PDA

View Full Version : Milton did pitch well last year...yes...he did.



Eric_Davis
01-26-2007, 04:47 PM
Well, you made me look it up.

Milton did pitch well last year and deserves to be our #3 starter this year.

In his 14 quality starts last year he had an ERA of 3.00.....yes, Eric Milton pitched 14 quality starts where he had a combined era of 3.00.

What's more, he had only 14 walks in those 14 games, an average of 1 walk per game....impecable control. He added 53 strikeouts.

His record in those games was 7-3 w/ 4 No-decisions.

Throw every stat in the world out the window that you want to try to use to slam this guy, but you can't take away the fact that he pitched 14 quality games. That's not an easy task.

It's been mentioned that he's left in too long sometimes, inferring that in a 6th inning and later situation he gets shelled. However, that never happened once last year. If he didn't have it, he didn't get a chance to complete 6 innings.

There's so many misconceptions on this board surrounding Milton's ability to pitch. He pitches a lot better than people think that he does.

It's also been mentioned that REDS' fans opinions are skewered by his salary, and this must be the case because here are his 14 quality starts from last year:

Inn Pitch......ER.......Result......BB.....K

.....8...........1...........L...........0......9
.....7.2........2...........W...........0......1
.....7...........0...........W..........0......3
.....7...........2...........W..........2......3
.....7...........2...........L...........0......4
.....7...........3...........L...........1......5
.....7...........3...........W..........2......3
.....6.2........2...........W..........2......5
.....6.2........3..........ND..........0......3
.....6...........0..........ND..........0......2
.....6...........1...........W..........4......3
.....6...........3...........W..........1......4
.....6...........3..........ND..........2......6
.....6...........3..........ND..........2......2

I'll take those again from a #3 pitcher...hopefully he gets 4, 5, or 6 more of those. If he blows up in the other ones,...oh well. BTW, he also had one game with 5 innings and 1 ER, another with 5 innings and 2 ER, and another with 5-1/3 and 3 ER.

So, out of 25 starts he had 14 true quality starts and 3 other good ones, and that includes the 1/3 of an inning he pitched when he gave up 6 ER's, where he was shut down on Sept 17.

That translates to a 3.08 ERA in 17 of his 25 starts. I'd say that gives your team a good chance to win games.

I'm glad we have him.

Try cheering for him and he might even do better.

membengal
01-26-2007, 04:48 PM
Go Milton! Now you can do better! Because I am cheering for you!

YEA, Milton!

TOBTTReds
01-26-2007, 04:50 PM
Good. So he pitched well half the games, then like garbage the rest.

EDIT: I counted 9 games that he was near worthless.
EDIT: I counted 9 games that Aaron Harang was near worthless for as well. Only 5 for Arroyo.

Chip R
01-26-2007, 04:51 PM
Oh boy. Get your helmets on, boys.

TRF
01-26-2007, 04:53 PM
Milton cannot stay healthy. He cannot change the type of pitcher he is (flyball pitcher).

He is not a good pitcher.

membengal
01-26-2007, 04:55 PM
Milton cannot stay healthy. He cannot change the type of pitcher he is (flyball pitcher).

He is not a good pitcher.

Not even if you cheer for him, TRF? If only you and I and everyone pulls together and tries cheering for him, he will become a good pitcher! I just know he will!

TRF
01-26-2007, 05:01 PM
If I tried cheering for him I'd develop my own degenerative knee problem.

I generally try to root for guys that don't suck. Of course it's my opinion on who does suck (Milton, Saarloos) and who doesn't.

Reds Fanatic
01-26-2007, 05:01 PM
You can make anyone look good if you only count their quality starts.

Take a look at these 7 starts from Milton
4 1/3 IP, 9 ER
4 1/3 IP, 6 ER
5 1/3 IP, 6 ER
6 1/3 IP, 5 ER
7 IP, 7 ER
4 IP, 6 ER
1/3 IP, 6 ER

So basically on any night with Milton you can get an ok start or a total disaster. On any other team he would not be near a #3 starter.

membengal
01-26-2007, 05:02 PM
It's fun to do with Dave Williams too. If you narrow the sample size, he was the second coming of Cy Young...

TRF
01-26-2007, 05:03 PM
On any other team he'd be non-tendered.

jojo
01-26-2007, 05:10 PM
Re: Milton did not pitch well last year....no.....he didn't (i corrected a few typos in the title) :evil:


Throw every stat in the world out the window that you want to try to use to slam this guy

Or you could throw out all of the bad innings to justify your position that he's good. Oh wait, you pretty much just did.....

:all_cohol


but you can't take away the fact that he pitched 14 quality games. That's not an easy task.

QS is a lousy metric for evaluating a pitcher pretty much for the same reasons that ERA is a deficient metric....

