Wade Miley, Who Is Better Than You Think
Everyone knew heading into the offseason that the Red Sox starting rotation was going to need some help, and so the first thing they went and did was sign Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval. Those guys are not pitchers, so while it gave the Red Sox perhaps the best lineup in the MLB, they still needed pitching.
The Red Sox rotation essentially consisted of a bunch of question marks — plus Clay Buchholz and Joe Kelly, who are question marks themselves. Buchholz is 30 years old, has never thrown 110 innings in consecutive seasons and had a 5.34 ERA last year. Kelly’s numbers as a starter aren’t particularly impressive. Some clubs entered the offseason looking for a frontline starter. Some clubs needed depth to fill out their rotation. The Red Sox needed both.
A Cole Hamels trade or James Shields signing are still possibilities for the Red Sox, as they’re still in the market for that frontline starter after whiffing on Jon Lester, who was the crowd favorite to return to Boston and fill the void at the top of their rotation.
The depth, on the other hand, appears to be shored up. As I was writing this post, the Sox dealt Yoenis Cespedes to the Tigers in exchange for Rick Porcello. (By the time I was done, they’d inked Justin Masterson). A full analysis of the Porcello deal will come in a different post, but for now we’re going to focus on Wade Miley, who the Sox are expected to acquire in the very near future for starting pitchers Rubby de la Rosa and Allen Webster. de la Rosa and Webster are both guys who had higher stock a couple years ago. Both have electric stuff, both have serious command issues, and both may be destined for the bullpen. Dave Cameron wrote up a quick InstaGraphs post on the deal last night, which you can read here.
In short, Dave liked the deal, calling it a “pretty nifty upgrade” for the Red Sox. He also said that he “probably like(s) pitchers in the mold of Wade Miley more than most.” I tend to agree with him on both fronts. Judging from the comment section of that post and from the general reaction on Twitter, the public perception of Miley surprised me. Then again, Miley’s a guy who I’ve thought has been underrated for a little while, so this isn’t too surprising.
I’d like to make a comparison. Let’s take a pitcher who’s already generated a lot of buzz this offseason — and deservedly so — a pitcher who generated a lot of buzz last offseason — deservedly so — and Miley, who’s generated very little buzz.
We know better than to attempt to measure a player’s value by single season numbers, and three years is a nice sample from which to draw a conclusion. Miley got a taste of the bigs in 2011, but didn’t really settle into a full-time role until 2012, so it works out nicely to go from there. The WAR figure I’m using here is a 50/50 split of FIP-WAR and RA9-WAR.
| Since 2012 | |||||||||
| IP | ERA | FIP | K% | BB% | HR/9 | GB% | WAR | WAR/200 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeff Samardzija |
608 | 3.70 | 3.50 | 23.7 | 7.0 | 0.96 | 47.9 | 8.8 | 2.9 |
| Wade Miley |
590 | 3.75 | 3.68 | 19.0 | 7.0 | 0.87 | 48.6 | 8.3 | 2.8 |
| Homer Bailey | 563 | 3.61 | 3.71 | 21.1 | 6.5 | 0.99 | 46.8 | 8.2 | 2.9 |
Over the last three seasons, there’s really been no discernible difference between Wade Miley, Jeff Samardzija and Homer Bailey. They’ve all pitched (mostly) in the National League, they’ve all been good for between 190-200 innings per year, and they’ve all been above average — but not great — by both ERA and FIP. Samardzija is viewed as a frontline starter, and the White Sox gave up a good, major league ready prospect to get him. Bailey signed a contract for $105 million dollars last year. Miley seems to be viewed more as fourth or fifth option on a contending team.
Of course, moving forward, Wade Miley isn’t Jeff Samardzija. I would never attempt to argue that he is (even if their Steamer projections are nearly identical). All three of the aforementioned starters have their numbers propped up by one excellent season. Samardzija’s is the most recent and Miley’s is the most distant, so of course we put more weight in Samardzija moving forward.
