That was a good Super Bowl … but let’s get back to business …
- The Times‘ Tyler Kepner offers up a blog entry on Bobby Abreu’s unemployment, including a quote for his former GM in Philly:
… Wade was G.M. of the Philadelphia Phillies when Abreu played there, and he called him “one of the most underappreciated players in the game.”
“He’s a sabermetrician’s dream, from the standpoint of what he produces statistically,” Wade said. …
“Aaron Rowand came in there and in one year found the only exposed piece of metal in the ballpark and ran into it; some people wanted to build a statue in his honor,” said Wade, recalling the former Phillies center fielder who famously crashed into a wall at Citizens Bank Park.
“Aaron Rowand is an outstanding player and he brings that blue-collar type of energy to the field, and that’s great. Fans gravitate to that, especially in Philadelphia. Bobby’s so good at what he does and so smooth at doing it, he tends to be underappreciated.”
- Bill Madden critiques the Torre book, wonders what Joe “holds sacred”, and has this amazing excerpt:
Torre said he stands behind everything in the book, even though it is written by Verducci in the third person. That means, he fully approved Mike Mussina’s insensitive critique of Mariano Rivera on Page 312: “As great as he is, and it’s amazing what he does, if you start the evaluation again since I’ve been here, he has accomplished nothing in comparison to what he accomplished the four years before. He blew the World Series in ’01. He lost the Boston series. He didn’t lose it himself, but we had a chance to win in the ninth and sweep them and he doesn’t do it there. . . . That’s what I remember about the ’04 series.”
- The Post and the Times have more dirt from Torre’s book, should you be interested.
- Here is a transcript of Torre’s appearing on ‘Larry King Live’.
- Get to know the coaching staff of the Yanks’ Triple-A team.
- Belated happy 31st birthday to Erick Almonte. Almonte was the replacement for Jeter in 2003 when the Captain got hurt early in the year.
- Belated happy 49th birthday to Cecilio Guante. Guante was a reliever in ’87 and sometime closer in ’88.
- Belated happy 65th birthday to eight-time GG Paul Blair. Blair was a defensive replacement / part-timer for the Yanks primarily in ’77 and ’78.
- Happy 41st birthday to Scott Erickson. Erickson finished up a 15-year career by appearing in nine games for the Bombers in 2006.
- Happy 47th birthday to Pat Clements. Clements was a reliever on the ’87 and ’88 squads.
- Pat Tabler turns 51 today. Tabler was a first-round draft pick of the Yanks in ’76. He never made it to the big club, getting dealt to the Cubs in ’81 for Bill Caudill and Jay Howell.
- Dale Murray turns 59 today. Murray was a 32-year-old career reliever in 1982, when he was dealt by the Blue Jays (along with Tom Dodd) to the Yanks for Dave Collins (a Steinbrenner mistake), Mike Morgan (oops) and a young 1B named Fred McGriff (d’oh).
- Happy 76th birthday to Jack Reed. Reed didn’t make the majors til age 28 (1961), and only stuck for three seasons in a bit role.
- On this date in 1936, the Baseball Writers Association of America announces the results of the first Hall of Fame vote. Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson and Honus Wagner comprise the inaugural class of Hall of Fame members.
- On this date in 1989, former All-Star first baseman and Yankee announcer Bill White is elected president of the National League. White succeeds Chub Feeney, becoming the first African-American to be named president of either league and the highest ranking black executive in the four major sports.
Hey Mussina, if you start the evaluation since you got here, you went 5-7 in the postseason.
And thanks for those 6 innings in game 5 2004, I'll remember you couldn't bail out the overworked bullpen by lasting any longer.
I completely forgot about the Scott Erickson era in The Bronx.
the second Warner fumbled that ball, baseball season unofficially began. Finally.
AND I just got Springsteen tickets, what a way to start a Monday.
mlbtraderumors.com points out that Melky is out of options. I was surprised for a moment, but then I realized
Contract purchased in July 2005 as center field experiment. Optioned a couple of days later.
Began 2006 in AAA. Recalled in late May.
Demoted in August 2008.
So Spring Training is the last shot for the Melk-man.
The problem with Abreu is that he's a DH who wants to play the field.
And thanks for those 6 innings in game 5 2004, I’ll remember you couldn’t bail out the overworked bullpen by lasting any longer.
