Define success for BA and AH - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

Ltlabner · 03-29-2007, 02:25 PM

In light of their recient LTC deals and the general notion that one of them might regress somewhat in 2007, how would you define a successfull season for Harrang and Arroyo?

joshnky · 03-29-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

In light of their recient LTC deals and the general notion that one of them might regress somewhat in 2007, how would you define a successfull season for Harrang and Arroyo?

If they maintain their performance from last year I would deem that a success. They were both so good at times last year that its hard for me to expect too much more from them. However, any improvements they make will help make up for some bullpen deficiencies that may arise.

dougdirt · 03-29-2007, 02:31 PM

I think Arroyo will have a seriously difficult time to repeat his 2006. I just don't think he is as good as his numbers suggest. If they both keep their ERAs under 4.00 and are consistant, they will be successful in my mind.

Red Leader · 03-29-2007, 02:32 PM

Each should have >30 starts, >200 IP and <4.00 ERA. If they do that, I will say they both had successful seasons.

rotnoid · 03-29-2007, 02:33 PM

I really expect Harang to come on even stronger this year. He's only been better each year. I'm thinking 18-20 wins, another top 3 in the NL in K's, 6-8 complete games. But I expect a lot

For Bronson, if he pitches like the Bronson of the first half, that's overachieving, IMO. If he can be steady and finish above .500 then he's earned his money. The first half of last year was probably an aberration.

Johnny Footstool · 03-29-2007, 02:33 PM

200 IP, K/9 around 8 (7 for Arroyo), K/BB over 3, ERA under 4.00, less than 25 HR allowed.

jojo · 03-29-2007, 03:02 PM

Harang: 200IP, FIP=3.65

Arroyo: 200IP, FIP=4.20

Anything better from these guys is gravy. Anything worse spells doom.

Eric_Davis · 03-29-2007, 03:09 PM

Stay healthy and get 33-34 starts.

Eric_Davis · 03-29-2007, 03:25 PM

Just for fun....

Babe Ruth threw for 323 innings with a 1.78 ERA in 1916 and didn't give up a homerun. He followed that in 1917 throwing for 326 innings with a 2.01 ERA giving up 2 homeruns. He struck out a total of 298 batters those two years.

I'd love to go back to that time for a week and watch them pitch. They must have really junked up those balls back then. It was WWI those years and like WWII, the ranks were depleted, so Ruth was facing 2nd tier players (along with no minorities).

jojo · 03-29-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Davis

Just for fun....

Babe Ruth threw for 323 innings with a 1.78 ERA in 1916 and didn't give up a homerun. He followed that in 1917 throwing for 326 innings with a 2.01 ERA giving up 2 homeruns. He struck out a total of 298 batters those two years.

I'd love to go back to that time for a week and watch them pitch. They must have really junked up those balls back then. It was WWI those years and like WWII, the ranks were depleted, so Ruth was facing 2nd tier players (along with no minorities).

I'm pretty sure the Babe would've dominated no matter what era he played in....even today. Of course today, with the advances in nutrition and training, he'd look more like Rocky than the King of Queens...

dougdirt · 03-29-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jojo

I'm pretty sure the Babe would've dominated no matter what era he played in....even today. Of course today, with the advances in nutrition and training, he'd look more like Rocky than the King of Queens...

That would take away the fun though.... I would love to see Kevin James playing baseball!

jojo · 03-29-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougdirt

That would take away the fun though.... I would love to see Kevin James playing baseball!

I guess you're too young to have seen Greg Luzinski play....

Prototypical slugger (I saw him send a homer onto the roof at old Comiskey). But his last few seasons with the whitesox, his gut seemed to be saying "

"

dougdirt · 03-29-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jojo

I guess you're too young to have seen Greg Luzinski play....

Prototypical slugger (I saw him send a homer onto the roof at old Comiskey). But his last few seasons with the whitesox, his gut seemed to be saying "

"

Yeah... his last season was the same year I was born

OnBaseMachine · 03-29-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Leader

Each should have >30 starts, >200 IP and <4.00 ERA. If they do that, I will say they both had successful seasons.

