An Open Letter to Archie Leach

Dear Archie –

While I usually think that you are a level-headed chap with impeccable style and mainly reasonable opinions, you have forced me to go through you recent post line by line simply because your stance is so egregiously incorrect. I did not want to do this. You made me. You turned me into this guy! You did it!

Are you happy now?

(Sob)

The argument is that talent is a more valuable independent attribute than is experience, not that super-elite talent maintained over a long period of time is a more valuable attribute than really good talent maintained over a respectable period of time.

This was never an argument, my friend. Talent is always more important that experience, as I noted ever so persuasively with my Livan Hernandez example.

My line of reasoning was that, with talent held equal (or as equal as it is possible to determine based on the numbers) experience acts as a key tiebreaker when making the determination of better. Of course, I mean better in terms of “better in the immediate situation” because, quite obviously, experience is something that is not static.

This is the first of what I assume will be many NILS FAILs.

Only if FAILs stands for “Facts Are In Line somaybeyouarerightafterallNils.” Then it is another of my FAILs.

Using Rivera as your "experience" poster-boy is only marginally sensible because he has been pitching for such a long time.

Pitching for a long time = Experienced Pitcher
This is more than marginally sensible = Painfully Obvious

However, you are overlooking the rather obvious point that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all-time.

Actually, I care that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all time. It shows his ability, which matters, and that he has experience. Which I think is important.

You see, I compared the Fantastically Awesome Mr Rivera’s recent numbers to those of Mr Joe Nathan, an AL closer whose effectiveness (measured by hard stats) is comparable to Rivera’s over the past couple of seasons, though his profile, because he plays for Minnesota, is considerably lower. Based on the numbers, I posited that they were equally talented insofar as it is possible to make that call in general and, more importantly, possible to make that call between the experienced Mr Rivera, who has proven his excellence over time, and Mr Nathan, who has not had the longevity of the former.

I needed to have a comparison like this, a comparison between someone with experience and someone (relatively) without it in order to make the analogy that illustrates my argument. Some call it logic. I call it awesome.

Point in case, of all pitchers (in the history of baseball) with a minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions for their career, guess who has the highest ERA+??

Rivera! With an ERA+ of 199 (!!). And just to hammer this point home, the next best ERA+ is 154.

Tell me how this negates the argument that experience is an important tiebreaker when determining the better player (at this point in time) when considering players of equal talent? You can’t? That’s so weird. Oh well.

Check. And. Mate.

Not. And. Really.