Clutch vs. choke - do these numbers mean anything?

[moonslav59]

You have to normalize them. 3.5+ WAR for relievers is a fair number for the MVP level.

 

The chart for relievers would be like this:

 

3.5 or higher WAR MVP

3.5 to 3.3 WAR Super Stars

3.3 to 2.3 WAR All Star

2.3 to 1.75 WAR Good Player

1.75 to 1.1 WAR Solid Player

1.1 to 0.5 WAR Role Player

Below 0.5 WAR Scrub

 

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/

 

Where is “average” on this chart? The middle one? 1.75 To 2.3?

 

If that is what you believe then out of the hundreds of RPers that pitch every season, only very few are average or better. I think your idea of average is not shared by most of the world.

 

From 2017-2019, there were an average of 16 RPers with a WAR above 1.75.

 

That means, according to you (not fangraphs, since they don’t qualify average) only 16 RPers are average or better- out of over 200 pitchers.

Edited August 26, 2021 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

I saw those charts the first time you talked about them.

 

I don’t see anything that says a 1.0 WAR by a RPer is below average or any mention of the word mediocre.

 

It talks about “role players” and “scrubs” but not what the average RPer looks like.

 

Besides, what makes these charts the “facts” you say backs up your opinion?

 

They are not comparing one player to the rest in their charts or terminology.

 

I think you just forgot the debate we had in the other thread.

 

You have to re-scale the chart otherwise it wouldn't be fair for relievers. I just did it for you.

 

As I said in the other thread, Solid players could be translated as mediocre or average and considering that it is the fifth level of the chart.

 

Matt Barnes' best WAR year does not even make what FG calls you Good Player, so if you are below good, then you are something between solid (average or mediocre) which is not a bad thing.

 

OTOH MAtt Barnes has had 5 seasons below 1 and 2 of those 5 seasons below 0.5. In those years which is most of his career he's been nothing but role to scrub player.

 

These charts are provided for the source who actually created the stat, so there's a large evidence and sample to believe that this rule-of-thumb shown in the chart is certain.

 

1.0 WAR/season relievers are Role Players based on FG's chart whether you like it or not.

[moonslav59]

I think you just forgot the debate we had in the other thread.

 

You have to re-scale the chart otherwise it wouldn't be fair for relievers. I just did it for you.

 

As I said in the other thread, Solid players could be translated as mediocre or average and considering that it is the fifth level of the chart.

 

Matt Barnes' best WAR year does not even make what FG calls you Good Player, so if you are below good, then you are something between solid (average or mediocre) which is not a bad thing.

 

OTOH MAtt Barnes has had 5 seasons below 1 and 2 of those 5 seasons below 0.5. In those years which is most of his career he's been nothing but role to scrub player.

 

These charts are provided for the source who actually created the stat, so there's a large evidence and sample to believe that this rule-of-thumb shown in the chart is certain.

 

1.0 WAR/season relievers are Role Players based on FG's chart whether you like it or not.

 

I remember the old debate clearly, and you never answered my questions and points then, either.

 

It’s hopeless.

 

You change fangraphs terminology to your own terms and act like you’ve proven something.

 

Answer just one question. Just one.

 

Does average mean about as many players are better as worse or not?

[iortiz]

 

Where is “average” on this chart? The middle one? 1.75 To 2.3?

 

If that is what you believe then out of the hundreds of RPers that pitch every season, only very fewl are average or better. I think your idea of average is not shared by most of the world.

 

From 2017-2019, there were an average of 16 RPers with a WAR above 1.75.

 

That means, according to you (not fangraphs, since they don’t qualify average) only 16 RPers are average or better- out of over 200 pitchers.

 

Exactly, very few belong from Good to MVP level. Barnes does not belong there.

 

Average/Mediocre is what FG calls you Solid, yes. It is between 1.75 and 1.1. Barnes only has 2 seasons before 2021 in that level.

 

All-in-all and not cherry picking, Matt Barnes, averages something around 0.88 through five complete seasons (2015-2019). That number by definition locates you at the Role Player level based on FG's chart which is not good.

[iortiz]

I remember the old debate clearly, and you never answered my questions and points then, either.

 

It’s hopeless.

 

You change fangraphs terminology to your own terms and act like you’ve proven something.

 

Answer just one question. Just one.

 

Does average mean about as many players are better as worse or not?

