tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post6309803478765974443..comments2024-01-06T02:22:33.000-05:00Comments on Camden Depot: Evaluating What Shelby Miller Would Cost the OriolesJon Shepherdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-35966196206330198982013-11-23T14:50:26.549-05:002013-11-23T14:50:26.549-05:00As a Cardinals fan, no way do we give up Shelby Mi...As a Cardinals fan, no way do we give up Shelby Miller for that package. Hardy plus prospects might get you Lynn, but Miller has too much potential for one year of Hardy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16969825186558063424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-45475141026356930332013-11-20T07:05:41.818-05:002013-11-20T07:05:41.818-05:00Just an FYI...I used WAR here simply to provide co...Just an FYI...I used WAR here simply to provide context of value. We really should use something like xFIP or FIP if we want to be predictive. Remember that WAR in either of the main forms has potential to misjudge talent.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-55509071198143599602013-11-19T20:05:53.786-05:002013-11-19T20:05:53.786-05:00"I'm saying it's unfair to compare hi..."I'm saying it's unfair to compare him to someone who didn't pitch 170 innings because their performance could be significantly different with more innings."<br /><br />I agree with this. <br /><br />"I guess I am not sure where the conversation is at."<br /><br />The reason why I made my comment is because I assumed when I looked at his stats that he was going to be a sure-fire TOR pitcher. <br /><br />And if we could erase his second half and just looked at his first half stats then I'd think of him as a definite TOR who it would be reasonable to project at 3 WAR a season. Not a #1 pitcher but a definite #2. Guys like Harvey, Fernandez, Strasburg, King Felix were all better their rookie season. <br /><br />Let me just put this in context for Anonymous. If Miller becomes 3 WAR pitcher for the next five years then he'd be better then every single Orioles starter since Mike Mussina with the possible exception of Bedard (and I'm going with Miller). He'd very arguably be in the top 5 Oriole starters since 1980 especially if he stuck around. I know our pitchers have sucked but... <br /><br />But when you add his first half and second half together then the picture gets more shady. Instead of looking like a surefire #2, it's closer to a #3. It's because his IP/S was terrible and he pitched a lot of innings. I don't believe you can just ignore his second half. <br /><br />I thought that was interesting. I was expecting him to look like a guy who would be worth 3.5 WAR a season. When it ended up being between 1.5 and 2 WAR I was surprised. <br /><br />He could end up doing better. Even if he doesn't very few prospects end up becoming 1.5 WAR a year pitchers. Just didn't seem to be as good as I would have thought. Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-35015521054551075602013-11-19T19:06:42.232-05:002013-11-19T19:06:42.232-05:00@Matt P. We agree, but in a different context. You...@Matt P. We agree, but in a different context. You are saying that Shelby Millers WAR is better because he pitched more innings. I'm saying it's unfair to compare him to someone who didn't pitch 170 innings because their performance could be significantly different with more innings. Miller had more strikeouts in his first 70+ innings then the final 90-100 innings. His era ballooned from sub 2 to above 3. He never threw more than 140 innings in the minors then you ask him to shoot for 180 in the majors? This is why we didn't see him in the playoffs. Is he hurt? Will he get hurt next year? Cardinals GM doesn't seem to think so otherwise he would be traded already. I just disagree with how you're evaluating Miller based on rookies over the last eight years. I could be wrong, but I watched him pitch in a tough division and I think he's going to be special regardless of what his rookie season stats looked like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-38586781595505257732013-11-19T15:31:26.363-05:002013-11-19T15:31:26.363-05:00I guess I am not sure where the conversation is at...I guess I am not sure where the conversation is at.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-2643366795015554172013-11-19T15:25:57.509-05:002013-11-19T15:25:57.509-05:00"My point was innings does matter. And that&#..."My point was innings does matter. And that's why comparing zimmermann to miller is way off."<br /><br />That was my point. Sounds like we agree. <br /><br />"Population issue means accounting for players not in MLB, which is difficult and at least should be noted as a weakness."<br /><br />When I say that he's 17th out of 22 that doesn't mean I think he sucks. Even if he was 22nd out of 22nd that still wouldn't mean I think he sucks. Even the bad pitchers are very good relative to the rest of the population (pitchers not in the MLB).<br /><br />The fact that he's even in the population is impressive and means he has an exremely high chance of pitching multiple years in the majors provided he doesn't suffer a serious injury. There's a reason why it's such a small population. <br /><br />His performance already is better then most pitching prospects even if he never pitched another inning. <br /><br />But most rookie pitchers end up being worth far less than either 1.5 or 2 WAR a season. And very few end up being worth more than 2WAR. <br /><br />The ones that do end up being worth more than 2 WAR are very special. Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-30243862729851617252013-11-19T14:18:39.830-05:002013-11-19T14:18:39.830-05:00If you wish to deal with the predictive issue...us...If you wish to deal with the predictive issue...use a predictive stat like xFIP, not fWAR.<br /><br />Population issue means accounting for players not in MLB, which is difficult and at least should be noted as a weakness.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-33241499177311008012013-11-19T14:09:59.867-05:002013-11-19T14:09:59.867-05:00Matt...the issue is that it is a potentially incom...Matt...the issue is that it is a potentially incomplete data set due to selection bias and that its predictive capacity is unfounded.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-48694826422420444192013-11-19T14:05:56.641-05:002013-11-19T14:05:56.641-05:00@ Matt P - I'm sorry Matt, my post was confusi...@ Matt P - I'm sorry Matt, my post was confusing. My point was innings does matter. And that's why comparing zimmermann to miller is way off. If the cardinals didn't sustain injuries to their starting pitching(carpenter, Garcia), Miller would have been around a 100 or so innings, but he was asked to step it up and forgo numbers for the greater good, which he did quite well (15 wins) So believe what you want but he is the real deal. He's not the next verlander but certainly a top of the rotation guyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-32246448686636006212013-11-19T13:52:22.107-05:002013-11-19T13:52:22.107-05:00I find it odd that innings would work against Mill...I find it odd that innings would work against Miller but not against other similar rookie pitchers. And why shouldn't his second half performance count? If it was arm fatigue after a mere 100 innings then that's a problem. If it was regression then that's a problem. <br /><br />I do agree that if I only saw his first half performance then I'd be more impressed. 2.5 WAR in 100 innings is impressive. 2.1 WAR in 180 innings is less so. Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-83205291893684486982013-11-19T13:13:12.159-05:002013-11-19T13:13:12.159-05:00His innings are inflating his WAR? I don't th...His innings are inflating his WAR? I don't think that is a valid conclusion based on the data. In fact, as mentioned, the innings worked against him. What about the others? Just not a silver bullet stat here.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-19201955809771764162013-11-19T13:11:20.230-05:002013-11-19T13:11:20.230-05:00It informs what he did, but does not necessarily m...It informs what he did, but does not necessarily mean that it informs us what he will do. That has not been established.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-28351589372606950332013-11-19T12:54:35.758-05:002013-11-19T12:54:35.758-05:00Here. Suppose I lower the innings limit to 100 and...Here. Suppose I lower the innings limit to 100 and keep everything else that same. <br /><br />If I do that, then Miller's performance is good for 26th out of 56. <br /><br />Suppose I compare him to all qualified rookie starters with everything else the same.<br /><br />If I do that, his performance is good for 31st out of 165. <br /><br />His innings are inflating his WAR. That's all. Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-8849978930467230402013-11-19T12:42:55.167-05:002013-11-19T12:42:55.167-05:00"I am still not sure why this population of 2..."I am still not sure why this population of 22 is so important. There is a major assumption here that I think has not been validated."<br /><br />It puts into context what Miller actually did. It's not like the 19 guys who did it before 2013 are all stars. Two of them were Matusz and Britton. Most of the ones who are stars were considerably better than Miller.Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-45214486263779935222013-11-19T12:31:03.498-05:002013-11-19T12:31:03.498-05:00"Further, with the current depth of the Cardi..."Further, with the current depth of the Cardinals minor league system, they are not in need of adding prospects like Schoop and Rodriguez."<br /><br />With the current depth of your major league system, you're not really in need of adding pretty much anything but a shortstop. <br /><br />Is there anything else your team would be interested in besides a star outfielder with years of control like Trout or Stanton? I don't think so but maybe you'll disagree. <br /><br />Sure, your minor league system is loaded also but it's sorta prospects or nothing. <br /><br />Sorry that the link came out poorly in the previous post. Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-52643642497945227922013-11-19T12:28:19.990-05:002013-11-19T12:28:19.990-05:00I am still not sure why this population of 22 is s...I am still not sure why this population of 22 is so important. There is a major assumption here that I think has not been validated.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-18899307405472886472013-11-19T12:22:52.240-05:002013-11-19T12:22:52.240-05:00Anonymous - So why is it that when one compares Mi...Anonymous - So why is it that when one compares Miller's performance to other rookie pitchers 23 or younger who threw 140 innings or more from 2005 to 2013 that his WAR was good for 17 of 22? It's almost as if the amount of innings thrown matters.<br /><br />The guys with similar performance to Miller (unless you look at ERA) didn't really turn into stars. Johnson is a star. Moore has promise. Olsen and Britton are busts. Porcello, Niese and Cueto are decent but not great. <br /><br />http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=140&type=c,4,5,8,13,-1,36,37,40,43,44,48,51,-1,6,45,62,-1,59,117,118&season=2013&month=0&season1=2005&ind=3&team=0&rost=0&age=14,23&filter=&players=0&sort=18,d<br /><br /><br />Matt Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-47495745830699411322013-11-19T11:51:43.365-05:002013-11-19T11:51:43.365-05:00@anonymous, to be clear I wasn't saying Hardy ...@anonymous, to be clear I wasn't saying Hardy for Lynn or Miller strait up, I was saying Hardy+Rodriguez+Schoop would be a fair deal. Miller's valuable but that's potentially a ton of value in return depending how the Cards value Schoop and Rodriguez.<br /><br />I don't think anybody's saying Miller can't be a 3.5 WAR pitcher or even better, but when projecting average value based of a rookie season there's so much uncertainty that you have to low ball it. You can't just trade based on upside, and every team knows that. Matt P's point shows that talent and upside are far from a guarantee of future performance, even with a strong rookie year. For every 2 WAR rookie who blossoms into the guy he looks like, there are far more who fall flat, regress or plateau. Liamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-27658200734427330202013-11-19T10:41:40.627-05:002013-11-19T10:41:40.627-05:00@ Matt P. You're way off. A rookie's war d...@ Matt P. You're way off. A rookie's war doesn't automatically go up if they pitch more innings. Zimmermann's war would have most likely been lower if he pitched 170 innings due to arm fatigue. Miller's war was at a 2.5 at the all-star break, around 100 innings pitched. It went down from there. And according to your innings pitched = higher war theory, Miller would have a higher war next year when he throws 200+ inningsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-32104808700397317812013-11-19T09:39:18.009-05:002013-11-19T09:39:18.009-05:00@liam - On paper Lynn may look as good or even bet...@liam - On paper Lynn may look as good or even better than Miller, but you have to look at more than numbers. Things such as composure, especially for a pitcher. Lynn can be lights out. But if someone makes an error or he gets into trouble, usually a crooked number is going up on the board. That's why I would give you Lynn over Miller. I've been waiting two years to see Miller in the bigs and he didn't disappoint. Now everyone expects us to trade him for little return. No way! I would love to have J.J. But I can wait a year and keep Miller/Lynn. Just about anybody could have a better year at the plate than the duo we had last year. Why wouldn't we just sign furcal to a one year deal, then sign J.J. next year. Yes you would get a first round pick, but how long will it take that pick to be MLB ready? So I agree with the article and would like to thank the poster for identifying the value of Miller.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-89333230650036367422013-11-19T05:24:35.540-05:002013-11-19T05:24:35.540-05:00@Liam - certainly when trading you need to find a ...