I posted this a while back in a thread but it's on target here:

2006 MLB Starter Averages: K/9: 6.27; BB/9: 3.05; HR/9: 1.14; HR/FB: 11.0; FIP: 4.60; ERA: 4.61;

Now compare that to Milton and his extreme fly ball tendencies.

Milton:
2002: K/9: 6.37; BB/9: 1.58; HR/9: 1.26; FB%: 45.8; HR/FB: 9.6; LOB%: 63.8; FIP: 4.19; ERA: 4.84; IP: 171;
2003: K/9: 3.71; BB/9: .53; HR/9: 1.06; FB%: 51.2; HR/FB: 7.4; LOB%: 83.3; FIP: 4.08; ERA: 2.65; IP: 17;
2004: K/9: 7.21; BB/9: 3.36; HR/9: 1.93; FB%: 52.5; HR/FB: 13.5; LOB%: 76.5; FIP: 5.51; ERA: 4.75; IP: 201;
2005: K/9: 5.94; BB/9: 2.51; HR/9: 1.94; FB%: 46.5; HR/FB: 13.9; LOB%: 64.6; FIP: 5.37; ERA: 6.47; IP: 186;
2006: K/9: 5.31; BB/9: 2.48; HR/9: 1.71; FB%: 50.3; HR/FB: 11.9; LOB%: 68.5; FIP: 5.35; ERA: 5.19; IP: 153;

Milton has not been a good pitcher since his injury in 2003. He basically was aided by an unsustainable LOB% during his rebound/contract year that masked his decline. Unfortunately, the Reds are now paying the price. Telling it like it is, Milton is a $9M a year replacement level starter. Miltonís production is easy to replace (E. Ramirez would do it for close to league minimum) and at this point there is no reason to expect him to have a turn around type of year. He stunk in Philadelphia and he stinks as a Red.

RedsManRick
01-26-2007, 05:10 PM
My problem with Milton as stated elsewhere, I think that when he doesn't give you a quality start, he often is completely blowing the game. What's his record in non-QS compared to say Harang & Arroyo?

7 IP & 4 ER won't show up as a QS in the box, but it gives your team a decent chance to win. I think -- I HAVE NOT CHECKED -- that we are getting more "fair" starts from other pitchers than we are from Milton. Sometimes a pitcher wins you the game, sometimes he keeps you in it, and sometimes he loses it. Let's not just count that middle category - cause the other two matter quite a bit and separate not only the Oswalts from the Harangs, but Harangs from Miltons, and Miltons from Mays'.

I'm willing to ignore ERA when it's inflated by 2 complete blow ups despite a lot of good starts. There is something to be said for giving your team a chance on a regular basis. Milton can be a very solid pitcher at times. So my question is, what kind of pitcher is he when he's not very good? When he's not winning games himself does he still put us in a spot to have a chance? And how many games is he basically winning by himself when the offense doesn't show up?

A quick glance shows a lot of quality starts which are on the poor end of the quality start scale.

M2
01-26-2007, 05:23 PM
You can make anyone look good if you only count their quality starts.

Exactly. Juan Castro is also the greatest hitter in history if all you count is every time he gets a hit.

Though, without checking, I'd guess that 3.00 is a fairly bad ERA for what a pitcher accomplished in his good starts. Ian Snell on the Pirates, whom no one in the known universe accused of pitching particularly well last year, also had 14 quality starts and he posted a 1.85 ERA in those games. Does that make him a #2 pitcher or perhaps even an ace?

KoryMac5
01-26-2007, 05:36 PM
Oh boy. Get your helmets on, boys.

INCOMING :milton: :explode:

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-26-2007, 05:48 PM
If I tried cheering for him I'd develop my own degenerative knee problem.

I generally try to root for guys that don't suck. Of course it's my opinion on who does suck (Milton, Saarloos) and who doesn't.
Im not going to go out and say that Miltons a top of the rotation type of guy( he's far from it ) but you have to admit when he is healthy he keeps you in the game. If the bullpen can become somewhat reliable to the point where Milton can leave in the fifth inning on a regular basis, I think he can be very helpfull to this ball club. Now the only trick is getting Narron to realize his limitations as well.

joshnky
01-26-2007, 05:56 PM
Im not going to go out and say that Miltons a top of the rotation type of guy( he's far from it ) but you have to admit when he is healthy he keeps you in the game. If the bullpen can become somewhat reliable to the point where Milton can leave in the fifth inning on a regular basis, I think he can be very helpfull to this ball club. Now the only trick is getting Narron to realize his limitations as well.

Has the pitching around here been so bad for so long that we now think surviving until the 5th inning is a good start?

fewfirstchoice
01-26-2007, 06:07 PM
MIlton isnt given enough credit here.Is he a great pitcher no but he is a good pitcher.Some of you guys need to give him a break and post online with his performance.If its lousy post its lousy that day but when he pitches good give him credit.Milton is better than some here want to believe.

