AG/DC wrote: I disagree at two levels. Firstly, it is more impressive. Secondly, impressiveness isn't what we're measuring here, but rather value. I used the word "impressive" to mean value. So semantics aside, I'm not so sure that there is more value in pitching an effective 9th inning as opposed to, say, a sixth inning, though I'm open-minded enough to be convinced otherwise. The ninth inning doesn't exist in a vacuum. A team can only position itself to give its' closer a save opportunity based on what it did in the previous eight innings. AG/DC wrote: Look at that ERA of Eckersley's. Reliever's ERA's are highly unreliable. Here's why: the pitcher's slate is wiped clean after he records the inning's third out. As you know, baserunners left on base do not carry over to the next inning. Because relievers frequently enter innings where the defense has already gotten at least one out, sometimes two, a reliever in those situations is allowed to record less than three outs before his slate is wiped clean. By comparison, a starter who walks the first three batters in an inning must either dominate the rest of the inning or be very lucky (probably some of both) to keep his ERA at 0.00 for the inning. This isn't meant to mimimize Eckersley's brilliant 1990 season. But he was a 70 inning pitcher. Clemens was brillianter!