Best Player Series: MLB Pitchers

[The People's Peep]

If he was as good as the best starters he would be a starter.

Not necessarily. One of the things that the role of closer is known for is the mentality a player must have. Being a closer is known as one of toughest roles mentally. Teams put pitchers in the role and they cant do it because they werent mentally fit for it. He was put into the bullpen and excelled there then he naturally took the role after Wetteland left because they saw that he had the mindset of a closer.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Since you asked, I'll answer again. He is not the best pitcher in baseball because he is a relief pitcher. He may be the best relief pitcher in baseball, but not the best pitcher. If he was as good as the best starters he would be a starter. When a guy goes to the pen it's because he doesn't have what it takes to be a starter. I have no problem with Mo. If there were a separate thread for relief pitchers he would have my support and I would point out everything that is great about him. I'm not going to do it when comparing him to the best starters.

Again, with this ass-backwards old thinking that the bullpen is for starters who aren't any good go. Again, this was true 50 years ago. Thankfully, this isn't the case anymore. It is for people whom the organization feel can help the team in the later innings, when the game gets more intense. As The People's Peep said, there is also a mentality that closers have that Starters do not, which is how these guys are able to be successful day in, day out.

 

[The Brain]

I notice I'm arguing with three Yankees fans about Rivera Not cirticizing, just an observation. I've already said Rivera is going to the hall of fame. There really is no higher compliment I can give. I just feel starting pitchers are more valuable than relief pitchers. That's all. Wouldn't you as Yankee fans rather have Halladay on your team than Rivera? I know that's tough to answer because I know what Rivera has meant to the Yankees over the last 15 years. I think if you look at it objectivley and take any emotional ties out of it you would rather have Halladay than Rivera.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I notice I'm arguing with three Yankees fans about Rivera Not cirticizing, just an observation. I've already said Rivera is going to the hall of fame. There really is no higher compliment I can give. I just feel starting pitchers are more valuable than relief pitchers. That's all. Wouldn't you as Yankee fans rather have Halladay on your team than Rivera? I know that's tough to answer because I know what Rivera has meant to the Yankees over the last 15 years. I think if you look at it objectivley and take any emotional ties out of it you would rather have Halladay than Rivera.

1. Yes, I'm a Yankee fan, but this wasn't about Halladay/Rivera. It was about Starter/Closer, and more about Closer vs. your belief in closers being failed starters.
2. No fucking way in 94334262344 years would I rather have Halladay over Rivera. Roy Halladay is proof that you do not build a team around a starting pitcher. Rivera has 5 World Series, and he was one of (if not the) biggest part of all of them. Halladay is yet to pitch in the postseason. The Blue Jays for his entire career tried to build a winning team around him, and their best finish was 87-75, good enough for 2nd place in the division, but no playoffs. If Rivera wasn't on the Yankees, they would have MAYBE won 1 World Series, if they got lucky. With Rivera, they took all the luck out of the equation. I think you can ask ANYONE, and they would rather have Rivera, who is considered the greatest to ever play his position, over Halladay, who is just a great pitcher.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

I notice I'm arguing with three Yankees fans about Rivera Not cirticizing, just an observation. I've already said Rivera is going to the hall of fame. There really is no higher compliment I can give. I just feel starting pitchers are more valuable than relief pitchers. That's all. Wouldn't you as Yankee fans rather have Halladay on your team than Rivera? I know that's tough to answer because I know what Rivera has meant to the Yankees over the last 15 years. I think if you look at it objectivley and take any emotional ties out of it you would rather have Halladay than Rivera.

Good observation. Yes Mo is going into the Hall of Fame. A first ballot Hall of Famer. Do you know what position he played? CLOSER! There is no way in hell Starters are more valuable. Maybe in the 1950's, but not today. If a starter leaves the game with a 4-2 lead in the 6th, who preserves that lead? The relief pitchers. If not for them, then the lead might not be preserved.

NO WAY IN HELL would I rather have Halladay. Halladay is NOTHING compared to Rivera. Without Rivera, I doubt the Yankees would have 27 World Championships. Emotional ties my ass. Rivera is 100x better than Halladay. I would never pick Halladay over Rivera.

