Mariano Rivera
Posted by Andy on July 26, 2008
Lowest WHIP, minimum 38 years old, minimum 40 IP
Cnt Player **WHIP** IP Year Age Tm Lg G GS CG SHO GF W L W-L% SV H R ER BB SO ERA ERA HR BF AB 2B 3B IBB HBP SH SF GDP SB CS Pk BK WP BA OBP SLG OPS OPS Pit Str ----+-----------------+---------+-----+----+---+---+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+--+-----+--+---+---+---+---+---+------+----+--+----+----+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---- 1 Mariano Rivera 0.669 46.1 2008 38 NYY AL 42 0 0 0 40 4 3 .571 26 27 6 6 4 57 1.17 353 2 169 161 4 0 0 2 1 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 .168 .196 .230 .426 14 653 453 2 Hoyt Wilhelm 0.824 81.1 1966 43 CHW AL 46 0 0 0 30 5 2 .714 6 50 21 15 17 61 1.66 190 6 308 281 6 0 2 1 7 2 4 9 1 0 0 3 .178 .226 .263 .489 48 3 Hoyt Wilhelm 0.833 144 1965 42 CHW AL 66 0 0 0 45 7 7 .500 20 88 34 29 32 106 1.81 176 11 545 502 12 3 7 2 8 5 10 9 1 1 0 10 .175 .226 .277 .503 51 4 Cy Young 0.867 320.2 1905 38 BOS AL 38 33 31 4 5 18 19 .486 0 248 99 65 30 210 1.82 148 3 1238 10 0 6 0 5 Dick Hall 0.883 65.2 1969 38 BAL AL 39 0 0 0 17 5 2 .714 6 49 14 14 9 31 1.92 187 3 246 230 9 0 6 1 4 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 .213 .244 .291 .535 53 6 Doug Jones 0.884 80.1 1997 40 MIL AL 75 0 0 0 73 6 6 .500 36 62 20 18 9 82 2.02 231 4 307 289 11 1 1 3 1 5 5 2 3 0 0 2 .215 .242 .301 .543 41 7 Cy Young 0.893 299 1908 41 BOS AL 36 33 30 3 3 21 11 .656 2 230 68 42 37 150 1.26 194 1 1143 2 0 4 0 8 Randy Johnson 0.900 245.2 2004 40 ARI NL 35 35 4 2 0 16 14 .533 0 177 88 71 44 290 2.60 177 18 964 898 34 9 1 10 7 5 4 17 10 1 1 3 .197 .241 .315 .556 44 3629 2505 9 Joe Berry 0.907 111.1 1944 39 PHA AL 53 0 0 0 47 10 8 .556 12 78 32 24 23 44 1.94 179 4 445 2 0 1 0 10 Russ Springer 0.909 66 2007 38 STL NL 76 0 0 0 18 8 1 .889 0 41 18 16 19 66 2.18 201 3 257 226 6 2 1 3 3 6 4 3 3 0 0 1 .181 .248 .265 .513 37 1068 682
Best ERA+, minimum 38 years old, minimum 40 IP
Cnt Player **ERA ** IP Year Age Tm Lg G GS CG SHO GF W L W-L% SV H R ER BB SO ERA HR BF AB 2B 3B IBB HBP SH SF GDP SB CS Pk BK WP BA OBP SLG OPS OPS Pit Str ----+-----------------+--------+-----+----+---+---+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+--+-----+--+---+---+---+---+---+------+--+----+----+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+--+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---- 1 Mariano Rivera 353 46.1 2008 38 NYY AL 42 0 0 0 40 4 3 .571 26 27 6 6 4 57 1.17 2 169 161 4 0 0 2 1 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 .168 .196 .230 .426 14 653 453 2 Marv Grissom 241 80.2 1956 38 NYG NL 43 2 0 0 20 1 1 .500 7 71 15 14 16 49 1.56 3 323 295 9 3 3 1 8 3 2 0 3 1 0 2 .241 .279 .322 .601 56 3 Doug Jones 231 80.1 1997 40 MIL AL 75 0 0 0 73 6 6 .500 36 62 20 18 9 82 2.02 4 307 289 11 1 1 3 1 5 5 2 3 0 0 2 .215 .242 .301 .543 41 4 Hoyt Wilhelm 229 89 1967 44 CHW AL 49 0 0 0 30 8 3 .727 12 58 21 13 34 76 1.31 2 360 317 8 0 4 4 4 1 3 8 6 0 0 2 .183 .270 .227 .497 57 5 Ellis Kinder 227 107 1953 38 BOS AL 69 0 0 0 51 10 6 .625 27 84 30 22 38 39 1.85 8 441 2 1 1 0 6 Roger Clemens 226 211.1 2005 42 HOU NL 32 32 1 0 0 13 8 .619 0 151 51 44 62 185 1.87 11 838 761 26 3 5 3 9 3 16 8 4 2 1 3 .198 .261 .284 .545 46 3200 2036 7 Takashi Saito 203 41.1 2008 38 LAD NL 39 0 0 0 34 3 3 .500 17 34 11 10 12 53 2.18 1 170 154 9 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 .221 .282 .299 .581 56 728 469 8 Mike Timlin 202 80.1 2005 39 BOS AL 81 0 0 0 27 7 3 .700 13 86 23 20 20 59 2.24 2 342 311 24 2 5 2 3 6 6 6 1 1 0 3 .277 .319 .386 .705 84 1169 778 9 Russ Springer 201 66 2007 38 STL NL 76 0 0 0 18 8 1 .889 0 41 18 16 19 66 2.18 3 257 226 6 2 1 3 3 6 4 3 3 0 0 1 .181 .248 .265 .513 37 1068 682 10 Terry Leach 200 73.2 1992 38 CHW AL 51 0 0 0 21 6 5 .545 0 57 17 16 20 22 1.95 2 292 265 9 3 5 4 2 1 4 7 3 1 0 0 .215 .279 .294 .573 62
Thanks, David in Toledo.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
If I understand the criterion correctly, Mariano will show up very prominently among the CAREER leaders for these categories, when he has pitched one more inning.
