The Mariners management is truly inexplicably bad.

So, in a thread a while back, I was arguing that despite all of Bill Bavasi's shortcomings as a GM, of which there are many, Brian Sabean of the Giants was worse. I've been convinced otherwise now, by reading this piece on the gigantic mistakes in the Mariners organization. It really baffles my mind that a group of men so incapable of understanding basic baseball principles can even get to the point of completely running a Major League Baseball team.

The moves Bavasi has made are nearly 100% entirely against any baseball logic, and the fact that the higher-ups in the organization like their team president completely refuse to acknowledge the huge mistakes the front office has made is disturbing.

It truly saddens me that a group of men so incompetent are allowed to run a Major League franchise.

Ah, Dave. What a nerd.

Oh, and do you still believe Washburn is good, HGM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

Oh, and do you still believe Washburn is good, HGM?

---

I never said he was good. I said he's been a league-average pitcher, which he has been his entire career. He's not worth the salary he's getting paid, but he has not been horrible over the course of the deal. He's been bad this year, yes.

I wrote a longer post on Bavasi and his moves on my blog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I never said he was good. I said he's been a league-average pitcher, which he has been his entire career. He's not worth the salary he's getting paid, but he has not been horrible over the course of the deal. He's been bad this year, yes.

I wrote a longer post on Bavasi and his moves on my blog.

---

So you're arguing with Dave? You would say that he's league average even though he's really a #5 starter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

So you're arguing with Dave? You would say that he's league average even though he's really a #5 starter.

---

This argument again?

Look at his statistics. Tell me, how exactly is that not league average?

His K/9 that has been lower than league average his entire career. And, unlike most successful, low K/9 pitchers, Washburn's FB% is too high and his GB% is too low for him to be good. Also, his HR/9 has been higher than league average nearly his entire career, even the last three years despite pitching in one of the more pitcher-friendly parks in baseball. He's also had an extremely high LOB% almost every year which shows that any "success" that he has had has all been luck.

Luck or not, he has been a league average pitcher.

You can be a league average pitcher with below-average K-rates. You can be a league average pitcher with a high flyball rate. In fact, FB% and GB% has little correlation with how good of a pitcher you are. There are great pitchers with high flyball rates, and great pitchers with high groundball rates. So, being a flyball pitcher is really irrelevent. You can be league-average with high HR rates. Those things are useful for predicting the future. The Mariners should've seen his high LOB% and not signed him to a huge deal. His LOB% regressed, and he went from a very good year before signing to a league-average year in Seattle.

The only year of his career so far where he has been significantly below average is this year. Every other year he has either been exactly average, very slightly below, or solidly above. He obviously is not the same pitcher he was in 2001 and 2002. Every year since, except for his fluky 2005, he has been a tad below league average, which is not a horrible pitcher.

Guys I have an idea...we're all fairly successful at baseball mogul...lets just find a way to get in charge of the Mariners and we're guaranteed of doing a better job than they're doing currently

Walter, excellent idea. You have my word that if I ever am in charge of a Major League Baseball team, I will hire you for guest services or to work the concession stands.

Thanks joe! Its been my dream to watch a major league baseball game while serving hot dogs!

Washburn has been okay because he has good control. His WHIP is routinely in the mid-1.30's. League-average is around 1.40.

The guy HAS BEEN a league average pitcher, and there is no way around that. It's just a statement of fact. At this point, he very well may not be a league average pitcher anymore, but it takes more than 65 innings to say for sure.

I agree with HGM. We've seen over the last few years that teams will overpay for AVERAGE starting pitching. They're just aren't that many quality arms out there anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Washburn has been okay because he has good control. His WHIP is routinely in the mid-1.30's. League-average is around 1.40.

The guy HAS BEEN a league average pitcher, and there is no way around that. It's just a statement of fact. At this point, he very well may not be a league average pitcher anymore, but it takes more than 65 innings to say for sure.

---

But WHIP is not good for evaluating pitcher talent!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

But WHIP is not good for evaluating pitcher talent!

---

It's not bad, either. It's perfectly fine for evaluating how a pitcher DID perform. It's not too good for predicting the future, because hits fluctuate, but considering Washburn has been extremely stable in the 1.35 area, it's safe to say he's about a league average pitcher when it comes to allowing baserunners.

