Diamondbacks 4, Rockies 3: Notes on a fuzzy viewing
Record: 25-15. Pace: 101-61. Change on last season: +4
The good news is, yes, The Sets now has wi-fi. The bad news is, my PC never went past "Acquiring network address", so full connectivity proved elusive this evening. Still, I was able to watch some of the game, albeit on a TV with a dodgy cable connection. This was a different one from last week's frozen mosaic device: this one was old-school lines and static. Still, he are are my notes, pretty much written as the game unfolded. I arrived just in time to see Eric Byrnes' first at-bat of the evening, which can only be described as possessing all the hideous fascination of a car-accident. Even when he was 3-0 ahead, you knew it was going to end in another Flying Nun, and after swinging at ball four, that's exactly what happened as he struck out swinging. There were some poignant and painfully appropriate signs in the crowd: the one that sticks in my mind said "Eric: don't hit it here. Just hit it."
De La Rosa had a very nice curveball; makes you wonder if he'll eventually be another one of those pitchers we look back on and regret trading away [a.k.a. the Brad Penny Hall of Fame]. Turns out he passed through our organization not once, but twice: we signed him back in March 1998, then sold him to Monterrey in 2000, before his brief transit as part of both the Schilling and Sexson trades. He struck out Owings and Young with it in the third, despite the sign in the crowd saying "Our lineup has nine hitters. Does yours?" - the more cynical among you are probably muttering that this is being somewhat kind to certain members of said lineup. Interesting to see Snyder trying to drop down a bunt with Reynolds on first. Not many times you'll see the #8 hitter in an NL lineup doing that, with the pitcher on deck. Just another way that the presence of Pwnings changes the dynamics of the game.
Owings was pitching with admirable efficiency - well, from what I can tell anyway. The entire top of the fourth, bar the final fly-ball, happened in the time it took me to write the above paragraph [my laptop is out of sight of the television, so I keep having to scurry across the bar, watch some baseball, and then run back to our table.] We finally broke through in the bottom of the fourth; a Drew double, an infield single by Hudson, and a Jackson single, spectacularly misplayed into a double by Hawpe, which brought the first run home. The Rockies walked Upton to get to Byrnes, who promptly obliged by grounding into a double-play, albeit one that did score another run. He was just trying SO hard, it was...sad and painful and about a dozen other emotions, all in one. The volume was down on the TV - how was the crowd reaction?
Perhaps the biggest hit was Orlando Hudson's two-RBI knock in the bottom of the fifth, that doubled our lead and made the score 4-0. We had men on second and third with one outs, but Drew struck out and it looked as if De La Rosa was going to escape the inning unscathed. However, O-Dawg muscled a bloop into the outfield, and both base-runners advanced. A walk to Jackson ended the Colorado starter's evening with two outs in the fourth, but another free pass, to Upton, meant that Byrnes came up with the bases-loaded again. One headfirst slide later, the inning was over - ironically, just in time for the start of the comedy show, which basically suspended my ability to pay much attention to the game, except sneaking surreptitious glances out of the corner of my eye.
What I did see, in a squinty way, was Colorado gradually pulling closer after Owings left. In contrast to yesterday, while much the same bullpen was in operation, they didn't exactly look lights out - tonight, it was seven hits and three runs in three innings. Each of Qualls, Slaten and Peña were tagged for a run by the Rockies, which meant Lyon was faced with a one-run lead in the ninth. If one pitch can be said to have decided the outcome, it was a 3-1 pitch to Matt Holliday that he thought was ball four: the home-plate umpire disagreed and Holliday grounded out. That proved crucial as Lyon subsequently allowed a pair of two-out singles that put the tying run at third-base. However, he then got Hawpe to pop out to Reynolds, for his fifteenth straight shutout inning, eleventh save and Arizona's 25th victory.
