(The following was originally published at SB*Nation’s Pinstriped Bible)
Goose Gossage never misses an opportunity to claim he stands shoulder to shoulder with Mariano Rivera. (Photo: Getty Images)
Mariano Rivera’s job is easy. That’s what former Yankees’ reliever Rich Gossage seems to think. And, he never misses an opportunity to say it. Instead of being a supportive alumnus, whenever Rivera’s place in history is discussed, the Goose acts more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
On the same day Rivera announced his intention to retire, Gossage couldn’t resist the temptation to squawk. You see, according to the Goose, although Rivera’s accomplishments are impressive, they don’t really stack up to the performances put forth by the relievers of his generation. Sure, Gossage has always been willing to concede that Rivera is the greatest closer, but when it comes to ranking all relievers, the hard throwing righty maintains that he and his contemporaries deserve extra credit because they pitched longer outings.
Usage Distribution for Gossage and Rivera
Note: Only includes relief appearances. 1+ = 1 1/3 and 1 2/3; 2+ = 2 1/3 and 2 2/3
Source: Baseball-reference.com
There’s no denying that relievers pitched longer stints in Gossage’s era. What isn’t clear, however, is why the Goose considers that to be a badge honor. What really counts is the accumulation of performances, not the relative length of individual appearances. And, when you compare the two side by side, the statistics say a mouthful, which is a good thing for the humble Rivera, who has never been as boastful as the outspoken Gossage.
Tale of the Tape: Gossage vs. Rivera
*Minimum of 45 innings.
Note: Only includes relief appearances.
Source: Baseball-reference.com and fangraphs.com
We’ll never know whether Rivera could have handled Gossage’s workload, or if the Goose would have been even more dominant in a one-inning role. So, when Gossage throws down the gauntlet to the modern closer, it’s nothing more than an empty challenge. The same is true of Gossage’s braggadocio. As much as the Goose demands an apples-to-apples comparison, he only wants it on his terms, with all assumptions made in his favor. By making such outlandish claims, Gossage doesn’t come across as a proud performer touting his resume. He just sounds bitter.
I don’t know if they’d ever have gotten a hit off of me.” – Rich Gossage, when asked how dominant he would have been pitching only one inning, New York Post, March 10, 2013
I would throw out the challenge of, do what we did and we’ll compare apples to apples. I’m not taking anything away from Mo . . . We know we could have finished the ninth, Sutter, Rollie Fingers, myself.” Rich Gossage, again discussing the difference between relievers and now and during his era, Newsday, March 9, 2013
What Gossage doesn’t like to consider is the possibility that shorter appearances in higher leverage situations might be either as difficult as the role he performed or even more so. In fact, a careful examination of game logs suggests this might be the case. In appearances of one inning or less, Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Rollie Fingers all struggled mightily, whereas Rivera maintained consistent performance regardless of appearance length. Granted, Rivera’s longer appearance sample is small and he rarely pitched beyond two innings. Also, the Gossage trio might have performed better in shorter stints had they been conditioned to pitch that way. However, the data shows that being asked to record only three outs isn’t inherently easy, and that’s the claim that makes the Goose sound so silly.
Making Short Work: Comparing Closer Performance By Appearance Length
Source: Baseball-reference.com
Gossage can pound his chest all he wants. There’s nothing wrong with being proud of a Hall of Fame career. However, a little humility goes a long way too. After all, if the Goose deserves consideration as the greatest reliever of all time, he doesn’t need to prove it to others. Rivera has always been comfortable letting his performance on the field speak for itself. Gossage should learn to do the same.
In appearances of one inning or less, Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Rollie Fingers all struggled mightily.
I’m not sure this takes all factors into account. The greatest advantage for the modern closer might be that he gets to enter the game usually with no one on base, and not infrequently against lesser hitters (because he always comes in in the 9th inning of games)…and also not infrequently with a two or three run lead. The latter may be deemed “high leverage,” but historically these are basically 90% success rate situations. This is why sometimes—often?—the job of the set-up men is now more challenging than closer. They’ve often got to clean up the mess another pitcher is in. For the old time closers, they usually came into a game when the starter began to tire, and often with men already on base, and more often than in contemporary usage they were deployed against the opposing team’s best hitters in tight spots.
I’m not arguing that Gossage was better than Rivera, though I do agree with the Goose in that I think his job was harder. But in any case, it would be interesting to compare the kinds of 1 inning or less situations both pitchers found themselves in.
You’re overestimating the conversion rate of ninth inning saves a little, but even so, it’s also possible this high rate of success is BECAUSE managers save their best pitchers for these situations. There are lots of variables involved. Ultimately, I fall back on an earlier post I did showing that while bullpen usage patterns have changed, overall performance has not. Basically, it’s two ways to skin a cat. Rivera was off the charts in his role, and Gossage was very good in his. Apply whatever context you’d like, but even if we assume the Goose’s task was inherently more difficult, I don’t believe it mitigates the gap.
Also, I’d point out that if you look at game logs, you see lots of instances where Gossage came into a close game, but stayed in despite his team taking a sizable lead. The leverage of the situation at which Gossage entered the game didn’t necessarily persist throughout.
I agree with Goose that it isn’t apples to apples, but Rivera stands out more from his era than Gossage does from his. Making silly boasts doesn’t change that fact.
I guess I am not so bothered by Goose’s boasts–in fact, I don’t really consider them silly–specifically because it is an apples-oranges situation. That Rivera stands out more against his own era doen’t really change that, right? I mean, Goose could argue that the top few closers in his day were all better than even Rivera, because they all had a much harder job to do. In the end, the hardness of their respective jobs is difficult to quantify, as you note, so I say, let the old veteran have his say. So what?
But then, I’m pretty biased on this topic, as you know. I hate the contemporary use of relievers, from an aesthetic standpoint and (vaguely) from a statistical standpoint. And while many current Yankees fans adore Mo, I always loved the Goose.
Gossage can make any argument he wants, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be taken seriously. So, when he implies that pitching one inning is inherently easy and he would have been flawless in such a role, well, that damages his credibility. What’s the famous Hamlet line?
If the Goose wants to pump himself up, that’s fine, but he comes across as bitter by tearing others down in the process. Also, would it kill him to offer congratulation when Mo reaches a milestone? It’s one thing to state your case during the normal course of events, but his need to pour water on momentous occasions is unbecoming.
Well like I said, on such matters I just don’t care all that much. If the old timer wants to be a wet blanket, so what. None of this matters all that much anyway, and no one is really gong to pay attention to him anyway (except to get all bent out of shape). Is he bitter? Sure he is.
Gossage is 100% correct. Anyone who doesn’t know that doesn’t understand baseball itself. They understand only statistics.
I’d like you to break down the 1 inning or less stat more to get a little more insight on this.
For Rivera, 1 inning or less, was his average duty (good or bad outings). For the others, 1 inning or less is (possibly) when they pitched poorly; they would get yanked with less innings. If this is the case, it would bias the 1 inning or less stat with high ERA for the more than 1 inning players.
To see if this is the case I’d love to see a breakdown of 1 inning or less broken down into two categories (below and above 3.00 ERA – slightly above Rivera’s 1 inning or less ERA)… Take the ERA of those populations and see if there are a few bad outing biasing the stat.
Without this information I am afraid of the 1 inning or less stat… Think of it this way: A starter that usually pitches 6-7 innings has a great ERA during outings for 5-7 innings, a higher ERA 3-5 innings and a horrible ERA for 1-2 innings. Why? Cause they get yanked when they are playing bad.