How far are the O's away from being a winning team?

[RVAOsFan]

Tonight they were a solid closer away from beating the first place team in the NL East. There are some building blocks in place but it seems the organization just isn’t quite ready to finish the team to make it a winner. 

[Tbone83]

Yes a real, non-gimmick closer would be helpful. 

[Spy Fox]

10 minutes ago, RVAOsFan said:

Tonight they were a solid closer away from beating the first place team in the NL East. There are some building blocks in place but it seems the organization just isn’t quite ready to finish the team to make it a winner. 

Tough outing, but if Valdez was on another team we'd probably be complaining other teams finding diamonds in the rough when we can't.

[Moose Milligan]

17 minutes ago, RVAOsFan said:

Tonight they were a solid closer away from beating the first place team in the NL East. There are some building blocks in place but it seems the organization just isn’t quite ready to finish the team to make it a winner. 

First of all, Valdez has been solid so far.  Yes, small sample size and all that.  But no closer converts 100% of save opportunities.  

I don't think Tanner Scott is ready to take over the closer spot, there's also not another really valid option at the moment.  

Valdez wasn't sharp tonite and it remains to be seen if he can close at a consistent clip.  I don't see the harm in letting him keep getting save opportunities until he shows he's not the guy for the job.  This year, anyway.  

[murph]

52 minutes ago, Tbone83 said:

Yes a real, non-gimmick closer would be helpful. 

More helpful than 25+ innings of a WHIP under 1.00 and an ERA under 2.00?

 

[scOtt]

How far are the O's away from being a winning team?

 

Well, the Gnats are 40-ish miles down the road. That far.

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

First of all, Valdez has been solid so far.  Yes, small sample size and all that.  But no closer converts 100% of save opportunities.  

I don't think Tanner Scott is ready to take over the closer spot, there's also not another really valid option at the moment.  

Valdez wasn't sharp tonite and it remains to be seen if he can close at a consistent clip.  I don't see the harm in letting him keep getting save opportunities until he shows he's not the guy for the job.  This year, anyway.  

No closer converts 72.7% of his save opportunities and keeps his job for long.    That’s three blown saves in 11 chances.   I’m not saying he should be yanked from the job at this point, but I’m not as enamored of him as a lot of others apparently are.   

You’re right that there’s no obvious candidate to replace him.   Scott in the closer role is the last thing I’d want to see.    I’d rather try Fry.   
 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

No closer converts 72.7% of his save opportunities and keeps his job for long.    That’s three blown saves in 11 chances.   I’m not saying he should be yanked from the job at this point, but I’m not as enamored of him as a lot of others apparently are.   

You’re right that there’s no obvious candidate to replace him.   Scott in the closer role is the last thing I’d want to see.    I’d rather try Fry.   
 

A lot of folks like a good story and Valdez is a good story.

[Can_of_corn]

3 hours ago, scOtt said:

How far are the O's away from being a winning team?

 

Well, the Gnats are 40-ish miles down the road. That far.

They said winning team. 

[Sports Guy]

I definitely believe the Os are missing that elite back end arm.  
 

Maybe Scott can become that guy.  Maybe Harvey can as well but he can’t stay healthy.

They definitely need someone to develop into that elite arm to lean on late in games.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

No closer converts 72.7% of his save opportunities and keeps his job for long.    That’s three blown saves in 11 chances.   I’m not saying he should be yanked from the job at this point, but I’m not as enamored of him as a lot of others apparently are.   

You’re right that there’s no obvious candidate to replace him.   Scott in the closer role is the last thing I’d want to see.    I’d rather try Fry.   
 

All three of Valdez' blown saves were of the one-run variety.  An average team wins 86.7% of games when they're the home team going to the ninth with a one-run lead.  81.8% going to the bottom of the ninth as the visitor.  Presumably some of that 86.7% is allowing a run and then winning in the bottom of the ninth or later.  So average save percentage in those situations are... maybe 80%? 75%?  It just so happens that all the earned runs he's allowed have come in one-run chunks with a one-run lead.

In any case, 72.7% of 11 save opportunities in mid-May of 2021 is not a concern.  One save difference on either end is a 25% swing.  Not a concern unless finishing in 4th place instead of 5th is a huge deal this year.

[UMDTerrapins]

24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I definitely believe the Os are missing that elite back end arm.  
 

Maybe Scott can become that guy.  Maybe Harvey can as well but he can’t stay healthy.

They definitely need someone to develop into that elite arm to lean on late in games.

Could ultimately end up being Baumann, after going the Britton route. 

[sportsfan8703]

I still like Valdez in the closer role. Scott isn’t the answer. Harvey is never healthy. We saw the Cole Sulser experiment. 
 

Fluke things happen when you play sloppy defense in the 9th. 

[Aristotelian]

I am also OK with a fairly long leash. In 2019, zero closers has 100% success rate. Plenty of guys accumulated 20+ saves with success rates in the 70s and low 80s. It's not a great look but it is what it is when your only guy with closer stuff has a walk rate close to 9. I'd say play matchups but Valdez doesn't have strong splits. Better vs LHB this year, but opposite last year. 

[Frobby]

49 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

All three of Valdez' blown saves were of the one-run variety.  An average team wins 86.7% of games when they're the home team going to the ninth with a one-run lead.  81.8% going to the bottom of the ninth as the visitor.  Presumably some of that 86.7% is allowing a run and then winning in the bottom of the ninth or later.  So average save percentage in those situations are... maybe 80%? 75%?  It just so happens that all the earned runs he's allowed have come in one-run chunks with a one-run lead.

In any case, 72.7% of 11 save opportunities in mid-May of 2021 is not a concern.  One save difference on either end is a 25% swing.  Not a concern unless finishing in 4th place instead of 5th is a huge deal this year.

I did the math on this a few years ago.   The save rate on one-run saves is about 75%.   If I remember right, 2-run saves about 95% and 3-run saves 98-99%.    No question 1-run saves are harder.   

Valdez has had four one-run save attempts and converted one of them.   That’s 25%, not 75%.   He’s converted 3 two-run saves and 4 three-run saves.   Not that difficult.   He’s been somewhat unfortunate in that he’s only allowed runs in 4 games, but 3 of those resulted in a blown save.   

My reservations about him are more qualitative than quantitative.   I’ve seen at least two outings, including last night, where you could tell after one batter that he just didn’t have it.   He’s kind of defenseless if the changeup isn’t behaving.   That’s hard to watch.  

Like I said, I see no reason to give up on him right now, because the s as alternatives aren’t great.