:cool Marlins are gonna remember, you just wait and see.

 

lol my memory sucks, did the Marlins already face Halladay once after the PG or is this is first time facing the Marlins?

 

 

They faced him, it was a Halladay-JJ rematch. And once again, it was a downright pitching duel. We won, 1-0.

:cool Marlins are gonna remember, you just wait and see.

 

lol my memory sucks, did the Marlins already face Halladay once after the PG or is this is first time facing the Marlins?

 

 

They faced him, it was a Halladay-JJ rematch. And once again, it was a downright pitching duel. We won, 1-0.

 

 

Well, time to beat him now at home.

:cool Marlins are gonna remember, you just wait and see.

 

lol my memory sucks, did the Marlins already face Halladay once after the PG or is this is first time facing the Marlins?

 

 

They faced him, it was a Halladay-JJ rematch. And once again, it was a downright pitching duel. We won, 1-0.

Actually, it was 2-0, 1 run off Halladay in the 1st and 1 run off Danny Baez on a Sluggla HR in the 9th. (I remember this game well, I was there.) It was a hell of a pitching duel.

West wasn't that bad at all last year. He was more than a serviceable fifth starter. Obviously though a matchup against Halladay is a nightmare for most pitchers.

Lesson of this topic.....think twice before paying to attend tuesday's game.

 

Nice fandom. And by the way, he's had success in the majors so whatever.

:cool Marlins are gonna remember, you just wait and see.

 

lol my memory sucks, did the Marlins already face Halladay once after the PG or is this is first time facing the Marlins?

 

 

They faced him, it was a Halladay-JJ rematch. And once again, it was a downright pitching duel. We won, 1-0.

Actually, it was 2-0, 1 run off Halladay in the 1st and 1 run off Danny Baez on a Sluggla HR in the 9th. (I remember this game well, I was there.) It was a hell of a pitching duel.

 

Whatever, the point is that the Marlins couldnt simply put up 4 to 6 runs just because they really tried hard. Their is always two sides to the game, and if Halladay is his regular self the Marlins wont put up 4 to 6 runs, you're gonna need some pitching to take advantage of in order to put up that many runs.

West wasn't that bad at all last year. He was more than a serviceable fifth starter. Obviously though a matchup against Halladay is a nightmare for most pitchers.

 

 

A lot of his numbers were worse than Nate Robertson though....he allowed a ton of baserunners and his ERA wasn't that great either. But he was lucky to go 8-6 when none of his components should have added up to that.

 

I think he can be a lot better this year, and maybe even last year he actually performed decently considering the circumstances, but I find it ridiculous that he gets recognized for not completely sucking last year, yet by all measures except W/L Rick Vanden Hurk was better, and sometimes it isn't even close. Even the record for the team in games he started was better for Vanden Hurk, yet since he got the short end of the stick in being lucky enough to not have the bullpen hold leads, or not getting enough offense in games he pitched pretty well in until later in the game, Vanden Hurk get's a "we traded him because we didn't see any room for him" while West gets compliments.

 

I know RVH sucked in AAA this year, but there's no reason why a guy with promise who performed decently in incredibly important games down the stretch should have been left watching a terrible pitcher like Nate Robertson fill the role that he should have had a chance to fill.

 

I'm not disappointed that they traded him now, but I am disappointed that he wasn't given more of a shot here even though we've given guys like Andrew Miller too many chances. And I'm disappointed that everyone sees Sean West's performance last year through rose colored glasses while a guy who did better got no credit at all.

West had some bad starts that really ballooned his stats, yes. As a rookie that's typically what tends to happen. Still, I think he's going to be a better pitcher in the long run than an Andrew Miller because he doesn't rely on velocity.

West had some bad starts that really ballooned his stats, yes. As a rookie that's typically what tends to happen. Still, I think he's going to be a better pitcher in the long run than an Andrew Miller because he doesn't rely on velocity.

 

 

 

West didn't have those one or two really bad starts though. He had 6 games (out of 20) where he gave up 5 ER, but not the distinct one or two games. Vanden Hurk, on the other hand, had two starts where he gave up 5 & 6 earned runs, yet in only one of his other starts did he allow more than 2.