RANDY IN INDY
01-26-2007, 06:08 PM
The pitching in MLB has been so bad that it's got most everyone believing that guys that can simply get you to the 5th or 6th innings justify them being quality pitchers.

Personally, I think it's time to raise the mound a little.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-26-2007, 06:09 PM
Has the pitching around here been so bad for so long that we now think surviving until the 5th inning is a good start?

Holding Milton to 5 innings because of his yearly limitations is along the same lines with moving Griffey to rightfield and nobody has a problem with that. I am just pointing out that is how we would get the most out of him at this point. You can't always go out and buy pitching so sometimes, or in the reds case most of the time you have to utilize what you have to be competitive. If you go back and look at Miltons numbers from last year he was either pretty good or he got rocked, my point is that the coach has to be able to determine when he doesn't have it and make the move before it's too late. If he has kept you in the game through five, count your blessings and go to the pen. Also going back to last years numbers, Milton had a sub three ERA against the NL central, and thats with the 6 runs in 0.1 innings in his last start against the cubs when he was quoted as saying Milton said he's probably done for the year.

"Obviously, I wasn't right," Milton said. "I probably shouldn't have been out there today."

M2
01-26-2007, 06:14 PM
MIlton isnt given enough credit here.Is he a great pitcher no but he is a good pitcher.Some of you guys need to give him a break and post online with his performance.If its lousy post its lousy that day but when he pitches good give him credit.Milton is better than some here want to believe.

He is what he is. Frankly, Milton makes it easy to spot how bad he is. If your ERA begins with a 5 (or, like Milton in 2005, a 6) then you suck and there's no real excuse for you. What pitchers like that need to do is pitch better or move aside for someone who can.

maniem
01-26-2007, 06:22 PM
My problem with Milton as stated elsewhere, I think that when he doesn't give you a quality start, he often is completely blowing the game. What's his record in non-QS compared to say Harang & Arroyo?

7 IP & 4 ER won't show up as a QS in the box, but it gives your team a decent chance to win. I think -- I HAVE NOT CHECKED -- that we are getting more "fair" starts from other pitchers than we are from Milton. Sometimes a pitcher wins you the game, sometimes he keeps you in it, and sometimes he loses it. Let's not just count that middle category - cause the other two matter quite a bit and separate not only the Oswalts from the Harangs, but Harangs from Miltons, and Miltons from Mays'.

I'm willing to ignore ERA when it's inflated by 2 complete blow ups despite a lot of good starts. There is something to be said for giving your team a chance on a regular basis. Milton can be a very solid pitcher at times. So my question is, what kind of pitcher is he when he's not very good? When he's not winning games himself does he still put us in a spot to have a chance? And how many games is he basically winning by himself when the offense doesn't show up?

A quick glance shows a lot of quality starts which are on the poor end of the quality start scale.


Exactly. The mark of a "good" pitcher, is someone who is consistent. A solid #3 should give his team a chance to win at least 75% of his starts. Milton is decent when he's on, but when he's off, he's absolutely terrible. If he could develop some sort consistency in '07, he may not be a bad #3. But so far in his time with the Reds, he's been one of the most inconsistent pitchers I've ever seen. I'd be willing to bet that Milton has very few "fair" starts in his career.

Patrick Bateman
01-26-2007, 06:32 PM
Well, you made me look it up.

Milton did pitch well last year and deserves to be our #3 starter this year.

In his 14 quality starts last year he had an ERA of 3.00.....yes, Eric Milton pitched 14 quality starts where he had a combined era of 3.00.

What's more, he had only 14 walks in those 14 games, an average of 1 walk per game....impecable control. He added 53 strikeouts.

His record in those games was 7-3 w/ 4 No-decisions.

Throw every stat in the world out the window that you want to try to use to slam this guy, but you can't take away the fact that he pitched 14 quality games. That's not an easy task.

It's been mentioned that he's left in too long sometimes, inferring that in a 6th inning and later situation he gets shelled. However, that never happened once last year. If he didn't have it, he didn't get a chance to complete 6 innings.

There's so many misconceptions on this board surrounding Milton's ability to pitch. He pitches a lot better than people think that he does.

It's also been mentioned that REDS' fans opinions are skewered by his salary, and this must be the case because here are his 14 quality starts from last year:

Inn Pitch......ER.......Result......BB.....K

.....8...........1...........L...........0......9
.....7.2........2...........W...........0......1
.....7...........0...........W..........0......3
.....7...........2...........W..........2......3
.....7...........2...........L...........0......4
.....7...........3...........L...........1......5
.....7...........3...........W..........2......3
.....6.2........2...........W..........2......5
.....6.2........3..........ND..........0......3
.....6...........0..........ND..........0......2
.....6...........1...........W..........4......3
.....6...........3...........W..........1......4
.....6...........3..........ND..........2......6
.....6...........3..........ND..........2......2

I'll take those again from a #3 pitcher...hopefully he gets 4, 5, or 6 more of those. If he blows up in the other ones,...oh well. BTW, he also had one game with 5 innings and 1 ER, another with 5 innings and 2 ER, and another with 5-1/3 and 3 ER.