Regardless, the game was handed to Rivera with the lead. It also bears mentioning that the Sox bullpen was just as overworked, if not more so. Having said that, is there anyone that believes a word of what Bill Madden writes?
"Torre said he stands behind everything in the book, even though it is written by Verducci in the third person."
Question: Does Joe have the option of saying NO to this question?
"Well, I approve a lot of it, but certainly to all of it, and not the exact way everything was expressed by Verducci".
Can Joe say that? I think not. That would raise more worms the the book itself.
Let's be real. Verducci wants to sell as many books as possible. The key to this is dirt (only because sex would be out of place). Dirt (and sex) sell. History.... not so much. So maybe Verducii has what? 10? 20? 50 little snippets of dirt? Should Joe edit every one? Tell Verducci to state this more gently? Even though they both know dirt sells, and Torre is getting paid a lot of money? If Joe WANTED this book published, and WANTED Verducci to write it, and wanted/needed the people paying the bills to be happy, is there a line at which point he had to let some things slide?
“As great as he is, and it’s amazing what he does, if you start the evaluation again since I’ve been here, he has accomplished nothing in comparison to what he accomplished the four years before. He blew the World Series in ‘01. He lost the Boston series. He didn’t lose it himself, but we had a chance to win in the ninth and sweep them and he doesn’t do it there. . . . That’s what I remember about the ‘04 series.”
Is this statement true? Mostly true? Would Mariano agree? If it's true, is it a 'diss'? Can you state an 'unplesant truth' without someones feelings getting hurt? Is making a truthful statement that hurts someones feelings always a bad thing to do? Does Mo feel dissed by Mike? Could his feelings be a bit hurt, but OK after a while because the statement has some validity? Does Mike feel dissed by Joe?
Everyone here saw the '01 and '04 series. Does anyone feel the same way as Mike? Does Mike also feel that Mo is the greatest reliever of all time? What if Mike has said "Mo blew the '01 and '04 series... but he is still the best there is, and there's nobody else I want in there in those situations". Is that still a diss? Could Torre have related that in his book (if Moose had added that 'qualifying' statment?)
In reading Joe's recollection of what Moose said, have we all learned ANYTHING we didn't already know? If Moose says something true, that we all ready know about (and many might agree with), and Joes related this known info is his book, Is Joe dissing Mike?
Again, I am NOT defending Joe (nor attacking him).
What bothers me is this process of ABSOLUTE Black and White, Right and Wrong.
"That means, he fully approved... ". Black and White. No qualification. No circumstand or context. Everything is either RIGHT or WRONG. There is no inbetween.
I object to the process. But I guess it sells newspapers and books. After all, that's the important thing, right?
[6] I see Mussina's account of the 2001 WS and 2004 ALCS as self-serving. "If Mariano had come through for me, I would have won the World Series."
His choice of words focuses blame on Mariano, and doesn't suggest that as a participant in those contests that his poor performances (he's had many more bad games than Rivera) had a lot to do with the Yanks coming up short from 2001-2008.
[7] Well, he was certainly practicing selective memory in those comments. But as has been pointed out what he said is not incorrect per se...
Neither Mussina nor Mo - nor Torre - is entirely to blame for the Yanks not having won a Serious since 2000. Its easy to pin blame on one person, especially in a moment of anger or unhappiness, but the truth is that we could come up with a hundred distinct "well if only so&so had done _____ better" that would lead the Yanks to having won one or multiple titles.
I wish Torre had never written a tell-all book. I find its immediate damage - and sadly, that's how these things sell - to be greater than its inside stories.
That Melky is out of options is no big deal to me. He is an adequate enough 4th/5th OF. It does shed some new light on why he was sent down last year - now I wonder why that didn't happen sooner, to give him as much time at AAA as possible.
[8] I disagree. He says that Mariano "lost the 2004 Alcs" then he says "he did not lose it by himself." seems like one of those things has to be incorrect.
he also says that mariano has accomplished "nothing in comparison to what he accomplished the 4 years before..." from 2001-2008 mariano has accomplished a tremendous amount, including the postseason heroics of the 2003 ALCS. because he threw a ball in centerfield and allowed the red sox to scratch a run in game 4 of the ALCS marks a contrast, but does not justify mussina's hyperbole. maybe you can't be incorrect in expressing an opinion, but at least it's inappropriate and distasteful.
Is Bill Madden a complete idiot? Torre standing behind the book doesn't mean he endorses every opinion of everyone quoted. My God, that has got to be the stupidest thing I've read about this book yet.
