FIX THE DANG BULLPEN

[G54377]

19 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

You’re willing to trade a blue chip guy for a RP? Who are you thinking? 

I'm talking the very end of our upper prospects if that makes sense. Blue chip was probably a bad choice of words. I'm not giving up the top 4 (Holliday/Kjerstad/Mayo/Basallo). For 1 1/2 years of Helsley. Maybe Beavers (fringe 100 guy) as the headliner? I'd consider Norby too? Depends on how the trader market shakes out. I'd have to look back and see what a RP like Helsely requires in a trade. I remember we traded ERod who was somewhere around 60-70 on top prospect lists for 1/2 year of Andrew Miller. But that was a direct 1v1 trade and I think Miller was more highly regarded.

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

It seems that you feel that you have a pretty good gage on the price of Mason Miller. How much do you think he will cost?

I'm not going to pretend to know any more than anyone else. I would say if Oakland is going to trade what amounts to almost Miller's entire 6 years of club control, they will want one of our big 4 at least. Probably one of them AND a guy like Norby/Beavers/Povich/etc.

[Bemorewins]

2 minutes ago, G54377 said:

I'm talking the very end of our upper prospects if that makes sense. Blue chip was probably a bad choice of words. I'm not giving up the top 4 (Holliday/Kjerstad/Mayo/Basallo). For 1 1/2 years of Helsley. Maybe Beavers (fringe 100 guy) as the headliner? I'd consider Norby too? Depends on how the trader market shakes out. I'd have to look back and see what a RP like Helsely requires in a trade. I remember we traded ERod who was somewhere around 60-70 on top prospect lists for 1/2 year of Andrew Miller. But that was a direct 1v1 trade and I think Miller was more highly regarded.

I'm not going to pretend to know any more than anyone else. I would say if Oakland is going to trade what amounts to almost Miller's entire 6 years of club control, they will want one of our big 4 at least. Probably one of them AND a guy like Norby/Beavers/Povich/etc.

I get where you are coming from and love the potential talents of our top four prospects as well.

The problem that I see with this approach is that we may be forfeiting a potential promising chance for this season in order to maybe have a better one some years down the line. The issue with this is that the clock is ticking on Adley and Gunnar while we continue to hedge/hold.

Also, something worth considering is that Basallo/Mayo/Kjerstad are likely going to be vying to fill the same spots - 1B/DH/maybe RF? Plus Kjerstad will no longer be a prospect next year (given his age) so it's kind of now or never in terms of extracting value from him vying trade. Next season Kjerstad will be 26, Stowers 27, and Norby 25. AND Adley will be (aged 26) in year 4 and Gunnar and Westburg in year 3.

[e16bball]

16 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I appreciate the statistics that you took the time to lay out from last year's WS TEX. If you believe that is the model for us to try to replicate, then all power to you. I just share a different opinion. 

It’s not a model to replicate. As you’ll note, I referred to that group as a “trash pile.” As you’ll also note, I join you in hoping they make a significant move to upgrade the bullpen.

The point is that you seem to be treating the current bullpen as something of a disqualifier from playoff success. We *can’t* win with this group, status quo. But I think that’s a hard position to defend when this group as currently constituted is better than the one that helped hoist the trophy last year.

20 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Our most serious competitor for the AL pennant is the Yankees. IMO we are very close in talent in terms of both Major League rosters. We have better position player depth and a much better minor league talent pool, but they have a far superior bullpen. IMO we should try to use our advantage (position player organizational talent) in order to improve on our weakness, the bullpen, for the purpose of better evening the odds (moving them yo our favor) in a short series against them in the Fall.

I don’t disagree with any of this.

As we compare to the Yankees, Holmes is clearly the best reliever on either team at present, and Weaver might well be the second best. It would be a significant benefit to this team if we could match that talent level in the late innings.

But as it also relates to the Yankees, I did just watch us take a short series (3-1) against them in the Spring. A series in which our bullpen pitched 12.2 innings and allowed a total of 1 run (0.71 ERA), to go with 12 Ks against 1 BB. Their bullpen was excellent too, of course, but as we both agree — that’s only one of many factors involved in how we match up with any given team. The bullpens pitched to a draw in that series, and it’s entirely plausible that that would be the case again in the Fall.

Where I’m getting stuck is just the rhetoric of it all, the notion that we’re just accepting defeat if we don’t change X or add Y. That we can’t win with a group like we have. That the FO must be indifferent to winning if they don’t add a certain player or make a certain change.

I am in total agreement that adding a Holmesian reliever would increase our odds of winning the tournament. Significantly. Entering the playoffs with a reliever of that level added to the roster might well increase our trophy likelihood by several percentage points. As long as we keep it in that perspective — a change that might increase our odds, say, from 12% to 16% — rather than some sort of binary “can win” vs. “can’t win” disqualifier, then I’m right there with you.

[Malike]

10 minutes ago, e16bball said:

It’s not a model to replicate. As you’ll note, I referred to that group as a “trash pile.” As you’ll also note, I join you in hoping they make a significant move to upgrade the bullpen.

The point is that you seem to be treating the current bullpen as something of a disqualifier from playoff success. We *can’t* win with this group, status quo. But I think that’s a hard position to defend when this group as currently constituted is better than the one that helped hoist the trophy last year.

I don’t disagree with any of this.