 

[The Brain]

1. Yes, I'm a Yankee fan, but this wasn't about Halladay/Rivera. It was about Starter/Closer, and more about Closer vs. your belief in closers being failed starters.
2. No fucking way in 94334262344 years would I rather have Halladay over Rivera. Roy Halladay is proof that you do not build a team around a starting pitcher. Rivera has 5 World Series, and he was one of (if not the) biggest part of all of them. Halladay is yet to pitch in the postseason. The Blue Jays for his entire career tried to build a winning team around him, and their best finish was 87-75, good enough for 2nd place in the division, but no playoffs. If Rivera wasn't on the Yankees, they would have MAYBE won 1 World Series, if they got lucky. With Rivera, they took all the luck out of the equation. I think you can ask ANYONE, and they would rather have Rivera, who is considered the greatest to ever play his position, over Halladay, who is just a great pitcher.

Rivera was an important part of the Yankee championships, but I don't think he was responsible for four of them. Do you think if Rivera was on Toronto they would have five championships? Of course not. He played a role, but not the main role.

The closer position has changed a lot over the years. My problem with closers is they have a stat in the save that is often (not always) realatively easy to achieve. When Rollie Fingers was inducted in the hall of fame in 1992 he was the career leader in saves. Now he is 10th. I don't think there was a sudden spike in talent at relief pitcher. The save is a lot easier to get than it used to be. Managers often put their closer in the game just because it's a save situation. If the Yankees are winning 4-1 in the bottom of the 9th and Rivera comes in and finishes the game is it really that big an accomplishment? A lot of people could get a save in that situation. I could see it being a big deal if it was 4-3 or there were men on base, but to start an inning fresh with a three run lead and not blow it doesn't impress me much.

 

[The People's Peep]

The closer position has changed a lot over the years. My problem with closers is they have a stat in the save that is often (not always) realatively easy to achieve. When Rollie Fingers was inducted in the hall of fame in 1992 he was the career leader in saves. Now he is 10th. I don't think there was a sudden spike in talent at relief pitcher. The save is a lot easier to get than it used to be. Managers often put their closer in the game just because it's a save situation. If the Yankees are winning 4-1 in the bottom of the 9th and Rivera comes in and finishes the game is it really that big an accomplishment? A lot of people could get a save in that situation. I could see it being a big deal if it was 4-3 or there were men on base, but to start an inning fresh with a three run lead and not blow it doesn't impress me much.

They dont just bring in the closer because its a save situation. 3 runs is a very close game in this era. Why wouldnt the manager bring in the guy he know will shut the other team down? And you cant just put anyone in to close a 4-1 game. I have seen plenty of times where the manager makes the mistake of bringing a non-closer in and they lose the game. For example, the cubs last year. I dont remeber who, but Carlos Marmol was not their closer. The closer was hurt (i think) and Marmol had to close out games. He couldnt do it.

Think about this: how valuable can one starter be if each team uses 5 of them?

 

[The Brain]

They dont just bring in the closer because its a save situation. 3 runs is a very close game in this era. Why wouldnt the manager bring in the guy he know will shut the other team down? And you cant just put anyone in to close a 4-1 game. I have seen plenty of times where the manager makes the mistake of bringing a non-closer in and they lose the game. For example, the cubs last year. I dont remeber who, but Carlos Marmol was not their closer. The closer was hurt (i think) and Marmol had to close out games. He couldnt do it.

Think about this: how valuable can one starter be if each team uses 5 of them?

I guess I just miss the old days. I'm a mark for the complete game stat, which is why I like Halladay so much. He doesn't need someone to close out his games for him. He'll do it himself. I must be getting old because there are a couple things in the game today that bother me and the lack of complete games is one of them. Cal Ripken Jr. was my favorite player growing up. He went 17 straight seasons without missing a game. Now the big stars get a day off once every week or two to simply have a day off. What the hell is that? Times are changing.

By the way as a Cubs fan I'm painfully aware Kevin Gregg was our horrible closer last year. I admit many times over the years I've wished for a better closer for my Cubs. I've just always felt if the starting pitching was good enough you wouldn't have to rely on the bullpen.

I'll give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say MLB was starting from scratch and everyone was available in a draft. All things are equal. Don't think about money, just talent. I think Halladay, Lincecum, and some other starters would be chosen before Rivera or any other closer.

One final thought: If the starting pitcher didn't do his job the closer wouldn't even have a chance to get in the game.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Rivera was an important part of the Yankee championships, but I don't think he was responsible for four of them. Do you think if Rivera was on Toronto they would have five championships? Of course not. He played a role, but not the main role.

Did you watch the 96, 98, 99, 00, and 09 World Series? By you saying they that he wasn't responsible for most of them makes me guess no. First of all, he was voted the World Series MVP in 1999, so obviously he was the most important part of the team that year. Rivera's Postseason ERA? 0.74. If there were ways to measure it, I would almost guarantee it is the lowest of all active players, and maybe of all time.

