Shelby Miller

[gocgo]

TR????.  Antony???? Is that you?

[d-mac]

 

I'm not cherry picking stats.
 I just found it odd that you didn't mention what was an effective 2013 season for Miller.

 

The fact is, even with FIP etc it's Miller that has had two seasons with better than average FIP, Gibson has had zero (but 3 seasons with literally exactly average FIP)

 

Thus the upside is better.

(and keep in mind, Miller is ONLY 25, Gibson didn't even pitch in the majors until he was 25)

 

chart(1).png

 

You were complaining about me cherry picking stats by not including Miller's 2013. Your solution was to discount his 2016 season, which, because of recency, is much more valuable information than his 2013. If I limit the comparison to just 2014 and 2015, Gibson still has the better xFIP and SIERA in both of those seasons. If I include their entire careers, Gibson beats him in xFIP by .09 and Miller beats Gibson in SIERA by .03. We are really splitting hairs. 

 

Btw, Gibson also has the better career swinging strike rate- 9.2% to 8.4%.

[d-mac]

 

Comparing Miller to Pelfrey, Correia, Worley, Marquis and Hernandez is completely irrelevant in this case, we knew all of those pitchers were hot garbage the minute the Twins got them (Worley was a bit of a wild card)

Nolasco appeared to be decent, but we know how that worked out, I personally put Nolasco's struggles on him and him alone.

Pretty sure none of those guys had two full seasons with below a 3.07 ERA as well.

 

All of them were NL pitchers. If we want to be objective, we need to compare apples to apples. 

[nicksaviking]

 

First off: Gibson is 28, not 27. They are both born in October, so they are pretty much exactly 3 years difference age wise.

Additionally, Miller has had two full seasons so far with under a 3.07 ERA, that is better than mid rotation, that is a solid #2 for any team (if he can duplicate that moving forward that is, which is the big question)

 

Even if Gibson is older, he's controllable longer. It seems to me if someone was trying to think off of the top of their head who on the Twins team most closely resembles Shelby Miller, the answer would clearly Kyle Gibson, which I would then think would probably be an odd trade match up.

 

I'm not high on Gibson, but I'm not giving up anything of value for a guy who has always had fringy to poor strikeout numbers in the NL. If someone were to ask, "What would Shelby Miller look like if he'd played his career in the AL?" I think a lot of people would throw out Kyle Gibson with one having a cutter and the other a sinker.

[Vanimal46]

 

All of them were NL pitchers. If we want to be objective, we need to compare apples to apples. 

All of those pitchers you mention IMO aren't even close to the talent and potential that Miller has though.... 

[DaveW]

 

You were complaining about me cherry picking stats by not including Miller's 2013. Your solution was to discount his 2016 season, which, because of recency, is much more valuable information than his 2013. If I limit the comparison to just 2014 and 2015, Gibson still has the better xFIP and SIERA in both of those seasons. If I include their entire careers, Gibson beats him in xFIP by .09 and Miller beats Gibson in SIERA by .03. We are really splitting hairs. 

 

Btw, Gibson also has the better career swinging strike rate- 9.2% to 8.4%.

I never said to discount his 2016, I said all along it has been a poor year. I said if you are going to take away Gibsons 2013 (which was poor) then you might as well take away Millers poor 2016 year.

[SweetOne69]

He didn't take away Gibson's 2013 season because it was poor, he took it away because he only pitched 51 innings which made it irrelevant

[Mr. Brooks]

He didn't take away Gibson's 2013 season because it was poor, he took it away because he only pitched 51 innings which made it irrelevant

So why is Miller's 2016 relevant then? 69 IP is relevant, 51 is not?

[d-mac]

 

I never said to discount his 2016, I said all along it has been a poor year. I said if you are going to take away Gibsons 2013 (which was poor) then you might as well take away Millers poor 2016 year.

 

Ok. I compare Miller's numbers from the start of 2014, through the end of 2015 to Gibson's 2014 through today. Now we're talking about different seasons with different run environments, so xFIP- is probably the best comparison. Miller had xFIP- of 108 and Gibson had an xFIP- of 101.  

[d-mac]

 

All of those pitchers you mention IMO aren't even close to the talent and potential that Miller has though.... 

