But he HASN'T! Who would have a better say in this, hm? Somebody who never watches Washburn pitch, or somebody who's watched all of his starts for the last three years?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Printable View
But he HASN'T! Who would have a better say in this, hm? Somebody who never watches Washburn pitch, or somebody who's watched all of his starts for the last three years?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I've seen Washburn pitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
I've also seen his statistics.
Like it or not, Jarrod Washburn has been basically exactly league-average at not allowing runs. Perception is not always right. Tell me, how is 4.32 ERA not league average, when the league average is 4.33?
Instead of saying, "He's not league average because I've seen him pitch and he just isn't!", provide an argument. Every piece of information available on how Jarrod Washburn has pitched over his career indicates that he has been about league-average. He was very good in 2001, 2002, and 2005. He was a tad below average in 2003, 2004, and 2006, and he was exactly league average in 2007. Add it all together, and you have a pitcher who has been league-average.
So basically you're saying that nearly every pitcher in the major leagues is a #5 starter? Cha Seung Baek is considered a #5 starter and he's a below average pitcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
What? It sounds like you're saying that the majority of pitchers are league-average, and that a "#5 starter" should be league average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
Truthfully calling in a #5 starter starter is rather harsh. ( an you know full well it was hyperbole in the article)
He really is a fairly average pitcher, his K/9 is a little lower than average (5.3/5.0 that last 2 years as opposed to 6.6/6.4 for the league) and his K:BB ration is a but below ( 1.9:1/1.7:1 compare to 2:1) but he ERAs have been right on the average and his WHIPS are better than the 1.41 league average over the last 2 years.
he would really be a good #4 starter or an average/ slightly below average #3 starter.
Nope. Take a look at his yearly xFIPs as well. Washburn is truly a #5 starter.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
This article was written after the 2006 season. It estimates the ERA for each "rotation number." Based solely on ERA, Washburn was a #3 starter in 2006. The 2007 numbers probably differ slightly, but it shouldn't be too much of a difference, so in 2007, he was a #2/3 starter.
Of course, this doesn't adjust for ballparks.
You're HIGHLY overrating #5 starters. Check the link I posted above. In 2006, the average #5 starter had an ERA over 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
His xFIP's have been around 5, which is about a #4 starter. Of course, though, xFIP is best for measuring the future. It is not best for measuring the value a pitcher gave, because that value is dependent on the runs the pitcher allows. Jarrod Washburn has allowed around a league-average number of runs.
You're taking DIPS principles too far.
Okay, maybe not a majority but a lot of pitchers are indeed league average. And so, if Washburn is really a league-average starter-which he's not-then all of the other pitchers who are average are #5 starters as well, and most of them aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
No, not at all. Let me look up last years numbers real quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
No. Average starters are better than #5 starters.Quote:
And so, if Washburn is really a league-average starter-which he's not-then all of the other pitchers who are average are #5 starters as well, and most of them aren't.
In 2007, out of pitchers that qualified for the ERA title, there were 4 pitchers with exactly average ERA's - Kyle Lohse, Paul Byrd, Jarrod Washburn, and Tim Wakefield. There were 51 players above average, and 25 below average. This is because bad pitchers don't usually get enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. The 80 pitchers that qualified for the ERA title only make up a portion of the starts - 2,523 to be exact. There are 4,860 starts per season, which means that half of the starting pitchers didn't qualify for the ERA title, and most of those starts are made up of below average pitchers. The aggregate #5 starter is a really bad pitcher. There just is not that many good pitchers, and you're severely undervaluing a league-average ERA.
And Washburn is a #5 starter! You even saw Dave say that! Check out lookoutlanding.com and ask them too! It's not just me! HOLY MOTHER OF JERRY SEINFELD!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't care what they said. Every bit of evidence goes against that notion, unless you have a different idea of what a #5 starter is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
Simply saying he's a #5 starter doesn't make it so. Honestly, maybe he IS NOW, but he hasn't been. He HAS been league average, which is about a #3 starter.
Let me ask you this, besides Washburn, who are some other "#5 starters" in your opinion?
Let's see, Miguel Batista, Mike Mussina, Tom Glavine. Those are just some. Who do you think?