Rivera has the lowest adjusted ERA of ALL TIME. Where's Roy Halladay? 22nd all time, 4th among active players (behind Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, and Johan Santana), and 2nd among active starters (Santana). Who has the lowest ERA of active players? Rivera. Halladay the 6th lowest among active pitchers(Hoffman, Santana, Roy Oswalt, and Jake Peavy).

The closer position has changed a lot over the years. My problem with closers is they have a stat in the save that is often (not always) realatively easy to achieve. When Rollie Fingers was inducted in the hall of fame in 1992 he was the career leader in saves. Now he is 10th. I don't think there was a sudden spike in talent at relief pitcher. The save is a lot easier to get than it used to be. Managers often put their closer in the game just because it's a save situation. If the Yankees are winning 4-1 in the bottom of the 9th and Rivera comes in and finishes the game is it really that big an accomplishment. A lot of people could get a save in that situation. I could see it being a big deal if it was 4-3 or there were men on base, but to start an inning fresh with a three run lead and not blow it doesn't impress me much.

The rule for saves never changed. Closers used to come in earlier in games, then managers realized that they can use their closers more if they use their Closers for 1 inning. Closers wish they were used like they are now, because it is less of a strain on their arms to throw less per game.

And when Roy Halladay is given 8 runs a win isn't a big deal either. It can go both ways, you know. Or when a pitcher gives up 6 runs in 5 innings, but doesn't get a loss because his batters bail him out.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I guess I just miss the old days. I'm a mark for the complete game stat, which is why I like Halladay so much. He doesn't need someone to close out his games for him. He'll do it himself.

I love CGs, but even though Halladay does it himself a lot, he does rely a lot on his closer.

I must be getting old because there are a couple things in the game today that bother me and the lack of complete games is one of them. Cal Ripken Jr. was my favorite player growing up. He went 17 straight seasons without missing a game. Now the big stars get a day off once every week or two to simply have a day off. What the hell is that? Times are changing.

Well, 95% of the country gets 2 days off a week, and all they do is sit on their ass at a desk. To be honest Baseball players do more work then a lot of "regular" people.

By the way as a Cubs fan I'm painfully aware Kevin Gregg was our horrible closer last year. I admit many times over the years I've wished for a better closer for my Cubs. I've just always felt if the starting pitching was good enough you wouldn't have to rely on the bullpen.

So as a fan of a team that blows leads all the time, you would prefer to keep blowing leads, instead of getting a pretty much guarantee of a win every time you have a lead late? That's surprising.

I'll give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say MLB was starting from scratch and everyone was available in a draft. All things are equal. Don't think about money, just talent. I think Halladay, Lincecum, and some other starters would be chosen before Rivera or any other closer.

In a fantasy draft, teams will think of age also. Halladay will be around longer (probably). And among pitchers, you're right, Halladay would go before Rivera. However, the team that gets Rivera would end the season happier then the team that picked Halladay.

One final thought: If the starting pitcher didn't do his job the closer wouldn't even have a chance to get in the game.[/QUOTE]
And when the closer (on the rare occurrence) doesn't do his job, the starter doesn't get anything. And the Bullpen has gotten teams the lead millions of times.

 

[The Brain]

And when Roy Halladay is given 8 runs a win isn't a big deal either. It can go both ways, you know. Or when a pitcher gives up 6 runs in 5 innings, but doesn't get a loss because his batters bail him out.

You're right, but Halladay usually holds his lead for 7-9 innings, not 1. More times than not it's the other way around. It's more likely Halladay gave up 1 or 2 runs and didn't get any run support. He is then hung with an undeserving L. It's a lot easier for a closer to achieve his stats than a starter.

By the way, is it safe to assume the Rivera supporters would rank Joe Nathan second in this thread? His numbers are very similar to Rivera's, but the Twins have no championships.

One other thing, 2009 is the only relevant championship for Rivera. This topic only goes back to 2004 which is why I haven't mentioned Halladay's best season in 2003 when he won the Cy Young Award.

 

[Stormtrooper]

You're right, but Halladay usually holds his lead for 7-9 innings, not 1. More times than not it's the other way around. It's more likely Halladay gave up 1 or 2 runs and didn't get any run support. He is then hung with an undeserving L. It's a lot easier for a closer to achieve his stats than a starter.

In all honesty, both the undeserving loss and the undeserving win are common for all pitchers. From 2005-09 (the years in question), Roy Halladay had 14 Tough Losses (losses in which he threw a Quality Start), but he had 13 Cheap Wins (wins in Non-Quality starts). They all even out in the end.

(Click here for Roy Halladay's stats according to Baseball-Reference.com)

By the way, is it safe to assume the Rivera supporters would rank Joe Nathan second in this thread? His numbers are very similar to Rivera's, but the Twins have no championships.

I would rank Joe Nathan up there with the upper echelon of closers, but Rivera is about 5 steps higher then every other closer in baseball, because he just doesn't lose games. All the other guys tend to lose games. Joe Nathan also tends to be less then ordinary in the Postseason. He is on par with Papelbon, K-Rod, etc. I'm not knocking him, he is an elite closer, but there are no closers even close to Rivera right now.

One other thing, 2009 is the only relevant championship for Rivera. This topic only goes back to 2004 which is why I haven't mentioned Halladay's best season in 2003 when he won the Cy Young Award.

I know that, and I'm sorry for bringing them up, but as I said earlier, I slightly veered off topic from Best pitcher to defending the Closer position/Rivera as a great pitcher. All further discussion will only be 05-09.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Good observation. Yes Mo is going into the Hall of Fame. A first ballot Hall of Famer. Do you know what position he played? CLOSER! There is no way in hell Starters are more valuable.

There are only four closers in the Hall of Fame right now and yes Rivera might join them. But for you to say there is no way in hell that a starter is more valuable than a closer is the biggest facepalm I have ever seen. It's such an asinine statment that i almost red repped you for it, but instead I gave you a different place to make your arguement.

Maybe in the 1950's, but not today. If a starter leaves the game with a 4-2 lead in the 6th, who preserves that lead? The relief pitchers. If not for them, then the lead might not be preserved.

Of course you need a bullpen to preserve the lead this is a team sport. Would you rather have your bullpen start every game and change pitchers every inning or so?

NO WAY IN HELL would I rather have Halladay. Halladay is NOTHING compared to Rivera. Without Rivera, I doubt the Yankees would have 27 World Championships. Emotional ties my ass. Rivera is 100x better than Halladay. I would never pick Halladay over Rivera.

Again that is one of the most asinine statements I have ever seen. All the Yankee fans should thank God that you are not the GM, the Yankees would be the biggest laughing stock in all of sports. Rivera is 100x better than Halladay? Really? C'mon man, have you ever seen a baseball game in your life? Without Rivera the Yankees wouldn't have 27 rings? Your just fucking with everyone right, I can't believe this is a serious post.

The only thing Rivera has that Halladay doesn't is jewelry, put Halladay on the Yanks and he gets them a ring every other year. Halladay pitches complete game after complete game and you would rather have a guy that pitches 70 innings a year, really?

Halladay is better than Rivera in my book because of his ability to eat innings like it's nobody's business, I'd say more but I'll leave that up to people that are voting him as the best.

Congratulations Stinger, you are the first person to get me heated on this forum.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

There are only four closers in the Hall of Fame right now and yes Rivera might join them. But for you to say there is no way in hell that a starter is more valuable than a closer is the biggest facepalm I have ever seen. It's such an asinine statment that i almost red repped you for it, but instead I gave you a different place to make your arguement.

There are four closers in the Hall at the moment. But I think the real question is, if Halladay were to retire today, would he go in? Chances are he wouldnt. 5-10 years down the road, it's a possibility, however he would have to beat out people like Glavine, Smoltz, Hoffman, Johnson, and possibly people like Sabathia, Lee, and Santana. That is given they all retire in 10 years. As for a closer being more valuable, you may have gotten me there. However, I do think a closer is just as valuable as a starter. Without a bullpen, a starter would be pretty much nothing.

Of course you need a bullpen to preserve the lead this is a team sport. Would you rather have your bullpen start every game and change pitchers every inning or so?

Well, this statement was directed towards The Brain because he thought relievers were useless. As for your questions, No I wouldn't want the bullpen to start a game because that's what Starters are for. The bullpen is used to preserve the lead, or keep the other team from scoring runs if the pitcher is having a bad day.

Again that is one of the most asinine statements I have ever seen. All the Yankee fans should thank God that you are not the GM, the Yankees would be the biggest laughing stock in all of sports. Rivera is 100x better than Halladay? Really? C'mon man, have you ever seen a baseball game in your life? Without Rivera the Yankees wouldn't have 27 rings? Your just fucking with everyone right, I can't believe this is a serious post.

Yes, I have seen a baseball game. Many to be exact. I honestly believe Rivera is more valuable to the Yankees than Halladay is. Had this been 2006, my answer might have been different. At the point the Yankees are at now, I think Mariano is way more valuable than Halladay. Rivera was voted World Series MVP in 1999. Like StormTrooper said, had it not been for him, the 1999 series may have been a whole lot different. As for the other World Series, what would happen if the Yankees replaced Mo with someone like Brad Lidge? I can bet there would be a lot of blown saves and not as many rings for the Yankees.

The only thing Rivera has that Halladay doesn't is jewelry, put Halladay on the Yanks and he gets them a ring every other year. Halladay pitches complete game after complete game and you would rather have a guy that pitches 70 innings a year, really?

Yes I would. Why? Because when my team is leading by 1 or 2 runs in the 9th, I want a guy who I can go to that will pretty much guarantee a win. Who is that? Mariano Rivera.

Halladay is better than Rivera in my book because of his ability to eat innings like it's nobody's business, I'd say more but I'll leave that up to people that are voting him as the best.

If that's the case, what makes Halladay so much different from Randy Johnson, and CC Sabathia? They have both played for us and have thrown multiple complete games. In fact, Randy Johnson was one of the best pitchers in baseball when he joined the Yankees, and he sucked with us. Who knows? The same could have happened with Halladay.

Congratulations Stinger, you are the first person to get me heated on this forum.

What an honor

 

[Baller]

There are four closers in the Hall at the moment. But I think the real question is, if Halladay were to retire today, would he go in? Chances are he wouldnt. 5-10 years down the road, it's a possibility, however he would have to beat out people like Glavine, Smoltz, Hoffman, Johnson, and possibly people like Sabathia, Lee, and Santana. That is given they all retire in 10 years. As for a closer being more valuable, you may have gotten me there. However, I do think a closer is just as valuable as a starter. Without a bullpen, a starter would be pretty much nothing.

Well considering at the age of 33 he has a 154 wins, and probably by the end of the season 165 wins, that is a remarkable feat. And since he is 33 he won't be retiring for another 5-10 more years, and if you think Cliff Lee are going to make the Hall of Fame (Sabathia is on pace, and I expect him to make it, as long as he continues to dominate as the star of the Yankees), I would have to say that is a little crazy right now. Assuming Halladay pitches until he is 40, and that gives him 7 more seasons, and he will more then likely average 15 wins a year, that is another 105 wins which gives him about 280. Now obviously, we don't know how he will do, but he is on pace for the Hall of Fame, he is the best of the best in this common day.

 

[Megatron]

Since Blue is leading me on to post in this thread, I'm pretty much convinced that Cliff Lee is the best pitcher alive right now. He didn't have a great 2006 and had a horrible 2007, but ever since he's certainly been the best in Baseball. Look at his Cy Young winning 2008 season: 22-3, 2.54 ERA, 1.11 WHIP. All in the American League. That's just incredible. And while his regular season stats in 09 were just average, he pitched one of, if not THE, best postseason in the past 20 years. Hell, he gave the Phillies both of their wins against the Yankees in the WS and I'm certain he would've done it again had he had the shot in Game 7. In 4 wins his era was only 1.54 and his WHIP was .818. Those are fucking AMAZING stats. And he's having another great season so far this year and, if he manages to get 16-17 wins (which is quite possible) he'll probably get his 2nd Cy Young award in the past 3 years. This is the guy who I want on the mound for one game and he's certainly the best in the game.

And for those saying Mo, while he has been great, Saves is one of the most OVERRATED stats ever. Todd Fucking Jones, who was atrocious, was able to notch a few 40 save seasons. It's pretty much the place for guys who can't start. John Smoltz proved that it's not entirely difficult to switch from starter to closer. While he's a great pitcher, the best pitchers are the ones that can go out there every start and put their team in a great chance of winning. Which is why Lee is my choice since he's been just simply DOMINANT since his Cy Young year.

 

[gd]

Cliff Lee at this very moment is clearly the best. His strikeout to walk ratio is about 100 to 1 and he's sure to give you at least 7 or 8 innings everytime out there. There really is no one like him in baseball at the moment.

Now if you're using the last 5 years to judge, it has to be Hallady. He's been on a shitty team in the toughest division in sports, and still has put up crazy numbers and has been one of the most consistent players in the league. Easy choice.