Heath Bell's Peripherals are Great

Really? How about the 1.69 ERA in AAA last year? How about the 3.33 ERA for the Mets in 2004? How about the 3.23 ERA in AAA in 2004?

How about the inning, 4 hits, 2 runs and trip back to AAA last night? (by the way, a +3 ERA for a late inning guy is REALLY bad). Another hint, major league hitters can hit a fastball. He might want to learn another pitch.

Oh...so one inning where he let up 2 runs should be weighted infinitely times more than the solid innings he has put up in the past? I once saw a game where Maddux let up 10 runs. That bum should never make the Hall of Fame. Solid reasoning. Since when is an ERA in the 3.00s REALLY bad for a reliever? I don't think you will get a whole lot of people to agree with you on that one.

When did Heath Bell have success? Are you confusing him with Healthcliff Slocumb?

No I am not...i am referring to the three examples I gave in the first post. Those look pretty successful to me.

I keep pointing this out again and again. What does an older veteran's success in AAA have to do with whether he is a good player? At best he is a AAAA. He can dominate AAA hitters, but can't get major league hitters out. What do I care that he had a 1.69 ERA in AAA last year when he had a +5 era IN THE MAJORS LAST YEAR!!!!!! You can read your stat books and do your regression analyis all you want, but it is not going to make a pitcher with a fastball and nothing else into a successful major leaguer. Heath Bell is in the minors because he is a dime a dozen minor league pitcher.