I'm not aware of any scrubs who should be counted on to have a 4.5 ERA, are you? Futhermore, I don't see why you are comparing this to a an ERA of 6. This seems to fit the definition of a strawman argument. Perhaps you misunderstand what "strawman" means. The point is simply that it doesn't matter if aggregate production comes from a single person or 8. All that matters is the product. A better aggregate product is a better aggregate product. "Counted on" doesn't matter, outcomes do, and the hypothetical example was of a small sample bum who did well. Bums get lucky, and yeah, 4.50 isn't a regular occurrence, but 5.00 is. Look at 2005 when we got a 3.84 ERA over 35 starts by Davis, 4.57 over 24 by Santos, 4.35 over 20 by Ohka, 5.57 over 11 by Glover, and a good and mediocre ERA out of Helling and Obermueller over mixed appearances. None of them were name pitchers counted on to do anything and came to us for very little. If you want to compare the Suppan to pitchers who do better in fewer IP, you also need to look at the other IP that had to be thrown because the better pitcher didn't pitch a full season worth of IP. See the final 2 sentences of my previous post.