[7] Honestly, that's harsh and without substantiation. Why not, 'If Mo comes through WE win the World Series'? Why plug in the personal pronoun? He is commenting on the closing of games. Closers get many millions more than set-up guys BECAUSE they carry the weight of wins and losses late. Mo's legend is built on his doing that brilliantly, and in the clutch (with a bit of a run-up in the Wetteland years, but only a bit). To my mind it is an unnecessary comment, since perfection doesn't happen in sport. But yes, if Rivera throws accurately to the bag in '01 Yankees very probably win the series, and '04 is ... '04, alas. There isn't a Yankee fan who doesn't wince at remembering both (and Sandy Alomar hitting a high outside pitch out for Cleveland). Mussina is described as a somewhat detached, cool commenter on the team (bookending Cone) and this falls into that category.
Why judge it as being about his personal wish to have personally won? Does this make it (as OYF notes) an untrue comment? I might call it tacky, to be harsh about a many-times savior, but it isn't made false by that.
[12] The personal pronoun is justified because Mussina is framing the entire time period in question around his years with the team. He says, "SInce I've been here." to me Mussina seems to be addressing how unfortunate he was to arrive after mariano started blowing the postseason.
If you want to give Mussina the benefit of the doubt, that's fine, but since he chose harsh words, I don't have a problem in not giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Personally I don't blame Rivera as much for '01 than I do for '04. '01 he got himself into trouble but he was THIS close to wiggling out of it. One hard hit ball in that 9th inning. In '04 he screwed up multiple times, and against the Red Sox in historic fashion. I also have this memory of him kind of smiling after he blew that first lead (I think it was game 4).
[12] man i went back and mussina's "evaluation" again. i find it more offensive with each reading.
and i like mussina.
I see Mussina’s account of the 2001 WS and 2004 ALCS as self-serving. “If Mariano had come through for me, I would have won the World Series.”
I dunno about that. In 01, Mussina last pitched in game 5 of the series. So that thought doesn't apply there. As for the 04 ALCS, Mussina also pitched game 5, but Rivera blew the save. Rivera blew the save the night before. I don't remember the last time Rivera blew saves in back to back games.
Having said that, the 2004 ALCS was a perfect storm of events. I don't care what anyone says, if you tell me that Yankees are up 3-0 in the 9th inning with Rivera on the mound, I'll take that bet. Even if that game is blown, you tell me that Mussina, Lieber and Brown are in the pipeline, I still like the Yankees chances.
I also have this memory of him kind of smiling after he blew that first lead (I think it was game 4).
Sometimes you have to tip your cap. Besides, I'd rather him do that, than implode on the mound.
I think Mussina is being overly harsh. Mariano has been excellent in the post-season since Mussina got here. Mariano did his job at a very high level every post-season he got a chance in except those two instances. Before Mussina's arrival, there was one instance Mariano failed, two since he arrived. I don't really seen that as a terrible decline and as I mention above - '01 was a failure but it was also a bloop single that barely made the outfield grass. A loss is a loss, but that sort of thing is not indicative of a noticeable change in effectiveness.
I'm kind of glad Mussina never got his ring now. He's kind of whiny, at least in this instance.
[18]
Is there something more to the passage? Going by the excerpt in the original entry and quoted in post #6 It doesn't appear that Mussina is saying anything about Rivera declining.
Speaking of closers, I watched the 2002 WS review on the MLB network. It's funny to see Francisco Rodriguez so subdued on the mound after he finishes his inning of work..
[10] Well, from a pure ring count I think what Mussina said is accurate - 4 rings prior, zero rings since. Thus, the before and after comparison is stark when viewed through such a lens.
Again, it may be selective and narrow, but not inaccurate, certainly not from that particular - and frankly widely held - POV (see: RSN talking about 2 rings this millenia vs. zero for us, etc.)
Mo had much to do with the 4 ring period, and much to do with the zero ring period. He is not solely responsible for either period, but I don't take Mussina's comments as such.
I agree with you, Shaun. What was the purpose? What was the motivation for writing the book? Money? You have plenty and this compromises your image in the major markets, regardless of facts. Getting something off your chest? Well, why wouldn't a championship with the team you're currently supposed to be managing and team-building with settle the score (unless you don't believe they can do it soon enough?) A genuine interest in getting the facts straight? Why, with your reputation intact with the general public when you left, what difference would it have made?
