Burton sent to 15-day DL to make room for Milton

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by TC81190

Peripheral ERA sounds sweet. Is that tracked everywhere?

Check out this site:

http://www.fangraphs.com/

In the past peripheral ERA (or better known as FIP or DIPS= Pitcher's ERA independent of the defense) has been proven to be a better predictor of future ERA than actual ERA.

So it's based on peripherals (BB, K, and HR mainly) and assumes every pitcher will have the same BAPIP (no pitcher has really shown otherwise).

Fangraphs is really good for this purpose. It will give you FIP's and BAPIP's for any player for every season.

[RedsManRick]

I know people find it hard to believe, but if Eric Milton gave us 30 starts as the "#5 starter", he'd be one of the best #5 starters in baseball. As you consider the effect of injuries, callups, etc. the average #5 starter is abysmal. Redleg Nation did a study in 2005 which showed the average #5 starter had an ERA over 7.00. Of course, this usually isn't in the form of a single pitcher. Rather it's the compilation of bad starts by a lot of guys. The point is, if you can 30 starts of a 5.50 ERA from your 5th spot, it's not something to write home about, but it's a leg up on most of the competition.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I know people find it hard to believe, but if Eric Milton gave us 30 starts as the "#5 starter", he'd be one of the best #5 starters in baseball. As you consider the effect of injuries, callups, etc. the average #5 starter is abysmal. Redleg Nation did a study in 2005 which showed the average #5 starter had an ERA over 7.00. Of course, this usually isn't in the form of a single pitcher. Rather it's the compilation of bad starts by a lot of guys. The point is, if you can 30 starts of a 5.50 ERA from your 5th spot, it's not something to write home about, but it's a leg up on most of the competition.

You seem to be using a 5.50 ERA as some kind of measuring stick for success; but the argument that's most compelling to me is that ERA is a poor measuring stick for pitching. Looking at Milton's ERA of 5.50 might lead you to say that he did okay for a fifth starter, but what if that ERA masks the fact that he surrenders 42 homers and has an OPSA over .850.

Honestly, I'd rather take the rotating door approach that you mention for the fifth spot; that way, you might string together a couple of hot streaks out of the fifth spot instead of serving up the guaranteed crap in Milton. As you point out, it's more instructive to look at winning games than saying, "well, I can live with a 5.50 ERA" if that's what he gives us on average. That seems like a recipe for stagnation.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

You seem to be using a 5.50 ERA as some kind of measuring stick for success; but the argument that's most compelling to me is that ERA is a poor measuring stick for pitching. Looking at Milton's ERA of 5.50 might lead you to say that he did okay for a fifth starter, but what if that ERA masks the fact that he surrenders 42 homers and has an OPSA over .850.

Honestly, I'd rather take the rotating door approach that you mention for the fifth spot; that way, you might string together a couple of hot streaks out of the fifth spot instead of serving up the guaranteed crap in Milton. As you point out, it's more instructive to look at winning games than saying, "well, I can live with a 5.50 ERA" if that's what he gives us on average. That seems like a recipe for stagnation.

Sorry FCB, I guess I forgot that the team who allows the fewest HR and lowest OPSA wins.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Sorry FCB, I guess I forgot that the team who allows the fewest HR and lowest OPSA wins.

That's not my point, of course. All I'm saying is that you seem to suggest one thing and then retract your first argument. Yes, you could stick with Milton, but why not try something different? I don't disagree by the way that the #5 five starter in baseball is more phantom than reality, and an ugly phantom at that.

I think there are ways around leaving the Miltons and Marquises out on the mound to get pummeled. I'm all for having a tandem five-starter, if the plan is to carry 12 pitchers on the roster.

But I have little doubt that Santos could give you what Milton gives you, if not more, all by himself.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

That's not my point, of course. All I'm saying is that you seem to suggest one thing and then retract your first argument. Yes, you could stick with Milton, but why not try something different? I don't disagree by the way that the #5 five starter in baseball is more phantom than reality, and an ugly phantom at that.

I think there are ways around leaving the Miltons and Marquises out on the mound to get pummeled. I'm all for having a tandem five-starter, if the plan is to carry 12 pitchers on the roster.

But I have little doubt that Santos could give you what Milton gives you, if not more, all by himself.

My point is directly counter to yours. While it's an attractive thought to think that we can run out the "hot hand" instead of Milton and be better off, history shows that the guys who end up taking those starts do NOT fair well at all. Yes, Milton, Marquis, at not ideal options at all. However, they're better than giving starts to guys like Joe Mays and Chris Michalak. Forgive me if I don't think that Victor Santos and Bobby Livingston represent much better options.

Most of the time, the grass simply isn't greener. Now, we both know that over the course of the next few months, those guys will likely get a shot due to injuries or the ineffectiveness of Belisle, Lohse, or even Milton. However, throwing out a 5.50 for an outside shot at something marginally better isn't a good bet in my book. It'd be one thing to make room for Homer Bailey. But I'll take my 5.50 ERA from Milton and go home happy with a 5 IP, 3 ER performance (that 4th run goes to Narron's ERA)...

