Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Darren Posted: July 21, 2007 at 03:19 AM (#2449157)
Bubba Bell continues to rake in AA, where he's hitting ~ 321/375/560. At the rate he and Masterson are going, they're going to surpass Ellsbury and Lester before you know it. :)
   2. JB H Posted: July 21, 2007 at 03:25 AM (#2449164)
Dunno what to think about Masterson. That strikeout rate in A ball is a pretty big red flag. Well below league average and he wasn't young for the league. Everything else about him is encouraging though.

Oscar Tejeda is slumping, OPS below 800. I guess he's not Alex Rodriguez afterall :(
   3. Darren Posted: July 21, 2007 at 03:40 AM (#2449206)
I know it may seem fanboyish, but I don't worry much about the K rate in high-A. Lancaster is such an impossible place to play, I'd suspect that pitchers use a much different approach to succeed there.
   4. Darren Posted: July 21, 2007 at 11:28 PM (#2450050)
Good news: Schilling 3 IP, 2 H, 6 K in AAA.
Great news: Hansen 3 IP, 1 H, 5 K in AAA.

According to the Globe, Hansen has rediscovered his slider recently. He's been getting a lot of Ks but giving up hits as well.
   5. Darren Posted: July 21, 2007 at 11:29 PM (#2450051)
Also, I'm worried about Ellsbury. He's down to .266. I really wonder if they are messing with his swing.
   6. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 22, 2007 at 12:33 AM (#2450083)
Also, I'm worried about Ellsbury. He's down to .266. I really wonder if they are messing with his swing.

I'm not worried, His defense and baserunning justifies a MLB job anyway, and he has fine strike zone judgment too. He'll come around. So he spends a half more year in AAA, not too concerned.
   7. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 12:40 AM (#2450085)
Mills gave up another homer today. The test for him will be next season, but I'd really like him to not be giving up homers and too many hits for his K-rate.

Schilling only threw 40 pitches, so I assume he's got one more rehab start. If he actually comes back good that would be pretty awesome. I assume the general feeling in ST is that Gabbard stays up, Tavarez goes to long relief, and they try to slip Snyder through waivers? Or they could cut Pineiro, but I think Snyder's got a shot at getting through, and he's the one whose job Tavarez would be taking.

Reddick still raking in Greenville, at 318/372/518, showing great power and contact skills.
   8. Ripwa Posted: July 22, 2007 at 02:12 AM (#2450174)
I think Ellsbury's offense has been vastly overrated and he is now coming back to Earth. Their is no doubt about his speed and D, it would be stupid to not believe in those. On that, look at his raw stats and you'll see stuff that isn't great. He hits GBs about 60% of the time, while only hitting LDs only around 12%. When he has his breakout season at Portland he had a BABIP of .500. Over 73 ABs, that is still a huge number. And besides his time this season at Portland, he has never slugged over .438 and has only had an OBP over .400 once. Over 60% if his balls are getting out of the infield. He could play for us even besides all these facts, but i think everyones excitement should be tempered. He is no Johnny Damon. PECOTA likes him to a Wily Taverez/ Chris Duffy kind of player. Looking at his numbers I think those aren't bad comps other than their inability to walk.
   9. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 02:20 AM (#2450188)
Ripwa,

You bring up some negatives for Ellsbury, but he has always maintained a great k/bb ratio and at least reasonable power and good BA. In AAA this year, he's got none of those except the k/bb. Despite that, his overall MLE is still fine for a CF.

Looking at his numbers I think those aren't bad comps other than their inability to walk.


But isn't that difference between a good player and a mediocre one in this case?
   10. 1k5v3L Posted: July 22, 2007 at 02:51 AM (#2450223)
Lancaster is such an impossible place to play, I'd suspect that pitchers use a much different approach to succeed there.


Yes. They pray.
   11. Ripwa Posted: July 22, 2007 at 03:17 AM (#2450255)
Based on what I've seen from him, which is limited, and the numbers I'm looking at, he looks like a player that will be around .300/.380/.430. I think that when you combine his speed and great D, he is defiantly a major league player. I was just trying to point out that their are major problems with his approach at the plate. I think the high end of his abilities are something like .330/.400/.475 and that is not anything like Damon. Damon walks more, strikes out just about the same amount, hits a lot more line drives, a lot less ground balls, and had a much higher power ceiling than Ellsbury. This isn't to say he doesn't deserve a spot on this team next year or he wont be a solid major leaguer, but like most prospects (especially in Boston), he is overrated.
   12. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: July 22, 2007 at 03:26 AM (#2450269)
He's an All Star if he hits what you predict, and an MVP candidate if he .330/.400/.475. I don't really think the first number is out of reach when he's a bit closer to his peak, but not even Damon ever put up a year as good as the second set of numbers.
   13. chris p Posted: July 22, 2007 at 03:27 AM (#2450270)
whoa wait a second. 300/380/430, speed, and great D in center? SIGN ME UP!!! that's a hell of a player!

damon's not a comp for ellsbury at all. damon's more of a hitter. however, if ellsbury's defense is as good as they say it is, he's a much much better fielder than damon ever was.

anyway, ellsbury could hit well short of 300/380/430 and be a "defiantly a major league player" ... if he hits 300/380/430 with his defensive ability, that's a star.
   14. Ripwa Posted: July 22, 2007 at 04:02 AM (#2450307)
My first numbers are not star numbers. Would you call Coco a star when he was with the Indians? He put up a very similar line in 2005. A little more pop and a little less walks. How can he been a star when, if he put up those kind of number would probably be creating 6-6.5 runs a game. That would put him top 50-75. I mean yea, he is great D, but he is not going to be the best defender in the league. He'll probably be a top 3 CF. So, i guess it all depends on what you think is a star. When i hear star i think top 25 player and there is zero chance of being a top 25 players if that is his line.

Damon in 2000 hit .327/.382/.495 to go along with 46 SBs. That was actually what i based those numbers on. He came in 19th that year in MVP voting.
   15. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 22, 2007 at 12:18 PM (#2450382)
Yay Lin at GCL has stolen 7 bags in 23 games, while putting a decent OPS (with a relatively decent amount of walks).

18 year old, adapting to new culture and new baseball? I'd say that's pretty decent.
   16. PJ Martinez Posted: July 22, 2007 at 01:10 PM (#2450394)
2000 was easily Damon's best year. His career line is .287/.353/.431. And he's only stolen over 30 bases a few times-- 29 is his career average in that category.

So I think you're overrating Damon and possibly setting the bar too high for good offensive numbers for a centerfielder-- especially one with the defensive reputation of Ellsbury.

That said, your points about LD% and BABIP seem like solid ones to me, and reasons to temper one's optimism about Ellsbury somewhat.
   17. PJ Martinez Posted: July 22, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2450398)
Oh, also:

"Would you call Coco a star when he was with the Indians?"

Coco was in LF with the Indians. And while he was very good there defensively, that's probably not valuable enough to make those numbers (his best year was .300/.345/.465) "star" quality.

