SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
5/28-5/31 Red Sox @ Rangers Series Thread
|
Post by jmei on May 31, 2015 22:54:20 GMT -5
I mean how else can you explain why a group of individuals who should be performing better as a team seems totally incapable of doing it? Small sample size.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on May 31, 2015 23:28:04 GMT -5
I mean how else can you explain why a group of individuals who should be performing better as a team seems totally incapable of doing it? Small sample size. 210+ games is not a small sample size. I'd be looking at some common denominators which have a lot of effect on the outcome of wins and losses.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 31, 2015 23:31:18 GMT -5
210+ games is not a small sample size. I'd be looking at some common denominators which have a lot of effect on the outcome of wins and losses. Huh? What does last year's team have to do with this one? Find me the player who was on the team both years who has been terrible throughout. Maybe Buchholz, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 31, 2015 23:37:44 GMT -5
I'm glad to see some echoes of what I've been saying recently. For all of the finger pointing at BC and even at Farrell, while I can't say that they're unjustified to a degree, the bottom line is that the players have underperformed, just about ever single one of them. It's almost all-star game time. Is there any obvious candidate for the team? I guess the rule states that SOMEBODY from the Red Sox needs to be present to represent the team. Pedroia is the only one who is even remotely playing at a level that's close to what he's capable of doing. Tazawa has been pretty impressive. Holt has been handy, not all-star worthy necessarily, but respectable. Outside of that.... It's amazing how many facets of the game this team stinks at. If the pitching is there, the hitting isn't. If they actually score some runs, the pitching fails. If both are reasonably in check, the defense will kill them. If that doesn't get them, the bullpen will. Or maybe a stupid managerial decision. Or a boneheaded baserunning play. There are so many ways to lose a ballgame and the Red Sox are finding every which way to do it. I'm almost convinced that the Sox are capable of generating 36 baserunners in a 9 inning game without scoring. How many baserunners did they have today? More than enough to score more than 3 runs? And then the defense lets them down again. Wow, this team is so bad, it's getting close to the point where I'm going to start rooting for them to lose every day so they can work on getting a #1 draft pick for 2016. What else would there be to look forward to? I mean, with everything that there is, is there really any solutions to the problem? Managerial change? Unless it's Joe Morgan and he brings Morgan Magic with him, I don't see how that changes this deada$$ team. Fire the GM? He's made his mistakes, but I don't think anybody saw this team repeating 90 plus losses again. Trade or release everybody? What's the real solution. I honestly have no idea. I don't think anything can fix this team. Maybe this is where the ridiculous idea of chemistry takes hold. This team has none of it. They just don't have it. I can't define it, but I know when I don't see it. I mean how else can you explain why a group of individuals who should be performing better as a team seems totally incapable of doing it? I think if you take most of the individual components of the Sox, they have useful players, but mix them all together and you got yourself an awful team. you are giving up, redsox040713champs? break the job down into little pieces: 1. Peguero hit 30 HR in AAA in '14 ... give him some ABs 2. You must find a way to get Hanley out of LF 4 days per week. Until Napoli is dealt. (then a realm of possibilities emerge) 3. Ortiz has to sit vs LHP. Just get over Napoli and Ortiz cuz they aren't a core of lineup. We may see Hanley at 3B part-time before the years ends with Pablo at 1B.
His days as an OF are almost over. You can figure it out, redsox040713champs. Then convince management.
What you describe in bold is a managerial failure. 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015 a lotta managerial failing mixed around 3 WS
Yankees have their own failings, lost again tonite. Trotting out a few aged stars every day.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on May 31, 2015 23:42:27 GMT -5
210+ games is not a small sample size. I'd be looking at some common denominators which have a lot of effect on the outcome of wins and losses. Huh? What does last year's team have to do with this one? Find me the player who was on the team both years who has been terrible throughout. Maybe Buchholz, but that's about it. That's my point. we should be looking at what can affect a large variety of supposedly good players to play so badly over such a long period. Call it chemistry if you want, I personally call it management.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 1, 2015 2:40:55 GMT -5
You want some cause for optimism? Here's Swihart's season so far.