Excellent outing by Owings, who gave us six scoreless innings, on five hits and two walks, with five K's. He got into and out of trouble in the first, loading the bases with one out, but got a crucial strikeout of Atkins and escaped without damage. The Rockies didn't get another runner past second base until the last batter Owings faced, to end the sixth inning. However, Owings did go ohfer, dropping his average down to "only" .370 - he might have been robbed by a call at first, however. Arizona was actually outhit quite significantly by the Rockies, 12-7, but they left the bases littered with wasted opportunities, stranding a dozen men. Drew and Hudson had two hits, the latter also surviving a nasty moment when he stumbled coming out of the batter's box, which led to the grounds crew drying up the area around home-plate.
[Click to enlarge in new window]
Master of his domain: Micah Owings, +31.5%
Honorary mention: Orlando Hudson, +16.0%
God-emperor of suck: Eric Byrnes, -8.8%
Solid turnout in the Gameday Thread - we might even have needed an overflow thread, if I'd been able to get connected. However, thanks to those who did not experience technical difficulties; soco, mrssoco, DbacksSkins, Wimb, unnamedDBacksfan, 4 Corners Fan, kishi (happy birthday!), foulpole, snakecharmer, hotclaws, TwinnerA, isoldout, dstorm, frienetic, dahlian, UptonMVP, batster, srdmad, seton hall snake pit, Zephon and singaporedbacksfan. With tomorrow night's marquee pitching match-up, however, I will be clearing the decks and should be in full effect.
Finally, here's one of those player comparison things:
Left-fielder A: .214/.275/.357
Left-fielder B: .276/.343/.429
I think we all know who Player A is, so let's move on, shall we? Player B, however, might surprise you: Luis Gonzalez, in a less-than-full time role for the surprising (and NL East leading) Florida Marlins. Over on Major-League Jerk, Hef speculates on how Gonzo's career might have played out, had he decided to stay here. It's an interesting domino-esque effect, had Gonzo stayed as the fourth outfielder in 2006, backing up Quentin, Young and Byrnes. Who can say?
0 recs |
49
comments
Read Related
Comments
If Gonzo had stayed
and Byrnes left, I think the Dodgers would have won the division last year and the Diamondbacks would have been the team to collapse in the second half as the elders in the clubhouse turned on the youngsters and blew things up from within.
But on the plus side, we’d still have Q on the roster.
by dahlian on May 15, 2008 3:44 AM EDT 0 recs
Maybe
You have to remember Q hit .180 last year, and that had nothing to do with Byrnes or Gonzo.
by paqs on
May 15, 2008 5:54 AM EDT
up
0 recs
And you have to remember
Q is leading the AL in HR’s and was only 24 when we gave up on him.
by Augie's Army on
May 15, 2008 12:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s not to say that maybe Q would still be hitting .180 if he was here. Probably not, but there’s no way of knowing because we let him go.
by TwinnerA on
May 15, 2008 12:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Q qould be on the roster
because I don’t think the team would have kept Gonzo another after torpedoeing a clubhouse like he did in L.A.
Q would have won the job courtesy of those two greatest words in the English language, “Dee Fault”.
by dahlian on
May 15, 2008 1:16 PM EDT
up
1 recs
+1
for The Simpsons
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 1:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
well..
Stephen Drew hit like crap last year, and we stuck with him.
by Zephon on May 15, 2008 11:40 AM EDT 0 recs
Drew hit .238, but that's still better than Q. We also didn't have another star SS
waiting in the wings, the way we did with CarGo. Unless you want to let Jupton go back to playing short. I don’t know how the contracts compared, though.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 1:36 PM EDT
up
0 recs
But Drew. . .
At least he put the ball in play most of the time. His problem was a sustained lack of luck as he constantly hit balls hard only to see them line right into a defender’s glove. Byrnes pop-up circus is not bad luck, it is rooted in flaws in his mechanics and approach which he is unable or unwilling to correct.
But all of that is beside the point. Being patient with Drew is an easy choice because he is only 25, last year was his first full year in the majors, he is an above average fielder at a difficult position and he only costs $1.5 million a year. Byrnes is 32, this is his seventh season playing regularly, he is an above average fielder at an easy position and he costs $6.6 million this year and $30 million the next 3 years. It’s a lot more difficult to have patience with Byrnes struggles because his contract has limited the team’s ability to lock up other players that are producing and to sign new talent.
This is not speculative, we are due to lose Hudson at season’s end because the organization probably won’t sign him to something in the neighborhood of $15 million per year. Hudson already makes $6 million per year, the Byrnes contract IS the difference. Hudson is a risk with age and injury, but a far better risk to take than Eric Byrnes. Forget Q, I’ll put Salazar out in LF for 2 to 3 years which ensures competent defense and a batter who has shown he is a tough out (and has no delusions about hitting for power which makes him far more effective in big moments). At $400,000 per year, I’ll accept a few fly balls that Byrnes would have rolled up but dropped for hits with Salazar.
Hudson was the horse to bet on. Our GM understood this all too well, too bad his bosses didn’t take the advice they pay him for.
by UofAZGrad on
May 15, 2008 2:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It's not about the Q
The Carlos Quentin love around here is understandable but misplaced. The guy has had a good stretch but it’s a quarter of the way through his first season as an every-day starter. Which is to say, the jury is still very much out on Q’s newfound power and clutch hitting. The Byrnes deal needs to be criticized on its own merits and not compared to Q’s current hot streak. The fact is that it was a bad deal made at the wrong time. And it was made for silly PR reasons as our General Manager was against it but overruled. The contract isn’t bad cause Carlos has been a success so far, it’s bad because the worst case scenario was a slumping Q (or Salazar) without as much defensive speed at the second easiest fielding position but who cost $400,000 instead of $10,000,000 a year.
A major misstep if its the difference between retaining Orlando Hudson and letting him go. Orlando is a risk to break down in his 30s but he has far more consistent play and extraordinary talent than Byrnes ever showed and may be a risk worth taking but Byrnes clearly wasn’t, especially at the time the deal was signed because management could have waited until the off season to fully evaluate Byrnes value.
I like Byrnes a lot but from the last 2 1/2 months of the 2007 season and the first six weeks of the ‘08 season he has given us nothing that a league-minimum scrub couldn’t provide. This year, he is the third highest paid player on the roster for a team that ranks 23rd in the Majors for spending. And his salary will bump up 50% next year. We can’t afford risky signingS like the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets can. But we are stuck, so I say: embrace the suck. GO BYRNES!!!!!
by UofAZGrad on May 15, 2008 2:22 PM EDT 0 recs
I would only point out that,
Quentin’s “newfound power and clutch hitting” is what we were expecting all along—it’s what he showed in college AND throughout his minor league career.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 3:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
yes, but. . .
Point well taken but it’s still very very early to assess Q as a success, especially if he is injury prone. Point in case, Mark Reynolds was promoted last May he came in hitting .442 and had 13 RBIs in his first twelve games. After several hot and cold streaks in the last year, can anyone really say what kind of hitter Reynolds will turn out to be 3 years from now? Q, despite entering the majors a year earlier than Mark, only has 21 more At Bats and has played in only 27 more games than Reynolds.
Baseball is a game of adjustments and the star hitters are the ones that overcome good pitching and the adjustments made by good pitchers to deal with specific hitters. Maybe Q continues his hitting and becomes a guaranteed 35 plus homer and 100 plus RBI guy in the prime of his career. Or maybe he comes back down to earth and starts looking like a decent but journeyman batter that once upon a time lead the American League in home runs and RBI in May. I am just saying that the focus on Q’s exploits as an alternative universe where the the D-Backs have a superstar hitter instead of Byrnes is premature. The Byrnes contract sucks even if you have the Quentin of 2007 because that Quentin was horrible at the plate but he didn’t tie the team’s hands regarding the signing of other players and Byrnes does exactly that.
On the other hand, if Q proves to be a consistent star and puts up these kind of numbers all season long for multiple seasons then I think you can say that the White Sox got themselves a steal not seen since the Patriots snagged Tom Brady in the 6th round of the draft. Really, what did we get for Q in that trade: an IOU for a medium deep-dish pizza?
by UofAZGrad on
May 15, 2008 6:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
We got a single-A ball player
who was then flipped as part of the Haren deal.
The difference is, Q is now in his 3rd year of experience at the ML level and is flourishing, just as the scouting reports predicted he would. Reynolds was amazing when he first came up, then went into a terrible slump as soon as they figured out the holes in his swing. He rebounded towards the end of the year, but he wasn’t predicted to have nearly as much upside as Q was. There’s a pretty strong reason Q was a 1st round draft pick and Mark wasn’t.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 7:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Skins
I grant you all of that but you have to concede that 38 games doesn’t tell you anything about what kind of career this guy will have. He is flourishing now but a breakout season lasts the entire season and isn’t a fluke in the years beyond. No one can make the call on Q at this point cause it’s just too soon. Sure, its technically his 3rd year of experience but he has only played 176 total games and he was generally disappointing for the first 138. The sample size is way too small to say he will be an above-average ballplayer in the succeeding months of this season much less future seasons. His real test is coming as opposing pitchers and scouts pay a lot more attention to him.
As for 1st round, that argument doesn’t hold much water with me. The draft is a snapshot of conventional wisdom, it’s wrong as often as it’s right. Hell, Webb was an 8th round pick, Jake Peavy was drafted in the 15th round and Orlando Hudson in the 43rd round of their respective drafts. I could spend a bunch of time compiling data on all the first round busts in the last few years but you get my point.
In any event, this is all tangential to original argument which is that the Byrnes deal is bad whether Q is the next Prince Fielder or not. And this torturing ourselves over Q’s current run in the first 1/4 of the season is really out of place. The guy’s done well over 38 games and fans are declaring that the Diamondbacks sold Babe Ruth to fund the Eric Byrnes Show on FSN (incidentally, a production loosely adapted from No, No, Nanette). I am just saying that we need to relax over the Q move at this stage.
When he is named an All-Star then we can bitch and moan about what might have been. But more than that, it annoys me that the focus of the Byrnes’ contract backlash is based on Quentin’s production in a few dozen games. So if Q falls back to earth does that make the Byrnes contract a good deal? Of course it doesn’t.
by UofAZGrad on
May 15, 2008 9:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Who said anything about the Byrnes contract being a good deal?
It was a lousy deal even BEFORE Q started destroying the American League. It was a lousy deal because even though we traded away an above average OF, even an AVERAGE… even a REPLACEMENT LEVEL OF would be outperforming EB right now. And doing it for far less money.
You’re right, sure, that being drafted in the first round doesn’t necessarily predict future MLB success. Being drafted in the first round BY THE DIAMONDBACKS just might, though. Look at our last few 1st round picks: CoJack, Q, Drew, Upton, Scherzer. Not a bad run, there, from where I’m standing.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 16, 2008 9:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
College and the minors don't mean a whole lot
Sure, a guy capable of being a star in the Majors is going to rake in the minors and college but the opposite is not true that a college/minors star is going to be that good at the next level. Major League pitching is just a whole other universe. By way of empiric evidence, I give you this line from EB’s bio at Wikipedia: “[Byrnes] finished his career at UCLA as one of the most successful hitters in Pac-10 history with a .331 career average and 75 doubles, a conference record.”
In spite of that early success, Byrnes is a career .264 hitter who has never hit over .300 for a full season. Just three years ago, Byrnes hit .226 over 126 games he played for three different teams. He came to AZ and spiked that average up to .267 in ‘06 and .286 in ‘07. The evidence that ‘07 was an aberration for Byrnes at the plate was strong by the end of the season as he began his tour de fail but the contract was already signed by that time.
The fact remains that it is simply nuts to allocate roughly 15% of your payroll to a good, but not extraordinary left fielder, who hits .260 with comparatively few home runs. I mean, hell, the Team was right to cast off Luis Gonzalez and he is hitting .276/.343/.429 this year (which mirrors his performance in his last two years with us). Compare that to EB’s line: .214/.275/.357. Now I know Gonzo was a liability on defense but after watching almost all of the D-backs games this season I can think of maybe 4 or 5 plays that Byrnes made and Gonzo wouldn’t have. Let’s give Eric too much credit and say that his defense changed the outcome in 3 games in the D-Backs favor. Now, how many rallies has he killed in our losses? How many times did his teammates bail him out by getting runs after he caused one or two unproductive outs in an inning?
Just last night he failed to get a hit or a sacrifice in two innings with the bases loaded and less than 2 outs. That’s 5 LOB for Byrnes in last night’s game alone. By comparison, no other D-Back hitter left more than 2. Right now we are winning and so Byrnes’ lack of production is papered over. Our cries of benching Byrnes will fall on deaf ears as long as we lead the division. And while that’s fine during the regular season, it will handicap us in the playoffs where the pitching is better and the scouting reports get more attention. Byrnes was 6 for 29 in the 2007 post season (and that suckiness is twice as productive as his current 6 for 64 performance). We may be able to hide Byrnes’ bat in the regular season but we will not be able to do so in the playoffs.
by UofAZGrad on
May 15, 2008 8:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Disagree strongly,
a legitimately strong minor league track record that takes into account park factors and age for level is one of the best indicators for future success we have. Looking at Byrnes’ college track record is a straw man because that college hitting is much more prone to fluctuations.
Good teams look at a young player’s track record and they give them the opportunity to succeed at the major league level. They don’t make snap judgments about a player over 230 at bats when they have three years worth of evidence to the contrary. Management has done a good job about believing in their young players like Drew and Young and letting them work through their struggles. Unfortunately, there was one player whose treatment deviated from the norm who was not given the opportunity to develop nor given the same amount of commitment from the organization.
by dahlian on
May 15, 2008 9:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I’d just like to point out that, despite my fervent advocacy, the front office has not (yet) adopted revolutionary ruthlessness as a policy… and I’d also like to point out that we had another wild pitch last night. Coincidence? I think not, ladies and gentlemen.
On the subject of Q – I’m part of the ‘wait and see’ brigade. In fact, I may wait until the end of next season… guys who look brilliant once and then stumble on to a career of mediocrity are hardly uncommon.
by peachy rex on May 15, 2008 4:03 PM EDT 0 recs
"guys who look brilliant once and then stumble on to a career of mediocrity are hardly uncommon."
I’m confused – are you talking about Quentin or Byrnes?
by dahlian on
May 15, 2008 5:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, I was referring to a possible career path for Q… but that does sound like uncomfortably like Hacksie, doesn’t it.?
by peachy rex on
May 15, 2008 5:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
wild pitch?
When you have a catcher in a sumo wrestler stance who can’t even fall sideways to get the 3 to 4 inches needed to get to the ball much less move to the side for a defensive block, wild isn’t required to go past the catcher.
by nargel on
May 15, 2008 5:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I didn’t see the game – should it have been a passed ball?
by peachy rex on
May 15, 2008 5:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Probably.
Snyderman’s glove nicked the ball, but he missed it by a few inches by not moving.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 5:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
In tonight's game I actually saw
Snydes use a stance other than the static sumo one a few times.
So he can use a more agile stance, why the hell doesn’t he use it for more than a dozen at bats this year? He would let a lot fewer pitches through the wickets or past the sides that way.
by nargel on
May 16, 2008 3:45 AM EDT
up
0 recs
The Master of his Domain should be the GOD Emperor of suck at -32%.
I really didn’t think Micah performed that horribly out there for us. He got out a a couple f jams and once he settled down, seemed to do fine.
I would think the bullpen would get lower marks than Micah.
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on May 15, 2008 4:33 PM EDT 0 recs
I'm extremely certain that that is a misprint.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 4:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
- was actually a +
Corrected: it makes more sense now.
by Jim McLennan on
May 15, 2008 4:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ah.
Thought so.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 4:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Thought I woke up in a different reality!
LOL!
long night.
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on
May 15, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Poll
I’m not getting this poll either. Where was all this outrage over booing LAST season or before when one of the rookies made an error and boos would rain down from the crowd?
Seems a bit hypocritical that it is okay to boo a rookie mistake, but lord have mercy when I detest and boo poor performance from an over paid and under performing proven veteran.
The fans that still cheer every time he comes up to the plate: Are those cheers helping him? Then how in the hell are my boos counter productive?
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on May 15, 2008 4:48 PM EDT 0 recs
You REALLY....
....don’t think that a cheer from the hometown crowd and a boo from the same crowd are viewed equally?
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 4:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
but why
would a player expect me to cheer failure?
