Friday night, when Chad Qualls came out for his second inning, I wrote something like, "I don't know how I feel about this," thinking that I remembered some kind of pattern where Qualls was ineffective in his second inning.
And then when he gave up back-to-back homers to two guys who had yet to homer on the year, well, the perfect crystalline thought was sealed in amber for me:
Chad Qualls is obviously no good in multi-inning situations.
Except, now that I look at it, that's not even remotely true.
| ERA | WHIP | |
| Overall | 2.12 | 0.75 |
| 2007 | 1.29 | 0.43 |
| 2006 | 2.09 | 0.71 |
| 2005 | 2.26 | 0.71 |
| 2004 | 2.03 | 0.45 |
The numbers do not include his meltdown vs. Encarnacion and Bennett.
Now Garner is never gonna ask Qualls to come out for a second inning when Chad had sucked in the first one, so the sample is, I guess preselected is what you call it, but nevertheless, Qualls' numbers in his second inning (and beyond) of work, overall and consistently, year by year, are quite a bit better than his career 3.63 ERA and 1.21 WHIP.
I guess it proves the old adage about the sinkerballer getting better with more use.
Just thought you might like to know.