Games K% BB% BABIP 1-6 .435 .043 .167 7-15 .241 .000 .318 16-21 .182 .091 .438
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 1, 2015 6:30:36 GMT -5
And now for something completely different ... has Joe Kelly done enough to survive the current round of starting pitching musical chairs? I'd say yes - 2 BB 3 K is not great by any means, but it's servicable, and 70% ground balls looked like a step in the right direction. Here's the SIERAs of the Red Sox starters this season, Kelly's start today not included: Rodriguez 3.11 Buchholz 3.21 Porcello 4.06 Kelly 4.11 Wright 4.57 Miley 4.83 Masterson 4.93 Knuckleball apologists such as myself will of course claim that SIERA is not geared to evaluate knuckleballers properly, and Wright is after all the only Sox pitcher with a sub-4.00 ERA (min 2 GS). Even so, it seems clear that both Wright and Kelly have outperformed Miley. While I have nothing but disdain for the projection systems' treatment of Wright, it is perhaps worth pointing out that ZiPS likes Miley better than Kelly going forward (3.98 ERA vs. 4.35), while Steamer considers it a wash (4.31 vs. 4.33). My best guess is that it's going to be Wright going down (or to the pen) if E-Rod doesn't implode, but it's a decision I'll disagree with. It's very close but my personal choice would be to option Miley. If E-Rod is merely average rather than dominant I might want to option him instead. Don't take this the wrong way, but it's hard to believe that the person who cited these tango tweets would also cite as meaningful/predictive, among other things, 28 innings of a pitcher's ERA and even 40 to 60ish innings of pitchers' SIERA.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2015 6:35:07 GMT -5
Let's blame the manager. Let's blame the GM. Let's blame the hitting coach. I bet if we fire Cherington and Farrell, everything will magically turn around, even though there is no sense that the players have tuned Farrell out. Farrell won't be fired unless Cherington is fired, and Cherington won't be fired (if at all) until the offseason. The Red Sox have not fired a manager midseason since Jimy Williams fourteen years ago and have never fired a GM midseason. Farrell is Cherington's guy, and Cherington is the owners' guy. Not going to happen. Whine all you want, but it's not happening. Blame the players. They're underperforming. Thank you for this. The last few threads have been a repetitive slog on how Farrell needs to be fired and I understand, people are frustrated and he's made some questionable calls, like walking Fielder today. Let's not forget, however, that he would not have been in that position if the batters could have taken the chances they had, or if Pablo doesn't make a mistake. He's pressing for wins, but he's hardly the only one at fault here and firing him or Ben wouldn't fix anything right now. If anything, let's not give in and turn into the Boston media mentality ffs. Let's also not forget that as bad as the Red Sox have been, Farrell walked Fielder when he shouldn't have and they lost. He's not the only reason they lose games, but he contributes, directly for this game.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 1, 2015 6:48:29 GMT -5
I mean how else can you explain why a group of individuals who should be performing better as a team seems totally incapable of doing it? Small sample size. That's certainly true enough, but the sample size has been growing and honestly this years feels like more than a continuation of 2014, which felt like a continuation of 2012. Somewhere in between was the sweet fantasy of 2013.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 1, 2015 6:59:25 GMT -5
I'm glad to see some echoes of what I've been saying recently. For all of the finger pointing at BC and even at Farrell, while I can't say that they're unjustified to a degree, the bottom line is that the players have underperformed, just about ever single one of them. It's almost all-star game time. Is there any obvious candidate for the team? I guess the rule states that SOMEBODY from the Red Sox needs to be present to represent the team. Pedroia is the only one who is even remotely playing at a level that's close to what he's capable of doing. Tazawa has been pretty impressive. Holt has been handy, not all-star worthy necessarily, but respectable. Outside of that.... It's amazing how many facets of the game this team stinks at. If the pitching is there, the hitting isn't. If they actually score some runs, the pitching fails. If both are reasonably in check, the defense will kill them. If that doesn't get them, the bullpen will. Or maybe a stupid managerial decision. Or a boneheaded baserunning play. There are so many ways to lose a ballgame and the Red Sox are finding every which way to do it. I'm almost convinced that the Sox are capable of generating 36 baserunners in a 9 inning game without scoring. How many baserunners did they have today? More than enough to score more than 3 runs? And then the defense lets them