So, out of 25 starts he had 14 true quality starts and 3 other good ones, and that includes the 1/3 of an inning he pitched when he gave up 6 ER's, where he was shut down on Sept 17.

That translates to a 3.08 ERA in 17 of his 25 starts. I'd say that gives your team a good chance to win games.

I'm glad we have him.

Try cheering for him and he might even do better.

I still don't understand why your statistic of choice is the quality start. In what universe are we living in where 6 innings 3 runs is equal to 9 innings of 0 runs. It's a flawed way of judging a pitcher.

A 3.08 ERA isn't even particularly good for his great starts. In his good games he still gives the other team a chance to win as the average offense only averages about 4.7-4.8 runs per game. In his blowouts the Reds are nearly guaranteed to lose.

Milton gives up a lot of runs. That's a fact. His bad pitching leads to a lot of losses. In no way should he be a #3 pitcher. As of now, I would say that he is our 7th best starting option for a rotation spot. The only reason he gets a rotation spot is his 9M contract and veteran presence. All things equal he would likely not make the team. He has been an ineffective pitcher for 3 seasons now, so I'm not sure how he is suddenly going to become good.

Like others have said, it's a pointless task to simply look at his good games. If you only look at Orca's quality starts he would look like a pretty solid option too. Over all of Milton's starts he is a bad pitcher and gives the Reds a far below average chance of winning games. He simply should not be counted on for any kind of meaningful role as of right now.

PuffyPig
01-26-2007, 07:41 PM
On any other team he'd be non-tendered.

You can't non-tender a pitcher with an existing guaranteed contract.

Eric_Davis
01-26-2007, 07:45 PM
Good. So he pitched well half the games, then like garbage the rest.

EDIT: I counted 9 games that he was near worthless.
EDIT: I counted 9 games that Aaron Harang was near worthless for as well. Only 5 for Arroyo.

You must have flunked math in school.

17/25 is 68%

You'd think he pitched 17 bad games and 8 good ones instead of the opposite (only 8 bad games all year) the way you slam him.

Eric_Davis
01-26-2007, 07:49 PM
You can make anyone look good if you only count their quality starts.

Take a look at these 7 starts from Milton
4 1/3 IP, 9 ER
4 1/3 IP, 6 ER
5 1/3 IP, 6 ER
6 1/3 IP, 5 ER
7 IP, 7 ER
4 IP, 6 ER
1/3 IP, 6 ER

So basically on any night with Milton you can get an ok start or a total disaster. On any other team he would not be near a #3 starter.

Two out of three nights you get a good, very good, or great start, not an OK start.

Eric_Davis
01-26-2007, 07:54 PM
My problem with Milton as stated elsewhere, I think that when he doesn't give you a quality start, he often is completely blowing the game. What's his record in non-QS compared to say Harang & Arroyo?

7 IP & 4 ER won't show up as a QS in the box, but it gives your team a decent chance to win.

According to Jojo, it doesn't give your team a chance to win. In fact, he thinks that (7IP and 3ER) or (7IP and 2ER) or (6IP and 3ER) are nothing more worthy than an occasional fill-in starter.

Eric_Davis
01-26-2007, 07:58 PM
[ Miltonís production is easy to replace (E. Ramirez would do it for close to league minimum) .

If he could do it, he would have done it, and he didn't do it.

noskill27
01-26-2007, 08:06 PM
If he could do it, he would have done it, and he didn't do it.

Not to mention that EZ has a quality I HATE in pitchers - when something goes wrong, he basically just gives up. An error, a tight strike zone, a couple bloop hits... he can't overcome them. It's the same thing that holds Carlos Zambrano back from being the best pitcher in the NL. EZ's got potential, but no mental toughness.

As bad as Milton can be (and we saw how bad in 2005), he at least keeps battling. Is he worth the money? No. Is he a good pitcher? No. But he's in the rotation this year regardless if we like it or not...

Eric_Davis
01-26-2007, 08:10 PM
Looking at all of the quality starts, one thing that's consistent about them is that he's got good control.

RedsManRick
01-26-2007, 08:13 PM
A pitcher who gives you a minimum level QS (6 IP, 3 ER) every single time out would be a number 3 starter (190 IP & 4.50 ERA). So at some level, even a guy who gives you 30 QS isn't an ace. QS is a measure of consistency as much as one of quality. But you can't ignore the quality side of things.

It also has some artificial qualities that hurt Harang (he had 7 starts with 6+ IP and 4 ER -- not good, but not "you're going to lose the game" sort of starts). Meanwhile, Milton got at least one out in the 8th inning just twice all year.