But if he put up those numbers while playing the quality of defense he has this year, I think that might make him a star. Just ask Torii Hunter, whose career line is .271/.324/.470. Granted, Coco will almost surely never hit 30 HRs in a season-- but 20 is not totally out of the question if he has really regained his old form, and he could compensate for lesser power with higher BA and possibly OBP.
   18. PJ Martinez Posted: July 22, 2007 at 01:30 PM (#2450399)
Small self-correction: Coco played more CF than I realized in 2004. I think the general point stands.
   19. chris p Posted: July 22, 2007 at 01:50 PM (#2450404)
6-6.5 rc a game and top 3 defense in center field ... and we're overrating him? i actually think he could be the top center fielder defensively, but who knows.
   20. Ripwa Posted: July 22, 2007 at 03:47 PM (#2450432)
All I am trying to say is that offensively, his peak will probably be top 50. The extreme end of the numbers i gave weren't suppose to be anything. I think there is about a 5% chance of that ever happening. The first numbers i gave you i think are about 50% chance. Than i would probably say there is a 35% chance he is worse than that and 10% he is better than that (plus the other 5%). I don't really know what i'm getting at at this point, but i only see him being a top 75 player around 65% of the time.
   21. chris p Posted: July 22, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2450437)
ripwa, the point is ... you're looking at the offensive numbers by themselves for a player that is supposed to be a top defender in center field. a significant portion of his value is tied up in his defense. if his defense is as good as we're led to believe (and it looks like it is), he could hit like wily tavarez and be a valuable player. the fact that he's probably already better than that means there's a very good chance he could be a very nice player.
   22. Josh Posted: July 22, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2450438)
So, Lester starts on Monday. No word on the corresponding roster move, though a Lopez demotion would be the easiest. (He has options and within the 10 day no-recall period, they could always bring up Breslow if they need a lefty MR and wanted to keep Gabbard in the rotation.) Juggling the last pitching spots b/w Lester/Gabbard/Breslow/Lopez would be a nice solution to Lopez's ongoing battles with suckitude, Lester's failure to earn the promotion, Gabbard's continued pixie dust, and the desire to have a couple of lefties on the staff other than Oki.
   23. Josh Posted: July 22, 2007 at 04:07 PM (#2450441)
I guess Tavarez to the DL is an option, too, fwiw.
   24. JB H Posted: July 22, 2007 at 04:43 PM (#2450459)
Based on what I've seen from him, which is limited, and the numbers I'm looking at, he looks like a player that will be around .300/.380/.430. I think that when you combine his speed and great D, he is defiantly a major league player.


In your previous post you said Ellsbury's offense was overrated, then you say this. I've thought Ellsbury was overrated by people who thought he was gonna hit .300/.380/.430 for a while now. If Ellsbury hits that well in a season he'll be one of the top 15 players in baseball that year.

Ellsbury to me looks to be about half-way between Endy Chavez and Juan Pierre offensively. That's a v good major leaguer when combined with elite CF defense.

The Damon comparisons are kind of funny. I think Ellsbury's actual value to the Red Sox will be pretty similar to Damon's perceived value to the Red Sox. But Damon's actual value to the Red Sox was much higher than his perceived value because people don't really understand that defense matters. I think Damon was likely the best Red Sox player over the four year stretch he was here.
   25. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: July 22, 2007 at 05:03 PM (#2450469)
I guess Tavarez to the DL is an option, too, fwiw.

I thought the word is that Gabbard stays in the rotation and Tavarez is headed back to the bullpen.
   26. Josh Posted: July 22, 2007 at 05:11 PM (#2450472)
Yeah, Biff. I think that is the word with Ede's posts on Boston.com. I was just speculating after EEI's pronouncement but before Edes posted. Or at least before I saw it.

I guess this means they don't think they want the second lefty in the pen for the next series. Makes sense, I suppose.
   27. PJ Martinez Posted: July 22, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2450477)
"I think Damon was likely the best Red Sox player over the four year stretch he was here."

Really? His first two years in Boston seem pretty underwhelming to me.

Interesting news about Lester.
   28. Ripwa Posted: July 22, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2450490)
Who does a .300/.380/.430 line make you a top 15 player in the league? That line would put him somewhere in the range of 75th in OPS. Based on his MiLB numbers, if he hit that he would probably creat around 6 runs per 27 outs. That would put him near 75th in the league, which included his speed. So you are saying that his defense is good enough to jump him over 60 players? That doesn't even make sense. Yea he has great range, but to be an elite defensive player you need to have an arm as well. His arm is very limited. I think he'll be about a top 3 CFer. Are you saying Hunter is a top 15 player in baseball? He played great D and hit a better line than that.
   29. Dan Posted: July 22, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2450495)
Good news: Schilling 3 IP, 2 H, 6 K in AAA.
Great news: Hansen 3 IP, 1 H, 5 K in AAA.


Has Hansen regularly been going as long as 3 innings in an outing? Seems kind of odd.
   30. JB H Posted: July 22, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2450500)
Really? His first two years in Boston seem pretty underwhelming to me.


I remember looking at it probably in 2005 and he was pretty clearly the best over his Red Sox career, but maybe Papi passed him in 05. I'll admit it was a little dishonest of a statement to say in the first place since Manny is basically the only person that was also regular over that same span (unless I'm forgetting someone)

His first year was really really good. 113 OPS+ (and OPS+ underrates him bc he never GIDPs and runs the bases well) and UZR had him being crazy-good defensively
   31. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 06:34 PM (#2450507)
Calling Lester up now is a strange move. I told someone in chatter that there was almost no chance of anyone other than Tavarez starting on Monday because it would necessitate another roster move when Schilling returned a week later. Further, Lester really hasn't been much good this year, and his last month in AAA has been his worst. Giving him the Cleveland offense as his first task in returning to the big seems like setting the dude up for failure (even if his failure might be less spectacular than Tavarez's likely would be.) I can hope that the Sox know more than I do - do Lester's struggles have their genesis, perhaps, in the Red Sox limiting his use of certain of his best pitches? - but this is a strange move on its surface.

Here's the article on Boston.com on Lester. Doesn't really answer my questions.

On the topic of who gets sent down, I hadn't thought of Lopez, but Delcarmen's emergence makes it possible - if the Red Sox need outs against lefties in the 7th, they can go to Okajima and trust Delcarmen for the 8th. Having a second lefty is much less valuable if you can use your first lefty earlier in the game without losing too much value. Lopez makes all the sense in the world.

But the question of who goes when Schilling returns, that remains. I guess it would be Gabbard, now, but that's pretty weird, as he seems to be establishing himself as a guy who deserves the opportunity to fail. I could see keeping Gabbard as a lefty in the bullpen, though, so maybe that's the plan? Dump Snyder, keep Gabbard as long man / 6th inning loogy? I guess so.
   32. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2450515)
I remember looking at it probably in 2005 and he was pretty clearly the best over his Red Sox career, but maybe Papi passed him in 05. I'll admit it was a little dishonest of a statement to say in the first place since Manny is basically the only person that was also regular over that same span (unless I'm forgetting someone)
I assume you were using the UZR defense numbers, based on the STATS data which Joe Arthur's research showed to have charged Manny with failing to catch balls that were off the monster? Using pretty basic runs created / replacement level measures, then crediting Damon 8 runs per year for positional adjustment, I have the difference in runs at about 100 over 2002-2005. So, if Damon is +10 per year and Manny -15, then they're about equal. I think that probably overstates Damon's defense a bit, and some of the data on Manny suggests it understates his, but overall it seems fair. So, yeah, Manny ~= to Damon over the span of Damon's contract.
   33. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 07:16 PM (#2450540)
I have the difference in runs at about 100 over 2002-2005. So, if Damon is +10 per year and Manny -15, then they're about equal. I think that probably overstates Damon's defense a bit, and some of the data on Manny suggests it understates his, but overall it seems fair. So, yeah, Manny ~= to Damon over the span of Damon's contract.


If anything that overstates Manny's defense as well. The only way people get Manny as better than -15 is that they calculate him to -15 or so, and then say, "maybe he's actually better than that." If Manny/Damon are equal it says a lot more about Manny than it does about Damon.

You know what they should do? Trade Manny and get ARod! And a pony! :)
   34. JB H Posted: July 22, 2007 at 07:17 PM (#2450541)
I assume you were using the UZR defense numbers, based on the STATS data which Joe Arthur's research showed to have charged Manny with failing to catch balls that were off the monster?

Do you have a link? Those allegations aren't new and I know I've been satisfied to mgl's response in the past, although I can't remember the specifics of either side anymore.
   35. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 22, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2450575)
Has Hansen regularly been going as long as 3 innings in an outing? Seems kind of odd.


Maybe they're turning him into a long reliever. I'd be OK with that.

But the question of who goes when Schilling returns, that remains. I guess it would be Gabbard,

Obviously Piniero will be DFAed
   36. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 07:56 PM (#2450577)
Joe Arthur tracked Manny's home/road numbers in 06 and came up with him actually being only cruddy, something like -10 to -15 runs/162 games. MGL uses a straight park factor of something like .82 for Fenway, which he says adequately accounts for the Wall ball issue. His UZR has Manny as -30 or worse usually. Dial also looked at this issue, and by taking out the Fenway numbers (or something) came up with something like -13.
   37. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 07:57 PM (#2450578)
Here's the thread from Tango's site that I think collates everything the best. Here are the two BTF threads: 1, 2 that Tango drew on.

The numbers seem to me to suggest Manny is a -10 for range and plus a few runs for arm.
   38. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2450581)
Obviously Piniero will be DFAed
1) I would bet against it.
2) That doesn't solve the problem of the Red Sox having 6 starters once Schilling returns.
   39. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2450583)
On Lester, I don't know why he's up. Is he better than Tavarez or do they just want to start working Tavarez into his new role. I cannot see a strong argument that he is better than Lobsterman or Buchholz at this point. It seems like they're sort of punting a game for no good reason.

I would assume that lousy Loogy Lopez goes down to make room for him--he still has options, right?
   40. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:04 PM (#2450585)
-10 to -15 runs/162 games
Right, and given that Manny has above-average arm numbers, and given that Manny plays fewer than 162 games in LF, and given that we're doing retrospective stats, we should probably be subtracting fewer than 15 runs per year from Manny. I think eight to ten is probably more likely the correct debit.

And can we talk about Lester? Why is he getting called up? Does Temple have special information? Why is he coming up (a) after struggling for a month and (b) when Schilling is going to return so soon, leaving the Sox with six starts?
   41. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:04 PM (#2450586)
Good news: Schilling 3 IP, 2 H, 6 K in AAA.
Great news: Hansen 3 IP, 1 H, 5 K in AAA.

According to the Globe, Hansen has rediscovered his slider recently. He's been getting a lot of Ks but giving up hits as well.


Did anyone hear Gammons on The Mike Felger Show talk about how Boras and his team of coaches changed Hansen's motion and that was why he lost his slider? Joe Haggerty wrote about the exchange. Gordon Edes was on a day later and said he had no idea what Gammons was talking about and doubted the story.
   42. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:09 PM (#2450592)
MCOA,

That's a great link. Thanks.


Here's a question that I hadn't though of before: are scorers really scoring balls off the monster as "in zone?" I know that technically the zones include the wall area, but we are talking about Human beings scoring these games. Are those people really looking at the play and checking it off as "in zone" for the leftfielder? Perhaps they do, but I find it hard to believe.
   43. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:10 PM (#2450597)
I see Darren wants to talk about Lester!

I guess you see Lester's call-up as a one-game thing, with Schilling returning for the next start. That's possible, too. It seems odd to me, though, and the rhetoric in the Globe piece really seemed to point to Lester coming up to stay, though there wasn't anything really specific to make that case. A one-game callup actually makes more sense, but the sense I get is that the Red Sox think Lester's ready. Here's Tito's explanation of Lester's struggles:
Francona suggested that Lester's performance might have been impacted by his disappointment that he was in Pawtucket and not the big leagues.

"I think he had some frustrations while he was there,'' Francona said. "He had to fight through wanting to be here and pitching there. I'm not saying that in a negative way. He just felt such a commitment that he needed to be here, helping us win, I think he sometimes had a problem doing his job there, showing some frustration. I think RJ had some talks with him about that, which is good."
   44. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:11 PM (#2450599)
GGMC,

There was a thread here about that Gammons bit. I don't buy it and it's good to hear Edes doesn't either.
   45. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:18 PM (#2450611)
Right, and given that Manny has above-average arm numbers, and given that Manny plays fewer than 162 games in LF, and given that we're doing retrospective stats, we should probably be subtracting fewer than 15 runs per year from Manny. I think eight to ten is probably more likely the correct debit.