down again. Wow, this team is so bad, it's getting close to the point where I'm going to start rooting for them to lose every day so they can work on getting a #1 draft pick for 2016. What else would there be to look forward to? I mean, with everything that there is, is there really any solutions to the problem? Managerial change? Unless it's Joe Morgan and he brings Morgan Magic with him, I don't see how that changes this deada$$ team. Fire the GM? He's made his mistakes, but I don't think anybody saw this team repeating 90 plus losses again. Trade or release everybody? What's the real solution. I honestly have no idea. I don't think anything can fix this team. Maybe this is where the ridiculous idea of chemistry takes hold. This team has none of it. They just don't have it. I can't define it, but I know when I don't see it. I mean how else can you explain why a group of individuals who should be performing better as a team seems totally incapable of doing it? I think if you take most of the individual components of the Sox, they have useful players, but mix them all together and you got yourself an awful team. you are giving up, redsox040713champs? break the job down into little pieces: 1. Peguero hit 30 HR in AAA in '14 ... give him some ABs 2. You must find a way to get Hanley out of LF 4 days per week. Until Napoli is dealt. (then a realm of possibilities emerge) 3. Ortiz has to sit vs LHP. Just get over Napoli and Ortiz cuz they aren't a core of lineup. We may see Hanley at 3B part-time before the years ends with Pablo at 1B.
His days as an OF are almost over. You can figure it out, redsox040713champs. Then convince management.
What you describe in bold is a managerial failure. 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015 a lotta managerial failing mixed around 3 WS
Yankees have their own failings, lost again tonite. Trotting out a few aged stars every day.
Giving up? On the Red Sox or the 2015 Red Sox in general? Red Sox, never. 2015 Red Sox - well let's say that I think they are more likely to grab the #5 pick in the draft than they are to become the 1973 Mets, and both outcome ranges are in play. I've been following the Sox long enough to remember 1991 where they were 50-57 and as befuddlingly bad as this team, and then out of nowhere they went 31-9 and were within a single strike of winning again to pull into a 1st place tie before Jeff Reardon hung a pitch to Roberto Kelly of the Yankees that triggered a collapse in which the Sox lost 11 of 14 to end the season and cost Joe Morgan his job and trigger the dark Butch Hobson days. So I know there's a precedent for being this bad, although playing .500 ball to reach 50-57 might be a stretch for this team. I think the only parallel will be Farrell losing his job. Hopefully they hire better than Butch Hobson. As far as your solutions, it's funny. I was hopeful that Hanley would be signed to play 3b, but honestly I don't know that he can handle it. I would have thought a guy one year removed from SS and willing to play LF, could have been a passable LF, but I was wrong. The problem is that the thought of moving Sandoval, who's barely adequate offensively as a 3b to 1b where offense is mostly what matters, is a big problem, as is his contract over the next few years. Peguero has serious power, but we also know that he'll strike out a ton and probably won't get on base enough. He's intriguing, though, and that's the rub. Most of these guys, on an individual basis, have something that's intriguing or redeemable about them. They all have something that gives you a little hope, but together it doesn't seem to work for whatever reason. And I can't figure it out. If they paid me, I certainly wouldn't mind trying. It's not like I'm the smartest guy on the board here. (I certainly wouldn't have trouble convincing others of that!) ...So maybe I could be the next manager of the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 1, 2015 7:54:27 GMT -5
Don't take this the wrong way, but it's hard to believe that the person who cited these tango tweets would also cite as meaningful/predictive, among other things, 28 innings of a pitcher's ERA and even 40 to 60ish innings of pitchers' SIERA. Well, he never followed me on Twitter, so I needn't fear being unfollowed, eh? And sure, looking only at the projections would not be an unreasonable thing to do, but it doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. I mean, we could go in circles for a couple more pages about the best way to project Wright, but who would want to read that?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 1, 2015 8:11:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2015 8:44:15 GMT -5
Just because everyone is playing like crap, doesn't mean that the manager is exempt from being criticized for making stupid decisions, directly leading to losses like yesterday. Yeah, it would be great if they won every game by 10 runs so they couldn't be harmed by his decisions, but that's not the case.
And for all of the defenses of Farrell, the main one (which cannot be evaluated by any measure) is that he's a good people person, but that's not exactly showing up by getting more out of his players than expected. There is no reason to believe that he is contributing positively in any way whatsoever in the last 200+ games.
Can anyone come up with a reason why Farrell should still be the manager other than "it's not his fault" or "who is better"?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 1, 2015 9:00:41 GMT -5
Can anyone come up with a reason why Farrell should still be the manager other than "it's not his fault" or "who is better"? Sure. The owners have a philosophy as to how it wants the organization to be run. That's why both Cherington and Farrell are signed to long-term contracts. Cherington and Farrell reportedly like working together and have similar philosophies, which are in line with what ownership wants. To get rid of Farrell midseason means changing the managerial dynamic midstream, even if some would think it would help the team in the short-term. Henry stated as recently as February that Farrell is the long-term manager and that ownership would like to maintain the GM/manager stability for a long time. A bad month isn't going to change that. As I said previously, it's not going to happen, so haters will have to wait.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 1, 2015 9:58:05 GMT -5
And for all of the defenses of Farrell, the main one (which cannot be evaluated by any measure) is that he's a good people person, but that's not exactly showing up by getting more out of his players than expected. There is no reason to believe that he is contributing positively in any way whatsoever in the last 200+ games. For what it's worth, I'm not sure his job is to make all of his players overachieve, which seems to be the implication of the bolded part. Maybe that's some kind of proxy for something, but the general idea of "getting the best out of the players" doesn't mean "make all of the players play unexpectedly over their heads." (and as a corollary, I wouldn't say it's completely fair to give him all the credit for that happening in 2013, just like it's not all on him when they play below expectations) As far as his abilities in the clubhouse, at least this season, it does seem like the team hasn't really quit yet when they very easily could have. There have been difficult losses, but they haven't completely fallen apart either - I've seen referenced many times that the club hasn't had a win streak of more than 3 games (or, in the Lou Brown dictionary, a true winning streak), they also have had only one losing streak of more than three games. Things are definitely trending in the wrong direction (3-9 in their last 12 games), but while the ship is starting to take on water, it hasn't capsized yet. That's worth something, especially this year when the AL East division leaders are tied at one game over .500. Not saying he's the best manager ever. I just think he's average-ish and that to come out and wonder why he even still has a job (I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your point?) is kind of out there.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2015 10:01:05 GMT -5
This isn't exactly just a bad month. We're talking over 200 games of disappointing results. This just sounds like you're repeating the strategy of the front office, which I completely understand, not actually coming up with your own defense.
I'm all for a long term commitment to a good manager. I think they picked the wrong guy. I'm still willing to stick with Cherington for the long term because he seems to learn from his mistakes, unlike Farrell.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jun 1, 2015 10:21:04 GMT -5
This just sounds like you're repeating the strategy of the front office, which I completely understand, not actually coming up with your own defense. You asked for a reason. I gave you a reason. You don't like or want to acknowledge the reason. Keep on hating. The Red Sox were 12-10 at the end of April. They were 10-19 in May. Last year was last year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 1, 2015 10:21:50 GMT -5
And for all of the defenses of Farrell, the main one (which cannot be evaluated by any measure) is that he's a good people person, but that's not exactly showing up by getting more out of his players than expected. There is no reason to believe that he is contributing positively in any way whatsoever in the last 200+ games. For what it's worth, I'm not sure his job is to make all of his players overachieve, which seems to be the implication of the bolded part. Maybe that's some kind of proxy for something, but the general idea of "getting the best out of the players" doesn't mean "make all of the players play unexpectedly over their heads." (and as a corollary, I wouldn't say it's completely fair to give him all the credit for that happening in 2013, just like it's not all on him when they play below expectations) As far as his abilities in the clubhouse, at least this season, it does seem like the team hasn't really quit yet when they very easily could have. There have been difficult losses, but they haven't completely fallen apart either - I've seen referenced many times that the club hasn't had a win streak of more than 3 games (or, in the Lou Brown dictionary, a true winning streak), they also have had only one losing streak of more than three games. Things are definitely trending in the wrong direction (3-9 in their last 12 games), but while the ship is starting to take on water, it hasn't capsized yet. That's worth something, especially this year when the AL East division leaders are tied at one game over .500. Not saying he's the best manager ever. I just think he's average-ish and that to come out and wonder why he even still has a job (I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your point?) is kind of out there. I should have written "but that's not exactly showing up by getting anything close to what is expected out of a lot of his players." I don't really like to give managers credit or blame for that, but that's supposed to be his main redeeming strength, isn't it? Or if it isn't, then what good is the strength of being a player's manager?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 1, 2015 10:25:02 GMT -5
This isn't exactly just a bad month. We're talking over 200 games of disappointing results. This just sounds like you're repeating the strategy of the front office, which I completely understand, not actually coming up with your own defense. I'm all for a long term commitment to a good manager. I think they picked the wrong guy. I'm still willing to stick with Cherington for the long term because he seems to learn from his mistakes, unlike Farrell. I think it's defensible to be down on him, so i'm not trying to change your mind or anything. I just think, as far as the bolded part goes, the 200 games thing would mean more to me if there were players who have sucked under Farrell who have been good everywhere else. I don't think the manager makes players play poorly, and while I'll spot you, for the sake of the discussion, that his in-game decisions have probably cost some games, they haven't made the team "disappointing" for 200 games. I'd have a hard time thinking that a manager's in-game decisions can hurt or help a team more than 5-10 games, tops, over the course of a season. I'm also not convinced that there is a demonstrably better manager out there who's available. Before someone brings up Maddon, I'd ask that you give it another month or two, as the Cubs come back to earth, and see how his "crazy uncle" schtick settles in in a market that actually cares about that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 1, 2015 10:28:40 GMT -5
Can anyone come up with a reason why Farrell should still be the manager other than "it's not his fault" or "who is better"? Sure. The owners have a philosophy as to how it wants the organization to be run. That's why both Cherington and Farrell are signed to long-term contracts. Cherington and Farrell reportedly like working together and have similar philosophies, which are in line with what ownership wants. To get rid of Farrell midseason means changing the managerial dynamic midstream, even if some would think it would help the team in the short-term. Henry stated as recently as February that Farrell is the long-term manager and that ownership would like to maintain the GM/manager stability for a long time. A bad month isn't going to change that. As I said previously, it's not going to happen, so haters will have to wait. A bad month? W L RS RA DIFF WPApr 2014 13 13 111 122 -11 .500 May 2014 13 15 115 113 2 .464 Jun 2014 12 16 84 109 -25 .429 Jul 2014 10 15 101 121 -20 .400 Aug 2014 12 16 111 128 -17 .429 Sep 2014 11 15 111 120 -9 .423 Apr 2015 12 10 113 119 -6 .545 May 2015 10 19 82 124 -42 .345
|
|
|
Post by down225 on Jun 1, 2015 10:37:30 GMT -5
