Originally Posted by jojo
Again, which stat is the "master" in your argument that those not agreeing with you can't think? What exactly is slavish about considering Arroyo's peripherals, batted ball tendencies, luck metrics, and the quality of the defense behind him in totality? It's a strange argument to accuse others of ignoring something while telling them to ignore seasons....
There is a thing called randomness. Look at Volquez's pre- and post ASB in 2008. he was almost the same pitcher based upon what he could control but his ERA was over 2 runs higher after the all-star break.
This is a narrative that fits your preconceived view of pitching. That's fine and all but there is no compelling reason for someone to claim this is fact and those who disagree are slavish or unable to reason.
Why might someone reason that it is not a compelling narrative?
Many of these same lessons can be applied to Leake.
Your analysis is flawed.
Overall the Reds pitching staff improved similarly to Arroyo, but that includes Arroyo's improvement. Which means that the rest of the staff didn't improve similarly to Arroyo. In fact, when you break it down, he was the only starter who capitalized on the improved defense. Which means that only Arroyo and the bullpen improved. Why did the bullpen improve? Could it have been because it added Rhodes and Massett?
Looking at the years you are presenting, it's clear that it was much more than just the Reds defense that accounts for Arroyo's improved ERA.