Texas Rangers Thread

[tko112204]

What did i say that wasn't factual. It's easy to make the claim, but what point did i make in taht post that was false? Tell me - or were you just making a vague comment to defelect attention?

Explain to me how a guy that isn't allowing baserunners or runners to score isn't successful, or how doing so consistently for 2 months isn't worthy of excitement and optimism? I know "Old School" Nolan Ryan is pretty pumped about the guy.

Explain to me what specific areas Ogando is falling short in - after all, a conglomerate stat con only reflect something bad if there is something bad in the individual areas that make up the conglmerate stat.

Also explain to me why getting results at an unsustainably high level means he is going to implode and why it can't simply mean he will eventually settle into a more normal range for effective major league starters.

That's a real interesting point to explore. My guess is if Ogando had a 4-2 record with a 3.50 era and 1.30 WHIP and your other cute stats were in a normal range for a quality No. 2 or 3 ML pitcher you would concede that he is in a comfortable range and there is reason to have hope for him, yet somehow performing at a much better level than that means he will implode? Explain that logic to me.

As for "old school baseball", there isn't a coach in MLB (or minor leagues for that matter) that will discount era and WHIP the way you do. There isn't a coach in MLB that would suggest there isn't a lot of room for excitement about Ogando based on what he is doing. You can be the computer guy who gets his enite understanding of the game off a monitor, but guys that know baseball know better. I can promise you there isn't a manager or pitching coach that would be searching for a replacement for Ogando at this point based on somebody's notion that Ogando will eventually blow up.

Ask your boy Jon Daniels how much he gives a **** about WHIP. Or Theo Epstein, or Joe Maddon.

And here's the part you aren't understanding, I'm not saying Ogando is doing anything wrong. At all. But he isn't doing 1.8 ERA worth of good either. That's my point. He's pitching well, but not 1.8 ERA well, and my point was it's not even that he is dominating. His K rate is pedestrian, his walk rate is average, but he has a .199 BABIP so his stats look amazing.

The correction period will be painful. That's my only point. If his BABIP was .285 right now, and his ERA was still 3.25 or so, I would be very encouraged because that would show a level of sustainability that he isn't showing now. He's either going to have start walking less guys or striking more guys out or he will be a 3.75-4.25 ERA pitcher. Which is great for the middle of an AL rotation. But right now he doesn't have the profile of a front-line starter. And there's nothing wrong with that.

It's silly to keep making me look like I'm bashing Ogando because I'm not.

 

[Stautner]

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/babip/

http://207.56.97.150/articles/ipavg2.htm

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/?replytocom=222


These will make you smarter.

They obviously made you dumber. The thing that really jumps out is that not a single one of these articles is inconsistent with my belief that Ogando's performance to date is worthy of optimism about his future, and not a single one of these articles supports your belief that he will fail as a starter. I also find it interesting to note that none of these articles discount ERA and WHIP the way you do, and in fact they are actually attempts to determine what goes into making up a person;s ERA and WHIP.

FIRST ARTICLE: Says that when a person's BABIP spikes one way or the other it will eventually go back to their career BABIP rates.

It does not say an abnormally strong BABIP means a person will eventually implode. In addition, it says the value in BABIP lies with the knowledge that regardless of spikes, a person's BABIP will eventually settle back to his career BABIP average, and since we don't know what Ogano's career average will be, it can't be assumed that it will end up being on the poor end.

The article also calls the stat "flakey" based on the fact that it goes through dramatic swings. Bottom line is that it says that over time things average out.

SECOND ARTICLE: Analysis from a game maker designed to suck in the computer geek who needs to try and find some kind of understanding in numbers to compensate for not understanding the actual game as it is played on the field. Even so, it lists a hell of a lot of variables and even talks about variables the IPAvg. didn't take into account. The article comes of as more of a theory that has had research behind it but is still in need of further work.

THIRD ARTICLE: From "Fangraphs" - hmmm. Even so, it describes these things as based on assumptions and as a "building block" for pitching analysis, and and not as the key to knowing what is destined to be.

Again, there simply is no rational way to suggest that a guy that doesn't allow baserunners or runs to score is not doing a quality job worthy of optimisim about his future as a major league starter. These articles are all consistent with that belief.

