Joe Nathan likely out for the season

[chw42]

Umm....yeah

 

I wrote that in a hurry, but the general meaning was...

 

Had we played that game 163 in Minnesota and had the Sox lost the game, you wouldn't have heard much from our side because we lost the season series to begin with. There's no leverage there to back up a valid argument from our side.

 

However, at that time, the decision of where the game is played was based on a coin toss and that's been the case since forever. In fact, in 1951, the Dodgers won the coin toss for a 3 game playoff and deferred home field to the Giants. So obviously, this wasn't a real issue until Joe Nathan made it one. Here are the winners and the site of the most recent tie-breaker games in the new playoff format.

 

These are the results of the season series of those games and where it was played. Winners with *.

 

1995: Mariners* vs. Angels (King Dome, Seattle lost season series 7-5)

1998: Giants vs. Cubs* (Wrigley, Cubs won season series 6-2)

1999: Mets* vs. Reds (Cinergy, Mets lost season series 5-4)

2007: Padres vs. Rockies* (Coors, Rockies won season series 10-8)

 

For the most part, this system had it right. The very first of these tie-breakers in the new playoff format actually had the Angels, who had won the season series, on the road.

 

Apparently, none of the Angels players were all that bitter, at least not bitter enough to go out and try to change the rule.

 

So this is something that has been in baseball for a while, just like the coin toss to determine who gets the ball in overtime for the NFL. Not a perfect rule by any means, but one nobody really cared for until Joe Nathan decided to voice his opinion because his team lost.

 

I commend Nathan for being active and trying to make the most sense of the situation, but the fact of the matter is, had the Twins won the game, he wouldn't have said a word. I call that being a sore loser and not really being the professional that some of you proclaim him to be.

 

 

[iamshack]

I wrote that in a hurry, but the general meaning was...

 

Had we played that game 163 in Minnesota and had the Sox lost the game, you wouldn't have heard much from our side because we lost the season series to begin with. There's no leverage there to back up a valid argument from our side.

 

However, at that time, the decision of where the game is played was based on a coin toss and that's been the case since forever. In fact, in 1951, the Dodgers won the coin toss for a 3 game playoff and deferred home field to the Giants. So obviously, this wasn't a real issue until Joe Nathan made it one. Here are the winners and the site of the most recent tie-breaker games in the new playoff format.

 

These are the results of the season series of those games and where it was played. Winners with *.

 

1995: Mariners* vs. Angels (King Dome, Seattle lost season series 7-5)

1998: Giants vs. Cubs* (Wrigley, Cubs won season series 6-2)

1999: Mets* vs. Reds (Cinergy, Mets lost season series 5-4)

2007: Padres vs. Rockies* (Coors, Rockies won season series 10-8)

 

For the most part, this system had it right. The very first of these tie-breakers in the new playoff format actually had the Angels, who had won the season series, on the road.

 

Apparently, none of the Angels players were all that bitter, at least not bitter enough to go out and try to change the rule.

 

So this is something that has been in baseball for a while, just like the coin toss to determine who gets the ball in overtime for the NFL. Not a perfect rule by any means, but one nobody really cared for until Joe Nathan decided to voice his opinion because his team lost.

 

I commend Nathan for being active and trying to make the most sense of the situation, but the fact of the matter is, had the Twins won the game, he wouldn't have said a word. I call that being a sore loser and not really being the professional that some of you proclaim him to be.

 

You are making huge leaps with this logic.

 

Secondly, the fact that you equate him complaining about a coin toss to being unprofessional is pretty ridiculous IMO.

I've watched the guy pitch for 7-8 years, met him in person, seen him in all variety and manner of situations, and he has always been very professional in his behavior.

 

But if you want to make your argument that he is not, hey, go for it.

 

[Balta1701]

Here's an argument that the number is about 3 wins, and that it's not all that important. My immediate thought is...3 wins, that's a little less than I'd say, but still pretty big.