Harang is occasionally great (15%), sometimes good (35%), sometimes shaky (40%), and rarely awful (10%).

Milton is rarely great (5%) sometimes good (30%), sometimes shaky (35%), and sometimes awful (30%).

That distribution leads to about the same numbers of "quality starts" but vastly different opportunities for the Reds to win ball games. I'm curoius, what were Harang's numbers in his quality starts and his numbers in his non-QS compared to Milton. In other words, what does good Milton look like compared good Harang and what does bad Harang look like compared to bad Milton.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-26-2007, 08:42 PM
In quality starts Harang has an ERA of 1.48, Milton has a quality start ERA of 2.72.

westofyou
01-26-2007, 08:46 PM
Milton is consistent, he throws left handed every game.

jojo
01-26-2007, 09:30 PM
If he could do it, he would have done it, and he didn't do it.

But you're ignoring the fact the EZ did do it last season. I know it might pain you to admit it but EZ WAS a more effective pitcher than Milton last season.... Overall EZ gave the reds a better chance of winning than Milton did....and it really wasn't even close.


QS is a bunk metric to evaluate a pitcher. Essentially it is based upon earned runs. Volumes have been written on why that's a poor indicator of a pitcher's performance-there simple are too many factors which contribute to earned runs that are out of a pitcher's control.....

Based upon each pitcher's peripherals (i.e. things that are much more reflective of the contribution to runs that were actually in the pitcher's control), it's not even really close. EZ was clearly superior.

xFIP does a good job of summarizing such peripherals:
E Milton '06: 5.56
Ramirez '06: 4.67


Side by side comparison of some individual peripherals:
E Milton 2006: K/9: 5.31; BB/9: 2.48; HR/9: 1.71; FB%: 50.3; HR/FB: 11.9; LOB%: 68.5; FIP: 5.35; ERA: 5.19; IP: 153;
Ramirez 2006: K/9: 5.97; BB/9: 2.51; HR/9: 1.17; FB%: 33.1; HR/FB: 13.5; LOB%: 64.5; FIP: 4.69; ERA: 5.37; IP: 104;

jojo
01-26-2007, 09:35 PM
As bad as Milton can be (and we saw how bad in 2005), he at least keeps battling. Is he worth the money? No. Is he a good pitcher? No. But he's in the rotation this year regardless if we like it or not...

That's a ringing endorsement....

Wow, Milton has a $9M heart..... cool beans but talk about inflation..... in the 70's, $6M could buy you a whole bionic man who could bend steel bars and run 60 mph while thwarting diabolical plots....

I'll take the guy making league minimum that gives my team a better chance of winning....:usa:

RedFanAlways1966
01-26-2007, 09:36 PM
I'm curoius, what were Harang's numbers in his quality starts and his numbers in his non-QS compared to Milton. In other words, what does good Milton look like compared good Harang and what does bad Harang look like compared to bad Milton.

Quality Start
Milton: 14G, 2.68 ERA, 1.02 WHIP, 6.71 IP/G.
Harang: 17G, 1.47 ERA, 0.96 WHIP, 7.57 IP/G.

Non Quality Start
Milton: 12G, 9.05 ERA, 1.83 WHIP, 4.97 IP/G.
Harang: 18G, 6.62 ERA, 1.64 WHIP, 5.82 IP/G.

vaticanplum
01-26-2007, 09:43 PM
Milton's knee is made of guacamole. The best we can ever hope for from him is a single-digit number of starts that are decent and take him into the fifth or sixth inning.

That's all there is too it. If we can build a better rotation in front of him, and if we can build a better bullpen to stand in the wings for him, and if his knee holds up as well as it possibly can, then he can be a serviceable part of this team. That's too many ifs for too little return for my taste.

wpenn4
01-26-2007, 09:44 PM
So, given the discussion on this thread and others in the past, does it make since to start considering Milton for the closer spot? I'll honestly admit that I'm not sure how his various leg and elbow problems would effect his ability to pitch several times a week. However, wouldn't a move to closer make him more marketable next off season when he's looking for his next contract?

jojo
01-26-2007, 09:47 PM
Milton is consistent, he throws left handed every game.


that's pretty funny..... :clap:

RedsManRick
01-26-2007, 09:57 PM
Quality Start
Milton: 14G, 2.68 ERA, 1.02 WHIP, 6.71 IP/G.
Harang: 17G, 1.47 ERA, 0.96 WHIP, 7.57 IP/G.

Non Quality Start
Milton: 12G, 9.05 ERA, 1.83 WHIP, 4.97 IP/G.
Harang: 18G, 6.62 ERA, 1.64 WHIP, 5.82 IP/G.

That right there is all I need to know. When Milton is good, he's good. When he's bad, he's putrid. When Harang is good, he's great. When he's bad, he's bad. Sure, they overlap in the middle, but that just shows you how poor QS is as a measurement of much of anything other than "How many times did you pitch 6+ innings with 3 or fewer Earned Runs".

