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.

The Importance of Experience

I feel like I must defend my honor.

According to Senor Leach, I am an experience hugger….and I guess that I am, but only to a point.

For example, Livan Hernandez had more experience than any other pitcher on the Twins staff. He was also considerably worse than any other pitcher on the Twins staff. Given the choice of who I would pitch in any given game, I would take any other Twins pitcher over him (and probably most of the maintenance crew, too) because he simply is no good. And no amount of exprience will overcome that fact.

That is not to say that experience doesn't matter. For the past few years one could make an argument that Mariano Rivera and Joe Nathan have been pretty equally matched in the talent and ability department. And if one made that argument, they would see that the numbers bore that out:

Rivera:
2007 - 71.3 IP, 74 SO, 12 BB, 3.15 ERA, 142 ERA+, 1.121 WHIP
2008 - 70.7 IP, 77 SO, 6 BB, 1.40 ERA, 317 ERA+, 0.665 WHIP

Nathan:
2007 – 71.7 IP, 77 SO, 19 BB, 1.88 ERA, 230 ERA+, 1.019 WHIP
2008 – 67.7 IP, 74 SO, 18 BB, 1.33 ERA, 305 ERA+, 0.901 WHIP

The numbers being what they are – basically equal – is there any doubt that you would go with Rivera as your closer in a big game? And the reason for this (get ready for the big reveal…wait for it…sorry, having trouble setting up the Greek columns I borrowed from Britney…oh, fuck it here goes): experience.

Mariano Rivera has been there before and proven his physical and mental ability time and again and, when choosing between two guys who are otherwise equal, why wouldn’t you go with the guy who has the experience?

Experience is, in no way, something that can overcome talent (see again Hernandez, Livan). But when the margins of difference between two players are small, it is the sort of tiebreaker between that two that can be awfully meaningful.

Aaaaand boom goes the dynamite.