But we know that clinching game 4's when your team is up 3-0 is no big deal and a non-clutch situation right? Anyway, I'm curious to know why you have such reverent respect for an MVP award based on 4 or 5 games, yet you take every opportunity to point out that A-Rod's MVP based on 162 games last year was fraudulent.
It wasn't a pressure situation but he still pitched greatn and Mo only had 2 saves. ARod's MVP was fraudulent b/c his #s were mostly made off non-pressure situations while Mo's WS MVP was all about pressure. The reg season is nice but I'll take a guy who has lesser reg season stats and turns it up in Oct then someone who has great reg season #s and then they don't show in October. Anyone who pays attention knows Grape Ape deserved the MVP last year, the #s were similar except he came through when his team needed him most unlike ARod.
He won those in '92 and proceeded to blow the save in Game 4 w/ oak down 2-1 and post an ERA of 6.00 for the series and gave up 8 hits in 3 innings. Once again give me the guy who elevates his game in postseason over a great reg season player.
Leave it to junc to diminish one of great season ever based on one bad inning. Mo choked big time in 2001, but he is still the "Greatest"
Since he was busy failing as a starter in '95, I'll assume you meant '96. In 1996 he had a 2.09 ERA in 103 innings. A very good season, but he wasn't the closer, and a season like that would have led to him going back to the rotation if he was capable of it. It's not like they were hurting in the closer department either, as Wetteland had 43 saves that year. Instead of that, they let Wetteland go and chose to use that money to sign David Wells, who they thought was a better pitcher, to fill the empty spot in the rotation. The majority of closers are failed starters: Gagne, Urbina, Gordon, Foulke, RIVERA. It's how the game works. If you have the ability to be an effective starter, you will be one unless the team has a dire need of a closer, which the Yankees did not. If Rivera was good enough to pitch effectively as a starter, do you honestly think they would keep him in the pen throwing 75 innings a year and letting guys like Chacon throw 150+? And to prove my point further from ealier, look at John Smoltz and see what happens when you put a dominant starter as a closer. You get dominance. Put a dominant closer as a starter, and it won't go well.
He still has a .81 postseason ERA. Why do you keep telling me I am wrong when I am right? Cone missed 4 mos in '96 and came back in September and you told me he msised some games early in the year and now this? Mo was insreted into the pen in 1995 and in the '95 ALDS he pitched 5 1/3 shutout innings. In '96 he was the team MVP, at one point he retired about 30 straight hitters he faced. He was great and in october the yanks won b/c of their pen. Either they had a lead and handed it to Mo then Wette and it was over or they kept it close so we could come back. After that year they decided not to re-sign Wetteland and promoted Mo. They kept him in the pen w/ an eye on that. Rivera can have an effect on just about every game instead of 1 every 5. He never had a real chance to prove whether he could start or not. He was up and down in his only chance in 1995, based on a month of SP you think the Yanks gave up on him as a starter or they relaized what a weapon he could be in the pen? The bootm line is w/o Mo we have at leat 2 less titles and maybe more. That doesn't prove anything, that's 1 example.
Lets just end this. Mo is the best pitcher in the history of baseball more valuable than anyone ever. It doesn't matter what any other great pitcher did, it all seems insignificant when put next to Rivera. Cy Youngs, MVP's what ever. Nothing Matters except Mo winning 4 rings.
So you are saying a great reg season pitcher who fails in postseason is as good as a great reg season pitcher who dominates in postseason? That's relevant how? You are talking about a player who had 1 big postseason series compared to probably the best postseason pitcher of all time who has done it over and over and over again.
He Started 10 games, had an ERA close to 6. They realized he was not effective as a starter and he was DEMOTED to the bullpen. If Rivera was able to cut it as a starter, he WOULD have been in the rotation. Bottom line, you want your best pitchers pitching more innings. He can only have an effect on games that THE STARTERS keep close. If not for them, he wouldn't even get a chance. And spin it any way you want, but only a retard would rather have 75 innings of a 2.33 ERA than 200. Rivera simply isn't capable of preforming as a starter. Eckersley was another great starter who was great in the bullpen. Granted it hasn't been long, but Papelbon showed a lot of promise as a starter and is having an MVP type year filling in as a closer. On the other side, Gossage was put into the rotation they year after having 26 saves and a 1.84 ERA in the pen, his first good year. He lost 17 games and was put back in the bullpen. Hoyt Wilhelm was a mediocre starter and a DOMINANT reliever. Keith Foulke had an ERA of 8 as a starter and was demoted to the bullpen. Gagne's was around 5. Gordon was a mediocre at best starter for years and has flourished in the bullpen. The common denominator is they had ONE PITCH, like Rivera. You can throw harder in the bullpen too, since you only have to worry about one inning instead of pacing yourself. Relieving is easier than starting, and that's a fact.
So 10 games is enough time to judge a player as a failure? Let's look at start by start, the links below go to 8 of his 10 starts(I couldn't find the other 2): http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05230CAL1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05280OAK1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B06060NYA1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07040CHA1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07090TEX1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07160NYA1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B08010NYA1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B08101NYA1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B09010NYA1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B09050NYA1995.htm he was up and down, had a few rough outings(to be expected as a rookie, right?) and a fw excellent outings. nothing in his body of work from '95 could tell if he was going to be a good starter or not. Again he can have an effect on just about every game, a starter gets 1 every 5th game. So every time someone fails they should be moved to the pen? When schilling came up and was bombed as a rookie he should have been moved to the pen? These guys were not given a chance to prove they could start besdies Eck who was a good starter. Goose started one year but had a respectable ERA, his team lost almost 100 games but he kept them in games and wouldn't you think a guy who wasa closer needed time to readjust to being a starter? doing what he did that year was pretty impressive.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B08101NYA1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B09050NYA1995.htm
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B05280OAK1995.htm http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07040CHA1995.htm
