Regretting Not Signing Andrew Miller?

[Malike]

Only if you trust the formula that comes up with that result, which I don't. I'm going to bed but I would be interested in the Orioles record after signing Miller last year.

In his time with the Orioles, he was worth .9 WAR. He was with the O's for 56 games, and appeared in 23 of them. He's never thrown more than 62 innings as a reliever and you'd pay him 12M a year? I'm glad you aren't the boss.

[brianod]

That's based on certain industry valuations, not public metrics. And I 100% believe it. Also requires minimum of around 60-65 IP, I believe, assuming typical leverage during implementation (at a certain point the effort you put into parsing the value isn't worth the added accuracy of the output). Rough guide, but it's one I follow with comfort.

I was so curious that I did the research. After Miller joined the O's, they were 35-19. That's a .648 winning percentage, meaning they would win 104 games in the regular season. That isn't proof that my opinion is right, but it sure doesn't refute it...

[Malike]

I was so curious that I did the research. After Miller joined the O's, they were 35-19. That's a .648 winning percentage, meaning they would win 104 games in the regular season. That isn't proof that my opinion is right, but it sure doesn't refute it...

They were 32-22 in the previous 54 games before acquiring Miller. I think you are overstating things, by quite a bit.

[scOtt]

Still, no. Not at all. Not one little bit. Zilch. Zip. Zero. None. NFW. Never. Nada. Nein. Nyet. Nil. Goose egg.

[Frobby]

Yet another inning of shutout ball tonight by Miller. 9.1 innings 3 hits, 17 strikeouts no runs. This has to be the best free agent pick-up of the year. Listening to Ken Weiman on 105.7 the fan he said he originally did not want to sign Miller, but now realizes with the state of the O's bullpen we should have re-signed him . How many other posters are willing to admit at this point of the season they are wrong? How much is it going to cost over the next three years to find someone or a group of relievers to equal Miller's production? The Yankees are in first place and are thanking the Orioles organization for not signing him.

First of all, I think everyone knew Miller was a top shelf reliever who, barring injury, was likely to have an excellent season in 2015 and who is young enough to be very good for the next four seasons.

That said, 9.1 innings doesn't prove anything. Jim Johnson started 2013 with 11 shutout innings and a 0.82 WHIP, how'd that year go for him? JJ also had strings of 13.1 IP 1 ER, 10.1 IP 0 ER and 14.2 IP 1 R (0 ER) that year.

My point is not that I expect Miller to have a shaky, inconsistent year in 2015 as JJ did in 2013. I'm just saying 9.1 innings of dominance doesn't mean anything much. He probably will have the occasional bad game.

[DrungoHazewood]

I was so curious that I did the research. After Miller joined the O's, they were 35-19. That's a .648 winning percentage, meaning they would win 104 games in the regular season. That isn't proof that my opinion is right, but it sure doesn't refute it...

How do you know that wasn't due to DeAza and/or Paredes? They were with the team only during that stretch as well. Since Miller only pitched 20 innings while De Aza had 89 PAs plus defensive responsibility I'm gonna go ahead and assign all the credit to DeAza.

[BohKnowsBmore]

How do you know that wasn't due to DeAza and/or Paredes? They were with the team only during that stretch as well. Since Miller only pitched 20 innings while De Aza had 89 PAs plus defensive responsibility I'm gonna go ahead and assign all the credit to DeAza.

De aza is still an oriole, so you're wrong!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ledzepp8]

I was so curious that I did the research. After Miller joined the O's, they were 35-19. That's a .648 winning percentage, meaning they would win 104 games in the regular season. That isn't proof that my opinion is right, but it sure doesn't refute it...

Yeah because that's how you gauge the value of a player to a team.

[brianod]

How do you know that wasn't due to DeAza and/or Paredes? They were with the team only during that stretch as well. Since Miller only pitched 20 innings while De Aza had 89 PAs plus defensive responsibility I'm gonna go ahead and assign all the credit to DeAza.

The Orioles were 61-47 without Miller for a winning percentage of .564

The Orioles were 35-19 with Miller for a winning percentage of .648

I know there are other variables in play and I know this doesn't prove anything. But, if it doesn't give you pause, you aren't being objective.

[Malike]

The Orioles were 61-47 without Miller for a winning percentage of .564

The Orioles were 35-19 with Miller for a winning percentage of .648

I know there are other variables in play and I know this doesn't prove anything. But, if it doesn't give you pause, you aren't being objective.

Do the breakdown in 54 game blocks and show us the data. I showed you, the previous 54 games they were 32-22, 3 games off the pace of when Miller was acquired. He appeared in 23 games, and you'd have us believe we'd have lost all 23 games he appeared in if we didn't trade for him. I think you are the one with problems with objectivity.

[24fps]

The Orioles were 61-47 without Miller for a winning percentage of .564

The Orioles were 35-19 with Miller for a winning percentage of .648

I know there are other variables in play and I know this doesn't prove anything. But, if it doesn't give you pause, you aren't being objective.

Because there are other variables in play, if it does give you pause that's when you're not being objective. It's an interesting factoid that could support a more complex argument. In and of itself it isn't a basis for any kind of conclusion.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Orioles were 61-47 without Miller for a winning percentage of .564

The Orioles were 35-19 with Miller for a winning percentage of .648

I know there are other variables in play and I know this doesn't prove anything. But, if it doesn't give you pause, you aren't being objective.

Just suggesting that a 20-inning reliever is the primary difference between a .564 winning percentage and a .648 is telling me that you're improperly weighting the value of individual players. Babe Ruth's best season might, just might, have made that kind of difference across an entire year. You're suggesting that Miller was roughly 2.5 times as valuable per inning, for the Orioles, as any single season of any reliever in history.

[Redskins Rick]

Because there are other variables in play, if it does give you pause that's when you're not being objective. It's an interesting factoid that could support a more complex argument. In and of itself it isn't a basis for any kind of conclusion.

Like playing the first two months of the season, barely hanging onto .500 ball and then catching fire, but it was before Miller was traded for.

[Stotle]

The Orioles were 61-47 without Miller for a winning percentage of .564

The Orioles were 35-19 with Miller for a winning percentage of .648

I know there are other variables in play and I know this doesn't prove anything. But, if it doesn't give you pause, you aren't being objective.

It doesn't give me pause. I'm objective a fault around these parts...

[Frobby]

Do the breakdown in 54 game blocks and show us the data. I showed you, the previous 54 games they were 32-22, 3 games off the pace of when Miller was acquired. He appeared in 23 games, and you'd have us believe we'd have lost all 23 games he appeared in if we didn't trade for him. I think you are the one with problems with objectivity.

Actually, you are off by two games:

27-27

34-20 (Miller pitched one game, in Game 108)

35-19

Miller certainly was an asset and pitched great for us down the stretch. The starting staff also had a sub-3.00 ERA in those games, which had more to do with our record than anything Miller did.