• The KillerFrogs

FWST: Miller gets start vs. SFA

H

Houston Frog

New Member
Someone on another site wrote a pretty compelling case for moving Miller to a starter role just a couple weeks ago. Miller is lights-out on multiple days rest, but gets lit up whenever he has to pitch on back to back days.... not exactly ideal for the closer role.

We all know Miller has great stuff, maybe this will suit his talents better and he can flourish as our 4th starter.

Both Mitchell and Crichton have the stuff to be closer, so if this works out, it could really bolster our bullpen.
 
cdsfrog

cdsfrog

Active Member
Leap Frog said:
Gee, I wish I had said that!
Click to expand...


forgive me for not being excited about a bullpen pitcher with an era above 5 replacing a starter with an era near zero.

Good points have been made with multiple days rest and stats back it up. Hope it works, good luck miller secure that 4th spot.
 
jake102

jake102

Active Member
Mitchell is our second best pitcher right now.... and he has the ability to pitch 7-8 innings. Why make him a closer and potentially sacrifice every midweek game?
 
cdsfrog

cdsfrog

Active Member
Jake102 said:
Mitchell is our second best pitcher right now.... and he has the ability to pitch 7-8 innings. Why make him a closer and potentially sacrifice every midweek game?
Click to expand...

shhh. logical negative arguments are not allowed here. Obviously an era of .64 is worse than 5.00+
 
satis1103

satis1103

DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
Jake102 said:
Mitchell is our second best pitcher right now.... and he has the ability to pitch 7-8 innings. Why make him a closer and potentially sacrifice every midweek game?
Click to expand...
I'll play devil's advocate and say that the bullpen and closer in particular has been a major issue recently. So on the flipside of your question - why allow the bullpen to continue as-is and cost us weekend games? Sure, theoretically those are against somewhat weak conference opponents, but those are the kind of losses that can get us kicked into a second seed in someone else's regional.

It may not work but it's a stab at something before it gets too deep into the year. If it fails, back to the drawing board.
 
H

Houston Frog

New Member
cdsfrog said:
shhh. logical negative arguments are not allowed here. Obviously an era of .64 is worse than 5.00+
Click to expand...

Who said logical negative arguments aren't allowed?

It's just when you make comments like ^^that^^ and back it up with stats like the ones you just posted, that people will respond. We all know that Mitchell has a better ERA than Miller, that's likely the main reason for the shake-up of their roles. So when you imply that we don't know that and make a smart-arse comment about how stupid the move is because of it, that's when people have an issue with your "logical negative argument". It's pretty clear that the main issue for this team right now is our bullpen, and finding a shutdown closer is a big part of that. Our starters are pitching great for the most part, but then our bullpen lets the other team back in the game and we are losing a bunch of 1-run ballgames because of it. If Miller can be an effective midweek starter, and Mitchell/Crichton can anchor our bullpen, it's a win/win for this team. IMO, it's worth a shot (and if it doesn't work out, just move everyone back)

You're only looking at part of the story, and then you're implying that this is a stupid idea. Who knows if it will work, but if it does, we are in a much better position than we are currently. If it doesn't, big deal, we just change things back to where we are currently. It's not like this is some huge roll of the dice, and we're stuck with it for the rest of the year, no matter how it works out.

FWIW, here is an excerpt of the article I was referencing (from March 3rd, so stats are outdated, and admittedly drawing from a small sample size).....

Miller
Appearances: 5
Pitches Per Hitter: 3.40
Percent of Pitches for Strikes: 69.1%

Mitchell
Appearances: 3
Pitches Per Hitter: 3.92
Percent of Pitches for Strikes: 60.1%

Looking at these statistics, it would make more sense to put Miller in a longer role because he economizes his pitchers better. But there is another statistic pertaining to Miller that should not go overlooked.

Miller On Rest
Appearances: 3
Strikeouts and Walks: 7 Strikeouts, 0 Walks
ERA: 1.93
Batting Average Against: .188
Percent of Pitches for Strikes: 75.0%

Miller Pitching Back-to-Back Nights
Appearances: 2
Strikeouts and Walks: 3 Strikeouts, 3 Walks
ERA: 13.50
Batting Average Against: .333
Percent of Pitches for Strikes: 64.5%

Pitching on zero days rest, often times against the same team, Miller was much worse than when he was pitching with some rest. I remember seeing a similar analysis during spring training last year where the topic of discussion was C.J. Wilson of the Texas Rangers. What they discovered is on 2 or more days rest, he was unhittable. On 1 day of rest, he tended to pitch to his averages. But pitching on back-to-back days, his ERA was double digits. A few weeks after that analysis, Wilson was moved into the rotation and had one of the best years of his career.

Am I certain that Miller will thrive pitching in a starting role? Not totally. But I am not so sure that Miller is a guy that you can give the ball to every night and ask to hold a lead. We set the benchmark for midweek starter with Paul Gerrish last year – get 5 or 6 innings and allow 3 runs or less. I truly believe Miller is capable of that. In addition, by pitching him on Tuesday, he could still face a batter or 2 on the weekend when Coach Schlossnagle needs a strikeout. As a percentage of outs, Miller is far and away the most effective at getting a strikeout as he has averaged at least 1 strikeout per inning over his career (38.5% of his outs have come via strikeout in 2011).

As for the bullpen, I think Mitchell could do it. Stefan Crichton may also be a viable candidate. But the point of this exercise is we may want to reexamine the way we view Erik Miller on this team.
Click to expand...
 
cdsfrog

cdsfrog

Active Member
Houston Frog said:
Who said logical negative arguments aren't allowed?

It's just when you make comments like ^^that^^ and back it up with stats like the ones you just posted, that people will respond. We all know that Mitchell has a better ERA than Miller, that's likely the main reason for the shake-up of their roles. So when you imply that we don't know that and make a smart-arse comment about how stupid the move is because of it, that's when people have an issue with your "logical negative argument". It's pretty clear that the main issue for this team right now is our bullpen, and finding a shutdown closer is a big part of that. Our starters are pitching great for the most part, but then our bullpen lets the other team back in the game and we are losing a bunch of 1-run ballgames because of it. If Miller can be an effective midweek starter, and Mitchell/Crichton can anchor our bullpen, it's a win/win for this team. IMO, it's worth a shot (and if it doesn't work out, just move everyone back)

You're only looking at part of the story, and then you're implying that this is a stupid idea. Who knows if it will work, but if it does, we are in a much better position than we are currently. If it doesn't, big deal, we just change things back to where we are currently. It's not like this is some huge roll of the dice, and we're stuck with it for the rest of the year, no matter how it works out.

FWIW, here is an excerpt of the article I was referencing (from March 3rd, so stats are outdated, and admittedly drawing from a small sample size).....
Click to expand...

nice little addendum. the stats are WAY off. His era is 5.14 big difference. My point was to agree with jake that taking away the 2nd best performing starting pitcher and putting him in a spot to pitch 1 inning every now and then seems like a waste. There are other pitchers that could fill that void and miller in middle relief makes more sense. I sure as heck hope it works and no comments like you made prove that people like you put others down for making negative comments. You are one of the worst, and I love how you comment about me looking at one side of it, thats all you ever do. Our bullpen isnt our main issue, it was basically 1 pitcher, the other 2 have a whopping 5 appearances combined. Sorry if you think I am overreacting but you are by the far the one that responds the worst, save frognisticator. I am not disagreeing with changing up the bullpen I asked for forever ago and got reamed by you already. Now when it's obvious a change has to be made, I think taking your best performing pitcher statistically (2nd best probably overall as of now) and putting him in a place to pitch 1/3rd as much is a big gamble. Sure as hell hope it pays off, but I got a negative comment after reacting to it so that's where the smart comment came. Then your attacking statements
 
swimmerbabe11

swimmerbabe11

Active Member
(from March 3rd, so stats are outdated, and admittedly drawing from a small sample size)
Click to expand...
I certainly don't think that this is the end of the world as some have implied. This isn't a bad tues (wed now) to try this out.
 

Latest posts

Top