Agreed.

03-29-2007, 02:25 PM	#1
Ltlabner 2009: Fail Join Date: May 2006 Location: Cincinnati Posts: 7,441	Define success for BA and AH In light of their recient LTC deals and the general notion that one of them might regress somewhat in 2007, how would you define a successfull season for Harrang and Arroyo? __________________ a super volcano of ridonkulous suckitude. I simply don't have access to a "cares about RBI" place in my psyche. There is a "mildly curious about OBI%" alcove just before the acid filled lake guarded by robot snipers with lasers which leads to the "cares about RBI" antechamber though. - Nate

03-29-2007, 02:31 PM	#3
dougdirt The Boss Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 30,742	Re: Define success for BA and AH I think Arroyo will have a seriously difficult time to repeat his 2006. I just don't think he is as good as his numbers suggest. If they both keep their ERAs under 4.00 and are consistant, they will be successful in my mind. __________________ www.redsminorleagues.com

03-29-2007, 02:32 PM	#4
Red Leader Puffy's Daddy Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Centerville, OH Posts: 20,422	Re: Define success for BA and AH Each should have >30 starts, >200 IP and <4.00 ERA. If they do that, I will say they both had successful seasons. __________________ 'When I'm not longer rapping, I want to open up an ice cream parlor and call myself Scoop Dogg.' -Snoop on his retirement Your Mom is happy.

03-29-2007, 02:33 PM	#5
rotnoid So long old friend Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Cincinnati,Ohio Posts: 1,264	Re: Define success for BA and AH I really expect Harang to come on even stronger this year. He's only been better each year. I'm thinking 18-20 wins, another top 3 in the NL in K's, 6-8 complete games. But I expect a lot For Bronson, if he pitches like the Bronson of the first half, that's overachieving, IMO. If he can be steady and finish above .500 then he's earned his money. The first half of last year was probably an aberration. __________________ I'm just like everybody else. I have two arms, two legs and 4,000 hits." -Pete Rose

03-29-2007, 02:33 PM	#6
Johnny Footstool Churlish Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Olathe, KS Posts: 13,667	Re: Define success for BA and AH 200 IP, K/9 around 8 (7 for Arroyo), K/BB over 3, ERA under 4.00, less than 25 HR allowed. __________________ "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

03-29-2007, 03:02 PM	#7
jojo Five Tool Fool Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 16,570	Re: Define success for BA and AH Harang: 200IP, FIP=3.65 Arroyo: 200IP, FIP=4.20 Anything better from these guys is gravy. Anything worse spells doom. __________________ "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

03-29-2007, 03:09 PM	#8
Eric_Davis Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portland, Or Posts: 5,041	Re: Define success for BA and AH Stay healthy and get 33-34 starts. __________________ Rob Neyer: "Any writer who says he'd be a better manager than the worst manager is either 1) lying (i.e. 'using poetic license') or 2) patently delusional. Which isn't to say managers don't do stupid things that you or I wouldn't."

03-29-2007, 03:25 PM	#9
Eric_Davis Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portland, Or Posts: 5,041	Re: Define success for BA and AH Just for fun.... Babe Ruth threw for 323 innings with a 1.78 ERA in 1916 and didn't give up a homerun. He followed that in 1917 throwing for 326 innings with a 2.01 ERA giving up 2 homeruns. He struck out a total of 298 batters those two years. I'd love to go back to that time for a week and watch them pitch. They must have really junked up those balls back then. It was WWI those years and like WWII, the ranks were depleted, so Ruth was facing 2nd tier players (along with no minorities). __________________ Rob Neyer: "Any writer who says he'd be a better manager than the worst manager is either 1) lying (i.e. 'using poetic license') or 2) patently delusional. Which isn't to say managers don't do stupid things that you or I wouldn't."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode