Scott White

I won't have a chance to go quite as in depth today, but I wanted to touch on a few observations from Friday night's box scores.

First off, my doubts are dissipating on Jason Bay. Are they still there? Yes, but two home runs in three days goes a long way to helping change my mind, at least this early in the season. Suddenly, his OPS is back over .900 -- like it was during those three glorious years in Pittsburgh -- his slugging percentage sits at a respectable .500, and you know I love those 10 walks compared to only nine strikeouts. I still don't want to put my complete faith in him just yet, but I'm feeling a bit more at ease today if I'm one of the many Fantasy owners who drafted him as my third or fourth outfielder.

In that same game, Edinson Volquez pitched five shutout innings before having to leave because of a rain delay, lowering his ERA to 0.87. On the surface, his stat line looks good, but I'd like to see more than one strikeout and fewer than three walks -- in only five innings, remember -- from the hard-throwing right-hander. Ideally, I envision a ratio of no less than 2-to-1, with two marking the number of strikeouts. Take a chance on Volquez if you have the roster space, but I think he could potentially go all Matt Garza in 2007 on us (meaning he'll look good for a few starts, then struggle).

Speaking of walks, Carlos Zambrano had only one Friday night. He had his worst start of the season, sure, but as long as he keeps his walks in check, I think he can pass as a Fantasy ace.

After he allowed three runs on six hits in four innings against the Mets, I'm done with Manny Parra in mixed leagues. There's just too many other good options out there. If he gets on a roll, I can always pick him up again, but I have a feeling he'll go to Triple-A once Yovani Gallardo returns.

Two more homers for Carlos Pena on Friday, pushing his season total to five. He might strike out twice every game and not hit much higher than .250, but those 46 bombs last year look more and more legit.

Peter Moylan recorded his first save. Is he the closer in Atlanta with Rafael Soriano sidelined? If so, he should be a good one, but I don't know if Bobby Cox is ready to make the final call yet.

With two home runs, Jeremy Hermida must want to make up for lost time. Don't forget all that sleeper talk going into the season.

And finally, I don't know what's wrong with C.C. Sabathia (nine runs in 3 1/3 innings, 11.57 ERA so far) or Roy Oswalt (eight in four, 9.00), but I hope (and suspect) they'll turn it around soon.

That's all for now.

Jason Bergmann -- I liked the guy.

I made it clear in this blog, clear to all my friends who were drafting in NL-only leagues, clear to some of my colleagues who thought his current circumstances were less than favorable. You want a pitcher with your last pick? Take a chance on Bergmann: good sinker, good strikeout rate, good WHIP, good spring.

Bad choice.

At least so far, he is. Through two starts, he has a 10.45 ERA and a 1.74 WHIP after running out of steam around the fifth inning both times.

So you know what I did? I cut his sorry behind. Felt good about it, too.

Fantasy becomes a much easier game when you accept the somewhat obvious notion that you will be wrong. Expect it. Don't even cross your fingers and hope otherwise.

Instead, embrace it -- well, as much as you can, anyway. You don't have to hold on to Bergmann or Matt Garza or Ian Kennedy or Barry Zito or whatever late-round flier you had high hopes for going into the season. Being wrong affords you the opportunity to assume you'll be wrong again -- specifically, on all those fliers you didn't have high hopes for. And now with Draft Day good and over, you have some early-season evidence at your disposal.

I know what you're thinking: It's only two starts. If you loved a guy so much going into the season, why not hold on to him just a little bit longer? What if he becomes good after all and somebody else ends up with him? You'd be heartbroken!

I know you love that sleeper. I know you saw something in him that still makes believe he has ability to break out in a big way, but you shouldn't feel any kind of loyalty to your sleepers just because they were yours. Besides, keep in mind I'm referring to guys you got with one of your last few picks. If nobody wanted them on Draft Day when they hadn't done anything period, who's going to want them now when they haven't done anything good? Believe me, nobody's going to swoop in and grab Bergmann, and even in the rare case somebody does, there's always that ever-increasing possibility that I'm wrong about him, at least for this year.

So with all that said, here are the pitchers showing early signs of a breakout that I've managed to snag in mixed leagues. All of them have two starts except for ...

Manny Parra (3.38 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 11.8 Ks/9)
Probably the perfect example for what I try to do with starting pitchers early in the season. He makes his second start tonight (Friday) against the Mets. If he does poorly, I'll cut him for the next pitcher who steps up. No harm done. If he does well, bad news for everyone else in my league: I already have him.

Edwin Jackson (0.64 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, 6.4 Ks/9)
Maybe the ultimate wild card because his control made him so awful in the past, Jackson has already demonstrated better command of his pitches this season. His walks are still a little high (six in 14 innings), but he's compensated with nearly unhittable stuff. He showed too much talent early in his minor-league career for anyone to think he'd stay bad forever.

Jonathan O. Sanchez (6.30 ERA, 1.40 WHIP, 16.2 Ks/9)
He had one frighteningly good start preceded by one awful start. He might struggle for wins as a member of the Giants rotation, but those strikeouts are too good to ignore.

Dana Eveland (0.68 ERA, 0.97 WHIP, 8.8 Ks/9)
Maybe he doesn't have quite the upside of the three pitchers ahead of him, but the Athletics thought enough of him to bring him over in the Dan Haren deal. And so far, so good after a lights-out spring (1.29 ERA, 17 strikeouts and 19 hits in 21 innings). I'm totally on the Eveland bandwagon until he gives me a reason to jump off it.

Ryan Dempster (0.69 ERA, 0.62 WHIP, 6.9 Ks/9)
Of the five pitchers I've listed here, I'm most skeptical of Dempster. I just can't imagine him being this good as a starter after being so poor as a reliever (and not so good as a starter before converting to reliever). But again, I'm willing to explore the possibility that I'm wrong. Maybe those years of closing gave him a better approach to pitching in general. Hey, like everyone else on this list, I can always cut him once he shows signs of weakness.

That's all for now.

Monday, I talked about Pat Burrell posting a 1-to-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio last year for the first time in his career, which happened to coincide with the best half of baseball -- .295 average, 19 home runs after the All-Star break -- he had ever played. I couldn't help but wonder if, given his hot start this year, it meant something.

Baseball Jones had this response:

After looking at his career stats (687 walks, 1141 strikeouts), I'm ready to conclude that Pat Burrell's 1-to-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio last year was just an aberration. I would also suggest that his low batting average came about not because of a poor first half, but because he's a career .259 hitter. Burrell brings consistent production, but if he's on my Fantasy team right now, I'm selling high and bringing in a player who will average more than just 129 hits and 500 at-bats per season.

My response:

"Makes sense. I pretty much came to the same conclusion, which is why I didn't end up with Burrell in any of my leagues. Until we get through a good portion of this season, though, there's room to wonder.

But you can't say his first half last year didn't drain his overall batting average. The Pat Burrell of last year's second half was not the same .259-hitting Pat Burrell of old. Now, if you want to argue that his great second half was simply a normalization to the mean, I can accept that argument and even agree that it's the more likely possibility. But I like to keep an open mind. Even veterans find ways to break out."

His response:

With Burrell, you know what you are going to get: 30 home runs, 95 RBI and a .260 average. It's hard to be angry with that stat line, but whether you own the Phillies or you only own a Fantasy team, carrying a guy who bats .215 in the first half and then .295 in the second half is very frustrating. I appreciate your efforts to come up with new ways to evaluate a player, but if I'm looking for a player to pick up, I prefer someone with a more reliable performance throughout the season.

If Burrell can stay healthy and get over 500 at-bats again, then we could see his numbers reach 35-40 HR and 110-120 RBI (aka, 2002 and 2005), which would put him back among the top outfielders in the game. At 31, Burrell may perform well for another five-plus years, but I'm guessing his best years are behind him. Unfortunately, I don't think last year's 1-to-1 ratio and a new approach can save him from that.

I figured I'd further this dialogue right in my blog:

First of all, you talk like Burrell always has such ridiculous first-and-second-half splits, but that's simply not the case. Normally, he's pretty consistent throughout the season, and you have to go all the way back to 2004 (when he hit .276 in the first half and .222 in the second) to find a split that's even close.

Secondly, let me throw out a list of names to you: Luis E. Gonzalez, Steve Finley, Jermaine Dye, Jim Edmonds. All became appreciably better at or beyond their 30th birthdays. Is such an achievement rare? Yes. But does it happen? Quite obviously.

I think you misinterpreted my tone. Or maybe I misrepresented it. Either way, I'll set the record straight here and now. I'm not saying you should rip apart your Fantasy roster trying to trade for Burrell. I haven't even seriously thought about trading for him myself. I'm simply saying it'll be interesting, from a Fantasy perspective, to see what his stats look like at the end of the season.

I try not to construct my Fantasy teams based on a series of guesses, meaning I don't look at a player, decide whether I like him or not, and consider the matter a closed case. If I did, I'd go into the season either overvaluing or undervaluing everyone in the league, which obviously wouldn't give me a realistic foundation for making transactions. Really, you could make an argument for or against every single player, and rather than dismiss either side entirely, you want to try to gauge the likelihood of each.

I like to think in terms of percentages. To use a more straightforward example than Burrell, let's try Pirates SS Jack Wilson. The argument for Wilson going into the season was obvious: He hit .409 with eight home runs over the final two months of last season. True? Yes. Meaningful? I'm sure someone could make the argument, but I imagine you, like me, see Wilson as nothing more than a miscast utility player and someone not worth owning outside of NL-only leagues. Let's set the likelihood of our argument at, say, 98 percent and the alternative at two percent.

I think you would also agree that the possibility of Burrell having an improved approach at the plate is significantly higher than the possibility of Wilson becoming a major Fantasy asset. Let's set the likelihood of my argument for Burrell at 20 percent -- still a low number, sure, but much higher than Wilson's two.

And then you have to consider a third factor. If the best-case-scenario -- a 20 percent chance for Burrell -- doesn't come to pass -- an 80 percent chance -- what exactly is the alternative? Just how low could a guy go? If you examine each player from that perspective, you can understand why I don't often draft rookies. Even if they have a 50 percent chance of meeting their potential right away -- which they usually don't -- they have a 50 percent chance of ending up another Alex Gordon, who was totally useless in mixed leagues as a rookie. The negative is too negative for me to invest a middle-round pick.

So then you have Burrell, whose 80 percent means he'll hit his usual .260 with 30 home runs. When you have a player who has an 80 percent chance of being useful and a 20 percent chance of being more, you'd agree he sounds like a nice guy to grab as your No. 4 outfielder, wouldn't you?

Look, I know I'm kind of going off on a tangent, so let me spell out my point as clearly as possible at the end here. I'm just saying you have to consider all of the possibilities. I'm not saying you have to accept this one on Burrell as likely -- heck, at 20 percent, I don't even accept it as likely -- but you can't just ignore a second half like he had last year, particularly when his good run just so happened to coincide with him evening out his walks and strikeouts for the first time in his career.

That's all for now.