However, I do want to make a point that the stats crowd often forgets. ERA is a great measurement of how effective a guy was. If Eric Milton allowed 3 earned runs, then he allowed 3 earned runs, period. Sure, maybe he allowed 11 base runners in doing so, but for THAT game, those only turned in to 3 runs and he put us in a good spot to win THAT game. Don't deny that.

However, if I want to know if Eric Milton is going to put us in a good spot to win the NEXT game, I'm not going to look at how many runs he allowed last time -- for all the reasons that have been expounded upon. The amount of earned runs allowed previously is not a great indicator of the next amount of earned runs allowed.

When we say things like "pitched well", we need to be clearer. Do we mean "he pitched such that if he pitched similarly 100 times, the resulting amount of earned runs would be a good number?". I think we do. By this definition, a guy can pitch well and allow 5 runs in a given game and he can be horribly and allow 2 runs.

Most of us stats types have this sort of interpretation in mind. We automatically correct for the variables that are beyond the control of the player we're evaluating. It's important to remember that most people don't make that correction -- perhaps fairly in some cases. Be careful not to attack somebody for saying that allowing 3 earned runs in 6 innings is a good thing. Whether it was function of skill or luck, that's usually a good occurrence in it's own context. However, on the flip side, if you're going to come and say that the occurrence of a "QS" outing is predictive of future "QS" outings, you darn well better be prepared to defend it.

jojo
01-26-2007, 09:59 PM
Harang is occasionally great (15%), sometimes good (35%), sometimes shaky (40%), and rarely awful (10%).

Milton is rarely great (5%) sometimes good (30%), sometimes shaky (35%), and sometimes awful (30%).

That distribution leads to about the same numbers of "quality starts" but vastly different opportunities for the Reds to win ball games

I really appreciate this post..... it nails the big picture perfectly

Eric_Davis
01-26-2007, 10:01 PM
Maybe I'm old school, but I put a lot of stock into how many runs crosses the plate when a pitcher's on the mound, regardless of all other factors involved (unless it's Coors Field).

A veteran pitcher has the ability, when he has his control in check, to manipulate the outcome of how many runs crosses the plate. And last year Milton was able to manipulate situations well enough 17 out of 25 starts. I'll still take that.

The quality start numbers of Harang and Snell, as pointed out were better, but I'm only talking here about the performances of Milton, and I struggle to find reasons to be as harsh about him as many here when he only had 8 bad starts last year and 17 good, very good, or excellent starts.

Kc61
01-26-2007, 11:21 PM
In 2005 Milton had a 6.47 ERA. Last year he had a 5.19. Having watched a lot of his games, I think these numbers accurately reflect how he pitched in each year. He will need another major ERA improvement to have a good year in 2007, which is hard since he gives up so many long balls.

I agree with some that we have never seen a truly healthy Milton in a Reds uniform. Last year, he faded in many games around the fifth or sixth inning and I got the impression his knee was a real problem.

Given his injury, his fly ball tendencies, and the nature of GABP the whole Milton thing has not worked out well. Maybe we'll all get lucky and he will put it together in 2007 and salvage one very good year from his contract. The Reds could really use a better performance from this pitcher.

Chip R
01-26-2007, 11:59 PM
Milton's knee is made of guacamole.


See, he's not worthless after all. They could use his knee for dip. ;)

paulrichjr
01-27-2007, 12:05 AM
If Milton had not gone down at the end and he had pitched the last month like he did the first months of the season the Cardinals would not have won the World Series because they wouldn't have made the playoffs. Losing Griffey hurt us and also made a difference. The "trade" also made a big difference but losing Milton was the last straw.


DATE OPP W L ERA SV IP H ER BB SO
JUL 28 @MIL 1 0 5.37 0 7.0 5 3 2 3
AUG 03 LAD 0 1 5.20 0 7.0 7 2 0 4
AUG 08 STL 1 0 5.01 0 6.0 5 1 4 3
AUG 13 @PHI 0 0 5.01 0 5.1 5 3 3 5
AUG 19 PIT 0 0 5.28 0 4.0 9 6 1 3
AUG 24 @SF 0 0 5.22 0 6.2 10 3 0 3
AUG 29 @LAD 0 0 5.16 0 5.0 6 2 2 2
SEP 03 @SD 0 0 4.95 0 6.0 5 0 0 2
SEP 12 SD 0 0 4.84 0 5.0 4 1 2 3
SEP 17 @CHC 0 1 5.19 0 0.1 6 6 0 1


His production before that last game was good(over those crucial 10 games) (he kept us in every game except 1 of them) for a number 4 starter...something that we needed. When he went down on the 17th I felt that our last chance went down with him.

