Advertisement:

An Almost Perfect Night: Cubs 9, Reds 3

An Almost Perfect Night: Cubs 9, Reds 3
John Minchillo--AP

Filling in for Jon Lester, Mike Montgomery made an outstanding start. Against a potent Reds offense, he threw a quality start in which he allowed only five baserunners.

But most of us probably didn't notice.

Instead, we were dazzled by the fireworks show put on by the offense. That's fine, of course, because the kind of night the lineup put together today is one worth appreciating. If not for the bottom of the 9th inning and the superfluous Cincinnati runs scored on a trio of homers, this would have been one of the more flawless nights in the Cubs' 2017 season.

The Reds' Asher Wojchiechowski last faced the Cubs nine days ago, and this result must have felt as if he had never left that previous start behind -- Woj gave up seven runs in 3.2 innings on August 14, seven earned runs in 3.2 tonight -- and the damage was immediate.

Leadoff hitter Jon Jay singled to begin the game, and after walks by Ben Zobrist and Anthony Rizzo, Woj notched his second out of the inning and probably hoped he would escape unscathed. Instead, he walked Tommy La Stella on five pitches to grant the Cubs their first run. Two more came on Jason Heyward's first-pitch single to left.

Heyward came up with another two-out RBI in the third inning, this one scoring Rizzo to put the Cubs up, 4-0.

The real excitement came in the fourth inning though. Montgomery helped his own cause by singling to lead off the inning, Jay singled on the first pitch of his at-bat, and then Kyle Schwarber homered to left center. The blast was reviewed, but ruled in Schwarber's favor. Two outs later, Alex Avila singled, and then Tommy La Stella hit a longball of his own. 9-0, Cubs.

The game really should have stayed that way, and after Montgomery handed things over to the bullpen in the seventh inning, the first two frames of relief went perfectly. Justin Wilson did not allow a single baserunner -- a mighty accomplishment for him since he has donned the Cubs uniform -- in the seventh, and then Koji Uehara followed with a perfect eighth inning.

So when Hector Rondon was assigned the last inning, this had the looks of a shutout ready to be completed. Instead, he gave up solo home runs to Joey Votto, Eugenio Suarez, and Scott Schebler. Whatever. I'll admit to being a little distracted in the final innings by the Dodgers-Pirates game anyway.

Cubs win, 9-3.


Source: FanGraphs

Additional Thoughts:

I'll quote myself here:

 

Obviously, one inning does not prove me right, but I'll act as if it does.

Player of the Game:

I enjoyed Heyward's pair of two-out RBI, but the spot-starter deserves the nod: Mike Montgomery (6 IP, 4 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 4 K)

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Good call on giving Montgomery the Player of the Game. Scoring a ton of runs against the woeful Reds' pitching staff is fun, but not unusual. But shutting down their potent office on a warm night in that bandbox is impressive. And he delivered a single to boot.

  • In reply to Cubswin09:

    I think if montgomery is our 5th starter next year we should be pretty well set.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bleachercreature:

    I think Montgomery would get the best chance but I wouldn't be surprised by a "Brett Anderson type" signing: incentive laden, a guy with good stuff but trying to re-establish himself, not asking them to be more than BOR starter.

  • In reply to bleachercreature:

    I think Tseng and Butler will get shots at that 5th starter slot as well. Remember the original plan was to not have Butler pitch in MLB at all this year so what we saw was a guy pushed into service.

  • Heavy offense makes Cubs vaunted fun to watch, good starting pitching makes for run differential rapidly growing, Cincinnati Red give up lots of runs. Philly next, time to make some hay.

  • Uehara looked great.

  • Not going to lie, but I'm not a fan of your new format.

    I say this because I REALLY enjoy your sophisticated, illustrative writing style which gets diminished in this format. With the school year starting up, and you writing for other sites, plus a little thing called "family responsibilities", I totally get it.

    But, I still miss your old recaps because they were SO good.

  • In reply to 2Toes:

    I've seen a lot of comments recently about the recaps. I am of two minds. First, the authors aren't paid (or so I believe) so I think it's cool they do them at all. And they can do them anyway they want, as far as I am concerned. Second, and this might be snarky, but I always skip over the recaps. I like the first paragraph and the analysis at the end, and the player of the game, and I always read those. But I follow every game either on tv or my phone or the radio, so I don't need a play by play. Besides, all the key highlights are available via the MLB app. I mean, does anyone write a recap like that anymore? It seems old school. I like the expert analysis of the writers, I don't need to know that Heyward hit a single in the second inning.

