Mo Contemplates the End
I know it borders on blasphemy, but we won't miss Mo during the regular season. According to Win Probability Added "the closer who protects the three-run lead in the ninth is credited with only 0.035 wins — the difference between the 96.5 percent likelihood of victory when he entered and the 100 percent when he left."
But in the postseason, from 1996-2004, Mo pitched 5.1% of the Yanks' regular season innings, but he pitched 10.4% of the postseason innings. Winning one game of 162 isn't as crucial. But winning 1 of 5 or 1 of 7, those are the games that define greatness.
over 3 years ago
jscape2000
13 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Maybe you could just change those stats so that they end
at the 2003 post-season because blowing games 4 & 5 against Boston in the ALCS is so the opposite of “great” that it kind of undermines the argument.
Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin
You're half right
Game 4- BB, SB, single to tie the game. Yanks’ WPA fell from 76% at the top of inning to 62% with the walk to 52% with the SB to 27% with a man on first and the game tied. From there, Minky sac bunted and Damon reached on an error by Arod. Mo struck out Orlando Cabrera then pitched around Manny to load the bases for Ortiz. Once Ortiz popped out to second, the odds were at 50-50.
Yeah Mo, blew the lead, but he recovered and kept us in it.
Game 5
Tom Gordon had a 4-2 lead, gave up a leadoff homer to Ortiz, a walk to Millar and a single to Nixon (Roberts running Millar goes to third).
Rivera retired the next 3 batters, but with the man on third, the fly to CF was a sac fly. After the third out it was 50-50. That should not be considered a save situation, it was a miracle situation.
Rivera pitched 7 of the 70 innings in that series (exactly 10%). He allowed 6 hits, 2BB, and 1 earned run. It was not the closer who failed in 2004.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
The dude had the ball in his hand and could have avoided
the biggest, most embarrassing post season collapse in sports history—against their most hated rival no less. Curt Schilling would be remembered for getting slammed in game one rather than that bloody f’ing sock. Sorry but no stat on earth will ever be able to qualify that post season performance as anything even in the galactal vicinity of “great.”
Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin
wait a minute
do you realize how the hitters and starters collapsed? Arod, Vazquez, Brown, Sheff, etc.
ok, Mo blew one game bc he was exhausted. a bb, sb and 1b aint exactly a hammering. that series is more on Torre than Mo.
The point is that that is where it started. Had Mo not blown the lead,
Arod, Vazquez & Brown would have had no opportunity to collapse. Joe’s philosophy was always to get the ball to Mo with a lead. Guess what? He did. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Mo has not been great—just that if 2004 was “great” then I hope I never see that kind of greatness again.
Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin
Garp,
You could arbitrarily cite any moment beginning at the top of the first inning of Game 4 and say that’s why the Yankees lost the ’04 ALCS.
If you had a starting rotation and bullpen comprised solely of first-ballot Hall of Famers, they would still give up runs and your team would still lose games from time to time. Great pitchers win far more often than they lose….but they still lose sometimes.
Throughout his postseason career, Rivera has allowed 1 run (earned or unearned doesn’t matter) every 10 innings. You want a guy like that on the mound as often as possible. However, when you bring him into an impossible situation – no outs, tying run on 3rd, etc. – he is going to give up that run sometimes.
Rob, you’re absolutely right about closer usage. I don’t think a few more innings from Rivera would have salvaged the ‘06 or ’07 ALDS, but I do believe that Torre’s misuse of Rivera cost the team the ’03 World Series.
The Yankees had won two of the first three games, and came back to tie Game 4 in Florida in the late innings. Jose Contreras pitched the 10th and 11th innings, and then, in a stroke of sheer genius, Torre went to Jeff Weaver in the 12th because you’re not supposed to use your closer in a tie game on the road. Weaver promptly gave up a walk-off home run. Granted, the Yankees could have still lost with Rivera on the mound, but when you have an opportunity to go up three games to one in the World Series, there’s no way you can rationalize using your worst pitcher over your best pitcher.
Or I could just specifically choose the bottom of the ninth inning
when they were winning and then not winning any more.
The original post included 2004 as part of Mo’s greatness. My only point has been that it was not great. You can make whatever excuse you like for why they lost but Mo’s performance that post season was not great. Had he done that every post season from 1996 through 2000, he’d have been ridden out on a rail, not destined for the HOF. If you want to debate this then you have to give reasons why you think he was great in the 2004 ALCS not make up things I did not say and then knock them down.
Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin
Rivera WAS great in the 2004 postseason....
…because he had a 0.71 ERA and a 0.79 WHIP, allowing one run, eight hits, and two walks in 12 2/3 innings. What are you suggesting Garp, that somebody else should have been pitching the 9th inning in Game 4? Who else would you rather have on the mound? Tanyon Sturtze? Tom Gordon? Felix Heredia? Even the best pitchers allow runs to score sometimes.
He gave up one run in Game 4 of a seven-game series. Even after that loss, the team had a large margin of error. They only had to win one out of the next three games to reach the World Series.
You know the offense went 23 for 118 over the final three games? Do they share any of the blame?
I did not say that the offense was great.
I did not say that the starting pitching was great. I am not saying that someone else would have been better.
The dude blew 50% of his save opportunities. On my planet, that is not great.
We obviously have very different views on what “great” means. I put some actual value in winning the game.
Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin
Saves are absolutely, 100% meaningless
It’s a made-up statistic that reflects an arbitrary set of circumstances. Because of it, teams now save their best relief pitcher for ONLY one inning, ONLY when they have exactly a 3, 2, or 1 run lead.
I couldn’t care less about saves. A terrible pitcher can rack up saves by the boatload. Joe Borowski led the AL in “saves” in 2007 with a 5.40 ERA. He’s out of baseball now. But, they won the games I guess, right?
You think a pitcher with a .71 ERA and .79 WHIP isn’t good because he “blew” save opportunities? WE obviously have different views on what qualifies as great.
You are right that a save is absolutely meaningless. But
a blown save is not—and that is what we have got here. His job in the bottom of the 9th in Game 4 was not to get a decent ERA or WHIP, it was to win the game. He did not do that. Not blowing the save was the reason that he was put there which in that crucial instance, he did not do. I could care less how many walks, SBs, hits etc. he gave up as long as that run does not come around to score.
Again, you are missing my point (what is it with reading comprehension on this site?) I did not say that he was not good. I said he was not “great” because he didn’t do the one thing that he was supposed to do—win the game. Last time I was at the stadium I did not remember seeing a banner celebrating his WHIP in the 2004 postseason. Maybe I missed it.
Anyway, that series left me too depressed for too long for me to ever change my mind about it so we will have to agree to disagree.
Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin
And just to reiterate
You are blaming a guy who gave up 1 RUN THE ENTIRE SERIES.
1 RUN.
blasphemy
I don’t think it’s blasphemy to say that Mo has an overstated effect on the team. That doesn’t mean he isn’t one of the best pitchers ever. My problem is with the role of the closer. I feel that it’s inefficient.
When the Tigers and the Indians beat the Yankees in the playoffs, Mo barely played. There certainly were points during those series that they needed to use their best reliever, but since he’s the “closer” he sat in the bench and waited for the meaningless 9th inning when the games were already over.
Look, a lot of the time the 9th inning is the most important inning of the game, but to a fault managers will not use their closer in other innings even if they’re more important.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pinstripe Alley
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
