Absurd Greinke post of the week

by loyal2sdad on May 3, 2009 6:33 PM EDT

Having some fun with Zack's amazing start:

Let's compare Zack to the most celebrated pitching season in most of our lifetimes (even if some of the 80s and 90s pitchers actually bested it) I'm talking Gibson in 1968:

ERA + 258

22-9 1.12 ERA

304.2 IP 198 H 49 R 38 ER 11 HR 62 BB 268 K

Greinke 2009, projected (I'll use 25 games played to date to project, since he can't pitch until Monday):

ERA + 934 (I'm giddy just from typing that!)

32-0 0.50 ERA

233 IP 156 H 19 R 13 ER 0 HR 52 BB 285 K

Well, sorry Gibby - you are no match. Let's move on to something closer:

Cat Osterman, U of Texas 2005:

30-7 0.36 ERA

Cat Osterman, U of Texas 2006:

38-3 0.38 ERA

Now there's a worthy goal to pursue! GO ZACK!

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You know Grienke could throw underhand

if he wanted to.

by PopeSoria on May 1, 2009 7:03 PM EDT reply actions

But it might be best not to suggest it.

This is a clever way to appreciate Zack’s early dominance.

by hunter s. royal on May 1, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions

and left-handed, at that

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on May 1, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions

my wife

has a huuuuuge krush on kat

I hereby resign from this post.

by Home Run Tony Cogan on May 1, 2009 11:30 PM EDT reply actions

Am I reading this right?

by I need more Esteban on May 2, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions

all I can picture

is Tony’s wife in a hot tub with Cat, Martina Navratilova, and Billy Jean King. It’s not a pretty picture.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Royals baseball. Where .260 would be orgasmic.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on May 2, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Osterman is terrible!!!!

blowing the gold medal game like that. Pshhhh.

Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!

by mazoboom on May 2, 2009 12:50 AM EDT reply actions

Yeah, let's see Zack put up

a K:BB of 2265 to 192 in the next four years in just 1105.7 innings pitched! Ha!

by stlfan on May 2, 2009 2:57 PM EDT reply actions

I don’t think women’s sports will ever be taken seriously until the disparity of talent had shrunk so that we don’ t have Nintendo-level absurd statistics. Anytime I see a basketball score on the crawl that reads “UConn 121 Georgetown 53” I can be 99.9% sure it is a women’s score.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on May 4, 2009 2:59 PM EDT reply actions

Why is it that women's basketball scores, or more specifically, margins of victory...

are so ridiculous? Just because the only real talent is so concentrated? Even in the NCAA tournament, with a game between two fairly high seeds, it seems like you’re far more likely to see a 20-30 point blowout than a buzzer beater after a competitive game.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on May 4, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Title IX hasn't gone far enough

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on May 4, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Uh oh.

It already killed ISU baseball. Shall we also kill ISU basketball?

I wonder. Has anyone ever done a study to determine if the women’s half (50-52%) of the population actually wants to play sports in the same proportion as the men’s half (48-50%)?

Royals baseball. Where .260 would be orgasmic.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on May 4, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, the studies have been done

And there is actually a provision in Title IX (or the regulations promulgated from it) which says that if a school does a survey of the student body and finds that there really isn’t much interest among the women in playing sports, the school doesn’t have to equalize sports spending between the sexes.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on May 4, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions