Regretting Not Signing Andrew Miller?

[Redskins Rick]

On June 16th, without Miller, they just dropped two in a row and their record was 35-34 and then they caught fire.

They were 60-47 by the time Miller was traded for.

Granted, he was a nice addition to the team, but he alone wasn't responsible for winning the AL East.

[Malike]

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.

Even better. My old(er) eyes aren't as good at 12:30am as they are 12:30pm.

[mdbdotcom]

Given that the Orioles will lose about 16.5% of this year's gate receipts due to the White Sox reschedulings and moving three home games to St Petersburg, it's probably best they didn't stretch the budget too much.

[Can_of_corn]

Given that the Orioles will lose about 16.5% of this year's gate receipts due to the White Sox reschedulings and moving three home games to St Petersburg, it's probably best they didn't stretch the budget too much.

They are missing dates but the White Sox and Rays were going to be smaller then average crowds.

I'm more concerned about ticket sales for the remaining dates then I am those five. Walk ups are going to take a hit.

[Russsnyder]

Given that the Orioles will lose about 16.5% of this year's gate receipts due to the White Sox reschedulings and moving three home games to St Petersburg, it's probably best they didn't stretch the budget too much.

Sadly I have to agree

[mdbdotcom]

They are missing dates but the White Sox and Rays were going to be smaller then average crowds.

I'm more concerned about ticket sales for the remaining dates then I am those five. Walk ups are going to take a hit.

So, you think 879 is smaller than 30,000?

[Frobby]

Given that the Orioles will lose about 16.5% of this year's gate receipts due to the White Sox reschedulings and moving three home games to St Petersburg, it's probably best they didn't stretch the budget too much.

I would not be surprised if the Orioles carry business interruption insurance that will pay for some of this.

They are missing dates but the White Sox and Rays were going to be smaller then average crowds.

I'm more concerned about ticket sales for the remaining dates then I am those five. Walk ups are going to take a hit.

My guess is that, once the situation in Baltimore has calmed down in a few days, there won't be much lasting impact on crowds. It's not like OPACY is in a bad section of town.

[Dark Helmet]

I would not be surprised if the Orioles carry business interruption insurance that will pay for some of this.

My guess is that, once the situation in Baltimore has calmed down in a few days, there won't be much lasting impact on crowds. It's not like OPACY is in a bad section of town.

I've talked to a lot of people that plan to stay away.

[weams]

I've talked to a lot of people that plan to stay away.

Oh wow. Does that mean the Orioles will fail?

[Crazysilver03]

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...

So this is the second time you post it in this thread and it still isn't objective.

[brianod]

People always get their backs up when conventional wisdom is questioned. Before money ball, it was the scouts and guys that went by their eyes that were offended by the the Bill James's of the world. Now, it's guys that have all the right formulas getting bent out of shape when one of their formulas are questioned. Comical, actually. The truth has always been somewhere in the middle. I say WAR be damned, there is no summary stat that can possibly measure value. Human behavior is not measurable by statistics, at least, not consistently. Therefore, sorry to offend the formula guys, but I agree with those that have already mentioned the deflating effect of having Miller, O'Day and Britton in the same pen. The value isn't measurable by performance statistics because come the 5th or 6th inning, if behind, the batters for the other team begin to press. They begin to try to do too much because simply put, if they enter the 7th behind, they have very little chance to win the game. That doesn't show up in advanced metrics and it isn't measurable by statistics.

I said all along that the winning percentage after acquiring Miller doesn't prove anything. I simply said it should give those who undervalue him because of his innings pitched pause to think. Consider that your formulas are in perfect. Consider that they don't value Miller correctly. Consider that he is actually more valuable then some summary statistic. Having Miller would have been affordable and having him would make this team better. How much better is certainly debatable, but I as a diehard fan would certainly have liked to have been able to find out..

[Nevermore]

Big question that I haven't seen anyone answer in this Miller thread: Andrew Miller is now the Yankees' closer. The Yankees needed a closer because their former closer, Robertson, had signed with the White Sox. The O's do not need a closer; Zach Britton is doing the job quite well. So let's say that O's management had put in a serious bid for Andrew Miller: Would Miller have been satisfied with a set-up role? I don't think so, and there is no reason to demote Britton from closer to set up, if Miller had been resigned.

[brianod]

Big question that I haven't seen anyone answer in this Miller thread: Andrew Miller is now the Yankees' closer. The Yankees needed a closer because their former closer, Robertson, had signed with the White Sox. The O's do not need a closer; Zach Britton is doing the job quite well. So let's say that O's management had put in a serious bid for Andrew Miller: Would Miller have been satisfied with a set-up role? I don't think so, and there is no reason to demote Britton from closer to set up, if Miller had been resigned.

The only reason Miller would care is that closers make more money. If we offered him 11 or 12 million per year, that would be much more then most closers. I think he would have taken it.

[Nevermore]

The only reason Miller would care is that closers make more money. If we offered him 11 or 12 million per year, that would be much more then most closers. I think he would have taken it.

Most relief pitchers would care. Closers are considered the ultimate in relief pitching. But then Miller seemed to be kind of a mercenary type, so perhaps he wouldn't care about being a set-up man (or even a long reliever) if he got enough money.

[Frobby]

People always get their backs up when conventional wisdom is questioned. Before money ball, it was the scouts and guys that went by their eyes that were offended by the the Bill James's of the world. Now, it's guys that have all the right formulas getting bent out of shape when one of their formulas are questioned. Comical, actually. The truth has always been somewhere in the middle. I say WAR be damned, there is no summary stat that can possibly measure value. Human behavior is not measurable by statistics, at least, not consistently. Therefore, sorry to offend the formula guys, but I agree with those that have already mentioned the deflating effect of having Miller, O'Day and Britton in the same pen. The value isn't measurable by performance statistics because come the 5th or 6th inning, if behind, the batters for the other team begin to press. They begin to try to do too much because simply put, if they enter the 7th behind, they have very little chance to win the game. That doesn't show up in advanced metrics and it isn't measurable by statistics.

I said all along that the winning percentage after acquiring Miller doesn't prove anything. I simply said it should give those who undervalue him because of his innings pitched pause to think. Consider that your formulas are in perfect. Consider that they don't value Miller correctly. Consider that he is actually more valuable then some summary statistic. Having Miller would have been affordable and having him would make this team better. How much better is certainly debatable, but I as a diehard fan would certainly have liked to have been able to find out..

I don't know anybody who actually understands WAR who claims or thinks it is perfect. I'd be the first to say there are defensible arguments for paying $10 mm/yr for a pitcher of Miller's quality. I just don't happen to agree with those arguments, when you consider our overall payroll.