D: Because 2-3 months of good results outweigh 3 appearances. The "good" results were somewhat overrated, and no, they don't necessarily do so in this case. I know people love to spam "sample size," but there's also the matter of extremity. Extremely bad results are less likely to be sample-size flukes than ordinarily bad ones (and the same goes for good). Same argument as we had last year when Brett Jackson had a million Ks in 50 PAs or whatever. 13 batters faced: 2 BB 2 HBP 2 HR 2 K 5 BIP That's bad enough to be legitimately concerned over, sample size or no.