 

[tko112204]

They obviously made you dumber. The thing that really jumps out is that not a single one of these articles is inconsistent with my belief that Ogando's performance to date is worthy of optimism about his future, and not a single one of these articles supports your belief that he will fail as a starter. I also find it interesting to note that none of these articles discount ERA and WHIP the way you do, and in fact they are actually attempts to determine what goes into making up a person;s ERA and WHIP.

FIRST ARTICLE: Says that when a person's BABIP spikes one way or the other it will eventually go back to their career BABIP rates.

It does not say an abnormally strong BABIP means a person will eventually implode. In addition, it says the value in BABIP lies with the knowledge that regardless of spikes, a person's BABIP will eventually settle back to his career BABIP average, and since we don't know what Ogano's career average will be, it can't be assumed that it will end up being on the poor end.

The article also calls the stat "flakey" based on the fact that it goes through dramatic swings. Bottom line is that it says that over time things average out.

SECOND ARTICLE: Analysis from a game maker designed to suck in the computer geek who needs to try and find some kind of understanding in numbers to compensate for not understanding the actual game as it is played on the field. Even so, it lists a hell of a lot of variables and even talks about variables the IPAvg. didn't take into account. The article comes of as more of a theory that has had research behind it but is still in need of further work.

THIRD ARTICLE: From "Fangraphs" - hmmm. Even so, it describes these things as based on assumptions and as a "building block" for pitching analysis, and and not as the key to knowing what is destined to be.

Again, there simply is no rational way to suggest that a guy that doesn't allow baserunners or runs to score is not doing a quality job worthy of optimisim about his future as a major league starter. These articles are all consistent with that belief.

You don't have a clue bro.

 

[Stautner]

Ask your boy Jon Daniels how much he gives a **** about WHIP. Or Theo Epstein, or Joe Maddon.

And here's the part you aren't understanding, I'm not saying Ogando is doing anything wrong. At all. But he isn't doing 1.8 ERA worth of good either. That's my point. He's pitching well, but not 1.8 ERA well, and my point was it's not even that he is dominating. His K rate is pedestrian, his walk rate is average, but he has a .199 BABIP so his stats look amazing.

The correction period will be painful. That's my only point. If his BABIP was .285 right now, and his ERA was still 3.25 or so, I would be very encouraged because that would show a level of sustainability that he isn't showing now. He's either going to have start walking less guys or striking more guys out or he will be a 3.75-4.25 ERA pitcher. Which is great for the middle of an AL rotation. But right now he doesn't have the profile of a front-line starter. And there's nothing wrong with that.

It's silly to keep making me look like I'm bashing Ogando because I'm not.

The thing you aren't understanding is that I have also said a 1.8 era is not going to be a normal range for Ogando. I've said that probably 25 times and how you keep missing it is baffling. I suppose it suits you more to ignore it.

But why does the "correction period" have to be painful? Why can't he go through a period where his era is 4.35 for a couple of months (which keeps a team in ballgames) and it all averages to about a 3.25 ERA over the year? Or why can't it be a single bad game where he gives up 7-8 runs that causes the correction, and then he settles into being a solid pitcher? Why does he have to implode in order for things to average out to a more normal range.? Nothing in your stats that you rely on so heavily says it has to happen that way.

Another thing you don't seem to realize is that the "luck" factor is not a one way street. Sometimes a pitcher is lucky that balls are hit right at someone, and sometimes they are unlucky that broken bat bloops fall in a spot nobody can get to. The way you deal with that is just to see how things go over time, and if a pitcher consistently maintains a low ERA and WHIP then you can't just perpetually pass it off as luck.

And that's really much of what I am saying - you can't make predetermined assumptions based i=on unknown facts. We have no history with Ogando to draw from, so while you can assume he won't continue to average abnormally strong stats, you certainly cannot assume his stats will end up in a low range unbefitting a quality starting pitcher.

I see now you are at least saying that he has the makings of a middle of the rotation guy - hoorah! I've never claimed he was going to be a front end ace, and again I've made that point over and over and over again, but you continue to ignore it. It's flat impossible to have not seen where I have said that over and over - I have to believe eithere you aren't actually reading my posts before you respond to them, or you are ignoring it on purpose.

 

[Stautner]

You don't have a clue bro.

You are good at saying these things, but it's incredibly conspicuous that you can't offer any substance for them.

Go on - tell me where your articles suggest that a guy has to implode in Ogando's situation? Tell me what I said that was incorrect?