  • In reply to Cubswin09:

    Maybe it's because I don't listen to the games, but I really enjoy the recaps. I like the different styles, and the writing seems to keep getting better. The comments also add a lot - the insights that everyone has.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubswin09:

    I tihnk it is fine to simply voice an opinion that one does not like the format. He wasn't making any broad complaints and, since the authors are "trying" different formats, are usually very open and interested in listening to this feedback, provided it is done respectfully. And I believe 2Toes has done this. He is specifically NOT saying the "writing" is bad but that he doesn't like the format.

    Like you I usually pay scant attention to the "recap" portion unless there is something that can't be easily deduced from the box score, like when there is a run scored but no corresponding RBI. There are lots of ways for that to happen, but I am curious which one.

    Also, like you, I really like the analysis portion where we get the overriding "feel" of the game and any trends that might be worth reading.

    I don't really "like" any particular format over another as long as they keep their analysis (though moving it to the beginning wouldn't bother me so locating it at the end isn't necessary, nor is it a "problem"). At the same time I don't want the "game recap" portion eliminated because, as I said, I sometimes want to know what/how things happened.

    Along that same line, I usually skip over the "in the fourth inning prospect X hit a single and advanced to 3rd on an error..." portion of the minor league recaps and go straight for the "analysis" at the end. But, similarly, I SOMETIMES really like reading it so do not advocate that the author is wasting their/my time by including it. I just simply ignore it at my leisure.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    This is helpful, Joel! Appreciate the thoroughness of your input. It really does make a difference. We want to write recaps that give every reader something, even if they don't like every part of each recap.

  • In reply to Cubswin09:

    Thanks, Cubswin09. We are not paid, but we all still want to make sure we're doing the best job possible. Appreciate your input! We've been talking a lot about how we want to do the recaps going forward, so this helps!

  • In reply to 2Toes:

    Hey,

    I've been trying to find the right balance between capturing what's most important about the game, getting the detail, and keeping the writing of each recap manageable. I appreciate the feedback, and please know that I do value how you all feel about the quality of each one.

  • In reply to Jared Wyllys:

    The only thing that I don't like about the new format is that there is less of your writing.

    Now that John is no longer with us, you are my favorite writer on the site. Who would want less of things they like?

    I meant it as a compliment and I apologize if it came off otherwise.

    As a fellow teacher (a young unmarried one), I have no idea how you balance everything, especially as an English teacher with the essays that you have to grade on your free time.

    I routinely stay at school until 8/9pm planning/grading, and I cannot fathom doing what you do.

  • In reply to Jared Wyllys:

    I just had a comment eaten, but essentially, you're my favorite writer on the site, and based on the start of your comments to Joel and cubswin compared to your comment directed to me, I'm sorry if I came off as whinny.

    I meant it as a compliment!

  • In reply to 2Toes:

    And I took it that way, don't worry!

  • fb_avatar

    Very much agree that Wilson needs some "garbage" innings. I was expecting to see him last night. He has a world of talent. And if he gets "on" then watchout! The Cubs 'pen could be a serious stength as the season winds down.

  • SF beat MIL 4-2. With that and the Cubs' win, the Magic Number for clinching the division is reduced to 33.

  • I enjoy all the write ups here. I can only imagine it has probably been even more challenging to deliver them in the aftermath of John's passing. I think everyone does a great job here. I really appreciate it. Everyone has their own style. I don't think the recaps have to be overly funny or creative or cute - they are all entertaining and informative in their own way. The readers' comments are also great. One of the reasons I quickly turn local sports talk radio off is that I feel many of the hosts try to be entertainers or comedians over the content. But the content of the day's sports news or interviews with writers or athletes is informative enough in my opinion. Silly games like Florida versus Ohio or previously "Who You Crapping?" result in me turning the radio to music.

  • I like the re-caps only because I like all the writers here who do it. They all do excellent work and each one does it a bit differently with home grown bias added in which I don't have a problem with at all lol.

