You think this is bad? Man, check out the Rich Hill thread...this isn't even in the same universe. And as for Hill, I think a lot of the perception about his year being more negative than Lilly's is a lot of us assumed or hoped he would be much better than Lilly. Lilly has also gotten to his numbers by either staying consistent or getting better whereas it can be argued Rich has gotten to where he is by kind of slipping over his last 5-7 starts (I'm not sure how many exactly, though the last one ended very well). And before the Hill devotees gnash at my throat, I'M NOT TRYING TO BASH HILL. "Awesome Hill" is a joy to watch and I'm hoping he can start climbing towards that level again. That said, I'll be perfectly happy with "Good Hill," too. You tottaly and utterly missed the point. How? You said the "gloating" in this thread is ridiculous, and I replied that I think in comparison to a lot of other similar threads, Hill's key among them, this one isn't bad at all. I then replied to how (as I read it) you were pointing out how some people have really gotten on Hill over the last month despite his numbers being almost the same as Lilly's. What did I do or get wrong? Sorry to have wasted your time.