Despite Miley’s 4.24 ERA from last year, there are positives we can take from his 2014 season. He posted the best xFIP of his career. His strikeout percentage spiked by four percent. He kept getting ground balls as well as about anyone — a good thing for someone about to call Fenway Park his home — and started missing more bats.
When we see a change in results, we look for a change in approach. With Miley, a couple stick out. He doesn’t have electric stuff — his fastball sits at about 91 — and he doesn’t have any truly plus-plus secondary pitches. Despite that, he posted a swinging strike rate that was above league average for the first time this year, and he did it by working more around and outside the zone. His stuff isn’t good enough to live within the zone, so he needs to get hitters to chase. His O-Swing% has remained consistent throughout his career, but look at how he’s changed the way he attack hitters and how it’s changed his results:
- 2011: 48.5 Zone%, 71.3 O-Contact%
- 2012: 48.3 Zone%, 69.1 O-Contact%
- 2013: 46.4 Zone%, 65.9 O-Contact%
- 2014: 43.3 Zone%, 62.9 O-Contact%
Each year, more pitches outside the zone. Each year, more swings and misses on those pitches outside the zone.
If you’re more of a visual learner:
As the years have gone on, Miley has pitched more and more like it feels a pitcher with his stuff should. He’s done a better job of pounding lefties low-and-away and righties low-and-inside. Gone are the elevated pitches and those left out over the plate. There’s also a change in Miley’s pitch mix that coincides with his shift in approach, and it’s one that makes sense, given the image above.
- 2012: 72.2% fastballs, 14.2% sliders
- 2013: 68.8% fastballs, 16.5% sliders
- 2014: 61.2% fastballs, 25.8% sliders
Miley has thrown less and less of his mediocre fastball and more and more of his slider that he can bury down in the zone. Hitters are chasing, and it’s resulting in more whiffs. The whiffs, of course, lead to strikeouts, and we like strikeouts.
Miley’s xFIP was a career-best 3.50 last year, better than the mark of James Shields (3.64), who the Red Sox are pursuing to be their ace. So where did that 4.24 ERA come from? Well, after two seasons of allowing a .295 BABIP, it spiked to .317, despite his league-average line drive rate remaining unchanged. After two seasons of a league-average 9.4% HR/FB rate, it spiked to 14%. Perhaps he simply started allowing harder contract, but that seems unlikely given his shift towards working out of the zone. Perhaps there was some bad luck involved.
The move from Chase Field to Fenway Park, if anything, should help his home run rate, as Boston plays to 9% fewer homers than Arizona. At the same time, Fenway Park turns fly balls into singles and singles into doubles, giving it and Chase Field the same overall park factor, and the switch from the NL West to the AL East can only be viewed as a negative.
But the point here isn’t that Wade Miley is a great pitcher, or that the Red Sox would be comfortable with him as their ace — they wouldn’t. The point is that he’s very solid, and he fills a major Red Sox need. He’s about as close to a lock for 200 innings as a team can ask for, and his body of work over the last three years compares favorably to guys like Jeff Samardzija and Homer Bailey. He already got grounders, and recent changes in his pitch mix and approach led to a strikeout boost that could bode well for his future in the American League. The Red Sox desperately needed innings, and the 200 they’ll get from Wade Miley might be better than people would think.
August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.

Also worth noting that Miley’s strengths are keeping the ball inside the park and mostly on the ground. That’s a good fit for Fenway.
Red Sox made a move? Player must be good and better than initially thought!
Instead of making snarky comments about bias like this, why don’t folks instead just explain why they think the analysis is flawed?
With comments like these, you’re just not adding anything to the conversation.
I think that saying “he’s about as good as Samardzija or Bailey” is more indicative of Samardzija and Bailey having become over the last few years, than evidence of Miley, who is a solid #4 starter, being underrated.
