Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
It's not a red herring. If the FIP is consistent, then it doesn't really matter whether he was or wasn't using.

WHIP, FIP, ERA BABIP are outcomes. And the outcomes suggest he was still getting the same general results as before.

In other words, I'll happily pay for him to repeat his post-spider-tack numbers. Because those numbers are still really good. They aren't "ace of your rotation" good, but he's also not getting paid like an ace.

And I think there's a perfectly reasonable argument that his drop in ERA was a function of BABIP luck returning to normal. In April/May, he was getting a bit lucky on balls in play. In the second half of the season, his BABIP against was back to normal (.308), and his ERA and FIP were more in line accordingly.

It's possible that he was using spider tack. But it doesn't appear that not having spider tack really affected his results. So the point remains the same: it doesn't seem like post-spider tack is much of a concern for him.
You cited his ERA and then said “So I don't think he's a spider tack case.” That is what I was responding to, and I stand by that, as his spin rates are much more relevant in that respect. If you are satisfied with his performance after he stopped using whatever he was using, that’s fine. I agree he was still effective after that.

FWIW, I don’t begrudge him for using a grip enhancer when much of the league was and there was zero enforcement. And I would have been happy if my team (Dodgers) had picked him up.