6.57: Chan Ho Park’s ERA, for those who were wondering that this move was a slight to the veteran and he wasn’t getting a fair shake at the fifth starter’s role. Conversely, Mike Pelfrey’s ERA this spring is 1.29.
6.57: Chan Ho Park’s ERA, for those who were wondering that this move was a slight to the veteran and he wasn’t getting a fair shake at the fifth starter’s role. Conversely, Mike Pelfrey’s ERA this spring is 1.29.
2 Comments
Park had plenty of opportunity.
Give the kid the ball.
See, as a fan, if Park gets the 5th spot, it would be worse than watching Steve Trachsel pitch last year. With Trachsel you knew what you were getting every time out. Now with Park it would be a complete unknown, more or less. With Pelfrey, it is still a bit of an unknown, but he’s a kid and has great upside, so if he blows up its not going to give me a heart attack. With Pelfrey I know he is just going to get better as he gets more experience, so I can take the bumps in the road on the way. Whereas with Park, its all downhill and each bad start will only make feel worse about him. Not so with Pelfrey.
To Gentry (RE: Pelfrey v. Park)
I hear you. The Mets obviously thought Pelfrey was good enough to compete for the job, and if that’s the case there shouldn’t be any hesitation in giving it to him if he’s earned it. And, he has. Park is a .500 pitcher. That’s the best they can hope for from him. And, that’s good enough for a fifth starter.