It’s a nice pickup at good value for the Sox (much as I love Rubby’s stuff, he and Webster probably aren’t starters longterm), but I do think that the same article could be used to say “Samardzija and Bailey are worse than you think.”
Part of your idea there’s got merit, but concluding that the other two are overrated kind of misses the point.
How many teams do you know who are trotting out a pitcher who’s put up three conescutive years of sub 4 FIP pitching across roughly 200 innings as their number four starter?
I think solid 3 is an easy case to make for Miley with a case to be made for #2 (His FIP over the last three years is actually a hair better than Lester’s).
@Jonathan — That’s a good point, but I think we also can’t fall into some trap of thinking that rotation number actually means that much. I mean, you could have Kershaw and a bunch of 5s, or 5 Mileys – but if they have the same xFIP or ERA or whatever metric you want to use, it’s irrelevant.
While he’s put up a sub-4 FIP the last three years, it should be noted that he barely made that cut-off while putting up identical 3.98 FIPs the last two years. That doesn’t scream #2 pitcher to me.
He has FIP-s of 102 and 104 over the last two years. That’s not a #3.
Just to frame how I use the terms:
#1= >4.5 expected WAR
#2=3.5-4.5 expected WAR
#3=2.5-3.5 expected WAR
#4=1.5-2.5 expected WAR
#5=0.5-1.5 expected WAR
Guys might perform above or below that in any given season, but their classification won’t change unless the way they pitch does.
Last year, there were 149 SP’s with 100+ IP. They broke down like this…
1-30: 3.3 WAR and higher
31-60: 2.2 – 3.3 WAR
61-90: 1.5 – 2.2 WAR
91-120: 0.7 – 1.5 WAR
121-149: 0.7 WAR and lower
@Lester: I think those numbers are too high. Using the midpoint of each of those ranges and 5 WAR for the #1 gets you a 15-WAR projected rotation, which would be the highest in the majors. Using the lowest number for all 5 spots gets you 12.5, which would still be very close to the best in the game (Dodgers are projected for 12.7 right now). La Dee Da’s numbers seem much more realistic.
There aren’t 30 #1 starters in baseball. There are 10-12 aces at any given moment.
The numbers I’m using are what Kiley means when he call someone a 1/2/3/4/5 starter. Not every team in baseball has a No. 2 starter in their staff, much less a true ace.
Here’s an article by Sickels on the subject from a couple of years ago: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters
According to that definition, Steamer says there are two or three #1 starters in all of baseball.
Is this your opinion?
My opinion is “I don’t trust Steamer’s projections,” haha.
Let’s look at the actual numbers:
Last year, 11 players had 4.5 or more FIP-WAR, and 13 players had 4.5 or more RA9-WAR.
Over the last 2 years, 10 players have 9 or more FIP-WAR, and 11 players have 9 or more RA9-WAR.
Over the last 3 years, 10 players have 13 or more FIP-WAR, and 12 players have 13 or more RA9-WAR.
So, yeah, 4.5 WAR a year is pretty much the perfect cutoff for the “10-12 in baseball at any given moment” definition of “Ace.”
@ Cool & Luke. I think Cool’s WAR-based classifications and Sickels’ characteristic-based classifications for SPs probably capture what most people are talking about when they call a pitcher a #1 or a #2. When someone says a guy is a #1, he means he’s a guy you want throwing Game One of a playoff series: Kershaw, Price, Lester, Felix. He probably doesn’t mean James Sheilds or Sonny Gray. Those guys are #2’s; guys you can build your staff around (and among the top 30 in WAR) but not necessarily your first choice to throw Game One. If you look at Cool’s classifications and the numbers I put up, you can see that there are about 30 #1’s and #2’s (under Cool’s definition), then the ranges matchup closely from there (#31-60 in terms of WAR is about a #3 SP according to Cool; #61-90 is about a #4; and so on).
