs in either appearance...

     

     

     



    You're right, but I was trying to make zero sense to prove a point. And if a closer faces 300 hitters in a season, it's often with the game on the line. Let's just leave it that we don't agree on closer value. 

     

     




    Clearly we do not, although interestngly WAR calculations do agree on my side, giving them fewer WAR for their reduced role. So Sabermetrcians say "closer is overrated."  BBWAA says "closer is uber important."  Mariano Rivera fans say "closers are more important than Triple Crown winners and oxygen."

     

    And "game on the line" gets thrown around a lot with closers, which is another part of my point.  I mean, is the game really on the line if you have a 3 run lead and 3 outs to go?   We need the "Tough Save" category to be a lot more prevalent.  (A tough save save when the tying run is on base when the closer enters.  The league leader every year will have like 4 of them.) 

    Saves themselves are far too overrated and the rule changes have taken away the "game on the line" aspect most ofthe time.  Did you catch Edward Mujica's one pitch save with a 4-run lead last week?  And the stupid 3-inning rule.  Doesn't Adam Warren have a save this season in a game that the Yankees won like 7-0?  Was that game really "on the line"?

     

     

    Also, bear in kind that my positn is that closers are "overrated."  I can concede that this does not mean they are unimportant, which many seem to feel is a synonym of the word overrated, when clearly it is not.

     

     



    Agree with you that the Tough Save stat should have greater weight. Still, IMO, as a general rule, Closer PAs are among the more important events in a game.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share