First, I should have said /150 games, which is what I think they figure it in. What are Manny's arm scores? I haven't seen those anywhere in a while. Are they good? He looks like he's got a respectable arm, but I would expect that anything based on assists would be subject to a large park factor for Fenway.

Whatever the case, I still prefer to look at numbers in a /150 format in order to get a sense of what the player's fielding skill is. That is, I'm more interested in his skill level going forward than in the number of runs he contributed in the past. Also, if you are looking backward, it's important to note that Manny DH'ing means that someone else has to play the field. That's where it gets dicey comparing him (or any DH) to a fulltime fielder.

I'm not nearly as convinced by JoeArthur's 1 year of data as I am by MGL's multiple years. I'm fairly certain that SG is tracking home/road defense this year, so that will be another data point. Again, though, that data, like Joe's will be based on less granular data than MGL's work, if I'm understanding both correctly.
   46. JB H Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2450613)
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out later

- Lester sucks, although I wouldn't be surprised if he's a competant major leaguer in 2008. Lester should be like the #10 or #11 starter right now, and we only have one starter hurt. I've lost the energy to really care about roster moves and manager decisions that cost the team a fraction of a run though.

- I trust Boras' coaches over the majority of major league coaches
   47. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:25 PM (#2450624)
MCOA,

Why no chatter today? The other thing on Lester is that, at least early on, the guys at SOSH were saying that he wasn't being allowed to throw all his pitches. They said he was working without his cutter, IIRC. I don't know if that was the case or if it still is.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Globe's rhetoric. The "mediot" meme has been done to death, but it seems to apply well to the Globe. They have no problem with including speculation in their articles without clarifying whether it's based on a Red Sox source or the writer's opinion. Edes is the worst offender.
   48. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:29 PM (#2450639)
Why no chatter today?
Chatter computer in living room is offline.
   49. Darren Posted: July 22, 2007 at 08:57 PM (#2450688)
I forgot you got married.
   50. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2451282)
1) I would bet against it.

Check the other thread.
   51. villageidiom Posted: July 23, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2451702)
Here's a question that I hadn't though of before: are scorers really scoring balls off the monster as "in zone?" I know that technically the zones include the wall area, but we are talking about Human beings scoring these games. Are those people really looking at the play and checking it off as "in zone" for the leftfielder?
Yes, in a way. If I understand it correctly, they score it based on the standard zones, which are not adjusted to park dimensions. If it's off the wall 325 feet from home plate and 20 feet off the line, it ends up scored as being in whatever zone is 325 feet from home plate and 20 feet off the line. They don't actually score it as being a catchable ball; they simply assign it to the zone. The ZR and UZR methods do the rest, determining how many "should have" been caught based on league-wide ratios rather than the reality of a 6-foot-tall player in front of a 37-foot-high wall.

I think MGL makes an adjustment to UZR for Manny, moving his home results within range of his road results; but I've never heard from him whether the typical LF'er has a home UZR in line with their road UZR.
   52. Darren Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:32 AM (#2452497)
Reddick 2/4 with 2 HR tonight. This guy's a monster.
   53. chris p Posted: July 25, 2007 at 08:08 PM (#2455037)
MASTERSON ALLOWED A HOME RUN!!!!!!!

besides that, 6 2/3, 10k's, 2 other hits, no walks. he's aight.
   54. Darren Posted: July 25, 2007 at 10:22 PM (#2455150)
You beat me to it, chris. He did allow a HR though. 7 go/3 ao. Good game for the master. He's far better than Joba. :)
   55. Darren Posted: July 25, 2007 at 10:23 PM (#2455152)
In AA this year: 26 IP, 10 H, 1 HR, 5 BB, 32 K, 1.04 ERA. 4.22 GO/AO.
   56. chris p Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:14 AM (#2455414)
so you think he gets a september callup? i do. he could be a decent bullpen option if anybody gets injured. or "injured"

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6861 seconds
41 querie(s) executed