I Know We Shouldn't Count on Wade Miller, But...

[RammyFanny]

Is anyone else really excited about this guy for next year? I remember watching him in his starts he made last year and noticing he had a pretty wicked breaking ball that fooled hitters. If he can get his velocity on his fastball up (say 91-93ish), I think the sky is the limit for him. If he is healthy next year, what would you guess his line would be? I honestly think he could really surprise us and put up a mid 3 ERA, which could be huge for this rotation.

[Outshined_One]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

[A New Era]

I don't know if I'd go that far. But I've always thought he might be a nice suprise to most cubs fans. He was pitching pretty impressivly for several consecutive starts last year, and if he regains a few MPH he will be a very above average pitcher next year.

[CubinNY]

 

This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

 

That has the makings of a pretty bad rotation, especeially that question mark guy. My hope is that Guzman breaks out and Prior is healthy.

 

Miller is a shell of his former self and even if healthy will not be the same pitcher he was in Houston.

[BigbadB]

I remember when Wade Miller and Kerry Wood were 2 of the most feared pitchers in the league. 2 of the absolute best young pitchers climbing through the ranks. They reminded me a lot of each other. Big Texas guys that could really bring it. High K rates.

 

If each of the Cub starting pitchers were as good as they have been in past years, 1) this rotation would be unaffordable and 2) they would challenge the best rotation of any team, ever.

 

Zambrano, Prior, Wood, Miller, Lilly/Marquis/Hill etc...

 

But, they can still be a good rotation, but there are a lot of ifs that need to be answered.

[Twiggy]

I'm very excited for this season. I keep updating my wife how many days until spring training starts. I think she is already getting annoyed haha.

[mg420]

I remember when Wade Miller and Kerry Wood were 2 of the most feared pitchers in the league. 2 of the absolute best young pitchers climbing through the ranks. They reminded me a lot of each other. Big Texas guys that could really bring it. High K rates.

 

If each of the Cub starting pitchers were as good as they have been in past years, 1) this rotation would be unaffordable and 2) they would challenge the best rotation of any team, ever.

 

Zambrano, Prior, Wood, Miller, Lilly/Marquis/Hill etc...

 

But, they can still be a good rotation, but there are a lot of ifs that need to be answered.[/quote]

 

most if not all the other teams in the national leauge are in the same boat. the big issue is once again health. if the starting staff can stay healthy they have a very good shot at contending.

[nilodnayr]

 

This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

 

That has the makings of a pretty bad rotation, especeially that question mark guy. My hope is that Guzman breaks out and Prior is healthy.

 

Miller is a shell of his former self and even if healthy will not be the same pitcher he was in Houston.

 

Miller definitely is a shell of his former self, but that doesnt mean he cannot be an effective pitcher. Other pitchers have learned to become effective without an overpowering fastball. Unfortunately for Miller he is having to do it because of injury and not age. But he did show at times last year that he still can be an above average starter. He doesnt need to be the same pitcher he was in Houston to put up a 120 OPS+.

[mg420]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

 

you can also look at it as a potential 20 game winner and 3 potential 15 game winners.

[Backtobanks]

 

This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

 

That has the makings of a pretty bad rotation, especeially that question mark guy. My hope is that Guzman breaks out and Prior is healthy.

 

Miller is a shell of his former self and even if healthy will not be the same pitcher he was in Houston.

 

I disagree with the comment about the makings of a pretty bad rotation. If Prior is healthy, this becomes an extremely good rotation. If Guzman breaks out and/or Miller is healthy, this is a good rotation. Don't forget that you still have Marshall et al to back up or take over for someone in the rotation. Of course there are question marks, but show me any team that doesn't have question marks, especially at this time of the year.

[CubinNY]

 

This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

 

That has the makings of a pretty bad rotation, especeially that question mark guy. My hope is that Guzman breaks out and Prior is healthy.

 

Miller is a shell of his former self and even if healthy will not be the same pitcher he was in Houston.

