I'm really not trying to pick on Sky

It's just he keeps writing commentaries that are marred with fallacious logic. I'm going to skip to the conclusion of his article:


Even a great closer like Nathan rarely makes a huge difference

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.

Just 3 wins. Last year the Twins won the division thanks to a play-in game. The year before that, the Twins lost the division on a play-in game. 2006, division was decided by 1 game. So 3 of the last 4 years, the division has been decided by 1 game. Also, I know Sky didn't waste time doing any real calculations on this, and couldn't be bother to go here, but Nathan has a WAR of about 2 for the last 3 years.

I love how Sky throws in that "teams pay big money for that kind of production" casually when describing how unimportant Nathan is to the Twins.

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.

I already pointed that out. That's why his injury does matter.

Various experts have the Twins picked to finish around .500 this season, although with no clear leader in the AL Central, one could easily see the White Sox, Indians, Tigers or Twins all having a legitimate chance at winning the division.

What about the Royals?!?!

It's true that the loss of Nathan is a blow to the Twins' chances, but in the big picture Minnesota's championship hopes will rest far more on the performance of the other 24 players in the clubhouse than on whether or not Joe Nathan is healthy.

Good point Sky, the other 24 players are more valuable than 1 closer.

Case closed!