Either Joe will be undone by his own hubris, or he will make a lot of money in exchange for his reputation. Maybe we're the fools for thinking he was above being human, and is that why so many people are justifying it by saying, "read the book"? I honestly don't have much of an opinion one way or another except to wonder why he wrote it in the first place. Was there ever a clear answer on that?
[22] How is it a justification to say "read the book"? And what is it a justification of?
[19] I'm just going based on what I read above. It reads as an indictment of latter-day Mariano to me."he has accomplished nothing in comparison to what he accomplished the four years before" .... It's not like Mussina's saying Rivera's the same but the team collapsed under him. He's saying Rivera hasn't been as good. That's what I take away from it. And it's true, but the difference isn't all that dramatic - there's something severe about how it's phrased by Mussina.
[16] Mariano entered Game 5 with a man on first and third with no outs? I think we are all sophisticated enough to look past the blown save and realize that Mariano's two scoreless innings in that game were not a failure. If anything, he did save the game by preventing a bigger inning in that 8th.
More generally, no, Mussina's comments are not accurate. Perhaps you can pin a good share of blame for 2001 on Mariano because he did throw the ball away (although you could also blame Brosius for not completing the DP), but Mariano pitched very well in the 2004 ALCS. Even in his "real" blown save, he left with the score tied.
If I was Moose and wanted someone to blame for not having a ring, I would focus more on Torre's decision to use Weaver instead of Mariano in 2003. Blaming Mo for not being perfect rings very hollow.
[23] Are we inhuman or just fools for not reading a book that has been ladled out to us by excerpts, but judging the whole book based on those excerpts? I have little opinion about the book since I've only read a little of it, but I wonder just WHY I should read it... maybe only I myself can answer that, but do you know any compelling reason why anyone should buy the book versus borrowing it from the library or somewhere else?
[24] It's actually not ture. Mariano's best years have been since 2000. Also, before 2001, Mo gave up 5 post season earned runs. After 2001, he also gave up 5. Also, don't forget, pre-Mussina Mariano did have the Alomar HR. Unlike 2001 (a bad defensive play) and 2004 (a manufactured run), the 1997 ALDS was the only time Mo got flat out beat. I am sorry, but Mussina is wrong...and Torre should have quashed the comment.
[26] The excerpts have given me every reason to not read the book.
[24] It could be that I'm reading it wrong. I'm reading it as Mussina acknowledging Rivera's greatness, but realizing that he has failed a few times during Mussina's term as a Yankee.
[25] Regarless of the situation, he was called in to deliver, and didn't. I am sure over the course of his career, he had delivered in the same situation. It's not that big a deal. Rivera is credited with a blown save. It happens. That he prevented a big inning doesn't matter, he blew the save.
[28] I'd probably read it, just for the sake of reading, but I don't expect to read anything groundbreaking in it. At best it's probably a fluff book, and I'm sure any points that have been bought up in the book have been hashed and rehashed ad-infinitum elsewhere.
[9] That Melky is out of options is no big deal to me. He is an adequate enough 4th/5th OF.
Not necessarily. Melky's only periods of success have been as an every-day player. When he played the 4th outfielder role in early 2007, he was brutal (granted, he was brutal as an every-day player through most of 2008, but ...).
It does shed some new light on why he was sent down last year - now I wonder why that didn’t happen sooner, to give him as much time at AAA as possible.
Quite the opposite. By demoting Melky last year, the Yankees burned his last option, and they no now longer have the option of starting him in AAA this year (without risking his being snatched on waivers). That may in fact explain the team's reluctance to demote him last year until his performance became unbearable.
[29] Are you seriously suggesting that Mariano was called in to get out of 1st and 3rd and no outs? Seriously? If you consider 2 innings and one hit a failure, then I guess every Yankee who did get a hit in every bat failed in that series. That standard is unreasonable for anyone, even Rivera.
[26] [28] I'm not sure if I will read the book or not, but I will certainly NOT buy it.
[23] You lay out all the questions I'm asking myself, and that I want Torre to answer, Chyll. He reminded me so much of my father (and my grandfather), that I always believed he was a man worthy of great respect, if not always a manager worthy of the same. That the professional atmosphere he cultivated earned him respect as a person first, and a manager second, made him all the more sympathetic to me as his tactical failings mounted in later years. Joe Torre the manager I could disagree with, and (frequently) find fault with, and think him a lesser manager than others. But Joe Torre the person I always respected to the utmost.
Now I find my respect for Torre the man dimmed, perhaps irrevocably damaged. Like I said earlier, the whole thing makes me very sad.
As rbj has been saying, how many days until pitchers and catchers?
[30] You're right, I didn't consider that they might want to save his last option, and now I wish they hadn't sent him down.
I'm not sure if he'll be a world-beater as a part-time/bench/LIDR guy, but seeing he's out of options, and the Yanks aren't exactly flush with OFs on the 40-man but not ticketed for the 25-man (in fact, ZERO by my count), I think that is what he'll be.
[31] Are you seriously suggesting that Mariano was called in to get out of 1st and 3rd and no outs?
You don't think he wasn't? Then what's the point of calling him in? Who is credited with the blown save; Rivera or Gordon? Has Rivera ever escaped from a situation like that?
That Rivera didn't deliver in the situation doesn't take away from how he has performed in his career, doesn't take away from his series. It really isn't that big a deal. He blew a save (which is the failure). It happens.
[34] The point is that most people were not disappointed in Mo that he let up a sac fly. They were relieved that it wasn't worse. And they were pissed at Gordon for blowing the game.
Besides you, I've never heard that anybody considers his game 5 performance a failure.
It's a failure in the sense that he blew the save. Rivera has cleaned up after other relievers messes before.
But like I said, it's not that big a deal. It happens.
[36] Right...and if he struck out the side, but the run scored on a passed ball, it would still be a blown save. In other words, it isn't a good idea to allow record keeping determine whether Mariano pitched well in that game. The reality is he pitched very well.
Right…and if he struck out the side, but the run scored on a passed ball, it would still be a blown save. In other words, it isn’t a good idea to allow record keeping determine whether Mariano pitched well in that game. The reality is he pitched very well.
And if 3 liners were scorched to 3b, ss, & 2b, preventing the runner from scoring, he'd still get the save.
And for the record, I never said he didn't pitch well. I said he blew the save. That is the failure. It's great that he pitched well the rest of the time he was on the mound, but it doesn't change the fact that he blew the save. Nothing more, nothing less. Like I said before, it's not that big a deal. It's the nature of the game.
[38] Well, as long as we agree that "blowing the save" is meaningless in this context, then I see your point. Of course, I am not sure why it would even become a topic of discussion. The bottom line is if you are using Game 5 to somehow make the point that Mariano didn't accomplish anything in that series, well, you'd be flat out wrong.
[39] Yunnow, it does relate to an earlier discussion about "truth". Technically, the truth is the truth, regardless of context. The arguments have mainly been over context, yes? Do we have a right to demand context, or is it right to determine context ourselves?
The bottom line is if you are using Game 5 to somehow make the point that Mariano didn’t accomplish anything in that series, well, you’d be flat out wrong.
The point is that Rivera blew saves in games 4 & 5. Now it may have been unfair that he got the call as late as he did in game 5, but the fact is that he needs to strand that runner @ 3b. He didn't, for whatever reason. Whether credit goes to the pitcher, catcher, or hitter, doesn't make a difference, the end result is still the same.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm not saying that he's a bum that needs to be traded, I'm saying it happened. I suspect Mussina is getting at the same thing. As great as Rivera has been, he isn't perfect. In that context, I don't see why Mussina saying that is a big deal.
[27] You can look at it that way but the fact is they lost two World Series on Rivera's watch since Mussina arrived. How many runs he allowed is irrelevant to what Mussina's saying, which is what I'm addressing. I mean he could allow a lot more than 5 runs and still not blow a save or lose a game in the post-season, so I think it's actually irrelevant in general. It's when you allow the runs and what the result is that matters. Winning being the good result, losing the bad.
[26] I don't know what you mean. What happened to the whole justification thing?
[41] mussina isn't saying mariano isn't perfect. mussina is saying:
"...since I’ve been here, he has accomplished nothing in comparison to what he accomplished the four years before."
"He blew the World Series in ‘01."
"He lost the Boston series."
(His contradictory toss away qualifier that "he didn't lose it himself, but..." really doesn't lessen the impact since he concludes...)
"...That’s what I remember about the ‘04 series.”
It's a team game, and it takes 4 losses to lose a series. And where is Rivera's comment about Mussina blowing the Detroit series? Or either Anaheim series?