Blitz Dorsey
01-27-2007, 02:22 AM
If Milton gets back on the roids (well, HGH these days) I think he can have a solid year.

JMO, but I think he was definitely a roid guy.

And I agree he wasn't terrible last year. He pitched so awful in '05 that his '06 season didn't seem so bad. Now when you factor in his contract it was pretty bad, but 14 quality starts was solid. That's what we need from him this year. He's never going to have a good ERA, but hopefully he can eat some innings and keep us in some games (i.e. only give up 1-2 HRs per outing, not 3-4... I said that half-kidding and half-serious).

dsmith421
01-27-2007, 02:32 AM
If Milton had not gone down at the end and he had pitched the last month like he did the first months of the season the Cardinals would not have won the World Series because they wouldn't have made the playoffs.

And if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle. Milton is what he is: a freaking terrible pitcher making an obscene amount of money. I wish people would quit trying to convince themselves that the poop cake in front of them is actually delicious chocolate.

harangatang
01-27-2007, 02:44 AM
Jimmy Haynes was a remarkably good pitcher on the days he didn't pitch.

toledodan
01-27-2007, 03:01 AM
help my memory. we considered tom browning a good pitcher but wasn't he a flyball pitcher as well. he would give up a ton of homeruns if he pitched today. milton pitched decent last year despite knee and leg problems. if i'm cincinnati if milton is healthy and pitches half way decent up till the trade deadline i move him. of course if we are still in contention then we roll the dice.

mth123
01-27-2007, 05:57 AM
A pitcher who gives you a minimum level QS (6 IP, 3 ER) every single time out would be a number 3 starter (190 IP & 4.50 ERA). So at some level, even a guy who gives you 30 QS isn't an ace. QS is a measure of consistency as much as one of quality. But you can't ignore the quality side of things.

It also has some artificial qualities that hurt Harang (he had 7 starts with 6+ IP and 4 ER -- not good, but not "you're going to lose the game" sort of starts). Meanwhile, Milton got at least one out in the 8th inning just twice all year.

Harang is occasionally great (15%), sometimes good (35%), sometimes shaky (40%), and rarely awful (10%).

Milton is rarely great (5%) sometimes good (30%), sometimes shaky (35%), and sometimes awful (30%).

That distribution leads to about the same numbers of "quality starts" but vastly different opportunities for the Reds to win ball games. I'm curoius, what were Harang's numbers in his quality starts and his numbers in his non-QS compared to Milton. In other words, what does good Milton look like compared good Harang and what does bad Harang look like compared to bad Milton.


Good post. I'd like to see a breakdown like that for all pitchers. Anyplace to find it or did you have to go through the game logs to come-up with it?

mth123
01-27-2007, 06:01 AM
Quality Start
Milton: 14G, 2.68 ERA, 1.02 WHIP, 6.71 IP/G.
Harang: 17G, 1.47 ERA, 0.96 WHIP, 7.57 IP/G.

Non Quality Start
Milton: 12G, 9.05 ERA, 1.83 WHIP, 4.97 IP/G.
Harang: 18G, 6.62 ERA, 1.64 WHIP, 5.82 IP/G.

Another good post. This thread has a different perspective on some stats that I wish were easily available.

FreelFanatic
01-27-2007, 03:10 PM
And if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle. Milton is what he is: a freaking terrible pitcher making an obscene amount of money. I wish people would quit trying to convince themselves that the poop cake in front of them is actually delicious chocolate.

This could possibly be the funniest thing I've ever read.

jojo
01-27-2007, 03:31 PM
If Milton gets back on the roids (well, HGH these days) I think he can have a solid year.

JMO, but I think he was definitely a roid guy.

And I agree he wasn't terrible last year. He pitched so awful in '05 that his '06 season didn't seem so bad. Now when you factor in his contract it was pretty bad, but 14 quality starts was solid. That's what we need from him this year. He's never going to have a good ERA, but hopefully he can eat some innings and keep us in some games (i.e. only give up 1-2 HRs per outing, not 3-4... I said that half-kidding and half-serious).

I don't think Milton was a roid guy. I think he got hurt and has never been the same since the knee surgery in '03. Using that milestone, the difference in his performance is striking.

Here's another point, Milton's '06 season ended with elbow surgery. So his knee, hamstring and elbow now all have histories...

kxblue
01-27-2007, 06:29 PM
Go Milton! Now you can do better! Because I am cheering for you!

YEA, Milton!

Now, Im not saying Milton is good, but Williams, even in his good outings, was pure garbage. I remember going to the Moday afternoon game against St. Louis (end of 2-game sweep) and Williams allowed 1 or 2 runs. But his stuff wasnt there at all. He was getting shelled, and was lucky that the line drives were being hit right at people.

