Originally Posted by paulrichjr
I disagree. Hancock was often quiet good COMPARED to most everyone on our staff. Releasing him was in my opinion stupid.
Show me one problem with a guy that has a 1.93 ERA last year. Yes I know he didn't pitch much but when he did he did very well. How about a starter for our staff that goes 5 and 1 with a 4.45 ERA in 2004 when we couldn't win a game to save our lives. Do you remember the team we ran out there the last month and a half in 2004? Hancock was the one surprise. Frankly I am in the minority I know but some of Krivs moves have been puzzling. Releasing a pitcher the first day of camp instead of working his butt off seems like one of those puzzles.
2004 CIN NL 5 1 12 9 0 0 2 0 54.7 60 34 27 14 25 31 1 5 251 2 0 4.45 4.01 90 1.555
2005 27 CIN NL 1 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 14.0 11 4 3 1 1 5 0 0 54 0 0 1.93 4.44 230 0.857
Was he good enough to make the Reds staff? Maybe.
Is he good? Not really.
It really doesn't matter whether Hancock should or shouldn't have been cut. He wasn't going to be a difference maker for the Reds and I be shocked if he turns out to be one for the Cardinals.
Look at his K/BB ratio or the fact that he gave up 17 HR's in 64 innings in 2004.
Hancock's career stats are oddly scewed by seasons in which he did well while pitching under 20 innings. In the seasons where he actually had decent samples sizes Hancock was exposed for the marginal pitcher he is.