For all of the confidence-infusing storylines which trailed Kevin Millwood during his four-year tenure in Texas (chiefly, the weight loss-intended kickboxing regimen and the Nolan Ryan-instilled conditioning program), the fact of the matter is that he was paid like a No. 1 starter and instead delivered exactly league-average performance over the life of his deal (100 ERA+), consuming approximately 190 innings per season but watching his peripherals erode in the process ... and yes, that includes his strikeout rate, which withered away to a career-worst mark of 14.5 percent.
And yet in spite of his peripheral struggles, Millwood, by virtue of his sub-4.00 ERA, became the media-anointed poster child for the purported success of the “pitch-to-contact” movement that was so readily espoused by the organization and vertically integrated throughout the system—all the while ignoring that such a philosophy (a) isn’t nearly as effective during the post-season, where you’re generally pitted against elite-level competition, and (b) is heavily reliant on the continued maintenance of a very gooddefense, as well as (c) that Millwood was the beneficiary of inordinately good fortune on several fronts, both defense-wise and timing-wise (strand rate).
Meanwhile, the Rangers’ team pitching strikeout rate landed with a thud in the league’s bottom-five pile for a third consecutive season. Millwood certainly wasn’t—and still isn’t—a valueless entity, but it also seems apparent that he was no longer a good fit for a team that desperately needed to find some way to pair its younger and more strikeout-inclined talent with a major strikeout-boosting weapon in the vein of Javier Vazquez, Ben Sheets ... or Rich Harden, whose nigh-unsurpassed ability to miss bats has springboarded him into baseball’s elite pitching fraternity alongside Tim Lincecum, Zach Greinke, Jon Lester and Justin Verlander.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Philippe Posted: December 11, 2009 at 04:43 PM (#3409978)Yeah, but given Millwood's peripherals from last year he's not a great bet to do that again. Check out his FIPs and tRAs for the last few years. A bad trend.
2005 4.49tRA 3.75xFIP
2006 4.85 3.97
2007 5.46 4.61
2008 5.53 4.20
2009 5.61 4.78
Yeah, Texas would have gone much farther in the post-season with a different organizational philosophy. :)
Yes and no. Yes, the average starter is below 100. But the average "intended rotation starter" -- i.e. the guys in the planned 5-man rotation which includes (nearly) every starter paid more than league minimum who's not hurt -- is better than a 100. Tons and tons of starts are eaten up by teams' 6th-9th starters -- on average about one full rotation slot or a little more -- and those guys really stink and bring the average way down. Millwood was signed and paid to be one of those top 5 starters ... as the article mentions, he was paid more in line with a #1 or #2 starter.
If you look at 2007-9, seasons with 20+ starts, the (unweighted) median ERA+ is a 103. If you look at those 3 seasons combined and pitchers with at least 50 starts, the (unweighted) median ERA+ is 104.
Your second point about the innings is spot on though. Only 120 pitchers have made at least 50 starts over the last 3 years. Only 67 have made 75 and only 34 have made 90 (Millwood 91). That is the primary source of Millwood's (past) value -- keeping those 6th-8th starters off the mound.
Of course the Rangers being the Rangers, they usually have 1-2 replacement level starters in their intended rotation.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main