PDA

View Full Version : Eric Milton signs for 3 years/$25.5 million



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Phil in BG
12-28-2004, 07:20 AM
It seems alot of people are upset about spending the money to upgrade, but let's not forget that the Reds made these moves without depleting their minor leagues. The long term plan of building from within is still in place. Anyway you look at these off season moves, you have to agree the Reds are in a better position to compete. Their pitching staff was simply awful last year. 2005's staff will most certainly be much better and their youth, hopefully, won't be rushed to the majors.

Raisor
12-28-2004, 07:26 AM
It seems alot of people are upset about spending the money to upgrade, .


Actually, no one is upset about spending money to upgrade. Some of us just question how much was spent and how much actually "upgrade" there will be.

For a team that's spent as much money as the Reds have this offseason, the team should be a lot better then they're going to be, imo.

RedsBaron
12-28-2004, 07:44 AM
Actually, no one is upset about spending money to upgrade. Some of us just question how much was spent and how much actually "upgrade" there will be.

For a team that's spent as much money as the Reds have this offseason, the team should be a lot better then they're going to be, imo.
I agree. For what the Reds have spent, they perhaps could have a rotation that starts with Clements and Perez rather than Milton and Wilson.
I'm ambivalent about the free agent signings and trades the Reds have made this offseason. They do look improved, I'm pleasantly surprised to see the Reds spend some money, and the additions to the staff should ease some of the burden off of what young pitching talent (Claussen, Wagner) the Reds have on the major league roster and stop them from rushing young arms up from the minors.
I obviously hope the new pitchers work out. I haven't voted in the on-going poll. I will just add that I can recall how happy most posters appeared to be when the Reds signed Danny Graves to his big contract before the 2003 season; few would be happy today about that deal.

buckeyenut
12-28-2004, 08:10 AM
Worse yet, if Dan O?Brien genuinely thinks he has improved this team the last two weeks or so, we?re in for a LONG and LEAN couple of years.

Actually, I have no doubt we improved the team. We added Mercker, Weber, Ortiz, Milton, Weathers, Randa, without giving anything up on the ML roster except White, Norton and Reidling. These 5 pitchers didn't replace 1-5 on our pitching staff, they replaced 8-12. And Randa didn't replace Freel, he replaced Castro or someone similar.
While we did not add any top end talent, and what we did add was expensive, we did get a lot of depth which will help make this team better.

At this point, if you could somehow use an OF or minor leaguers to add a legit #1 starter to this team, you have something serious. A true ace is now the only thing that stands between the Reds and playoff contention.

PuffyPig
12-28-2004, 09:09 AM
I hope you're right. If they win 84 games, that meant A LOT of things went right.

We won 76 games last year, and most things went wrong.

We got half a year from Griffey, almost nothing from Kearns. Our pitching staff imploded. Only Casey and Dunn had what could be considered good years. Our team is improved on paper. With decent health, we could win 90 games if players simply have average years.

GAC
12-28-2004, 09:28 AM
It again gonna come down to an issue of health with this team.

I think they have improved their pitching.

They went into last season taking a HUGE gamble on unprovens in this BP... and they got burned big time!

They have gone out and signed three veteran relievers. With me, age is not really an issue when it comes to the effectiveness of a relief pitcher. In fact, the experience can be a huge plus IMO.

But compared to last year, this organization has definitely taken steps in the right direction to improve itself.

And as it has already been stated...we've done so without really divesting ourselves of any of the young talent that we have.

Just keeping Jr and Ears healthy will be a BIG plus in '05.

And I think Mr Graves sees the writing on the wall also. ;)

doug flynn
12-28-2004, 09:54 AM
Rather what I see is Lindner react to an ever louder call in the local press that he had no intentions to make an effort to win.

If it's taken Uncle Carl four years of bad press to make a knee-jerk decision, how long, for a well thought out plan? I ain't gettin any younger. :help:

At winter meetings opening, the questions here were along the lines of resign Wilson and non-tender Jimenez. If someone had posted Dano would make the moves already completed, they would have been mocked.

These moves clearly are not going to make the Reds serious contenders, but it will make the summer more attractive to the average fan. Seats still need to be filled. Waiting on the youngsters to mature, develope, be surgically repaired, rehab, move up or washout can be done in the minors instead of the GAB. Wilson, Ortiz and Milton will be off the books by the time any of the young arms would be ready. I doubt Milton will ever see a third year in Cincinnati. Unless Milton's arm falls off, someone will gamble at next years deadline. A left handed starter is not hard to move, more so if it's only a salary dump to allow a long term deal for Dunn.

The one thing that could make Milton and Ortiz great signings-to prevent a Dunn/Kerns panic trade-for Perez/Millwood type arms. Those deals reduce the desperation factor to improve last years putrid rotation. I don't trust Dano to get a package of arms that would justify moving either. If these signings allow Dano to be overwhelmed, instead of desperate, it could be monies well spent. At the least, both are upgrades to the Cincinnati staff, pre-winter meetings. That's what most people wanted, and more than most expected, from an inert Red's front office.

Gary Redus
12-28-2004, 10:46 AM
Lot's of assumptions permeate this thread ... but that is true with such things as the baseball offseason. Look, the bottom line is that ownership, for whatever reason, decided to put a major league product on the field. For all I know it was because of political pressure regarding breaking the public trust in financing GAB - who knows but spend money they did.

We don't know if DanO attempted to sign anyone else instead of Milton. I rather suspect he did but was rebuffed. As Santo said, Milton is now a Red and that is that.

For the record, he rather reminds me of Mark Langston, Frank Viola, and Tom Browning. All durable lefties that occassionally got raked but kept their teams consistently in games and also were capable of throwing excellent ball for stretches. I am glad we aren't looking at AAAA arms or guys who aren't even shaving yet attempting to get our major league hitters.

I also think that taken as a package, the Reds have a better chance of competing this year than the same time last year or last month for that matter. The bench will actually have some major leaguers on it.

Would I rather have Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling - sure but we don't. Could DanO have done better? Perhaps but we don't know. I'll withhold final judgement on that matter until I know the facts.

nyjwagner
12-28-2004, 10:53 AM
How much is winning games in August and September worth? How much is hope worth? Now go and look at how much LEFT-handed pitchers are worth who are over .500. John Franco was able to drag two more years (just barely) out of his career simply because someone thought a lefty was worth it. Who was our ace last year? Who was our ace the year before? Isnt it worth something to have someone that someother team might actually want. Isnt it worth something to allow our kids to see a decent pitcher pitch in Cincy? Milton is gritty. Milton can win, and with the bullpen shored up, perhaps his leads won't be blown. He lost a few decisions in Philly due to blown leads by their bullpen. I was at two of them. Are we going to win the division next year...no. But might we in 3 years...absolutely. And its been a long long time since I thought that was possible. That is worth a lot to me.

Anyway, check out http://lovemyteam.com

Krusty
12-28-2004, 10:57 AM
Do I sense sarcasm???
Darn right. For all the moves O'Brien has made and the reaction from several posters, you think they didn't have a clue to what they are doing.

The negativity on this board really stinks.

Stewie
12-28-2004, 10:58 AM
I don't know what pitches he throws, but from that video, it appears that he has some serious gas and a NASTY change up.

Anyone help on that?

Milton has a fastball in the low 90s, a hard slider, and a decent curve.

MWM
12-28-2004, 11:10 AM
It appears the Reds pitching strategy is to become consistently mediocre, as opposed to being consistenty bad.

I think you hit it on the head there, Pedro. And that's the only thing I've really had an issue with all along. I don't doubt that adding a guy like Milton makes the Reds marginally better, but that makes them a higher level of mediocre.

Krusty
12-28-2004, 11:15 AM
Those 40+ home runs Milton gave up last season can be attributed to Citizens Bank Park. That ballpark is more of a softball field than GAB.

Krusty
12-28-2004, 11:16 AM
Hey Stewie....being a Phillies fan, give us the lowdown on Milton. Is he as horrible as some posters portray him or was alot of his problems due to Citizens Bank Park and their short leftfield porch?

Red Leader
12-28-2004, 11:17 AM
Those 40+ home runs Milton gave up last season can be attributed to Citizens Bank Park. That ballpark is more of a softball field than GAB.


Krusty, its already been said that Milton gave up 23 homers on the road, and 20 at home (PHI). So, while some of them can be contributed to Citizens Bank, you can't say that was the sole reason for such a high number of HR allowed.

Trace's Daddy
12-28-2004, 11:21 AM
Hopefully Don G. can work with him in keeping the ball down.
I am so stoked about this team - can't wait to make the roadie to Cincy in April!

Falls City Beer
12-28-2004, 11:23 AM
Those 40+ home runs Milton gave up last season can be attributed to Citizens Bank Park. That ballpark is more of a softball field than GAB.

I have no idea if Milton will benefit from a bigger park in GAB, but I don't think this can be stressed enough: CBP is tiny, tiny, tiny. Think Minute Maid but smaller tiny. Maybe Milton will put up his Metrodome numbers in GAB, which, from 1999 to 2002, were good to solid numbers.

Red Leader
12-28-2004, 11:24 AM
Like I said before, not sure if Milton is lucky or unlucky.

He seems not to allow many baserunners, he doesn't give up a lot of hits or walks, and he strikes out a good number of batters, but when he does get hit during the game, those hits seem to be costly. Not sure if that's a matter of concentration or what...as the baserunners he does allow seem to score a lot. Is that being unlucky? Even still, since he's gotten great run support over his career, even when he does get hit, he seems to either get no decisions or wins out of it, so is that lucky?

I'm not sure. Could be a bit of both.

MWM
12-28-2004, 11:25 AM
Very few pitchers in MLB are worth what they are paying them.

Name a FA pitcher signed this winter that hasn't been overpaid? ;)

Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean the Reds should. If the market has risen to the point that the Reds can't play in the FA market, then they'd be better served staying out of it. That's just my opinion.


I really don't know what some see in Millwood.

He's had two VERY good years (ERA of 2.68 and 3.28 and a good WHIP) and two more somewhat good years (4.08 and 4.01), and then a couple of average to beow average years. His career ERA is 3.89 with a WHIP of 1.27. I'm not sure that there's a big difference between the two, but the guy has had more success in his career than Milton and they are only one year in age apart.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2004, 11:26 AM
Krusty, its already been said that Milton gave up 23 homers on the road, and 20 at home (PHI). So, while some of them can be contributed to Citizens Bank, you can't say that was the sole reason for such a high number of HR allowed.

They don't have to leave the park for SLG Against to be affected--warning track fly outs turn into doubles.

Puffy
12-28-2004, 11:34 AM
He's had two VERY good years (ERA of 2.68 and 3.28 and a good WHIP) and two more somewhat good years (4.08 and 4.01), and then a couple of average to beow average years. His career ERA is 3.89 with a WHIP of 1.27. I'm not sure that there's a big difference between the two, but the guy has had more success in his career than Milton and they are only one year in age apart.

Yes, but Milton is a lefty and if you think there is a slight difference between the two (with Milwood having the advantage) then the fact that Milton is a lefty, especially with the GAB playing as a left-handed hitters tilted park, should make these guys darn near even.

I still think the Reds paid too much.

Just sayin'

traderumor
12-28-2004, 11:35 AM
It appears the Reds pitching strategy is to become consistently mediocre, as opposed to being consistenty bad. The staff was so bad last year that just getting some pitchers who actually would exist on another teams rosters is an improvement, even if they are all mediocre.

Couldn't disagree more. That may be the final result once you throw this staff in a pot for an entire season, but to say that they are striving for mediocrity is ludicrous.

I would be more agreeable with the naysayers if they at least didn't portray the front office as total buffoons. The Reds paid what was likely market price for Eric Milton. If you want to complain about the price of beef, fine, but we do need protein in our diet. I wanted Clement first, Perez second, and Milton last. I think we all know that Clement was given a fair offer, and based on that, it is a fair assumption that Odalis was given the same.

Also, while folks are boldly running out their predictions of win totals for next year, many of us were around here last offseason when the Reds were considered the worst team in the majors going into the season (they weren't) and the Astros and Cubs were considered "locks." One got hot after a near disaster of a season and snuck into the playoffs, the other was eliminated by the predicted worst team in the majors. The best team in the majors during the regular season, the Cardinals, were slated to be also rans by a clear consensus (including me). The Yankees were nearly handed the trophy when they acquired ARod.

Just sayin'

Bill
12-28-2004, 11:38 AM
The Philly park as Milton's problem is a myth. SLG against at home-.451, on the road-.539. Home ERA-4.40, Road ERA- 5.12.

He'll give up big hits anywhere it seems.

NJReds
12-28-2004, 11:40 AM
Wow. Don't go on the computer for a couple days, and there's over 500 messages to read in this thread alone. Didn't see the Reds FO spending $8M+ per year on a player...any player. :eek:

Regardless of where you fall in the Milton debate, it seems as though most folks here seem to like Odalis Perez. I do too. His numbers last year were pretty good, especially compared to the FA pitchers this offseason that drew multiple offers from teams. But it seems like most GMs are laying low on Perez. Could the only reason be that he's a Type A FA? Any thoughts.

I'm wondering if there's some other issue is with Perez. Health? Attitude? He basically came out and asked for a meeting with the Mets, saying how much he wants to be in a rotation with Pedro, and Mets GM Minaya said he has little interest in a meeting. This from a guy who spent $80M on Pedro and Kris Benson.

Bill
12-28-2004, 11:44 AM
Do we know for a fact Clement was given any offer by the Reds? I never saw any claim by Clement or his agent that the Reds were negotiating with Clement. Clement's agent did say that his next best offer after Boston was within 10%. It seems then that if they were offering Clement the money they had to offer Milton, they would have matched Boston's offer.

DoogMinAmo
12-28-2004, 11:45 AM
There is always one factor people are ignoring when determining which pitchers the Reds should have acquired.

Granted, most of us wanted Odalis Perez. It was so glaring here, that the fact of the matter is, almost EVERYONE wanted him. When that proportional amount of poeple are for something, it strikes me as very likely that the FO has consided the move as well. For whatever reason, Perez is not here. The FO was neither able to convince him to make the choice, or they realized something about him (he's a headcase who gave up a ton of fly balls in a pitchers park) that convinced them not to sign him. This is our FO, this is what they did.

The above, from what we can muster, seems to apply to other premeire free agents available this winter as well. We actually heard rumors of this being true with Clement, and who knows, thanks to DanO's tight lipped philosophy, to whom else it was applicable. Chances are if we had the money to spend, and the rank of good pitchers out there is as glaring as many of us seem to see it, then the FO saw it as well, and tried to get them first. They couldn't and/ or didn't, and we got Milton, yet another premium pitcher available. He's not the best, but a darn good one.

Lastly, and very importantly, Milton WANTED to come here. He claims he felt very wanted, and the other players rallied around him. This is all very good for a team, yeah I know, the dreaded "c" word. The chemistry pundits have to admit, though, one is going to feel a greater urge or desire to win and do one's best for a team he both cares about and feels cared about. Whether this is brought to fruitition, the quantifiables (as I like to call the proverbial "stat geeks") and many others will never know. We can only go by what our hearts tell us.

This makes two straight saught-after free agents that saw in the Reds both a great present and future. Am I the happiest I could be, obviously no. The contract numbers seem astronomical to me. Am I the happiest I have been in a while, highly likely. There is now, for the first time in a long while, a highly above average team top to bottom presented at spring training.

We are not an upper teir team yet, but as MWM, the one of the biggest critics here, has stated, "I don't doubt that adding a guy like Milton makes the Reds marginally better, but that makes them a higher level of mediocre."

High level mediocre teams challenge for playoff spots. And the next step up is above average. After that, top teir. Its both a start and a means., and I along with a few others, am thankful.

Bill
12-28-2004, 11:48 AM
There are concerns about Perez' arm and character issues. Didn't he question his teammates effort on the field? I think some question his effort too.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2004, 11:55 AM
The Philly park as Milton's problem is a myth. SLG against at home-.451, on the road-.539. Home ERA-4.40, Road ERA- 5.12.

He'll give up big hits anywhere it seems.

Maybe, I don't know. All of Padilla, Millwood, Myers saw their SLG Against jump up appreciably in 2004. I don't know if the park played any role, injury, coincidence, having to work under Larry Bowa, or what. But that fact can't be disputed: all of those pitchers saw a marked spike in SLG against for Philly in 2004. FWIW.

Stewie
12-28-2004, 11:58 AM
Hey Stewie....being a Phillies fan, give us the lowdown on Milton. Is he as horrible as some posters portray him or was alot of his problems due to Citizens Bank Park and their short leftfield porch?

Yeah, to back up what Red Leader and Bill said, Milton had as many bad games on the road as he had at home, so you can't blame the park.

One thing I noticed last year about Milton was that he wasn't very efficient with his pitches. Last year, he averaged just under 6 innings per start, yet averaged over 100 pitches per. He only got into the 8th once, and that was his near no-hitter against the Cubs (that Doug Glanville ruined - I'm still angry about that :dflynn: ). He also had 6 games where he had thrown over 100 pitches, yet pitched less than 6 innings (and several more where he had just under 100 pitches in under 6 innings). In one of his better starts, against Kansas City, he gave up 1 run on 6 hits in 7 innings, struck out 8, yet threw 135 pitches.

Basically, my opinion is that Milton is a decent #4 starter, and should help the Reds staff improve, but I would be worried that in a couple years his contract could be an albatross. The one thing he has in his favor is that he is a solid lefty starter, and a team with a big bank account and starting pitching injuries may give up a lot at the deadline in order to trade for him.

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 12:07 PM
Maybe, I don't know. All of Padilla, Millwood, Myers saw their SLG Against jump up appreciably in 2004. I don't know if the park played any role, injury, coincidence, having to work under Larry Bowa, or what. But that fact can't be disputed: all of those pitchers saw a marked spike in SLG against for Philly in 2004. FWIW.

It's most likely because the Phillies moved from a pitcher's park into a stadium that played as a slight hitter's park in 2004.

Bill
12-28-2004, 12:13 PM
Speaking of Millwood, word is the Indians doctors have ordered additional tests on his shoulder today and it might be another 48 hours before a final decision is made. Apparently if there are still questions, they might ask Millwood to have it checked with the microcamera procedures. Not sure if that will fly with Boras.

HermW
12-28-2004, 12:25 PM
I think the deal stinks. Too much money, blah, blah, blah.

But. What if the following is true:

1. Reds' management wanted two SPs and got Wilson and Ortiz.
2. Reds' FO then decided, after crunching the numbers and looking at season ticket sales, to raise payroll and preferred to spend it on starting pitching. But they could not go beyond 8-9 mil. per year.
3. The top free agent pitchers could pick and choose among bigger market teams (i.e., Perez, Clement, Pavano, etc.) and gave the Reds an absolute NO.
4. Next year's free agent class looked no better as far as prospects.
5. Reds wanted a lefty.
6. Reds wanted a veteran with some youth and upside.
7. Reds did not want to trade any top prospects.
8. Reds did not want to sign 2 more $3-4 mil. suspect starters.
9. Reds are still willing to "fully fund" the draft and other minor league activities.
10. Reds signed a vet 3B in Randa and Glaus was already signed.
11. Reds resigned Jimenez and no 2B prospects were around.
12. Reds liked their SS prospects (or "suspects", as the case may be) better than Eckstein and other available options.
13. Reds resigned Larue and no other FA C's were around to sign.
14. Reds had already signed a couple of veteran relievers to fill out the BP.

Now, if all of this is true (and granted that is a big if), then the Milton signing is defensible, IMO, even if it is still a bad signing. Here the Reds are with extra payroll (suddenly). They want to spend it on starting pitcher. They don't want to tie it up in the BP. They already have position players resigned and a lineup ready to go, except at SS. But Renteria is signed and there is no one else appealing. So the $$ must be spent on a SP.

After Pavano, Clement, etc. reject you, what do you do with the $$? Leave it on the table? Save it until next year?

The only thing I can think of is to use the money to trade Graves or Griffey for another good player (hopefully a SP) with a big contract and pay for their contract. The problem is the Reds don't want to trade prospects which would be required to get a good player in exchange for Graves or Griffey. And, besides, who would this SP be?

Here is the point/question: If you have the money in payroll and you want to spend it now to improve the team, and all other variables above are true (which they could be), then what do you do with the money. Once I see a viable alternative, that is not offering Clement $13-15 mil. per year, then I will get really, really down on this signing. Otherwise, I will only be a "sort of" down on it, because it shows that the Reds have no "street cred" with FAs even when they have money to spend and because it is too money to spend for Milton.

But the "at least it is something" crowd has a point, IMO, especially if my fact scenario is true or close to true.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 12:37 PM
It's most likely because the Phillies moved from a pitcher's park into a stadium that played as a slight hitter's park in 2004.

It played at 123 as far as HR's go and 101 overall (90 in doubles)

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 12:49 PM
It played at 123 as far as HR's go and 101 overall (90 in doubles)

Yep. After hearing so much about that stadium being a phone booth, I was surprised that the only thing it appears to inflate is overall HR rate. Less hits and Doubles (probably because they're flying over the wall) versus the average last year. That being said, the HR PF was pretty comparable to Atlanta and Toronto.

4256 Hits
12-28-2004, 12:55 PM
Here is my take on the signing.

It like you are hungry and all you have in your frig is chopped liver so you go to a store to buy steak and you pick up package of meat priced like it is steak even though the meat is labled ground beef. So you get home to eat don't be disapointed if you find gound beef in your bag although there is a slight chance it could be mislabled and really be steak. Sure your better off because you are not eating chopped liver but you are not eating as good as you could be.

Milton history is not worth what he was paid but is better than the crap ran out there before and does have a chance to be better. But the real problem is in 2006 can the Reds afford 4 players (Dunn (most likely), Griffey, Casey, Milton) making 8.5 mil or more? This money would have been better spent trying to wrap up the big three OF for a few years.

Count me as one the is happy that the Reds are trying to improve but this was a bad way to go about it.

Johnny Footstool
12-28-2004, 01:04 PM
The negativity on this board really stinks.

The starry-eyed optimism is really annoying, too. ;)

westofyou
12-28-2004, 01:09 PM
I found this in Will Carrolls column from last year after Milton was traded to the Phillies.

Kinda scary.

