SB Nation Seattle Editor's Pick
CC has wins. Felix has everything else.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 3, 2010 1:05 PM PDT
Email
PrintFirst post. Grill away if you want. I can take it. Grrr.
Preaching to the choir here. But I hear CC mentioned as a frontrunner for the Cy Young in the same sentence as Felix, and I want to blow my brains out. Wins are an archaic statistic that have almost nothing to do with pitching performance. So take away the fact that CC plays for the Yankees, and what does he have? A good line of numbers that are NOT among the top for the American League.
Felix:
-
ERA - 2.38 (2nd in AL)
-
K's - 200 (1st in AL)
-
WHIP - 1.10 (3rd in AL)
-
CG - 5
-
K/BB - 3.39
-
K/9 - 8.52
-
BB - 59
- BAA - .222
- QS% - 90%
CC:
- ERA - 3.02 (6th in AL)
- K's - 165 (7th in AL)
- WHIP - 1.20 (14th in AL)
- CG - 2
- K/BB - 2.54
- K/9 - 7.33
- BB - 65 (in fewer innings, I should add)
- BAA - .239
- QS% - 79%
I explain this to people, and I'm met with different responses:
1. "I don't believe in quality starts as a bearing for performance. 3 ER in 6 IP is a 4.50 ERA. That's awful." Ummm ok. I won't argue the fact that "quality" might be a misnomer with the statistic, but I think you're missing the point. When a pitcher goes out 90% of the time and throws 6 innings and only allows 3 ER, that's BETTER than a pitcher who only does so 79% of the time (or 70% of the time, as is the case for many other pitchers). Arguing the name of the statistic doesn't change the fact that a 90% QS pitcher is more reliable and consistent than a 79% QS pitcher.
2. "Well CC's ERA may be above 3.00, but that's because he pitches at the new Yankee Stadium. Obviously a pitcher will allow more total runs when he pitches half his starts on that small field!" I can reply to this by pointing out CC's Home ERA vs his Away ERA:
- ERA @ Yankee Statium: 2.26
- ERA away: 3.75
All you have here is a pitcher who pitches well at home. Once he leaves the comfort of his home stadium, he's average at best. And I should note something else:
- Felix's ERA @ NYY: 0.00
3. "CC's ERA is only inflated because he plays in the AL East. He's pitching against teams like TB and Bos on a regular basis." Yeah, I have a response for that too.
- ERA against AL East: 3.08
- ERA against Non-AL East: 2.98
Pretty insignificant disparity, no?
Excuses, excuses. Felix is still King any way you slice it. I only hope the voting body takes off their blinders, pulls their heads out of the East Coast's colon, and votes him in despite his "unimpressive" win/loss record.
125 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Holy crap, I just looked at the stats and saw that
Felix has a 0.54 ERA against the AL East. That’s 3 earned runs (with 53 K) in 49.1 IP.
Yes, we have a coupon.
I'm so used to thinking that Felix is a god
that I sometimes forget that Felix is a god.
Better to use FIP/xFIP.
Felix still wins.
Because we’re rebels. Accurate, intelligent, introspective rebels. And damn proud of it my friend. - CapSea
What about Tough Losses? Felix has 7.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 3, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope
This is a pretty saber-heavy crowd; things like WHIP and ERA and “tough losses” (like there are easy ones?) don’t really matter.
by pdb on Sep 3, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
To be fair, the M's are a pretty easy win.
Because we’re rebels. Accurate, intelligent, introspective rebels. And damn proud of it my friend. - CapSea
That might be true for this crowd.
But those are the statistics that will probably be looked at most by the voters. These things matter to the voters, hopefully more so than just the win column.
And because of that, these awards really aren't important.
But it’d be nice for Felix to be acknowledged for what he’s doing. We wouldn’t want him to get increasingly frustrated over the M’s anemic offense, and want to be trade/signed elsewhere down the road in order to get more Wins.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 3, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
You underestimate Walks+Innings/Hits Pitched
by Kenneth Arthur on Sep 3, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Of course we all agree
But don’t complain about people using statistics that have little to do with pitching performance and then bring up whip, baa, qs$% or era. Those are terrible statistics. As are “tough losses”.