You've yet to make any argument that Jarrod Washburn has not been a league-average pitcher. I also don't think you can, as...he HAS been a league-average pitcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It's not bad, either. It's perfectly fine for evaluating how a pitcher DID perform. It's not too good for predicting the future, because hits fluctuate, but considering Washburn has been extremely stable in the 1.35 area, it's safe to say he's about a league average pitcher when it comes to allowing baserunners.

You've yet to make any argument that Jarrod Washburn has not been a league-average pitcher. I also don't think you can, as...he HAS been a league-average pitcher.

---

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 Coach Owens

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?

---

I've seen Washburn pitch.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I've seen Washburn pitch.

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 Coach Owens

So basically you're saying that nearly every pitcher in the major leagues is a #5 starter?

---

What? It sounds like you're saying that the majority of pitchers are league-average, and that a "#5 starter" should be league average.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Truthfully calling in a #5 starter starter is rather harsh.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

Nope. Take a look at his yearly xFIPs as well. Washburn is truly a #5 starter.

---

You're HIGHLY overrating #5 starters. Check the link I posted above. In 2006, the average #5 starter had an ERA over 6.

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.

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.

---

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 Coach Owens

Okay, maybe not a majority but a lot of pitchers are indeed league average.

---

No, not at all. Let me look up last years numbers real quick.

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.

---

No. Average starters are better than #5 starters.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

No, not at all. Let me look up last years numbers real quick.


No. Average starters are better than #5 starters.

---

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 Coach Owens

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!!!!

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

Let's see, Miguel Batista, Mike Mussina, Tom Glavine. Those are just some. Who do you think?

---

What you consider 5th starters are a lot better than the average "5th starter" MLB teams use.

You consider league-average pitchers to be 5th starters.

A team whose 5th best starter is a league average pitcher would have a really good pitching staff. For example, the 2005 White Sox, whose 5th starter was a combination of Orlando Hernandez and Brandon McCarthy.

Read the article I linked to above. This one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What you consider 5th starters are a lot better than the average "5th starter" MLB teams use.

You consider league-average pitchers to be 5th starters.

A team whose 5th best starter is a league average pitcher would have a really good pitching staff. For example, the 2005 White Sox, whose 5th starter was a combination of Orlando Hernandez and Brandon McCarthy.

Read the article I linked to above. This one.

---

None of those guys are even league average anymore. None of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

None of those guys are even league average anymore. None of them.

---

Miguel Batista hasn't been this year. He was every year up until now.
Mike Mussina wasn't last year. He certainly has been this year.
Tom Glavine hasn't been this year. He was last year.

Read that article, seriously. In 2006, the aggregate 5th starter used by teams had an ERA north of 6. When labeling 5th starters, shouldn't we use the actual data, instead of just "what we think"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Miguel Batista isn't this year. He was every year up until now.
Mike Mussina wasn't last year. He certainly is this year.
Tom Glavine isn't this year. He was last year.

Read that article, seriously. In 2006, the aggregate 5th starter used by teams had an ERA north of 6. When labeling 5th starters, shouldn't we use the actual data, instead of just "what we think"?

---

But anyone can have a fluke season! Just like Washburn in 2005! And ERA isn't a good evaluator! You know that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

But anyone can have a fluke season!

---

Okay? And? Whose having a fluke season that we're discussing here?

If anything, Mike Mussina being bad last season was a fluke, considering he was around league-average or better every year prior to that season, and is now back to league-average.

Miguel Batista is aging, so he very well may be a 5th starter at this point, but in every year PRIOR to this year, that he's pitched as a starter, he's been league-average or slightly better.

Tom Glavine is also aging, so he very well may be 5th starter material now, but every year up to this point, he has been league average or better.

Quote:

---

And ERA isn't a good evaluator! You know that!

---

ERA is bad to use when predicting how somebody will do in the future. That's the trap the Mariners fell into with Washburn. They're paying him like he's a very good starter, because of a fluke season, when he's actually an average starter.

ERA is fine to use when assessing how much value a pitcher has provided. RA would be better, but ERA is fine too. A pitcher that posts a league-average ERA is a league-average pitcher, in that season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Okay? And? Whose having a fluke season that we're discussing here?

If anything, Mike Mussina being bad last season was a fluke, considering he was around league-average or better every year prior to that season, and is now back to league-average.

Miguel Batista is aging, so he very well may be a 5th starter at this point, but in every year PRIOR to this year, that he's pitched as a starter, he's been league-average or slightly better.

Tom Glavine is also aging, so he very well may be 5th starter material now, but every year up to this point, he has been league average or better.


ERA is bad to use when predicting how somebody will do in the future. That's the trap the Mariners fell into with Washburn. They're paying him like he's a very good starter, because of a fluke season, when he's actually an average starter.

ERA is fine to use when assessing how much value a pitcher has provided. RA would be better, but ERA is fine too. A pitcher that posts a league-average ERA is a league-average pitcher, in that season.

---

So Horacio Ramirez was league average in 2003? That's what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

So Horacio Ramirez was league average in 2003? That's what you're saying.

---

In 2003, he provided roughly league average value, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

In 2003, he provided roughly league average value, yes.

---

Despite a 4.72 FIP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

Despite a 4.72 FIP?

---

You're taking DIPS theory to an entirely incorrect level.

First off, I don't know what the league average FIP is, but FIP is an estimation of a pitcher's ERA based on his peripheral numbers, so it's safe to assume that league-average is about around league-average ERA, in which case 4.72 would be a little below league average, but not bad.

Secondly, his FIP just tells you how he pitched based on his peripherals. This does not tell you how much value his provided. A pitcher's job is to prevent runs. The job of the pitcher isn't to walk few batters, strikeout a lot, and keep the ball in the park. Those are all CONDUCIVE to preventing runs, but a pitcher can still do those things well and be less valuable than a pitcher who did those things worse than him. A pitcher could post a 3.00 FIP, but if he allowed 6 runs per 9 innings, he wasn't valuable.

FIP is best used to project the future. FIP is more stable than ERA. The FIP can help you decide if his value was due to his actual ability, or if it was partially due to flukes like a high LOB% or BABIP. You can use this to better project how a pitcher will do in the future. A pitcher with a low FIP and a high ERA is more likely to post a lower ERA in the future than a pitcher with a high FIP and low ERA.

The FIP helps you project how he will do in the future. It does not assess past value.

As I said, you're taking the DIPS principles too far. They're meant to help project the future of players. They do not, nor are they meant to, assess a player's past value.

Also, there are players that routinely overperform their peripherals. Ever hear of a guy named Tom Glavine? His career FIP is 3.94. In most of the seasons of his career, his ERA far exceeded his FIP. A 3.94 FIP is not worthy of Hall of Fame induction, but the value that Tom Glavine provided over his career is, because even though he wasn't a noteworthy strikeout artist, control artist, or groundball pitcher, he prevented runs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You're taking DIPS theory to an entirely incorrect level.

First off, I don't know what the league average FIP is, but FIP is an estimation of a pitcher's ERA based on his peripheral numbers, so it's safe to assume that league-average is about around league-average ERA, in which case 4.72 would be a little below league average, but not bad.

Secondly, his FIP just tells you how he pitched based on his peripherals. This does not tell you how much value his provided. A pitcher's job is to prevent runs. The job of the pitcher isn't to walk few batters, strikeout a lot, and keep the ball in the park. Those are all CONDUCIVE to preventing runs, but a pitcher can still do those things well and be less valuable than a pitcher who did those things worse than him. A pitcher could post a 3.00 FIP, but if he allowed 6 runs per 9 innings, he wasn't valuable.

FIP is best used to project the future. FIP is more stable than ERA. The FIP can help you decide if his value was due to his actual ability, or if it was partially due to flukes like a high LOB% or BABIP. You can use this to better project how a pitcher will do in the future. A pitcher with a low FIP and a high ERA is more likely to post a lower ERA in the future than a pitcher with a high FIP and low ERA.

The FIP helps you project how he will do in the future. It does not assess past value.

As I said, you're taking the DIPS principles too far. They're meant to help project the future of players. They do not, nor are they meant to, assess a player's past value.

---

xFIP is built to guesstimate the future value. FIP on its own can assess a pitcher's past value just fine.