Washburn's ERA ------> Fairy Land

by short on Apr 9, 2009 1:21 PM PDT Comment 67 comments

Is it possible for a pitcher's ERA to be less reflective of his ability than Washburn's is after today's game? I didn't see the game, but I counted at least four plays by outfielders which caused Dave's voice to reach the Pitch+Decibel Threshold equaling "Truly Awesome Play." With an average defense behind him Mr. Chipmunk goes about six innings and gives up four runs or so (i.e. vintage Washburn) and his ERA is ~6.00.

Could Jakubauskas seriously be much worse?

Franklin the ERA Fairy says:

3427465052_d8d11d8e18_o_medium

2 recs | Comment 67 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hahaha...

Nice pic.

by JMKaustin on Apr 9, 2009 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Patience.

by ThundaPC on Apr 9, 2009 1:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm willing to wait for a couple more starts

…but the ERA Fairy is kind of jumpy.

by short on Apr 9, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He got some help but he also pitched a lot more effectively today.

This was a good start for Washburn.

by acblue on Apr 9, 2009 1:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

For someone who didn't watch the game

quick BIP breakdown for me? And were his K’s swinging or looking?

by seattlebruin on Apr 9, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I watched almost exclusively on Gameday

but he was Washburn. He missed more bats than usual (Twins!) and got 12 FB outs to 8 GB outs. He just seemed to have better command and it seemed like the hitters (Twins) weren’t making as much solid contact.

by acblue on Apr 9, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He k'd 4.5/9, or about 13.7% PA

which is a teensy bit above his career norms. His GB rate was right in line with career norms. His BABIP against was what, .208? He gave up no xbh despite several well-struck FBs/LDs.

What in the Gameday data leads you to believe he pitched differently than he normally does?

by marc w on Apr 9, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Location seemed much better, false hope.

by acblue on Apr 9, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're wrong! Wrong, dammit!

by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 9, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that Guttierez's catch says it all

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on Apr 10, 2009 2:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As much as the defense helped him

Washburn still looked pretty good…he located his fastball well, got ahead in counts, and did what he’s gonna do: pitch to contact. But if it entices some team to offer up something of value for him, I say we trap that ERA Fairy and make her our bitch.

I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little

by Sportszilla on Apr 9, 2009 1:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually he only threw first-pitch strikes to 16 of 29 batters

by Jeff Sullivan on Apr 9, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Judging only from Gamecast and the radio

Washburn seemed to be pitching about like Washburn…a pitch-to-contact guy with pretty good control. I agree his control today was “on” but it didn’t seem tremendously better than normal. A lot of his pitches were up in the zone saying “hit me!” Minnesota’s hitters obliged him. And were probably ready to stab Gutierrez in the face by the seventh inning.

by short on Apr 9, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think a lot of teams will want to stab Gutierrez by the end of the year.

He’s quickly climbing my list of favorite players.

"Fights begin, finger prints are took, days is lost, bail is made, court dates are ignored, cycle is repeated."

by Thingray on Apr 9, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

Hypothetical:
1. The defense/luck helps Wash put up some pretty gaudy numbers for the first half of the year.
2. We flip him at the deadline for one or more valuable prospects.
3. Last year’s trade veto by Armstrong results in a better deal for us this year.

Is there anyone in the world that would have thought #3 possible last November?

by sammy on Apr 9, 2009 3:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Depends when we got Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez

as soon as that trade was complete, this became a possibility

by seattlebruin on Apr 9, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Teams were hesitant to sign players like Juan Cruz and Orlando Hudson

because they didn’t want to lose compensation picks.

What makes people think we’re going to get valuable prospects for 2-3 months of Jarrod Washburn?

by Matthew on Apr 9, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They're stuck in1999?

by JI on Apr 9, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

there’s valuable, and then there’s first round valuable. I don’t think anyone thinks we’re going to get a guy of equivalent value to a first round draft pick. If Washburn has an artificially low ERA I could see a handful of teams handing over a couple of intriguing guys with upside, though.

I also think flipping him at mid-season’s the way to go, because unlike Guillen, who we knew would sign a multi-year deal, there’s a real chance that an arbitration award at the end of a decent season will be the best deal available to Washburn next off-season. Unless the team’s in contention, something for Washburn is better than nothing.

by slamcactus on Apr 9, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, hypothetical.

But I can totally see a pitching poor team with a shot to contend for their division seeing Wash and his shiny ERA as the piece that’ll put them over the top. Cards, anyone? Would they give up Brett Wallace? That’s obviously lopsided and stupid right? Maybe, but who am I to know what bad GMs will do when put to the test.

by sammy on Apr 9, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if there was anyone on a Brave's blog

who got laughed at for suggesting they trade HoRam for Rafael Soriano?

by Rollo Tomasi on Apr 9, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if there was anyone on a M's blog

who started kicking and screaming when they found out they traded Adam Jones, Chris Tillman, Chris Butler and Kam Kickolio for Eric Bedard?

by sammy on Apr 9, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shut up

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on Apr 10, 2009 2:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Assuming that the prospect would be worth the salary we'd paid Washburn in the meantime

Which, unless his name starts with “S” and ends with “rasburg” is pretty damn unlikely.

by CMC_Stags on Apr 9, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I understand what you mean.

