It's too bad the Yankees didn't really know how to use Rivera most effectively !

[JL25and3]

Players union would have a fit. Closers get paid to save.

Players union has nothing to say about it. Let them file a grievance if they want, they've got no basis.

[snapple]

Players union has nothing to say about it. Let them file a grievance if they want, they've got no basis.

A "proven closer" wouldn't go to a team that tried it out. They get paid to save.

[JL25and3]

A "proven closer" wouldn't go to a team that tried it out. They get paid to save.

Well, that's something altogether different.

But teams should stop being stupid and overpaying for "proven" closers. It's not as bad as overpaying for "proven" middle relievers, but it's still dumb.

[yankees2010]

I've sometimes wondered what it would be like if an organization groomed all its pitchers to pitch 3 innings every 3rd or 4th game. Three pitchers per game, rotating every 3 or 4 games.

In other words, carrying about 10 or 11 guys that make about 50 appearances each year, about 150 IP for each one of them. They'd all be conditioned to throw about 50-60 pitches every time they go out.

1- I think hitters would have a tougher time "figuring out" a pitcher if they only face him once that day, rather than 2-4 times. They'd be facing a "fresh" pitcher or a 'different look" just about every time up. In a typical 3-game series, it would be rare to get more than one AB against any of the opposing pitchers.

2- Economically, clubs would save money because they wouldn't be paying as much for the pitching staff. There would be more guys that would be able to be a quality pitcher, so the rule of supply and demand would come into play. Pitchers' salaries would come down. If it results in a lower-scoring game because of more effective pitching, hitters' salaries would also come down.

3- I have nothing to back this up, but I have a hunch pitchers would have less injuries if they had less stress put on their arms. There seems to be a finite number of pitches that can be thrown with a healthy arm, so it becomes a matter of how to maximize the effectiveness of those pitches over a pitcher's career. Throwing routinely but under less stressful conditions may be the key to effectiveness.

The Rockies did a modified version of this last year. It was a train wreck

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

A "proven closer" wouldn't go to a team that tried it out. They get paid to save.

The Yankees signed a proven closer to be a set up man. It's all going to come down to the offer.

[ieddyi]

The Rockies did a modified version of this last year. It was a train wreck

Tony LaRussa tried it in the early 90's w/ the A's- same result

[Hitman23]

The Rockies did a modified version of this last year. It was a train wreck

Because their staff is atrocious.

[JL25and3]

Because their staff is atrocious.

Your staff is atrocious.

[Texsahara]

Some interesting thoughts on closers and the mythology surrounding them:

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/201...r-you-get.html

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/201...-me-do-it.htmlgl

[ieddyi]

Because their staff is atrocious.

Which is probably why they tried the experiment, no?

[Hitman23]

Which is probably why they tried the experiment, no?

Well sure. But garbage in, garbage out.

[ThePinStripes]

Strangely enough, Mo has better 8th inning stats than 9th inning stats.

[Doug]

it's a no-brainer to me that an elite reliever ( aka closer) should be used in key late game situations, which may not happen to be the 9th inning.

[NerfBall55]

it's a no-brainer to me that an elite reliever ( aka closer) should be used in key late game situations, which may not happen to be the 9th inning.

This isn't the context of the thread, however. It's the fact that different handling of Rivera would likely not have made much difference, if any, to the Yankees.

[YankS1302]

Maybe at the beginning of his career they (Yankees) didn't but I think it's safe to say they figured it out.
All Mariano did was to help re-write the baseball history books at being the best at what he did best.

[Doug]

This isn't the context of the thread, however. It's the fact that different handling of Rivera would likely not have made much difference, if any, to the Yankees.

they could have got more innings out of him by using him differently and having him stop big innings while they let somebody else protect a 2-3 run lead in the 9th.

A pitching staff should be a staff not a bunch of specialists that can only pitch certain innings.

starters get left in too long at times ( like say a 6-1 lead in the 4th) so they can get the win if they can go 5 innings. Closers are brought in only when they qualify for a save.

it should be about the team, not personal stats.

Rivera should pitch more than 70 innings a year, let him go 2-3 innings at times then rest him a bit.

starters throw bullpen sessions between starts....why not throw them into a game for a couple of batters instead ?

