So, let me get this straight. He started 33 games, won 7, lost 13, and got no decision in another 13. How good could he have been when so many other pitchers were consistently better than he was?

I guess the disconnect is between what I consider a "good" pitcher and what the majority of fans consider a "good" pitcher these days. It's simply a different weltanschauung of baseball.

Most of the fans who came of age post Bill James/Moneyball have a different idea about what a "good" pitcher is. The idea that getting on base is the ultimate goal in playing baseball has led to the disconnect. And while getting on is clearly important (you need baserunners in order to score obviously), it's been elevated to a stature where people cannot seem to see beyond it and other important aspects of the game have been lost.

And the flipside of getting on base is a pitcher preventing guys from getting on base. The common thread in most of the statistics you prefer for telling you who a "good" pitcher is is that they measure a pitcher's effectiveness in keeping men off base.

I don't believe getting on base or keeping the opponent off base is the object of the game.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

I'm also sure Billy Beane wishes he had not traded away Cespedes, and would have fortified an offense that over-achieved in the first half of the season.

Instead, he got good pitching and no runs scored.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.

8-5
3.91 era (and rising)

_________________

Shark week!

_________________
My Maserati does 186.

Pitchers park,pitchers parks in the division and this loser is @ 4.22 era and losses mounting quickly..

_________________

Buyers remorse on this scrub yet for SF?


9-8

4.40 era

1.24 whip

_________________