 

True, It'd be nice if there was a way we could compare how other pitchers, i.e. not Twins have done going from the NL to AL. Although, I'd argue in terms of peripherals Worley and Nolasco's 2 prior seasons before coming to the Twins were better than what Miller has done in his two prior full seasons. Worley's xFIP- in '10 and '11 was 85 and 95. Nolasco's xFIP- in '11 and '12 was 107 and 95. Miller's xFIP- was 121 and 105 in '14 and '15. When Worley went back to the NL with the Pirates in '14 he threw up a 96 xFIP- after a 120 the year prior with the Twins. 

 

If I had to guess, I'd imagine #1 and #2 NL starters transition fairly easily, but #3's turn into #5's in the AL and #4 and #5 in the NL are pumpkins in the AL. Of course, there I'm sure we could find plenty of exceptions both ways, but it is hard to argue Miller has been anything better than #3 in the NL. 

[DaveW]

You keep bringing up xFIP, FIP while completely ignoring or dismissing ERA 100%

I don't understand why people refuse to look at ALL the stats when it comes to pitchers, instead of just picking out FIP or xFIP (both of which have flaws, just like ERA, WAR etc)

[d-mac]

 

I never said to discount his 2016, I said all along it has been a poor year. I said if you are going to take away Gibsons 2013 (which was poor) then you might as well take away Millers poor 2016 year.

 

Which I did, right there in the post you quoted. But you ignored it since it doesn't fit your narrative. 

[d-mac]

 

So why is Miller's 2016 relevant then? 69 IP is relevant, 51 is not?

 

Uh, because those were the first 10 starts Gibson made in the majors. Including a pitcher's most recent 14 starts when making a comparison seems much more fair. I could have eliminated Miller's 10 first starts of his career too, but people would find a way to be butthurt by that too. 

[d-mac]

 

You keep bringing up xFIP, FIP while completely ignoring or dismissing ERA 100%

I don't understand why people refuse to look at ALL the stats when it comes to pitchers, instead of just picking out FIP or xFIP (both of which have flaws, just like ERA, WAR etc)

 

ERA almost has zero predictive ability. We might as well be comparing pitcher wins. We've already been over this. It's completely useless for trying to make projections. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Uh, because those were the first 10 starts Gibson made in the majors. Including a pitcher's most recent 14 starts when making a comparison seems much more fair. I could have eliminated Miller's 10 first starts of his career too, but people would find a way to be butthurt by that too.

That's fair but that's not what the guy I quoted said.

He said it was irrelevant because of the small sample of 51 innings, not because it was his first mlb exposure.

[d-mac]

 

That's fair but that's not what the guy I quoted said.
He said it was irrelevant because of the small sample of 51 innings, not because it was his first mlb exposure.

 

Well I was trying to explain why I did what I did. And have been trying to, repeatedly. I've already spent way too much time on this.

[Mr. Brooks]

ERA almost has zero predictive ability. We might as well be comparing pitcher wins. We've already been over this. It's completely useless for trying to make projections.

Every so often we find pitchers that consistently under or over perform their FIP and/or xFIP though. If not, Rickey Nolasco would be a pretty hot deadline commodity.

I'm not saying that is the case with either of these 2 guys, I don't think either has a large enough sample size to know that yet, but I don't think it's fair to say that ERA is never the most predictive of the 3.

[Mr. Brooks]

Well I was trying to explain why I did what I did. And have been trying to, repeatedly. I've already spent way too much time on this.

Dude, I didn't quote you, I quoted someone else, why are you responding for them?

[Shaitan]

Do we really think they'd sell low after giving up so much for him, regardless of performance over half a season?

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Do we really think they'd sell low after giving up so much for him, regardless of performance over half a season?

 

I do, yes. Not sure what "low" means, but yes.

[Mr. Brooks]

Do we really think they'd sell low after giving up so much for him, regardless of performance over half a season?

Well there is 0 % chance they get back as much as they gave up right now, so just the fact that they are thinking about moving him means they must be considering selling low.

[Shaitan]

 

Well there is 0 % chance they get back as much as they gave up right now, so just the fact that they are thinking about moving him means they must be considering selling low.