I'm sure it will just be the same thing - you only acknowledge what yo want. You are still arguing as if I am saying Ogando is going to maintain the same pace he is on now or that he cannot faile. You argue that because if you acknowledge the reality that I have never once said those things your argument is meaningless. It pretty much is anyway, because even the articles that you provided don't support what you claim.

 

[DIAF]

So I didnt get to see today's game, but I take it that Feliz gave up the go-ahead run in a tie game. Oh, how I wish we had a decent bullpen and another closer candidate. Feliz needs to come out of the pen and be prepped to start, but they can't afford to do it.

Also ah hahahaha @ the current argument that BABIP is meaningless and ERA and WHIP are STATS SUPREME.

Speaking of implode, i see the Great Ogando Correction has begun. I was hoping this would start AFTER Tommy Hunter came back at least, but I guess that was too much to ask for.

Everyone say a prayer, Brandon Webb is making a rehab start at Frisco tommorrow night on a 70-pitch count.

 

[Stautner]

So I didnt get to see today's game, but I take it that Feliz gave up the go-ahead run in a tie game. Oh, how I wish we had a decent bullpen and another closer candidate. Feliz needs to come out of the pen and be prepped to start, but they can't afford to do it.

Also ah hahahaha @ the current argument that BABIP is meaningless and ERA and WHIP are STATS SUPREME.

Speaking of implode, i see the Great Ogando Correction has begun. I was hoping this would start AFTER Tommy Hunter came back at least, but I guess that was too much to ask for.

Everyone say a prayer, Brandon Webb is making a rehab start at Frisco tommorrow night on a 70-pitch count.

Comments about Feliz are reasonable - the guy has sucked repeatedly lately.

Comments about Ogando are ridiculous. The guy has 2 months of trmendous pitching and results and then has one subpar game that is far from a disaster game and it is proof of an implosion. Not even an ounce of logic. Time will tell if a correction has begun, not one subpar game, the likes of which even the best pitchers in baseball have on ocassion.

And, by the way, your sense of overexaggeration is flaring up again. I never said BABIP was meaningless, I said it was a tool and not a tell all. And I said that the idea behind it was not that if a person is playing at an unusually high level it is proof he is going to implode. BABIP does not suggest that at all - it only suggests that there will be spikes (high or low) but that a person's BABIP will eventually settle into about what his career BABIP level is - or in Ogando's case, what it will be since there is no historical BABIP for him. That actually supports my position rather than yours, because BABIP is not based on the notion that a person's stats will eventually get to a more normal average through an implosion, just through an average over time. That could mean a huge one game implosion, or a month of subpar starts, or pitching the rest of the season at the level of a No. 3 or 4 starter rather than at the level of an ace, or jsut through highs and lows that occur throughout the remainder of the season that result in a more normal statistical average. Your suggestion that it can only be through an implosion defies the very stats you are hiding behind.

 

[DIAF]

Comments about Feliz are reasonable - the guy has sucked repeatedly lately.

Comments about Ogando are ridiculous. The guy has 2 months of trmendous pitching and results and then has one subpar game that is far from a disaster game and it is proof of an implosion. Not even an ounce of logic. Time will tell if a correction has begun, not one subpar game, the likes of which even the best pitchers in baseball have on ocassion.

And, by the way, your sense of overexaggeration is flaring up again. I never said BABIP was meaningless, I said it was a tool and not a tell all. And I said that the idea behind it was not that if a person is playing at an unusually high level it is proof he is going to implode. BABIP does not suggest that at all - it only suggests that there will be spikes (high or low) but that a person's BABIP will eventually settle into about what his career BABIP level is - or in Ogando's case, what it will be since there is no historical BABIP for him. That actually supports my position rather than yours, because BABIP is not based on the notion that a person's stats will eventually get to a more normal average through an implosion, just through an average over time. That could mean a huge one game implosion, or a month of subpar starts, or pitching the rest of the season at the level of a No. 3 or 4 starter rather than at the level of an ace, or jsut through highs and lows that occur throughout the remainder of the season that result in a more normal statistical average. Your suggestion that it can only be through an implosion defies the very stats you are hiding behind.

Sorry dude but you just spent two pages dismissing BABIP entirely out of hand as a "trendy stat" and putting yourself on some sort of pedestal as some sort of old-school fan while tko doesn't understand the game or some garbage like that.

