Mike Fiers - Your 2009, 22nd round pick

[slappzilla]

I think you guys are prematurely crowning him.

 

He's been good. I hope he stays good, but let's wait before we name him ace of staff.

[FVBrewerFan]

I don't think anyone (including Denny Green) is "crowning him" or naming him ace of the staff, unless I've missed something?

 

Seems to me the tone here in general is "cautiously optimistic." Estrada also looks like a pretty solid #5 guy. Now if a guy like Burgos can come out of nowhere and be an option for 2013, things are looking up. You basically have the rotation covered, not even including any top prospects.

[slappzilla]

If you read the majority of posts in this thread, the popular conclusion on Fiers is a lot more than "cautiously optimistic".

 

Since you did bring up Estrada though, I am way high on him. Admittedly too high. I think he has starting rotation stuff and then some.

[FVBrewerFan]

Well, I have read the majority of the posts and I didn't see anyone claiming he was/ will be the ace of the staff. What I DO see in the majority of posts is people saying there's reason to believe Fiers may be middle of the rotation guy as a celing, but even if he's a 4/5 starter that would be good thing to know going into next season.

[igor67]

It certainly looks like Estrada and Fiers are at least major league caliber pitchers, certainly they would draw an opening day start over Rafeal Roque. I'd have some serious concerns though about how good the team can be if the rotation plan drops Marcum and Greinke and fills it out with guys like Fiers, Estrada, and Burgos. League average starters are very useful, but if we go from having 3 above average starters to one that is a big talent loss to make-up elsewhere on the team. On an innings basis that would be equivalent to taking this years pen and replacing it with one of the top 5 pens. Not impossible, but looks like a stretch. Things look a lot better if you can find at least one other guy who looks like at least a traditional #2 to compliment those guys.

[rluzinski]

I think you guys are prematurely crowning him.

 

He's been good. I hope he stays good, but let's wait before we name him ace of staff.

 

http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/straw-man.jpg

[thebruce44]

Is there any statistical evidence that pitchers new to the majors perform better than expected over their first whatever number of appearances?

Yes, there is.

 

No book on them - hitters aren't sure what to expect. Happens all the time.

 

Awesome! Ha, ha.

 

I have to agree that it seems like just as many guys struggle. It would be really interesting to see a study like this, but I'm not sure how to objectively approach it.

[Raw Biz]

Is there any statistical evidence that pitchers new to the majors perform better than expected over their first whatever number of appearances?

Yes, there is.

 

No book on them - hitters aren't sure what to expect. Happens all the time.

 

Awesome! Ha, ha.

 

I have to agree that it seems like just as many guys struggle. It would be really interesting to see a study like this, but I'm not sure how to objectively approach it.

 

Really, I thought slapzilla just gave you the answer.

[rluzinski]

I think it's very easy to approach it objectively and come up with a simple study to start the discussion. You start off with a group of starting pitchers who made a certain minimum number of starts in their first major league season. You compare that group's performance in their first x number of starts vs. the rest of their starts for the season. If there is a significant enough of a "no book on them" effect, we should be able to detect it. If we can't, it either doesn't exist, is too small to detect or is being counteracted by an opposing effect (e.g. "overcoming rookie jitters"). The study could also have a flaw (e.g. selective sample issues).

 

Assuming every baseball cliche is factually correct is bad. Using anecdotal evidence to support them is worse.

[thebruce44]

I think it's very easy to approach it objectively and come up with a simple study to start the discussion. You start off with a group of starting pitchers who made a certain minimum number of starts in their first major league season. You compare that group's performance in their first x number of starts vs. the rest of their starts for the season. If there is a significant enough of a "no book on them" effect, we should be able to detect it. If we can't, it either doesn't exist, is too small to detect or is being counteracted by an opposing effect (e.g. "overcoming rookie jitters"). The study could also have a flaw (e.g. selective sample issues).

 

Assuming every baseball cliche is factually correct is bad. Using anecdotal evidence to support them is worse.

 

This is why I don't know how to approach it. Not to mention, how do you account for the difference in there "being a book on a guy" vs a team seeing him for a second or third time. Surely seeing the guy in person from the batter's box is different than reading a scouting report or watching video.

[reillymcshane]

Awesome, in-depth look at Mike Fiers pitching style on Beyond the Boxscore:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2012/7/9/3146765/michael-fiers-versus-the-radar-gun-how-is-he-winning

 

Pretty fascinating.

[adambr2]

Fiers' current line of 3-4, 1.96 ERA looks like a mini-version of Ben Sheets 2004.

[paul253]

If Fiers can get some wins, maybe 8 or 9 before the season is over, and continues to put up a sub 3.00 ERA, is there ANY chance he gets some love for ROY? Or is that honor pretty much reserved for Bryce Harper because of how popular he is?

[adambr2]

I doubt it. Long-term, I'm more concerned whether or not Fiers came up early enough this year to eventually be Super-2 eligible. I'm thinking no, but I don't recall exactly when he was promoted.

[brewmann04]

I just hope he continues and be a part of the brewers 2013 rotation.

[DHonks]

adambr2, when a player makes an impact, I don't care at all about super 2 status. If he keeps this up, he's a bargain and it won't matter

[rluzinski]

adambr2, when a player makes an impact, I don't care at all about super 2 status. If he keeps this up, he's a bargain and it won't matter

Noy saying I'd necessarily send him down but of course it matters. How could you argue otherwise?

[DHonks]

Super 2 status might mean $1-2 million difference. I can't imagine it would mean anything more than $3 million. That's a difference, but it's not worth holding a player back for when that might be what we spend on a lesser free agent to occupy his spot. We're still going to have his rights for 7 big league seasons.

[adambr2]

That's simply not true. For one, there is a window in a player's first season that he must be called up after in order to not have that first year count as a full season, I believe it's 20 days but that most definitely matters. That's the whole reason behind the JJ Hardy controversy in 2009, they gained a full extra year service from that.

 

Also, since arbitration salary generally accelerates year to year, it has an affect in subsequent seasons. The Washington Post actually did a study that found that the Nationals saved roughly $18M over the years by delaying Strasburg's arrival.

 

Fiers isn't going to be Strasburg, but the point is that it's worth considering, a lot more than the "$1-$2 million" that you chalk it up as.

[NievesNoNO]

I think he's a legit 4-5 type starter, which is quite valuable. I think he'll regress some as the league adjusts. He may want to tap Marcum for all his knowledge before he leaves. Maybe he all ready has. With all that has gone wrong with this season the bright spots for me have been the pitching of Fiers and Estrada. It's nice going into next season feeling like they have 3 capable starters without figuring in any internal or external additions.

[jerichoholicninja]

Fiers was up at the end of last year too. I can never remember if that actually counts toward service time or not.

[TheCrew07]

Any time on the MLB roster, Sept or otherwise, counts towards a player's service time.

 

However, from a service standpoint DHonks is correct, it doesn't matter because he won't have accrued a full year of service time by year's end regardless if he stays up, so the only concern here is the extra cost of arby.

 

He's also not young, in fact he's rather old to be in his first professional season. As such, I'm fine with him staying up and potentially being a Super 2, this is one case where I'm not going to quibble over $2-3M in a 4th arby year because the truth is we need Mike next season and I'm fine with him getting all the experience he can this season. Thornburg should go back down immediately, he has work to do with his command, but I'm cool with Fiers staying up.

 

That's simply not true. For one, there is a window in a player's first season that he must be called up after in order to not have that first year count as a full season, I believe it's 20 days but that most definitely matters. That's the whole reason behind the JJ Hardy controversy in 2009, they gained a full extra year service from that.

 

Unfortunately you are confused and are rolling a couple of different issues into service time. Fiers had .02 of a year of service time coming into the season, he didn't get called up until the end of May appearing for the first time on May 29th. He's likely right on the border of being a super 2, but that's the only concern. You should probably go back and do some more research as I'm unsure where you got mixed up but Hardy actually started 2005 on the opening day roster, which is why the 20 days gipped him out of a year of service time. Since Fiers spent the first 2 months of the season in AAA, there's no parallel at all between the situations.

[The stache]

Wouldn't it be funny if Fiers turned out to be out best pitcher? All this talk about Peralta, Jungmann, Thornburg and Bradley being the future of our rotation, and we may have a guy already up with the team that could be in their class. Mark Rogers had the kind of stuff that teams drool about, yet he could never stay healthy long enough with that stuff.

 

Greg Maddux never had overpowering stuff, yet he was constantly keeping hitters guessing. Now, I'm not saying that Fiers is going to be another Maddux, but where is it written that you have to throw 95 to be a great pitcher? RA Dickey is one of the best in the majors right now, and he does it with control. Ya, it's a knuckle ball, and nobody else throws it, but he's able to dominate without overpowering hitters. Fiers keeps batters off guard. He does a great job of mixing his pitches up. If you read the article linked earlier in this thread, his delivery makes it almost impossible for hitters to anticipate what kind of pitch is coming.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Fiers ends up being a 15 win a season pitcher. That would be great for us.

[igor67]

I've been pretty happy about Fiers performance (and yet disappointed at the same time, before the season started if you had said we'd get to call-up a starting pitcher who was going to post that low on an ERA I'd have been thinking we might run away with the division with the other starters we had on hand). Anyway in thinking about sustainability I'm wondering if Hideo Nomo isn't possibly a good comp. Just dominates as a rookie, and the follow-up is still pretty good, but then it starts to tail off as people finally adjust to the weird delivery.

[torts]

who would have thought that Fiers would have a sub 2.00 ERA and a record of 3-4. 2012 Brewers right there for ya