If after a half dozen starts, we've got a starter over 6.00 ERA and somebody in AAA throwing lights out, I'm all for the change. But a pre-emptive strike because home runs are embarrasing isn't my strategy.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

My point is directly counter to yours. While it's an attractive thought to think that we can run out the "hot hand" instead of Milton and be better off, history shows that the guys who end up taking those starts do NOT fair well at all. Yes, Milton, Marquis, at not ideal options at all. However, they're better than giving starts to guys like Joe Mays and Chris Michalak. Forgive me if I don't think that Victor Santos and Bobby Livingston represent much better options.

Most of the time, the grass simply isn't greener. Now, we both know that over the course of the next few months, those guys will likely get a shot due to injuries or the ineffectiveness of Belisle, Lohse, or even Milton. However, throwing out a 5.50 for an outside shot at something marginally better isn't a good bet in my book. It'd be one thing to make room for Homer Bailey. But I'll take my 5.50 ERA from Milton and go home happy with a 5 IP, 3 ER performance (that 4th run goes to Narron's ERA)...

If after a half dozen starts, we've got a starter over 6.00 ERA and somebody in AAA throwing lights out, I'm all for the change. But a pre-emptive strike because home runs are embarrasing isn't my strategy.

By almost any sane measurement, Victor Santos has been a much better pitcher over the last three seasons than Milton.

Now, that's not saying much, but it's irrefutable all the same.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

By almost any sane measurement, Victor Santos has been a much better pitcher over the last three seasons than Milton.

Now, that's not saying much, but it's irrefutable all the same.

Victor Santos: 2004-2006
IP: 410.3
Record: 20-34
ERA: 5.04 (Park Adjusted: 5.00)
WHIP: 1.53
K9: 6.24
BB9: 3.48
H9: 10.34
HR9: 1.18 (Park Adjusted: 1.20)

Eric Milton: 2004-2006
IP: 539.3
Record: 30-29
ERA: 5.47 (Park Adjusted: 5.20)
WHIP: 1.42
K9: 6.24
BB9: 2.82
H9: 9.9
HR9: 1.87 (Park Adjusted: 1.68)

So, basically I see Milton with a slightly worse adjusted ERA, due ENTIRELY to his HR rate -- given that his other peripherals are either the same or better. We could talk about defenses and I'd go out on a limb and say Santos probably was at an advantage there.

Now, clearly I'm not claiming Milton is a great starter. However, those are the 3 worst years of Milton's career and the 3 best (of 4) for Santos. At the end of the day, we're looking at a virtual wash here. And there is my point. Milton is paid. The salary isn't the issue. The other options aren't any better. Unless you want to try and convince me that Santos is ready to make a marked leap in performance. Yet, people want hang Milton publicly and claim Santos, or whomever else, as this vastly superior option.

Certainly they can't be as bad as Milton, right? Ah... but they can. At least we know Milton is capable of better. The same can't be said about Santos, et. al.

Again, don't get me wrong. If Milton sucks it up worse than the numbers above, or one of the other options does something to really indicate he's likely to be a better option, I'm all for it. I'm just not going to advocate change for the sake of it.

[Cooper]

Good posts RMR. You make a good case for getting production out of Milton at the 5 spot.

[remdog]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

By almost any sane measurement, Victor Santos has been a much better pitcher over the last three seasons than Milton.

Now, that's not saying much, but it's irrefutable all the same.

By RedsManRick:
"Victor Santos: 2004-2006
IP: 410.3
Record: 20-34
ERA: 5.04 (Park Adjusted: 5.00)
WHIP: 1.53
K9: 6.24
BB9: 3.48
H9: 10.34
HR9: 1.18 (Park Adjusted: 1.20)

Eric Milton: 2004-2006
IP: 539.3
Record: 30-29
ERA: 5.47 (Park Adjusted: 5.20)
WHIP: 1.42
K9: 6.24
BB9: 2.82
H9: 9.9
HR9: 1.87 (Park Adjusted: 1.68)

So, basically I see Milton with a slightly worse adjusted ERA, due ENTIRELY to his HR rate -- given that his other peripherals are either the same or better. We could talk about defenses and I'd go out on a limb and say Santos probably was at an advantage there.

Now, clearly I'm not claiming Milton is a great starter. However, those are the 3 worst years of Milton's career and the 3 best (of 4) for Santos. At the end of the day, we're looking at a virtual wash here. And there is my point. Milton is paid. The salary isn't the issue. The other options aren't any better. Unless you want to try and convince me that Santos is ready to make a marked leap in performance. Yet, people want hang Milton publicly and claim Santos, or whomever else, as this vastly superior option.

Certainly they can't be as bad as Milton, right? Ah... but they can. At least we know Milton is capable of better. The same can't be said about Santos, et. al.

Again, don't get me wrong. If Milton sucks it up worse than the numbers above, or one of the other options does something to really indicate he's likely to be a better option, I'm all for it. I'm just not going to advocate change for the sake of it."


Well, now it's 'refutable'.

