I know we had this conversation just a few days ago but Bill Simmons' posting requires a counterpoint to his contention that Johnny Damon is a worth MVP candidate.
In his posting, Simmons cites all sorts of stats about why Damon should win the award. This is, of course, both before AND after saying numerous times that Manny and/or Ortiz are the best players on the team, the most unstoppable offensive forces in the game, etc. Basically he doesn't believe what he's writing, he's just looking for an excuse to write another dick-licking piece about the Red Sox. If it weren't for his great sense of humor, I'd have given him the Gammons/Shanoff treatment. I'm reluctant to give him a pass, only because I hate it when writers just type garbage to fill a column but I can't really get that mad at him because, after all, he's the Sports Guy.
Suffice it to say, Damon is not the AL MVP. I know the people that vote on these sorts of things are confused old farts and/or closed-minded morons who live by antiquated rules (HR+RBI+AVG+place in lineup=MVP). The real AL MVP, as I said last week, is unquestionably, Mariano Rivera. No one player has had a bigger impact on the success of his team and no one player is more indispensable to his team in the American League. Plain and simple, without Rivera, the Yanks would be under .500. If that's not MVP-caliber impact, I don't know what is.
9 comments:
Much to the chagrin of what MJ says, I don't believe that Mo Rivera is the MVP candidate. I looked up his stats and compared them to the player who is presumably the second best closer in the AL, Joe Nathan, and they are practically identical. Nathan= 30 saves, 3 blown saves, .187 average against, Rivera=32 saves, 3 blown saves and a .167 average against. Nathan has been responsible for 57% of the Twins wins, Rivera has been responsible for 57% of the Yanks wins. The closer's job is to close out games and allow their team to win. If Nathan hadn't closed out those games the Twins would be below .500.
The same can be said about the best closer in the NL, Jason Isringhausen. Izzy's stats are about the same, 31 saves and 3 blown saves. So if Izzy didn't close out those games, would the Cards be below .500 as well.
There have been a couple of other MVP winners who were closers the past couple of years. Eck in 1992 and Rollie in 1981. In 1992 Eck was absolutely the most dominant closer in the game in both leagues. The next person in line was Rick Aguilera who had 10 less saves than him and who's ERA was about 2 points more than his. Also that year there wasn't that many great players in the pool to choose from other than Kirby "grab ass" Puckett.
Sorry for the rambling, but I just don't think that a closer deserves to be voted as an MVP. I don't know who to give it to in the AL, my vote goes to Arod, Papi, or Manny.
However, unlike the Twins who have several viable candidates to close out games (Jesse Crain, JC Romero, Juan Rincon), the Yanks have no such safety net. The MVP is more than just the best statistical player but rather the most INDISPENSIBLE to his team. If Papi or Manny or Damon went down with an injury, the Red Sox would not be impacted in the way the Yankees would be if Rivera went down (Good Lord forbid!).
I've often chafed at the thought that a closer's job is only to "close out games" because it's that kind of mentality that leads us to think that Gagne deserved the Cy Young in 2003. The Most Valuable Player has to be about more than stats, it has to be about value to a team. It's the old Allen Iverson question -- if AI were to miss all 82 games, does anyone think the Sixers would be able to win even 15 games? Of course not. If Mo missed all 162 games, the Yanks wouldn't even win 60. Nathan could go down and the Twins would be the same +/- 8 games around .500 that they are every single season. Nathan's stats may look like Mo's but they're not even close.
If Mo went down this year, Cashman and the Boss would have paid another closer to come and do the job in his place or used Flash Gordon for saves, like in 2002 when Mo got hurt and Stanton, Karsay and Mendoza got the saves.
I think that baseball is one of those games in which it is a team sport where one player doesn't really impact the whole entire game, especially the biggest impact player, the closer. Unlike basketball or hockey where there are only 5 players on the court/ice at one time, baseball teams aren't done for if their star player goes down. If AI,Timmy Duncan or MJ go down, the 76ers, Spurs and Bulls are going to be hit hard because 1/5th of their starting roster is hurt. However in baseball, if a player like Mo or Pooholes goes down then there will be players that take up their slack.
A team's economic advantage or disadvantage CAN NEVER factor into an MVP voting decision. One cannot assume that the Yanks would immediately rush to replace Rivera if something were to happen to him. Even if they did, it's irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Furthermore, and equally irrelevant, is what the Yankees did in 2002 when Rivera was injured.
Insofar as the argument that one injury cannot affect a baseball team the way it could affect a basketball or hockey team, that, too, is irrelevant. Barry Bonds has missed each of his team's 100 or so games this season. I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that his injury has had the biggest impact on the Giants being non-contenders this year. The Giants were able to replace Benitez with another mediocre arm but they've been completely unable to sustain any sort of offense. We now know definitively that, chemically enhanced or not, Barry Bonds is the most indispensable player in the National League.
So, I say, that while the general rule may be true that a hockey or basketball player, representing 1/5th of his team's capabilities might have a greater impact on his team, it cannot be said unilaterally in baseball. Rivera and Bonds simply cannot be replaced.
I agree regarding Bonds and the lack of offense in SF, but still disagree on the indispensability of Mo Rivera.
I just don't think a closer can be that indispensable. If you put a closer like Danny Graves or Danys Baez (two of the worst closers in the game, who have blown about 20% of their saves) on the Yanks, then they might have 4-5 more losses this year, but that puts them above .500.
Bonds is an aberration in the world of baseball and he is the only player that I can think of that truly would cause his whole entire team to falter. It also is helpful that the Giants' ace pitcher has been pitching like utter crap this year. His ERA is 2 points higher along with having a WHIP of 1.43 compared to last year of 1.08.
I just think that baseball's MVP is based on stats and numbers because certain players just can't change the whole entire team themselves but it is a collective team play.
Oh god, you can't possibly believe that Rivera is so "common" that Graves or Baez could come in and only account for a 4-5 win differential.
I'm not continuing this discussion. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I just can't believe that you'd even make a case for Graves or Baez as being marginally worse than Rivera. Not even a freakin' Red Sox fan would say that...
Just to clear a few things up before the discussion is over. I am not saying that Graves or Baez are even in the same league as Rivera. Rivera has been one of the two most dominant closers of the 90s and probably the best closer in history since Eck.
What I am just saying is that the closer (any closer) is not the most valuable player in the league because they only attribute towards a certain area and not the whole game. If a player like Manny/Ortiz or Arod/Sheff didn't produce the runs then the closer wouldn't even be in the game. Am done.
Post a Comment