[effdamets]

Are we sure that Rivera would have been as effective for more than 70 innings?

[Doug]

well if he can't pitch more than 70 innings, then he is the most over-rated player ever since closers don't matter much according to the stats.

now I respect Mo as a player , I just feel he should be used much more and not just in the 9th to build up save stats more than anything else. stopping a 7th inning rally is just as important.

[NerfBall55]

they could have got more innings out of him by using him differently and having him stop big innings while they let somebody else protect a 2-3 run lead in the 9th.

A pitching staff should be a staff not a bunch of specialists that can only pitch certain innings.

starters get left in too long at times ( like say a 6-1 lead in the 4th) so they can get the win if they can go 5 innings. Closers are brought in only when they qualify for a save.

it should be about the team, not personal stats.

Rivera should pitch more than 70 innings a year, let him go 2-3 innings at times then rest him a bit.

starters throw bullpen sessions between starts....why not throw them into a game for a couple of batters instead ?

And what difference would that have made to a team that's made the playoffs 17 out of 18 times? I'll give you the answer - none.

Also, you're advocating for them to have put more mileage on an arm that is continuously defying the odds 18 regular seasons, and the equivalent of 2 more in the post season.

[Doug]

It is kind of much easier to last 18 seasons when you pitch 70 innings instead of 200+

Compare Mo's IP to guys like Sabathia, Pettite, Mussina etc.

A lot of those 70 innings a year are also gimme saves with a 2-3 run lead that any pitcher converts 90%+ of the time.

that is why he can still pitch at age 45 or whatever....he's like 30 in arm-years.

He's good but way over-rated.

[NerfBall55]

It is kind of much easier to last 18 seasons when you pitch 70 innings instead of 200+

Compare Mo's IP to guys like Sabathia, Pettite, Mussina etc.

A lot of those 70 innings a year are also gimme saves with a 2-3 run lead that any pitcher converts 90%+ of the time.

that is why he can still pitch at age 45 or whatever....he's like 30 in arm-years.

He's good but way over-rated.

You just completely changed the argument on multiple levels.

Again - how would your proposed handling of Rivera affected the Yankees over the last 18 years?

[Doug]

You just completely changed the argument on multiple levels.

Again - how would your proposed handling of Rivera affected the Yankees over the last 18 years?

well they should have won more games for one thing ! I can't go back in time and somehow prove it, but I feel it is true.

Gossage was used better than Mo.

[NerfBall55]

well they should have won more games for one thing ! I can't go back in time and somehow prove it, but I feel it is true.

And we're done.

Enjoy your theory.

[effdamets]

I got an idea...

Why not just let Rivera pitch every inning of every game?
That should settle the score.
Of course he can put up a sub 2 ERA over 1400+ innings each season.
He's awesome.

[False1]

It is kind of much easier to last 18 seasons when you pitch 70 innings instead of 200+

Compare Mo's IP to guys like Sabathia, Pettite, Mussina etc.

A lot of those 70 innings a year are also gimme saves with a 2-3 run lead that any pitcher converts 90%+ of the time.

that is why he can still pitch at age 45 or whatever....he's like 30 in arm-years.

He's good but way over-rated.

no one is saying he was more valuable in his career than elite starters are. So not sure why you are making the comparisons. No one is saying he's the best pitcher of all time, just the best closer of all time. So he's not overrated either.

well they should have won more games for one thing ! I can't go back in time and somehow prove it, but I feel it is true.

Gossage was used better than Mo.

I'm not disagreeing that a "stopper" could possibly have more value than a "closer", but I bet it is somewhat trivial in the context of Rivera's career. Yeah, he might have shut the door on some rallies that middle relievers couldn't. But he also got the final outs more cleanly than many middle relief types would have if given the 9th on those days. As Nerf, myself and a few others have said... It *might* have generated a few incremental wins across numerous seasons, but definitely not enough to prove that the Yankees misused Rivera to their detriment.

I think the only person that would agree with you on that last comment is Gossage himself, or other cranky old relievers that feel slighted compared to closers in the game today. Show some evidence.