Btw, Francona had "a bad month"... look what happened to him! And that was after many good months (and years).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 1, 2015 11:09:57 GMT -5
This isn't exactly just a bad month. We're talking over 200 games of disappointing results. This just sounds like you're repeating the strategy of the front office, which I completely understand, not actually coming up with your own defense. I'm all for a long term commitment to a good manager. I think they picked the wrong guy. I'm still willing to stick with Cherington for the long term because he seems to learn from his mistakes, unlike Farrell. I think it's defensible to be down on him, so i'm not trying to change your mind or anything. I just think, as far as the bolded part goes, the 200 games thing would mean more to me if there were players who have sucked under Farrell who have been good everywhere else. I don't think the manager makes players play poorly, and while I'll spot you, for the sake of the discussion, that his in-game decisions have probably cost some games, they haven't made the team "disappointing" for 200 games. I'd have a hard time thinking that a manager's in-game decisions can hurt or help a team more than 5-10 games, tops, over the course of a season. I'm also not convinced that there is a demonstrably better manager out there who's available. Before someone brings up Maddon, I'd ask that you give it another month or two, as the Cubs come back to earth, and see how his "crazy uncle" schtick settles in in a market that actually cares about that sort of thing. Also, I believe Crazy Uncle Joe (Maddon not Biden) is now on a 5-year deal so no longer available. And I agree with Chris on this. I can't think of another available manager who I could say would turn around this team today. As much as Farrell can drive me and others nuts with his game management, I think you need to play this out until at least the trading deadline and see where they are, either way, even if you think an interim is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 1, 2015 12:05:25 GMT -5
everything can be calculated. this is beisbol, comrade. A) bottom of 9th, down by 1, 2 outs, man on 3rd: 17% (Texas) B) bottom of 9th, down by 1, 2 outs, man on 1st & 3rd: 20.4% (Texas) www.tangotiger.net/welist.htmlC) bottom of 9th, down by 1, 2 outs, bases loaded: (IBB to Hamilton, too) 28% (Texas) of course, all of that is average 9th inning situation. Doesn't take into account the specialized knowledge that Fielder is a better hitter than Hamilton coming off the bench, cold. A band is blowin dixie double four time.....Thank you. An Extra 3-4% makes it a pretty insignificant decision, IMHO, all things being equal.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 1, 2015 17:39:18 GMT -5
I'd have a hard time thinking that a manager's in-game decisions can hurt or help a team more than 5-10 games, tops, over the course of a season. I'm also not convinced that there is a demonstrably better manager out there who's available. As much as Farrell can drive me and others nuts with his game management, I think you need to play this out until at least the trading deadline and see where they are, either way, even if you think an interim is the way to go. Just imagine Farrell in the NL. Now, NL baseball is different ... situations arise less frequently in the AL, so AL baseball is now "baseball light." Yet, if you ask Oakland fans, they'll be quick to tell you that they annually have a roster of flawed position players, which demands that their manager be "johnny-on-the-spot" with a substitution, use his bench and juggle his lineup.
This Sox roster is full of flawed position players. Is Farrell the guy to manage such a roster? It is the combination (1. roster of flawed players, 2. manager not adept at playing the required style of ball) that has perplexed the fan base. Is it the players or is it the management?
Is there a disconnect between the type of roster and the type of management style?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 1, 2015 19:12:50 GMT -5
Most thought it would be average. Not the worst in the MLB This is revisionist history. A lot of people here considered Masterson a "good bounce back candidate" - As though reaching rock bottom would somehow magically convey to him the power to do something he had no track record of doing - Getting out left handed bats. Porcello was spoken of in glowing terms - As though he was something other than what he'd always been - The number #5 pitcher on his team. Perhaps the apex of self-delusion was the Steamer inhaled suggestion that Buchholz, Miley and Kelly would be good for more than 6 WAR and referring to that threesome as "a pretty solid back of the rotation."
forum.soxprospects.com/post/121438/thread
The reality of this starting pitching staff - Masterson, Porcello, Buchholz, Miley and Kelly at -0.3, 0.1, 0.4, 0.6, and -0.4 WAR, respectively - was entirely foreseeable. Masterson a DFA candidate? Porcello a bad contract? Buchholz same as it ever was? Miley overmatched by American League bats? Kelly's future being the bullpen? Were any of these really so inconceivable that it EVER made sense to suggest this team had anything other than a defective starting pitching staff laden with not one but multiple potential implosions? Or, was it actually the case that multiple improbable things would have had to happen in order for this starting pitching staff to be anything other than what it is?
Nah.
|
|
|