Yeah, exactly. Calling a guy a number two is a huge compliment, but a number one is the best of the best.
Andy Pettitte was a number two, and he’s a borderline Hall of Famer (by WAR, the HGH probably tanks his candidacy).
“FanGraphs is in the tank for [Rays / A’s / Dodgers / Blue Jays / Indians / Astros / Cardinals / Cubs / Pirates / Nationals]! Can we please have some impartial analysis!?”
— every comment thread this offseason
I’m having a hard time keeping up with which teams I have to love and hate.
Better keep track of that real close – it seems to change daily!
“We know better than to attempt to measure a player’s value by single season numbers, and three years is a nice sample from which to draw a conclusion.”
Except his best year was 3 years ago and his most recent 2 have been mediocre at best.
Not by xFIP. The only thing less accurate than basing an evaluation on single-season results is basing them on ERA.
Maybe he’s basing it on FIP-, which says he’s been slightly below average for the past two years.
Or fWAR, which says he’s been slightly below average for the past two years.
Or rWAR, which says he’s been well below average for the past two years.
It’s not a bad pickup for the Sox, but it’s unlikely that he’ll be anything more than “mediocre-at-best,” like he’s been for the past two years.
Right, but I think the overall point is that one-year results are not indicative of true talent or performance going forward, no matter what stats you use. Two years gets a little more weight than one year, but it’s not like we can say that 2013-2014 is what Miley is, and 2012 is what he is not.
I mean, for every Chris Davis, there’s a Jose Bautista, naw meen?
Maybe he’s basing it on FIP-
Or fWAR
What is it you think fWAR is based on? (It’s FIP-.)
Both fWAR and RA9-WAR have him as league average the last two seasons.
xFIP normalizes his HR/FB ratio. You could argue that’s misleading – and you might be right – but I think the argument on the other side is that he plays in a uniquely HR-friendly environment. Indeed, his HR/9 was 1.68 at home and 0.43 on the road last year (1.11 to 0.79 the year before). There seems to be something to that.
By the way: even with all of that said, I think this was a bad trade for Boston.
Arc, it’s possible for someone to “beat” a below average FIP- and have a WAR above 2 if they’re a crazy workhorse who puts up like 230 innings a year.
Miley isn’t that, though, he’s just completely average.
Think I covered the first part when I said “All three of the aforementioned starters have their numbers propped up by one excellent season. Samardzija’s is the most recent and Miley’s is the most distant, so of course we put more weight in Samardzija moving forward.”
Then I think I covered the second part when I spent the entire rest of the post talking about his changes and improvements in 2014.
So why put them together in one chart, when clearly Samardja is better NOW. What is the point of it, other than to try to obfuscate the obvious?
Have you ever tried to piece together some good solid analysis in the course of a few hours?
Don’t go looking for conspiracy theories in these posts. Just be happy there’s a place where you can get real good discussion of baseball news not too long after it happens.
What can even be gained by “trying to obfuscate the obvious”? Simply talking about big market teams drives clicks; the talk doesn’t need to be positive. It might even be better at drawing attention when it’s negative.
What I am taking out of this analysis is that Samardzija isn’t that good either. 😉
someguy makes a decent point, though.
why start an article showing similarities with a better pitcher only to then say later that he’s not really as good?
hard not to see that as trying to make a guy look better than he is.
I love the analysis but you seem to ignore with his increased slider use that he also walked more people. Clearly explained by him throwing more outside the zone. Unless something changes its hard to ignore that this is a side effect of his pitch mix. It hadnt improved his fip and his fWAR. While his strikeput rate is encouraging, his walk rate balanced out his gains. His pitch mix kind of reached an equilibrium that resulted in fWAR near identical to 2013. I believe steamer thst he’ll be around 2 war but it mainly suggests he is average. I see him allowing less dingers but not significantly less than his career average which is what steamer thinks too.
I’m a Dbacks fan, a huge Miley fan, but also a big fan of this trade.