Felix has pitched better than CC this year. No question there. There’s a much bigger question of whether Felix has outpitched Cliff Lee, but obviously you don’t bring that up because it doesn’t support your argument that Felix should win the CY.
How are those stats "terrible?"
whip, baa, and era are certainly collectively useful in judging pitching performance. I can grant you there are experimental stats that are theoretically more telling, but that doesn’t discount more conventional measures.
And my post was in the context of CC’s Cy Young worthiness compared to Felix’s. It wasn’t meant to be an argument for Felix winning the Cy Young. My first paragraph plainly states my intentions here. Cliff Lee wasn’t mentioned because it wasn’t relevant to what I was saying. Party C has nothing to do with a comparison between Party A and Party B. But since you Lee up, I assume you’re aware he’s got an 8.28 ERA in his last 5 starts with a .333 BAA. If his back issues continue and he keeps putting these numbers up, he won’t be in the conversation
by Michael Kearney on Sep 3, 2010 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions
WHIP, ERA, and batting average against all migrate responsibility for defence from position players to pitchers
They’re all terribly constructed and of marginal utility compare to real statistics
by Graham MacAree on Sep 4, 2010 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
His post is talking about the Cy Young award though
And sadly the voters (or at least a large majority) don’t follow the advanced statistics so using era/whip etc would seem to make more sense in this case.
That's a better position than trying to argue the comparitive merits of
older stats and newer stats.
If I was a hungry man with a gun in my hand and some promises to keep...
Yes, I know
I replied to a comment, not a post.
by Graham MacAree on Sep 5, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I suppose that would be true if he's trying to predict who will win the award
If that’s the case, I think we all know where Felix stands in comparison to Sabathia.
If, instead, he’s trying to show who’s worthy of the award, then those stats are nearly useless in comparison to other stats that get closer to telling us about the performance of a pitcher, rather than the results, which are heavily influenced by random occurrence, defense, team, and park.
by nathaniel dawson on Sep 5, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I think most people who read LL know that.
I was just trying to explain what (or atleast what I thought) Michael’s overall point was since it seemed to get lost in this discussion.
Yes, what?
Are you trying to predict who’s going to win the award, or are you trying to show who’s worthy of it?
by nathaniel dawson on Sep 5, 2010 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Can't believe I missed this one
I love how you’re arguing against Lee based on his ERA and BAA. Good stuff man.
He's talking about Cy Young voting
What other metric do you suggest he uses?
by cedarA on Sep 6, 2010 3:35 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Wins
if he’s talking about how they will vote.
A myriad of better numbers, if he’s talking about how they should vote.
You can’t cancel out wins and then say “we’re talking about the Cy Young vote, they’re not going to use advanced stats”.
They’re going to use wins. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be the deciding factor, but it’s going to play a part, like it or not.
by dnc on Sep 6, 2010 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, my point was lost in the discussion.
The first paragraph pretty plainly describes my point here. I’m saying CC is not worthy of being in the same discussion of Cy Young frontrunners such as Felix.
The post is inspired by friends who think too highly of NYY, and think their guy is most deserving of the award based solely on Wins. My response is to point out the other common statistics, in which Felix is substantially better.
I’m not trying to argue which stats are/aren’t useful in measuring pitching performance (aside from the fact that Wins aren’t). I know there are better stats than ERA, WHIP, etc, which are more telling. But FIP/xFIP/etc aren’t taken into consideration when it comes to the Cy Young award. Even if they should be, they aren’t.
I’m also not trying to say Felix is necessarily most deserving of the award. Only that he is more deserving than CC.
Again, the problem with your argument
Is that you’re using poor, traditional, conventional statistics to argue why Sabathia isn’t worthy of being in the same class as Felix, despite dominating him in a poor, traditional, conventional statistic.
Your point is correct. Your argument for it is terrible.
by dnc on Sep 5, 2010 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Again, you think I'm arguing something that I'm not.
For some reason you’re repeatedly missing the fact that I’m talking about the Cy Young award. Cy Young award = conventional statistics. Did I mention this is about the Cy Young? Cy. Young.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 5, 2010 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions
If it's about the Cy Young, why are you ignoring wins and losses?
And team wins, and his team’s position in the playoff race? Because if you’re using traditional methods of evaluating a pitcher’s candidacy for the Cy Young, those tend to be heavily relied upon.
by nathaniel dawson on Sep 5, 2010 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Because wins are truly useless.
And with Lincecum winning the award last year, I believe the writers who vote are trending away from using W/L record so heavily.
As much as you feel ERA, WHIP, BAA, etc rely too heavily on factors out of the pitchers control, they are at least mostly based on how a pitcher is throwing, with some qualifications based on ballpark, defense, etc. Wins quite significantly have a bearing on the offense, which puts the statistic into its own category of uselessness.
I disagree that team wins and playoff position have anything to do with the voting. The last two winners were Greinke and Cliff Lee.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 5, 2010 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
That was clearly just a throwaway comment
You’re picking at the stupidest little parts of his argument.
People here are so eager to use their little bit of knowledge to act like douches to everyone else.
by cedarA on Sep 6, 2010 3:30 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 4 recs
I wholeheartedly concur.
This whole comment section was incredibly disappointing.
Fear the NPE
by thewyrm on Sep 6, 2010 5:58 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
now I know
Who knew mentioning the stats heard/seen on KJR, ESPN, FSN, Seattle Times, or any other major media medium would cause such a stir here?
and thanks for actually reading, cedarA.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 6, 2010 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Most of us don't like them because they are bad.
I understand what you’re going for, but for the most part using those metrics in an argument here isn’t going to go well.
by Aaron Campeau on Sep 6, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry for flaunting my 'little bit of knowledge'
I’ll be sure to refrain from doing so again on this site.
by Graham MacAree on Sep 7, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Is your point that while most people here are dicks you're a holier-than-thou toolbag?
That seems like what your point is.
by Graham MacAree on Sep 7, 2010 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
I'm Not sure if you can judge that much of me based on one post
Especially when it’s a response to your completely unnecessary snark .
by cedarA on Sep 8, 2010 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You made a generalization about this entire community based on one comment and insulted people's intelligence
I would hardly call the snark unnecessary in that case.
For the most part, we are only dicks to people who are closed-minded and act like douchebags.
by OlSalty on Sep 8, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
That's a fair point, I shouldnt have worded that more carefully but it was at 3:30 in the morning and I was getting annoyed by people in this thread being dicks.
But don’t you think that if Graham had said something like “You made a generalization about this entire community based on one comment and insulted people’s intelligence” instead of a snarky comment it would have gotten his point across better?
So is it out of line then for me to reply to his snark with my own snark?
Seems like this was an unnecessary pile on.
Some people can snark back at each other here because we know
each other well enough to do so. Do you know Graham at all? If not, then maybe since you are newer the onus is on you to tread lightly at first. You do not get VIP privileges just because you showed up.
also known as...
Welcome to the interwebz newbie!
by Michael Kearney on Sep 8, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Well like I said before
I was just returning the dickishness. I probably should show Graham more respect as he’s one of the most accomplished stat persons here, I’m used to the forum I normally post on.
That said, I don’t think it requires “VIP privileges” to defend myself from a snark attack.
by cedarA on Sep 8, 2010 9:49 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
True
I was just returning the dickishness. I probably should show Graham more respect as he’s one of the most accomplished stat persons here
Also, it’s his blog.
But yes, I realize that the original statement that got you into this was aimed at me and cloaked as “people here” to try and soften it.
by dnc on Sep 8, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don't get me wrong I love LL it's one of my favorite sites, I've been reading it religiously since the first article I read.
