No, the fact was he was dominant. The simple fact is, his ERA last year in the second half was 1.74. His BAA was .161. OBP .295, SLG .217 and OPS, .512. Those aren't perception, those are real actual stats. Again, I'm not overly concerned with a guy who walks people on occasion if people can't hit him, and if he K's a ton of people. More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74. The stats you're citing as ones for which we should praise Marmol are the ones over which pitchers seem to have little to no control - BAA & ERA. Forgive others if they see that as being luck-based. Sure, it meant Marmol was nice in 2007, but it gives you no indication how he'll be in 2008. The BBs on the other hand, are a huge red flag moving forward. Marmol was dominant because he was lucky. More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74. So you want to take your chances with a guy that BBs 3 per inning? Glad you're not running my team. 90%+ strand rates come and go. Extreme luck plays into a guy only giving up a .161 BAA, which then obviously affects his ERA. Marmol will not replicate the kind of season he had in 2007 very often, if at all again in his career... unless he can get his BBs under control - and his track record suggests that his BBs were one of the few things in line with career norms in 2007.