Just as long as Mo doesn't go all Donnie Moore on us after blowing a save, I'll be happy to have him relieving in a playoff game ...
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/A59k
Don't forget Mussina himself failed in Game 1 of the 2001 WS. That didn't help. I got a funny feeling about the whole endeavor right then and there.
[42] Depending on what "on Rivera's watch" means, they lost one world series with him on the mound. they have lost 2 other series in which he has blown a save (cleveland and boston).
plus the cleveland and the boston games resulted in TIES. how about the rest of the team taking responsibility from that point on?
[43] I simply don't have the words to articulate it any further for you, my bad.
Moose's Yankee post-season stats, with opponent's plate appearances
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/tX7V
Back to present-day baseball for a minute, Mets sign Oliver Perez...
[48] Well to your question, I don't the idea is that people should read the book, period - but that they should read it before they make their minds up about it, which is a reasonable request.
[47] They can take responsibility for themselves, and Mo can for himself. When I say on his watch, I mean his job is to protect a lead (or tie), so when he's doing his job it's "on his watch".
It makes no sense to give credit to Rivera for his part in Yankee success without recognizing he also contributed to Yankee failure. If anything it's testament to his status that he has been that kind of fulcrum for the team for so long. (Though in the post-season it hasn't really been the case as much of late!)
[50]
Over-pa-id .... over-pa-id .... over-pa-id ...
[52] I don't think anybody wants to gloss over Mariano's role in the losses. Nor give him all the credit for the wins.
The point is that MUSSINA boils everything down to Mariano's performances, which is absurd, especially given his own poor outings have been a bigger factor in the Yanks recent post season struggles than Rivera's.
You also said the Yanks lost 2 world series on his watch, which they didn't. The 04 series was the ALCS and they still had 4 chances to win after his only poor outing of the series. mariano faltered and then the team as a whole could not summon a victory from tie-game top of the 10th in game 4 thru game 7. mariano should take a lot of blame for that, but not nearly the blame that mussina wants to assign.
[52] I think you're choosing to believe that Mussina "boils everything down" to Mariano's performances. And you may be right, but I don't know, and my guess is that unless you're the author(s) of the book and actually performed the interview(s) which led to the more 'interesting' quotes from Mussina, you'll never really know either.
Maybe they discussed everyone on the roster for the last 8 seasons, in depth, over the course of 50 hours of conversations. Or maybe these quotes are basically "everything" Mussina had to say. Regardless of how Verducci and Torre couch it in the book, we'll never really know.
Oops, sorry, was responding to [54] in [55], my bad ref'ing to [52]
[53] Did somebody say Citi Field?? >;)
[54] I did "mis-speak" about '04, but the point remains the same.
As far as you not thinking anyone wants to gloss over Rivera's role in the losses, I suggest you read through these comments one more time!
If you do, btw, you will also see that I am record as saying Mussina is being too harsh, too. The bottom line here though is if you count 97 as a failure on Mo's part - which it was, I think, pretty obviously - then you count '04 too - not just '01. So that adds up to two post-season moments - or three if you count 04's game 5 - after Musssina arrived, vs one before he arrived.
I mean, if throwing the exact losing pitch in a series is the only thing considered Rivera's fault, then yeah, he's perfect except in '01.
The idea of assigning the loss of a 7 game series to one player because of 1 or 2 events out of 100, is NUTS. I really thought that went out with Bill Buckner.
And somehow, looking at Mo's stats, and knowing how many times he has saved our bacon, I can not be confortable with ever calling him a failure.
If in a year of 600 AB, a player bats .500 and posts an OBP of .600, while it may be technically correct, is it really an accurate and descriptive statement to say 'he failed' 40% of the time? To say he failed, is to imply we expected success. Players don't succeed 100% of the time.
Right, but if you're using the nomenclature of succeed/fail, when they don't succeed, logically, they fail. Semantical objections may apply so if there's a better term I'll go along with it.
Mariano Rivera is a legendary, amazing player, but he's not perfect. In fact as I mentioned before, not calling a spade a spade vis a vis the times he's fai--- errr came up short (?) takes away from his accomplishments, which are pretty darned impressive.
And somehow, looking at Mo’s stats, and knowing how many times he has saved our bacon, I can not be confortable with ever calling him a failure.
No one is calling him a failure. In my case, I'm simply saying he failed.