 

I disagree with the comment about the makings of a pretty bad rotation. If Prior is healthy, this becomes an extremely good rotation. If Guzman breaks out and/or Miller is healthy, this is a good rotation. Don't forget that you still have Marshall et al to back up or take over for someone in the rotation. Of course there are question marks, but show me any team that doesn't have question marks, especially at this time of the year.

 

I know this is a time of optimism, but Marquis has been mediocre at best. I've like Hill for quite awhile and I'm a big supporter, but the jury is still out. Lilly has been helped by playing in bigger ball parks, so I think he is due to give up some HRs and if he doesn't keep his walks down he could be down right bad. Same with Hill.

 

If Prior is healthy and Guzman pitches to his "stuff" that changes things a lot. However, a rotation of Z, Hill, Lilly, Marquis and a question mark does not inspire a lot of confidence.

 

I am really not counting on anything from Miller, we shall see.

[KingCubsFan]

 

This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

 

That has the makings of a pretty bad rotation, especeially that question mark guy. My hope is that Guzman breaks out and Prior is healthy.

 

Miller is a shell of his former self and even if healthy will not be the same pitcher he was in Houston.

 

I disagree with the comment about the makings of a pretty bad rotation. If Prior is healthy, this becomes an extremely good rotation. If Guzman breaks out and/or Miller is healthy, this is a good rotation. Don't forget that you still have Marshall et al to back up or take over for someone in the rotation. Of course there are question marks, but show me any team that doesn't have question marks, especially at this time of the year.

Similar comments have been made the last 3 or 4 off-seasons. At this point, having Rich Hill meet Bill James' expectations seems to be the best chance of having a good rotation.

[nilodnayr]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

 

you can also look at it as a potential 20 game winner and 3 potential 15 game winners.

 

Aaron Small won 10 games for the Yanks...who cares?

Edited January 13, 2007 by nilodnayr

[mg420]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

 

you can also look at it as a potential 20 game winner and 3 potential 15 game winners.

 

Aaron Small won 20 games for the Yanks...who cares?

 

in case you didnt realize it, in baseball wins are a good thing.

[CubinNY]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

 

you can also look at it as a potential 20 game winner and 3 potential 15 game winners.

 

Aaron Small won 20 games for the Yanks...who cares?

 

in case you didnt realize it, in baseball wins are a good thing.

 

And the starting pitcher does it all by himself?

[mg420]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

 

you can also look at it as a potential 20 game winner and 3 potential 15 game winners.

 

Aaron Small won 20 games for the Yanks...who cares?

 

in case you didnt realize it, in baseball wins are a good thing.

 

And the starting pitcher does it all by himself?

 

of course not but the ability to give 5-7+ quality innings and keep your team in the game translates to wins.

[nilodnayr]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

 

you can also look at it as a potential 20 game winner and 3 potential 15 game winners.

 

Aaron Small won 20 games for the Yanks...who cares?

 

in case you didnt realize it, in baseball wins are a good thing.

 

And the starting pitcher does it all by himself?

 

of course not but the ability to give 5-7+ quality innings and keep your team in the game translates to wins.

 

But they can still lose those games...ask Roger Clemens. You should have just said "you can also look at it as potentially one guy who can consistantly pitch excellently and 3 guys who can give you 5-7+ quality innings and keep your team in the game". If you talk about wins in a discussion about pitching you are going to get jumped all over.

[mg420]

If we're assuming health, I think he'll put up an ERA+ somewhere between 120 and 125 with a WHIP around 1.30. He's got the goods to be an effective pitcher when healthy. Having him around for 180 IP next season would be a HUGE boost.

 

However, I'd be leery of making that assumption. This is the rotation as things look now:

 

Z

Hill

Lilly

Marquis

?

 

Granted, Miller could beat out all of the other candidates in spring training, but I have a feeling that guys like Marshall and Guzman are going to put up a fight. Moreover, if by some miracle, Prior's ready to go at some point next season, he's going to have to boot someone out of there. This depends on Hill's own performance, as he still can be sent down without being exposed to waivers, but if he's pitching up to expectations, he's going nowhere. Someone could get injured and make this moot, but I'd rather not go that particular route.

 

Plus, there's the fact that Miller hasn't gone over 100 IP since 2003. His four highest IPs in his career are 212, 187.1, 164.2, and 105. If he's healthy, great! But, we'll see if that happens.

 

you can also look at it as a potential 20 game winner and 3 potential 15 game winners.

 

Aaron Small won 20 games for the Yanks...who cares?

 

in case you didnt realize it, in baseball wins are a good thing.

 

And the starting pitcher does it all by himself?

 

of course not but the ability to give 5-7+ quality innings and keep your team in the game translates to wins.

 

But they can still lose those games...ask Roger Clemens. You should have just said "you can also look at it as potentially one guy who can consistantly pitch excellently and 3 guys who can give you 5-7+ quality innings and keep your team in the game". If you talk about wins in a discussion about pitching you are going to get jumped all over.

 

 

it's funny how most if not all of the people who actually get paid to run baseball teams put value in the # of wins by a pitcher-similar to batting average for a hitter.

this is an interesting quote from a similar discussion in another forum that i happen to agree with-

"We've been through this approximately 100,000 times now, but this all comes down to the same thing all our arguments come down to: you grossly overstate the importance of isolated sabermetric or modern or advanced or whatever statistics, while simultaneously overstating the unimportance of traditional stats. The stats you love to rely on -- ERA+, park factor, HR/9, VORP, or whatever it is this week -- are probably better at quantifying a player's ability. But neither statistics nor ability are worth anything in a vacuum.

 

Yes, wins are a team stat. Baseball is a team sport. The only value a player has is value to a team. And wins are excellent at quantifying a pitcher's value to a team. "

[XZero771679666304]

You can use wins to evaluate a pitcher. But if you place the wins ahead of stats like WHIP, ERA+, etc., you are a fool.

 

Wins can reflect a pitcher's ability, but they can also be incredibly deceiving. Ask 2005 Clemens, 2004 Johnson or 2003 Wood. Or Pettitte with NYY, who was average at best and won 20+ games. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get 20 wins, or a great pitcher and get 12 wins. Wins are an unreliable means of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.

 

There is no such thing as "knowing how to win". You do the best you can and hope your offense scores some runs.

[A New Era]

However there might be such pitchers that "keep you in the game". Will Marquis do that? I don't know. I do not look at advanced stats like ERA+ because frankly I never took the time to understand them. What I do look at is ERA. Which is simple for me to understand.

 

An interesting note. When I look at Marquis history, when he pitches close to a ful season. The first couple of years he did that in Atlanta he had good years, then a down year, first couple for St. Louis had good years, then a bad year. Is it crazy to think when he first "takes" to a pitching coach he does well, but then he goes into his old habbits? Maybe it's possible he "took" to Larry and will pitch a couple of good years. I know this is a different take on it, but I like to look at psychology in baseball sometimes.

 

By the way, I'm sorry I went off topic. But I think this is relevant to the recent discussions. .

[mg420]

You can use wins to evaluate a pitcher. But if you place the wins ahead of stats like WHIP, ERA+, etc., you are a fool.

 

Wins can reflect a pitcher's ability, but they can also be incredibly deceiving. Ask 2005 Clemens, 2004 Johnson or 2003 Wood. Or Pettitte with NYY, who was average at best and won 20+ games. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get 20 wins, or a great pitcher and get 12 wins. Wins are an unreliable means of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.

 

There is no such thing as "knowing how to win". You do the best you can and hope your offense scores some runs.

 

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do.

[nilodnayr]

 

it's funny how most if not all of the people who actually get paid to run baseball teams put value in the # of wins by a pitcher-similar to batting average for a hitter.

 

And why does that make it right? Is there no value in questioning the commonly perceived notion? The Church said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, does that mean they are right? Its funny that the the President is a bithering idiot, but hey, we re-elected him, so everything he says and thinks must be right (and Im a Republican).

 

Do you blindly agree with everything your boss or manager or CEO says? Well they are getting paid to run the company, so how could they be wrong?

[nilodnayr]

You can use wins to evaluate a pitcher. But if you place the wins ahead of stats like WHIP, ERA+, etc., you are a fool.

 

Wins can reflect a pitcher's ability, but they can also be incredibly deceiving. Ask 2005 Clemens, 2004 Johnson or 2003 Wood. Or Pettitte with NYY, who was average at best and won 20+ games. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get 20 wins, or a great pitcher and get 12 wins. Wins are an unreliable means of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.

 

There is no such thing as "knowing how to win". You do the best you can and hope your offense scores some runs.

 

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do.

 

If you are using an outcome to measure the value of an individual player and as a predictor for future outcomes then you must ascertain how much influence that individual player has on the outcome. Pitchers have a significant influence over the outcome of a win, but so does their offense , their defense, and luck. If you look at ERA, you get a better idea of a pitchers value by eliminating their offense. If you look at DIPS, you get a better idead by eliminating their defense. If you look at component ERA, you get a better idea by eliminating some luck. If you look at ERA+ you get a better idea by eliminating park factors and comparing to the league. Obviously the game is not played in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean you have to value individual players using team statistics. Wins are a poor statistic in quanifying a pitchers value to a team because it is an outcome that a pitcher has a minority of influence upon. I dont understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

Steve Stone was really good at knowing what pitches would be thrown in what situations, but other than that from all the comments he has made post-Cubs, he has shown that he is not the baseball genius we all thought he was.

[mg420]

 

it's funny how most if not all of the people who actually get paid to run baseball teams put value in the # of wins by a pitcher-similar to batting average for a hitter.

 

And why does that make it right? Is there no value in questioning the commonly perceived notion? The Church said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, does that mean they are right? Its funny that the the President is a bithering idiot, but hey, we re-elected him, so everything he says and thinks must be right (and Im a Republican).

 

Do you blindly agree with everything your boss or manager or CEO says? Well they are getting paid to run the company, so how could they be wrong?

the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe can be disproven while the value of wins by a pitcher is based on pure opinion. i just happen to value the opinion of people who have actually participated in major leauge baseball above people that will never participate other than being spectators. who knows more about flying a plane-a seasoned pilot or a guy who messes around with a flight simulator on his pc? questioning the value of a commonly perceived notion and saying that someone is a fool if they disagree with you are two totally different things.

Edited January 13, 2007 by mg420

[mg420]

You can use wins to evaluate a pitcher. But if you place the wins ahead of stats like WHIP, ERA+, etc., you are a fool.

 

Wins can reflect a pitcher's ability, but they can also be incredibly deceiving. Ask 2005 Clemens, 2004 Johnson or 2003 Wood. Or Pettitte with NYY, who was average at best and won 20+ games. You can be a mediocre pitcher and get 20 wins, or a great pitcher and get 12 wins. Wins are an unreliable means of measuring a pitcher's effectiveness.

 

There is no such thing as "knowing how to win". You do the best you can and hope your offense scores some runs.

 

the argument on the other side was that wins are of no value in determining the effectiveness of a pitcher and shouldnt be considered. as far as your "knowing how to win" theory, i have heard many prominent baseball men disagree with your statement including steve stone. i'm sure that mathematically you can run circles around him but my guess is that he might know a tad bit more about pitching in real life than you do.

 

If you are using an outcome to measure the value of an individual player and as a predictor for future outcomes then you must ascertain how much influence that individual player has on the outcome. Pitchers have a significant influence over the outcome of a win, but so does their offense , their defense, and luck. If you look at ERA, you get a better idea of a pitchers value by eliminating their offense. If you look at DIPS, you get a better idead by eliminating their defense. If you look at component ERA, you get a better idea by eliminating some luck. If you look at ERA+ you get a better idea by eliminating park factors and comparing to the league. Obviously the game is not played in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean you have to value individual players using team statistics. Wins are a poor statistic in quanifying a pitchers value to a team because it is an outcome that a pitcher has a minority of influence upon. I dont understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

Steve Stone was really good at knowing what pitches would be thrown in what situations, but other than that from all the comments he has made post-Cubs, he has shown that he is not the baseball genius we all thought he was.

 

that's your opinion but i think it safe to say that he knows quite a bit more about pitching and pitchers by far than anyone on this board.

Edited January 13, 2007 by mg420