 

 

Lets make an example. Let's take 2019. Best WAR year for Barnes.

 

Based on FG's chart only 1 RP is a MVP. Only 1 is a Super Star. Only 1 is an All AllStar. 8 are Good RPs. 30 are Solid players (included Barnes), and the rest are something between Role and Scrub. This portions make sense to me based on one year. Other years will be kind of similar.

 

Answering your question, and based on FG's chart, Role and Scrub are bad RPs and Solid Players could be translated as average/mediocre.

 

Thing is that FG does make a 7-level chart and its thresholds are singular based on their large samples. You wanted to apply a 3-level chart and rate Barnes as a top tier RP. Again, it does not work that way because it doesn't make sense as well.

 

What I've been trying to do is to translate the average/mediocre term in this chart. Since the Solid Level is below the Good Level, then is fair to say that average/mediocre is what FG calls you Solid which makes sense.

[iortiz]

i.e. If you want to apply a rigid average definition here, it won't make sense because several role and maybe some scrub RPs will be in that category —which will not make sense because it is not how it works.

 

The way I see it, FG does not care calling more than the half of the RPs per year, role/scrub RPs. If you suck you suck, it doesn't matter if a lot suck too.

 

Maybe the later will help you to understand how it does actually work in order to give a RP a pedigree — which actually makes sense, because most of RPs are role/scrub/replacement players.

Edited August 26, 2021 by iortiz

[moonslav59]

i.e. If you want to apply a rigid average definition here, it won't make sense because several role and maybe some scrub RPs will be in that category —which will not make sense because it is not how it works.

 

The way I see it, FG does not care calling more than the half of the RPs per year, role/scrub RPs. If you suck you suck, it doesn't matter if a lot suck too.

 

Maybe the later will help you to understand how it does actually work in order to give a RP a pedigree — which actually makes sense, because most of RPs are role/scrub/replacement players.

 

I give up. You can’t answer one simple question.

 

You chose the word “average” not fangraphs, but you won’t admit the misuse of a very clear word. It’s not some “rigid definition” of the word. It is the most common interpretation of a very common and well know, often used word. In no context does average mean you are in the top 20% of the sample being discussed. None.

 

It’s you trying to form a massively off meaning interpretation of the word and concept “average.” Not me.

 

Call a 1.75 RPer, good, solid, very good, decent whatever you or fangraphs wants but it sure as hell is not average.

 

Talk about common sense.

 

Own up and move on.

 

Call him a scrub or role player, but don’t call an fWAR if 1.0 average for a RPer.

 

It just isn’t. You might as well say a .300 hitter is average.

Edited August 26, 2021 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

Lets make an example. Let's take 2019. Best WAR year for Barnes.

 

Based on FG's chart only 1 RP is a MVP. Only 1 is a Super Star. Only 1 is an All AllStar. 8 are Good RPs. 30 are Solid players (included Barnes), and the rest are something between Role and Scrub. This portions make sense to me based on one year. Other years will be kind of similar.

 

Answering your question, and based on FG's chart, Role and Scrub are bad RPs and Solid Players could be translated as average/mediocre.

 

Thing is that FG does make a 7-level chart and its thresholds are singular based on their large samples. You wanted to apply a 3-level chart and rate Barnes as a top tier RP. Again, it does not work that way because it doesn't make sense as well.

 

What I've been trying to do is to translate the average/mediocre term in this chart. Since the Solid Level is below the Good Level, then is fair to say that average/mediocre is what FG calls you Solid which makes sense.

 

Comical flailing.

[iortiz]

I give up. You can’t answer one simple question.

 

You chose the word “average” not fangraphs, but you won’t admit the misuse of a very clear word. It’s not some “rigid definition” of the word. It is the most common interpretation of a very common and well know, often used word. In no context does average mean you are in the top 20% of the sample being discussed. None.

 

It’s you trying to form a massively off meaning interpretation of the word and concept “average.” Not me.

 

Call a 1.75 RPer, good, solid, very good, decent whatever you or fangraphs wants but it sure as hell is not average.

 

Talk about common sense.

 

Own up and move on.

 

Call him a scrub or role player, but don’t call an fWAR if 1.0 average for a RPer.

 

It just isn’t. You might as well say a .300 hitter is average.

I answered the question.

 

I tried to translate average in their chart since the term doesn't explicitly appear, but could be translated as Solid. Good to MVP levels are not average in their chart so the Solid Level should be the level for average/mediocre RPs. Thing is not much are in that category.

 

You just refuse to understand how it does actually work. Most relievers are replacement/rol/scrub players by definition. 1/3 of them are not average/mediocre/solid as you want to rate them in your 3-level chart.

[iortiz]

Comical flailing.

 

Facts are uncomfortable at times lol

[moonslav59]

Facts are uncomfortable at times lol

 

Yes, the definition of average is the fact you can’t get past.

[iortiz]

Yes, the definition of average is the fact you can’t get past.

 

Where would you put an average RP in their chart? I'll wait.

[moonslav59]

Where would you put an average RP in their chart? I'll wait.

 

Why are you so hung up on some chart that is not trying to quantify average?

 

Unlike you, though, I’ll actually answer your question. Average on their chart would be the scrubs and role players.

 

It’s not surprising. Fangraphs has never valued a RPers highly.

 

What you are missing is that they think most or average RPersare scrubs in the whole scheme of player evaluations.

Edited August 26, 2021 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

Why are you so hung up on some chart that is not trying to quantify average?

 

Unlike you, though, I’ll actually answer your question. Average on their chart would be the scrubs and role players.

 

So you like to use their stats but you don't believe in their charts where they rate players and which actually are created by experts in the matter?. Again, it doesn't make sense.

 

Their charts are the fairest way to rate/call a player based on the metrics/stats they create.

 

On average;

 

If average players are scrub/role players, where would you put bad players in their chart? How would you call Solid players in their chart then? How would you call Good Players in there chart? and so on...

 

Once again, it doesn't make sense moon. See?

Edited August 26, 2021 by iortiz

[iortiz]

Some called Barnes an awful RP. Some called Barnes an average RP. Some called Barnes good RP. and so on.....

 

This is why I tried t translate those adjectives in their chart since they are not explicitly called that way, but still you can fairly try to make a translation. No big deal.

[moonslav59]

So you like to use their stats but you don't believe in their charts where they rate players and who actually are created by experts in the matter?. Again, it doesn't make sense.

 

Their charts are the fairest way to rate/call a player based on the metrics/stats they create.

 

On average;

 

If average players are scrub/role players, where would you put bad players in their chart? How would you call Solid players in their chart then? How would you call Good Players in there chart? and so on...

 

Once again, it doesn't make sense moon. See?

 

I never said anything close to what you are saying I said.

 

I said the fangraphs charts are not designed to identify average.

 

You tried to superimpose the term onto their chart.

 

An average player by definition means in the middle.

 

Of course RPers aren’t average when compared to starters and everyday players. That’s why these charts call an average RPer just a role player or scrub. Their value is inherently less than any other position.

 

When you use the word average and RPer together, it means comparing RPers to other RPers. The fact that you can’t understand simple logic like this is beyond any hope of further discussion.

 

Saying someone is an average RPer is way way way different than saying they are an average player, which you are now saying.

 

Barnes is far from and average relief pitcher and that’s what you called him..

[iortiz]

I never said anything close to what you are saying I said.

 

I said the fangraphs charts are not designed to identify average.

 

You tried to superimpose the term onto their chart.

 

An average player by definition means in the middle.

 

Of course RPers aren’t average when compared to starters and everyday players. That’s why these charts call an average RPer just a role player or scrub. Their value is inherently less than any other position.

 

When you use the word average and RPer together, it means comparing RPers to other RPers. The fact that you can’t understand simple logic like this is beyond any hope of further discussion.

 

Saying someone is an average RPer is way way way different than saying they are an average player, which you are now saying.

 

Barnes is far from and average relief pitcher and that’s what you called him..

In the other thread you minimized their charts. Act like a man moon lol

 

Average in terms of good and bad is in between. Thing is most of RPs are below average. FG has made it more sophisticated. They have made more pedigrees in order to rate players in their charts.

 

Matt Barnes is at the Solid Level in their WAR chart in his best WAR year. Solid is not good niether very good. Solid is kind of average/mediocre if you use common sense. it has been the point all along.

 

OTOH Matt Barnes is a career Role Level RP which is not even average in my book.

[moonslav59]

In the other thread you minimized their charts. Act like a man moon lol

 

Average in terms of good and bad is in between. Thing is most of RPs are below average. FG has made it more sophisticated. They have made more pedigrees in order to rate players in their charts.

 

Matt Barnes is at the Solid Level in their WAR chart in his best WAR year. Solid is not good niether very good. Solid is kind of average/mediocre if you use common sense. it has been the point all along.

 

OTOH Matt Barnes is a career Role Level RP which is not even average in my book.

 

Learn what the word average means.

 

Why you keep sticking to that point is beyond me.

 

No way has fangraphs ever said a 0.5 to 1.0 fWAR for a RP'er is below average, let alone 1.0+ like Barnes has been since 2017.

 

Yes, I do have an issue with the terminology they choose to label RP'ers, but I am 100% certain they would never call Barnes average, let alone below average as you have tried to say they do by superimposing your term average over their charts that label players based on comps to everyday players and starters who play much more than RP'er.

 

When you say average RP'er, you are comparing RP'ers to Rp'ers. How hard is it to just admit you used the wrong term?

 

Barnes could certainly be called a below average players when compared to the other 26 players on a roster, but he is and has been way above the average RP'er in MLB, especially since 2017, which is the only Barnes I have been talking about.

Edited August 26, 2021 by moonslav59

[iortiz]

Learn what the word average means.

 

Why you keep sticking to that point is beyond me.

 

No way has fangraphs ever said a 0.5 to 1.0 fWAR for a RP'er is below average, let alone 1.0+ like Barnes has been since 2017.

 

Yes, I do have an issue with the terminology they choose to label RP'ers, but I am 100% certain they would never call Barnes average, let alone below average as you have tried to say they do by superimposing your term average over their charts that label players based on comps to everyday players and starters who play much more than RP'er.

 

When you say average RP'er, you are comparing RP'ers to Rp'ers. How hard is it to just admit you used the wrong term?

 

Barnes could certainly be called a below average players when compared to the other 26 players on a roster, but he is and has been way above the average RP'er in MLB, especially since 2017, which is the only Barnes I have been talking about.

 

I know what average means moon, thing is, it is not translated that way in the FG chart. That’s all.

 

For instance you said that average RPs are role/scrub players. Role/Scrub players are at the bottom of the 7-level FG’s WAR chart. If you are in the bottom of the chart, you are not average. You are way below average, specially if you are a scrub player. Average should be something in the middle, shouldn’t it? The Good Player Level is not average by definition either — Good players are not average lol! So the Solid Level in their chart is more likely what an average RP is.

 

Said that Matt Barnes is nothing but a career Role RP before 2021, based on the FG’s WAR chart. It is a fact and it is not a good pedigree since this level is at the bottom of the chart.

Edited August 26, 2021 by iortiz

[moonslav59]

I know what average means moon, thing is, it is not translated that way in the FG chart. That’s all.

 

For instance you said that average RPs are role/scrub players. Role/Scrub players are at the bottom of the 7-level FG’s WAR chart. If you are in the bottom of the chart, you are not average. You are way below average, specially if you are a scrub player. Average should be something in the middle, shouldn’t it? The Good Player Level is not average by definition either — Good players are not average lol! So the Solid Level in their chart is more likely what an average RP is.

 

Said that Matt Barnes is nothing but a career Role RP based on the FG’s WAR chart. It is a fact and it is not a good pedigree since this level is at the bottom of the chart.

 

The chart was not designed to show what RP'ers are average, above or below. You decided to try and do that- not them.

 

The chart they created is labelling all players, and fangraphs takes a position that most RP'ers have a value of between a scrub and role player. Not just most, but practically all but about a dozen or two, each year.

 

They would never call Barnes an average RP'er or below average RP'er as you said he was or tried to claim they were saying he was.

 

You still don't get it.

 

You say you know what "average" means, but you do not show you know it.

 

If you want to say he's a below average player, that is a totally different thing, and that is what the fangraphs chart is showing.

 

I have a 100 students. Most get between an 80 and a 90. They are average. If I compared them to college students, they'd be below average.

 

Just use the term correctly, or admit you used it incorrectly. You can't and won't.

 

You cling to the idea that Barnes was an average or below average RP'er, even though there are 2 worse for every 1 better.

 

You want us to believe a RP'er in the top 33% or 50% is below average, because fangraphs calls him a scrub or role player. You are mixing up two clearly different forms of evaluation.

