I think you are mistaking critical analysis for negativity. And that’s kind of a shame.

I am very optimistic about Garza, and your points are absolutely legitimate. I suppose it comes down preferences. Nobody has to revel in analysis, although you are or course doing just that and very well. But I don’t think it fair to criticize those who do, and I certainly don’t think it is nitpicking to point out problems that exist.

Just as it is very possible that our young pitchers will continue to improve, it is also possible some won’t. So it is not nitpicking to recognize and identify issues nor does it interfere with pure enjoyment. What it does to identify the issues is allow for the more optimistic to explore just such points as the staff’s youth, the learning curve and factors that suggest improvement is coming while tempering irrational enthusiasm for those so-inclined.

But there is a reason to care. We are concerned with more than the immediate result or even the immediate situation in the standings. Those may be primary, but they are not all there is. Every team, and its fans as well, is concerned with projecting forward. Is our current success indicative of fundamental strength or is it built on sand and soon to dissipate because of weaknesses.

Pitchers may have a good record, even good ERAs, but if they are doing it against the odds given their peripherals it is reason to worry whether it can be sustained. Actually, I think in Garza’s case it can be, and the K/BB ratio in his case may be misleading. But it still is something to keep an eye on.

Here is an example. In the second half of the 2005 season the Rays played better than .500 ball in over 70 games. Lots of people, including Piniella I think, thought the Rays were turning a corner. But any reasonable assessment of that situation had to make clear that it was a mirage. A team that had Hall, Lee, Hollins, A. Gonzalez, N. Green, Cantu, Huff, Gathright, Fossum, Baez, Carter, Harper, Hendrickson and Waechter as regulars was not on the verge of contention. It was important to be realistic about that team so that proper changes could be made.

The same holds now, except that now it is realistic to see that this team is really very good and will get better. But that does not mean that every player is promising. Garza may be (I think he is) and even Jackson may be (of him I am less confident), but if they are winning despite weak peripheral stats it should send up red flags and we should pay attention to them. That does not mean we “hate” them or want to be miserable. Only that we want to keep getting better and not become smug.

I recognize the feeling that after a win fans may not like to read about red flags. In that sense, I suppose the timing of the post is an issue for some. But that is not a criticism of the blog, just a matter of preference, and as a matter of preference, I do not need my reading to confirm my emotional state. Having exulted, I enjoy the balance of more objective analysis.

I will backtrack a bit on accepting the assertion that the blog is repetitive. Still featured on the site are posts of game commentary, Rays run differential, projection that Pena is about to break out, new ballpark debate, the Garza analysis, scouting report on Hellickson, discussion of the draft and Alvarez, observations on Price’s debut and something about the Commodores appearance. In addition there are the fanposts that consider issues ranging from Loaiza and Brayan Pena’s availability through a video analysis of Sonnanstine’s mechanics and consideration of what to do when Aybar is ready to return.

That is hardly repetitive, there is a great deal of in-depth analysis and opportunity to pursue such analysis (which may be the part many people don’t like) and plenty of rah-rah fan optimism, although it is usually bolstered with some information.

But if you enjoy combining fan excitement with some effort to dig behind the headlines, then blogs like this one and DRays Bay should please you. The article linked here was not criticizing Garza or demeaning his performance. It was simply pointing out that he is unlikely to remain effective if he has a 1-1 K/BB ratio. I think that is probably a true statement and something to keep an eye on.

The post did not say he had a bad game. It said he had a good game but there were elements of it that are a warning sign. That is a true statement. Why do people only want to read things that confirm their emotional responses? For me, I love the glow after great wins but I also crave some understanding of what underlay the victory and what it portends for the future.