And the community here is what makes it so entertaining, but I get annoyed when people use a knowledge of advanced stats to try and seem superior to someone. I think it’s one of the reasons that Sabrmetrics has some negative stereotypes.
Your last line is a fair point, and in defense of us statheads...
…we get extremely frustrated when stats are used poorly or misunderstood, and the crux of this issue was debating whether ERA, WHIP, and BAA are mostly in a pitcher’s control. For all sabermetric purposes, they not. They’re heavily influenced by a number of other things, and are not good indicators of a pitcher’s performance.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
C'est la vie
We came to some resolution further down the page. I understand what everyone’s saying regarding using poor metrics, even if I wasn’t clear that I was posting with regard to the Cy Young. It’s too bad this little tiff had to happen.
On a related note, I think Jeff’s article from today is very reasonable. And it highlights the subjectivity in determining the “best pitcher.” linky
by Michael Kearney on Sep 8, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Let's be fair here, too
Rightfully, I don’t think you can say that they’re not good indicators of a pitcher’s performance. Those measures, over a season, are things that are mostly under a pitchers control. What I think we can say is that there are better indicators of performance, ones that tend to be more consistent over time than those, and thus, more reliable.
by nathaniel dawson on Sep 8, 2010 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I was too gun shy to continue defending myself under this scrutiny.
But I agree with that.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 8, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a slippery slope
I’m pretty sure I don’t agree that most of a pitcher’s BAA is within his control, and not sure I agree with it in reference to the other stats either. Will the best pitchers tend to have the best BAA/WHIP/ERA? Sure.
They tend to have the most wins, too.
If the argument is that these are the metrics the voters will use I can get behind that to some degree, but I think BAA and WHIP will be lesser factors than wins will.
If I were to rank the stats in order of how important I think they’ll be to the voters, I’d say:
1) ERA
2) K’s (counting, not rate)
pretty big drop
3) Wins
4) K:BB ratio
5) GB:FB ratio
pretty big drop
5) some combination of BAA/WHIP/FIP/xFIP/WAR/everything else
This was entirely unnecessary and pretty damn dickish in its own right
by pdb on Sep 7, 2010 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Graham's dickish response gets another dickish response in return
Shocking how that works.
No, your stupid comment got what it deserved
your comment was aimed at “people here” meaning “Lookout Landing commenters and posters,” a demographic Graham is a part of
So if I had said "Some people here are so eager to use their little bit of knowledge to act like douches to everyone else."
Would that have been better? I thought it was clear I wasn’t attacking the regulars here that are actively contributing (Graham being one of the biggest contributors definitely wasn’t the demographic I was talking about).
Maybe next time don't attack anybody?
We’re a pretty easygoing bunch, as long as you make an effort to not be a total tool – especially as a newish person. This place is one of the few on the Internet where reason and calmness pay dividends – read a little bit and you’ll understand that. If you as a new poster come in and start calling people names and insinuating motives, you’ll see the reactions you saw, but if you hang out a bit and try to understand where we’re all coming from it’ll be a much easier ride.
by pdb on Sep 8, 2010 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Next time, just lie back and think of England
it will make the whole process of receiving constructive criticism much easier. Pretty soon you’ll find yourself buggering the next person who shows up and makes a fanpost about ERA or WHIP.
I have to echo this notion.
I’m a lurker/sometimes poster and when I pop into a thread, I usually get some snarky backhanded remark from someone.
Just keep calm, maintain focus on what you’re trying to communicate, and generally the community will pop to your defense, if the person tossing the snark doesn’t directly apologize for ripping into you. It’s a reasonable group, but there is also quite a bit of ingrained abrasiveness.
Just have to dust that part off before engaging in meaningful debates.
If I was a hungry man with a gun in my hand and some promises to keep...
And the more you contribute
the more people understand your tone, sense of humor, and intent, and the more snark you can get away with. Don’t expect your first attempt at snark to be well received if it’s also your first post, because we don’t know you yet.
This is not a place where we keep track of who “wins” or “loses” a debate. It’s a place where reason tries to prevail, and that’s different from a lot of sports web sites, which are basically people talking loud and saying nothing.
by pdb on Sep 9, 2010 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I absolutely agree with all of that.
But often times, even if you’re not being snarky one little bit, you’ll get someone taking a swipe at you. It’s a perfectly normal human response to snip at outsiders, and like I said above, it’s perfectly acceptable because it’s not like a blanket party where everyone starts piling on.
If someone’s out of line, the community will bust them for it. Doesn’t matter if it’s a newer person or a long-time member of the group. That’s probably what makes it work so well.
If I was a hungry man with a gun in my hand and some promises to keep...
That's reassuring and I will definitely continue to post here.
I hope no one has any permanent negative views on me because of this. I’d say I’m generally a reasonable person but when you have 3-4 people arguing at you it can be hard to stay level headed.
by cedarA on Sep 10, 2010 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
At least a few people here have had exceedingly rough introductions to LL
And still continued on to become valued contributors to the community.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Lurker/sometimes poster with several thousand comments
Shudder to think what frequent contribution might resemble.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 9, 2010 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Several thousand SBN comments do not equal several thousand LL comments
This place really is different.
No question.
It’s a premier place, but it’s incredibly different from any other place on the ’net.
If I was a hungry man with a gun in my hand and some promises to keep...
Yes.
However, if you’re going to be snarky, I find it helps to have a specific target rather than a general one. Otherwise everyone will be a dick right back.
by Graham MacAree on Sep 9, 2010 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha fair enough
I’ll remember that for next time.
LOL
I know exactly what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that we should invalidate wins as a metric for the Cy Young award, but use the other poor traditional metrics.
I’m arguing you need to pick a side – use traditional metrics or don’t. Simply throwing out the one that doesn’t fit the conclusion you want is the height of dishonesty.
Use the traditional metrics or don’t. But stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You're reading too far into the post
He was just saying that using the stats which the Cy Young voters take into consideration Felix leads C.C. In every category except wins which are easily the most useless of all pitching stats (and it’s looking like the BBWAA realizes this also)
by cedarA on Sep 6, 2010 3:26 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Reading fail
you obviously have no idea what I’m arguing.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 6, 2010 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions
From reading what you wrote, I got the same idea as dnc
So maybe you’re arguing something else, but it reads as if that’s what you’re arguing.
by nathaniel dawson on Sep 6, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I think he makes a very god point and I don't think he was being dickish, for what its worth.
What in that comment was rude?
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 6, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
So I hadn't read the whole thread until just now.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 6, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Not trying to be a dick
and total brain fart on the “LOL”. My apologies to everyone on that.
But, honestly, I don’t get how you can make the (entirely true) statement that “wins are an archaic statistic that have almost nothing to do with pitching performance”, and then go on to use other archaic statistics that have almost nothing to do with pitching performance.
If that makes me a dick, well I guess I’m a dick.
by dnc on Sep 6, 2010 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
And by "you" I mean the OP, not Double06
Poor diction on my end.
by dnc on Sep 6, 2010 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions
See you're making a leap that the voters wont.
The voters realize wins are a terrible stat, but don’t have knowledge of other advanced stats (like say FIP, xFIP, tERA etc.) so they will base it more upon era/k’s etc over wins.
I guess this is the essence of the disagreement
You’re saying the voters realize wins are a terrible stat. I think the voters realize wins aren’t as indicative as they once thought, but I’m not convinced they’ve been universally dismissed from voter consideration.
Guess we’ll see. Obviously, I’d love to see Felix win it.
Sabathia sucked a fat one yesterday.
So yeah, we’ll see.
We’re all rooting for the same guy.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 8, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Since when did the voters realize wins are a terrible stat?
Every year it’s a prominent part of the discussion, in fact a few of them value wins above everything else and have stated so, for some insanely stupid reason.
by OlSalty on Sep 7, 2010 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry I should have qualified that better.
I meant that if we are assuming that voters are realizing that wins are a useless stat (which seems to be true, at least based on some of the recent articles I’ve been reading). Guess we’ll actually find out when the voting is done.
The LOL was chatspeak and dickish simultaneously.
The content of your arguments are welcome, but several of your comments in this fanpost have had an air of superiority and arrogance that is unnecessary. If it happens once or twice, other commenters sometimes look the other way because it’s difficult to pick up the intended tone on the Internet and you get the benefit of the doubt. But if it happens often enough, someone is going to say something, like I am right now.
by Double06 on Sep 6, 2010 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
Michael, a note on #2
I don’t think Sabathia’s home/road ERA splits (if we choose to use ERA, which we shouldn’t) are a very big factor because Yankee Stadium is a pretty strong hitter’s park – I’d see this a lot more as being luck than an actual indication that Sabathia is better pitching at home than on the road.
Also, Felix’s ERA in NY is completely irrelevant – the sample size is much too small to draw any meaningful conclusion outside of “Felix has been dominant the few games he’s pitched in New York this season,” and we already knew that.
by seattlebruin on Sep 9, 2010 8:36 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Noted
We can take CC’s home/road ERA split as luck more than anything. I’m okay with that. What it definitely doesn’t show, though, is that his home ERA is inflated because of NY being a strong hitter’s park.
And yeah, I just added Felix’s numbers in NY for flavor more than anything. Obviously 17 innings is too small a sample to be even slightly meaningful.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 9, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
17 innings means he pitched two awesome games.
They should give out awards for pitching two awesome games.
They gave an award to Rafael Palmeiro for playing 28 awesome games
M's fan in PA, soon to be LA
by perfectstrat on Sep 10, 2010 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Subject Line
James says Hernandez’s past two years combined compare favorably to the great 1962-63 seasons Don Drysdale had.
Wow, that is really saying something.
The Mariners, by far the worst offensive team in the league, are averaging 3.32 runs per game for Hernandez, the second-worst support any AL starter has gotten. In his 10 losses, they’ve scored just 10 runs. Sabathia, on the other hand, has had 24 starts in which the Yankees scored four or more runs, and 18 of his 19 wins came in those games, plus one loss and five no decisions.
This is a pretty telling paragraph.
Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten? Fuck kittens.
by Matt Erickson on Sep 10, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
It is indeed hilarious--also hilarious are the Yankee fans defending CC in the comments below.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
This line had me rolling:
Hernandez mauls people. He may as well be throwing marbles and bowling balls for all the chance anyone has to really crack him. Half the time he looks as if he’s one whispered suggestion away from ripping the batter’s arm out of the socket and using it to beat him to death. I don’t think the idea that he’s somehow less ace-like than Sabathia is supportable.
I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s been a long day. But the thought of Felix physically ripping off Torii Hunter’s arm and beating him to death with it made me chuckle.
Because we’re rebels. Accurate, intelligent, introspective rebels. And damn proud of it my friend. - CapSea
Posnanski!
Spoiler from the last sentence:
game in and game out Hernandez has pitched better than Sabathia.
Glad others are contemplating the CC/Felix comparison
I feel like I was the first horse out of the gate. But I’m not a horse. And there is no gate.
In other news, Buchholz blew up today. Felix now owns the top ERA in the AL.
by Michael Kearney on Sep 10, 2010 9:09 PM PDT reply actions
Of course, Weaver now has the strikeouts because I HATE YOU MARINERS
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
by JY on Sep 10, 2010 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Felix will get it back tomorrow.
Because we’re rebels. Accurate, intelligent, introspective rebels. And damn proud of it my friend. - CapSea
Probably true.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
New ERA leader: Felix!
Buchholz yesterday: 1 IP, 5 ER, 1 K, 4 BB.
Huh?
On Fangraphs, Felix has 214 and Weaver has 211.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