The Twins will most likely be replacing Nathan and his 1.80 ERA with a guy whose ERA is 1.5 to 2 runs higher. Whereas Nathan would likely allow just 14 runs in his customary 70 innings of work, his replacement will probably allow nearly double that amount. When you factor in that the closer's innings are worth about 70-percent more than regular innings because of the highly important situations in which they pitch, the number of effective runs given away due to Nathan's absence is about 22. Add in the fact that the Twins' other relievers will now be pitching in more important roles and the math says that the overall impact of the Nathan injury is about 30 runs, translating to about three wins.

 

Three wins. Losing a closer -- even one of the greatest of all time -- simply isn't terribly costly. Don't get me wrong, three wins is nothing to sneeze at, and teams pay big money for that kind of production, but in the end even the mighty Nathan is worth only a handful of games. Losing the best closer in baseball may feel like a huge blow to Twins fans, but the reality is that his absence won't dramatically change the course of Minnesota's season. If the Twins finish .500 this year, it probably won't be accurate for fans to say, "If only we had Nathan, we could have been contenders." Likewise, if you thought the Twins would be great before the injury, the loss won't prevent Minnesota from still being a very good ball club.

 

The real impact of Nathan's injury -- if he does indeed require season-ending surgery -- will only occur if the Twins are once again on the cusp of making the playoffs. If so, his absence could be enough to cause Minnesota to narrowly miss the postseason.

[chw42]

Here's an argument that the number is about 3 wins, and that it's not all that important. My immediate thought is...3 wins, that's a little less than I'd say, but still pretty big.

 

Only 8 runs? I think it might be a little more than that. The domino effect might have more effect than the lack of Nathan in the closers' role.

 

But then again, the Twins have decent depth in middle relief.

 

Condrey will now replace Rauch, maybe 8-10 runs will be the difference there. Who knows.

Edited March 11, 2010 by chw42

[Kalapse]

I'll come up with something more comprehensive tomorrow but for now I throw out 2 things one of which could be considered breaking the ever so important sample size rule:

 

Multi-inning saves since 2004:

Nathan: 11

Rivera: 45

Nathan has struggled mightily in the playoffs as a closer to the tune of a 4.70 ERA, 1.83 WHIP and .830 OPS against in 7.2 IP. I know, s*** sample size but the fact remains. Meanwhile Rivera has put up a 0.70 ERA, 0.84 WHIP and .432 OPS against in the playoffs since '04.

I have another:

 

6 of Rivera's 18 blown saves since 2004 (yeah, that's all) were multi-inning save opportunities. Only 12 times since 2004 has Mariano Rivera blown a save that started in the 9th inning. That's 2 f***ing blown saves a year. Craziness.

 

As for Nathan: only 2 of his 25 blown saves were multi-inning affairs. So that's 23 9th inning saves blown.

 

So Rivera has attempted 51 multi-inning saves since 2004 and successfully closed out 88% of them.

 

Nathan has attempted only 13 multi-inning saves since 2004 and successfully closed out 85% of them.

 

Personally, I think this puts an end to the debate. (not that anyone is still cares)

[RockRaines]

Here's an argument that the number is about 3 wins, and that it's not all that important. My immediate thought is...3 wins, that's a little less than I'd say, but still pretty big.

This is based on losing a pitcher in a vacuum and that all other players stay the same, which of course is not the real world. His loss puts a huge burden on the other players and changes the roles and workload of the entire pitching staff. There is no math that can account for that.

[SoxFan562004]

This is based on losing a pitcher in a vacuum and that all other players stay the same, which of course is not the real world. His loss puts a huge burden on the other players and changes the roles and workload of the entire pitching staff. There is no math that can account for that.

It also makes the margin for any other injury razor thin... say the Twins luck out and everything is great for the first month, but one of their other back end BP guys come up with an injury, then the well they have to go to replace that person is one pitcher less in depth. It's a domino effect in many ways

[witesoxfan]

This is the Minnesota Twins. Every time someone goes down, they bring someone up who does just as well. Is this a huge loss, sure? Is some no-name AAA reliever going to come in and play well? Probably.

