Comments on Enjoy the Enjoyment: Today's Target: Kevin Millwood

thank you sohbet muhabbet mircsevgi

2008-10-09T09:05:00.000-07:00

What's funny about this is that we're arguing abou...

2008-05-06T08:04:00.000-07:00

What's funny about this is that we're arguing about two guys that NONE of us would've signed in the first place.

USS Mariner has clones?Seth, I agree that you're p...

2008-05-05T23:29:00.000-07:00

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.

One more thing on the strikeout thing: The writing...

2008-05-05T21:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Results are impacted by a lot of factors outside t...

2008-05-05T21:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Well, I was intentionally looking at results, sinc...

2008-05-05T21:02:00.000-07:00

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.

At the risk of sounding like one of the USS Marine...

2008-05-05T15:25:00.000-07:00

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.