The Church of Miner
I didn't go to church yesterday, but Lynn Henning wrote something about Zach Miner on his blog that made me stand up and shout, "Amen!"
I don't know what Miner has to do to convince a team that he's a starter, not a reliever.
When he starts, the chances of him pitching six capable innings are quite good. When he relieves, his control goes down a notch and he is a so-so bet to be any kind of bullpen plus.
Still, the Tigers talk of him being a reliever in 2009. If I were them, I would commit to acquiring true relievers and name Miner to the starting staff today.
Bingo, bango! He puts the lotion in the basket! Boom goes the dynamite.
I assume there's going to be a competition between Dontrelle Willis, Nate Robertson, and Miner for the fifth spot in the starting rotation. I just hope the big contracts carried by those first two players doesn't influence the decision-making process as much as how each pitcher performs. (Although, really, would it be a surprise if money is ultimately a determining factor? Willis isn't being paid $10 million next season to be a middle reliever. Nor is Robertson getting his $7 million for such a role.)
This might be oversimplifying the issue, but Miner's splits alone would seem to confirm that he's better for the Tigers as a starter than reliever. In the bullpen, he allowed 23 runs in 44.2 innings, as opposed to 35 runs in 73.1 innings when starting. He also walked fewer batters as a starter (19) than reliever (27).
Maybe some of that has to do with Miner just getting his head straight after being sent to the minors to stretch out. But even Jim Leyland admitted that Miner pitches better, instead of trying to throw too hard, when pacing himself through a longer outing.
The question is, where does Miner addresses the larger need? Does he help the Tigers more from the bullpen - if he learns to pitch better when coming into a game, and probably with runners on base - since the team is aching for consistent middle relief? (We already know Leyland is enamored with Miner's sinkerball getting key outs.) Or does he help more as a starter, simply because he seems to perform better in that role?
What would be troubling is if that decision has already been made.
Comments
Still Not Sold
His career stats tell a slightly different story.
He has a 4.72 ERA as a starter over 158 IP comapred to a 3.47 as a reliever over 106 IP.
His stamina is also an issue that I think does not get enough attention. His career ERA in the second half is 4.90 (161 IP) next to 3.15 in the 1st (103 IP). Last season was the first where he pitched the 2nd half relatively close to his performance in the 1st. The catch? He didn’t start any games in the 1st half of the season and he got hammered in September.
I think at this point with all the struggles the Tigers have with pitching that if Miner was going to be such a good starter, he’d be one by now. However I don’t doubt that Leyland questons (as I do) Miner’s ability to pitch 200 innings. Provided either Willis or Robertson give us something to hang our collective hats on Miner’s ideal role is still that of a swingman.
by MacRae on
Jan 12, 2009 6:10 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Could be fluky either way.
His ERA woes this September look like the result of a high BABIP; his K/BB was actually above his average in that month. Fangraphs
Also, about half of his starter innings came at the very beginning of 2006 as a raw rookie, and the other half at the end of last year. I’m not sure how much stock I’d put in either performance as indicative of his potential. I hope he gets a shot at the job in the spring.
It’s going to be tough to make comparisons between 2009 pitching and 2008’s what with the defense (hopefully) improving. Whatever choices get made are probably going to seem vindicated, whether optimal or not.
by cherub_daemon on
Jan 12, 2009 6:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Money
Ian already hit the nail on the head: Dontrelle and Nate make too much money to be middle relievers, though if one of them doesn’t win the #5 starter job, I don’t know where else they could pitch.
Miner always seems to be one of the guys you fall back on… nothing more nothing less. Willis is young enough that you would THINK he could turn it around. Nate’s biggest problem has always been throwing strikes and throwing them consistently. If he can start focusing on getting ahead in the count on each batter, he could be a surprise, especially with the improved defense behind him.
by Todd1005fm on
Jan 13, 2009 8:38 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I sent this question to Jason Beck, but does anyone know if The Tigers are responsible for the entire remainder of Nate or Willis’s contract if they’re put on unconditional release waivers this spring?
With the acquisition of Jackson and the fact that either are too expensive to go into the pen, I have to guess that one of them is simply not going to have a job come April.
by MacRae on
Jan 13, 2009 11:29 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Finally!
Somebody is with me here! I don’t see how they can’t look at Miner. He was the best starter we ran out in the second half of the season, sans Armando. Give him a chance! Holla!
by Zappatista on
Jan 13, 2009 7:40 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs






