I understand Nate's argument, though. At the time of Veal's promotion, he and Atkins were similarly rated. Veal and Atkins both had their upsides at the time...but Atkins is a year younger. Things are different since then, but at the time, Nate's got a good argument. Regarding my choice, I was evaluating performance more than anything else, though. But why use the "at the time" argument when we're talking about the entire season to date?