I think the cutoff for consideration as a career pitching leader on this wonderful web site is 1000 innings, and Mariano has now thrown 999.3. Check it out (in the "Leaders" category of baseball-reference.com) after his next appearance!
July 26th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Oh, good point David.
This is what frustrated me about Papelbon's comments about Rivera around the all-star game. Yes, Papelbon has been phenomenal closer, but he has a long way to go yet to prove what Rivera's proven over a much, much longer career.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
What if he only pitches 1/3 of an inning in his next appearence? Or what if he pitches 0 innings? Huh? Huh!?
July 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I go to college in the Boston area and after Papelbon's first season closing, many Red Sox fans at my school thought he was already the greatest closer ever. So Papelbon's not the only guy who thinks he's really great: all his fans do too.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Everybody's great. I learned that in kindergarten. Although Eck and Todd Jones stopped being really great at age 37. Well, Todd Jones is still a great writer.
Mariano has been great longer, that's all. And if he pitches 0 innings next time out, we'll just have to wait a little longer for the odometer to roll over.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:15 am
For what Jonathan Papelbon has accomplished after 200 career innings, see the following PI list. The name "Dick Hughes" surprised me.
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/rjxj
July 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I'm wondering how relevant the ERA is in the modern game. It's a stat born in a time before pitch counts and specialization, when pitchers threw 9 innings. The WHIP is a bit more revealing, since it measures innings on their own merit. Even though the ERA is applied equally for everyone, I wonder what it really means when one considers relief pitchers and starters, for that matter.
The "quality start" will sometimes contradict an ERA. Perhaps it's time to come up with a relevant statistic to measure each outing. It may take 3 outings for a pitcher to amass 9 innings, which is why I don't feel it's always relevant.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
what they really need for relievers is stat to measure the number of inherited runners allowed to score; i know they do track this but it needs an ERA equivalent.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I think where it gets out of whack is when a reliever comes in for one inning, gives up a run and his ERA is 9. A starter might give up a run in the first then settle down and pitch 5 scoreless innings. They aren't comparable measures.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I don't really agree with this last comment. A run is a run, and whether allowed over a long appearance or a short appearance, it counts the same in the final score. Perhaps what's bothering you is that relievers' appearances, at least in terms on earned runs allowed, tend to be a lot more binary than starters' appearances. In other words, most relievers, especially closers, can have their appearances broken down into two categories: ones where they allow runs, and ones where they don't. These days, though, starters almost always allow at least 1 run. In this sense, the average number of runs allowed feels like a more statistic. Maybe your average #3 starter goes out there and allows 1 run 10% of the time, 2 runs 20% of the time, 3 runs 30% of the time, etc etc. Then knowing that he allows on average, say, 3.2 earned runs per game, and does that over an average of, say, 6.1 innings, means that he has an ERA of 4.72. Knowing what fraction of his starts he allowed 0 runs seems fairly meaningless, since for most pitchers it's a very small fraction. But for relievers, maybe it would be nice to know what fraction of his appearances were scoreless. But then, as pointed out above, we'd need also to know something about the fraction of inherited runners he allowed to score.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I believe Baseball Prospectus has stats which try to address these issues. For starters, I believe that support-neutral W-L record assesses the likelihood of a win based on the pitcher's performance on a start-by-start basis. For relievers, I think they have numbers assessing performance based on the situations relievers face when entering the game, and runners they may leave on base for the next guy.
I do agree that ERA isn't always a perfect measure, for any pitcher, especially relievers. If you can't access Baseball Prospectus (or don't trust them) you can also look at unearned runs allowed, component stats (H, HR, BB, K), % of scoreless appearances, etc. However, with someone like Rivera who consistently puts up miniscule ERAs year after year, it's a pretty good bet that ERA is accurately representing his performance.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Play Index allows us to compare Jonathan Papelbon's first four years with (only) the first four years of other pitchers. This allows us to look at only how pitchers began (filtering out their later careers, both what is often their improved maturity and their decline phase).
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/WtTq
July 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
since this seems to have turned into a comparison between papelbon and rivera, it should be noted how many times rivera has averaged more than an inning per appearance in his career as opposed to papelbon.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
True, vincent, although of course it's very much up for debate whether such use was the optimal pattern. It's true that Rivera has had more "tough" save situations than Papelbon yet has saves in his whole career, but I'm not sure how to use that as a point of comparison between them.
One thing's for sure--I certainly subscribe to the idea of using your closer when the game is on the line. Case in point is how Rivera has often been used against the Red Sox. When the Yankees have had a small lead in the 8th with Ortiz & Ramirez up and runners on base, Torre never hesitated to use Mariano, as he should have, since that was definitely the key point of the game. 9th inning with later hitters up and bases empty is not worth saving your closer for unless you can hold the lead in the 8th.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
This discussion shouldn't be primarily a comparison between Rivera and Papelbon. Yes, they're both contemporary closers, but one took that role at age 27 and has 14 ML seasons. The other took the role four years ago at age 24. The differences are as important as the similarity.