Los Angeles Dodgers: Does Nate Eovaldi Deserve Ted Lilly's Spot in the Rotation?
The 2012 Major League Baseball season has been highlighted by the Los Angeles Dodgers taking the world by storm and posting the best win-loss record in the majors.
The reason for this unpredictable dominance has been the Dodgers' pitching staff, which has produced a collective 3.13 ERA and a .229 BAA.
Both of which rank second amongst all teams.
Furthermore, the Dodgers starting rotation has put together 42 quality starts. Four of those starts have come from Nate Eovaldi, who is currently filling in for the injured Ted Lilly.
The necessary question is now upon us: Should Nate Eovaldi remain in the starting rotation once Ted Lilly returns?
Although Eovaldi has posted an 0-2 record, his ERA is at 1.82 through four starts. He's yet to allow more than two earned runs, has gone at least six innings in three of four starts and tallied 5.2 innings in his only other outing.
This is not to discredit Lilly, however, as he has long been one of the better left-handers in the league.
Through eight starts, Lilly compiled a 5-1 record with a 3.14 ERA and a respectable 1.13 WHIP. It's also important to note that Lilly's last three starts are considered a byproduct of his later revealed injury, which brought his ERA from 1.41 to 3.14.
Although Lilly is expected to miss a significant amount of time, the question must be asked as the trade deadline approaches: Is waiting for Lilly a viable option?
Or should the Dodgers move forward with the 22-year-old who has shown flashes of brilliance in limited play over the past two seasons?
Time to give the youth a chance.
Should the Dodgers stay with Lilly, they will clearly reap the benefits. They will also have a starting rotation that consists of three legitimate left-handed options and two very questionable righties. To create a greater balance of talent, the best move would be to keep Eovaldi in the loop.
Balance is one of the most important aspects of a title contender. Will the Dodgers maintain it?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?