@Liam - certainly when trading you need to find a trading partner who has the kind of resource that you need, in this case a SS for the Cardinals. However, it should be recognized that the Cardinals have other options than trading for Hardy. They could look for a trade with Texas, Arizona, or a few other teams, or they could simply go the FA route with Peralta, Drew, etc.<br /><br />With the options they have, I don't believe the Cardinals are in a position where they have to make any type of "negative value" trade that they are not comfortable with - and I don't believe they would ever be comfortable packaging Miller in a trade for Hardy. If the Cardinals are going to move Miller it would have to be to a team that projects him as a 3.5+ WAR mid-to-front of the rotation starter very soon, and one that would give the Cardinals suitable value in return.<br /><br />You just don't see very many 3-for-1 trades in baseball where the "1" isn't a veteran making a near full market value contract. If Miller is the best player in a deal that the Cardinals make, it will be because someone approached them and bowled them over with an offer for him.<br /><br />Honestly for Hardy (signed for only one more year and not the most consistent in terms of offense over his career) I see the Cardinals offering maxing out at Joe Kelly + a "B" level prospect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-1589335515195266502013-11-19T02:39:31.996-05:002013-11-19T02:39:31.996-05:00@anonymous Would Lynn be worth much less than Mill...@anonymous Would Lynn be worth much less than Miller? One less year of team control but similar peripherals (Lynn might actually have the edge) and Lynn's got two solid years under his belt. Not totally sure who I'd rather have, to be honest. Also, the point of a trade isn't just finding someone who values your guys more than you do, its finding someone who has surplus in an area you don't, kind of like international economic trade. <br /><br />Back to the point of the article, great analysis, and I agree the deal is pretty darn fair. We'd have to fill some holes in the middle infield but Cano's a free agent, so there's one down, right?Liamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-19095271737463572952013-11-18T22:33:58.154-05:002013-11-18T22:33:58.154-05:00O's fans are right. Miller to big of a risk. C...O's fans are right. Miller to big of a risk. Cardinals should trade L. Lynn for J.J. Lynn is not a rookie, no injury history, pitched more than 200 innings last year, and won 18 games in '12and 15 last year. I would gladly give you him over Miller. Miller would be our best young pitcher, out of a heap of 'em, if it wasn't for Wacha. Or you know what, we'll take Machado since you guys are worried about injuries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-41708929524797566172013-11-18T19:48:00.197-05:002013-11-18T19:48:00.197-05:00A solid analysis.
However, speaking as a Cardinal...A solid analysis.<br /><br />However, speaking as a Cardinals' fan, if the Orioles only value Miller as "a 2 WAR pitcher" there is no reason for the Cardinals to even discuss trading him. One of the principle goals of any trade like this should be to find a trading partner who values your prospects more highly than you do and is willing to give you proportionally more in return. The Cardinals clearly value Miller more highly than "a 2 WAR pitcher" and it makes little sense to trade a player/prospect like Miller to a team that values him less than you do. <br /><br />Further, with the current depth of the Cardinals minor league system, they are not in need of adding prospects like Schoop and Rodriguez. If the Cardinals were interested in trading for Hardy, they'd simply look to assemble a package of prospects that didn't include Miller for Hardy alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-77070025826885163812013-11-18T14:15:47.571-05:002013-11-18T14:15:47.571-05:00For sure it's a small population. After all, K...For sure it's a small population. After all, Kevin Gausman was 22 last year and didn't pitch 170 innings because he wasn't good enough. It's impressive to be good enough to get to throw 170innings. <br /><br />As for those 22 pitchers (140 innings or more in their rookie year defined by the Fangraphs rookie filter from 2005 to 2013), 3 of their rookie years were in 2013. <br /><br />For the 19 remaining pitchers, their mean Rookie WAR was 2.53. So far, their average career WAR (not counting that rookie year) has been 1.94. 12 of the 19 regressed. <br /><br />The six rookie pitchers that put up a WAR between 1.7 and 2.5 were Porcello, Niese, Britton, Scott Olsen, Josh Johnson, and Matt Moore. So far, they've had an average WAR of 1.7. <br /><br />19 data points is far from conclusive. But it does seem to indicate that 22 year old rookie who pitched a lot of innings and had a good year are merely due for some regression rather than being studs. Matt Pnoreply@blogger.com