Funny, "over exaggeration" is what you have been doing all thread with my argument about scouts and pedigrees.

"Logic" - you mention this a lot but it does not appear to be one of your strong suits.

tko, I think you should just give up arguing with Stautner. It's like talking to a wall.

 

[Stautner]

Sorry dude but you just spent two pages dismissing BABIP entirely out of hand as a "trendy stat" and putting yourself on some sort of pedestal as some sort of old-school fan while tko doesn't understand the game or some garbage like that.

Funny, "over exaggeration" is what you have been doing all thread with my argument about scouts and pedigrees.

"Logic" - you mention this a lot but it does not appear to be one of your strong suits.

tko, I think you should just give up arguing with Stautner. It's like talking to a wall.

First - and I love this one - you claimed the implosion was starting when Ogando gave up 5 runs on April 17th, and he has had 7 oustanding starts since then, giving up only 7 runs total in his next 6 starts. Rather than imploding, he got better. Now, after another game where he gave up 5 runs, you are going to make the same claim.

Let me guess, you are a follower of that preacher who has twice claimed the world was coming to the end only to find it didn't.

Second - and I love this one - your boy that is supposed to be defending your claim that Ogando cannot be a quality starting pitcher has actually said that his stats are sufficient to indicate he can be a good middle of the rotation guy. Seems through all his talke he actually hasn't supported your argument at all.

Third, yes I called the stat trendy, but no I never called it meaningless. More fabrication on your part.

Fourth, your argument about pedigrees speaks for itself. Ogando and Harrison both are making you look pretty silly on that front.

 

[cowboyeric8]

I don't understand the Ogando hate. And as an unbiased viewer, y'all are jumping on Stautner and putting words in his mouth.

No one is expecting him to keep up this pace. I just want a quality starter who doesn't completely blow games keeping our offense in it. Which he is doing.

 

[Stautner]

I don't understand the Ogando hate. And as an unbiased viewer, y'all are jumping on Stautner and putting words in his mouth.

No one is expecting him to keep up this pace. I just want a quality starter who doesn't completely blow games keeping our offense in it. Which he is doing.

Yeah, he's doing that, and much more. Like I have said before, his stats could drop of quite a bit and he would still be a solid starter.

The thing that's funny (among many things) is every pitcher - including the best of the best - have off games. Ogando didn't even have an off game - he had an off INNING, and someone is going to suggest that is a sure sign he is starting to implode? He stayed in the game and shut the Royals down for 2 more innings after that.

When I was posting lst night I hadn't watched the game. I had it recorded and went back later and watched the 4th inning, which was the inning the Royals got their 5 runs. The Royals started the inning with an opposite field bloop single that the batter just got a piece of off the end of the bat, then the next batter hit a routine ground ball to 3rd that took a bad hop, then the 3rd batter hit a line drive to LF that Hamilton could have caught but he misjudged the ball. Two solid hits followed - one a HR - and there is your 5 runs.

In other words, Ogando had a bad 5 batter stretch, and 3 of those 5 batters reached base on unfortunate plays that will go in the pitchers favor almost every time. Well, I will say that with the 1st 2 hits, - those were pure flukes that will go the pitchers way pretty near every time - expecially the bad hop which you almost never see on well groomed major league fields. The one to Hamilton still wouldn't have been a simple play, but it would have been a very makeable play had he judged the ball correctly.

 

[tko112204]

When I was posting lst night I hadn't watched the game. I had it recorded and went back later and watched the 4th inning, which was the inning the Royals got their 5 runs. The Royals started the inning with an opposite field bloop single that the batter just got a piece of off the end of the bat, then the next batter hit a routine ground ball to 3rd that took a bad hop, then the 3rd batter hit a line drive to LF that Hamilton could have caught but he misjudged the ball. Two solid hits followed - one a HR - and there is your 5 runs.

In the context of our argument, this is maybe the funniest thing I've ever read.

 

[tko112204]

You are good at saying these things, but it's incredibly conspicuous that you can't offer any substance for them.

Go on - tell me where your articles suggest that a guy has to implode in Ogando's situation? Tell me what I said that was incorrect?

I'm sure it will just be the same thing - you only acknowledge what yo want. You are still arguing as if I am saying Ogando is going to maintain the same pace he is on now or that he cannot faile. You argue that because if you acknowledge the reality that I have never once said those things your argument is meaningless. It pretty much is anyway, because even the articles that you provided don't support what you claim.