[Bellhorn04]

moonslav and iortiz, you two are setting new standards for stubbornness and tirelessness!

[iortiz]

The chart was not designed to show what RP'ers are average, above or below. You decided to try and do that- not them.

 

The chart they created is labelling all players, and fangraphs takes a position that most RP'ers have a value of between a scrub and role player. Not just most, but practically all but about a dozen or two, each year.

 

They would never call Barnes an average RP'er or below average RP'er as you said he was or tried to claim they were saying he was.

 

You still don't get it.

 

You say you know what "average" means, but you do not show you know it.

 

If you want to say he's a below average player, that is a totally different thing, and that is what the fangraphs chart is showing.

 

I have a 100 students. Most get between an 80 and a 90. They are average. If I compared them to college students, they'd be below average.

 

Just use the term correctly, or admit you used it incorrectly. You can't and won't.

 

You cling to the idea that Barnes was an average or below average RP'er, even though there are 2 worse for every 1 better.

 

You want us to believe a RP'er in the top 33% or 50% is below average, because fangraphs calls him a scrub or role player. You are mixing up two clearly different forms of evaluation.

 

In order to be fair, I re-scaled the chart for relievers and see where Matt Barnes is. He’s still at the bottom.

 

Said that if you still think Matt Barnes is at your top tier of your chart based on WAR where btw Mo and few others are, good luck with that.

[iortiz]

moonslav and iortiz, you two are setting new standards for stubbornness and tirelessness!

 

I’m actually practicing my English while having fun lol

[Bellhorn04]

I’m actually practicing my English while having fun lol

 

And moon is the right guy LOL

[iortiz]

And moon is the right guy LOL

 

Yeah but I think I’m going to stop. I have the the feeling he’s getting bit angry. We don’t want that LOL!

[moonslav59]

In order to be fair, I re-scaled the chart for relievers and see where Matt Barnes is. He’s still at the bottom.

 

Said that if you still think Matt Barnes is at your top tier of your chart based on WAR where btw Mo and few others are, good luck with that.

 

From 2017-2019, he's a role to solid player model on your fangraph chart, but all but 15 pitchers a year (48 in the last 3 years) had an fWAR of over 1.75. I am not denying what that chart says. Only 38 RP'ers a year are called "solid" or better by the chart out of over 200 with 30+ IP. "Solid is the middle designation of their 7 categories, so only15 are above average, only 23 are average and a whopping 200 plus are below average, if we go by your reasoning.

 

My point is you are trying to say the chart says he is an average or below average RP'er.

 

The chart does not show that or even imply that.

 

If you issue is the English language and not understanding what the context surrounding the word average means, then I see how you got from point A to point B.

 

In English, when you say someone one is average, it means when compared to others in the group you named.

 

Had you named the group "all players," then a strong argument could be made that Barnes is below average in value.

 

You named the group RP'ers, which means you were comparing Barnes to other RP'ers ONLY. So an average RP'er would not be the same as an average player in value.

 

Here's how you chart breaks down by actual number of RP'ers in each group from 2017-2019 (divided each by 3 to get the average number of pitchers that fall into each category, each year):

 

(2) 3.5 or higher WAR MVP

(3) 3.5 to 3.3 WAR Super Stars

(10) 3.3 to 2.3 WAR All Star

(34) 2.3 to 1.75 WAR Good Player

(70) 1.75 to 1.1 WAR Solid Player

(180) 1.1 to 0.5 WAR Role Player

(200+) 0.1 to 0.5 WAR Scrub

(200)+ at 0 or below (30 IP+)

 

Getting the average for each season from 2017-2019:

1 super star

3 all star (we know more than 4 RP'er made the all star games)

11 good

23 solid

60 role

70 scrub

70+ worse than scrub

 

Barnes placed 21st in total fWAR in that time frame with a 3.5 fWAR. That comes to 1.17 per year or about a 1.2, but go ahead an take his career numbers up to 2021 but not including it, and call him a 3.6 over the 5 years for a 0.7 average year fWAR) making him a "role player" not a "solid player" had we used the 1.17 score.

 

As a role RP'er he would have over 140 RP'ers worse than him and 38 better and about 59 the same. No way is that "average."

 

As a solid RP'er, he'd have 15 better, 200+ worse and about 22 the same- way, way, way better than average.

 

He's not an average RP'er. He's far from "below average" as you wanted to call him.

 

You keep saying my method is flawed, but we are talking about AVERAGE RELIF PITCHERS, so we compare him to only RP'ers. That's how it works.

 

I'm not cherry-picking stats. I'm using the data that compares RP'ers to each others using your preferred stat, fWAR (not mine).

Edited August 26, 2021 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

And moon is the right guy LOL

 

I usually charge for lessons.

[iortiz]

From 2017-2019, he's a role to solid player model on your fangraph chart, but all but 15 pitchers a year (48 in the last 3 years) had an fWAR of over 1.75. I am not denying what that chart says. Only 49 RP'ers a year are called good or better by the chart.

 

My point is you are trying to say the chart says he is an average or below average RP'er.

 

The chart does not show that or even imply that.

 

If you issue is the English language and not understanding what the context surrounding the word average means, then I see how you got from point A to point B.

 

In English, when you say someone one is average, it means when compared to others in the group you named.

 

Had you named the group "all players," then a strong argument could be made that Barnes is below average in value.

 

You named the group RP'ers, which means you were comparing Barnes to other RP'ers ONLY. So an average RP'er would not be the same as an average player in value.

 

Here's how you chart breaks down by actual number of RP'ers in each group from 2017-2019 (divided each by 3 to get the average number of pitchers that fall into each category, each year):

 

(2) 3.5 or higher WAR MVP

(3) 3.5 to 3.3 WAR Super Stars

(10) 3.3 to 2.3 WAR All Star

(34) 2.3 to 1.75 WAR Good Player

(70) 1.75 to 1.1 WAR Solid Player

(180) 1.1 to 0.5 WAR Role Player

(200+) 0.1 to 0.5 WAR Scrub

(200)+ at 0 or below (30 IP+)

 

Getting the average for each season from 2017-2019:

1 super star

3 all star (we know more than 4 RP'er made the all star games)

11 good

23 solid

60 role

70 scrub

70+ worse than scrub

 

Barnes placed 21st in total fWAR in that time frame with a 3.5 fWAR. That comes to 1.17 per year or about a 1.2, but go ahead an take his career numbers up to 2021 but not including it, and call him a 3.6 over the 5 years for a 0.7 average year fWAR) making him a "role player" not a "solid player" had we used the 1.17 score.

 

As a role RP'er he would have over 140 RP'ers worse than him and 38 better and about 59 the same. No way is that "average."

 

As a solid RP'er, he'd have 15 better, 200+ worse and about 22 the same- way, way, way better than average.

 

He's not an average RP'er. He's far from "below average" as you wanted to call him.

 

You keep saying my method is flawed, but we are talking about AVERAGE RELIF PITCHERS, so we compare him to only RP'ers. That's how it works.

 

I'm not cherry-picking stats. I'm using the data that compares RP'ers to each others using your preferred stat, fWAR (not mine).

 

I did the same exercise earlier for 2019 —the best WAR year for Barnes. Go figure. You want to cherry pick 2017-2019, his best WAR years? fine. His average WAR is around 1.1 through these years. i.e. He is at the boundaries where FG calls you Role and Solid player in the re-scaled charts for relievers, and that label certainly does not make you good by any means. I know what average is, see? lol

 

As I said, only few RPs are in-between Solid and MVP levels. Barnes is not in that category if you take his WAR career numbers before 2021. He is nothing but a role player. Below average if you want to feel better lol

 

Again, I know what average is, but it is not explicitly shown at FG's chart, so you have to look where you can locate those RPs who are labeled "average" RPs in the rescaled chart. As I said, the Solid level could be a fair translation.

 

Thing and the root of the problem is, that you don't like how I rescaled the chart which is not rocket science if you take 3.5+ WAR as the new MVP level for relievers which is a fair number in my book. I still not sure why. You still can do it, regardless FG does not have one.

 

Again, if you want to keep rating RPs in the traditional way; i.e. in a 3-level chart (good, average and bad), it will be very primitive and flawed because Mo and few others can't be at the same tier and among of a lot of mediocre and below average (role/scrub) relievers like Matt Barnes.

[mvp 78]

I’m actually practicing my English while having fun lol

 

Act like a man is just the catch phrase.

[iortiz]

Act like a man is just the catch phrase.

 

catch phrase? lol

 

I don't know what it means. Enlighten me.