  • This is not a championship caliber pen. They remind me more of Dysentery- they give EVERYONE runs.

  • In reply to Stubbs:

    I think overall the pen is championship caliber. It's just that Joe is trying to get the guys that are not throwing the ball well fixed. We were in the top ten in bullpen rankings three weeks ago but since then he has been working on fixing the new guy, Rondon and Uehara. For the most part, Strop, Junior, Duensing and Wade have been very good.

  • In reply to KJRyno:

    Disagree on CJ, and though we've survived Davis's inefficiency and general shakiness so far, he doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence. Duensing and Strop have been solid, but I see no lockdown option that we can count on when games get tight in October. Washington has a rebuilt pen of studs, and LA has a lights out horse that can go 3 if needed. We'll need to lead by 5 after the 5th in order to have a chance, which won't be easy with both NL favorites having vastly superior starting staffs to ours (and offenses).

  • In reply to Stubbs:

    There is no "lock down" in the World Series, or playoffs for that matter, on any team. Look what the Cubs did to other teams lockdown guys last playoffs.

    I think if they keep these guys fresh & healthy thru the rest of the regular season by the starters & call ups eating innings, offense building good leads then they'll be a playoff caliber pen come October.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Stubbs:

    IMO trying to build a team for October is a fool's errand. Sometimes the best team wins in October/November. But it is not uncommon that another team gets hot at the right time. Case in point EVERY TIME a WC team wins their league championship, much less WS. Once you get to the playoffs then things like luck start playing a huge part in the game. Suddenly a guy comes out of nowhere and becomes unstoppable.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I agree with this. I think the key is doing what you can to increase your odds, which is usually adding depth. I think the Cubs beat the Dodgers and the Indians because they had a deeper starting rotation. Cubs were able to rest Lester, Hendicks and Arrieta while Kershaw and then Kluber had to pitch on short rest, and that is when the Cubs were able to score against their stud pitchers... Also I remember Mike Moody arguing that world series winning teams have to have a balanced lineup. Not just lefties and righties, but approach as well. I agree with that. Teams have to have a way to wear down stud starting pitchers.
    But then after all of that, Daniel Murphy can hit a home run every at bat and then nothing else seems to matter.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I wonder how true this really is. I agree with you to the extent that postseason series are so short that randomness rules. Plus you always have out-of-nowhere heroes like Cody Ross, Connor Gillaspie, Rajai Davis... but is there a way to build teams who are better-constructed for short-series, high-leverage innings?
    In the post season, each inning and pitch carries disproportionately more weight than any other in the regular season. This is why we see a premium paid in trades for guys like Chapman and Miller. It's also why managers are willing to ride those horses for sometimes 3 innings in a game, when they'd almost never do that in the regular season.
    This is just an observation too, with no data to back it up... but I've wondered if teams with superior defense and contact skills stand a better chance in the postseason. Obviously great defense is going to win frequently anyway, but we've seen dominant defenses lately (Giants, 2014-15 Royals, 2016 Cubs) do well in the playoffs. Likewise, those Giants and Royals teams weren't stellar offenses, but they K'd infrequently and were good at putting the ball in play. Perhaps these ingredients contribute to postseason success more than we realize?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kramerica20:

    It is possible that good defense, or contact, or 3 lights-out starters, or a "lights out bullpen" that "shortens the game" are all critical. But I suspect that it is "balance" that is really the key factor as couch alluded to with Mike M--miss reading his insights too by the way. The more ways a team can "beat" you the better off they are in the randomness of the post-season. Often colder/wetter weather prevails which can curtail power than carried a team in July. But we shouldn't underestimate the ability to hit a 3-run homer being big in the post-season. Usually good pitching beats good hitting, but not always. Bullpens go through group "funks" similar to how, for a week or two, a batting line-up will suddenly all slump at the same time. If this happens in July/August it causes hand-wringing among the team's loyal fans. If it happens in October/November it means an unceremonious exit from a play-off series.

    To me "building the team for October" is more a function of adding another facet that was lacking before rather than "doing more of what we do well." This is why Zobrist was such a critical guy. He has a lot less power than some guy son the team, but he can put the bat on the ball. But before we get too enamored of that skill Bryant hit a HUGE HR in Game 5 as well as an important shot in Game 6, not to mention Fowler's lead-off HR in Game 7.