 

I agree they're probably "listening," but a tiny fraction of the trade rumors we hear ever happens, and most are based on media speculation. 

 

My assumption is they're looking for someone with a higher ceiling than Gibson, but someone who is a current top prospect (though probably in the 50-100 range).

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I never said to discount his 2016, I said all along it has been a poor year. I said if you are going to take away Gibsons 2013 (which was poor) then you might as well take away Millers poor 2016 year.

But that's not how it works, Dave. It really seems like you're reaching.

 

Three years ago, Kyle Gibson was a rookie and pitched 50-ish innings.

 

Today, Miller is a veteran and is pitching poorly.

 

Those aren't close to comparable things.

 

Now, Miller may rebound. He might need a fresh start. There are several things to like about him.

 

But equating a bad 2013 rookie campaign to a bad 2016 campaign... No. Just no.

[DaveW]

 

But that's not how it works, Dave. It really seems like you're reaching.

Three years ago, Kyle Gibson was a rookie and pitched 50-ish innings.

Today, Miller is a veteran and is pitching poorly.

Those aren't close to comparable things.

Now, Miller may rebound. He might need a fresh start. There are several things to like about him.

But equating a bad 2013 rookie campaign to a bad 2016 campaign... No. Just no.

Again, that wasn't even the crux of my issue with his comparison, my issue was why ignore Miller and his VERY stellar rookie season in 2013 in order to fit his narrative? Does that not count because he was a rookie? Seriously Brock, go back and look at the original thread and stop making it out to me comparing Miller's 2016 to Gibson's rookie season. My issue was it was conveniently to completely IGNORE a season in which Miller pitched very well and Gibson pitched terribly. Seriously, I have now said that and explained in several times in this thread, you misconstruing what I was getting at is trolling and annoying, drop it Brock.

Also Miller is 25, the same age that Gibson was when Gibson "made" the show.  Gibson wasn't exactly some "rushed" prospect by the time he made the majors anyways.

[DaveW]

What it really all comes down to is results:

 

Shelby Miller: 25 years old. 644 IP 3.64 ERA, 7.4 k/9 3.4 BB/9, 1.291 WHIP 104 ERA+

Kyle Gibson: 28 years old  496 IP 4.46 ERA, 6.0 k/9 3.0 BB/9, 1.358 WHIP 90 ERA+

 

Results (the thing that actually matters when it comes to wins and losses) wise it's not even close. Gibson gets a tiny edge in BB/9, but is far behind significantly in everything else.

 

We can say NL vs AL all day long, but it should be noted that Gibson pitches in the central, which is a weak division overall and has been for some time. Miller pitched in the NL East and NL central prior to moving to the NL West this year, all three of those divisions have been much more competitive/better than the AL central. Even with the difference between AL/NL it doesn't make up the 14 points in ERA lplus and the ERA that is a hair below a run more a game.

 

644 and 496 IP are NOT small sample sizes. This isn't just a case of "one has had good luck and one has had bad luck"

[DaveW]

As far as FIP goes and some of its limitations:

 

Nolasco 2014-2016 (Minnesota Twins): 4.21 FIP, 5.55 ERA, 1.49 WHIP.

 

Nolasco career: 3.80 FIP 4.60 ERA (89 ERA+), 1.39 WHIP

 

Is Nolasco just the unluckiest pitcher in baseball (the past 10 years) or is he just not that good of a pitcher?

[OldTimeTwinkie]

Shelby Miller Is the Diamondbacks Vance Worley.

[Primetime82]

I didn't read the thread but in what world do the D-backs trade Miller? They just traded away one of the top prospects in Baseball and I think a few other good ones for Miller. They almost have to give it another year or 2 and pray he rebounds, right? 

[drivlikejehu]

Miller's performance years ago is irrelevant because he's not the same pitcher. His velocity is down, his command has disintegrated, and his secondary pitches aren't as effective. He stinks. I wouldn't give up anything of value for him, or even be tempted in the slightest.

[Willihammer]

One thing in Miller's favor is excellent extension. Nearly 7 feet. His perceived velocity is just 1/3 MPH slower than Ryan Pressly's, for example.