 

Uhhh...no. They have replacements for every player, sure, but you don't just replace the second best closer of the past half decade with a nobody. Jon Rauch might be solid, but he doesn't have the fastball, nor the slider, nor the curve, nor the 2-seamer that Nathan does. Nathan was brought up as a starting pitcher, and had starting pitching caliber stuff, but couldn't put it together as a starter. Hell, it took him a bit as a reliever in Minnesota to put it together as a reliever. Once he did, he took off. Haven't seen it, but I imagine his 2004 statistics look something like 7+ ERA in April and May, and maybe June, and from a certain point on, it's sub 3, maybe sub 2, when he took over the closer role. He's been dynamite ever since, and it's a huge blow to Minnesota.

 

Personally, I think this has a huge, huge effect on the Twins pitching staff. They had everything set in place (Nathan, Guerrier-Mijares, Rauch, Crane, dude)...they won't mess with the setup duo, but their early and closing duties got a bit different. I look forward to it.

[witesoxfan]

Only 8 runs? I think it might be a little more than that. The domino effect might have more effect than the lack of Nathan in the closers' role.

 

But then again, the Twins have decent depth in middle relief.

 

Condrey will now replace Rauch, maybe 8-10 runs will be the difference there. Who knows.

 

Jesse Crain is involved, and he's still a pretty talented reliever. If anything, Condrey replaces Crain, who replaces Rauch. The less you can mess up the madness that is your average bullpen, the better. I actually think keeping Guerrier and Mijares in their setup roles is already phenomenal managing by Gardenhire and company, simply because Guerrier is not capable of closing (think Ryan Franklin with worse stuff and a worse, though not bad, pitching coach) and the Twins don't have a second lefty they can trust in the pen. I will not be surprised to see Mijares OR Liriano closing if the Twins don't feel Liriano can start games and they feel one of the two is very capable of closing. Personally, I think Mijares makes a mean closer, but I think Thornton does the same thing (though better), but the Sox don't have late inning left handed reliever, so I think Thornton is most valuable in the role he is.

 

I have another:

 

6 of Rivera's 18 blown saves since 2004 (yeah, that's all) were multi-inning save opportunities. Only 12 times since 2004 has Mariano Rivera blown a save that started in the 9th inning. That's 2 f***ing blown saves a year. Craziness.

 

As for Nathan: only 2 of his 25 blown saves were multi-inning affairs. So that's 23 9th inning saves blown.

 

So Rivera has attempted 51 multi-inning saves since 2004 and successfully closed out 88% of them.

 

Nathan has attempted only 13 multi-inning saves since 2004 and successfully closed out 85% of them.

 

Personally, I think this puts an end to the debate. (not that anyone is still cares)

 

I care.

 

Mariano Rivera is one of the greatest pitchers I'm ever going to see. The only problem with this is that I don't care for somebody telling me something I already know, which is what you've done (although you've only proven that he's light years better than Nathan). I've never, and I doubt I will ever, see a pitcher dominate hitters based on pure pitching ability alone like I have with Rivera. You'll have pitchers like Nathan and Gagne and KRod and whoever else that have crazy stuff that goes away, but Rivera is seriously one of the greatest pitchers a person will get to see pitch. He's not unhittable, he's just very hard to hit, and I do truly appreciate that about him.

 

He wants to pitch till he's 45, and I think he could pitch till he's 50 or 55. If he can keep the difference between his fastball and his cutter distinguishable, he could pitch till he died. And I don't think I'm exaggerating.

[jphat007]

Nathan done, tho that is no surprise.

[witesoxfan]

Nathan done, tho that is no surprise.

 

No s***, what was 2 weeks going to do, heal the UCL completely? They should have gotten it done right away and saved 2 weeks.

[southsider2k5]

No s***, what was 2 weeks going to do, heal the UCL completely? They should have gotten it done right away and saved 2 weeks.

 

At this point of the season, I don't think it really mattered for the two weeks. The scary thing for Nathan is that he is 35 now, so by the time he recovers, and then spends the extra year to get back to normal he will be 37. He might be done for good for all practical purposes.

[SoxFan562004]

At this point of the season, I don't think it really mattered for the two weeks. The scary thing for Nathan is that he is 35 now, so by the time he recovers, and then spends the extra year to get back to normal he will be 37. He might be done for good for all practical purposes.

IMO it was his age that had them wait 2 weeks then try because as you pointed out, he'll be about 37 before he is likely 100% again. I think if he was 25 he would have been cut on already.

[witesoxfan]

It's hard to predict the shelf life of closers. Some are great for a stretch of 4-6 years and then fade away, such as a Keith Foulke and Eric Gagne (though Gagne's may have been due to PED's), while others keep on doing what they do, like Mo and Hoffman and even, to some extent, Billy Wagner. If Nathan retains his velocity and can still get the snap he did on his slider, he'll be back and could even pitch into his 40s. He wasn't any less dominant last season than he was in previous seasons, so it's very possible that he could come back and be just fine for another 4-6 seasons.

[qwerty]

Uhhh...no. They have replacements for every player, sure, but you don't just replace the second best closer of the past half decade with a nobody. Jon Rauch might be solid, but he doesn't have the fastball, nor the slider, nor the curve, nor the 2-seamer that Nathan does. Nathan was brought up as a starting pitcher, and had starting pitching caliber stuff, but couldn't put it together as a starter. Hell, it took him a bit as a reliever in Minnesota to put it together as a reliever. Once he did, he took off. Haven't seen it, but I imagine his 2004 statistics look something like 7+ ERA in April and May, and maybe June, and from a certain point on, it's sub 3, maybe sub 2, when he took over the closer role. He's been dynamite ever since, and it's a huge blow to Minnesota.

 

Personally, I think this has a huge, huge effect on the Twins pitching staff. They had everything set in place (Nathan, Guerrier-Mijares, Rauch, Crane, dude)...they won't mess with the setup duo, but their early and closing duties got a bit different. I look forward to it.

 

He did better than you remember in 2004.

 

April/March - 2.45 era

 

May - 0.00 era

 

June - 1.50 era

 

July - 0.00 era

 

August - 5.06 era

 

September/October - 1.29 era

 

Every month he pitch at least 10.2 innings with the high side of 14 innings in september/october. Nathan had a pretty darn solid season in 2003 as a full time reliever with the giants also.

 

 

 

[GoodAsGould]

He did better than you remember in 2004.

 

April/March - 2.45 era

 

May - 0.00 era

 

June - 1.50 era

 

July - 0.00 era

 

August - 5.06 era

 

September/October - 1.29 era

 

Every month he pitch at least 10.2 innings with the high side of 14 innings in september/october. Nathan had a pretty darn solid season in 2003 as a full time reliever with the giants also.

 

Who knows what the giants were thinking when they made that trade, yes AJ was coming off his best season but wow did they overpay.

[G&T]

Who knows what the giants were thinking when they made that trade, yes AJ was coming off his best season but wow did they overpay.

 

They were thinking that Nathan was in his late 20's and had one decent year and they could sell high, and that Liriano was a giant injury risk (which they were right about). The trade looks worse because of what happened in SF that year.

[CanOfCorn]

It's hard to predict the shelf life of closers. Some are great for a stretch of 4-6 years and then fade away, such as a Keith Foulke and Eric Gagne (though Gagne's may have been due to PED's), while others keep on doing what they do, like Mo and Hoffman and even, to some extent, Billy Wagner. If Nathan retains his velocity and can still get the snap he did on his slider, he'll be back and could even pitch into his 40s. He wasn't any less dominant last season than he was in previous seasons, so it's very possible that he could come back and be just fine for another 4-6 seasons.

 

Very true, wite. Both Mo and Hoffman have nasty out pitches. Mo's cut fastball and Hoffman's change. I can't believe Hoffman has continued considering he has lost so much on his fastball. Amazing that his change is still that good.

 

And as happy I am for the Sox, I hate to see TJ surgery for anyone. I'm assuming his days as a power pitcher are over and considering his age, he's probably done as a closer. That sux for Joe Nathan.

[GoodAsGould]

They were thinking that Nathan was in his late 20's and had one decent year and they could sell high, and that Liriano was a giant injury risk (which they were right about). The trade looks worse because of what happened in SF that year.

 

If I remember Boof Bonser was the biggest trade piece at the time, regardless AJ is an avg. catcher and they paid a heavy price for him.