Define success for BA and AH

[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?

[joshnky]

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]

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]

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

[rotnoid]

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]

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

[jojo]

Harang: 200IP, FIP=3.65

Arroyo: 200IP, FIP=4.20

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

[Eric_Davis]

Stay healthy and get 33-34 starts.

[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).

[jojo]

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...

:cool:

[dougdirt]

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...

:cool:

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

[jojo]

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 ":beerme:"

[dougdirt]

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 ":beerme:"

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

[OnBaseMachine]

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

Agreed.