The trade of Eric Milton to the Philadelphia Phillies in return for Carlos Silva, Nick Punto, and a MLTBNLATRFD (minor leaguer to be named later, after the Rule 5 draft) is one fraught with medhead angst. Milton, of course, is coming off a season defined by and almost completely lost to an extensive knee surgery. Is this surgery the reason that the Twins were willing to move him, or was his 17-inning audition at the end of the 2003 season enough for the Phillies to be satisfied that he can move into a rotation that may lose ace Kevin Millwood?
Like most instances where baseball and medicine meet, the answer is "both." After Milton's late-March knee surgery, details came out about the severe deterioration that was found despite his relatively youthful age of 27 (he's now 28). His surgeon, Dr. Thomas Rosenberg had operated earlier in 2003 on Tiger Woods, but unlike Woods' relatively simple surgery, Rosenberg found Milton's knee required much more extensive work. In the procedure, Rosenberg removed more than 30 discreet pieces of cartilage from both the medial and lateral meniscus. He was also forced to debride what was described as significant osteoarthritis from the knee both above and below the joint. As you can see from this illustration and description of similar procedures, Milton's knee likely looked like that of a much older person that may at some point be a candidate for complete joint replacement in order to maintain function.

The six-month recovery and involved rehabilitation that Milton went through in order to return to the game went according to plan, according to Twins sources. Once he began to pitch again, both in drill and during a brief minor league rehab stint, it was clear that at least in the short term, Milton was able to return to his previous level of pitching. There is, however, a significant worry that his knee will continue to degrade over the course of a full season, endangering his ability to contribute as expected. It's one thing to pitch 17 good innings and quite another to the reach the 200-inning level for which the Phillies are paying.

Milton's injury is similar to, but much more advanced than that of fellow lefty Randy Johnson. Johnson was able to come back after injections of synvisc, a synthetic lubricant that seeks to reduce bone-on-bone friction in the absence of normal, natural shock absorbers. There is a great deal of disagreement over which, if any, technique is more effective in the long-term, but sports medicine often takes an odd perspective on both efficacy and function. There is clearly room for interpretation and individuality. Where both techniques returned the respective pitchers to function, both are also likely to be walking around with their children and grandchildren on a replacement joint. It is one price of professional sports that we seldom see.

The Phillies receive a pitcher with significant risk of recurrence who will likely pitch--and walk--with some level of pain. It is Milton's pain tolerance and the abilities of the Phillies' medical staff that will decide his effectiveness on the mound. The team takes on a one-year risk, which given the usual timeframe for recurrence, is only slightly elevated over a normal pitcher of this age. They also deal with a known quantity: By knowing the level of damage, the Phillies' staff will be able to come up with a plan to keep Milton as healthy as possible, something they were unable to do in Minnesota before the problem showed up.


Heading to Minnesota is Carlos Silva, a 25-year-old who could slot into the back of the Twins rotation or, more likely, will move into the role vacated by LaTroy Hawkins. Silva has been more effective in relief while in the majors, and his poor mechanics do not bode well for his being able to succeed and stay healthy in a starting role. While Punto, the PTBNL, and the $9 million owed to Milton for 2004 were more significant to the Twins than talent in this trade, the team actually didn't reduce its injury risk significantly.
I'll leave the rest of this deal to the performance analysts and PECOTA, but from the medhead angle, there's no clear winner in this deal. Medheads might not fold on this go-round, but I'm not raising either.

DoogMinAmo
12-28-2004, 01:10 PM
Milton history is not worth what he was paid but is better than the crap ran out there before and does have a chance to be better. But the real problem is in 2006 can the Reds afford 4 players (Dunn (most likely), Griffey, Casey, Milton) making 8.5 mil or more? This money would have been better spent trying to wrap up the big three OF for a few years.


I thought Graves was off the books after this year. I also doubt Dunn will make that much, with hopes that an LTC would prevent him from doing it while offering security over the long term. In all reality, we do have some high-payed players, but if the entire league is paying the Miltons of the world 8-8.5, then is it still "over"paying?

I think spending two bucks on gas is overpaying, but I pay it anyways, because hydrogen technology (raising our own farm talent) is not readily available yet. I am paying a high dollar amount, but it is not overpaying, it is just a high price.

M2
12-28-2004, 01:45 PM
Some thoughts on this one.

Milton was a good pitcher from 1999-2001. The Reds need him to be that guy for this deal to work. If the Milton of 2002-2004 shows up, it's a clunker.

The last time I saw this much confidence placed in a Reds rotation heading into a season, the unit consisted of Jimmy Haynes, Ryan Dempster, Danny Graves and Paul Wilson.

This is the biggest Reds free agent move ever. The previous standards were John Smiley and Dave Parker, both of whom came through with flying colors.

With all the money invested in shaky pitchers for the rotation, more than ever the Reds need Don Gullett to be a world-class pitching coach. He needs to get this group to trounce its career norms.

DoogMinAmo
12-28-2004, 01:47 PM
M2, I think that is positively your most positive post ever, in a roundabout way. :thumbup:

Welcome to the club. :D

KronoRed
12-28-2004, 01:52 PM
I feel better about this deal today...or slightly less negative..I really hope this works out for the Reds :pray: :crossfing

pedro
12-28-2004, 02:11 PM
Couldn't disagree more. That may be the final result once you throw this staff in a pot for an entire season, but to say that they are striving for mediocrity is ludicrous.

I would be more agreeable with the naysayers if they at least didn't portray the front office as total buffoons. The Reds paid what was likely market price for Eric Milton. If you want to complain about the price of beef, fine, but we do need protein in our diet. I wanted Clement first, Perez second, and Milton last. I think we all know that Clement was given a fair offer, and based on that, it is a fair assumption that Odalis was given the same.

Also, while folks are boldly running out their predictions of win totals for next year, many of us were around here last offseason when the Reds were considered the worst team in the majors going into the season (they weren't) and the Astros and Cubs were considered "locks." One got hot after a near disaster of a season and snuck into the playoffs, the other was eliminated by the predicted worst team in the majors. The best team in the majors during the regular season, the Cardinals, were slated to be also rans by a clear consensus (including me). The Yankees were nearly handed the trophy when they acquired ARod.

Just sayin'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a completely bad strategy. In fact, based on what was realistically available TO THE REDS, it may well have been the best they could do. Also, as a fan, I think the Reds are going to be much more interesting to watch next year. I'm getting tired of watching the pitching staff explode in August (or earlier) and a merry-go round of pitchers parade through town after the all star break. I don't have delusions that Milton, Wilson, and Ortiz are stars but they do have some upside, however minimal, and I believe that the cumulative effect of having some guys who can pitch some innings at the front of the rotation will have a positive effect on the rest of the staff. The Reds have depth now that they didn't have the last few years and baseball is not about putting the best team on the field on a single day, it's an everyday proposition. The Reds are better prepared IMO to field a somewhat competitive team on a daily basis that they were last year. That's maybe not what some people want, but I don't see a way they could have done much better than that. I know a lot of people here say "I could have done better", but I'm not hearing a lot of "this is what I would have done".

M2
12-28-2004, 02:14 PM
M2, I think that is positively your most positive post ever, in a roundabout way. :thumbup:

Welcome to the club. :D

What club? If you're in it (and if it also involves heavy emoticon usage), then count me out.

OrlandoBuckeye
12-28-2004, 02:23 PM
How can anyone say 84 games is reachable only if everything goes right?

Who knows we may only win 60 games this year, but this team likely would have won more than 84 games last year if Junior would have been healthy all year and if Kearns would have been healthy.

We are improved in the starting pitching. Milton is much better than anyone we had last year. Our bullpen should be much improved next year and we should have beter bench depth.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 02:26 PM
but this team likely would have won more than 84 games last year if Junior would have been healthy all year and if Kearns would have been healthy.

The 2004 Reds had the highest ERA in modern team history, they could have had Babe Ruth and they would have given up more runs than they scored.



ERA YEAR ERA R R
1 Reds 1894 5.99 1085 -109
2 Reds 2004 5.21 907 -155
3 Reds 2003 5.09 886 -140
4 Reds 1930 5.08 860 -4
5 Reds 1895 4.81 854 20
6 Reds 2001 4.78 850 -88
7 Reds 1953 4.63 788 -52
8 Reds 1957 4.62 781 -106
9 Reds 1893 4.55 814 58
10 Reds 1993 4.51 785 -65

traderumor
12-28-2004, 02:31 PM
Thanks for clarifying your position, Pedro. Sorry if I was a little harsh toward your opinion.

DoogMinAmo
12-28-2004, 02:37 PM
What club? If you're in it (and if it also involves heavy emoticon usage), then count me out.

Ya cut me deep M2, ya cut me real deep.

MWM
12-28-2004, 03:21 PM
woy, nice article on the Milton signing from last year. I have a similar kneww condition to Milton and I've done everything humanly possible to make it better and it just doesn't work. I hope Kremchek was consulted about this condition before guranteeing him $25 million.

westofyou
12-28-2004, 04:14 PM
Here's how I see the Milton deal.

Dan O'Briens dad went out of town and left him $250 bucks, Dan called all his friends and said, "I'm having a party on Friday night, 8:00pm." All Dans friends get excited.... "Dan has never had a party, this oughta be something..."

Come Friday night the party starts and Dan proudly stands up and says, "Boy's we have beer." and then he rolls in 2 kegs.

Beer!!! screams his friends, awesome... Dan never buys the beer.

Voice in the back.... "Yeah but it's Budweiser and Bud Lite."
---------------------------
So the choice seems to be drink the Bud and try and try and enjoy the party (and probably get a wicked riced up hangover) or eschew the Bud and talk about the smooth taste of a Bass Ale or Newcastle.

Red Leader
12-28-2004, 04:18 PM
Here's how I see the Milton deal.

Dan O'Briens dad went out of town and left him $250 bucks, Dan called all his friends and said, "I'm having a party on Friday night, 8:00pm." All Dans friends get excited.... "Dan has never had a party, this oughta be something..."

Come Friday night the party starts and Dan proudly stands up and says, "Boy's we have beer." and then he rolls in 2 kegs.

Beer!!! screams his friends, awesome... Dan never buys the beer.

Voice in the back.... "Yeah but it's Budweiser and Bud Lite."
---------------------------
So the choice seems to be drink the Bud and try and try and enjoy the party (and probably get a wicked riced up hangover) or eschew the Bud and talk about the smooth taste of a Bass Ale or Newcastle.

Can I add this to my "I Don't Get It" list? :confused: :confused: :confused:






:MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ: :allovrjr: :allovrjr: :allovrjr: :allovrjr:

GAC
12-28-2004, 04:28 PM
Yet, you say later in the post that the Reds DID overpay for Milton. What's the problem with pointing out that



That's what I'm worried about. That THIS is their committment to winning.

Krusty you seem to be satisfied just because they're spending money. I'm not a believer in that philosophy. If I go out and pay $500,000 for a house that's only worth $100,000 just so I can say I live in an expensive house, that doesn't change the fact that the house isn't that great.

Figuratively speaking in relation to the analogy you present - you say he is only worth $100,000.

But who determines what that pitcher (house) is worth? What or who drives it? It's not the Reds fault that they paid Milton what he got.

Offer him a 3 yr/15 Mil contract and see what would have happened?

We'd all be complaining that the Reds didn't try hard enough to get an SP.

Most teams are overpaying for even decent SP.

bigredmachine1976
12-28-2004, 04:42 PM
If the Reds offered you the same amount of money as the Yankees and Red Soxs, where would you go? Point being the only way the Reds will get any quailty free agent will be to pay more than the elite teams are willing to pay. So did they over pay for Milton? No, I'd say the paid what was nessecary to get him. Are there better pitchers? Yes and the Reds would have to pay even more for them. It's not as complicated as we are trying to make it out to be.

Redmachine2003
12-28-2004, 04:51 PM
People complain about this signing and are using the Hrs he gave up as their leg to stand on. Yes he gave up 43 hrs last year and that made his ops go up but he also post 18 quality starts. If he had his avg of around 30 hrs his ops is back to repectable level. My concern would be the Knee. If that is not a problem over the next three years this he will be a 14- 18 game winner each year and that is something the stats geeks can not make go away is that he keeps winning even though he is in the top of the rotations for bad teams.

Tony Cloninger
12-28-2004, 04:56 PM
We probably would have never known about the offer.
Since DO seems to keep everything more secret than KAOS......we would have just thought they never even offered a contract.

Overpaying is something that bites....but it is something that Bengals should have learned to do long ago.

Hopefully it works with Milton........i mean if you think they overpaid for him....think how much they would have had to overpay for Clements?

M2
12-28-2004, 05:00 PM
Yes he gave up 43 hrs last year and that made his ops go up but he also post 18 quality starts.

When did 18 QS in 34 starts become a good thing?

traderumor
12-28-2004, 05:10 PM
[raises right hand, puts left hand on Bible]as a former user of the term "stat geek," I solemnly swear to never, ever use that term again, so help me God.

pedro
12-28-2004, 05:12 PM
When did 18 QS in 34 starts become a good thing?

When he joined the Reds.

Bill
12-28-2004, 05:16 PM
But Woy, Dan is charging $3 for each party goer for a plastic cup.

I know you said it's not your coin, but for those attending the games (with increased ticket prices) or even buying for the advertised products, it is their coin essentially. They hold the right to be dissapointed when they are served bud lite.

I am curious what ERA Milton needs to post for the supporters of this signing to consider his 8 mill salary as justified. Would you be happy with his career ERA? Would also be interested in non-supporters for that matter as well.

Puffy
12-28-2004, 05:17 PM
Here's how I see the Milton deal.

Dan O'Briens dad went out of town and left him $250 bucks, Dan called all his friends and said, "I'm having a party on Friday night, 8:00pm." All Dans friends get excited.... "Dan has never had a party, this oughta be something..."

Come Friday night the party starts and Dan proudly stands up and says, "Boy's we have beer." and then he rolls in 2 kegs.

Beer!!! screams his friends, awesome... Dan never buys the beer.

Voice in the back.... "Yeah but it's Budweiser and Bud Lite."
---------------------------
So the choice seems to be drink the Bud and try and try and enjoy the party (and probably get a wicked riced up hangover) or eschew the Bud and talk about the smooth taste of a Bass Ale or Newcastle.

bUD lITE rULZ!!!

M2
12-28-2004, 05:24 PM
When he joined the Reds.

Great line.

Redmachine2003
12-28-2004, 05:28 PM
When did 18 QS in 34 starts become a good thing?
Clement only had 16 QS last year
Perez had 21 QS last year
Vazquez had 17 last year

Matt700wlw
12-28-2004, 05:29 PM
Clement only had 16 QS starts last year

SSsssh!!! Quit bringing facts into this!!!

Matt700wlw
12-28-2004, 05:37 PM
Clement: 69-75

Milton: 71-57

Milton's also younger, and left handed....left handed pitching doesn't come at you every day

M2
12-28-2004, 05:39 PM
Clement only had 16 QS last year
Perez had 21 QS last year
Vazquez had 17 last year

And that's why you never saw me use his QS total as a reason to pursue the guy. He had other numbers that indicated he was a good bet to deliver a high percentage of QS in the future, but his 2004 QS total wasn't one of them.

Perez's 21 QS in 31 starts is right above the 2/3 QS buy in you'd want from a starting pitcher. Given his QS rate and Milton's 34 starts, he'd have been at 23 QS, or 28% more QS than Milton.

Vazquez had a bad year and he had a better QS rate than Milton had.

danforsman
12-28-2004, 05:41 PM
I have admittedly read through this thread rather quickly, so I may be speaking redundantly, but I didn't read much discussion regarding the financial structure of Milton's deal. Seems like it's rather heavily backloaded, which seems advantageous to the Reds in the sense that they have a relative bargain on their hands for 2005 (even Milton's harshest detractors may concede that $4M for a pitcher of his ilk is at least fair), and should a deadline bidder willing to pay the approximately $8M for future seasons (see Yankees, Mets, etc.) surface, the Reds could then flip Milton for what would likely be a fairly substantial set of young talent.

I'm certainly not saying that this is foolproof, and given Milton's last 3 seasons, I certainly hope it was not the central motivation behind the deal. Obviously, if Milton stinks up the joint, then the Reds are stuck holding both him and his titanic contract for several more years.

MWM
12-28-2004, 05:42 PM
Here's how I see the Milton deal.

Dan O'Briens dad went out of town and left him $250 bucks, Dan called all his friends and said, "I'm having a party on Friday night, 8:00pm." All Dans friends get excited.... "Dan has never had a party, this oughta be something..."

Come Friday night the party starts and Dan proudly stands up and says, "Boy's we have beer." and then he rolls in 2 kegs.

Beer!!! screams his friends, awesome... Dan never buys the beer.

Voice in the back.... "Yeah but it's Budweiser and Bud Lite."
---------------------------
So the choice seems to be drink the Bud and try and try and enjoy the party (and probably get a wicked riced up hangover) or eschew the Bud and talk about the smooth taste of a Bass Ale or Newcastle.

Perfect analogy that most of us can relate to. Brilliant!

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2004/03/08/guiness-inside.jpg

Slider
12-28-2004, 05:55 PM
Well...after reading what seems like several thousand posts on how unfit Milton is due to one statistic or another, I was at least encouraged to find a few fans who gave DO and the FO the benefit of the doubt and appreciated at least an attempt to improve the club.

Maybe, like some are saying, I'm overreacting positively to any movement at all on the part of the club to improve. As is always the case...we won't know whether this move was a success for a couple of years.

While I appreciate all the statistical gurus on this board...I'm sure glad that I don't look at every trade or signing through that narrow prism. I guess I'm too old to embrace all those statistical analyses fully.

As for me...I just want the Reds to win games. If Milton wins games for the Red's then I will consider it a successful signing for the Reds. Seasons have ups and downs. No one is 100% consistent exactly the same for every pitch. In my limited ability to comprehend this signing...I'm thinking that I don't care if Milton gives up 10 runs in one inning as long as he goes out and wins the next 5 games. Pitchers have good nights and bad nights. I don't really care what his era is as long as it's good enough to win more often than not.

I realize this is a simpletons view of the game...but for me it makes the game a bit more satisfying.

As for me...I'll wait till next summer to evaluate the success or failure of this transaction...and for me...it comes down to wins and losses. Nothing else counts in the standings.

:RedinDC:

gonelong
12-28-2004, 05:58 PM
But who determines what that pitcher (house) is worth? What or who drives it?

The Reds determined what Eric Milton was worth to them. The market may have driven the price to where it was, but ultimately they decided the price was what he was worth to them.


It's not the Reds fault that they paid Milton what he got.

Its not? Somehow I doubt you'd take the same position with your wife if she came home with a $700 beanie baby.

GL

MWM
12-28-2004, 06:02 PM
Well...after reading what seems like several thousand posts on how unfit Milton is due to one statistic or another,

You mean those things that actually measure his performance as a pitcher?



While I appreciate all the statistical gurus on this board...I'm sure glad that I don't look at every trade or signing through that narrow prism.

Narrow? ERA is a pretty straight forward "statistic". It pretty much measures how many runs the guy is likely to give up per 9 innings. What's "narrow" about that? If we don't look at measures such as ERA, how do you propose we actually evaluate his performance.


As for me...I just want the Reds to win games.

Me too. Why would you assume that anyone on this board is any different?

traderumor
12-28-2004, 06:05 PM
MWM,

You are starting to sound like the guy on campus yelling at all the sinners to repent as they walk by.

MWM
12-28-2004, 06:09 PM
MWM,

You are starting to sound like the guy on campus yelling at all the sinners to repent as they walk by.

How so? I've toned it down quite a bit today. Someone called looking at stats "narrow". I simply asked the question of how we are supposed to evaluate a guy like Milton if we don't look at ERA.

It's funny because I feel like I've been called to repentance in this thread for not thinking it's a great move.

Slider
12-28-2004, 06:09 PM
You mean those things that actually measure his performance as a pitcher?

I'm merely saying there is more to the game than statistics...


Narrow? ERA is a pretty straight forward "statistic". It pretty much measures how many runs the guy is likely to give up per 9 innings. What's "narrow" about that? If we don't look at measures such as ERA, how do you propose we actually evaluate his performance.

I'm not saying that era is a bad measure nor any of the other statistic thats been quoted. I'm merely saying that baseball is more than statistics. Statistics are merely one way of looking at his performance. I don't discount the value an individual places in these statistics...just that I prefer to look at things other than measurements that people who haven't played the game have devised to measure those that do play the game.

Me too. Why would you assume that anyone on this board is any different?

No one said you didn't. The statement did not reference anyone but myself. A rhetorical thought as it were...

:RedinDC:

pedro
12-28-2004, 06:14 PM
MWM,

You are starting to sound like the guy on campus yelling at all the sinners to repent as they walk by.

I don't think MWM sounds anything like Brother Jed.


http://www.brojed.org/Images/Mvc-016.jpg

MWM
12-28-2004, 06:14 PM
I'm merely saying there is more to the game than statistics...

Statistics are merely one way of looking at his performance. I don't discount the value an individual places in these statistics...just that I prefer to look at things other than measurements that people who haven't played the game have devised to measure those that do play the game.

I agree completely. I understand that as well as anybody. But all I asked was what are these other things we are supposed be looking at. You say there are other things, so I'm simply inquiring as to what those things are.

BTW, why do you think stats were developed by those who haven't played the game? Branch Rickey, possibly the greatest GM in the history of the game is the father of modern day statistics. Billy Beane definitely played the game and he seems to think they are a great way to measure performance.

M2
12-28-2004, 06:16 PM
Ahh yes, those nefarious people who haven't played the game. Love it when that comes up.

W-L, runs scored, runs allowed. They're all statistics. Slider, please devise for me a case for Milton in which you use no statistics (wins being a statistic).

Slider
12-28-2004, 06:21 PM
How so? I've toned it down quite a bit today. Someone called looking at stats "narrow". I simply asked the question of how we are supposed to evaluate a guy like Milton if we don't look at ERA.

I agree that era is one way to look at the trade. I merely stated that era was only one consideration. I would be the first to defend your ability to express yourself however you want. Our fathers and grandfathers have fought to preserve that freedom for both of us.

All I'm really saying is that I wish we weren't so quick to condemn every move we disagree with or don't understand. We as a society seem to be awfully quick on the trigger. I wish we as a society could back down from DEFCON 5 all the time.

I'm just one of those lost souls willing to give the GM the benefit of the doubt. It may be that Milton is a disaster. If he is, I'll be one of the first to question the signing...just like I have over the years about the long term negative effects of the Junior signing. I'm just willing to be patient enough to see how it plays out.

It's funny because I feel like I've been called to repentance in this thread for not thinking it's a great move.

I'll be the first to defend you on that...
I for one...respect your right to think this is a bad move. I don't really know one way or the other.

I do know that the staff needs veteran leadership badly and I am hopeful that Wilson and Milton can help our young pitchers develop while pitching better than the starting pitching we've run out there the last couple of years.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2004, 06:32 PM
I found this in Will Carrolls column from last year after Milton was traded to the Phillies.

Kinda scary.

The trade of Eric Milton to the Philadelphia Phillies in return for Carlos Silva, Nick Punto, and a MLTBNLATRFD (minor leaguer to be named later, after the Rule 5 draft) is one fraught with medhead angst. Milton, of course, is coming off a season defined by and almost completely lost to an extensive knee surgery. Is this surgery the reason that the Twins were willing to move him, or was his 17-inning audition at the end of the 2003 season enough for the Phillies to be satisfied that he can move into a rotation that may lose ace Kevin Millwood?
Like most instances where baseball and medicine meet, the answer is "both." After Milton's late-March knee surgery, details came out about the severe deterioration that was found despite his relatively youthful age of 27 (he's now 28). His surgeon, Dr. Thomas Rosenberg had operated earlier in 2003 on Tiger Woods, but unlike Woods' relatively simple surgery, Rosenberg found Milton's knee required much more extensive work. In the procedure, Rosenberg removed more than 30 discreet pieces of cartilage from both the medial and lateral meniscus. He was also forced to debride what was described as significant osteoarthritis from the knee both above and below the joint. As you can see from this illustration and description of similar procedures, Milton's knee likely looked like that of a much older person that may at some point be a candidate for complete joint replacement in order to maintain function.

The six-month recovery and involved rehabilitation that Milton went through in order to return to the game went according to plan, according to Twins sources. Once he began to pitch again, both in drill and during a brief minor league rehab stint, it was clear that at least in the short term, Milton was able to return to his previous level of pitching. There is, however, a significant worry that his knee will continue to degrade over the course of a full season, endangering his ability to contribute as expected. It's one thing to pitch 17 good innings and quite another to the reach the 200-inning level for which the Phillies are paying.

Milton's injury is similar to, but much more advanced than that of fellow lefty Randy Johnson. Johnson was able to come back after injections of synvisc, a synthetic lubricant that seeks to reduce bone-on-bone friction in the absence of normal, natural shock absorbers. There is a great deal of disagreement over which, if any, technique is more effective in the long-term, but sports medicine often takes an odd perspective on both efficacy and function. There is clearly room for interpretation and individuality. Where both techniques returned the respective pitchers to function, both are also likely to be walking around with their children and grandchildren on a replacement joint. It is one price of professional sports that we seldom see.

The Phillies receive a pitcher with significant risk of recurrence who will likely pitch--and walk--with some level of pain. It is Milton's pain tolerance and the abilities of the Phillies' medical staff that will decide his effectiveness on the mound. The team takes on a one-year risk, which given the usual timeframe for recurrence, is only slightly elevated over a normal pitcher of this age. They also deal with a known quantity: By knowing the level of damage, the Phillies' staff will be able to come up with a plan to keep Milton as healthy as possible, something they were unable to do in Minnesota before the problem showed up.


Heading to Minnesota is Carlos Silva, a 25-year-old who could slot into the back of the Twins rotation or, more likely, will move into the role vacated by LaTroy Hawkins. Silva has been more effective in relief while in the majors, and his poor mechanics do not bode well for his being able to succeed and stay healthy in a starting role. While Punto, the PTBNL, and the $9 million owed to Milton for 2004 were more significant to the Twins than talent in this trade, the team actually didn't reduce its injury risk significantly.
I'll leave the rest of this deal to the performance analysts and PECOTA, but from the medhead angle, there's no clear winner in this deal. Medheads might not fold on this go-round, but I'm not raising either.

WOW.

My opinion of this signing goes from bad to atrocious. I can't believe the Reds shelled out that money to a guy who has the lower half of his body held together by twine. I had NO idea Milton's leg condition was that bad. I suspect neither did/do the Reds, or they chose to ignore it. First they give 116 million to a guy with genetically bad gams, now this? Un-freaking-believable. Alright, back to my murmuring, snarling pessimistic self.

Slider
12-28-2004, 06:33 PM
Ahh yes, those nefarious people who haven't played the game. Love it when that comes up.

Some may have played the game at some level...some have not...that's history. I even agree that Bill James and his ilk have created a lot of interest in the sport.

W-L, runs scored, runs allowed. They're all statistics. Slider, please devise for me a case for Milton in which you use no statistics (wins being a statistic).

I wouldn't even begin to do that...as you point out...even wins and losses could be considered statistics. I'm just reacting to all the other statistics that have been quoted. I've never said they were bad...just that they were not the only way I looked at this trade.

I'm looking for staff leadership from Milton. I'm looking for him to mentor the younger pitchers. I'm looking for Milton to have an impact beyond what he does every five days.

I also said that I didn't care what his era was in August in Interleague games on the road...I was just interested in one statistic...wins and losses.

It's amazing how words are interpreted by others. I've spent the last half hour explaining what I never said in my first post. Everyone interprets things through their own frame of reference...that's why language seems to separate us as much as it unites us...

:rolleyes:

1990WorldChamps
12-28-2004, 06:43 PM
Seriously, put the statistics aside, are we EVER going to get another player with as hot a wife as Aaron Boone's?

SteelSD
12-28-2004, 06:49 PM
Seriously, put the statistics aside, are we EVER going to get another player with as hot a wife as Aaron Boone's?

20 pages and FINALLY someone has their priorities straight.;)

traderumor
12-28-2004, 06:55 PM
How so? I've toned it down quite a bit today. Someone called looking at stats "narrow". I simply asked the question of how we are supposed to evaluate a guy like Milton if we don't look at ERA.

It's funny because I feel like I've been called to repentance in this thread for not thinking it's a great move.Thanks for not taking offense at the off the cuff remark. It just seems like you are trying to browbeat folks with the numbers. Probably just me. Never mind.

Pedro,

Bro Jed shows up again on Redszone. He shut down shop here in Newark to spend more time on getting all the students saved.

M2
12-28-2004, 07:02 PM
Slider, and my point is you were using the narrowest of statistical arguments possible in claiming others were being narrow in using statistics.

We're all primarily interested in wins and losses. The question arises in how do you get to putting up more than wins than losses. The simple answer is outscoring your opponents on a consistent basis. You know how much the Reds score and you know how much Milton allows. That doesn't add up to winning baseball. Seems to me that far too often "all I care about is the win column" is code for "I'm going to think what I think about this and don't bother delving into the details." You should care about what his ERA is because the Reds will have to score more than that to get those wins you profess to covet.

I've got no axe to grind against Eric Milton. Once upon a time I would have loved for the Reds to get him. I can see where you can make a case that Milton could regain his 1999-2001 form. I don't think that's likely, but he strikes me as a far better bet to achieve something good than Wilson or Ortiz, neither of whom would be getting a plug nickel from me.

If the Reds had signed Milton to a Wilson type of contract (not that there was any chance of landing him at that price) I'd be cool with the signing. That strikes me as an appropriate amount of money for the relative risk involved with the guy. Since it was clear he was going to make far more than that, I thought the team which paid for him would have a "sucker" label on its forehead. Never once considered it might be the Reds when I came to that conclusion, but there they are.

Anyway, he's got enough stuff left that maybe he works out. Frankly, I don't care about veteran leadership. Veteran performance is what wins you games and veterans without performance can't do a lot in the leadership or mentoring departments.

Matt700wlw
12-28-2004, 07:04 PM
Seriously, put the statistics aside, are we EVER going to get another player with as hot a wife as Aaron Boone's?

Had we only signed Kris Benson (http://www.annabenson.net)

BoydsOfSummer
12-28-2004, 07:18 PM
I wonder if Kris Benson ever thinks "Gee honey,yer hot and I love ya bunches. But tone it down a notch willya?".

Willy
12-28-2004, 11:07 PM
Wow, what a thread. After a couple of nights reading, I'm completely torn.

I would like to thank everyone who has posted here. I really appreciate all of the arguements. I love the guys who hate this signing, and the stats they use to back it up. I also love the guys who have looked at this in a positive fashion. In my opinion you are both right :D . I hope everyone remembers that we are all Reds fans, and we are all on the same team.

Come April 1st we are all going to be pulling for Milton. Let's hope he post a 4.5 ERA, gives up a bunch of bombs, and wins 18 games(with a lot of run support) then everyone was right and the Reds make the playoffs.

Other than that, I can't say anything that has not already been said.

Go Reds :thumbup:

M2
12-28-2004, 11:19 PM
Willy, I'll be rooting for him regardless, but wouldn't you rather be pulling for him to post a 3.50 ERA or maybe something real sexy like a 2.78?

GAC
12-29-2004, 08:35 AM
The Reds determined what Eric Milton was worth to them. The market may have driven the price to where it was, but ultimately they decided the price was what he was worth to them.

Exactly. The market has driven the price where it is. And what drives that market, and why is even a .500 pitcher getting ridiculous amounts of money? Maybe the scarcity of quality established SP's? The old "supply and demand". ;)

Sure the Reds decided that the price was what it was worth to them. But what other options did they have at their disposal besides saying "we'll pass" or offer Milton a ridiculously low amount when they know what other teams are offering him, and know that his chances of signing with the small market Reds just grew alot slimmer, if not impossible?



Its not? Somehow I doubt you'd take the same position with your wife if she came home with a $700 beanie baby.

GL

Respectfully.... some of these analogies that people are throwing out on here.... $700 beanie babies... $100,00 homes are kinda absurd IMO. ;)

I've been hearing people say that we overpaid for Milton, and that he is not worth what he got. And I don't argue that point.

If you want to use analogies then free agency is likened to going to a local auction. And you're in a bidding war with others on a piece of merchandise that is rare and hard to find. Alot of people want that piece. So you had better come prepared to bid, and yes, most likely overpay for the item. Or guess what? You go home empty handed. That is just the way it is when you enter a bidding war.

QUESTION TO ALL:

What is Milton worth then? 4-5 Mil/yr? And what factors did you utilize to determine that figure? If it is solely stats, then how do you set the monetary figure for that? Because just as stats are obviously important, one may be forgetting the most important ingredients.... that agent, and the knowledge he has of what he can get for that player on the open market with those other teams/interested parties. ;)

I look at who was available this winter, as far as pitching goes, on the FA market. More slim pickens IMO. Any pitcher who was worth his salt was snatched up faster, and overpaid, quicker then a group of angry female shoppers assauting WalMarts the day before Christmas. Where everything is marked up 100% beforehand, and then they stick a 50% off sign on it.

All they have to do is reel them in.

Now that is an analogy. :lol:

MattyHo4Life
12-29-2004, 08:59 AM
I said to myself that if this thread ever got to 20 pages, I'd give my take. :MandJ:

We've discussed this trade on the Cardinal board, and while there are some very positive thoughts about this signing for the Reds side, I'm one that thinks it's too risky for the Reds. For the record, it's nice to see the Reds spend some money for once. That alone sneds a message to the fans and players. It's not smart to spend money foolishly though. This isn't a slam agains Milton, but a slam against all of the free agent pitchers available this season. Benson, Ortiz, Clement, Milton, all of them have been overpaid this season. If the Reds were determined to get their man through free agency, then they would be forced to overpay for any pitcher they signed. Milton may do well for the Reds, but I think most would agree they paid too much for him. The Reds have had problems in the past by giving Haynes and Graves big contracts. Milton has more talent than either of them, but is also being paid a lot more. I just think the Reds would have been able to get a better pitcher with a better contract through a trade. The Reds do have an extra outfielder that could have been traded with prospects. Where were the Reds in the trade talks with Oakland?

Willy
12-29-2004, 09:02 AM
M2, I will be pulling for him to be very sexy! I was just making the point that if he is average with his stats and wins a lot of games everyone here could say they are right.

PuffyPig
12-29-2004, 09:26 AM
I just think the Reds would have been able to get a better pitcher with a better contract through a trade. The Reds do have an extra outfielder that could have been traded with prospects. Where were the Reds in the trade talks with Oakland?

I'm not certain that a small market team like the Reds can afford to trade propsects of the Haren/Barton stature to obtain a quality pitcher simply because he's a bit cheaper for 2 years. Mulder is a great pitcher (until the 2nd half of last year that is), but he will cost the Cards only about $2M less per seaon than Milton. And if Mulder pitches well, his cost for the third year (assuming the Cards pony up) will eat up that $4M savings pretty quickly. And the Cards are still without Haren/Barton/Calero. THe Reds simply couldn't afford to play that game.

I believe the Reds choice was sign Milton or save it's money.

gonelong
12-29-2004, 10:06 AM
Respectfully.... some of these analogies that people are throwing out on here.... $700 beanie babies... $100,00 homes are kinda absurd IMO. ;)


FYI ... some beanie babys sold in excess of $5,000 at the height of the craze.



It's not the Reds fault that they paid Milton what he got.


Now thats absurd.

GL

MattyHo4Life
12-29-2004, 10:27 AM
I'm not certain that a small market team like the Reds can afford to trade propsects of the Haren/Barton stature to obtain a quality pitcher simply because he's a bit cheaper for 2 years.

Can a small market team afford to risk 8.5Mil a year for Milton? I just think the Reds could have gotten a better pitcher for the same price or less if they had been willing to give up prospects for him. If Mulder and Hudson were available, they would cost a lot more than what Milton signed for. Zito is still available.

Trace's Daddy
12-29-2004, 10:32 AM
Is Oakland really going to unload ALL of the Big 3?
:confused:

Kc61
12-29-2004, 10:47 AM
Slider, and my point is you were using the narrowest of statistical arguments possible in claiming others were being narrow in using statistics.

We're all primarily interested in wins and losses. The question arises in how do you get to putting up more than wins than losses. The simple answer is outscoring your opponents on a consistent basis. You know how much the Reds score and you know how much Milton allows. That doesn't add up to winning baseball. Seems to me that far too often "all I care about is the win column" is code for "I'm going to think what I think about this and don't bother delving into the details." You should care about what his ERA is because the Reds will have to score more than that to get those wins you profess to covet.

I've got no axe to grind against Eric Milton. Once upon a time I would have loved for the Reds to get him. I can see where you can make a case that Milton could regain his 1999-2001 form. I don't think that's likely, but he strikes me as a far better bet to achieve something good than Wilson or Ortiz, neither of whom would be getting a plug nickel from me.

If the Reds had signed Milton to a Wilson type of contract (not that there was any chance of landing him at that price) I'd be cool with the signing. That strikes me as an appropriate amount of money for the relative risk involved with the guy. Since it was clear he was going to make far more than that, I thought the team which paid for him would have a "sucker" label on its forehead. Never once considered it might be the Reds when I came to that conclusion, but there they are.

Anyway, he's got enough stuff left that maybe he works out. Frankly, I don't care about veteran leadership. Veteran performance is what wins you games and veterans without performance can't do a lot in the leadership or mentoring departments.

I haven't been following this whole thread, but I like the signing because it makes the Reds players again. They may have overpaid for Milton -- as they probably did for Wilson -- but at least the team now has a mindset of winning in the short term, which I feel is necessary in today's sports with free agency, etc. I also assume that the Reds may not have been attractive to other free agents, say Clement, so that Milton may have been the only available choice for free agent top of rotation starter. If the new additions make the Reds a winning team -- even if not a top contender -- the Reds can then make changes and attract other free agents so as to achieve contender status. That was impossible with last year's rotation and last year's team. So this is a major positive step, even if flawed.

GAC
12-29-2004, 11:07 AM
Can a small market team afford to risk 8.5Mil a year for Milton? I just think the Reds could have gotten a better pitcher for the same price or less if they had been willing to give up prospects for him.

But who? I keep hearing this. And I really don't think the Reds have the pitching prospects within their system that could have met the A's demand to retool in this area. They got pitchers Juan Cruz and Dan Myer, along with OF prospect Charles Thomas from the Braves for Hudson. Now if you were the A's, and taking a good hard look at our farm system, and what their needs were, I don't see the fit. And Hudson, who makes 5 Mil this year, is a FA after the '05 season. I doubt he walks from the Braves since he grew up in Alabama and loves the region. But what would the Reds have had to sacrifice for most likely a "rent a player"? A Dunn or Kearns? And I doubt the money conscious A's would want them knowing their arb eligibilty is coming to an end, and they are going to have to either find a way to sign them long term or trade them away.


Zito is still available.

I think there is something wrong with Zito. He struggled mightily in '04. And have you noticed that not very many teams were/are inquiring about Barry? ;)

PuffyPig
12-29-2004, 11:21 AM
I just think the Reds could have gotten a better pitcher for the same price or less if they had been willing to give up prospects for him.

Gee, do ya think????

Give up great propsects, get a better pitcher.

So, great prospects plus $8M gets you more than $8M.

The Cards essentially sold prospects to the A's to get a cheaper (great) pitcher. They could have paid Martinez $13M, but instead saved money by sending 3 players to the A's for Mulder.

Repeat, the Reds did not have the type of front line propsects to compete with Haren/Barton or the Braves offer, nor, more importantly, could they spare those prospects.

THey paid FMV for the likes of Milton. Whether he pans out or not, we will wait and see. But one thing is for sure, the Reds aren't going to win without gambling on someone. Milton has great stuff, and should be just reaching his prime. If he takes the next step forward, he'll be a bargain. If he falters, the Reds will too. But at least they tried.

MattyHo4Life
12-29-2004, 11:23 AM
But who? I keep hearing this. And I really don't think the Reds have the pitching prospects within their system that could have met the A's demand to retool in this area. They got pitchers Juan Cruz and Dan Myer, along with OF prospect Charles Thomas from the Braves for Hudson. Now if you were the A's, and taking a good hard look at our farm system, and what their needs were, I don't see the fit. And Hudson, who makes 5 Mil this year, is a FA after the '05 season. I doubt he walks from the Braves since he grew up in Alabama and loves the region. But what would the Reds have had to sacrifice for most likely a "rent a player"? A Dunn or Kearns? And I doubt the money conscious A's would want them knowing their arb eligibilty is coming to an end, and they are going to have to either find a way to sign them long term or trade them away.;)

I'm not familiar with the quality of the Reds prospects. I just assumed they had better prospects to offer than the Cardinals did. Maybe I was wrong. I don't think the A's specified that htey were looking for pitching prospects, they just wanted quality talent in return.





I think there is something wrong with Zito. He struggled mightily in '04. And have you noticed that not very many teams were/are inquiring about Barry? ;)

I don't know if anything is wrong with Zito, but he did have a bad year in 2004. Milton and Mulder didn't have the best years either. I don't know how many teams inquired about Zito, but I would guess that there have been more negotiations than we've heard about. I hadn't heard about negotiations for Mulder until he was traded. Apparently there were 5 or 6 teams in serious negotiations for him. I don't think that was reported anywhere.

Will the A's trade Zito? Who knows? They say they won't, but they said they wouldn't trade Mulder or Zito after Hudson was traded.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 11:28 AM
I said to myself that if this thread ever got to 20 pages, I'd give my take. :MandJ:

We've discussed this trade on the Cardinal board, and while there are some very positive thoughts about this signing for the Reds side, I'm one that thinks it's too risky for the Reds. For the record, it's nice to see the Reds spend some money for once. That alone sneds a message to the fans and players. It's not smart to spend money foolishly though. This isn't a slam agains Milton, but a slam against all of the free agent pitchers available this season. Benson, Ortiz, Clement, Milton, all of them have been overpaid this season. If the Reds were determined to get their man through free agency, then they would be forced to overpay for any pitcher they signed. Milton may do well for the Reds, but I think most would agree they paid too much for him. The Reds have had problems in the past by giving Haynes and Graves big contracts. Milton has more talent than either of them, but is also being paid a lot more. I just think the Reds would have been able to get a better pitcher with a better contract through a trade. The Reds do have an extra outfielder that could have been traded with prospects. Where were the Reds in the trade talks with Oakland?
Jimmy Haynes was not given a big contract. IIRC, the Reds only ate about $2M on him. It was big for a horrible pitcher, but not comparatively. Graves contract was written assuming he would be a starter. That was a risk they lost on, but $6M is not all that much, even though I'd love to see them unload it because as a closer, he's average making above average closer money.

I do not however think of the Reds as a small market team. Small thinking in the past, yes, small market no. They are, at worst, a mid-market team with vast untapped market potential that could put them in the same league as the Cardinals revenue wise if they were bolder in pursuing those markets.

MattyHo4Life
12-29-2004, 11:36 AM
Jimmy Haynes was not given a big contract. IIRC, the Reds only ate about $2M on him. It was big for a horrible pitcher, but not comparatively.

Exactly as you said, it was big for a horrible pitcher. A lot of fans were decieved because Haynes won a lot of games one year. Tomko did the same thing in St. Louis. He pitched horrible, but got lucky and won some games. I'm just glad they didn't resign him to a contract like Haynes got. IMO, that would be considered a big contract, because he wasn't worth it. Perhaps "bad contract" would have been more fitting for Haynes.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 11:41 AM
Still, one thing with Milton that has been pointed out already that hedges this bet is that if he does nothing more than match his career numbers, he will be dealable. Right now, the Reds have $8M at risk. If he improves on his career numbers over the next two years, then he will be worth the cash, IMO.

MWM
12-29-2004, 12:44 PM
Maybe the scarcity of quality established SP's?

That's the crux of our disagreement, GAC. If they would have paid this amount of money for a quality and established picher, I woldn't have been upset at all. But you're basin your analysis on the assumption that he's a quality pitcher. I'm basing mine on the fact that he's not that good. So all the other noise surrounding each side of our arguments hinge on that most base disagreement.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 12:51 PM
That's the crux of our disagreement, GAC. If they would have paid this amount of money for a quality and established picher, I woldn't have been upset at all. But you're basin your analysis on the assumption that he's a quality pitcher. I'm basing mine on the fact that he's not that good. So all the other noise surrounding each side of our arguments hinge on that most base disagreement.Yet, you would have been singing the Hallelujah chorus if they would have signed Clement, who as I pointed out in the "negativity" thread, have similar career ERAs compared to league average, with Milton slightly ahead, according to the comp's at baseball-reference.com. That is the one I don't get as I've looked at the numbers.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 12:52 PM
Right now, the Reds have $8M at risk.

That would be $25.5M

Redmachine2003
12-29-2004, 01:04 PM
That's the crux of our disagreement, GAC. If they would have paid this amount of money for a quality and established picher, I woldn't have been upset at all. But you're basin your analysis on the assumption that he's a quality pitcher. I'm basing mine on the fact that he's not that good. So all the other noise surrounding each side of our arguments hinge on that most base disagreement.
The problem is in todays pitching Milton is a Quality and established pitcher.

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:12 PM
Well tr, I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at because every way that I look at it, Clement is clearly the better pitcher. Over the last three years, Clement has posted ERAs better than the league average of .51, .18, and .63. In that time he's been worth a total of 30 RSAA (runs saved against average). During that same time period, he's given up 7.44 hits per 9 innings and 8.82 Ks per 9 (with 2004 him averaging more than a K per inning). The downside has been he's allowed 3.69 walks per 9. But every stat of Clement's over the last screams he's ready to completely break out.

Now Milton was hurt for most of 2003 so his last three years will not include as many innings (although this probably helps him because the "17 innings" he pitched in 2003 he had very good numbers). In those three years, he's had ERAs against the league of -.38, 1.88 (only 17 innings), and -.43. His RSAA during that stretch totaled -14. Hits per 9 was 8.88 and walks were 2.45. But his Ks per 9 was only 6.69. Nothing in Milton's portfolio of metrics suggests he's going to significantly improve.

Clement had two pretty bad years back in 2000 and 2001 where he had ERAs over 5.00. Those two years which happened 4 and 5 years ago are what is bringing his carrer numbers down. Meanwhile 2000 and 2001 were two of Milton's best years and are skewing his career numbers upward. So you have to go back 4 and 5 years to equalize the performance of these two pitchers.

When looking at the past three years and the career path of each guy along with Milton's injury concerns, I don't think there's any question who the better option was. Are you saying you're indifferent to either Milton or Clement?

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:14 PM
The problem is in todays pitching Milton is a Quality and established pitcher.

Not in my book. You're more than entitled to that opinion just like I'm entitled to the opinion that he's not, and he's not headed in the right direction.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 01:15 PM
with Milton's injury concerns

I don't think there are any injury concerns with Milton. 2003 was missed due to a knee injury, not an arm problem.

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:16 PM
BTW, here's the 20 worst pitchers in 2004 vs the league average of those pitchers who threw at leas 150 innings (and there were 94 pitchers who qualified). Milton wasn't much better last year than Lidle, yet Lidle only got something like $3MM.


ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Jose Acevedo -1.62 5.94 4.31
2 Shawn Estes -1.52 5.84 4.31
3 Scott Elarton -1.35 5.90 4.55
4 Brett Myers -1.21 5.52 4.31
5 Jason Jennings -1.19 5.51 4.31
6 Esteban Loaiza -1.07 5.70 4.64
7 Brian Anderson -1.00 5.64 4.64
8 Darrell May -.98 5.61 4.64
9 Ismael Valdes -.87 5.19 4.31
10 Jose Contreras -.86 5.50 4.64
11 Cliff Lee -.79 5.43 4.64
12 Derek Lowe -.78 5.42 4.64
13 Kyle Lohse -.70 5.34 4.64
14 Sidney Ponson -.66 5.30 4.64
15 Victor Santos -.65 4.97 4.31
16 Cory Lidle -.58 4.90 4.31
17 Jamie Moyer -.58 5.21 4.64
18 Aaron Harang -.55 4.86 4.31
19 Jason Johnson -.49 5.13 4.64
20 Eric Milton -.43 4.75 4.31

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:18 PM
I don't think there are any injury concerns with Milton. 2003 was missed due to a knee injury, not an arm problem.

Did you read the aricle woy posted about Milton's knee injury? I'd be almost as concerned over a degenerative knee condition as I would about an arm condition.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 01:18 PM
BTW, here's the 20 worst pitchers in 2004 vs the league average of thos pitchers who threw at leas 150 innings. Milton wasn't much better last year than Lidle, yet Lidle only got something like $3MM.


ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Jose Acevedo -1.62 5.94 4.31
2 Shawn Estes -1.52 5.84 4.31
3 Scott Elarton -1.35 5.90 4.55
4 Brett Myers -1.21 5.52 4.31
5 Jason Jennings -1.19 5.51 4.31
6 Esteban Loaiza -1.07 5.70 4.64
7 Brian Anderson -1.00 5.64 4.64
8 Darrell May -.98 5.61 4.64
9 Ismael Valdes -.87 5.19 4.31
10 Jose Contreras -.86 5.50 4.64
11 Cliff Lee -.79 5.43 4.64
12 Derek Lowe -.78 5.42 4.64
13 Kyle Lohse -.70 5.34 4.64
14 Sidney Ponson -.66 5.30 4.64
15 Victor Santos -.65 4.97 4.31
16 Cory Lidle -.58 4.90 4.31
17 Jamie Moyer -.58 5.21 4.64
18 Aaron Harang -.55 4.86 4.31
19 Jason Johnson -.49 5.13 4.64
20 Eric Milton -.43 4.75 4.31


Just out of curiousity, how many threw 150 innings? Oh and hey so we did improve, he's better than Acevedo, Lidle and Harang. :mhcky21: And at least we didn't sign Lowe. :devil:

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 01:20 PM
Did you read the aricle woy posted about Milton's knee injury? I'd be almost as concerned over a degenerative knee condition as I would about an arm condition.

Legs are very important to pitching, show me a pitcher who loses his legs and I'll show you a pitcher who more than likely keeps the ball up and gives up a lot of home runs, doh, I may have just fallen into something here and I may be kind of going against what I've said, but maybe there is more to this leg thing than we think. Could it have something to do with Milton's HR numbers? I would hope that our Doc's checked it thouroughly, but who knows.

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:20 PM
Just out of curiousity, how many threw 150 innings? Oh and hey so we did improve, he's better than Acevedo, Lidle and Harang. :mhcky21: And at least we didn't sign Lowe. :devil:

I edited my post above after you read mine and noted that 94 pitchers qualified.

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 01:21 PM
I edited my post above after you read mine and noted that 94 pitchers qualified.

Thanks MWM, just for giggles, could you add wins to that grouping of stats. I know I know, I'm just curious. :D

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:21 PM
Legs are very important to pitching, show me a pitcher who loses his legs and I'll show you a pitcher who more than likely keeps the ball up and gives up a lot of home runs, doh, I may have just fallen into something here and I may be kind of going against what I've said, but maybe there is more to this leg thing than we think. Could it have something to do with Milton's HR numbers? I would hope that our Doc's checked it thouroughly, but who knows.

Be careful Ryan, you're starting to waffle a little. :mhcky21: "Maybe there's something more to this leg thing than we think" isn't exactl a ringing endorsement.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 01:22 PM
Did you read the aricle woy posted about Milton's knee injury? I'd be almost as concerned over a degenerative knee condition as I would about an arm condition.

Not concerned for 2 reasons.

Even though I might think DanO a little dense I can't imagine he would let the contract if there was any concern over the knee after a physical was done. Also finding a degenerative knee condition isn't anywhere near as diffcult as trying to determine if a pitcher has a healthy elbow and shoulder.

SteelSD
12-29-2004, 01:22 PM
Yet, you would have been singing the Hallelujah chorus if they would have signed Clement, who as I pointed out in the "negativity" thread, have similar career ERAs compared to league average, with Milton slightly ahead, according to the comp's at baseball-reference.com. That is the one I don't get as I've looked at the numbers.

Performance recency very much factors into things, tr.

Last three years: OPS Against

Clement- .639, .670, .690

Milton- .751, .724, .810

Clement has always had phenominal stuff but hadn't been able to harness it until recently. His HR rates have always been decent-to-excellent. His K rates have always been high. His BB rate has decreased significantly. He's difficult to hit and difficult to hit with authority.

On the flip side, while Milton has "stuff", it's never been at the same level. His recent performance is far worse than Clement's and his HR rates have always been bad (a residual of his GO/FO rate). He always has been and always will be far more high SLG-prone than Clement and recent performance, coupled with his leg injury concern, doesn't project nearly as well for the future.

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:23 PM
Thanks MWM, just for giggles, could you add wins to that grouping of stats. I know I know, I'm just curious. :D

I added wins, but I also added neutral wins which shows what the win total would have been had the pitcher received average run support.


ERA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE W N_W
1 Jose Acevedo -1.62 5.94 4.31 5 6
2 Shawn Estes -1.52 5.84 4.31 15 10
3 Scott Elarton -1.35 5.90 4.55 3 5
4 Brett Myers -1.21 5.52 4.31 11 9
5 Jason Jennings -1.19 5.51 4.31 11 11
6 Esteban Loaiza -1.07 5.70 4.64 10 8
7 Brian Anderson -1.00 5.64 4.64 6 7
8 Darrell May -.98 5.61 4.64 9 11
9 Ismael Valdes -.87 5.19 4.31 14 9
10 Jose Contreras -.86 5.50 4.64 13 9
11 Cliff Lee -.79 5.43 4.64 14 9
12 Derek Lowe -.78 5.42 4.64 14 12
13 Kyle Lohse -.70 5.34 4.64 9 10
14 Sidney Ponson -.66 5.30 4.64 11 12
15 Victor Santos -.65 4.97 4.31 11 10
16 Cory Lidle -.58 4.90 4.31 12 10
17 Jamie Moyer -.58 5.21 4.64 7 8
18 Aaron Harang -.55 4.86 4.31 10 8
19 Jason Johnson -.49 5.13 4.64 8 10
20 Eric Milton -.43 4.75 4.31 14 9

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 01:26 PM
Be careful Ryan, you're starting to waffle a little. :mhcky21: "Maybe there's something more to this leg thing than we think" isn't exactl a ringing endorsement.

Hey man, I'm willing to look at all aspects, I'm not just going to like something for liking its sake. Maybe it is something we should explore more. I mean a pitcher loses his legs, starts getting balls up in the zone, balls start flying out of the park. Could it be that is some of Mr. Milton's issue with the long ball?

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:27 PM
OH yeah, I'm glad Steel remembered OPS against. I planned on adding that but forgot. The software I use doesn't have against stats for pitchers.

M2
12-29-2004, 01:29 PM
Legs are very important to pitching, show me a pitcher who loses his legs and I'll show you a pitcher who more than likely keeps the ball up and gives up a lot of home runs, doh, I may have just fallen into something here and I may be kind of going against what I've said, but maybe there is more to this leg thing than we think. Could it have something to do with Milton's HR numbers? I would hope that our Doc's checked it thouroughly, but who knows.

Milton's always been susceptible to the gopher ball. Though last year he was particularly poor in that regard.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 01:30 PM
When looking at the past three years and the career path of each guy along with Milton's injury concerns, I don't think there's any question who the better option was. Are you saying you're indifferent to either Milton or Clement?Look at your sig line. Why aren't you considering that idea in your analysis? It isn't like Milton's numbers have been rising because of age or injury, and could he not be as likely to post vastly improved years just like the last three Clement put up in the same age range? And Clement could be due for a year heading the other direction?

Now, is that why the Reds signed Milton? Doubt it. But I also don't think that it as big a no brainer a pick of one over the other as you are portraying with two guys with similar career ERAs getting paid the same $. Clement is the guy folks wanted, Milton wasn't on their radar, including me, but as I look at them comparatively, I think the same money is justified. In other words, if you think Clement was worth the money, than there is evidence that Milton is worth as much.

westofyou
12-29-2004, 01:36 PM
here's a chink that hopefully Gullet can correct.

From the windup Milton averages 7.3 k per 9, from the stretch that drops to 5.5.

BB rate stays the same.

So his hammer gets weaker when he has runners on, could be mechanical, could be the type of pitches he chooses to use with runners on, whatever the reason the drop is too large IMO.

FWIW Clement drops from 8.1 to 7.9 and stays over 4 in BB.

MWM
12-29-2004, 01:43 PM
Look at your sig line. Why aren't you considering that idea in your analysis?

Because my sig line is a joke. And when a player is 29 years old and has three years of data significantly different than their overall career numbers, those three years take precedence.



It isn't like Milton's numbers have been rising because of age or injury

Did you read woy's article about Milton's injury?



and could he not be as likely to post vastly improved years just like the last three Clement put up in the same age range?

It's possible. But as we've discussed before, I tend to deal in probabilities and likelihoods. Heck, anything is possible. It's possible that Milton goes out and has a sub 2.00 ERA and wins 30 games. But it's not likely based on career progression.



And Clement could be due for a year heading the other direction?

Again, it's entirely possible. But his numbers "suggest" a trend in the other direction. We don't look at these numbers with a pre-determined belief and look for things that validate those beliefs. It was an objective look a the numbers that led folks like Steel and myself to believe Clement was the much better option. BTW, did you look at the OPS against Steel posted over thelast three years. That's pretty telling and the differences are large. So why wouldn't you believe that Clement is worth much more than Milton based on that?


two guys with similar career ERAs getting paid the same $.

Do you really think the CAREER ERA is the relevant statistic in evaluating the two options? I'm not trying to be insulting here, I'm honestly curious.


In other words, if you think Clement was worth the money, than there is evidence that Milton is worth as much.

We're obviously looking at different evidence, because i do believe it was a no-brainer between the two.

M2
12-29-2004, 01:48 PM
Interesting observation WOY. I often wonder why guys pitch from the stretch in a league where other teams barely run. I remember watching a Red Sox pitcher go the stretch last year with John Olerud on first base. Honestly, what's the point in that?

tr, while I agree that Milton has some peripherals that indicate he might be able to improve and that it's possible (though not probable) that he could regain his 1999-2001 form, MWM and Steel laid out why he's nowhere near Clement at this point in time.

Think about them like stocks and graph them. Is there any doubt as to which one you'd buy? I can see the argument that maybe Clement got overpriced and that Milton, had he been a lot cheaper, would have represented better value. Yet that's not the situation we've got here. Milton actually cost a little more.

I'm sure you could make a similar case that U.S. Air and JetBlue have some similarities if you go back and look at a six-year splice of data, but there's not really any comparison between the two.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 01:51 PM
We don't look at these numbers with a pre-determined belief and look for things that validate those beliefs. It was an objective look a the numbers that led folks like Steel and myself to believe Clement was the much better option.Yea, I saw WOYs article. Did you take it any further, like look at last year to see if he showed signs of starting out strong and finishing weak? His best month was April, but only four starts. The rest of the year was about the same from month to month, mixture of very good starts and very bad starts. I saw no evidence that he was weakening more than expected in the second half.

But then, you analysis is objective and mine is biased.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 01:52 PM
From BP - Jim Baker

"First of all, without getting all sabermetrical, there is the matter of his ERAs. They are, at best, ever so slightly above average. Let's assume the Reds don't get all hung up on the more advanced metrics now available to any team that has Internet access and an intern savvy enough to know how to type "espn.com" into a browser. Surely they understand the concept of Earned Run Average? Milton has always been right around the league ERA.

What if they go a bit deeper? Without having to subscribe to a site such as Baseball Prospectus and learn a number of new metrics, they can familiarize themselves with some very basic facts. Milton gave up the most fly balls in the major leagues last year, 312. He also gave up the most fly balls relative to ground balls surrendered. The Reds gave up more home runs at home last year than any other team, including the one that plays in Denver. Does this sound like an ideal pairing of pitcher and park?"


To sum it up - Reds paid $25M to an average starter who is very poorly matched to their home ballpark.

Go argue with BP.

westofyou
12-29-2004, 02:06 PM
One thing I like to do is compare LH's with LH's, they have a different career path traditionally and often emerge later in the game.

Doesn't mean the path is always the same, but it's fun to hope.

Here's a couple LH's from the past 20 years before age 30



H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB ERA

8.63 11.44 5.88 2.63 2.23 3.78 - league 4.00 - Wells
9.76 12.92 6.35 3.00 2.12 4.33 - league 4.16 - Hurst
9.85 13.72 5.59 3.63 1.54 4.56 - league 3.80 - Moyer
9.06 11.82 6.63 2.61 2.55 4.76 - league 4.62 - Milton
8.58 11.49 4.62 2.65 1.74 3.71 - league 4.09 - Black

westofyou
12-29-2004, 02:13 PM
From BP - Jim Baker

"First of all, without getting all sabermetrical, there is the matter of his ERAs. They are, at best, ever so slightly above average. Let's assume the Reds don't get all hung up on the more advanced metrics now available to any team that has Internet access and an intern savvy enough to know how to type "espn.com" into a browser. Surely they understand the concept of Earned Run Average? Milton has always been right around the league ERA.

What if they go a bit deeper? Without having to subscribe to a site such as Baseball Prospectus and learn a number of new metrics, they can familiarize themselves with some very basic facts. Milton gave up the most fly balls in the major leagues last year, 312. He also gave up the most fly balls relative to ground balls surrendered. The Reds gave up more home runs at home last year than any other team, including the one that plays in Denver. Does this sound like an ideal pairing of pitcher and park?"


To sum it up - Reds paid $25M to an average starter who is very poorly matched to their home ballpark.

Go argue with BP.


Why, then, do teams not follow the same guidelines when promoting out of IS as they do when moving people up the chain at the lower levels. I think, in the end, it's a simple case of availability. Free agents seem more alluring because there are fewer of them. Consider that each club has well over 100 players under professional contract at a given moment, and they can all seem rather faceless and nameless when compared to a man who has hit 25 home runs in a single major-league season, or gone 14-6 or been on a team that won the World Series. It's sad to say, but too many ballclubs remain enthralled with the known commodity, even when what is known is, at best, misleading.

After the Messersmith case and the advent of free agency Charlie O floated the idea that the marketplace would benefit better by decalring ALL players free agents and thus flooding the market with talent and diluting the demand of the 60 free agents to be.

Bob Howsam was aghast.

In retrospect the owners would have faired better with an open market, they wouldn't overvalue the marketplace by the limited goods that were available at the moment.

IMO the Howsam Hawk stance on free agency and the players association has been equally harmful to the Reds franchise as his building of the team up in the 60's was good.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 02:19 PM
After the Messersmith case and the advent of free agency Charlie O floated the idea that the marketplace would benefit better by decalring ALL players free agents and thus flooding the market with talent and diluting the demand of the 60 free agents to be.

Bob Howsam was aghast.

In retrospect the owners would have faired better with an open market, they wouldn't overvalue the marketplace by the limited goods that were available at the moment.

IMO the Howsam Hawk stance on free agency and the players association has been equally harmful to the Reds franchise as his building of the team up in the 60's was good.

Marvin Miller was absolutely petrified that baseball might actually do it(good thing it was suggested by Finley) because he knew that it would not drive up the salaries like restricting the number of FAs.

MikeS21
12-29-2004, 02:21 PM
From BP - Jim Baker

"First of all, without getting all sabermetrical, there is the matter of his ERAs. They are, at best, ever so slightly above average. Let's assume the Reds don't get all hung up on the more advanced metrics now available to any team that has Internet access and an intern savvy enough to know how to type "espn.com" into a browser. Surely they understand the concept of Earned Run Average? Milton has always been right around the league ERA.

What if they go a bit deeper? Without having to subscribe to a site such as Baseball Prospectus and learn a number of new metrics, they can familiarize themselves with some very basic facts. Milton gave up the most fly balls in the major leagues last year, 312. He also gave up the most fly balls relative to ground balls surrendered. The Reds gave up more home runs at home last year than any other team, including the one that plays in Denver. Does this sound like an ideal pairing of pitcher and park?"


To sum it up - Reds paid $25M to an average starter who is very poorly matched to their home ballpark.

Go argue with BP.
Ouch! :eek:

traderumor
12-29-2004, 02:32 PM
IMO the Howsam Hawk stance on free agency and the players association has been equally harmful to the Reds franchise as his building of the team up in the 60's was good.Agree wholeheartedly. So while Milton is a dubious first choice to break the silence, perhaps it will lead to less risky choices in the future.

MWM, M2, and Steel,

I hear every word you guys are saying and fully realize that Milton "earning" his contract will be tough based on his track record. However, I think you guys are overstating the degree of sin involved in this transaction and giving the guy you wanted a messianic look. It is not an entirely meritless decision, and I don't think its fair to pull out "anything's possible" on all who try to point that out.

Tony Cloninger
12-29-2004, 02:33 PM
In reality....the MLBPA asked the owners for FA starting AFTER 10 years of service!

They refused! Idiots to the end.

The owners created arb. back in 1973......to avoid holdouts. Again...idiots who did not know what they were doing and could not understand the world changing around them.

Heck....the min. salary was unchanged for about 20 years unitl Miller came along.

westofyou
12-29-2004, 02:39 PM
In reality....the MLBPA asked the owners for FA starting AFTER 10 years of service!

Then they realized only about 5% of the players who ever don a uniform play that long.

Whoops.

flyer85
12-29-2004, 02:44 PM
However, I think you guys are overstating the degree of sin involved in this transaction

The degree of sin will be determined by 2 things
1) How well Milton pitches
2) If this sigining is the catalyst that forces other events to occur. Such as not having enough money to sign current Reds players LT.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 02:50 PM
The degree of sin will be determined by 2 things
1) How well Milton pitches
2) If this sigining is the catalyst that forces other events to occur. Such as not having enough money to sign current Reds players LT.

I agree with those two items. I have to assume that your second point will be driven by whether they are going to operate at a higher payroll level going forward, or if this was a windfall deal. I'm hoping the former and if they're smart that is the plan, but if the latter then your first point will be the key.

SteelSD
12-29-2004, 03:25 PM
Agree wholeheartedly. So while Milton is a dubious first choice to break the silence, perhaps it will lead to less risky choices in the future.

MWM, M2, and Steel,

I hear every word you guys are saying and fully realize that Milton "earning" his contract will be tough based on his track record. However, I think you guys are overstating the degree of sin involved in this transaction and giving the guy you wanted a messianic look. It is not an entirely meritless decision, and I don't think its fair to pull out "anything's possible" on all who try to point that out.

tr, you might as well just accuse me of cooking the books. I think we both know that's not the way I, or MWM, or M2 do things.

The numbers are what they are and they show that Clement consistently outperformed Milton over his past three healthy seasons and even more significantly outperformed Milton most recently after Milton encountered a significant injury. Milton had a bad 2004 season and Clement had a good one. But listening to some folks, you'd think it were the other way around.

For Milton to be value equitable versus Clement next season, he'll have to be a completely different pitcher. That's an entirely improbable proposition.

So, as often happens with expectations of the improbable, we're left with "Well, I guess anything's possible."

michst
12-29-2004, 03:51 PM
From Rob Neyer on his chat today:

Keith (Cincinnati)
Any thoughts on the Red's moves? Did they overpay? Will they trade an outfielder?

ROB NEYER
Overpay? For Paul Wilson and Eric Milton? Naaaaaaahhhh. Oh, except that Milton's an extreme fly-ball pitcher, and Great American Ballpark is where fly balls go to become home runs. Two years from now (if not sooner), the Reds will do whatever it takes to dump the last year of Milton's contract. This is probably the worst deal of the winter, right up there with Russ Ortiz.

MikeS21
12-29-2004, 04:12 PM
From Rob Neyer on his chat today:

Keith (Cincinnati)
Any thoughts on the Red's moves? Did they overpay? Will they trade an outfielder?

ROB NEYER
Overpay? For Paul Wilson and Eric Milton? Naaaaaaahhhh. Oh, except that Milton's an extreme fly-ball pitcher, and Great American Ballpark is where fly balls go to become home runs. Two years from now (if not sooner), the Reds will do whatever it takes to dump the last year of Milton's contract. This is probably the worst deal of the winter, right up there with Russ Ortiz.
Ouch! :eek:

traderumor
12-29-2004, 04:18 PM
Make sure I'm reading this right, but using the data on Neyer's employer's websight, GABP is only less pitcher friendly than PETCO and Safeco, and even ahead of Pro Player Stadium and Dodger Stadium.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

Criticize away on the moves, but at least make sure you look this stuff up.

Steel,

Not sure what to say, I certainly am not accusing you of making stuff up, just think you're going a little overboard as if this is the stupidest move made in the history of the Reds.

westofyou
12-29-2004, 04:19 PM
GAB 110 as a HR park, 91 in 2b's

traderumor
12-29-2004, 04:21 PM
GAB 110 as a HR park, 91 in 2b's
the ESPN factors say homer neutral, just barely over 100

Correction, they say 106, memory added a decimal to the right, a little lower than your factor

DoogMinAmo
12-29-2004, 04:21 PM
GAB 110 as a HR park, 91 in 2b's
WOY, do you mind finding out what are the home team vs away team splits for home runs at the GAB?

I wouldn't doubt having some boppers in our lineup is somewhat responsible for that.

GAC
12-29-2004, 04:48 PM
That's the crux of our disagreement, GAC. If they would have paid this amount of money for a quality and established picher, I woldn't have been upset at all. But you're basin your analysis on the assumption that he's a quality pitcher. I'm basing mine on the fact that he's not that good. So all the other noise surrounding each side of our arguments hinge on that most base disagreement.

No where did I say he was a quality established pitcher Mike. Show me where I said that? But then, I don't think he is the lousy pitcher that you seem to sumise either.

I'm basing my analysis on market demand and how the market sets a high price for even average-mediocre pitchers. It's basically a supply and demand issue in an area that is high demand due to the shortage. Every free agent pitcher that I've seen signed so far this off-season was over-paid IMO.

Now if some want to say that the Reds, being a small market club with limited financial resources, over paid and thus strapped this organization, then I might agree with that synopsis. So I guess teams like the Reds should stay out of the FA market period then. ;)

People are saying we overpaid. No argument from me. I even agreed.

And looking at those quality established free agent starters that have signed elsewhere, and in that price range, who did the Reds make offers to? And what were the factors that caused them to refuse the Reds? None of us know that at this stage. We are making only assumptions at this point. How do any of us know if we didn't make overtures for a Mulder, Hudson, Wright, or whoever else was moved this winter, whether it was via free agency or trough a possibe trade? And it most likely could be due to the fact that those host teams didn't see anything in the Red's system that would meet their demands for a trade. Our farm system is not exactly loaded with talent right now. You tell me who we have in our farm system that could have brought any of these trades about? And looking at our ML roster, who is enticing to other teams? Not...who would we part with? About the only one that come to mind is Dunn. Maybe Kearns or Pena.

We are as lean as one can get. So our only viable alternative is entering the market, and yes, possibly like every other team... over paying.

If I was a player, and the Yanks or Sox or any of the other contending team came at me with a similar financial offer as the Reds, or even slightly lower, I'd still lean towards that other team for the simple reason that I have a shot at the post-season.

But this is the situation that teams like the Reds, and so may others, are in. You got the bigger market teams gobbling up what quality SP's there are, and overpaying for them because they can afford it. They are setting the market price.

My question, which is a very legitimate one, is where do fans get their info/data as to how much a pitcher like Milton is worth?

Fine. He's not worth 8+ Mil/yr. What is he worth, and jusitify it? What legitimate parameters are you using to get that final result?

traderumor
12-29-2004, 04:56 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3289
"After an almost perfectly neutral (998) first season, with unfounded suggestions that it was a bandbox following a flurry of early home runs, the Reds' new park is playing like an Astrodome." :eek:

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-29-2004, 05:02 PM
No where did I say he was a quality established pitcher Mike. Show me where I said that? But then, I don't think he is the lousy pitcher that you seem to sumise either.

I'm basing my analysis on market demand and how the market sets a high price for even average-mediocre pitchers. It's basically a supply and demand issue in an area that is high demand due to the shortage. Every free agent pitcher that I've seen signed so far this off-season was over-paid IMO.

Now if some want to say that the Reds, being a small market club with limited financial resources, over paid and thus strapped this organization, then I might agree with that synopsis. So I guess teams like the Reds should stay out of the FA market period then. ;)

People are saying we overpaid. No argument from me. I even agreed.

And looking at those quality established free agent starters that have signed elsewhere, and in that price range, who did the Reds make offers to? And what were the factors that caused them to refuse the Reds? None of us know that at this stage. We are making only assumptions at this point. How do any of us know if we didn't make overtures for a Mulder, Hudson, Wright, or whoever else was moved this winter, whether it was via free agency or trough a possibe trade? And it most likely could be due to the fact that those host teams didn't see anything in the Red's system that would meet their demands for a trade. Our farm system is not exactly loaded with talent right now. You tell me who we have in our farm system that could have brought any of these trades about? And looking at our ML roster, who is enticing to other teams? Not...who would we part with? About the only one that come to mind is Dunn. Maybe Kearns or Pena.

We are as lean as one can get. So our only viable alternative is entering the market, and yes, possibly like every other team... over paying.

If I was a player, and the Yanks or Sox or any of the other contending team came at me with a similar financial offer as the Reds, or even slightly lower, I'd still lean towards that other team for the simple reason that I have a shot at the post-season.

But this is the situation that teams like the Reds, and so may others, are in. You got the bigger market teams gobbling up what quality SP's there are, and overpaying for them because they can afford it. They are setting the market price.

My question, which is a very legitimate one, is where do fans get their info/data as to how much a pitcher like Milton is worth?

Fine. He's not worth 8+ Mil/yr. What is he worth, and jusitify it? What legitimate parameters are you using to get that final result?

:clap: Bravo GAC, well said!! :clap:

You said about exactly what I've been thinking and not good enough to get across.

SteelSD
12-29-2004, 05:11 PM
We are as lean as one can get. So our only viable alternative is entering the market, and yes, possibly like every other team... over paying.

Overpaying is needing an oven and paying more at Sears than anyone else did for the exact same model.

The Reds went shopping for an oven at Sears, figured that ovens were out of stock, didn't really look around the sales floor, and then paid more for a toaster than they would have for an oven.

After all, a toaster heats food too.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 05:16 PM
Overpaying is needing an oven and paying more at Sears than anyone else did for the exact same model.

The Reds went shopping for an oven at Sears, figured that ovens were out of stock, didn't really look around the sales floor, and then paid more for a toaster than they would have for an oven.

After all, a toaster heats food too.We at least got a microwave
:mhcky21:

flyer85
12-29-2004, 05:16 PM
I think this has reached the point of spitting into the wind.

Tony Cloninger
12-29-2004, 05:32 PM
Is that like flogging a dead horse?


WOY......the MLBPA never took that off...the owners just refused and then were forced to accept FA. If they would have accepted the 1st offer the players would have been happy to take it.

Unless you have better info (which i would not surprised if you did not.)

SteelSD
12-29-2004, 05:33 PM
We at least got a microwave
:mhcky21:

No no no. Microwaves and hot plates are relief pitchers. Jeez. Last time I use an analogy with the likes of you around. ;)

westofyou
12-29-2004, 05:34 PM
WOY, do you mind finding out what are the home team vs away team splits for home runs at the GAB?

I wouldn't doubt having some boppers in our lineup is somewhat responsible for that.

Other way around, the Reds staff is responsible for that.

116 to 88 in Home HR's 94 -97 on the road.

That's pitching to contact with no stuff, or the equivalent of the Nuxy throwing BP nightly while George waxs poetic about someone on the other team.

Horrible.

traderumor
12-29-2004, 05:40 PM
No no no. Microwaves and hot plates are relief pitchers. Jeez. Last time I use an analogy with the likes of you around. ;)Toaster Oven? ;) :MandJ:

GAC
12-29-2004, 05:46 PM
:clap: Bravo GAC, well said!! :clap:

You said about exactly what I've been thinking and not good enough to get across.

Yeah, but it gave me a headache doing it. Pass the Tylenol! :MandJ: :MandJ:

GAC
12-29-2004, 05:50 PM
Overpaying is needing an oven and paying more at Sears than anyone else did for the exact same model.

The Reds went shopping for an oven at Sears, figured that ovens were out of stock, didn't really look around the sales floor, and then paid more for a toaster than they would have for an oven.

After all, a toaster heats food too.

If you guys don't quit with these analogies I'm gonna have a brain hemmorage!

It's startin to sound like Forrest Gump in here and "life is like a box of chocolates... " :mhcky21:

And how do you know that they didn't look around the sales floor? There is a huge difference between buying an inanimate object like a toaster oven and a SP.... the pitcher/team GM is involved in the final decision making process also, as to whether they want to make the deal/sale. The toaster oven is not. ;)

But at least you get a receipt with the toaster oven. :lol:

westofyou
12-29-2004, 05:57 PM
Is that like flogging a dead horse?


WOY......the MLBPA never took that off...the owners just refused and then were forced to accept FA. If they would have accepted the 1st offer the players would have been happy to take it.

Unless you have better info (which i would not surprised if you did not.)

The way I read it was the owners offered 10 years, the players six, 4% of MLB play 10 years (in the 70's) and the odds of getting to 10 once you played six years was very good. The owners then proceeded to lockout the players while they negotiated. The next thing was compensation, the players allowed compensation for the leaving free agent and MLB paid some of the legal fees that the players had piled up in their battles (the players had $5400 bucks in the bank when Miller came on board) As the season approached the big clubs (Dodgers, Yankees) started to sweat lost revenue so they opened camp and accepted the terms.

Remember the "draft" they had for Free agents after that first season? There were 60 players going FA and every club had to make a claim on a player they were interested in (Atlanta claimed everyone almost) Each time the choice came to Howsam he said:

"In fairness to the players who have won the world championship for us two years in a row and considering how our organization is structured, we do not think it would be right for Cincinnati to get into bidding contests that must come out of this draft."

Kinda like this moment, but on a smaller scale.

http://people.ucsc.edu/~cluine/Pictures/meteor%20dino.jpg

SteelSD
12-29-2004, 06:43 PM
But at least you get a receipt with the toaster oven.

Yeah, and if it doesn't work properly, you can bring that receipt in and get your money back.;)

Oh, I kill me! :D

Tony Cloninger
12-29-2004, 07:27 PM
yes...i recall that. :dflynn:

If only they could have traded Gullett before he left for FA to the Yankees and obtained Guidry.

George did not think highly of Guidry.

They almost traded him to the Blue Jays before 1977 season for Bill Singer.
But the Blue Jay owner said no because Singer was on the very first TOR program and was still thought of as a decent pitcher (No moneyball to help them back then). I read this in a book for what it is worth. I think it was a Yankee book about the Bronx Zoo but not Sparky Lyle's book...some other George era Yankee book.

westofyou
12-29-2004, 07:30 PM
yes...i recall that. :dflynn:

If only they could have traded Gullett before he left for FA to the Yankees and obtained Guidry.

George did not think highly of Guidry.

They almost traded him to the Blue Jays before 1977 season for Bill Singer.
But the Blue Jay owner said no because Singer was on the very first TOR program and was still thought of as a decent pitcher (No moneyball to help them back then). I read this in a book for what it is worth. I think it was a Yankee book about the Bronx Zoo but not Sparky Lyle's book...some other George era Yankee book.

"Balls" by Craig Nettles?

Tony Cloninger
12-29-2004, 07:32 PM
I know this is another thread subject....but oh well.

If this board was around back then...think how much Howsman would have been roasted for that statement...and making a 35 year old Woodie Fryman the main pickup in a deal for Perez.....besides the obvious of not trading him...just the fact that Fryman was all he could get. Murray was thought of as a pretty good reliever though.

Also the fact that he could not make the Vida Blue deal work the next year.

Tony Cloninger
12-29-2004, 07:34 PM
No...not that book. I know for a fact that i read this somewhere reputable but just cannot recall where. Not some rumor website either. A book.

oregonred
12-29-2004, 08:28 PM
Bump for 1000 post thread...

GAC -- Good summary of the market. Milton was going to get 3/25 type dollars from someone. I think it's nuts, but that's the new stadium rev/ MLB juiced world of 2005. There are simply too few high ceiling pitchers on the open market. And in the Reds case finding those that wasn't to come to a smaller market is another factor. If you don't develop (or trade) then you pay the piper even for #3 or #2 type arms. The Reds needed help more than any other team, apparently found some cash and took a flyer.

Something to be said for flipping hot prospects. The Cards minor league system was 30th on a lot of lists 18-24 months ago. Yet, they've managed to strike while the iron's hot and pried loose a Mulder (well done). The Cards are in a championship window, the Reds simply aren't. They could take the chance. A Basham/Moseley package a couple years back probably would have netted a stud pitcher. 18 months later, they're not worth a fraction of that. Flipping Wagner post 2003 might have netter a big fish...

gm
12-29-2004, 10:23 PM
A Basham/Moseley package a couple years back probably would have netted a stud pitcher. 18 months later, they're not worth a fraction of that. Flipping Wagner post 2003 might have netter a big fish...

Good point, but IIRC you can't deal a draftee for at least 12 months

gm
12-29-2004, 10:27 PM
while George waxs poetic about someone on the other team. Horrible.

Can't we let the offseason pass peacefully by without being reminded of this? Georgie should go work for the Cardies, since he's already Pujols' homeboy

MWM
12-29-2004, 10:34 PM
This takes away John Allen's built-in "small market" excuse and his constant decrying of major league salaries. They now have no ground to stand on in that department. They have now become part of the problem.

M2
12-29-2004, 11:38 PM
If you don't develop (or trade) then you pay the piper even for #3 or #2 type arms.

I've been down with that concept for years, in fact that's exactly what I've wanted the Reds to do dating back to before the 2000 season. Problem is the Reds paid the piper for #4 and #5 type arms and the failure to recognize the difference most likely will net them poor results.

I'm also all for flipping hot prospects -- Homer Bailey this means you (he's eligible for trade this coming summer).

GAC
12-30-2004, 12:06 AM
This takes away John Allen's built-in "small market" excuse and his constant decrying of major league salaries. They now have no ground to stand on in that department. They have now become part of the problem.

I don't know if I'd say they have become a part of the problem. It's not like we are talking a huge jump in payroll here. It's probably gonna be in the range that most thought it should be once revenues started kicking in from GAB (approx 55-60 Mil?).

Respectfully..I'm beginning to think that the sabermetrics followers on here feel that unless a team (owner, GM, manager, etc) is completely following and sold onto the sabermetrics formula, and fully implementing/following it, you're not gonna be satisfied.

And I'm not saying that to be smart-alecky or disrespectful either.

MWM
12-30-2004, 12:29 AM
I'm beginning to think that the sabermetrics followers

Geez, GAC. The world isn't divided into sabermetric and non-sabermetric followers. Why you insist on making everything about sabermetrics boggles my mind. It's as if the only way someone could be against this move would be if they are a sabermetrician. This has nothing to do with sabermetrics, GAC. Absolutely nothing. Eric Milton has been a below average performer regardless of how you measure him. How is looking at a guy's ERA and seeing that it isn't very good a sabermetric thing. People have been looking at ERA long before Bill James ever came around.

I want the team to be building towards a playoff team. I couldn't care less what methodology is used to get there.

westofyou
12-30-2004, 12:36 AM
Ideas shouldn't be divided, labeled and polarized, they should be exaimined and set aside and run against the data when it comes in.

Don't forget that Kullman is in this mix and he isn't "old school" by any stretch of the imagination.

Meanwhile the 4 theories to success.

Make a Habit of Asking Why

Stop Caring About Your Reputation

Embrace the Unloved

Figure Out What to Count.

Bill
12-30-2004, 04:08 AM
To repeat the blurb i posted 10 pages back in response to the Knee article, the yanks doctor did travel down and checked Milton out giving him the all ok back when they were interested. I assume the knee was looked at closely. If the knee is good, perhaps he can regain the weight he took off and subsequently the oomph on his fastball. For 25 mill i certainly hope the Reds' meds conducted a thorough exam.

DoogMinAmo
12-30-2004, 04:12 AM
Other way around, the Reds staff is responsible for that.

116 to 88 in Home HR's 94 -97 on the road.

That's pitching to contact with no stuff, or the equivalent of the Nuxy throwing BP nightly while George waxs poetic about someone on the other team.

Horrible.

Interesting, not only did we have great home run hitters, but we had even better (or worse) home run pitchers. Its a shame pitchers' abilities don't have some bearing on park factor. I am sure that having good pitchers in Oakland has lended it towards a "pitchers park" the last few years, while the opposite might be the case. I realize that in extreme places like Colorado, and Detroit pre-fence readjustment that the pitchers matter less.

Either way, a pitcher that tends to give up the long ball, Milton, along with the maturation of our young boppers, are sure not to buck the trend of GAB being HR friendly.

GAC
12-30-2004, 06:58 AM
Geez, GAC. The world isn't divided into sabermetric and non-sabermetric followers. Why you insist on making everything about sabermetrics boggles my mind. It's as if the only way someone could be against this move would be if they are a sabermetrician. This has nothing to do with sabermetrics, GAC. Absolutely nothing. Eric Milton has been a below average performer regardless of how you measure him. How is looking at a guy's ERA and seeing that it isn't very good a sabermetric thing. People have been looking at ERA long before Bill James ever came around.

I want the team to be building towards a playoff team. I couldn't care less what methodology is used to get there.

Mike... I am not INSISTING on making everything sabermetrics. Where you get this from I don't know. I made one comment which I still stand by. I simply expressed my opinion, that has been formed over the course of my time on here, that I feel those that have a deep passion for sabermetrics, which I have always respected and even learned from, feel that their methodology/approach to the study of the game is the only one that seems to have validity in examining/breaking down the game.

And the argument/discussion on here concerning the pro's/con's of signing Milton has not simply been centered around ERA. The analysis has gone much deeper than that.

But there is no reason to get defensive or feel offended by my comment. It was simply an observation that I believe. And it's been formulated, over the course of time, and from my participation, on this side of the forum.

I'm not being critical of, nor trying to demean, those who have that deep passion for sabermetrics. And I've said that enough on here before. I've learned alot from the SABR followers on this forum.... yourself, SD, Raisor, woy, M2, and chili.

And any "antagonism" that there is between myself and SABR guys should be interpreted as friendly, and not mean-spirited. I think guys like Raisor and SD see and understand that. And respectfully, I don't understand why you don't?

But respectfully Mike, when it comes to a "methodology", which is what sabermetrics is, for you to say that you don't care what methodology is used to get them to a playoff team, I find that hard to believe. And again, I am not saying that as a criticism or "smack".

I commend you and the others for finding enjoyment for the indepth analysis that you put in to look at it from that angle of the game.

Again, you are getting very defensive over an issue that IMO, is not an issue with me. ;)

And it is also one of the main reasons that I rarely post on this side of the forum much any more. It's simply a choice that I have voluntarily made out of respect for other's viewpoints, and that I am not gonna allow myself to get drawn into arguments with.

But please don't accuse me of having some sort of "hang up" or fixation on those who follow sabermetrics. Because I don't.

There has to be a balance of ideas Mike. And I don't always see that balance in alot of these discussions. I do see the attempt of exclusion of differing viewpoints.

RANDY IN INDY
12-30-2004, 10:12 AM
Mike... I am not INSISTING on making everything sabermetrics. Where you get this from I don't know. I made one comment which I still stand by. I simply expressed my opinion, that has been formed over the course of my time on here, that I feel those that have a deep passion for sabermetrics, which I have always respected and even learned from, feel that their methodology/approach to the study of the game is the only one that seems to have validity in examining/breaking down the game.

And the argument/discussion on here concerning the pro's/con's of signing Milton has not simply been centered around ERA. The analysis has gone much deeper than that.

But there is no reason to get defensive or feel offended by my comment. It was simply an observation that I believe. And it's been formulated, over the course of time, and from my participation, on this side of the forum.

I'm not being critical of, nor trying to demean, those who have that deep passion for sabermetrics. And I've said that enough on here before. I've learned alot from the SABR followers on this forum.... yourself, SD, Raisor, woy, M2, and chili.

And any "antagonism" that there is between myself and SABR guys should be interpreted as friendly, and not mean-spirited. I think guys like Raisor and SD see and understand that. And respectfully, I don't understand why you don't?

But respectfully Mike, when it comes to a "methodology", which is what sabermetrics is, for you to say that you don't care what methodology is used to get them to a playoff team, I find that hard to believe. And again, I am not saying that as a criticism or "smack".

I commend you and the others for finding enjoyment for the indepth analysis that you put in to look at it from that angle of the game.

Again, you are getting very defensive over an issue that IMO, is not an issue with me. ;)

And it is also one of the main reasons that I rarely post on this side of the forum much any more. It's simply a choice that I have voluntarily made out of respect for other's viewpoints, and that I am not gonna allow myself to get drawn into arguments with.

But please don't accuse me of having some sort of "hang up" or fixation on those who follow sabermetrics. Because I don't.

There has to be a balance of ideas Mike. And I don't always see that balance in alot of these discussions. I do see the attempt of exclusion of differing viewpoints.

That was very well stated, GAC. Wish I could have said it that well.

gonelong
12-30-2004, 10:26 AM
But respectfully Mike, when it comes to a "methodology", which is what sabermetrics is, for you to say that you don't care what methodology is used to get them to a playoff team, I find that hard to believe.

Should I find it hard to believe that you would care if the Reds used a methodology based in statistics to make the playoffs? Nice one.

If the Reds are making the playoffs year after year their methodology won't be questioned in the same manner it has after 4 straight losing seasons.

GL

Ryan the Reds Fan
12-30-2004, 11:30 AM
GAC you are on a roll my friend, well said again. You have such an eloquent kind way of saying things. I just don't try and say things like this because somehow they always come out wrong. :thumbup:

westofyou
12-30-2004, 11:39 AM
I am sure that having good pitchers in Oakland has lended it towards a "pitchers park" the last few years.

A little, but that stadium with it's giant foul are and foggy cold nights plays as pitchers park over the last 20 years with a Park Factor of 85.75, a high of 109 in 2002 and a low 77 in 1990.

MWM
12-30-2004, 01:07 PM
Mike... I am not INSISTING on making everything sabermetrics. Where you get this from I don't know. I made one comment which I still stand by. I simply expressed my opinion, that has been formed over the course of my time on here, that I feel those that have a deep passion for sabermetrics, which I have always respected and even learned from, feel that their methodology/approach to the study of the game is the only one that seems to have validity in examining/breaking down the game.

And I made a comment which has also been formed over the course of my time here. Whenever thereís been discussion with a clear disagreement, you want to turn into a sabermetric debate. And youíve done it on plenty of occasions. And then you tell me that I believe itís the ONLY approach to building a baseball team. GAC, Iíve been playing or coaching or watching baseball my entire life and using statistical measures is only one of the many ways in which I enjoy the game and evaluate players. But just because I think the use of statistical metrics is relevant does not men Iím closed to any other means of evaluating players. And that is true whether you choose to believe it or not.


And the argument/discussion on here concerning the pro's/con's of signing Milton has not simply been centered around ERA. The analysis has gone much deeper than that.

So why have you turned it into a sabermetric debate? You entire comment is based on the assumption that the only way one could be opposed to the Milton signing is if they are a sabermetric devotee. In my mind, they just signed a guy for $25mm who has a career ERA of 4.76 and is coming off two bad years. Is it that far-fetched to think that there might be people who donít think it was a good idea? My opposition has absolutely nothing to do with sabermetrics.

The problem is that people want to slap a ďsabermetricĒ label on people who actually use statistical evaluation as a relevant tool to evaluating a player. Iíve been slapped with that label so every time I disagree with something it must be because Iím a sabermetric person. My knowledge of the game runs much deeper than that, but some folks choose to only see the stat side. I despise labels.


But there is no reason to get defensive or feel offended by my comment. It was simply an observation that I believe. And it's been formulated, over the course of time, and from my participation, on this side of the forum.

Mine too. It was an observation I believe formulated over time from participation on this forum.


I'm not being critical of, nor trying to demean, those who have that deep passion for sabermetrics.

Yes you were. You basically called us closed-minded to anything other than our way of thinking and that weíre never going to be satisfied unless the GM buys into in its entirety. Thatís pretty critical, IMO. And then when I say that isnít the case and that I donít care what methodology they use, you say you donít believe me. Thatís pretty critical and demeaning. You can say itís not criticism, but thatís exactly what it is.


But respectfully Mike, when it comes to a "methodology", which is what sabermetrics is, for you to say that you don't care what methodology is used to get them to a playoff team, I find that hard to believe.

Acquire good players that will lead a team to the playoffs either now or in the future. I couldnít care less how they do it and you can choose to think Iím being dishonest if you want. Iíd take Walt Jocketty as our GM in a heartbeat. Heís old school, but heís a great GM. Iíd take Terry Ryan as a GM. And john Schuerholz is one of the best GMs in the game and heís FAR from a sabermetric GM. And I was completely in favor if hiring Wayne Krivsky. And I donít think an entire methodology can be built around sabermetrics, so that belief kind of contradicts what youíre saying about me. Thereís much more to putting together a baseball team than statistics and Iíve always recognized that. Where my issue lies is when GMís are closed to any kind of new player evaluation techniques. I think THAT is closed-minded and foolish. And there are plenty of folks right here on this board and on this thread who never bother to even look at the most basic of performance metrics when forming their opinions.


There has to be a balance of ideas Mike. And I don't always see that balance in alot of these discussions. I do see the attempt of exclusion of differing viewpoints.

GAC, I understand balance and I AM balanced in my view. GAC, you seem to see things as one way or the other. Iíve been balanced in my approach here, but folks have focused in solely on the statistical side that I use a lot. For me itís simple, if there is reliable objective measurements for certain aspect of player performance, I use it and I will rely on it to a much greater degree than observation. But I also recognize that there are some things that canít adequately be measured. Iíve been completely consistent in that all along.

And this whole balance thing is a red herring when itís used here by some folks. Most people, not all, who play the balance card are much less balanced than any sabermetric person is. True balance requires a pretty deep understanding of the statistical side of the spectrum. Balance goes both ways, but it seems to be tossed only at the ďstat geeksĒ by people who want to rely solely on their own observation. Thatís my observation, that people who scream balance tend to not want to ever use real performance metrics. You canít really be balanced without a pretty good understanding of sabermetrics. Thatís why I find it hypocritical when the ďtraditionalistĒ camp throws out the word ďbalance.Ē

GAC, Iíve had this conversation with you before and the conclusion Iíve reached is that you just donít understand my point-of-view at all, because the way you portray it isnít anywhere near how I actually think. If this doesnít clear it up, then I give up.

traderumor
12-30-2004, 01:46 PM
I despise labels.


Thatís why I find it hypocritical when the ďtraditionalistĒ camp throws out the word ďbalance.Ē

Do you hate labels or not? ;)

I can't speak for GAC, but I do understand his point of view.

All that I've asked as I read posts with heavy doses of "objective facts" as they are self-proclaimed is that there is a little more qualification to the tools you are using--a disclaimer if you will.

For example, consider the qualification that a stock broker uses when recommending a stock purchase, whereby they make a statement to the effect that past performance does not guarantee future results. I think the same attitude should be reflected as you present your analysis based on past performance, but the attitude I see is absolute certainty that your analyses will be accurate predictors. And I still don't count "anything's possible:rolleyes: " as a disclaimer.

Tony Cloninger
12-30-2004, 01:51 PM
I think sometimes the fact that saber people come off like know-it-alls in their posts probably annoys some people. Problem is....stats do not usually lie, if at all. It is what it is and it destroys any traditional baseball type thinking beacuse there is no way to dispute those stats, not usually anyways.

I loved stats growing up but these saber stats have become so big and broad that they overwhelm sometimes to the point of being too much....but it is about one of the best ways to analyze and build a team.

So basically it becomes.... one side throwing out viable stats to show how 1 trade or FA signing is good or bad.....while the other side says....."But it's Eric Milton.... a big name....and he is better than what we have." :MandJ:

Not a knock on either side....just an observation.

SteelSD
12-30-2004, 02:37 PM
All that I've asked as I read posts with heavy doses of "objective facts" as they are self-proclaimed is that there is a little more qualification to the tools you are using--a disclaimer if you will.

You should love PECOTA then. Gives actual probability ratings for possible projected performance levels.

And really, that's all statistical analysis aims to do in regards to projecting future performance based on objective past performance data- determine what's most probable. No one has ever positioned predictive analysis as a "certainty", but instead simply what is most likely to occur.

(Editors note: I'm unsure as to why this claim of folks positioning "absolutes" keeps coming up. It's been directly refuted more times than I care to remember by every member of this board who delves deeply into predictive analytics.)

We all want Eric Milton to bust out a sub-4.00 ERA driven by an OPS Against of around .700. Not a single fan on this board wishes anything worse.

Is it probable? Not bloody likely, and I can be quite confident when saying that. I don't need to throw out a "Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance" disclaimer because that disclaimer should already be assumed by the reader because, again, we're talking about probability- not absolutes.

Is it possible?

Well, I think you get the point. When we're talking about a very low probability of ocurrance, of course the only possible disclaimer one can use is that "Anything can happen" which is simply a re-phrased "PPDNGFR".

Cripes, I think I have to change my signature to read "PPDNGFR" just to post here anymore. ;)

MWM
12-30-2004, 02:50 PM
All that I've asked as I read posts with heavy doses of "objective facts" as they are self-proclaimed is that there is a little more qualification to the tools you are using--a disclaimer if you will.

I've always thought that was a given. Anyone knows that performance metrics aren't absolute and I can't recall anyone ever saying otherwise. But history shows that they are fairly reliable. People are constantly reading more into posts that include stats than the author intends. There's not a lot I can do about that. I find myself constantly in disbelief at some of he responses to posts that try to characterize my point-of-view because they are so far off from I actually think or wrote that I am clueless as to how they came to the concusions they came to.


For example, consider the qualification that a stock broker uses when recommending a stock purchase, whereby they make a statement to the effect that past performance does not guarantee future results. I think the same attitude should be reflected as you present your analysis based on past performance, but the attitude I see is absolute certainty that your analyses will be accurate predictors. And I still don't count "anything's possible:rolleyes: " as a disclaimer.

Stock brokers deal in probabilities, tr. And the ones who play these probabilities correctly, end up retiring early and buying professional baseball franchises. That's all I've ever tried to say about baseball performance metrics. If you see my analysis as "absolute certainty" then you've misinterpreted what I've said. I deal in probabilities. I know and have stated as such that nothing is certain, but certain things are highly unlikely. And when I'm presented with something that isn't probable as the reason for a move being made, then all I'm left with is "anything is possible."

I am very clear on the fact that past performance does not gurantee furutre results. There's plenty of examples of this throughout the history of baseball. The only people who say I don't believe that are people other than me who insist on mischaracterizing my opinions. But some people want to completely throw out past history as a predictor of future performance when it's been shown to better than anything else out there. If you want to predict future performance, where would you start your analysis?

The only absolute certainty I ever admit to is probability. Everything else is projected onto me by people who don't like what I have to say. It wors both ways, but the only people who ever seem to catch any flack for it is the people who have been labeled "stat geeks."

The single most frustrating think for me in these conversations is the mischaracterization of my point-of-view. And the second is the selective use of things I say to prove a point. And the third is the belief that it's only the "sabermetric" people who ever act certain in theri analysis. If you're going to call people out, call it both ways.

Here's a few selected quotes

MWM
12-30-2004, 02:51 PM
Looks like Steel and I were typing at the same time and said pretty much the same thing.

SteelSD
12-30-2004, 03:09 PM
Looks like Steel and I were typing at the same time and said pretty much the same thing.

Most...probably?

Oh lord...I am a witty, witty man!

Oh, "PPDNGFR". Almost forgot.;)

traderumor
12-30-2004, 03:52 PM
Yea, pretty funny stuff.

No, MWM and Steel, there is not that assumption with your presentations when discussions like Milton come up. There is a very black and white "this is what will happen" gauntlet thrown down and pity to the poor sap (even if they are a newcomer) that dares to question the analysis.

But I'll let it go now.

MWM
12-30-2004, 04:03 PM
Yea, pretty funny stuff.

No, MWM and Steel, there is not that assumption with your presentations when discussions like Milton come up. There is a very black and white "this is what will happen" gauntlet thrown down and pity to the poor sap (even if they are a newcomer) that dares to question the analysis.

But I'll let it go now.

You'll let it go after taking one last parting shot.

And considering I'm the one who made the posts about Milton, I think I'm more qualified than you to opine on the assumptions that went into my posts. I can tell you with certainty that my opinions on the Milton signing are based ENTIRELY on probability and not on absolute certaintly. I don't believe in absolute certainties. And I'm saying right here in a defnitive fashion since you've missed it in other posts, that is is entirley possible that Milton will pitch much better and make improvements on his prior two years' performance. But the idea that he'll pitch well enough to warrant $8.5MM a year is not likely. Possible, yes. Probable, no. You even said that yourself. If your perception is that my posts are black and white in regards to this move then that's because you look at things as black and white, not because I post it that way. I know. I'm the one who posts it.

traderumor
12-30-2004, 04:26 PM
You'll let it go after taking one last parting shot.

And considering I'm the one who made the posts about Milton, I think I'm more qualified than you to opine on the assumptions that went into my posts. I can tell you with certainty that my opinions on the Milton signing are based ENTIRELY on probability and not on absolute certaintly. I don't believe in absolute certainties. And I'm saying right here in a defnitive fashion since you've missed it in other posts, that is is entirley possible that Milton will pitch much better and make improvements on his prior two years' performance. But the idea that he'll pitch well enough to warrant $8.5MM a year is not likely. Possible, yes. Probable, no. You even said that yourself. If your perception is that my posts are black and white in regards to this move then that's because you look at things as black and white, not because I post it that way. I know. I'm the one who posts it.

Ok, how about I make one more comment, then. Certainly, as a graduate student, you understand that the reader must understand and agree with your assumptions through your writing. Imagine telling your professor on a paper that he must be reading something in a black and white fashion because you surely didn't write it that way. If I were the only person questioning your points and the way in which they are presented, then I would write it off as "it must just be me." Since that isn't the case...

SteelSD
12-30-2004, 04:30 PM
Yea, pretty funny stuff.

No, MWM and Steel, there is not that assumption with your presentations when discussions like Milton come up. There is a very black and white "this is what will happen" gauntlet thrown down and pity to the poor sap (even if they are a newcomer) that dares to question the analysis.

But I'll let it go now.

If you see a "what will happen" gauntlet thrown down, it's because you're looking for one where none exists.

Again, the idea of "probability v absolute" has been covered ad nauseum and I fail to see why we need to go over it every time someone disagrees with an analysis that's more representative of technical writing. At some point, we need to hold folks to the standard of at least being capable of understanding the most basic principle of "no absolutes".

Because, for gosh sakes, that principle has been covered enough for me to be able to expect that.

MWM
12-30-2004, 04:39 PM
But I also understand that it's not possible to spell out each and every assumption every time I want to communicate something through writing. I've said on multiple occasions on this board that any and all performance projections are based on probabilities and not absolute certainties. I also make assumptions that those who read the post understand that as a given. Maybe that's where my mistake lies. Because anyone who understands sabermetics, regardless of whether they are a believer in them or not, understands that even the most ardent sabermetricians base their entire body of work on probabilities and that sometimes the probable is not what comes to pass. Maybe I assume too much in thinking that most people understand that. Apparently they don't. But that doesn't make my assumption that I'm talking probabilites any less legit. I'm telling you point blank without uncertainty, that I am fully aware that I'm playing the percentages and not absolutes. I think there are plenty of people who understand that when they read my posts. I can't change the fact that there will others who don't grasp that when they read what I write. The only solution would be every single time I post any kind of projection based on past performance that I explicitly say that it's based on probabilities validated by 100 years of data. But also in that 100 years of data there are exceptions and this could be one. I don't have the time to do that.

traderumor
12-30-2004, 04:50 PM
Ok, guys. Fair enough.

I was really just trying to push up the post count on this thread anyhow.

Point taken.

westofyou
12-30-2004, 05:08 PM
Here's another good Eric Milton Comp with a Reds twist and another LH



Under age 29

H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB

8.83 10.94 5.68 1.97 2.89 - Jim Merritt

8.31 11.77 5.85 3.24 1.80 - League

9.06 11.82 6.63 2.61 2.55 - Milton

9.39 13.21 6.39 3.46 1.85 - League

D-Man
12-30-2004, 08:40 PM
You could be right. But I also heard that Clement had family in Pennsylvania, and wanted to sign as close to home as possible. Anybody else hear this? This would presumably give us an ADVANTAGE over the Red Sox.

O'Brien may have been a Rhodes scholar, and his daddy may have been a GM, but this is the final straw to convince me that he's not a bright baseball man.

I'd rather have Kris Benson. At least if Kris Benson exceeds expectations, he can't walk away at the end of the contract. I agree with those who say that this will be used as an excuse for not locking up Adam Dunn. Therefore, it probably the worst signing of the off-season.

Milton's support-neutral, park adjusted record:

2004 - 10.5 wins, 12.6 losses (bad year)
2003 - 1.4 wins, 0.5 losses (hurt almost all year)
2002 - 9.4 wins, 11 losses (bad year)
2001 - 12.5 wins, 12.4 losses (mediocre year)
2000 - 9.6 wins, 14.6 losses (bad year)
1999 - 11.5 wins, 13.4 losses (bad year)
1998 - 8.3 wins, 13.4 losses (bad year)

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/exp_wl_pitcher1999.html


25.5 million guaranteed dollars to a guy who has never had a single good year

This may be 300+ posts and two days late, but I think it is worth the clarification. . .

Unless I am reading the headings incorrectly, the wins and losses that Chili lists above are NOT "support-neutral" value added. The numbers listed above are "E(W)" and "E(L)". BP defines E(W) as "expected win record for the pitcher, based on how often pitchers with the same innings pitched and runs allowed earned a win or loss historically (this differs from how it was computed, which was a more complicated, theoretical calculation)." Note that the definition does not state (or even suggest) that the data are park adjusted. This means that a pitcher in Colorado leaving in a 2-1 ballgame will be treated the same as a pitcher leaving a 2-1 game in Dodger Stadium. Clearly, the two pitchers are NOT in the same situation. I think the E(W) statistic is flawed.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?context=5

Below, I have listed Milton's support neutral value added (SNVA). BP defines SNVA as "wins above average added by the pitcher's performance." Although BP doesn't spell out how the SNVA is calculated, it would seem to imply that a pitcher with a positive SNVA is "above average" and one with a negative SNVA is "below average." (It should be noted that this definition does not say anything about ballpark adjustments, either, so it may be flawed.)

2004: -1.0 SNVA
2003: 0.3
2002: 0.2
2001: 0.9
2000: 0.4
1999: 1.2
1998: -1.1

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/

Unless I am misinterpreting the definition of SNVA, this metric indicates that Milton was ABOVE AVERAGE every year except his rookie season and 2004. For his career, he has been 0.9 wins above average. Consequently, my read on these data is quite the opposite of Chili's take: on balance, he has been an above average pitcher, and he has been far beyond a replacement-level pitcher.

[My own editorializing: I did enjoy Chili's shouting in the post, however. :)]

M2
12-30-2004, 08:50 PM
I think that 2002 SNVA represents a variance from other pitching measures. Milton was pretty bad that season -- 91 ERA+, -4.9 runs prevented, 9 win shares.

D-Man
12-30-2004, 09:09 PM
I think that 2002 SNVA represents a variance from other pitching measures. Milton was pretty bad that season -- 91 ERA+, -4.9 runs prevented, 9 win shares.

His component ERA was 3.59 in 2002 (i.e., pretty darn good), even though his actual ERA was 4.84. He had the second-lowest component ERA relative to actual ERA (74%) in the majors that year.

Milton's DIPS ERA was 4.10.

That lumpy scoring pattern is par for the course with high-HR pitchers and hitters.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/stats/pitching?split=0&league=mlb&season=2002&seasonType=2&sort=ERC&type=pitch5&ageMin=0&ageMax=99&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all

SteelSD
12-30-2004, 09:56 PM
D-Man, I've never read anything regarding either that states they're park adjusted. But let's give both metrics a quick overview.

Based on what I expect to be the general No Decision rate for SP's (about 30%), let's see what we get per season if we give each pitcher league average Run Support:

2004 Actuals
34 Starts- 20 Decisions (59% Decision Rate)
14 Wins, 6 Losses

2004 Support Neutral (based on + and/or - SNVA W/L statistics)
34 Starts- 24 Decisions (70% Decision Rate)

Wins if League Average: 12
Losses if League Average: 12
Expected Wins- 10.5
Expected Losses- 12.6

Matches up pretty well for me. If Milton were league average, he should have gone 12-12 in 34 Starts. His expected Wins were 1.5 below that. So far, that makes sense considering that his ERA was higher than League Average in 2004.

SNVA Wins below Average- 1.0
SNVA Losses above Average- 0.6

That would project Milton's record at 11-13. Pretty darn close to 10.5-12.6. So, that makes sense to me as well. It appears that both metrics are equal so far. And yes, that's a very quick glance take and no, I have not attempted to analyze the formulas:

http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/wolverton/snwlexpl.htm

To me, here's what all that also indicates...

It tells me that the Run Support Milton received added about 3 Wins to his total but, more importantly, allowed him to avoid about 7 Losses another pitcher who performed as Milton did should have taken.

Additionally, while researching, I found that the percentage of Unearned Runs allowed with Milton on the hill was about half of what what we could expect. That's either means that luck has helped him out a bit OR because he's such an extreme Fly Ball pitcher, his Fielders don't have a chance to affect the UER% as much. As his UER rate has been consistently low since 2001, my gut tells me it's the latter.

If that is the case, it may indicate that Milton's pitching style does not lend itself to giving up cheapies and it may actually save a team about 3-4 Runs per season, which may help account for an additional Win every other year over Milton's starts.

SteelSD
12-30-2004, 10:00 PM
His component ERA was 3.59 in 2002 (i.e., pretty darn good), even though his actual ERA was 4.84. He had the second-lowest component ERA relative to actual ERA (74%) in the majors that year.

Milton's DIPS ERA was 4.10.

That lumpy scoring pattern is par for the course with high-HR pitchers and hitters.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/stats/pitching?split=0&league=mlb&season=2002&seasonType=2&sort=ERC&type=pitch5&ageMin=0&ageMax=99&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all

I've got his 2002 Runs Created Against at 3.94. I think that's fairly consistent with a .724 OPS Against.

D-Man
12-31-2004, 05:06 AM
I've got his 2002 Runs Created Against at 3.94. I think that's fairly consistent with a .724 OPS Against.

Well, I used the ESPN.com component ERA as a shorthand. . . I am sure there are many ways to compute component ERA or OPS-against. But in the end, I used the formula that was readily available. Feel free to check my sources:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/stats/pitching?split=0&league=mlb&season=2002&seasonType=2&sort=DIPSERA&type=pitch5&ageMin=0&ageMax=99&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all

Your OPS-against derivation of 3.94 for 2002 seems to be on target, if one averages the 4.10 DIPS ERA and the 3.59 component ERA that I provided above, which yields an average of 3.86 ERA. Overall, I think this point provides significant counterevidence to the assertion that, in 2002, Milton was "pretty bad that season," as M2 states. Rather, Milton's *contributions* to the team were above average (as the AL average ERA was 4.42 that year), unless you want to want to value the HRs-against in an extraordinarily negative fashion.

As for Milton's 2004 W-L issue, the SNLVA is defined, "like SNVA, but also adjusted for the [marginal lineup value] of each batter the pitcher faced." (my emphasis added). Why are these adjustments made to the loss column but not made to the win column? That doesn't make sense to me.

