Kyle Bradish 2023

[Roll Tide]

17 minutes ago, Frobby said:

In that case, there would be one TOR.  I don’t think that’s right.  This is what I hate about these terms, everyone has their own idea of what they mean.

To me, a TOR means a guy who would be a no. 1-2 starter on a contending team.  

So is Bradish a #1 starter?

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

So the real question, Would you say Bradish is a TOR? If not what will it take for you to confirm that he is?

Bradish's pedestrian 13.7 in zone Whiff is probably what holds him back a bit when you start talking TOR. Both his slider and curveball are plus offerings, but his fastball is a well below average offering because of the lack of movement both vertically and horizontally and why he's throwing that more effective sinker more. His change has been an ok pitch for him because he's able to land it more often than not and surprise guys with it since he only throws it less than 10% of the time.

His 33 percentile chase percentage means he doesn't garner a ton of chase, but when they do swing out of zone, he gets a top 14 (among major league starters) WHIFF rate of  53.9%. Without missing a ton of bats in the zone though, he's working off of soft contact which mostly comes from his breaking balls. 

To me, Grayson Rodriguez is the guy with TOR potential while Bradish to me is a solid #2 or #3 guy. 

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

So is Bradish a #1 starter?

Well he is the clear number 1 starter on the team with the best record in the AL… sounds like it to me. 
I am usually subjectively glad and relieved when his turn comes up , like yesterday after a loss and Rays coming hard .. which is a reaction I have had very seldom to Os starters since Mike Mussina left.. maybe Bedard for a bit there 

I am much happier we have him rather than Dylan Bundy lol 

Edited September 3, 2023 by tntoriole

[dystopia]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

In that case, there would be one TOR.  I don’t think that’s right.  This is what I hate about these terms, everyone has their own idea of what they mean.

To me, a TOR means a guy who would be a no. 1-2 starter on a contending team.  

That's how I've always seen it, or at least a 1-2 starter on your average team.

[Osornot]

2 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

Bradish's pedestrian 13.7 in zone Whiff is probably what holds him back a bit when you start talking TOR. Both his slider and curveball are plus offerings, but his fastball is a well below average offering because of the lack of movement both vertically and horizontally and why he's throwing that more effective sinker more. His change has been an ok pitch for him because he's able to land it more often than not and surprise guys with it since he only throws it less than 10% of the time.

His 33 percentile chase percentage means he doesn't garner a ton of chase, but when they do swing out of zone, he gets a top 14 (among major league starters) WHIFF rate of  53.9%. Without missing a ton of bats in the zone though, he's working off of soft contact which mostly comes from his breaking balls. 

To me, Grayson Rodriguez is the guy with TOR potential while Bradish to me is a solid #2 or #3 guy. 

 b

It has been so long since we actually had a real #1 outside of numbers I am not even sure what the definition is.  I have seen other teams' true #1's pitch against us but not here.  Back in my day of 4-starters an ace was the guy you thought would stop the losing streak at 3.  The guy the other team did not want to face. I really can't remember that feeling since Mussina.

[Frobby]

41 minutes ago, Osornot said:

It has been so long since we actually had a real #1 outside of numbers I am not even sure what the definition is.  I have seen other teams' true #1's pitch against us but not here.  Back in my day of 4-starters an ace was the guy you thought would stop the losing streak at 3.  The guy the other team did not want to face. I really can't remember that feeling since Mussina.

Bedard, but only for a two-year period.  

Edited September 3, 2023 by Frobby

[dystopia]

23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Bedard, but only for a two-year period.  

I remember Jeremy Guthrie had stretches, but the team never scored any runs for him. 
 

Chris Tillman was also borderline. 

[waroriole]

10 minutes ago, dystopia said:

I remember Jeremy Guthrie had stretches, but the team never scored any runs for him. 
 

Chris Tillman was also borderline. 

They’re not even close to the level of Mussina or Bedard. Similar to Bradish though, along with many others. 

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, waroriole said:

They’re not even close to the level of Mussina or Bedard. Similar to Bradish though, along with many others. 