If Wash turns in a nice defensive-inflated performance for the first half of the year, and we end up flipping him at the deadline for a promising player or two, I’d say the salary this year was well spent. Granted, we paid money for his craptastic second-half last year, but whatever other player/s we would have paid his money to weren’t going to get us into the playoffs anyway.

by sammy on Apr 9, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

$10 Million in salary for a prospect != well spent

1) The best international prospects sign for less than $10M
2) $10M lets you go $1M over slot on your first round pick for 10 years
3) $10M this last off-season got you a year of Randy Johnson as a starter plus prospects

In short, there were a large number of more effecient uses for $10M than 12 months of Washburn plus a couple fringe prospects.

by CMC_Stags on Apr 9, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm looking at it this way:

$5M for half a season of effective Washburn + one to one and a half impact prospects = good deal
$5M for half a season of crap Washburn last year = bad allocation of resources, but how would you allocate that five million in a more efficient fashion? What top international prospects this past offseason were you looking to sign that Wash’s contract prohibited us from signing? From my understanding, the M’s aversion to paying over slot has more to do with the org.‘s desire to stay on Bud Selig’s good side than the money (we’ll see if the Zdr regime changes that). And we weren’t signing Randy.

I’m not trying to be argumentative for it’s own sake; you may very well be right but I’m not convinced yet.

by sammy on Apr 9, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're looking at it cross-eyed then...

On the $5M this season (which will probably be $7M by the trade deadline)-
We don’t get impact prospects back for Washburn. Too many teams are going to get crushed in this economy and have to give away players for nothing to get out from under the salaries.

On the $5M last season (which would have been $3M to $4M depending on when he was traded)-
A million saved is a million saved. Remember when the M’s couldn’t get Abreau during the off-season because he cost too much? Remember when Orlando Cabrera cost too much?

And it was the past front office that would not go over slot. We don’t know about this one yet. And if they don’t go over slot, they still have a pretty nice international scouting department that can always use funds to sign prospects.

I don’t think you’re being argumentative, I just don’t think that your premise has a logical leg to stand on. There is no way Washburn’s between replacement level and average production and any prospects he may or may not be able to bring back in a trade would be equal to his salary. None. Thinking otherwise is just crazy.

by CMC_Stags on Apr 9, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Getting on the same page...

For my hypothetical to make sense, you have to buy that the hypothetical is a legitimate possibility.

The type of deal I’m thinking of is Wash for Brett Wallace straight up. No one thinks Wallace can stick defensively at 3rd and he’s blocked at first by Pujols. Would the Cards give Wallace up for Washburn’s ~3.70 ERA at the trade deadline if they desperately needed starting pitching and had a legitimate chance to take the division? I don’t know because I don’t know quite how stupid Mozeliak is. Is a trade like this a possibility? Considering our the stellar decision-making of our previous FO, my answer is yes.

The question, then, is if you think Brett Wallace (or similar prospect) and half a season of decent production from Washburn is worth $10m saved over the last year. I say unequivocally yes. I would pay $10M just to get a Brett Wallace into our system.

by sammy on Apr 9, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are wrong here on a lot of levels

1) Your “hypothetical” is not a legitimate possibility. It is a Baseball Mogul type trade.

2) Wallace can play defense. His range may never be great because of his size, but he has a strong throwing arm and is surprisingly nimble for his size. Scouts think that he can be adequate at the major league level and the Cardinals will be determined to try him if he continues to hit.

3) The Cardinals would never trade Brett Wallace for Jarrod fucking Washburn. Wallace is a top 30 prospect after ~200 at bats in the minors. He is one of the best pure hitting prospects in the game, and if he can approach average defensively at third, he projects to be a superstar.

Jarrod Washburn is a pitcher in his mid thirties, who has a long track record of mediocrity that one decent half season will not erase. Paul Byrd had basically the same circumstances last year, and the Red Sox got him for a bag of balls.

4) While I’m not sure how good of a GM Mozeliak will be, he has definitely shown an inward building mentality. The farm system has improved dramatically since he took over, and he has avoided the stupid trades and FA signings that would ruin that.

5) Washburn’s defense isn’t really a secret. I heard the guys on Baseball Tonight saying that Washburn may have a low ERA because of his outfield, and they might be able to flip him for a prospect. I’m pretty sure that to be a GM, you have to be at least as smart as John Kruk. So even if Washburn puts up a lower ERA, no one will see it as real improvement.

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on Apr 10, 2009 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have much more faith in GM's then anyone I know

Jim Bowden, Bill Bavasi, and GM’s of the Pat Gillick mold (the ones that build solid winners but leave the farm system in post-apocalyptic shape) are your enemies when it comes to trades like this. And there are plenty of those gentlemen around MLB.

Keep in mind I’m not suggesting Wallace for Washburn would ever happen…but to say flipping Wash for decent prospects is impossible because the GM’s are too damn smart…you’re just totally fooling yourself on that.

by cwel87 on Apr 10, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we couldn't trade Putz for a prospect of Wallace's caliber

then there’s no way it’s going to happen.

The best type of prospect you’re going to get for Washburn is someone like Gaby Hernandez.

by JI on Apr 10, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is probably right.

by sammy on Apr 10, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This was not at all my argument

I was simply saying that if one truly believes a GM position is invulnerable to poor baseball minds having access to such a seating, one is kidding themselves.

Bad trades happen. All the time. We know about this.

by cwel87 on Apr 10, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All I'm saying is I think it's reasonable to conclude that flipping a veteran garbage player for prospects is a long shot because the vast majority of GMs are much smarter than they used to be.

by JI on Apr 10, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree with that one bit

Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t being misread.

by cwel87 on Apr 10, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If it seems like I'm fixated on Wallace,

I’m not. The Wallace suggestion was me trying to think of the most lop-sided yet remotely plausible trade I could think of. I don’t honestly think we could get Wallace. But CMC_Stags seemed to be arguing that even if we landed Brett Wallace for Washburn at the deadline this year, we still would have been better off dumping Washburn’s contract off last year.

by sammy on Apr 10, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

Not trading Washburn when we had the chance was indefensible

by Matthew on Apr 10, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last time from me...

Is there no remotely plausible prospect/s that we could get in return that would mitigate the harm done by paying Washburn another $10m?

by sammy on Apr 10, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

by Matthew on Apr 10, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For Boof!

Who’s basically a younger, cheaper, slightly better Jarrod Washburn.

That trade nix was so far beyond the level of stupid I thought anyone in charge of a baseball franchise was capable of. Then again, I felt similarly about the Bedard trade, so I shouldn’t have let myself get so caught off guard by this length of stupid.

by cwel87 on Apr 10, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was never really on the table.

by acblue on Apr 10, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What was the offer? A few golf balls and a teacup? Because that's still a great trade

Boof was what I remember for some reason. But whoever it was, to wherever it was, the trigger needed to be pulled. And it wasn’t.

Therefore, the end result is still alarmingly stupid.

by cwel87 on Apr 10, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was basically a salary dump.

You’re right, passing it up is still dumb as hell but the Bonser thing was just a rumor.

by acblue on Apr 10, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's funny is how the Boof part is passing from legend to truth. Maybe.

My non-LL baseball fiends took to calling it the Boof non-trade (there was a joke that was forgotten, but the punchline will live forever), the other day a couple of them realized they were talking about the Boof part as if it were fact. Amusing moment, and funny how stories grow legs.

by Kermit. on Apr 10, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"I would pay $10M just to get a Brett Wallace into our system."

= Crazy

by CMC_Stags on Apr 9, 2009 5:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

reply fail...

by CMC_Stags on Apr 9, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

If Brett Wallace was a 23yo Japanese prospect that was being posted, you don’t think he’d be worth a $10m posting fee?

by sammy on Apr 9, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If...

Brett Wallace had spent several years beating up Japanese league pitching before getting posted, he would be in a different situation. He’s a 22-year-old with a nice bat who can’t play defense, who has yet to get meaningful at-bats above low-A ball. I’m not conceptually against considering high draft picks worth that much money, but I’m not sure Wallace is one of them.

$10 million for a high first rounder really isn’t that crazy, though. Top level talent routinely nets around $6 million at an extreme bargaining disadvantage. If teams could bid for amateurs on the free agent market, those signing bonuses would go way, way up. Wallace still probably wouldn’t be worth quite $10 million, but it would be a lot closer.

by slamcactus on Apr 13, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice shop.

I think it’s a little early to proclaim his ERA as that shiny, but if the defense continues to bail him out, we should use it.

by appleshampoo on Apr 9, 2009 5:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The legends say we will know him by his wings...

“”http://books.google.com/books?id=VdMFmq92Fa8C&client=safari" target="new">The ancient Sanskrit legends speak of a destined love, a karmic connection…The legends say that the loved one is instantly recognized…[through] every gesture, every movement, every sound, and every movement. The legends say that we know ~~her~~ him by ~~her~~ his wings…"

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Long live Death to Flying Things.

by Decatur on Apr 9, 2009 5:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs