ChosenOne21
-
Posts
1431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChosenOne21
-
-
4 hours ago, Conway12 said:
But he hurt his UCL! That means he DEFINITELY won't pitch this year. This is totally a smokescreen while Elias trades for another pitcher! NO ONE HAS EVER PITCHED AFTER A UCL INJURY WITHOUT FIRST GETTING TOMMY JOHN!!!!!11!!!1!!
-
17 hours ago, MDtransplant757 said:
How good is his defense at 3B? Haven't personally kept up with the glove as much as the offense during Mayo's time in the minors
Last year it looked like he could play the position fine. Great arm, good at moving laterally, especially for someone his size, some trouble coming in on balls. Not going to win a gold glove or anything, but not going to hurt you either. This year, super small sample size, but much less good.
-
I don't know how you begin to solve this.
I doubt it has anything to do with the pitch clock. The TJs in the first 100 days thing SportsGuy posted doesn't suggest the pitch clock has anything to do with it, nor does MLB's research showing guys who work faster aren't at higher risk for TJ.
As long as there are millions of dollars at stake for throwing hard, people are going to throw hard.
Maybe MLB could implement some kind of mandatory pitch count, but then guys will throw even harder since they don't have to last as long in the game. Maybe MLB can put a limit on how fast a pitch is allowed to be. Something like if the pitch is over 95 MPH it's automatically a ball, but that's not fair to the guys who can throw at high velocities easier, and I'm sure the MLBPA won't stand for it.
I think the only way this gets better is if technology improves to the point where we can get more out of arms without destroying the elbows. And even then, people will still push the limits to outcompete their peers.
-
37 minutes ago, emmett16 said:
I agree his ceiling is higher. But I believe he has a lower floor as well.
Agreed. I think Povich's floor is "not a useful major leaguer." His ceiling is probably ERA 3.80-4.00-ish starter
-
12 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:
O'Hearn should not play the outfield ever again.
I really don't get the Orioles' love for trying to turn first basemen into outfielders. If they had a shot at being outfielders, they'd have been outfielders in high school/college instead of first basemen. Trumbo, Mancini, now O'Hearn. It's getting ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
If he's still looking bad in a month, I'll bet he starts losing serious playing time. For now though, they'll give him a chance to work through it.
-
8 hours ago, emmett16 said:
You, me, and the next guy think that’s likely the role. I’m pretty stoked the kid is getting a chance. Easy guy to pull for. I’m
go Hall!
I hope he makes the best of this chance and has a great career. But he's five (if you're lucky) and dive as a starter and likely an inconsistent one. I think he'll be a very good reliever. I think we're going to miss him more than Joey Ortiz.
-
4 hours ago, emmett16 said:
Hall went 4ip 2BB 1K 2 ER 45/73 today for Mil
I guess they want to learn the hard way that D.L. Hall isn't a starting pitcher.
-
I really didn't think he was going to make the team. Results were good in spring training, but the stuff wasn't.
-
10 hours ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:
Bradish has an injury that results in major surgery in most cases. Counting on him to be a significant contributor this year is wildly premature at this juncture.
You're right that UCL injuries require surgery in most cases. However, the fact he hasn't had surgery and instead got a PRP injection suggests that his is incredibly minor and he may be able to avoid surgery. I believe someone posted some paper here that said something like 2/3s of players who get a PRP injection instead of Tommy John avoid surgery for the next five years.
If the only information we had was "Bradish has a UCL injury" then yeah, our best guess would be that he won't pitch much or at all this year. But we have more information than that.
-
It's entirely possible that the ownership transfer is making it very difficult for the Orioles to hand out any kind of big-ish contract. I'm not totally convinced it is, but I guess we'll know for sure next offseason.
Yeah, it'd be worse for us if Montgomery went to the AL East, but honestly, the fact it's the Diamondbacks kind of stings more. The Diamondbacks are a mid-market team. There's no way we couldn't afford a payroll in line with theirs. We have way more room to add money and they're the ones who landed the free agent.
I seriously doubt Elias is trying to "prove" he can win with a bottom three payroll. I'm sure he'd like to spend more, but I'm guessing the reason he can't is some combination of Angelos being tight-fisted and the transfer of ownership screwing with the budget.