    I don't think it is feasible to construct a roster where a team is "the best" or "among the best" at everything. What a team can do is build a roster that is at least average-above average in everything and truly excel in other things. And then try to build the roster to complement that. The 2016 Cubs defense was devastating to other teams because the pitchers, particularly Lester, Arrieta, and Hendricks could make hitters hit into the teeth of that infield. And if there are things that the team is "bad" at make it as small a part of the game as possible. For instance, I have been vocally indifferent to BA RISP, particularly BA runners on 3rd <2-out. That is actually NOT that common of a situation. We all remember instances where the team came up short and these are frustrating. But in the big picture they probably don't affect more than 1-2 games in any decisive way.

    In short, I dislike a style of analysis that looks at recent successes in the post-season, look at what they do better than anyone else, or at least almost anyone else, and establish that this "trait" is critical/most important to success in the post-season. To me that is a "magic bullet" philosophy and difficult to replicate. To me the important thing to do for a playoff roster is "lengthen the roster." Have MORE players that are able to inflict damage on the opposition if other things aren't working. Whether this is adding Chapman to make the bullpen even better and able to hold up the 'pen when others were "slumping," or having other teams have to pick their poison when it comes to platoon guys like Schwarber/Almora (would you rather die by a thousand cuts--good D and contact--or simply have your head bashed in by Schwarber). The addition of TLS also "lengthened the roster" as he is a guy who can cause trouble for pitchers who really focus on K's since he can usually make contact AND is a guy who can stand at an infield position and bat LH. Having a team with maximum diversity of skills is, to me, the most important factor. Especially because Oct/Nov can have very different weather conditions depending on where you are playing. But each successful team will come up with their own mix of talents (contact, power, pitch velocity, low BABIP, poise, bullpen "studs," "stud Top-3 rotation," defense, baserunning, etc., etc., etc.). This, rather than singling out 1-2 "skills" that are important in the post-season, is what leads to post-season success.

    For this reason I was happy with what the Cubs did this trade deadline. They "lengthened the roster" by adding another Top-3 pitcher to the rotation, added another quality arm to the bullpen (despite Wilson's struggles he HAS talent), and a complementary bat for the C position. Even if Contreras DOESN'T get hurt Avila would be an important guy because he gives them a lefty hitting C again. I am thrilled they got Rivera. He can teach Contreras a thing or two about catching and, if in a game a REALLY good defensive C would be a significant advantage it gives Maddon another "toy."

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    TLDR

    Just kidding. yeah I agree with everything you said here. If I had to describe the 2015-17 Cubs in one word it would be "Redundancy." They have at least 3 starting-caliber players at every position on the field. This allows them to carry a larger bullpen and rest arms, and gives Joe a move to make in any situation. It's also the reason that 3 of their core bats are hurt and it doesn't feel like there's an injury issue.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Sometimes the team with the best record has the best depth over 162, but not necessarily the best top/elite talent.

    Think about rotations:
    Which rotation is more dangerous in the playoffs? A rotation made up of
    1-2-2-5-5 vs a rotation of 2-3-3-3-3?

    One is better suited for the regular season, one is better for playoffs. That's why roster configuration for playoffs differs from regular season rosters.

    It's like the bulls from the early Derrick Rose days, they had a great bench, but couldn't compete 5 vs 5 with the LeBron/Wade/Bosh led heat.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 2Toes:

    I think that a more "dangerous" rotation would be one with a 1-2-2-5-5, but that has more to do with the fact that a true TOR can be a devastating force in the playoffs. And it kind of misses the point I was making. Perhaps a more balanced look would be 1-2-5-5 or 2-3-3-4.

