Still more on Millwood

Although stats are valuable in many respects, this is a prime example of using some to support a preconceived result/opinion, while omitting some and using only those that the writer benefits from.

A few things stuck out to me as I went through his article...I only read it once, so its not a dissection of his use of stats, rather just noticing a glaring ridiculousness of his article.

Millwood did lead the AL in ERA last year, but he pitched only 186 innings. In three of the last 5 seasons, he has pitched under 200 innings (121 and 141 IP being the other two). So he can't be counted on to pitch alot of innings.

Well the info may be correct, but he is talking about Millwood like we talk about Chris Young.  Injuries happen, and although valid info, is it really important.....honestly?

Here are his Win Shares for the last 4 seasons: 19, 11, 5, 14.  Win Shares is the stat invented by Bill James which measures a pitchers contribution to his team wins independent of the fielders and hitters. So Millwood has not been very consistent.

In Millwood's case, especially last season, this may be the most over-rated stat and definitely a misleading stat for the reader.  The issue last season for Millwood was a lack of run support.  Therefore his ERA is more indicative of his performance.  The reason I think this stat is weak is that it ONLY takes into account "the wins".  I does not account for games he pitched in that the team lost, but he only gave up a run or two.  It doesn't account for how many times he kept his team in the game, and so on.

Although I feel this stat could help evaluate a pitcher with a lot of wins, but a 4-5 ERA, I think it gives the opposite effect with an outlier like a poor number of wins but with a league-leading ERA.  It could identify a weaker pitcher with a lot of wins, but with great run support or got lucky while giving up walks and hits at opportune times.

Over the last 4 years there have been 80 pitchers to pitch a total of 600+ IP. Among them, Millwood is 22nd in strikeout-to-walk ratio and 14th in HRs per IP. He is also tied for 51st in RSAA. That is "runs saved against average" from the Lee Sinins Sabermetric Encyclopedia. It is park adjusted, too.

Honestly, I really could care less about the above, no matter how accurate it is.  Effective pitchers are effective pitchers and give their teams a chance to win.  This mumbo-jumbo is the same type of stuff that people point out when bashing Nolan Ryan.  "Ryan's not so great.  He set the record for most walks."  

So Millwood is not among the elite pitchers in baseball but he is being paid like one.

We should look at the best starting pitchers in 2005 and their salaries to see where this deal fits. Below are the leaders in each league with their WS total followed by their salaries.

AL
Santana-23-4.75 million
Buehrle-22-6 million
Garland-20-3.4 million
Colon-17-10 million
Contreras-17-8.5 million
Garcia-17-8 million
Lackey-16-440,000

NL
Clemens-24-18 million
Willis-22-378,000
Oswalt-21-5.9 million
Pettitte-21-8.5 million
Carpenter-20-2 million
Martinez-19-11 million
Smoltz-19-9 million
Zambrano-18-3.76 million

Quite alot of pitchers with more Win Shares than Millwood and a lower salary than $12 million.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.  Comparing the contract he signed a few days ago with these AND THEN saying he's paid to much is so misleading its not even funny.  Obviously, he was a free agent and many of those listed have not ever been eligible for free agency yet.  Thus, there is disparity due to free agency issues, market factors, length of service, etc.  The same stats can be used to show that several of the names on the list are being underpaid in the current market.

I mean seriously, does anybody out there want to tell me that Willis' 378k is indicative of what Millwood should make, or that Santana would make less than what Millwood signed for if he ever hit free agency?

The White Sox gave John Garland a 3-year deal for $27 million and he is coming off of a better season and has been more durable in recent years than Millwood. Garland has averaged about 200 IP a year over the last 4 years with not season less than 190. He is also 26, 5 years younger than Millwood.

LMAO.....I'll let the White Sox keep Garland for 9 million per.  BTW, did Cyril forget to add in the rest of the stats for Garland over those years?  All I see is the innings pitched....

Maybe there have not been that many top starters on the market this year. But $12 million dollars seems too much to pay for the number of Win Shares that Kevin Millwood will probably deliver.

Stats are a dangerous thing when abused or when somebody just cherry-picks the stats that support his/her opinion/theory/argument.  

Like I said, stats are great, but only when used as a supplement to making a decision.  Subjective use of stats is what gives stat-heads a bad reputation.