Rem

[Patrick Bateman]

Rick, you make good points, and that is probably as good an argument as there is for Milton. Even if you don't accept Santos as a noticeable upgrade over Milton you got to think that it shouldnt be hard to find some better alternative. Hes been a 5.30+ ERA calibre pitcher since he has come back from injury. In no sense can that be considered a good thing. For a team serious about contending, they cannot afford to keep sending Milton out there. There is not room enough for error.

Fine you dont like Santos. But if you cannot find a pitcher that can be had for a cheap price that isnt worth the spot over Milton, then quite frankly, you arent looking hard enough.

5.30 ERA guys are not difficult to come by, and generally teams lacking a top offense cant afford to have the likes of Milton populating the rotation if they expect to contend. Surely the Reds can at least find a young project that that can post a mid 5s ERA that can at least learn on the job (Livingston maybe). At least that may accomplish something in the future without hindering the current team. Giving Milton the ball every 5th day should be the last line of defense. There is no good reason to do. Even you admit that Santos is slightly better. It may not seem like much, but Santos marginal skill differential is probably worth a win or two this season and the Reds cant afford to throw away any more wins.

[mth123]

I'm for finding a better alternative (for both Milton and Lohse actually), but I don't see any (insert rant about the offseason here).

Santos is more of the same as a starter and seems to be doing very well in the pen. Why screw that up? Same goes for Saarloos (who IMO has potential to be way worse than Milton with just as many HR allowed with more walks and fewer Ks). Why mess up a couple of pleasant surprises in the pen for no better than a wash in the number 5 spot?

Livingston got hit hard in his 1st AAA start and Bailey isn't ready yet. There are no better options at this point and the only reason to make a change would be if some portion of the contract can be moved to save some money. The Reds should be trying hard to move Milton for any $ relief and if successful, Santos and Saarloos should still not be options at this point. Whoever is pitching the best at AAA should probably get the call when the time comes. There will be a time to DFA Milton if his contract can't be moved. That time will be when some one in AAA gets on a roll for a while. Its unfortunate but that isn't happening now.

It sounds funny, but this team has so many needs that I wouldn't mess with the roles of guys doing well right now. Santos would need to pitch worse to get a rotation shot now IMO. If he is pitching well in the pen, he should stay in the pen. He's proven that he isn't a good starter over the last several seasons. Maybe cutting down his repertoire to his best pitches and going all out for an inning or two will lead to him producing drastically better results in that role. It wouldn't be the first time that a failed starter became a good reliever. If that doesn't work out, then go ahead and throw him out there as part of the sacraficial fodder to run through the 5 spot in hopes that some one will hit a good stretch and be better than Milton.

I'd also want to see these guys when weather isn't such a factor before deciding much based on the first week (that includes that guys at AAA and AA).

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by mth123

I'm for finding a better alternative (for both Milton and Lohse actually), but I don't see any (insert rant about the offseason here).

Santos is more of the same as a starter and seems to be doing very well in the pen. Why screw that up? Same goes for Saarloos (who IMO has potential to be way worse than Milton with just as many HR allowed with more walks and fewer Ks). Why mess up a couple of pleasant surprises in the pen for no better than a wash in the number 5 spot?

Livingston got hit hard in his 1st AAA start and Bailey isn't ready yet. There are no better options at this point and the only reason to make a change would be if some portion of the contract can be moved to save some money. The Reds should be trying hard to move Milton for any $ relief and if successful, Santos and Saarloos should still not be options at this point. Whoever is pitching the best at AAA should probably get the call when the time comes. There will be a time to DFA Milton if his contract can't be moved. That time will be when some one in AAA gets on a roll for a while. Its unfortunate but that isn't happening now.

It sounds funny, but this team has so many needs that I wouldn't mess with the roles of guys doing well right now. Santos would need to pitch worse to get a rotation shot now IMO. If he is pitching well in the pen, he should stay in the pen. He's proven that he isn't a good starter over the last several seasons. Maybe cutting down his repertoire to his best pitches and going all out for an inning or two will lead to him producing drastically better results in that role. It wouldn't be the first time that a failed starter became a good reliever. If that doesn't work out, then go ahead and throw him out there as part of the sacraficial fodder to run through the 5 spot in hopes that some one will hit a good stretch and be better than Milton.

I'd also want to see these guys when weather isn't such a factor before deciding much based on the first week (that includes that guys at AAA and AA).

I agree with the point that it's probably best to leave guys in spots where they're succeeding. That's the best argument I've heard so far.

But I think it's instructive to think that a guy (Santos) was plucked off the scrap heap who is better than Milton.

That thought should stick like a burr in Wayne's mind as he roots through options to replace Milton.

[RedsManRick]

Ah, but there's the rub. If it were really easy to find 5 guys with ERA's under 5.00 in the rotation, then more teams would have that. The fact of the matter is it's NOT easy to find those guys. They just aren't out there for the taking. There's this misconception that Milton is replacement level. He's not. Again, I'm not saying he's good, because he clearly isn't. But there is worse out there. We should know. We've gave some of those guys starts last season.

If you think those guys are so common, start rattling off the names of guys and how we should acquire them.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I bet Majewski is hurt some still. He is just rehabbing without the official rehab tag.

He's just pitching in AAA until he makes the injury bad enough for Doc Hollywood to cut him open.