    However, that assumes ALL ELSE is equal. Not necessarily a good assumption. To me the teams that win in the playoffs are the teams best able to score and prevent runs for a 3 week period. That isn't necessarily the best team. So, if the goal is to simply improve your chances then you are best off having the fewest weaknesses more than having the most strengths. What Hoyer refers to as "lengthening the roster." The Cubs were really good in the 2nd half of 2015. They road that to a NLDS victory. But were exposed as too dependent on power and too susceptible to strike-out pitching in the NLCS. So Hoyer went out and acquired guys who had, as primary strengths, the ability to put the bat on the ball (avoid K's) and draw BB. In short, controlling the strike zone. Heyward didn't work out like the Cubs intended, but TLS and Zobrist were both admirable in their ability in 2016. Also Lackey didn't win a game in last year's playoffs, I believe. But he was an extremely important member of the playoff roster. He gave the team a plausible chance to win. It allowed the cubs to use 4 starting pitchers instead of 3 which turned out to be a huge advantage. Particularly in the WS as the Cubs got to see a not only somewhat fatigued version of Kluber in Game 7 but also they had seen how he handled them and were able to combat his strategies. That was a huge advantage. In fact, I would argue it was close to, if not, decisive in that game. The Cubs improved themselves against strike-out pitchers and improved their starting rotation and their bullpen. They had fewer weaknesses. So they were more difficult to exploit.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I didn't mean to imply "all else equal", but rather using that situation in isolation. With any team sport, there are so many variables to analyze that it is so hard to have a discussion because there is always something else to consider, which is why I isolated that topic.

    But I agree that the rotation would only be 4 pitchers in the playoffs, but the team with the 2-3-3-3-3 rotation is more likely to reach the playoffs, but the 1-2-2-5-5 rotation is more likely to be "dangerous" in the playoffs.

  • In reply to Stubbs:

    Davis doesn't inspire confidence? I think we're watching different games. As far as Carl, he was amazing through July with a 2.51 ERA, 1.0 WHIP and opponents batting .119 against him. He ran into command problems but has looked better in his last few appearances. He has great stuff and will be better, I'm certain of it.

  • In reply to TC154:

    Yea TC.....he is only what, 26 for 26 in save situations?

  • In reply to Wickdipper:

    But he does have a loss, although it wasn't a save situation, but a tie game is more high stress than having a lead because there is no margin for error.

  • In reply to Stubbs:

    This is simply not true. The Cubs have sported one of the better bullpens in baseball this year, the recent hiccups notwithstanding.
    Davis has been lockdown despite his BB problems (which seem to have subsided lately). Edwards has been unhittable at times, Duensing has been fantastic, Wilson will almost certainly turn it around, and Strop has been very good.
    They aren't a bunch of Kenly Jansens (nobody is), but they're better than the Nationals. I wouldn't call WAS' a "pen of studs."
    Joe can play the matchup game as well in October. Plenty of LHP and reverse-split guys from both sides in the Cubs' pen.

  • In reply to Stubbs:

    Vastly superior starting staffs? .......??????

    Kershaw - DL
    Wood - DL
    Darvish - DL
    Scherzer - DL
    Strasberg - DL

    We beat Bumgartner and Kershaw too last year......short memory?

  • In reply to Wickdipper:

    Didn't beat Bumgarner. My memory is fine on that. Kershaw shut us out, and we beat him on short rest.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KJRyno:

    Edwards has struggled lately. But this happens. Bullpens are fickle. There is talent in the Cubs pen. Not everyone is doing well but that is a different thing. In some ways bullpens are like pinch-hitters on offense. Players that would be pretty good as "regulars" often struggle as pinch-hitters. Everything gets compressed. If you give up a run as a starter and follow it with 3-4 shutout innings and that one run is seen as an aberration. If you are a reliever and give up a run for the next 4-5 appearances you are "suspect." And then, somehow, become "unhittable." Until you give up another run. They are fickle and, as you say, KJ, Maddon is working on getting his other guys "right" and, also, giving his best relievers rest. Why waste their talent on games that the Cubs lead by 5+ runs. If it starts getting uncomfortable we will see the good guys.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Edwards was fantastic all the way through July. He fell apart for a while in August but clearly looks better in his last couple of appearances. As you say Joel, bullpens are fickle if for no other reason than if pen guys were consistent most of them would be starters.

  • In reply to Stubbs:

    If and big if...wilson and edwards get on track this pen is as good as any in baseball.

    With davis edwards wilson montgomery strop and deusling.
    Thats is a real nice group. Then you have uehara rondon and zastrynsky that is a deep bullpen.

  • fb_avatar

    A big win against a last place team. That's how it should be though. Games we SHOULD win. I remember the old days when we'd beat all the good teams & get destroyed by the bad ones.
    Baez is getting really close to being my favorite Cub. He really is El Mago.

  • In reply to Wrigley0923:

    Welcome aboard the Baez train.

  • In reply to Mom2futurecubs:

    There is plenty of room for all and there is more entertainment than on any other hype train.

  • In reply to Wrigley0923:

    He really is a joy to watch.

  • Really huge game by Montgomery & good to see the small step forward by Wilson. As bad as their record is, the Reds still have a tough batting order to go through.

    Offense: 9 runs & Bryant not in the lineup.

    3.5 game lead now. I thought I heard Len or JD say that's their biggest division lead of the season.

  • Happy to see us beat up on the last-place Reds, but their lineup scares me enough that I will be kind of glad when we get out of Cincy.

    Let's get the sweep!

  • Some recaps are work
    Some recaps are lazy
    Some recaps I feel like a bit of a baby

    Some recaps are slippy, other recaps sloppy
    Some recaps you can't stand the sight of a puppy

    Some recaps you wake up with her complaining
    Some sunny recaps you wish it was raining
    Some recaps are sulky, some recaps have a grin
    And some recaps don't matter because of the win

    Some recaps --- you hear a voice!
    Taking you to another place!
    Some recaps are better than others

  • I don't come here looking for a format
    I just come here looking where Da Cubs at...

    My opinion is if the info related to what happened in the game is there, then that's a mighty fine recap... Isn't that what the real meaning of a recap is? And this was a mighty fine recap. Thank you, Jared!

  • In reply to Milk Stout:

    Thank you! I'm trying to find the best way that works, and I appreciate you guys going along for the ride with me.

  • How's this for a recap: my cap blew off, and I put it back on. Cubs win.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to wastrel:

    Third Star: The Cap. An indispensible part of this recap.
    Second Star: The wind. Let's face it. Without its effort the re-cap would have been completely different and likely not as good.
    First star: Has to go to the Cubs win. As it should EVERY TIME the Cubs win. Because it is a lazy "first star" to give.

  • I come here to critique the Cubs, not the writers, but that's just me.

  • In reply to KJRyno:

    Amen. I am surprised at the angst over how a recap is written.

  • In reply to rbrucato:

    I didn't feel critiqued personally, for what it's worth. Happy to hear how people feel about the quality of work I'm doing, as long as it's not personal. I didn't think it was in this case.

  • In reply to Jared Wyllys:

    I think it is more the volume of comments about them rather than anything personal. You guys all do it differently and do a fine job.

  • In reply to KJRyno:

    Did you miss the part where I said that Jared's writing is SO GOOD?

    He's a great writer. Now there's less of his writing. I'm sad. Where's the critique?

    Just because I didn't say "great recap" doesn't mean I didn't like it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 2Toes:

    I hear you. I think you even went out of your way to comment how good Jared's writing is but that this "format" didn't work for you. FWIW I think what you did was fully appropriate.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Thanks, it is nice to hear. I just want to make sure that I didn't offend Jared when I was trying to be complimentary.

  • In reply to 2Toes:

    You didn't! I understood where you were coming from!

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    And that's exactly how I took it.

  • I love what Monty did last night. He's generally been better out of the pen, but he looked good as a starter yesterday. He induced a lot of ground balls, and with the infield defense as good as it is, ground balls are good.

    I also loved what Heyward did. Lately I've been dreading his at bats like it was 2006, especially with runners on, but he did well. I hope it carries over.

    I feel bad for Rondon. Something obviously isn't right for him. I don't think it's injury, he's just lost that spark. He and Wilson should only pitch in games like last night until they get their grove back. On that note, nice to see Wilson not give up a billion walks and runs.

  • Edwards looks to have righted the ship to me. In his last 5 appearances he has given up 1 ER for a 1.80 ERA, walked no one and SO 9. Opponents are batting .063 against him in this time. In the 6 appearances before that he gave up 7 ER, a 12.60 ERA, walked 6 and SO 6. From the start of the season to just before those 6 awful appearances he had a 2.61 ERA, 59 k's against 25 BB and opponents batted .123 against him. So with all the criticism you're talking about a guy who had 7 bad innings out of 51 in his age 25 season. Saying this guy is not a good pitcher is not accurate.

  • In reply to TC154:

    He had looked MUCH better as of late. Pounding the zone!!! Electric stuff. Now it's all about his consistency.

Leave a comment