# Talk:Ned Garver

RIP the great Ned Garver, maybe the unluckiest pitcher of them all.
Anyway, 3rd paragraph is

Garver remains the only pitcher in modern baseball history (post-1920) to win 20 or more games for a team which lost 100 or more games in the same season, and the only pitcher to do so with a winning record.
Well but if he's the only pitcher to win 20, then of course then (since he had a winning record) he's the only pitcher to win 20 with a winning record. It's redundant. I'm not sure what we're trying to say here: "He's the only pitcher in modern baseball history (post-1920) to win 20 or more games for a team which lost 100 or more games in the same season, and what's more, he even had a winning record" or is it "He's the only pitcher in modern baseball history (post-1920) to win 20 or more games for a team which lost 100 or more games in the same season, and the only pitcher ever -- even going back before 1920 all the way to the start of major league baseball -- to do so with a winning record." It could be clearer. Herostratus (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ned Garver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kaleeb18 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, I'll be reviewing this one using the table below. Don't know much about baseball (besides how to play and some stuff about the Braves), but I like sports so. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)