Looks like the Yankees made the right call. The odds of any starting pitcher prospect approaching Saberhagen's career accomplishments have to approach zero.

If Rivera had the potential to be an above-average to well-above-average starter over the past 15 years, it begs the question as to whether the Yankees used him properly. Obviously, it is hard to argue with the results... a HoF career and 4 WS victories in 6 appearances. But, from a pure "value" standpoint, my guess is that an above-average starter would accrue more WAR over 15 years than the world's greatest closer. As such, is it possible that the Yankees failed to exploit the true potential of Rivera? It'd be interesting to somehow determine Rivera's odds of becoming an all-time elite pitcher (Maddux), a generationially great pitcher (Schilling), a very good starter (Tim Hudson), a good starter (Javier Vaquez), or an average journeyman (Moyer), the expected WAR of each category, and figure out what would have been the better "bet". Obviously, we KNOW what Rivera turned in to as a closer and we'll never know what he would be as a starter, but maybe we could reasonably approximate.

Note: You are welcome to quibbly with my characterizations of the different "levels". I'm just pulling names out of the air.

I know the closer has the whole game to mentally prepare for his role, but he is going to appear in far more high-leverage situations than his teammates. Rivera has the mental make-up, as well as the physical, to have prospered in his niche.

Plenty on anti-Yankee sentiment to go around, I understand.
But the man has had a sub-2 era eight of the last nine years.
Come on. Next topic.

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/t975I

Note that Bob Stanley doesn't quite qualify because he didn't have 600 games in relief. A few others on that list don't meet JA's criteria either.

I find it remarkably foolish to say that Rivera would never have cut it as a starter with just 2 pitches. It's just as foolish as if I were to say he definitely would have been a great starting pitcher. It's impossible to know because the only facts we have are what actually happened, and 10 starts at the beginning of a career is, at best, an extremely weak indicator.

I would guess that Rivera could have developed into at least an above-average starting pitcher. This is based on his athleticism, durability, consistency, and focus throughout his career. I believe it's likely that he could have developed additional pitches and threw them well if he needed to, and base that belief on how well he developed those pitches that he does through. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. My point is only that it's totally unfair to simply cast him aside saying he definitely "couldn't cut it". We don't know, and we'll never know.

All that being said, a couple of posters are right that my original post is just a recitation of facts and wasn't meant to be a suggestion that Rivera is definitely the best pitcher because he's #1 on that list.

I wanna say Clemens also started calling his Mr. Splittee, or some close variant.

Agreed. And even Rivera-as-reliever has been more than one being, although mass media would have us believe otherwise. In my memory (and you, or anyone, can correct me), in '96 he threw mostly 4-seamers up in the zone. By about '98 he had developed the cutter and threw it mostly to the left side of the plate. Then he starting moving the cutter around more. Then he started throwing the sinker to righties, infrequently at first, but with more consistency by the mid-'00s. Of late I'd say he's gone back to more cutters (to both sides) and fewer sinkers than a few years ago. (And it's always hard to say how many 4-seamers he still throws -- are they just cutters which didn't move as much?)

It was interesing when I did a quick spin through the Neyer/James guide before to note that in addition to pitchers who were successful throwing two pitches (or mostly) that many pitchers (and Randy Johnson was one of them) who added and subtracted pitches for varioius stretches in their careers. I guess to pitch 20-plus year, changes have to be made.

Yes, Johnson was disappointing in his Yankee years. I knew there was going to be a problem when he was only hitting 93 mph early on. He had lost velocity, and his slider was flatter than in previous years. His first year, though, still wasn't bad, it just wasn't up to his past.