West wasn't that bad at all last year. He was more than a serviceable fifth starter. Obviously though a matchup against Halladay is a nightmare for most pitchers.

 

 

A lot of his numbers were worse than Nate Robertson though....he allowed a ton of baserunners and his ERA wasn't that great either. But he was lucky to go 8-6 when none of his components should have added up to that.

 

I think he can be a lot better this year, and maybe even last year he actually performed decently considering the circumstances, but I find it ridiculous that he gets recognized for not completely sucking last year, yet by all measures except W/L Rick Vanden Hurk was better, and sometimes it isn't even close. Even the record for the team in games he started was better for Vanden Hurk, yet since he got the short end of the stick in being lucky enough to not have the bullpen hold leads, or not getting enough offense in games he pitched pretty well in until later in the game, Vanden Hurk get's a "we traded him because we didn't see any room for him" while West gets compliments.

 

I know RVH sucked in AAA this year, but there's no reason why a guy with promise who performed decently in incredibly important games down the stretch should have been left watching a terrible pitcher like Nate Robertson fill the role that he should have had a chance to fill.

 

I'm not disappointed that they traded him now, but I am disappointed that he wasn't given more of a shot here even though we've given guys like Andrew Miller too many chances. And I'm disappointed that everyone sees Sean West's performance last year through rose colored glasses while a guy who did better got no credit at all.

 

 

Because Sean West is better, and actually showed last season that he can get past the 5th inning, unlike Vanden Hurk.

 

Vanden Hurk is a reliever that this FO tried to make a starter. It isn't that big of a deal that he was dealt because our system is deep when it comes to relievers.

West wasn't that bad at all last year. He was more than a serviceable fifth starter. Obviously though a matchup against Halladay is a nightmare for most pitchers.

 

 

A lot of his numbers were worse than Nate Robertson though....he allowed a ton of baserunners and his ERA wasn't that great either. But he was lucky to go 8-6 when none of his components should have added up to that.

 

I think he can be a lot better this year, and maybe even last year he actually performed decently considering the circumstances, but I find it ridiculous that he gets recognized for not completely sucking last year, yet by all measures except W/L Rick Vanden Hurk was better, and sometimes it isn't even close. Even the record for the team in games he started was better for Vanden Hurk, yet since he got the short end of the stick in being lucky enough to not have the bullpen hold leads, or not getting enough offense in games he pitched pretty well in until later in the game, Vanden Hurk get's a "we traded him because we didn't see any room for him" while West gets compliments.

 

I know RVH sucked in AAA this year, but there's no reason why a guy with promise who performed decently in incredibly important games down the stretch should have been left watching a terrible pitcher like Nate Robertson fill the role that he should have had a chance to fill.

 

I'm not disappointed that they traded him now, but I am disappointed that he wasn't given more of a shot here even though we've given guys like Andrew Miller too many chances. And I'm disappointed that everyone sees Sean West's performance last year through rose colored glasses while a guy who did better got no credit at all.

 

 

Because Sean West is better, and actually showed last season that he can get past the 5th inning, unlike Vanden Hurk.

 

Vanden Hurk is a reliever that this FO tried to make a starter. It isn't that big of a deal that he was dealt because our system is deep when it comes to relievers.

 

West had two starts where he went past 6 innings, where Vanden Hurk had none, I will give you that. But West averaged less innings per start than Vanden Hurk, and in fact failed to get to the 6th inning a lot more often than RVH. And also, the only two starts where he went into the 7th were in his first 4 starts, before any MLB team had an idea of what they were looking at, and in the 16 following (5 more starts than RVH got all last year) he failed every time.

But you're comparing West's rookie season to Vanden Hurk's third stint in the bigs. Compare their rookie seasons, and then tell me who's better.

But you're comparing West's rookie season to Vanden Hurk's third stint in the bigs. Compare their rookie seasons, and then tell me who's better.

 

 

Neither guy had any business being in the majors when they were their rookie years. West did better under the circumstances, but Vanden Hurk is a stuff pitcher whose command wasn;t anywhere close to where it should have been when he was rushed. His being ineffective was a direct result of him not having command. Last year he made great strides in the minors in limiting his BB, and it really showed in a reasonable major league performance.

 

With West, anyway you look at his numbers besides w/l record he just wasn't all that great. He was younger and less experienced that RVH, granted, but he was simply last years Nate Robertson in that he was very hittable, but he could bend but not break because his style wasn't predicated on dominating hitters with stuff. But we've seen rookies do immensely better- Jason Vargas for example. That doesn't mean that just because they are not completely terrible, they are good. In fact, for some rookies they have success early on merely because the league doesn't know what to expect. Once the scouting manual is written, that's when you see what a player really is. West did not get touched up through his first 7 starts, but wasn't any good at all in most his last 13. That suggests that he may have been lucky as much as he was good.

But you're comparing West's rookie season to Vanden Hurk's third stint in the bigs. Compare their rookie seasons, and then tell me who's better.

 

 

Neither guy had any business being in the majors when they were their rookie years. West did better under the circumstances, but Vanden Hurk is a stuff pitcher whose command wasn;t anywhere close to where it should have been when he was rushed. His being ineffective was a direct result of him not having command. Last year he made great strides in the minors in limiting his BB, and it really showed in a reasonable major league performance.

 

With West, anyway you look at his numbers besides w/l record he just wasn't all that great. He was younger and less experienced that RVH, granted, but he was simply last years Nate Robertson in that he was very hittable, but he could bend but not break because his style wasn't predicated on dominating hitters with stuff. But we've seen rookies do immensely better- Jason Vargas for example. That doesn't mean that just because they are not completely terrible, they are good. In fact, for some rookies they have success early on merely because the league doesn't know what to expect. Once the scouting manual is written, that's when you see what a player really is. West did not get touched up through his first 7 starts, but wasn't any good at all in most his last 13. That suggests that he may have been lucky as much as he was good.

 

And yet, his rookie year was better than RVH's. You can't make excuses for RVH because it was his rookie season and then ignore the fact that West was a rookie and call him last years Nate Robertson.

 

When you break them down, West has better stuff than RVH, is a higher rated prospect, is a lefty, younger, and RVH doesn't have any options after this season. Therefore, RVH had to go.

But you're comparing West's rookie season to Vanden Hurk's third stint in the bigs. Compare their rookie seasons, and then tell me who's better.

 

 

Neither guy had any business being in the majors when they were their rookie years. West did better under the circumstances, but Vanden Hurk is a stuff pitcher whose command wasn;t anywhere close to where it should have been when he was rushed. His being ineffective was a direct result of him not having command. Last year he made great strides in the minors in limiting his BB, and it really showed in a reasonable major league performance.

 

With West, anyway you look at his numbers besides w/l record he just wasn't all that great. He was younger and less experienced that RVH, granted, but he was simply last years Nate Robertson in that he was very hittable, but he could bend but not break because his style wasn't predicated on dominating hitters with stuff. But we've seen rookies do immensely better- Jason Vargas for example. That doesn't mean that just because they are not completely terrible, they are good. In fact, for some rookies they have success early on merely because the league doesn't know what to expect. Once the scouting manual is written, that's when you see what a player really is. West did not get touched up through his first 7 starts, but wasn't any good at all in most his last 13. That suggests that he may have been lucky as much as he was good.

 

And yet, his rookie year was better than RVH's. You can't make excuses for RVH because it was his rookie season and then ignore the fact that West was a rookie and call him last years Nate Robertson.

 

When you break them down, West has better stuff than RVH, is a higher rated prospect, is a lefty, younger, and RVH doesn't have any options after this season. Therefore, RVH had to go.

 

By the numbers and by what I saw RVH has better stuff, though their minor league k/9 is fairly similar. RVH also retained the high k/9 in the majors (8.8, even including his awful seasons, 7.5 last year) while West had a tremendous dip down to 6.1 (from 8.2 in his minors career, 9.1 in AA last year). His k rate is 7.2 in AAA while RVH has had 8.8 through his career.

 

West has breaking stuff that is rather loopy, but nothing incredibly wicked. RVH has stuff capable of striking any hitter out, he just needed more consistency and command, which he started to show last year. I think he leaves West in the dust in the pure stuff category, other deficiencies caused him trouble in the majors.