However, if this trade was made in reverse, every article would be about how wise the Red Sox were for trading Miley for two high-upside guys and a third piece.
It depends on how you’re set up for the future. The Sox are all-in on 2015, so they want a proven big-leaguer who can take a rotation spot. Arizona wants youth, upside, team control and flexibility. So it can be a win for both (though I’ll admit I prefer it from the Sox’ end).
I have no reason or incentive to be biased towards the Red Sox. Out of my 57 posts on FanGraphs, I think one has been about the Red Sox and it was a for-fun post about Brock Holt.
For the record, I kinda like the trade for the Dbacks, too. Think it makes sense for both sides.
Bias doesn’t have to be intentional and driven by some incentive. In fact it most often isn’t.
It kind of has to be intentional on some level, because the bias person must actively choose to express that bias. Maybe such a person won’t always be very self-aware, but even if they themselves don’t understand their intentions it doesn’t mean they don’t have intentions at all.
And it also kind of has to be driven by incentive. I’ll venture that people generally don’t express bias at random, or decide what things they don’t like by lot. There’s usually some kind of irrational thought process involved, I think.
Eh, I like Rubby more than most, and he does have crazy stuff, but he’s probably a reliever, and Webster is almost certainly a reliever.
No, you’re making that up.
Not sure I would consider De La Rosa and Webster “high upside guys”. At this point it seems like their ceilings are good/great reliever and 3/4 guy in the rotation. Unless your point was that if the Red Sox were on the receiving end of RDLR and Webster, they would be painted as high upside guys?
Ultimately, I think it’s a win-win for both sides.
Just go back and read what was said about rubby and webster heading into last year.
There’s nothing on Rubby, since he wasn’t a prospect, but here’s what FG said about Webster heading into last year:
The Career Outlook: Webster’s future may lie in the bullpen if he cannot add the necessary polish to his game, but he could develop into a dominant, late-game reliever.
Predictably, you’re full of shit.
Both Rubby and Webster have filthy stuff. People have been saying “if they can iron out their command issues, the sky’s the limit” about them for several years.
It’s not all that likely that they’ll iron out those command issues, but the upside is there.
they don’t have filthy stuff.
they throw hard, with inconsistent command and secondary offerings, like hundreds of other non prospects.n
and nice excerpting, ARC!
Webster was the #9 prospect here in the Sox “stacked” system, ahead of vazquez, ranaudo, margot, marrero, and workman.
this was the scouting report:
“The Scouting Report: A starter for most of his career, Webster’s command and control issues may prevent him from realizing his full potential as a starter. However, he’s flashed significant promise during brief stints in the bullpen. With mid-to-high 90s velocity, the right-hander can be down right dominant when he commands it — and especially when he’s also throwing his changeup and breaking ball for strikes. His ground-ball tendencies add significant value.”
now compare that description to what fangraphs is saying about him now.
…that scouting report says that Webster throws in the mid-high 90s with a breaking ball and change up that both look great when he can throw them for strikes.
That means he has filthy stuff, and crappy command/control, which is exactly what I said.
Rubby, meanwhile, throws high 90s with a great changeup and a slider that either looks great or terrible, depending on the day. Unfortunately, sometimes he stops throwing strikes.
That means he has filthy stuff, and crappy command/control, which is exactly what I said.
You’re so weird. So lost in your own nonsense.
The “excerpt” I quoted was the summary, the conclusion of the scouting details – the career outlook. That you could think the contents of the report disprove their own summary is amazing.
The career outlook matches closely what people are saying this year. Your initial point was completely wrong. You made it up because you’re an biased hack.
I’ve always thought Shark was a little overrated and this tabular comparison to Bailey and Miley makes me think a little more of Miley but also confirms my opinion that Shark is a little overrated.
I’m not saying that my thoughts on Shark are accurate, but rather just noting that I am experiencing confirmation bias as I read that table.
