Matchup of '05 Free Agents: Thirty months ago, both of today's starters were free agents looking for long-term deals. The M's considered signing both of them, but ultimately chose Washburn. Speculation at the time was that Bill Bavasi balked at the five year contract Millwood wanted, and eventually ended up getting from Texas.
At the time, The Times' Steve Kelley argued that the M's should've signed Millwood. Art Thiel noted that the M's could've had Freddy Garcia locked up for a lot less. USS Mariner said they didn't like the Millwood contract, but given the choice, they'd have taken the Millwood contract over the Washburn one. Writing for Seattlest, I took my typical optimistic view, and argued that, overpaying or not, the move at least made the M's better.
Today, Millwood and Washburn battle on the mound. But let's compare them over the past two years and see if we can't come to some conclusions.
Wins and Losses, 2006-08
Millwood: 28-28, .500 (Rangers overall record: 168-188, .472)
Washburn: 19-33, .365 (M's overall record: 179-177, .503)
ERA, 2006-08
Millwood: 4.71
Washburn: 4.52
WHIP:
Millwood: 1.46
Washburn: 1.37
Quality Starts, 2006-2008:
Millwood: 40
Washburn: 35
It's a little mixed, isn't it? By W/L, Millwood is far superior, but Washburn's had the better stats. The Rangers' defense might have something to do with that, but so might Washburn's atrocious run support, 4th-lowest in the AL since signing with the M's.
I'd say Washburn's been the better signing--the Rangers were expecting (and needed) an ace, and Millwood certainly hasn't lived up to that. Meanwhile, Washburn's done about what the M's hoped--he's given them a reliable middle-of-the-rotation starter. Is he overpaid?
What Millwood Throws: Primarily fastballs--but he throws a variety of those--sinkers, cutters and a four-seamer. His m.o. is to get you to hit a pitch you didn't get a good swing at.
What the M's Can Do: The typical game plan against the Rangers should work--Make the starter throw lots of pitches so you can get into their bullpen, then wait for the Rangers to make one of their patented critical errors. Worked on opening day against Millwood, should work now.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Today's Target: Kevin Millwood
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
At the risk of sounding like one of the USS Mariner clones, consider these key indicators that have nothing to do with the flawed, results-based analysis that landed us Washburn in the first place:
1. Kevin Millwood has had a higher K/BB ratio than Washburn over the past two years, a good basic measure of a pitcher's true ability.
2. Millwood has had a lower HR/9 innings ratio than Washburn despite Millwood pitching roughly half his starts in Texas and Washburn pitching roughly half his starts in Safeco field.
3. Millwood has had significantly higher BABIP numbers than Washburn -- I suspect a combination of bad luck and having one of the most horrendous defenses in baseball behind him -- yet has given up roughly the same amount of runs.
And these are just simple measures without looking at crazy stats that nobody not named Dave Cameron and Jeff Sullivan understand such as FIP and stuff like that. Millwood is MUCH better across the board.
The bottom line is that by nearly every quasi-objective measure not relying on results, Millwood has been better. If these guys were on each other's teams, we wouldn't even be having this conversation -- we'd be saying how fortunate we were to have signed Millwood instead of Washburn.
Well, I was intentionally looking at results, since that's what you're paying for when you sign a guy.
But that's another question, and Millwood's peripherals probably explain why he's got a higher win% than his team win%, while Washburn's is much worse.
As for May 5, 2008, though, I think I'll take Wash.
Results are impacted by a lot of factors outside the pitcher's control, though. When you pay a guy for results, you get Jerrod Washburn. He's basically the same guy he was in his "heyday," with one exception: He's striking fewer guys out now than he was then (2001-2004).
But you're right, Millwood didn't look so good tonight, that's for sure. How about that homer Balentien hit -- holy smokes, that ball was destroyed. Sims and Blowers marveled at Richie's bomb, but Wlad's demonstrated the most raw power, in my book.
One more thing on the strikeout thing: The writing was on the wall with Washburn. He was much closer to a No. 5 starter at his signing than the No. 2 starter the M's touted him to be.
Even when he was striking out 139 guys in 2002, he still had a FB% of nearly 50 percent. When his strikeouts started dropping in his last two years in Anaheim and he was stranding fewer runners, anyone with half a brain should have been able to realize that all those homers he's given up throughout his career were going to start to kill him.
USS Mariner has clones?
Seth, I agree that you're paying for results, but I disagree entirely that you're paying for the results you're citing.
ERA is heavily team and luck dependent. Wins is worse.
What you pay any player for is their efforts. For pitchers, you're looking at their strikeouts, their walks, the home runs allowed, their durability, and so on -- the things under their control.
I don't see how you can look at Millwood v Washburn on the basis of what they've done and see Washburn come out as the winner.
What's funny about this is that we're arguing about two guys that NONE of us would've signed in the first place.
Post a Comment