but he was wrong one way or the other. His “impostors” line was either racist or extremely stupid. And his whole conspiracy theory that equally talented American blacks are passed over for Latino players in an effort to save money was pretty dumb too. More black kids play football or basketball than baseball, and that’s just how it goes.

I’ll copy and paste my reply- it doesn’t necessarily address that exactly, but it’s on the general issue of Pelfrey, and the difference in his 2008 and 2009 seasons, and the perception of his 2008 and 2009 seasons:

“He’s way too inconsistent? Not really. He has two full seasons under his belt (two and a half, if you want to include the 72.2 innings he threw in 2007); it’s hard to be inconsistent when there’s not a lot of data to work with. Regardless, though, in 2008, his "good year", was not very much different from 2009, his "bad" year. Let’s look at his stats: He made 32 starts, and threw 200.2 IP in 2008. He made 31 starts, and threw 184.1 IP in 2009. Those stats are basically the same (there’s a difference of 16.1 innings, which isn’t all that much). In 2008, he struck out 110, and walked 64. In 2009, he struck out 107, and walked 66. Not much variance there. In 2008, his ground ball rate was 49.6%, and his fly ball rate was 29.6% (with 12 of those fly balls being home runs). In 2009, his ground ball rate was 51.3%, and his fly ball rate was 30.0% (with 18 of those fly balls being home runs). Again, there’s not too much variance in the data, with the exception of an uptick in home runs allowed.

The only major variance in his 2008 and 2009 data is ERA, with his ERA being 3.72 in 2008, and 5.03 in 2009. ERA is a fundamentally flawed piece of data to measure the success as pitchers, however. That’s not to say that it should be ignored- 99.9% of the time, when a pitcher has a low ERA, he’s doing good, and when he has a high ERA, he’s doing bad- but it’s a far cry from actually measuring how good a player is pitching. In 2008, Mike Pelfrey’s BABIP was .302. In 2009, Mike Pelfrey’s BABIP was .321. In 2008, balls were being put in play, and were being converted into outs at a larger rate than in 2009. Daniel Murphy exhibited decent range at first, defensively, but the shoddy defense of Luis Castillo, the various infielders filling in for Reyes, and a poor defensive campaign for Wright led to more of Pelfrey’s ground balls being put into play for hits, and more of those baserunners making it around the bases, to score. Does Pelfrey (or any other pitcher) control what the balls the defensive behind him gets to, and what balls they don’t? No, of course not. So, because ERA includes weighs balls that defensemen just barely miss as home runs that are crushed into the night, it cannot be used to seriously demonstrate his pitching ability.

FIP, on the other hand, can. A player’s FIP is calculated using home runs given up, walks given up, and strikeouts, all things that the pitcher alone can control. Luis Castillo not being able to reach ground balls up the middle has no impact on Pelfrey’s FIP. Alex Cora bobbling the ball, and not being able to throw out the runner as a result has no impact on Pelfrey’s FIP. David Wright not being able to field a bunt in time has no impact on Pelfrey’s FIP. Instead, FIP measures Pelfrey’s prowess and skill, and his alone.

In 2008, the MLB average FIP was 4.40. Mike Pelfrey’s FIP was 3.96, a little better than the average. In 2009, the MLB average FIP was about 4.35. Mike Pelfrey’s FIP was 4.39, demonstrating that he was just about average, a tad beneath it. On their own, however, a variance of 3.96 and 4.39 is not very much (.43). In the context of the MLB mean in 2008 and 2009 (4.37), Pelfrey’s FIP of 4.17 demonstrates that, in actuality, Pelfrey has been a little better than the average pitcher."