Yeah, I still can’t believe that Beane traded Russell for him.
The eye-test says Webster is a stiff and De La Rossa flashes real brilliance. The Sox must have opinions of him which have not surfaced or they don’t make this trade.
Watching Webster can be painful. He seems frightened at the MLB level. I generally hate trying to get into a player’s head, but he does seem to shrink under the spotlight.
As in all cases where that seems true, I hope he proves me wrong.
He’s 25 and post TJ and has never translated his excellent stuff into any kind of sustained success. It doesn’t take a conspiracy to be willing to move in from a guy like that.
as long as “flashes of brilliance” just means “nice radar gun reafings” then i agree.
I think that’s a flimsy comparison at best. In his three years before being traded, Samardzija put up xFip-s of 87, 92, 82, with SIERAs about equal to his x-FIPs each year. Bailey last offseason was coming off of a 98, 101, 89 run, also with roughly equal SIERAs. Miley? 96,100,95, and his SIERA (probably a slightly better measure than xFIP) had been significantly higher than his xFIP each year. I think the general perception of Miley being a back-of-the-rotation starter is pretty accurate – and that of Samardzija and Bailey as good no. 2/3s is as well.
I’m trying to figure out the % bias on fangraphs transactions analysis towards the ‘popular’ statistically and value-oriented front offices – A’s, Cubs, Red Sox, now Dodgers. I’d say its at least 20%.
Hard to argue with such solid, thorough analysis.
Or is that these have been some of the most active teams this offseason? Seriously, what teams have been inactive that haven’t gotten coverage?
its not the coverage, but the slant of it. Like justifying the head-scratching deals by Oakland, or the poor Red Sox moves such as getting Cespedes for Lester, etc.
Whole Lester episode turned out badly for Sox, of course, but it was 2 months of Lester (and Gomes) for 8 months of Cespedes/Porcello. Not awful.
I think this is the problem, though. “Justifying” a deal is coming up with a reason that it makes sense. The GMs making these deals clearly thought that they were good moves, so Fangraphs tries to figure out what they were thinking. They put themselves in Freidman, or Cherington, or Beane’s mindset and go “OK, why’d they do this? What were they thinking?”
Then they come up with a justifcation for what they might be thinking because they’re GMs with a track record of being thoughtful and analytical. But to say that they LOVE these moves is kinda disingenuous. I mean, let’s not pretend that every FG writer loved the Butler deal, or the Panda signing. And in today’s chat, Eno disagreed that SD got fleeced by LA by taking Kemp.
Honestly, some of you guys are reading way too much into this. Some teams are smart and make good moves. People who agree with their approaches are going to fundamentally agree a lot of the time – or at least attempt to understand what they’re trying to do.
what evidence is there that the last place Sox are one of the smart front offices?
None that will get through the filter of your deep bias, Blue Jays homer.
Your honor, I’d like to call the jury’s attention to Exhibits A, B, and C: http://www.milb.com/assets/images/8/3/8/71691838/cuts/WS_Trophies_2014_640x360_woc5vj2f_2sf8qodx.jpg
Wait, so you’re saying that an internet website devoted to statistical analysis of baseball teams might favor teams that extensively employ statistical analysis themselves? No way.
In addition to the inferior strikeout rate, Wade Miley ranked dead last in 2014 by a significant margin for infield fly-balls at 3.6%. Since 2011 only Zach Britton induced fewer than Miley’s overall 4.9%. Bailey and Samardzija are both well above average at inducing IFFBs, which coupled with the strikeout rate means that they get a lot more “easy outs.”
Now THIS is actually a good counterpoint to the article. I also like to lump strikeouts and IFFBs together for FIP-type analysis.
I’m trying to popularize “easy out percentage” as a combination of the two since both have strong year to year correlations.