I posted those articles in response to you insisting that pitchers have control over balls put in play. And EVERY ONE of those articles said that within the 1st 2 paragraphs. But you just ignored that.

Then you snidely dismissed Fangraphs like it was freakin' Bleacher Report or something. Than again, I'm sure you've never heard of Dave Cameron, or Jonah Keri, or Carson Cistulli.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. I've made my point, with evidence to support it. That's all I can do.

Some people just don't want to listen.

 

[Stautner]

I posted those articles in response to you insisting that pitchers have control over balls put in play. And EVERY ONE of those articles said that within the 1st 2 paragraphs. But you just ignored that.

Then you snidely dismissed Fangraphs like it was freakin' Bleacher Report or something. Than again, I'm sure you've never heard of Dave Cameron, or Jonah Keri, or Carson Cistulli.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. I've made my point, with evidence to support it. That's all I can do.

Some people just don't want to listen.

Actually, they didn't say pitcher have no control over balls put in play, they said that they may not have as much control as people think. We all know there is a hell of a lot of chance with balls put in play - another one of those things most of us don't need a computer screen to tell us - but pitchers do have an influence. This is just another example of you just hearing what yu want to hear.

Just like suggesting BABIP somehow suggests Ogando is going to implode. It does not. It merely says that despite spikes (up or down), a persons stats will eventually come back to about what his career averages are. It doesn't in anyway suggest that this can only occur throuh a dramatic spike in the other direction.

By the way, we don't actually need BABIP to tell us that things average out over time and that a person on an unusually hot streak is going to come down to earth. At least not those that understand that you can't find all you need to know about baseball in a computer screen. I would bet dollars to donuts you never played. Maybe T-Ball. I have no doubt that any knowledgeable baseball man would tell you that what Ogando has done so far is easily worthy of being excited and optimistic. And by "knowledgeable", I mean someone that knows the game and not just numbers on a computer screen.

The only thing we don't know yet with Ogando is just what level "down to earth" will be, but with how he's pitched so far you have to feel good about his "down to earth" being pretty good. Shouldn't be a lot of controversy in that.

 

[Stautner]

I posted those articles in response to you insisting that pitchers have control over balls put in play. And EVERY ONE of those articles said that within the 1st 2 paragraphs. But you just ignored that.

One more additon to what I said above. I would ask you to consider this (I know you won't): Every AB that a batter doesn't K or walk, he puts the ball in play. Lots of pitchers may have a smilar number of combined Ks & BB's per 9 innings, yet some give up fewer hits and are more successful ptichers. Why do you think that is? Just perpetual good luck? Maybe they keep a rabbit's foot in their back pocket and a 4 leaf clover in thier locker? Or maybe, just maybe, some are better able to limit the kind of contact that more consistently leads to base hits.

 

[tko112204]

Actually, they didn't say pitcher have no control over balls put in play, they said that they may not have as much control as people think. We all know there is a hell of a lot of chance with balls put in play - another one of those things most of us don't need a computer screen to tell us - but pitchers do have an influence. This is just another example of you just hearing what yu want to hear.

Just like suggesting BABIP somehow suggests Ogando is going to implode. It does not. It merely says that despite spikes (up or down), a persons stats will eventually come back to about what his career averages are. It doesn't in anyway suggest that this can only occur throuh a dramatic spike in the other direction.

By the way, we don't actually need BABIP to tell us that things average out over time and that a person on an unusually hot streak is going to come down to earth. At least not those that understand that you can't find all you need to know about baseball in a computer screen. I would bet dollars to donuts you never played. Maybe T-Ball. I have no doubt that any knowledgeable baseball man would tell you that what Ogando has done so far is easily worthy of being excited and optimistic. And by "knowledgeable", I mean someone that knows the game and not just numbers on a computer screen.

The only thing we don't know yet with Ogando is just what level "down to earth" will be, but with how he's pitched so far you have to feel good about his "down to earth" being pretty good. Shouldn't be a lot of controversy in that.

I've been in one of these long arguments on here before, is this how it works all the time? Sweeping ad hominem attacks and incessant repeating of yourself?

These aren't as fun from the inside as they are from the outside. But I did play baseball, for a long time actually. Then I grew up, learned some stuff, and realized I didn't know as much about baseball in high school as I do now.

I watch thousands of innings a year, and take a lot of time studying and analyzing what I see. I use all the tools afforded to me by the statistical revolution going on in baseball and it makes me a smarter fan. I don't have to prove to you how smart I am, or how much I know, I was just trying to give a different perspective on what Ogando had been doing so far this year.

Good debate, see ya on the next one.

 

[tko112204]

One more additon to what I said above. I would ask you to consider this (I know you won't): Every AB that a batter doesn't K or walk, he puts the ball in play. Lots of pitchers may have a smilar number of combined Ks & BB's per 9 innings, yet some give up fewer hits and are more successful ptichers. Why do you think that is? Just perpetual good luck? Maybe they keep a rabbit's foot in their back pocket and a 4 leaf clover in thier locker? Or maybe, just maybe, some are better able to limit the kind of contact that more consistently leads to base hits.

That pitcher is deemed "unique" and given praise for his abilities. After years and years of evidence. That's because there have been and will be thousands and thousands of players in baseball history, and not very many of them are unique.

The numbers work and help you understand what's going on, if you just use them.

 

[Stautner]

I've been in one of these long arguments on here before, is this how it works all the time? Sweeping ad hominem attacks and incessant repeating of yourself?

These aren't as fun from the inside as they are from the outside. But I did play baseball, for a long time actually. Then I grew up, learned some stuff, and realized I didn't know as much about baseball in high school as I do now.

I watch thousands of innings a year, and take a lot of time studying and analyzing what I see. I use all the tools afforded to me by the statistical revolution going on in baseball and it makes me a smarter fan. I don't have to prove to you how smart I am, or how much I know, I was just trying to give a different perspective on what Ogando had been doing so far this year.

Good debate, see ya on the next one.

Tell you what - show me where anything your computer told you suggests Ogandu is going to implode, and I'll concede the debate.

Heck, you haven't even come up with anything that BABIP tells us except that his stats are unusually strong and therefore unlikely to stay at the same level over the long haul and we didn't need BABIP for that. To that all I can say is DUH!

Sorry, but it just isn't that impressive to reach a blatantly obvious conclusion through a lot of stats based on intricate calculations when a little league kid could have told you the same thing.

And it makes it worse to *******ize that blatently obvious conclusion by suggesting that the player has to crash in order to get his statistical averages in line. There is nothing in any of your stats you count on so much that suggests that.

 

[tko112204]

Tell you what - show me where anything your computer told you suggests Ogandu is going to implode, and I'll concede the debate.

Heck, you haven't even come up with anything that BABIP tells us except that his stats are unusually strong and therefore unlikely to stay at the same level over the long haul and we didn't need BABIP for that. To that all I can say is DUH!

Sorry, but it just isn't that impressive to reach a blatantly obvious conclusion through a lot of stats based on intricate calculations when a little league kid could have told you the same thing.

And it makes it worse to *******ize that blatently obvious conclusion by suggesting that the player has to crash in order to get his statistical averages in line. There is nothing in any of your stats you count on so much that suggests that.

I'm not gonna argue anymore with a ******** who continuously insinuates that I know nothing more than what my computer tells me.

I never said he was going to "implode" just that in most circumstances, BABIP normalizes over the course of a season. There are of course exceptions to his (see Cahill, Trevor circa 2010), but I don't like to bet on exceptions, but fans do. And that's what you are, a fan of the Rangers. Whatever you want to call it, a course correction, regression to the mean, or implosion, it's going to happen. He WILL end up with a BABIP around .280 or so, and that's a lot of hits between now and August when he gets sent back to the pen to cap his innings.

You don't have to believe me, or the numbers, I don't care. But acting like I don't know what I'm talking about is dumb.

I don't know exactly what you want me to "show" you that says he is going to regress, because I showed those numbers already. His BABIP, LOB%, and xFIP all show that he hasn't pitched as well as his superficial numbers suggest and that he is due for a regression.

But guess what? It's not just the numbers we've been arguing about either. He still doesn't have a weapon to get LH batters out, he hasn't seen any team more than 1 time except for SEA and KC (not exactly the '27 Yankees or the '95 Indians), Texas is also going to be a much tougher place to pitch the next 4 months than is has so far AND his freakin' BABIP is .199.

So there ya go...

 

[cowboyeric8]

Well he is 5-0, I will take that from a bad pitcher all the time.