Id have to say that Milton's stuff is much better than Williams.

membengal
01-27-2007, 06:34 PM
Now, Im not saying Milton is good, but Williams, even in his good outings, was pure garbage. I remember going to the Moday afternoon game against St. Louis (end of 2-game sweep) and Williams allowed 1 or 2 runs. But his stuff wasnt there at all. He was getting shelled, and was lucky that the line drives were being hit right at people.

Id have to say that Milton's stuff is much better than Williams.

Huh, what?

fearofpopvol1
01-27-2007, 06:38 PM
But you're ignoring the fact the EZ did do it last season. I know it might pain you to admit it but EZ WAS a more effective pitcher than Milton last season.... Overall EZ gave the reds a better chance of winning than Milton did....and it really wasn't even close.


QS is a bunk metric to evaluate a pitcher. Essentially it is based upon earned runs. Volumes have been written on why that's a poor indicator of a pitcher's performance-there simple are too many factors which contribute to earned runs that are out of a pitcher's control.....

Based upon each pitcher's peripherals (i.e. things that are much more reflective of the contribution to runs that were actually in the pitcher's control), it's not even really close. EZ was clearly superior.

xFIP does a good job of summarizing such peripherals:
E Milton '06: 5.56
Ramirez '06: 4.67


Side by side comparison of some individual peripherals:
E Milton 2006: K/9: 5.31; BB/9: 2.48; HR/9: 1.71; FB%: 50.3; HR/FB: 11.9; LOB%: 68.5; FIP: 5.35; ERA: 5.19; IP: 153;
Ramirez 2006: K/9: 5.97; BB/9: 2.51; HR/9: 1.17; FB%: 33.1; HR/FB: 13.5; LOB%: 64.5; FIP: 4.69; ERA: 5.37; IP: 104;

Yeah, but that's not taking into consideration the fact that EZ did not pitch at the major league level for a full season. I have little to no reason to believe that he would've been more effective had he stayed.

jojo
01-27-2007, 07:22 PM
Yeah, but that's not taking into consideration the fact that EZ did not pitch at the major league level for a full season. I have little to no reason to believe that he would've been more effective had he stayed.

I'd be willing to bet dsmith421's "uncle's" left testicle that Ramirez's September would've been brutal....


:all_cohol

Redhook
01-28-2007, 12:32 AM
And if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle. Milton is what he is: a freaking terrible pitcher making an obscene amount of money. I wish people would quit trying to convince themselves that the poop cake in front of them is actually delicious chocolate.

If this wasn't so long I'd quote it as my signature. Absolutely classic! Without a doubt the funniest thing I've read on Redszone. You've definitely gone up a notch in my book.

TC81190
01-28-2007, 02:32 PM
I remember early-in-the-year Milton, when he was on, daaamn.

I'm okay with one more year of him, so long as his elbow doesn't fall off, and his knee can serve to him as more than just a delicious chip dip.

Handofdeath
01-28-2007, 04:56 PM
If you look at his OBA, BAA, and WHIP numbers, then Milton is Top 25 in those categories in the NL. His BAA was the same as Harang in 2006. Why the lousy ERA? Location and concentration. When Harang has runners on his ERA goes up to over 5.00. When Milton has runners on his goes up over 9.00.

Spitball
01-28-2007, 06:52 PM
help my memory. we considered tom browning a good pitcher but wasn't he a flyball pitcher as well. he would give up a ton of homeruns if he pitched today.

Actually, Arroyo and Harang are also flyball pitchers. There is nothing wrong with flyball pitchers if they keep their mistakes to a minimum. Those mistakes are what result in homeruns, but even groundball pitchers make mistakes and give up homeruns now and then.

There is nothing wrong with giving up flyballs that stay in the yard. About 90% of errors occur on groundballs in the infield. All those errors lead to a lot of unearned runs. So, it is not a crime to be a flyball pitcher.

jojo
01-28-2007, 08:58 PM
Actually, Arroyo and Harang are also flyball pitchers. There is nothing wrong with flyball pitchers if they keep their mistakes to a minimum. Those mistakes are what result in homeruns, but even groundball pitchers make mistakes and give up homeruns now and then.

There is nothing wrong with giving up flyballs that stay in the yard. About 90% of errors occur on groundballs in the infield. All those errors lead to a lot of unearned runs. So, it is not a crime to be a flyball pitcher.


Right. All pitchers to some degree are aggregate compromises relative to the ideal pitching type. The problem with having fly ball tendencies though is that pitchers generally can't control HR/FB rate meaning they really have no demonstrable ability to dictate whether a fly ball stays in the yard or not. However, having fly ball tendencies in and of itself isn't damning if for instance its in combination with the ability to strike guys out and not walk a lot of hitters. While Harang is actually a neutral pitcher, Arroyo is a good example. Last year, Arroyo had fly ball tendencies but had a K/9=6.6 and a BB/9=2.5 that both were good enough to mitigate the fly balls (though he was helped out greatly by an extremely high LOB%).