Just wanted to respond to one of the comments to the post about the Yankees acquistion of Paul Quantrill.

I'm a little surprised at the reaction, but maybe just because I've watched Quantrill be quite effective over the past year, and haven't seen much of Gordon. If my quick addition is correct, over the past two years Gordon and Quantrill have given up the same number of hits, while Gordon has walked 23 more people. (Gordon has five more innings pitched.) I think it isn't a sure thing that relatively poor infield defense will give up 23 more groundball hits over roughly 150 innings than will good defense. Gordon might work out betterthan will Quantrill, but I'm not sure the difference will be great enough to be excited about the one acquisition but not the other.

So, at least last year, balls put into play against Gordon were easier to field. Quantrill had a much better defense behind him. I could easily see the +10 outs for Quantrill going to a -10 outs with the Yankees. The many fewer balls in play against Gordon should lead to more success for him.

Of course, if the Yankees realize this, they'll only use Quantrill in bases empty situations, where a single isn't going to score a run, and Gordon with men in scoring position, where the strikeout is more helpful.

Update: Here's the table just for ground balls:

This shows that Quantrill's boost came from the Dodgers doing a good job of fielding his grounders. It's also interesting to note that while balls in play against Gordon were easier to field overall, Quantrill's groundballs were easier to field than Gordon's.