-
Just when we thought we were safe from having an aging, below average left-handed second baseman on the roster...
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, webbrick2010 said:
I was responding to the post that said Burnes replaces Bradish, it did not mention that we also lost Gibson
So we have in fact lost our innings pitched and wins leader (Gibson) and our ace (Bradish) and replaced them with Burns, don't know how folks don't see this as a major problem.
We haven't "lost Bradish." There's no reason to think he's missing the entire season or even most of it except evidence-less pessimism. It's not out of the question, but we're not there yet.
As for Gibson being our pitching wins leader, I can't think of a better argument not to use that stat. He gave us a lot of innings, but they weren't great innings.
Does Means not count as an "addition" for you? Has your bottomless pessimism ruled him out from pitching this year, too? -
10 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:
We subtracted our innings pitched and wins leader (Gibson) and added nothing
Can't believe we didn't get another starting pitcher, this could blow up
Tell me you're not concerned because we lost Gibson...
EDIT: Also, how is Burnes "adding nothing?" -
1 hour ago, DirtyBird said:
Because we have no starters behind Irvin who are major league ready.
I seriously doubt Teheran will provide any quality as a starting pitcher. I'd rather throw McDermott or Povich to the wolves. At least they have upside.
-
46 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:
We need to keep him
Why? He was really good once, but now he's nothing special. Wouldn't have been upset if we kept him or not.
-
I'd say most likely he walks, though if he's having a good year and so are Cowser/Kjerstad/Stowers I think there's a non-zero chance he's traded at the deadline.
-
2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
If what you are trying to say is that you are OK with him being ranked #25 but think that should be considered a low #1 - high #2 I don't disagree with you.
If you have 30 teams you should have 30 #1 starters.
That's pretty much what I'm saying, although I think #25 is underrating him. I think low-to-mid teens is more accurate, and you could make the case he's better than that depending on what metric you use.
-
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:
That's because you are looking for a reason to view it that way.
If Bradish pitched for the Brewers would you still feel that way?
If they viewed him as a fluke why would he be rated in the top 30?
This isn't about me having a chip on my shoulder because I feel the Orioles are getting slighted. If the Brewers had a clone of Kyle Bradish who was rated where he was, I would still feel he's underrated. My point is that this method and, frankly, how pretty much everyone talks about starting pitchers MASSIVLY UNDERRATES ALMOST ALL OF THEM.
The impression I'm getting is most people think there are like 2-5 #1 starters in all of baseball, maybe 15-20 or so #2 starters, twice that many #3 starters and everyone else is awful. But this ignores the reality that there are 150 starting pitcher jobs at any point in time.
To me, If you're in the 80th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #1. If you're in the 60th percentile of starting pitchers, you're a #2, etc. If you want to single out a few pitchers as "Aces" I guess I'm fine with that.
There are prominent posters on this board who were hoping to get Dean Kremer out of the rotation earlier in the offseason because "he's not a starting pitcher" or "he's a #4 starter at best" or something like that. Granted, I'd love to have a rotation of pitchers better than Kremer, but he was something like a 70th percentile starting pitcher last year. Depending on what metric you use, he would have been the best starting pitcher on multiple teams. How is that a #4 anywhere but on a wishlist?
1 hour ago, Frobby said:I think you’re just reading too much into it. Bradish was a top ten pitcher in baseball last year, but on a list like this, he’s going to take a back seat to guys who have shown that they’re good year after year. If he has another top 10 ERA this year, he’ll probably move way up the list next year.
Another reason Bradish is downgraded is he barely qualified for the ERA title last year, whereas a lot of guys ranked above him are reliable innings eaters in addition to being quality pitchers. Bradish won’t establish himself as a reliable innings eater this year, even if he’s able to come back this season.
He missed what, two starts, and had an abbreviated third because a comebacker hit his leg in the first inning? That's just bad luck, and that's something people just looking at a bunch of numbers wouldn't consider. And yes, I'm sure other pitchers had similar bad luck, but even so, Kyle Bradish pitched more innings than the vast majority of major league starting pitchers. And they were better innings than the vast majority as well.
32 minutes ago, dzorange said:Is this not exactly what he is on the Orioles? And was making this happen not a priority for the Orioles this past offseason?
Was Steve Avery a #4 starter because the Braves had three pitchers better than him?
When people talk about what number a starter is, they generally don't mean on their team--they're talking about the general ability of the player.
-
30 minutes ago, Frobby said:
It’s pretty simple. They aren’t ranking the pitchers based solely on last season. Guys with a longer track record of success are going to rank higher than guys who’ve had one good season. It’s not that anyone thinks Bradish was a “fluke,” but you can’t assume that level of performance will be repeated just because he did it one time.
"Sure, you pitched like an Ace/#1 last year, but there's no way that's who you actually are. There's not even a chance. You're not even an 'applicant'"
This is what I see when I read their ranking. And that doesn't make sense to me. He's done it for the last year/year and a half but there's no chance that's who he actually is? How else am I supposed to interpret that other than they think he's a fluke? If he had a multi-season track record of mediocrity then pulled last year out of his butt, I could see it, but it was his second season in the majors. -
8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
I wouldn't say a fluke, just had a strong year.
Folks are acting like 25th overall is somehow a bad ranking. That's lower end #1 higher end #2 starting pitcher. I think that's fair considering the sample size.
It's not that 25th overall is a bad ranking as much as it seems obviously low. Also, that's not a #1/#2 according to their silly system. They say that's a low #2, high #3 which is what I really take issue with. How is the 25th best pitcher a low #2, high #3?
-
7 hours ago, dzorange said:
I don't think Bradish being ranked the 24th best pitcher is being shat on. Actually it's 25th, they numbered the article incorrectly at the time and has since been edited.
The way the rankings are broken down, it's clear that when they say number two or number three, that it's meant for playoff caliber teams.
Do people really consider Bradish to be a #1? If he is, why was getting a #1 pitcher a priority? And that doesn't take into account that the O's also have Rodriguez.
Is WAR not a reasonable metric?
They literally based this article on the thoughts of executives, scouts and analysts.
Last year, Bradish was way better than the 25th best pitcher in baseball. Like I said, you'd have to think last year was a fluke to rank him that low.
WAR is a somewhat reasonable metric for pitchers, though I like it better for hitters. He was 16th in fWAR for starting pitchers last year, but I think that's underselling him a bit. WAR is heavily based on innings pitched, and on a per inning basis he was better than some of the people above him.
Yes, Bradish's season last year was that of a #1 pitcher. Even if we limit it to playoff teams, I'll bet his season was better than the best starting pitcher season on at least one team that made the playoffs and probably several.
I don't care that they're executives, scouts, and analysts. Their distribution is way too bottom heavy, even for "playoff caliber" teams, whatever that means. Bradish was the best starting pitcher on a playoff caliber team, so even if that's their silly standard, he's a #1 by their own definition. How is Grayson Rodriguez not an "applicant" by their standards? Does he really have little to no chance to be an "ace?"
I'm not claiming anti-Oriole bias here--I just can't see how they ranked other teams' pitchers. I'm sure I'd have issues there, too. -
In what universe is Kyle Bradish a "number two or number three starter?" You'd have to believe his last year was a fluke. I doubt there were ten starting pitchers who had a better year than him last year by any reasonable metric.
This is why I can't stand "rankings" of starting pitchers--"Ace," "number 1" etc. because they're based on this ridiculous fantasy of what the starting pitching talent distribution looks like.
Thirty teams with five rotation spots equals 150 starting pitchers. Do you know how low you would have to set the innings pitched bar to get 150 starting pitchers above it last year? 70.
But sure, Kyle Bradish is "mid-rotation."
What a joke. It's these guys' jobs to be more informed than this.
-
I like this roster, though Cowser on the bench isn't ideal. I guess you can give one of Mayo/Mountcastle/Hays/Santander/Westburg/Cowser a day off every day.
Kyle Bradish Has Sprained UCL, Will Start Season On IL (4/9 Update: Assigned rehab assignment w/Aberdeen)
in Orioles Talk
Posted
No one has said this, but it feels like half the board is acting like it's a true statement.
Of course, he might not pitch this year, but it's probably like 67% likely he will and 33% he won't.