Some players defy the advanced graphics:

BABIP for various Angels and Ms pitchers since 2001

In 2000, Jamie Moyer, at age 38, (5 years OLDER than Washburn), had a miserable season by every metric available. By every statistical yardstick in existence, he was done, done, done, done, done. His control vanished for that entire season, and he got pounded.

Since then, he's added 8 additional seasons. He's posted sub-4 ERAs in 4 of those 8 seasons. He's also posted ERAs over 5 in two of those seasons. The thing is, from '93 - '99, he NEVER broke the .300 BABIP barrier. He beat it with the Orioles, Boston and Seattle. In 2000, his BABIP spikes to .310, (at age 38). But, he wasn't finished. He responded with .257; .252; .274; .280 BABIPs the next 4 seasons, before having another down year, (.304). Since then, it's been .286; .309; .293 -- another 2 of 3 BEATING the BABIP odds.

It is my contention that Washburn has a *SKILL*, (like Moyer), that is not captured by most metrics, because it is a skill that is outside the standard parameters for most pitchers. That skill allows pitchers like Washburn (and Moyer) to "consistently" defy the accepted laws of probability in regards to BABIP.

Additionally, this skill is SPECIFICALLY one manifested almost exclusively in "lesser" pitchers, who have always lacked the "stuff" to get by relying on said "stuff". I think everyone would look at Lackey's peripherals and conclude he is a far better pitcher than Washburn. Better K-rate, similar walk rate, superior HR-rate. Everything about the two identifies Lackey as the better pitcher. So, why has Lackey NEVER had a BABIP under .300, and Washburn just had his first ever BABIP *OVER* .300? And before you start talking about defense, Washburn has been consistently UNDER his team's DER -- while Lackey has been consistently over it -- (*UNTIL* this season). Is it just random - or has Lackey actually learned something about pitching? Or maybe it's both.

Washburn's 2008 walk/9 and HR/9 just happen to be IDENTICAL to his career averages. His K/9 is a hair lower, (5.01 in 2008 compared to 5.34 for his career -- though the 5.01 is higher than in either 2005 or 2006). The only significant change for Washburn is wrapped up entirely in hits allowed. Is his LD% up this year? Yes. 22.9% compared to career 20.2%. But his INFIELD hit % is at 8.1%, up from his career 5.8%.

Having just turned 34, is it possible that age has set in and Washburn is washed up? Sure. It's possible. And nobody should be placing bets on ANYBODY based on what Jamie Moyer has been doing - he's a data point of one. But, the real point here is not about Washburn specifically, but about the problem of applying advanced metrics to EVERY player, when there are known exceptions. Washburn and Moyer are two examples of guys who have CONSISTENTLY beaten their DIPs ERAs. They've consistently had better defensive play behind them than their counterparts on the same team. In short, they don't fit with the accepted models of how pitching works. They may actually be the data that shows the planets don't move in circles, but in an ellipse.

When we went from an Earth-centered universe to a sun-centered, it was hard to accept. When the data for circular orbits didn't quite add up, eventually we figured out the reality of elliptical orbits. The thing is, the circular orbit model was "good enough" to account for "almost" everything.

My own view is that we must be extra careful not to simply wave off every tidbit of data that doesn't meet our current model. Yes, there is random fluctuation. Yes, there are outliers. But, it is not a good idea to EITHER jump whole hog onto the newest, latest, greatest fad stat-du-jour, nor to blithely dismiss them. Ultimately, it takes time and effort to assimilate new theories into pre-existing knowledge bases. But, we operate in a world that is desperate for immediate gratification and 100% clarity. We live in a world, however, where the best and most valuable things require time and effort, and where answers are more often in grays with subtle nuances, and not in one that was painted with simple black and white brushes.

Since his arrival in Seattle, Washburn has been largely loathed. I suspect that most of this is not because of what he did, (pitch like a league average pitcher with a horrible defense), but because of who he was not. He was not a juicy big-name, rotation savior. He was not a guy that fits the sabrmetric norms. And I suspect that when he leaves Seattle, he may well go on to throw for another 5 years, continuing to post 100ish ERA+ figures that defy standard explanations. In the end, I suspect his 3 (or maybe 4) years with Seattle will be more productive than Batistas 3 (or 2). But Washburn will always be viewed as a horrible mistake, an idiotic decision, while Batista will be shrugged away as an good choice that just didn't work out as well as hoped. These perceptions will linger, because of the pre-conceptions about both pitchers overwhelm the actual data compiled. Releasing a previously held belief is heretical. Changing ones point of view seems for most humans to be similar to being burned at the stake.