</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by princeton:
<strong>I see what you mean: I'm constantly predicting 14 wins out of guys with career ERAs of 5.44
BTW, one thing that's interesting about Haynes this year is that in the past, he has had very good stuff. And lost with it, consistently. This year, the stuff is not there. So I'm confused-- if you take good stuff away from a loser, how does he suddenly become a potential 14 game winner?
makes you wonder how he's going to pitch if his stuff returns? Better? or worse?
Jimmy Haynes-- this is one guy that I'd never care to project.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I hate to be the voice of reason in this humorous thread, but I don't think Jimmy is going to make 14 wins. Princeton is onto something here. Haynes has not had particularly good stuff. He's just been a lot more LUCKY than in previous years.
Prior to his start Wednesday, his support neutral record was 4.3 wins and 5.6 losses. His actual record was 7-6.
<a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/snwlreport02.html" target="_blank">http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/snwlreport02.html</a>
He is just about #1 in the league (see the same link above) in the category of "Starters most helped by their relievers (ranked by Bullpen Support)."
In other words, I wouldn't have bet my first born on it... but the safe money says Jimmy won't make it to 14 even if he improves his command slightly.
<small>[ 06-27-2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: cincinnati chili ]</small>
How, then, are those people of the future—who are taking steroids every day—going to look back on baseball players who used steroids? They're going to look back on them as pioneers. They're going to look back at it and say "So what?" - Bill James, Cooperstown and the 'Roids