When Dan says, "To me he's a closer"...

[Moondoggie]

5 minutes ago, Number5 said:

If you wish to imagine that the Braves and Mets have no interest in Brach, be my guest.

Again, where did I say they had no interest? Please, please show me where I said that. What I said was that they weren't willing to give up what the Orioles wanted for him (otherwise the deal would have been done, right?). So obviously they don't rate him as highly as the Orioles do. And certainly not as highly as you do. This ain't the second coming of Mariano Rivera. This is Brad Frickin' Brach.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

Yes, appearances where pitchers give up lots of runs can be obvious. I think what Can of Corn is saying is that there are probably other appearances where Brach was lucky instead of unlucky and that  those appearances are less obvious, but still have an effect on Brach's overall stats. 

It would take 18 "lucky" appearance to overcome that one single appearance, assumoing a 2.00 ERA and one inning per appearance.  At his existing 1.60 ERA, it would take even more than that.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Moondoggie said:

So you're saying Brach is worth more than Kevin Gausman then? Because that's who the Rockies ask for every time they talk to the Orioles. They don't ask for Brach. Also, while the top relief pitchers are getting paid, there are a lot of guys out there like Brach. And you do realize, don't you, that Brach has only two years left. If you think that two years of a setup guy is worth more than one year of Carlos Gonzalez to a club that's trying to win, then I don't even know what else to say to you because that's completely unreasonable. Let's put it this way. When Gonzalez's contract runs out, he'll get a qualifying offer. Do you really think anybody is going to offer Brad Brach a chance to make $17 million for one season?

But if you take away all the appearances that he gave up runs his ERA is zero.

You can't make that up!

[Number5]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Shocking you once again can not divine my meaning.

 

I am not saying that one appearance wasn't impactfull.

 

I am saying that whatever "bad luck" he had in that one appearance canceled out "good luck" he had enjoyed when he escaped without allowing runs in appearances that he did not look good in.

 

Do you think, overall, that Brach looked like a "closer type" in the second half?

 

I think his ERA and WHIP ended up right about where his talent level was in the second half.

I understood you totally.  Disagreeing is not misunderstanding.  Again it would take a whole lot of "lucky" appearances to overcome that one.  I don't think you are really claiming that he had an outrageous number of "lucky" appearances are you? 

[Moondoggie]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

It would take 18 "lucky" appearance to overcome that one single appearance, assumoing a 2.00 ERA and one inning per appearance.  At his existing 1.60 ERA, it would take even more than that.

What if he had given up six runs had he not had that bit of luck that got him out of trouble in one of those games? 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

I understood you totally.  Disagreeing is not misunderstanding.  Again it would take a whole lot of "lucky" appearances to overcome that one.  I don't think you are really claiming that he had an outrageous number of "lucky" appearances are you? 

No it wouldn't take a "whole lot" of appearences.

You appear to be operating under the misconception that any appearance when he didn't give up runs would count as "lucky".

I am saying that I recall specific appearances where I thought his performance was such that he should have allowed earned runs and didn't.  It would only take four runs worth of that kind of luck to equal out his "unlucky" appearance.  Heck that could be one pitch with the bases loaded where the hitter got a bit under a hanging breaking ball.

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I understood you totally.  Disagreeing is not misunderstanding.  Again it would take a whole lot of "lucky" appearances to overcome that one.  I don't think you are really claiming that he had an outrageous number of "lucky" appearances are you? 

Going by memory of course but I remember thinking at least three times in the second half that Brach was lucky to have not given up any runs.

[Number5]

9 minutes ago, Moondoggie said:

So you're saying Brach is worth more than Kevin Gausman then? Because that's who the Rockies ask for every time they talk to the Orioles. They don't ask for Brach. Also, while the top relief pitchers are getting paid, there are a lot of guys out there like Brach. And you do realize, don't you, that Brach has only two years left. If you think that two years of a setup guy is worth more than one year of Carlos Gonzalez to a club that's trying to win, then I don't even know what else to say to you because that's completely unreasonable. Let's put it this way. When Gonzalez's contract runs out, he'll get a qualifying offer. Do you really think anybody is going to offer Brad Brach a chance to make $17 million for one season?

Good grief.  Yes, the Rockies want Gausman.  Of course they do.  And of course the Orioles hung up on them.  Once again, you are treating this like a redraft fantasy league by trying to put the players on an even contract footing.  We aren't talking at all about what the players will be worth when entering free agency.  That is totally and completely irrelevant to which one has more value right now, given their real-life contract status.  More valuable now =/ better player.  There is a world of difference there.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Going by memory of course but I remember thinking at least three times in the second half that Brach was lucky to have not given up any runs.

As the second half progressed how many folks continued to have faith in Brach getting the job done?

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Going by memory of course but I remember thinking at least three times in the second half that Brach was lucky to have not given up any runs.

How so?  Getting a double play grounder is all luck?  What do you mean by lucky?  Did the umpire call a pitch a foot outside strike three rather than ball four?  Did a base runner fall down?  Personally, I don't consider escaping a jam as necessarily a fluke attributable to luck.  Maybe that is where we differ on this point. 

[Frobby]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If he "lucked" out of allowing two runs in one appearance and one run in another than yea it "kinda evened out".

Brach looked like a guy in the second half and his stats reflect that.  He had a bad break in that one appearance and some good breaks in others.

I agree with ExileAngelos that his relatively average 2nd half performance was possibly the result of overuse during the period that O'Day was on the DL.    He's a very fine reliever, and I don't doubt that he could close.    The idea that closers are radically different animals than set-up guys is not really accurate in any event (and I know you agree with me on this).   

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, Number5 said:

It would take 18 "lucky" appearance to overcome that one single appearance, assumoing a 2.00 ERA and one inning per appearance.  At his existing 1.60 ERA, it would take even more than that.

Not sure I agree with that math.    I bet if you looked at most good relief pitchers, they had a few appearances that "skewed" their performance the rest of the time.   

I distinctly recall a game in May where Brach loaded the bases with nobody out and O'Day came in and bailed him out.   That easily could have been 2-3 earned runs charged to Brach that he escaped due to someone else's good pitching.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

How so?  Getting a double play grounder is all luck?  What do you mean by lucky?  Did the umpire call a pitch a foot outside strike three rather than ball four?  Did a base runner fall down?  Personally, I don't consider escaping a jam as necessarily a fluke attributable to luck.  Maybe that is where we differ on this point. 

I didn't explain it well enough for you?

 

Surprising.

 

I will go with the definition I am already using, I consider it lucky if I thought, watching the appearance, he should have given up one or more runs.

 

 

[Diehard_O's_Fan]

I wonder if the Nationals would be interested in Brach. Do you think Dan has called them? Do the Orioles and Nats match up well?

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I agree with ExileAngelos that his relatively average 2nd half performance was possibly the result of overuse during the period that O'Day was on the DL.    He's a very fine reliever, and I don't doubt that he could close.    The idea that closers are radically different animals than set-up guys is not really accurate in any event (and I know you agree with me on this).   

Use might have been a factor, but closers tend to be put into situations where they might have to deal with fatigue (three in a row for example).

If fatigue was a factor it would in itself lower his value somewhat.