ORS

Got it backwards there, MDC. The 2:1 ratio you want is strikes to balls, not the other way around.

Fun, bah, who needs it! Wonder what Manny DelMeatball does here?

Exactly. There's not much you can say at this point.

Why, they aren't winning anything with Beckett and Lackey pitching like this?

This is silly. All of them will pitch about 1/2 a season (give some, take some) before their first full year, which was clearly the point. If you want to go the semantical route because your point is falling flat on its face, so be it, but it's pretty transparent.

It's your reasoning, not mine, I just took the road to the end. Some do. Lincecum did. Price had about as many starts last year as Hellickson will at the end of this year. Lester kind of did, when he came back from his cancer treatments. There are many, many more examples. Your reasoning is what's off.

What does that have to do with anything? By that logic, Tim Wakefield should be the best pitcher in baseball. Hellickson looks like the real deal.

Top 10? That's a bit bold, but you've shown little fear in your bold predicitons for Yankees in the past. I think he's got quite a bit of work to enter that group. Hellickson is a better shot to make that jump next year. Like y228 says, he needs an out pitch before he makes the leap.

But it isn't tied in as tight as you are portraying it. Several other factors contribute to the team's ability to win games with that pitcher on the mound. The biggest co-contributor is the offense, and the pitcher has f***all impact on how well they do. Let's consider a hypothetical: Do you take a guaranteed 2 ER / 7 IP with the Mariner's offense behind it? or Do you take a guaranteed 3 ER / 6 IP with the Yankee's offense behind it? If I want to win games, it's the latter, if I want the best pitcher, it's the former. Then there's the bullpen. I'll admit, a good start from a pitcher has impact on how well the bullpen will perform, because it's likely a game where the quality relievers will make an appearance. That said, the pitcher hands the game over to another pitcher who has to perform for the team to win. I'm not saying it should be disregarded. I am saying it shouldn't be the forefront of an argument to award the CYA to a pitcher. If there are a couple of guys that perform simlarly in stats that are more indicative of the better pitcher (ERA, WHIP, etc), then I have no problem using wins as a tie-breaker, but it should be down on the list, IMO.

Sure it matters, if you are interested in identifying the best pitcher. That the writers have taken this award off on a "valuable" tangent doesn't change what the award was created for and what it is supposed to mean.

I don't know about that. Nava looked like a competent bat. I'd keep him around, and it wouldn't upset me at all if he earned a spot. McDonald is another story.

Beltre rather than a hurt Lowell has a lot to do with that. Youk doesn't neet to go to 3B, which means VMart doesn't need to cover 1B (until recently).

In, if you all will have me.

Bad play, however unfortunate, like injuries, is part of the game, even for very good teams. In fact, I think you can count on losing more games annually to bad play than you can to losing two MVP level players for a chunk of time. While losing two players that good may be more rare, it's impact is probably more damaging, which is what I think is occurring here.

He does, right now. They still show every shot from his round, and report on what color shirt he's wearing, what he had for breakfast, the size/color/shape/stink of his bowel movements on the broadcast, though.

f***in' hosed. Overrule it. That's not a bunker. Not after half the gallery trampled it.

Look at all the dudes wearing their golf shoes to watch the tournament. It's not like those things are the most comfortable foot attire. That's like wearing your cleats to Fenway.

Does Kohler make hoses, because it looks like Dustin Johnson is going to get hosed on a stupid interpretation of the rules. It will be a shame if he doesn't make the playoff.

I don't care if he's an *******, or pompous, or mean. I care if he spends more time training than he does at his hunting ranch south of San Antonio this winter. I think the propensity to get injured is related to his training, or lack thereof.