Santana's record after his first 12 starts of the season was 2-and-4 with a 5.50 ERA (following a 5-2 loss to Tampa June 3). From that point on, obviously, he was dominant over his last 24 starts.
So it needs to be remembered that for exactly his first 1/3 of his season, he was crummy. For the final 2/3 he was dominant.
Schilling's numbers were far more consistently excellent from season's start to finish.
At the same point (first 12 starts) he was 7-3, 3.07... after 24 starts he was 14-6, 3.60, after his final, 33rd start, he was 21-6, 3.26 with 203 Ks and 35 BBs.
I agree that Santana's final 2/3 of his season was other-worldly, but I (and other fantasy managers who owned him) remember how poorly he pitched the first third of the season.
I have to agree with the Santana choice . He was absolutely amazing for most of the year.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Santana's record after his first 12 starts of the season was 2-and-4 with a 5.50 ERA (following a 5-2 loss to Tampa June 3). From that point on, obviously, he was dominant over his last 24 starts.
So it needs to be remembered that for exactly his first 1/3 of his season, he was crummy. For the final 2/3 he was dominant.
Schilling's numbers were far more consistently excellent from season's start to finish. At the same point (first 12 starts) he was 7-3, 3.07... after 24 starts he was 14-6, 3.60, after his final, 33rd start, he was 21-6, 3.26 with 203 Ks and 35 BBs.
I agree that Santana's final 2/3 of his season was other-worldly, but I (and other fantasy managers who owned him) remember how poorly he pitched the first third of the season.
Just my two cents.
This was discussed before. Schilling had just as many(if not more) bad starts as Santana. So why should Santana be penalized just because all his bad starts came in a bunch, rather than having them spread out? He was the best pitcher in the AL, no matter how you try to look at it.
looptid wrote:I think my silence on the issue has been perfectly cromulent.
Oooo... cromulent. I like that word. Wasn't that in a Simpsons episode once? (seriously)
It was created in a Simpson's episode. The word doesn't exist officially.
I'm dying here. What episode was that?
According to Webster's, it's an adjective that means "fine, acceptable". It says it's slang so maybe they put it in because so many people used it after seeing it on the Simpsons
In that case, festizio should be in there too
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
looptid wrote:I think my silence on the issue has been perfectly cromulent.
Oooo... cromulent. I like that word. Wasn't that in a Simpsons episode once? (seriously)
It was created in a Simpson's episode. The word doesn't exist officially.
I'm dying here. What episode was that?
According to Webster's, it's an adjective that means "fine, acceptable". It says it's slang so maybe they put it in because so many people used it after seeing it on the Simpsons
And it was used in, "Lisa the Iconoclast". Here's the TV Guide synopsis:
Donald Sutherland is the voice of the curator of the Springfield Historical Society, where Lisa's research on patriarch Jebediah Springfield turns up some unknown -- and unpopular -- facts.
I remember the episode but don't remember anyone saying cromulent
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
Internacular wrote:Entry: Cromulent Pronunciation: 'kräm-u-lent Function: adjective Etymology: The Simpsons, episode 3F13: "Lisa The Iconoclast" Ms. Krabapple: "Embiggens? Hmph. I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield." Miss Hoover: "I don't see why not! It's a perfectly cromulent word."
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Pacman » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:05 pm 
. He was absolutely amazing for most of the year.