In any case, using the approach and assumption you described above--30% no decision rate--BP's metrics still suggest that Milton was an above average pitcher for the duration of 1998-2004:

2004: 34 starts, 11-13 implied record
2003: 3 starts, 1-1
2002: 29 starts, 10-7
2001: 34 starts, 13-11
2000: 33 starts, 12-11
1999: 34 starts, 13-11
1998: 32 starts, 10-12

In total, this tool suggests Milton's career record should be 71-65, which, by my count, is still a winning record. (And that still does not account for ballpark factors.) If you want to make an assertion that Milton was a "below average pitcher in 2004," then fine. But, per the data above, that claim doesn't hold for the duration of his career.

As for the park-adjusted issue, I was merely replying to Chili's post, as he stated that the "support neutral" data were "park adjusted." I still assert that any comparison of starting pitchers is flawed without that park adjustment factored in. There is no way that you can tell me that a one-run ballgame means the same thing to a team's chance of winning in Colorado as it does in LA.

RFS62
12-31-2004, 09:42 AM
The missing link in all this discussion is the scouting reports the front office used.

I guarantee they weighed heavily in the decision to go after Milton.

And I have a hard time believing that O'Brien isn't aware of the statistical data cited in this thread.

There was a lot more to this decision than we know, and I'd love to talk to someone in the front office about it.

traderumor
12-31-2004, 11:40 AM
Nope, they ignored all that and threw caution to the wind. This decision was made in a vaccuum because DOB is a bad baseball man. :p:

Redmachine2003
12-31-2004, 12:03 PM
DanO will leave the Fantasy Baseball stuff to the Pros and stick with the way baseball has ran over the last 100 years or so. :allovrjr: :mhcky21:

westofyou
12-31-2004, 12:09 PM
DanO will leave the Fantasy Baseball stuff to the Pros and stick with the way baseball has ran over the last 100 years or so.

Yeah... that's why he has Brad Kullman has his special assistant.

90 years ago Branch Rickey was laughed at for using the new fangled stopwatch to time the pitchers delivery to the plate, using that time with his knowledge of his runners speed to determine if a steal was a good move percentage wise.

Sometimes the way baseball was run is lot like that fantasy baseball stuff. ;)

M2
12-31-2004, 12:48 PM
Yeah... that's why he has Brad Kullman has his special assistant.

90 years ago Branch Rickey was laughed at for using the new fangled stopwatch to time the pitchers delivery to the plate, using that time with his knowledge of his runners speed to determine if a steal was a good move percentage wise.

Sometimes the way baseball was run is lot like that fantasy baseball stuff. ;)

Oh sure, and the next thing you'll tell me is that Rickey was a big proponent of OB or that the BRM was built by a scouting director who strove to find objective measures in a sea of what he thought was old school malarkey.

westofyou
12-31-2004, 12:56 PM
Oh sure, and the next thing you'll tell me is that Rickey was a big proponent of OB or that the BRM was built by a scouting director who strove to find objective measures in a sea of what he thought was old school malarkey.

He also wouldn't ever go to the ballpark on Sunday.

But he always would look at the days receipts that evening (this was before the Simpsons was on Sunday night).

Milton Comp of the Day.

With Zane Smith up until his 1992 season with the Pirates, he was the 4th highest paid player on that team (2.25, 75K less than Bonds)

Smith 1344.1 innings, Milton 1188



H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB

8.94 12.20 5.17 3.11 1.66 - Zane Smith

8.60 12.04 5.85 3.26 1.79 - League

9.06 11.82 6.63 2.61 2.55 - Milton

9.39 13.21 6.39 3.46 1.85 - League

baseballPAP
12-31-2004, 06:20 PM
WAIT!.....I finally figured it all out after reading 24 pages of posts.......
Its his hitting that makes all the difference!
Only kidding, I just wanted to have something to say...feeling all left out and stuff.

GAC
01-02-2005, 01:37 PM
I knew that when I made the following statement, which I now regret even posting because it would be misconstrued, that it would lead to ASSUMPTIONS. And that is exactly what you have been doing Mike, from one statement.

"Respectfully..I'm beginning to think that the sabermetrics followers on here feel that unless a team (owner, GM, manager, etc) is completely following and sold onto the sabermetrics formula, and fully implementing/following it, you're not gonna be satisfied."



And then you tell me that I believe itís the ONLY approach to building a baseball team.

Most sabermetrics disciples do believe the above Mike. I wasn't necessarily referring to you. If you dont fit into that mold then fine. But I am not gonna back off that statement because I believe it to be true and factual. And there have been plenty of statements made on here over the last couple of seasons to support that contention.

Even though Bill James/Baseball Abstract has been around for quite some time, it wasn't till the success of Moneyball and Billy Beane that all of a sudden the new "wave" sweeping baseball, that was gonna bring baseball to it's new enlightenment and displace the old worn out and failing traditionalist methodology, started catching people's attention. I read Moneyball twice Mike. It's got some excellent stuff in there, but it was also very insulting in alot of ways. But I guess those of us who don't completely agree with everything within sabermettrics should be "man enough" to accept the insults and slights. But the author, Michael Lewis, also showed his own arrogance and partisanship by the way he labelled and took literally swipes at those who have played, lived and breathed the game of baseball over the last several decades (GM's, scouts, managers, coaches, former players, etc), and labelled them "old school" and various other demeaning terms. Did Michael Lewis ever play the game? Maybe he didn't purposely mean what he was saying, but it was insulting in alot of ways.

And while I think Bill James is a very talented and educated man, who has brought alot to the game, he too readily acknowledges his disdain and resentment towards those within the baseball establishment who ignored him for years.


Iíve been playing or coaching or watching baseball my entire life and using statistical measures is only one of the many ways in which I enjoy the game and evaluate players.

And so have I Mike. Over 40 years worth.


But just because I think the use of statistical metrics is relevant does not men Iím closed to any other means of evaluating players. And that is true whether you choose to believe it or not.

What other means do you utilize then Mike? I'm not denying it. Just show me. What methodology, that is deemed "old school" do you support or adhere to?

And I've never said that statistical analysis is irrelevant. What I have stated is that it too is incomplete. It is not the "all in all" that it is shown to be on here by some. What can't be charted/tracked/projected is deemed irrelevant, backwards, and basically ridiculed on here. I, and many on here, over the course of time on this forum have seen it.

Example:

You guys nailed Sean Casey and laughed at those that tried to inject into the argument such intangibles as injury/recovery time as the source of his falling numbers over the last 2 years. Nope. Casey is an overpaid, washed up player who will never regain his previous form. I heard that over and over on here from sabvermetrics guys. Were they wrong?

Try to make a comment on this forum about aspects of the game such as bunting, steals, sac flies, clutch hitting, or any other fundamental of the game that is deemed old school or traditionalist. I've seen people get ridiculed and nailed on here by sabermetrics guys for supporting such silly notions. And all because they can't realistically be statistically tracked and shown to have any relevance in the game.

I've seen it happen on here Mike way to many times to recount. And it is why I, and many others, have basically withdrawn from alot of the discussions on this side of the forum.


You entire comment is based on the assumption that the only way one could be opposed to the Milton signing is if they are a sabermetric devotee.

More assumptions. Never said that anywhere Mike. In fact, if you will go back and re-read my posts, you'll see that that I simply tried to base my argument for signing Milton on various other factors - market demands, scarcity of quality established pitching in the market, and how the bigger market teams are setting a standard that smaller market teams either... 1) are forced to stay out of due to financial constraints, or 2) overpay just like everyone else is doing. It's just riskier, and hits a smaller market team harder. 3) a broken system that the MLB heirachy (owners and union) refuse to address.


In my mind, they just signed a guy for $25mm who has a career ERA of 4.76 and is coming off two bad years. Is it that far-fetched to think that there might be people who donít think it was a good idea? My opposition has absolutely nothing to do with sabermetrics.

Never said it was far-fetched, nor I intend to direspect your opinion.

What was the cause of that ERA increase? Possibly injury?...the way he was utilized in Philly, and the environment he was in? I know these are intangibles Mike that can't be tracked or charted; but are you denying that they can't be factors over the last couple of years? I haved already stated that they most likely overpaid for Milton. If they want any type of established starter, which Milton is to a degree, then they are going to overpay for him.

I just simply diasgree with your contention that Milton is a lousy pitcher, and will never be a viable SP again. If Milton goes out and pulls a "Casey", and has a solid career with the Reds, then what are you going to say? An abberation or "career years"? Or maybe a return to form he once had? Players do it all the time Mike.


The problem is that people want to slap a ďsabermetricĒ label on people who actually use statistical evaluation as a relevant tool to evaluating a player.

Because that is what sabermetrics is Mike. Along with a historical study of the game which I deeply respect and admire (woy amazes me). But it all comes down to statictical analysis/evaluation as the bottom line.


Iíve been slapped with that label so every time I disagree with something it must be because Iím a sabermetric person. My knowledge of the game runs much deeper than that, but some folks choose to only see the stat side. I despise labels.

So do I Mike, so do I. But labels are readily thrown at those who disagree or argue with the sabermetrics methodology. And it is done so in an arrogant and condescending way alot of times. I read BP, Neyer, Bill James, and many others all the time.



You basically called us closed-minded to anything other than our way of thinking and that weíre never going to be satisfied unless the GM buys into in its entirety. Thatís pretty critical, IMO.

When I look at sabermtrics followers as a whole, and from what I have seen on here and other forums, sports sites, then yes, I still stand by that contention that they would like to see every team, in order to be successful, to follow and be driven by the Billy Beane/Paul Deposdesta "mold" of a sabermetrics organization.


And this whole balance thing is a red herring when itís used here by some folks. Most people, not all, who play the balance card are much less balanced than any sabermetric person is. True balance requires a pretty deep understanding of the statistical side of the spectrum. Balance goes both ways, but it seems to be tossed only at the ďstat geeksĒ by people who want to rely solely on their own observation. Thatís my observation, that people who scream balance tend to not want to ever use real performance metrics. You canít really be balanced without a pretty good understanding of sabermetrics. Thatís why I find it hypocritical when the ďtraditionalistĒ camp throws out the word ďbalance.Ē

GAC, Iíve had this conversation with you before and the conclusion Iíve reached is that you just donít understand my point-of-view at all, because the way you portray it isnít anywhere near how I actually think. If this doesnít clear it up, then I give up.

My statement, which I re-posted at the top of this response, has really been taken by you as a sort of PERSONAL attack on yourself by me. I'm sorry you took it that way Mike. It was a generalizedstatement concerning my feelings on thos who adhere to sabermetrics.

You try to make it sound like it was some sort of attack or slight, when it was not. It was a simple observation that I still believe in. Don't take it so hard, and become so defensive over it. You've become very defensive with not just myself, but several others on here lately...why?

If you knew the number of PM's that I have gotten from people over the last week supprting what I said on here n my initial post, you'd be amazed. And do you know what I tell them?.... it wasn't meant as a personal attack on sabermetrics followers, nor to insult or belittle them. It was just me expressing my opinion and making an observation after being on this forum for several years.

So again I apologize Mike; but lets just drop it OK? I'm not going to get all upset or riled that you (or any other sabermetrics guy) disagrees with me.

It's just not worth arguing over. We agree to disagree. ;)

RANDY IN INDY
01-02-2005, 02:33 PM
Very well said, indeed.

cincinnati chili
01-02-2005, 04:12 PM
This may be 300+ posts and two days late, but I think it is worth the clarification. . .

Unless I am reading the headings incorrectly, the wins and losses that Chili lists above are NOT "support-neutral" value added. The numbers listed above are "E(W)" and "E(L)". BP defines E(W) as "expected win record for the pitcher, based on how often pitchers with the same innings pitched and runs allowed earned a win or loss historically (this differs from how it was computed, which was a more complicated, theoretical calculation)." Note that the definition does not state (or even suggest) that the data are park adjusted. This means that a pitcher in Colorado leaving in a 2-1 ballgame will be treated the same as a pitcher leaving a 2-1 game in Dodger Stadium. Clearly, the two pitchers are NOT in the same situation. I think the E(W) statistic is flawed.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?context=5

Below, I have listed Milton's support neutral value added (SNVA). BP defines SNVA as "wins above average added by the pitcher's performance." Although BP doesn't spell out how the SNVA is calculated, it would seem to imply that a pitcher with a positive SNVA is "above average" and one with a negative SNVA is "below average." (It should be noted that this definition does not say anything about ballpark adjustments, either, so it may be flawed.)

2004: -1.0 SNVA
2003: 0.3
2002: 0.2
2001: 0.9
2000: 0.4
1999: 1.2
1998: -1.1

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/

Unless I am misinterpreting the definition of SNVA, this metric indicates that Milton was ABOVE AVERAGE every year except his rookie season and 2004. For his career, he has been 0.9 wins above average. Consequently, my read on these data is quite the opposite of Chili's take: on balance, he has been an above average pitcher, and he has been far beyond a replacement-level pitcher.

[My own editorializing: I did enjoy Chili's shouting in the post, however. :)]

Very good points, and I agree with your correction 100%.

Wolverton is suggesting that, with average luck, Milton's pitching performances would have produced a below .500 record. However, he is not suggesting that such a pitcher would be a below-average pitcher. I was incorrect to state/imply the latter.

It's still way too much money. I expect Milton to be a .500 pitcher for the Reds, unless Griffey/Dunn/Kearns/Casey all remain healthy 90% of the time, and the rest of the lineup gets on base at a reasonable clip.

cincinnati chili
01-02-2005, 04:21 PM
I've been anxious to hear Chris Kahrl's take. Here's Baker's:

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3690

Let's take the case of Eric Milton, the latest player to be rewarded with a multi-year contract coming out of IS [indentured servitude]. Milton was promoted from that level by the Cincinnati Reds to the tune of three years at around $25 million. This was done in spite of some very obvious signs that Mr. Milton does not deserve this kind of financial attention.

First of all, without getting all sabermetrical, there is the matter of his ERAs. They are, at best, ever so slightly above average. Let's assume the Reds don't get all hung up on the more advanced metrics now available to any team that has Internet access and an intern savvy enough to know how to type "espn.com" into a browser. Surely they understand the concept of Earned Run Average? Milton has always been right around the league ERA.

What if they go a bit deeper? Without having to subscribe to a site such as Baseball Prospectus and learn a number of new metrics, they can familiarize themselves with some very basic facts. Milton gave up the most fly balls in the major leagues last year, 312. He also gave up the most fly balls relative to ground balls surrendered. The Reds gave up more home runs at home last year than any other team, including the one that plays in Denver. Does this sound like an ideal pairing of pitcher and park?

Last year, Milton was a well-supported (fourth-best in the National League) league-average pitcher who got pretty lucky on the balls he managed to keep in play. He allowed a .257 batting average on balls in play, one of the lowest figures in the league. If he were a groundball pitcher, that might be exciting news. He's nothing of the sort, of course.

If Milton were promoted out of the Reds system, you'd probably give them a pass because a team can only promote the talent they have on hand. Coming out of the IS ranks into a deal like this, however, leaves them wide open to a right good flaying. With a prospect in one's own system, a team is forced to make choices. With a free agent from another organization, a team is under no obligation whatsoever to even give him a second glance. This is the equivalent of leaving a nice safe spot behind a guard rail to run out on a highway in front of a speeding truck.

Shockingly, I think it's safe to assume that teams put considerably more time, effort and money into evaluating minor-league talent than they do free-agent talent. Does this seem like a daft supposition? If not, how else can we explain the offers being made this spring to players who have proven year-in and--except for perhaps the most recent season--year-out that they come with a spectacular downside at the prices they are receiving?

traderumor
01-02-2005, 05:00 PM
thats a repost, chilli, already somewhere within this labyrinth of a thread

MWM
01-02-2005, 06:08 PM
GAC, I'm finished arguing about it. I disagree with your portrayal of me and anyone else who chooses to make sabermetrics a factor in their evaluation and analysis of baseball. And you obviously disagree with my disagreement. I'm tired of arguing about and I'm just not going to do it any more.

SteelSD
01-02-2005, 07:22 PM
sabermetrics disciples

Such an animal might exist somewhere, but not on this board, GAC.

I have yet to see anyone who is unwilling to incorporate non-sabrmetric evaluation tools when appropriate.

And with all due respect, what in the world does you feeling insulted by Michael Lewis have to do with anything?

I don't even know what your point is. It appears from your account of the number of PM's you've received in "support" that others think it''s "stats bad/stat geeks bad". If that's not your point, it's not difficult for me to think of a dozen or so folks who'd draw that out of your post due to their own bias and laud you for what they perceive to be an attack on a methodology they don't care for and people they don't like anyway.

Unfortunate, considering that I know you're beyond that.

M2
01-02-2005, 09:43 PM
Such an animal might exist somewhere, but not on this board.

What are you talking about? I'm a complete numbers Nazi, beholden to wild, complicated statistical theories like ERA and on-base percentage.

GAC
01-02-2005, 10:01 PM
Such an animal might exist somewhere, but not on this board, GAC.

disciples....followers...believers...you can chose whatever terminology/label you like SD. I was simply trying to use the best "word" that, IMO, best describes those who have a deep "passion" and adherence to the sabermetrics methodology. Just like I'm referred to as "old school" or a "traditionalist" (which is usually meant to be seen in a backwards or bad light).

And I again want to make myself perfectly understood that I don't mean any of my statements to be meant as slights or mean-spirited criticisms of those who love to look at the game of baseball from that "angle". Your contributions are enormous, and have been very invaluable to myself in particular. I also fully understand that there are those on here that are entirely hostile and antagonistic towards sabermetrics methodology. I am not one of them, even though I have my disagreements the in-depth analysis that is sometimes employed and utilized to the exclusion of other tangible scenarios that are discounted or rejected as insignificant, simply because they cannot be statistically tracked, charted, and projected.

Does that mean they are insignificant and irrelevant?

Do I think it is a bad thing that there are those who love to look at baseball solely from a statistical viewpoint? No. And I never said that it was. I admire you guys for your passion and drive to that aspect/angle of the game.


I have yet to see anyone who is unwilling to incorporate non-sabrmetric evaluation tools when appropriate.

And I have yet to see a sabermetrics guy show when it has been appropriate. ;)


And with all due respect, what in the world does you feeling insulted by Michael Lewis have to do with anything?

It's not about ME being insulted (because I personally wasn't). It was his "approach", the perceptions/assumptions he made in the book, concerning the scouts, coaches, managers, ex-players, etc., who have spent their lives living and breathing the game of baseball. Lewis, whether intentionaly or unintentionally, summarily dismissed them using labels and phrases that were IMO, and the opinion of many others, as insulting and arrogant. Again, where is Lewis qualified to make such an assesment? How much time did he spend playing the game? Or maybe that doesn't matter, or should be a factor?

I still feel that Moneyball was an "eye opening" book. Some great arguments and postulations were put forth. But it would have been alot more effective IMO, if he had left out some of his "partisan" criticisms and IMO, disrespectful remarks. Now I can understand how/why you may not see it that way SD. And I respect that. But alot of others who read the book, and still enjoyed it, did see it.

My pointing this out on Lewis was to illustrate the sometime arrogance and condescension that people get when they try to disagree with aspects of sabermetrics.


I don't even know what your point is. It appears from your account of the number of PM's you've received in "support" that others think it''s "stats bad/stat geeks bad".

Nope. That was not my point at all (or theirs). It was the overwhelming idea and feeling that their ideas or viewpoints are constantly being ridiculed or laughed at alot of times in discussions on here when it somehow clashs with the sabermtrics viewpoint. Just as we are a "divided' country, we also are a divided board when it comes to the clash of these viewpoints. :lol:

And no one wants to give ground. ;)

I'm not afraid to acknowledge SD that I may have misperceptions/assumptions that have developed over the course of my time on here concerning sabermetrics. I'm not afraid to acknowledge that one bit. We are all hard-headed and set in our ways. But I do go out of my way to study and understand sabermetrics. I find it interesting and yes, quite illuminating. But I also admit that I don't go into the really deep analytical aspects that some of you do.

Do you think maybe that you, and some of the others, may carry some of the same misconceptions concerning those whom you may define as "old school"?


Unfortunate, considering that I know you're beyond that.

Which is why you shouldn't interpret my statements as being mean-spirited or personal attacks. i feel that you and the others have a very deep love and passion for the game of baseball. There is no denying that one bit. woy blows me away with his vast knowledge of the historical aspects of the game. It's amazing!

Bottom line? What I have gleened from those who I have talked to (PMs, etc) is that there is not that mutual respect and consideration coming from Sabr fans. There are alot of diverse fans on here that follow the game for differing and varying reasons. Everyone gets their enjoyment from the game in different ways.

None should be looked down upon.

I again deeply apologize to anyone that I may have offended. It's not a bad thing to be a "stat geek" nor a traditionalist. :lol:

Jokingly.... getting into a statistical analysis/argument with a sabermetrics guys is like trying to define where the two points of a linear line meet. ;)

Phhhl
01-02-2005, 10:13 PM
My friend paid 13 bucks for Milton in last year's Rotisserie auction, and he is a badge carrying, certified Bill James "disciple". I need to drop him an email and ask him why he overbid like that. Seriously, I have been curious about that ever since the Reds nabbed the lefty. Sean knows his baseball.

SteelSD
01-02-2005, 11:32 PM
Do I think it is a bad thing that there are those who love to look at baseball solely from a statistical viewpoint? No. And I never said that it was. I admire you guys for your passion and drive to that aspect/angle of the game.

No one on this board represents that comment. No one. "Solely from a statistical viewpoint."

Thats

not

true.


My pointing this out on Lewis was to illustrate the sometime arrogance and condescension that people get when they try to disagree with aspects of sabermetrics.

Michael Lewis is not a sabrmetrician. He is a writer. His "arrogance", real or perceived, has nothing to do with statistical evaluation. Whether or not he played baseball really doesn't matter one bit to me and, if you really weren't attempting to perpetuate a negative stereotype, it wouldn't matter to you either.


Do you think maybe that you, and some of the others, may carry some of the same misconceptions concerning those whom you may define as "old school"?

No. Because I've already BEEN there, GAC.

Why is it so difficult to understand that me and the "others" began with the same "traditional" knowledge base that you did?

No one woke up one day and suddenly figured that they'd like baseball but would only pay attention to baseball statistics.

You're perpetuating a horrible stereotype, GAC. You really are.

If you want to communicate with me on this further, then please PM me. I don't think it'll be productive in the least to continue this on a thread.

M2
01-03-2005, 12:18 AM
Why is it so difficult to understand that me and the "others" began with the same "traditional" knowledge base that you did?

Plus, isn't it traditionalist thinking to maintain that a guy with a ERA in the high 4.00s isn't a very good pitcher?

Think I knew that one by age six.

This has nothing to do with new school vs. old school. It's a matter of some folks willing to chuck any vestige of what they've traditionally used to define a good pitcher just because the Reds signed the guy vs. those who aren't.

traderumor
01-03-2005, 12:32 AM
Plus, isn't it traditionalist thinking to maintain that a guy with a ERA in the high 4.00s isn't a very good pitcher?Not in this era. Not a safe assumption. Hopefully the juice will get under control and you'll see ERAs come back down, which they have been trending toward anyways. A starter can post a 4.50 ERA these days and be an asset to his team. Of course, I think the Reds FO is hoping that they paid $25M for better than that.

Redmachine2003
01-03-2005, 12:53 AM
Traditionalist are the ones who sees a pitcher win year in and year out as a good pitcher. That is something that Milton has done. When it is all said and done at the end of the day all that maters is did you win or lose. Sure the numbers say he is an avg pitcher but he is an avg pitcher that wins twice as much as he loses. Can he maintain that? He has so far and with this offense he should be able to keep on winning. Is Milton a risk? Yes and so is every pitcher out there anymore. Injuries are becoming more and more costly for pitchers and with young power pitchers you never know when the arm or the shoulder will go. Just look around the league the more consistant pitchers are still the same old guys who have been doing it for years everyone else is up and down.

SteelSD
01-03-2005, 01:09 AM
When it is all said and done at the end of the day all that maters is did you win or lose.

Quick question...

Do pitchers who give up more Runs or fewer Runs best help their team win ball games?

Ok. That was a quick rhetorical question. We all know the answer to it.

But if we know the answer, why would we be satisfied with the pitcher who gives up more Runs instead of wanting a pitcher who gives up fewer?

M2
01-03-2005, 01:12 AM
Not in this era. Not a safe assumption. Hopefully the juice will get under control and you'll see ERAs come back down, which they have been trending toward anyways. A starter can post a 4.50 ERA these days and be an asset to his team. Of course, I think the Reds FO is hoping that they paid $25M for better than that.

The league average ERA was only 4.30 last season. A guy with a 4.75 isn't anywhere near average. The worst NL team ERA to make the playoffs the past four seasons was the 2001 Astros at 4.37, who scored 847 runs (close to the Reds' team record of 865).

A 4.75 ERA is a bad thing in any era. Is it as bad as it was back in the 1970s when the NL league average was 3.66 for the decade? No, but it's still bad.

I even agree a guy who can go 4.50 and chew up 200 IP can be an asset, but he's nowhere near an $8.5M asset. But that's way more statsy than you need to be about this whole thing, especially if you're one of those folks (and I know you're not) who takes the position that you don't care for all this number crunching. Seems to me that if you think the game should be guided by a few simple precepts imparted by your forefathers then a pitcher with a gag-me ERA would be someone to avoid. I'm positive that many of the folks saying they just care about Milton's wins and not his ERA would insist they don't care about the wins and love the ERA if he went 10-14, 3.58 last season. At least the latter would be cagy old school.

westofyou
01-03-2005, 01:18 AM
When it is all said and done at the end of the day all that maters is did you win or lose.

Who would you rather have as your pitcher?


YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
19xx xxx xx 16 23 .410 46 32 20 3 14 285 312 155 125 87 71 3.95 21

LG AVERAGE 16 16 .500 17 2 285 323 162 135 102 93 4.28 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
19xx xxxx 21 9.85 12.63 2.24 2.75 0.82 0 4 0 1 1230 2 22 17

LG AVERAGE 12 10.20 13.67 2.94 3.22 0.91 1 5 0 8 1256 1


YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
19xx xx xx 19 7 .731 31 31 1 0 0 169.1 187 91 82 68 91 4.36 -8

LG AVERAGE 10 10 .500 4 0 169.1 168 82 73 61 103 3.89 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
19xx xx 19 9.94 13.71 4.84 3.61 1.34 0 8 1 3 733 1 12 14

LG AVERAGE 14 8.95 12.41 5.48 3.25 1.69 1 6 5 4 723 1

Redmachine2003
01-03-2005, 01:29 AM
Quick question...


But if we know the answer, why would we be satisfied with the pitcher who gives up more Runs instead of wanting a pitcher who gives up fewer?
Which one is willing to sign and play for Cincy. Perez and Clement had very good eras and won what 2 more games combined than Milton won by himself. He Colon won 18 games with over a 5.00 era. There were alot of pitchers with 4.00 plus eras that had winning records and double digit wins and some pitchers with 3.00 - 4.00 eras that had losing records and double digit loses. It is not like this year you had Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens type of pitchers out there to sign. You had number two and three starters out there. You also had some pitchers with good stuff that had not put it all together yet and may not ever put it together for more than a year and you had a couple of consistant pitchers with less stuff but you know what your going to get with them. The Reds went with the consistant pitcher. Don't get me wrong I would still like to see the Reds sign Perez but I liked Milton just as well.

MWM
01-03-2005, 01:38 AM
Pitchers don't win games, teams win games.

Redmachine2003
01-03-2005, 01:40 AM
I would go with A over B because b couldn't last but about 5 innings a start. But by the numbers I would take both of them. They both won at least 15 games which is a plus in my book. How far back did you have to go for Pither A Since Noone pitches that many innings any more or has that many CG. At least if your going to compare lets compare apples to apples in this day and age.

Redmachine2003
01-03-2005, 01:42 AM
Pitchers don't win games, teams win games.
So do Pitchers lose games or do teams lose games?

MWM
01-03-2005, 01:43 AM
So do Pitchers lose games or do teams lose games?

Teams lose games, pitchers don't.

westofyou
01-03-2005, 01:49 AM
NAME W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO
Tom Browning 20 9 .690 38 38 6 0 0 261.1 242 111 103 73 155
Mario Soto 12 15 .444 36 36 9 0 0 256.2 196 109 102 104 214

NAME ERA RSAA HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP
Tom Browning 3.55 6 29 8.33 10.95 5.34 2.51 2.12 4 2 8 3 1083
Mario Soto 3.58 5 30 6.87 10.59 7.50 3.65 2.06 1 8 3 2 1055

Redmachine2003
01-03-2005, 02:08 AM
I would have taken Browning and I was a huge Mario Soto fan growing up. Mario just seemed to find away to lose games. Every time I would brag on him to other people he would look great for 5 innings an then just give up 3 or 4 runs and lose the game. Speaking of Soto here is a guy who basicly had two pitches his fastball and his changeup. Now a days he wouldn't even be a starter because of that. Everyone would try to move him to the bullpen and make him a closer.

M2
01-03-2005, 03:12 AM
Mario just seemed to find away to lose games. Every time I would brag on him to other people he would look great for 5 innings an then just give up 3 or 4 runs and lose the game.

Soto went 10-8, 3.07 as a swingman in 1980.

Then in 1981 he went 12-9, 3.29 during the strike season, taken to a full season he'd have gone roughly 17-12.

In 1982, playing for one of the worst offensive teams ever devised (3.36 runs a game as a squad) he went 14-13, 2.79. He was one of only two pitchers on the entire club with a winning record, the other being reliever Ben Hayes who went 2-0 in 26 appearances. That team featured starting pitchers that went 9-18, 3.36; 8-13, 3.97; 8-13, 3.60. Despite playing for a wretched team, Mario Soto found a way to WIN, usually involving being impossible to hit while throwing tons of innings.

In 1983, he went 17-13, 2.70. Joe Price (10-6) and Keefe Cato (1-0, 3.2 IP) were the only other pitchers on the staff with a winning record. Once again the offense was atrocious. I believe this was the season where Soto got particularly bad run support even for this Reds team. Some crazy percentage of his losses were of the 1-0, 2-1 variety.

In 1984, he went 18-7, 3.53. That was twice as many wins as the #2 guy on the team, Ted Power.

Then in 1985, he went 12-15, 3.58 for what was a good team, finally suffering a losing campaign.

So Soto, despite playing for some horrid teams and having one of his prime seasons cut short by strike, averaged 14 wins a year, which seems to be fine for Eric Milton (who if we take a six-year slice like with Soto -- 2003 excluded because he was injured -- averages just under 12 wins a season). Soto did this with a 3.15 ERA, pitching in one of the best hitter's park in the league. And when things were at their darkest and some of the worst Reds teams ever to take the field backed him up, Soto went 49-33.

In fact, when Soto was the exact same age as Milton, he had virtually the same winning percentage (.549 compared to .555 for Milton). Yet, somehow you've got Milton pegged as a consistent winner and Soto pegged as a guy "who seemed to find a way to lose games." It's a perfect case of how other factors contribute to wins and loses and how empty these labels you've been using can be.

Redmachine2003
01-03-2005, 03:27 AM
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/transactions/freeagents/SP
Had Milton ranked in the top 5 starting free agent pitchers and ahead of Clement and Perez.
I didn't say Soto was a bad pitcher I just said every time I bragged on him he found ways to lose. After rereading what I wrote it didn't come out the way I had thought. During the Soto's time he was my favorite player on the Reds team. Him and Jose Rijo are my two favorite Reds pitchers of all time With Browning and the True Creature Ronnie Robinson as the next two.

Redmachine2003
01-03-2005, 04:49 AM
MWM you got me thinking. Isn't every stat for a pitcher except Hr, Walks and Strike outs are team stats. I mean if you have a great infield with very good range do you not give up less hits. How many hits or runs does Edmonds save his pitching staff. Every ball hit in play is an out if the defense is positioned right. Look at the pull hitters and the shift people now put on them and some coaches don't like it so they don't do it. Just like ball parks. Some are big parks and fly ball pitchers will fine and other are small parks and ground ball pitchers do better. Some pitchers miss some of the smaller parks since you only make one road trip to some parks and some catch places like Wrigley when the wind is blowing in which happens more than it blows out. I think one thing that will help all pitchers this year is that The juice issue will slow down some of these Hrs and you will see ERAs drop this year. Prior my have problems this year his name was knocked around last year that he was on the juice too.

westofyou
01-03-2005, 10:47 AM
I would have taken Browning and I was a huge Mario Soto fan growing up. Mario just seemed to find away to lose games. Every time I would brag on him to other people he would look great for 5 innings an then just give up 3 or 4 runs and lose the game. Speaking of Soto here is a guy who basicly had two pitches his fastball and his changeup. Now a days he wouldn't even be a starter because of that. Everyone would try to move him to the bullpen and make him a closer.

That year IIRC the Reds averaged 2 runs per Soto's start, that's 2.1 runs below the teams average for the rest of the year.

In fact the Reds so cheap often played that "he finds ways to lose" game with Soto during negotiations.

Until his agent hired Bill James to run the numbers that didn't say Wins and Losses.

Neeedless to say he won his cash.

Soto was WAY better than Browning, Browning is Milton.... without the huge amount of jack or the fastball.

princeton
01-03-2005, 11:03 AM
Teams lose games, pitchers don't.

I've seen pitchers lose games

Cincinnati pitchers in particular

RFS62
01-03-2005, 11:06 AM
I've seen pitchers lose games

Cincinnati pitchers in particular


Me too.

Danny Graves, anyone?

traderumor
01-03-2005, 11:19 AM
That year IIRC the Reds averaged 2 runs per Soto's start, that's 2.1 runs below the teams average for the rest of the year.

In fact the Reds so cheap often played that "he finds ways to lose" game with Soto during negotiations.

Until his agent hired Bill James to run the numbers that didn't say Wins and Losses.

Neeedless to say he won his cash.

Soto was WAY better than Browning, Browning is Milton.... without the huge amount of jack or the fastball.
I listened to a multitude of Soto's starts. He "found a way to lose" by being forced to pitch a shutout if he wanted to win. Sometimes, the other team actually scored on him. Too bad his arm didn't make it to the 1990 team. In my lifetime, the Reds have had three great pitchers--Jose Rijo, Mario Soto and Don Gullett. I'm sure others have names to add, but those are the three true studs that we have had in my 30+ years of experience.

johngalt
01-03-2005, 11:56 AM
Westofyou....

I've been meaning to ask before (and you've probably answered 1,000 times already), but where do you get your stats from?

westofyou
01-03-2005, 12:10 PM
I listened to a multitude of Soto's starts. He "found a way to lose" by being forced to pitch a shutout if he wanted to win. Sometimes, the other team actually scored on him. Too bad his arm didn't make it to the 1990 team. In my lifetime, the Reds have had three great pitchers--Jose Rijo, Mario Soto and Don Gullett. I'm sure others have names to add, but those are the three true studs that we have had in my 30+ years of experience.

I was wrong about the salary year, that was 1982 that Mario had James in his corner.

1985, the Reds scored 123 runs in games that Soto started, that's a robust 3.2 runs per start.

In 17 of those starts he allowed 2 runs or less. He pitched 5 or more innings in every start but 2 and the first one he didn't make that long was at the end of August.

Browning that year had 38 starts and the Reds scored 183 runs in those starts for an average of 4.8 runs a game.

Did Soto manage to "lose" those games or was support less than the average (4.2 runs per game for the 85 Reds) for him vs the support Browning got?

westofyou
01-03-2005, 12:14 PM
Westofyou....

I've been meaning to ask before (and you've probably answered 1,000 times already), but where do you get your stats from?

Yearly stuff I get from this software.

www.baseball-encyclopedia.com

Sometimes you have to dig and this is good spot to start.

http://www.retrosheet.org/

westofyou
01-03-2005, 12:20 PM
Young Aaron Gleeman weighs in with his take on the Milton signing.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/daily/article/free-agent-wrap-up-the-fourth-wave/

*** Eric Milton | Cincinnati Reds | three years | $25.5 million ***

As someone who has watched about 75% of Eric Milton's 199 career big-league starts, this contract is astonishing to me. Throughout his six seasons in Minnesota and his lone season in Philadelphia, Milton has always been a guy whose stuff and potential never quite matched up with his actual performance. He's a rare lefty with a power fastball and he has excellent offspeed stuff, but he's got a major propensity to serve up long balls on a platter and his career ERA is a thoroughly mediocre 4.76. In fact, once you adjust for ballparks and leagues, Milton's ERA in 1,188.1 innings in the major leagues has been about 1% worse than league average, including 9% and 10% worse than league average in his past two full seasons.

There are worse guys to have in your starting rotation, but Milton is what he is at this point. He'll be 29 in 2005, has never really had a great season, and is coming off a year in which he gave up 43 homers and 110 runs in 201 innings with the Phillies. People have been quick to point out that Philadelphia's new ballpark played as a great place to hit homers last year, which is true, but Milton actually gave up more dingers on the road than at home (one homer every 19.8 at-bats at home, one homer every 16.2 at-bats on the road). Plus, he now moves to the Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati, another long-ball factory.

In addition to the home run problems, another thing that has plagued Milton has been his pitching with runners on base. He held batters to .231/.298/.458 with no one on base this year, but allowed them to smack him around to the tune of .297/.347/.555 with runners on (a difference of about 19%). And this wasn't just a one-year thing, it was an often-discussed problem during his days with the Twins as well. For his entire career, Milton has allowed a .234 batting average with none on and a .298 batting average with runners on.

Here's what he's done over the past three seasons:

2002-2004 AVG OBP SLG OPS GPA AB/HR
None On .220 .270 .403 .673 .222 25.3
Runners On .320 .357 .564 .921 .302 17.5

If the Reds are fortunate enough that Milton's knee injury that sidelined him for nearly all of the 2003 season doesn't act up again, there's a pretty good chance he will give up 350 runs and 120 homers over the life of this contract. The good news is that he'll supply the fans in the outfield seats at the Great American Ballpark with plenty of souvenirs.

*** Matt Clement | Boston Red Sox | three years | $25.5 million ***

How Milton and Matt Clement end up with indentical contracts in the same offseason is beyond me. Consider their numbers over the past three years:


2002-04 IP ERA AVG OBP SLG OPS
Clement 587.2 3.80 .223 .306 .360 .666
Milton 389.0 4.70 .256 .303 .461 .763

Milton missed nearly the entire 2003 season, while Clement has thrown 205, 201.2, and 181 innings in the past three years, and a total of 198.2 more innings than Milton over that span. Clement's ERA is nearly an entire run lower, his batting average against is 15% better, and his slugging percentage against is 28% better. The one area they are even in is on-base percentage against, mostly because Clement is a power pitcher while Milton doesn't walk anyone, but their OPS against shows Clement with a 15% edge.

M2
01-03-2005, 12:49 PM
The more I look at those runners on numbers, the clearer it becomes that Milton needs to abandon the stretch.

MWM
01-03-2005, 12:49 PM
I've yet to see any national baseball publication or writer actually praise this signing. It's been pretty much unanimous.

MWM
01-03-2005, 12:55 PM
The more I look at those runners on numbers, the clearer it becomes that Milton needs to abandon the stretch.

I'm confused as to how that would work? how can a pitcher abandon the stretch? the only time a pitcher could completely abandon the stretch is when they have a runner on third, or second and third. Otherwise they pretty much HAVE TO pitch from the stretch.

flyer85
01-03-2005, 12:57 PM
"In God we trust, all others must have data"

DoogMinAmo
01-03-2005, 01:02 PM
I'm confused as to how that would work? how can a pitcher abandon the stretch? the only time a pitcher could completely abandon the stretch is when they have a runner on third, or second and third. Otherwise they pretty much HAVE TO pitch from the stretch.

Or they can give up the free base for stealing, with hopes that better performance against the batter will prevent the run from scoring. You have to admit, the numbers from the windup for Milton are somewhat staggering, to almost Ace-worthy. Its just the Ace-vedo-like numbers in the stretch that seems to bring him down to an average pitcher.

MWM
01-03-2005, 01:04 PM
Or they can give up the free base for stealing, with hopes that better performance against the batter will prevent the run from scoring. You have to admit, the numbers from the windup for Milton are somewhat staggering, to almost Ace-worthy. Its just the Ace-vedo-like numbers in the stretch that seems to bring him down to an average pitcher.

I don't care how good a pitcher is, there's no way they can keep the other team from scoring massive amounts of runs if every single lands the runner on 3rd base.

M2
01-03-2005, 01:10 PM
I'm confused as to how that would work? how can a pitcher abandon the stretch? the only time a pitcher could completely abandon the stretch is when they have a runner on third, or second and third. Otherwise they pretty much HAVE TO pitch from the stretch.

I've never been sold on that. Greg Maddux ignores the stretch with a runner on first on a frequent basis. Nolan Ryan used to go into the-hell-with-this-strech-stuff-I'm-winding-up mode. The average NL team stole 84 bases last year, that's just over one SB every other game. My guess is pitchers are trying to stop something that's unlikely to happen.

I could easily live with two dozen extra swipes against Milton if he's a .666 OPS against pitcher.

It'd be a tough sell to Milton because he's one of the best in the business at holding runners on first, but perhaps he can come up with a pre-windup step off move that achieves a similar effect.

traderumor
01-03-2005, 01:11 PM
The more I look at those runners on numbers, the clearer it becomes that Milton needs to abandon the stretch.
We will soon find out, but my hunch is that he might be preoccupied with holding runners close at the expense of throwing fatties over the plate, both of which he is apparently very good at.

According to retrosheet, in 2002, only three steal attempts against in 171 innings. Career, 26 stolen bases against, 21 thrown out. Anyone know anything about this part of Milton's game? Does he use a slide step?

MWM
01-03-2005, 01:19 PM
I've never been sold on that. Greg Maddux ignores the stretch with a runner on first on a frequent basis. Nolan Ryan used to go into the-hell-with-this-strech-stuff-I'm-winding-up mode. The average NL team stole 84 bases last year, that's just over one SB every other game. My guess is pitchers are trying to stop something that's unlikely to happen.

I could easily live with two dozen extra swipes against Milton if he's a .666 OPS against pitcher.

It'd be a tough sell to Milton because he's one of the best in the business at holding runners on first, but perhaps he can come up with a pre-windup step off move that achieves a similar effect.

I must be missing something here, because I've always thought the second a pitcher goes into a wind up, a runner on first is automatically supposed to take off for second. In other words, every single time a guy reached first base, he'd automatically steal second on the first pitch with 100% success. The same for third. If a pitcher goes into a full windup, even Sean Casey couldn't possibly be thrown out. So why wouldn't teams just steal every time they reached base?

traderumor
01-03-2005, 01:34 PM
I must be missing something here, because I've always thought the second a pitcher goes into a wind up, a runner on first is automatically supposed to take off for second. In other words, every single time a guy reached first base, he'd automatically steal second on the first pitch with 100% success. The same for third. If a pitcher goes into a full windup, even Sean Casey couldn't possibly be thrown out. So why wouldn't teams just steal every time they reached base?I would say the answer for Milton might be somewhere in the middle. His numbers indicate that he may be more concerned about a guy stealing a base than he is about the hitter hitting the ball hard. If that is the case, it might be a blindspot that can be worked through by focusing more on getting the hitter out (my preference) than being overly distracted by a stolen base. He probably isn't going to abandon the stretch, but Gully might be able to convince him to make a good pitch to get the hitter out in lieu of the guy scoring from first on an extra base hit.

M2
01-03-2005, 01:37 PM
I must be missing something here, because I've always thought the second a pitcher goes into a wind up, a runner on first is automatically supposed to take off for second. In other words, every single time a guy reached first base, he'd automatically steal second on the first pitch with 100% success. The same for third. If a pitcher goes into a full windup, even Sean Casey couldn't possibly be thrown out. So why wouldn't teams just steal every time they reached base?

I've got no way of knowing of this, because I only watch and don't play pro ball, but I think that's a reaction they beat out of you once they start paying you money for the playing the game.

I think for the vast majority of players the rule is you don't run unless you're told to run.

I guess whether you've got a short or long windup would have a lot to do with it. If you kick your foot over your head and reach back to Hudson Bay in your windup, then you probably can't do that with a runner on base. I've never paid that much attention to the length of Milton's windup, so I don't know if it's something he could get away with.

Though tr makes a good point. Perhaps it's a slide step thing and that what Milton needs to do is take a more definitve step toward the plate when he's in the stretch. He needs to do something, that's for sure.

tr, just phrasing it in Strat terms, Milton's been a -6 hold guy for a lot of his career. I'd be all for turning him into a +3 if it meant taking a serious chunk out of his countout.

Falls City Beer
01-03-2005, 01:42 PM
GAB is not a homer park!!!

westofyou
01-03-2005, 01:44 PM
GAB is not a homer park!!!

110 PF in 2004, 114 in 2003 for HR's

Index of 92 for Runs in those 2 years.