Can We All Agree Mariano Rivera Belongs in the Hall? History Says No

That Pedro Martinez was not a unanimous pick for the Hall is on par with the slight to another Boston pitcher, Babe Ruth. Just his performance in 2000, at the height of the steroid era, where his 1.74 ERA was less than half that (3.70) of runner up, Roger Clemens, makes the case indisputable. But Mr. Martinez didn't even rate a mention in this article. That said, this life-time Red Sox fan would vote for Mr. Rivera in a heart beat.

If the choice for POTUS were indeed Pee-Wee Herman or Donald Trump, I'd vote for Herman in a heartbeat. But this is the Sports section... Rivera does indeed deserve to be in MLB's HoF. That being said, elections such as those to whatever HoF often devolve into popularity contests. "All it takes is one." is also the doctrine of jury nullification...

One inning pitcher? 2001 World Series vs. Arizona he pitch 2 scoreless inning saves in the Yankees 3 wins and was only denied a 4th by a broken bat hit.

This is less about Mariano and more about people being stupid. No one, anywhere, can credibly argue that his performance falls below Hall of Fame standards. Same as Griffey, same as Jones, etc. I think there are 5 or 6 people who think they're saving this award for someone truly special and creating some super exclusive club, when in reality they're just super annoying.

Red Sox season ticket holder for 42 years here: anyone who doesn’t think Mariano Rivera belongs in the HOF doesn’t know jack about baseball!

OK, I'll say it - baseball has gotten too anal retentive about statistics. Who the heck cares if he's unanimous or not? What's next - who gets the most votes on a Tuesday, or is that already an available statistic?

Mo will certainly make it on first ballot. Mussina will not for several, if at all.

It's still amazing that Mike Mussina appears to have a very good chance of getting in. He was a good pitcher even a very good pitcher, but he never won a Cy Young award, only led a league one season in a major category and didn't make the All Star game in most of his seasons. When he was playing he didn't usually enter the conversation as to the most dominant pitchers. Dale Murphy won two MVP awards and isn't in it. Bill Madlock won four batting titles and isn't in it. How is Mussina so much better qualified than they are?

I could care less if Mo gets 100% HoF votes. He’s the best relief pitcher in MLB history, was the key element of the dynasty and gave high quality outings far more often than not. The RP is a critical position player in modern baseball with increasing importance as starters pitch fewer innings. Baseball changes—Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, all great talents, played in an apartheid league, not against the best talents of their time. They’re still perceived as stars —so’s Mo in a sport where his position became more and more critical to winning.

Baseball writers over the years have used petty reasons against deserving players (i.e. Albert Belle). The writers personal feelings in interactions with the players seem to play a major role in voting. The whole thing is ridiculous....imagine an airline pilots hall of fame, passengers vote and their only qualification is they’ve flown as passengers on flights and every now and then shook the captains hand at the conclusion of the flight.....

As a die hard Red Sox fan, I believe Mariano Rivera deserves to be elected to the HOF unanimously. He is an unbelievable talent, a true gentleman and perhaps the greatest reliever of all time.

I don't think relief pitchers should be considered over starters and other players who play the majority of the game. It seems the relievers are a luxury option.

It's not necessarily that HOF voters who don't vote for Rivera think he does not deserve to be in the Hall. They only get 10 choices and if you are certain that Rivera will make the Hall why not strategically use your vote to keep other HOF worthy candidates on the ballot? It is simply strategy not some grand conspiracy against people. For instance, I for one would rather see Scott Rolen stay on the ballot to get a full consideration of his HOF credentials in a few years then see Rivera get 100% of the votes. That doesn't mean I don't think Rivera is HOF worthy; it's just that he will get his votes so strategically I would vote for other HOF caliber players who might not be getting the publicity right now.

A Well written article with just the right amount of history. Thanks. Unanimity - at least in our competitive America - should mean little. We are not Soviet, Chinese or North Korean rypes - we like someone - anyone squeaking by - or pulling a surprise. Just look at all the adoration accorded to AOC. For that matter - JFK winning over Nixon. Or JFK successor - the famous landslide LBJ - winning by a mere 13 votes our of millions. History still remembers them - even if they were not unanimous.

I think that the one person to whom this truly doesn't matter is Mariano Rivera. He is classier than those who will vote on his Hall enshrinement. If he gets in he will be grateful. If he gets in unanimously he will be humble. If he gets in but it's not unanimous, he'll still be grateful and humble.

I believe race and the anonymity of the voting play a vital role in this conversation. I also believe that some voters will vote against a player due to team, race, religion, or any other host of other reasons. The voting is not transparent, so therefore it is not based solely on sporting performance. I think now is as good as any to make voting more transparent as well as use analytics and algorithms to help control the bias of HOF voting.

Roberto Alomar was not elected in his first year of eligibility. He received 90% of the vote when elected in year two. It was Alomar's infamous run-in with umpire John Hirschbeck that seemed to explain this; apparently many writers skipped over the part on how the men moved on and later worked together to raise funds to fight a devastating disease which struck the Hirschbeck home. I guess my point is, for some writers the vote seems to be about them, not the baseball legitimacy of the candidate. (We'll leave an Albert Belle discussion for another day.) ...And anyone who considers Mariano Rivera a one-inning pitcher might want to revisit Game 7, ALCS, 2003. Multiple post-season inning-outings were common for the Great Rivera.

I cannot remember a more thrilling pitcher to watch. His amazing control, cool demeanor under pressure, and totally classy persona, set him apart from others by far. I would be stunned if he didn't make it to the Hall of Fame.

I always thought that in all sports, particularly hyper statistics-driven baseball, that "all records were meant to be broken". If the Great Mariano is the first unanimous HOF selection, that does not mean that he will be the last. Chill fans.