I don’t think Bradish’s rung of the ladder has been determined yet. It’s his second year in the league. He could climb much higher than Tillman, or he might not. And Tillman was kind of underrated in his prime, IMO.  

[waroriole]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think Bradish’s rung of the ladder has been determined yet. It’s his second year in the league. He could climb much higher than Tillman, or he might not. And Tillman was kind of underrated in his prime, IMO.  

Tillman, Chen, Gausman, now Bradish, I would put in the same tier. Solid SP I feel confident in when they’re pitching. Still not quite at the ace level. I don’t think Bradish’s peripherals show someone we should expect improvement from. But, Grayson could be that ace we’ve been lacking. 

[Aristotelian]

Just now, waroriole said:

Tillman, Chen, Gausman, now Bradish, I would put in the same tier. Solid SP I feel confident in when they’re pitching. Still not quite at the ace level. I don’t think Bradish’s peripherals show someone we should expect improvement from. But, Grayson could be that ace we’ve been lacking. 

Peak Tillman, yes. He also had a lot of bad years mixed in with the good. Bradish is right around Tillman's career best WAR and will likely pass it if he keeps going well down the stretch. He is already at nearly half Tillman's career WAR due to how bad he was in his bad years. If Bradish can hit 4 WAR that would be higher I believe than any season Tillman, Chen, or Gausman achieved for the O's. 

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Peak Tillman, yes. He also had a lot of bad years mixed in with the good. Bradish is right around Tillman's career best WAR and will likely pass it if he keeps going well down the stretch. He is already at nearly half Tillman's career WAR due to how bad he was in his bad years. If Bradish can hit 4 WAR that would be higher I believe than any season Tillman, Chen, or Gausman achieved for the O's. 

I kind of ignore Tillman’s bad years.  His good ones (2012-16) mirrored the team’s best years of his tenure. He hurt his shoulder towards the end of 2016 and was never the same again, which is a shame.  

[dystopia]

1 hour ago, waroriole said:

They’re not even close to the level of Mussina or Bedard. Similar to Bradish though, along with many others. 

Well, Mussina is a HoFer, of course they aren’t going to compare to him. I’d say they’re not that far off from Bedard, though. Bedard has one year where he was a true ace here, and even then, Guthrie hung with him on ERA until August before struggling a bit and then Bedard got hurt. 

[Aristotelian]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I kind of ignore Tillman’s bad years.  His good ones (2012-16) mirrored the team’s best years of his tenure. He hurt his shoulder towards the end of 2016 and was never the same again, which is a shame.  

Even so his ERA bounced around from year to year between #1/2 level and #3/4 level. He was bad for three years, then half year of 2.93, up to 3.71, down to 3.34, up to 4.99, down to 3.77. You could say he had 1.5 years of TOR level production but it was never sustained. I'd put his good window at 2012-14. Then he came into camp out of shape and had a terrible year in '15. After that had a decent year but definitely not TOR level in 2016. Add to that he never had dominant stuff, I always felt more like he was a "give us a chance to win" rather than "we are going to win" type of pitcher. If Bradish can stay healthy and maintain what he's doing I think he can have a much more productive body of work for us than Tillman/Chen.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Even so his ERA bounced around from year to year between #1/2 level and #3/4 level. He was bad for three years, then half year of 2.93, up to 3.71, down to 3.34, up to 4.99, down to 3.77. You could say he had 1.5 years of TOR level production but it was never sustained. I'd put his good window at 2012-14. Then he came into camp out of shape and had a terrible year in '15. After that had a decent year but definitely not TOR level in 2016.

To me, 2015 was the outlier of 2012-16, and as you noted, he foolishly showed up out of shape that year.  He pitched really well in 2016 IMO, but hurt his shoulder in mid-August, missed some starts and didn’t pitch as well once he returned to the rotation.  He had a legit shot at a 20-win season before the injury (he won his 15th game in the team’s 114th game of the year).   

The thing I liked about Tillman, over Chen and Gonzalez, was he tended to pitch better as the game went along, whereas the latter two would begin to struggle in the 6th or 7th inning.  But all three were very good for us and generally underrated.