Minnesota Twins: Scott Diamond's Emergence Should Signal the End of Liriano
I give up. I really do.
I can’t figure out what my feelings are about Francisco Liriano because he always lets me down. If I decide to jump on the Liriano bandwagon, he’ll fail horribly. If I bash him, he’ll be one of the best pitchers in the league. It’s time for me to take a leap.
The Minnesota Twins should get rid of Francisco Liriano.
In baseball there’s one thing that ensures your job: consistency. Liriano is not consistent at all. He’ll have great starts, horrible starts or one-hit losing effort starts. Oddly, all of his bullpen appearances are pretty consistent. Why deal with the headache of Liriano’s inconsistency?
Chances are good the Twins won’t be making the playoffs this year, since they're on the same pace they were last year when they lost 99 games. It's time to get rid of inconsistency, test out young arms and set yourself up for the future.
Who looks to be the future of the Twins' pitching staff and the reason I’m ready for them to cut ties with Liriano? Scott Diamond.
Granted, Diamond’s recent starts have been a little rough, but that’s to be expected with a young pitcher (unlike a six-year veteran such as Liriano). Diamond is worth the risk—Liriano is not. Actually, Diamond is less of a risk than Liriano.
Numbers don't lie. Diamond’s numbers are better than Liriano’s. Diamond's ERA is 2.57, Liriano's 5.74. Diamond has a 1.25 WHIP, while Liriano has a 1.52 WHIP. Diamond has five wins to Liriano's one.
The Liriano train has come and gone. The Twins have thrown him out on the mound, uncertain of how he'll perform. It’s time to push Liriano to the side and pull Diamond, Walters and company into the station.
It’s been quite the ride, Francisco. You've gone from All-Star to Tommy John to horrible to AL Pitcher of the Month—and just about everywhere in between. At one point it looked like you may have been the Twins' diamond in the rough, but now it’s time for the real Diamond.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?