Do you mean like the Inside Edge scale, but for pitchers? i.e. the difficulty of each play the pitcher induces
Nah, he means add popups to strikeouts and divide it by either 9 or by PA.
That would turn K% and K/9 into easy-out percentage/easy outs per nine.
A one-hopper to second is pretty easy too. Pedroia usually makes that play.
Yes but the point is he won’t make that play quite as often as he’ll catch a PU4. And inducing IF pop-ups seems like it’s a sustainable skill while inducing room-service hops really isn’t.
Yup. I’m pretty sure that FG now counts IFFBs as Ks for the purpose of FIP, but it would be nice if they gave us the stat, too.
Really? FG includes IFFB in FIP?
Do you have a link that says that?
Huh, I found the article where Dave suggested it, but I thought he had said they were going to implement it. I guess they didn’t end up getting around to it.
Nevermind, look at the WAR glossary: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/
It says “FanGraphs’ WAR for pitchers is based on FIP (plus infield fly balls). We also have a version called RA9-WAR which is based on runs allowed. Baseball-Reference uses runs allowed and attempts to correct for the team defense.”
Is the Sox defense likely to be significantly better than Miley’s AZ defense?
Better definitely. Significantly better depends on how you define significantly.
I’m not convinced the Sox are going to make a play for Hamels or Shields. I think they are adverse to high dollar long term contracts for pitchers and I don’t think they want to surrender Betts, Swihart or Owens for Hamels. Given their early strikes for Ramirez and Sandoval as well as the recent additions of Miley, Porcello and Masterson I think they are going to take a page from the 2014 Orioles. They will field a solid rotation with depth but no aces with an above average offense. The only thing they would need to improve on would be to improve their bullpen because even though their offense is better than the O’s was I think their bullpen is still lacking. However, they can dramatically improve that much cheaper than trying to add another ace. I think it makes sense and if they do need to add an ace mid season their will be some available and they should have the prospect pieces if needed.
Love comments like this because the Sox will probably go all in on Scherzer now.
Miley
Porcello
Buchholz
Masterson
Kelly
.. mehh
Yeah, they’re really banking on the “Odd Year Masterson” theory.
Either that, or they’re gonna go for Scherzer.
Miley is what he is. A guy with an xfip around 3.75 in the NL, which probably translates to around 4 in the AL. In this case his career 103era+ probably paints a fair picture. He’ll give you 200ip of league average performance. A solid 3/4 type.
there’s a couple thing to keep an eye on, though.
one, he’s been durable so far, but his newfound reliance on the injury-causing slider might not be the best development there.
two, some pitchers just blow up completely switching leagues and mikey gave up a .790ops to non-pitchers last year and .757 the year before, both of which are scary numbers. if he allows non pitchers to hit like that off him in the AL, he’ll be in trouble. for the record in career 71ip he has a 4.44era vs the AL.
of course, the red sox gave up next to nothing for him so its a nice upgrade either way.
on another note, the red sox clearly seem to think they’ve found a market inefficiency in groundball pitchers. i’m waiting fir a fangraphs article analyzing that along with infield shift data.
get on it, blengino.
Hah, you got your wish!
So let me get this straight. The Red Sox traded away 5 years of Carl Crawford, 6 years of Adrian Gonzalez, a couple years of Josh Beckett, and a little of Nick Punto for Mike Napoli, Shane Victorino, Stephen Drew, Koji Uehara, Jonny Gomes, a 2013 championship, and finally to complete the trade, Wade Miley.
Sounds good to me.
Yeah, the 2013 championship was really the kicker there. Still can’t figure out how they got the Dodgers to toss that one in.
That was silly of them. Probably why Friedman was hired to manage their massive cash.
Miley almost as good as Lester. Maybe 1 WAR less per year but 150 million dollar less too.
Yeah…no.
I have seen some ERA numbers on Wade Miley. From the fourth and fifth inning on his ERA seems to go up.
Unlike most pitchers, who get better and better each time through the order.