A strong argument was made (before he had even retired) that on the whole, he was the single most important person during their dominating years. I couldn't agree more. I am not saying he was necessarily the best player on the field; however, he was certainly the most important player when the 9th inning (and sometimes a little sooner) rolled around. I compare him to Michael Jordan (respective to each player's own sport); like being called "Money", which Spike Lee coined long ago about Jordan. I bet many people would agree. Whether or not he is unanimously selected by the baseball writers is another story, simply because of what Mr. Mather pointed out in the first paragraph: "There is always that one person..."

Maybe if the the writer's had to post their ballots there'd be a kinder gentler election process.

Mariano Rivera is the best in what baseball is as a sport and more than deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He is the best closer in Yankee history. But even beyond that, Rivera exemplifies the qualities of a true professional athlete - his humility, dedication to the team as a true team player and not a selfish, obsessed jerk (the Yankees have had a few of those), absolutely no drama whatsoever - on or off the field - and a true gentlemen. Clearly, the best of the best and clearly a role model for any aspiring athlete!

.Read this article this morning and it made me wince. Not that I care if Mo is a unanimous choice, but the inaccuracies (and downright ignorance) of one Bill Ballou, writer for the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester, Mass, who recently wrote of Mariano; " He was great in the 9th inning, agreed, but if he was that great, why not bring him in with the bases loaded and nobody out in the 7th or 8th?" If this fellow has a hall of fame vote, he shouldn't! Is he not aware that Rivera was a setup man for at least a couple of years before he became a closer, and before that a starter? Mariano routinely pitched two innings in high pressure situations. Anyone this ignorant should not be allowed to vote. Hope I dont hurt myself getting down from this soap box....

I always hate the reference to lack of unanimity on the elections of Ruth, Cobb, DiMaggio, as it lacks necessary context that makes the comparison to day irrelevant. In the early days of HOF voting, beginning 1936, there was a huge surplus of retired of superstars who would easily be first ballot by today's standards. Over 40 of the candidates on that first 1936 ballot eventually made the Hall. In addition to the five who were elected that year, such all-timers as Hornsby, Gehrig, Lajoie, Foxx, Cy Young, Sisler, Frisch, Mickey Cochrane, Lefty Grove, John McGraw, Three-Finger Brown, and MANY others did not make the 75% cutoff that year. The same limit of ten votes per voter as today was in place. If a voter left out Babe Ruth (a certain winner) in order to ensure, say, Connie Mack or Eddie Collins or Pete Alexander made it to the next ballot, that was an admirable and gutsy decision. This backlog was so big and persistent that it was even in place when Joe DiMaggio became eligible. It wasn't until the mid- to late 50s that the number of eligible and truly great players became less than the ten vote limit.

“He was great in the ninth inning, agreed, but if he was that great, why not bring him in with the bases loaded and nobody out in the seventh or eighth?” Ballou wrote in a recent column. “Why not use him as a starter?” ...Uh, because he was a reliever? No matter what is going on earlier in the game, a manager wants to save his lights-out reliever (which is what Rivera was) for tight spots at the end of the contest. There is a psychological as well as a pitching edge; and you just don't get that in the 7th inning.

I like Mariano, but I do see some validity in the argument that he was only a one-inning pitcher. Even as a setup man, he was only a one-inning pitcher. Again, don’t get me wrong, he deserves to be in the hall. But, I think there is validity in questioning whether or not he should be unanimous.

Ballou's criticisms are off-base (see what I did there?) because 1. People's strengths fall into different categories. Some pitchers do best throwing seven innings every fifth day; some by pitching one inning almost every night. Some can do both, but clearly most can do one better than the other. One is not better than the other. The game is played with room for both. 2. His question about why Rivera was not used when the situation best demanded it is disingenuous. Closers have a routine and perform best within that routine. It may have to do with having enough time to prepare; it may also have to do with coming into a clean inning. Sometimes, the lead isn't gained until the eighth inning anyway. Maybe some managers might choose to bring in their best reliever whenever he can do the most good, but that would lead to a sea change in how the game is played. It might work, but it might backfire. Someone else will have to figure that out, and it has nothing to do with how good Rivera was. Full disclosure: I'm a lifelong Mets fan, but I fully respect Rivera and his accomplishments. If only the Mets had a star-quality closer for all those years!

He is great. But, is he great enough to be acknowledged as the single player to be elected unanimously? Ty Cobb, no. Ted Williams, no. Babe Ruth, no. Joe DiMaggio, no. Jackie Robinson, no. Willie Mays, no. American Baseball is built on tradition. I'm not so sure that this man is truly above his historical rivals when it comes to such a first time honor.

When Tony Gwynn was selected on "only" 532 out of 545 ballots, I remember a couple of writers saying they absolutely acknowledged he should be in the Hall of Fame, but that he didn't deserve the honor of being the first in unanimously. Another writer suggested that his supremacy as a pure hitter wasn't as impressive because he didn't hit home runs, a criticism similar to suggesting that a closer can't be as impressive as a starter in his way. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, but I doubt Rivera gets every vote.

Mariano Rivera is the greatest reliever in the history of the game. He is responsible for some of the Yankees' best wins and that includes the World Series. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. (Disclosure: Like Rivera, I'm Panamanian. Also, I live in Seattle and believe Edgar Martínez should be in the HOF as well.)

I think the under valued hall of famer is Mike Mussina. Forget world series, Cy Young awards or 20 game seasons. As an Oriole Mussina had 50+ no decisions in which the lousy Oriole bullpens couldn't hold the lead. With just average bullpen support Mussina is a 300 game winner - and already in the HOF.