And why was it acceptable last season to boo a rookie mistake?
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on
May 15, 2008 4:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Who said
it’s okay to boo a rookie mistake? And who said you have to cheer failure?
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 5:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not you
but that is the impression I am getting from some. We didn’t see all this uproar over booing home players until it happened to a popular player. There was none of this ‘outrage” (to quote a poster on the MLB board) when fans were booing rookie mistakes last season.
I would so love for EB to prove me wrong, really. A lot of the times, I just drop my head and shake it as he walks away from the plate.
Standing up and cheering is a LOT more fun than booing, I would rather be doing that.
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on
May 15, 2008 5:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Okay.
Yeah, I REALLY don’t understand people who boo rookie mistakes….
But yeah, like I said in the other thread, I would MUCH rather be proved wrong about EB’s contract than be right and watch him fail.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 5:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Same here!
We are all on the same page, we just are expressing ourselves differently.
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on
May 15, 2008 5:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I keep my piece
as HE comes up to bat.
Depending on how it goes determines my reaction as he walks away. IF there was an effort like you saw last night, hey, at least he tried. But look out if it’s another first pitch pop up or weak grounder for a GIDP, he’ll know I am at the game.
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on
May 15, 2008 5:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You keep your piece?
I’m fairly certain that’s going a BIT too far, and it’s probably illegal in the stadium anyway. Don’t they search you on the way in? Still, this IS the wild west….
On the other hand, it’ll also be the LAST time he knows you’re at the game…
;-)
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 5:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
LOL!
I get a kick going to a few bars that have signs saying to please check in your ‘piece’ with the doorkeep.
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on
May 15, 2008 5:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well,
it IS a right to carry state.
Then again…. this is ONE way to bring a swift end to the contract debate.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 5:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
umm, maybe not
The money is guaranteed, right? Probably goes to his widow which seems fair since she has a higher batting average this season. On the other hand, the salary would be insured in the case of death so the team gets it back unless the case is cracked by a 1940s noir detective.
by UofAZGrad on
May 15, 2008 7:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Argh!
Damn you, Philip Marlowe!
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 15, 2008 7:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well...
In general, I tend to do the opposite of what Dan Bickley suggests, so I suppose I support booing when absolutely necessary.
by Azreous on May 15, 2008 4:50 PM EDT 0 recs
Hey, Jim. We had a brief discussion about the amount of long balls that Ed-it’s-Gon and Micah have given up. I checked it out and according to Yahoo:
Micah 202.1 IP and 27 bombs or .13 per IP
EdGon 239.2 48 bombs or .20 per IP.
Edgar is giving up bombs at just shy of twice the rate that Micah is.
by foulpole on May 15, 2008 6:06 PM EDT 0 recs
Not comparing like with like
About half of Edgar’s major-league innings were when he was aged 23 or younger. Micah didn’t make his major-league debut until he was 24 1/2. Using Edgar’s 24 + 25 year old seasons only, since that’s what you have for Micah we get:
Micah 202.1 IP and 27 bombs or .133 per IP
EdGon 132 22 bombs or .167 per IP
So he’s only about 25% above Micah’s rate.
by Jim McLennan on
May 15, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
1.5 times the rate, really.
"Look, I'm not a financial expert or anything, but I'm pretty sure that a zeppelin is an excellent investment opportunity."
by kishi on
May 15, 2008 7:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I've no issue
with how Edgar has performed for us, especailly this season. He’s what I’d expect frm a 5 or 6 starter. And the times he has been called upon in very short notice, he has gone out there and performed pretty damn good.
Could he have been better at times? Yes. But so could they all have.
You can stand under my umbrella
by unnamedDBacksfan on
May 15, 2008 8:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
good point
When our 5/6 guy matches the performance of the Rockies’ 2 – 6 starters then I think we have very little to complain about.
by UofAZGrad on
May 15, 2008 9:35 PM EDT
up
1 recs
+1
I still support EdGon as our 5/6 guy, despite his often suckage.
Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.
by DbacksSkins on
May 16, 2008 9:32 AM EDT
up
0 recs