As we compare to the Yankees, Holmes is clearly the best reliever on either team at present, and Weaver might well be the second best. It would be a significant benefit to this team if we could match that talent level in the late innings.

But as it also relates to the Yankees, I did just watch us take a short series (3-1) against them in the Spring. A series in which our bullpen pitched 12.2 innings and allowed a total of 1 run (0.71 ERA), to go with 12 Ks against 1 BB. Their bullpen was excellent too, of course, but as we both agree — that’s only one of many factors involved in how we match up with any given team. The bullpens pitched to a draw in that series, and it’s entirely plausible that that would be the case again in the Fall.

Where I’m getting stuck is just the rhetoric of it all, the notion that we’re just accepting defeat if we don’t change X or add Y. That we can’t win with a group like we have. That the FO must be indifferent to winning if they don’t add a certain player or make a certain change.

I am in total agreement that adding a Holmesian reliever would increase our odds of winning the tournament. Significantly. Entering the playoffs with a reliever of that level added to the roster might well increase our trophy likelihood by several percentage points. As long as we keep it in that perspective — a change that might increase our odds, say, from 12% to 16% — rather than some sort of binary “can win” vs. “can’t win” disqualifier, then I’m right there with you.

I think we were pretty fortunate to catch the Yankees when they had 1 guy in the lineup hitting.

[Bemorewins]

51 minutes ago, e16bball said:

It’s not a model to replicate. As you’ll note, I referred to that group as a “trash pile.” As you’ll also note, I join you in hoping they make a significant move to upgrade the bullpen.

The point is that you seem to be treating the current bullpen as something of a disqualifier from playoff success. We *can’t* win with this group, status quo. But I think that’s a hard position to defend when this group as currently constituted is better than the one that helped hoist the trophy last year.

I don’t disagree with any of this.

As we compare to the Yankees, Holmes is clearly the best reliever on either team at present, and Weaver might well be the second best. It would be a significant benefit to this team if we could match that talent level in the late innings.

But as it also relates to the Yankees, I did just watch us take a short series (3-1) against them in the Spring. A series in which our bullpen pitched 12.2 innings and allowed a total of 1 run (0.71 ERA), to go with 12 Ks against 1 BB. Their bullpen was excellent too, of course, but as we both agree — that’s only one of many factors involved in how we match up with any given team. The bullpens pitched to a draw in that series, and it’s entirely plausible that that would be the case again in the Fall.

Where I’m getting stuck is just the rhetoric of it all, the notion that we’re just accepting defeat if we don’t change X or add Y. That we can’t win with a group like we have. That the FO must be indifferent to winning if they don’t add a certain player or make a certain change.

I am in total agreement that adding a Holmesian reliever would increase our odds of winning the tournament. Significantly. Entering the playoffs with a reliever of that level added to the roster might well increase our trophy likelihood by several percentage points. As long as we keep it in that perspective — a change that might increase our odds, say, from 12% to 16% — rather than some sort of binary “can win” vs. “can’t win” disqualifier, then I’m right there with you.

I appreciate your mathematical/scientific/odds perspective. With that in mind, no player(s)added are going to give us any kind of certainty or guarantee, just as well as no other lesser player that we retain is going to make it a certainty that we cannot be successful. However, what I believe as you have stated is that better talent increases your odds for success. But there are no guarantees. 

Yes, we did win that series when Judge was uncharacteristically ice cold and most of our (non-Kimbrel) relievers were pretty hot. I however do not like our odds when we stack the talent of the two teams given their sizable advantage when comparing the two pens.

[jrobb21613]

I wouldn't be opposed to trading for Ryan Pressly. He's having a down here with Houston but I think he's better than he's been pitching plus upcoming free agent next year. He shouldn't cost much. 

[G54377]

2 minutes ago, jrobb21613 said:

I wouldn't be opposed to trading for Ryan Pressly. He's having a down here with Houston but I think he's better than he's been pitching plus upcoming free agent next year. He shouldn't cost much. 

I think the problem there is Houston is only 4.5 games back of the division, and compared to other teams with similar records (STL/Helsley like I mentioned) are a legit title contender if they make the postseason. Unless they implode I think they will be buyers vs/ sellers if anything.

[oriolediehard]

What is Elias thinking about fixing our bullpen?  Does he think because we won 101 games last year that he doesn't need to do anything now?  Is he going to to wait until we are 8-9 games out in August?

[Billy F-Face3]

4 hours ago, e16bball said:

I’ve been seeing this notion relentlessly over the last couple days — not from you, necessarily, as there’s another poster for whom “we can’t win a WS with X players” has basically become a catchphrase. 

But it just seems like folks are so vastly overrating the quality of “World Series Teams.” They are not perfect teams or rosters. For example, the Rangers won the World Series just last year with a trash pile of a bullpen. 
 

Brock Burke - 59.2 IP, 4.37 ERA, 4.90 FIP

Will Smith - 57.1 IP, 4.40 ERA, 3.36 FIP

José Leclerc - 57.0 IP, 2.68 ERA, 3.16 FIP

Josh Sborz - 52.1 IP, 5.50 ERA, 3.75 FIP

Grant Anderson - 35.2 IP, 5.05 ERA, 4.66 FIP

Jonathan Hernandez - 31.2 IP, 5.40 ERA, 4.55 FIP

Martin Perez - 33.1 IP, 2.70 ERA, 3.98 FIP

Aroldis Chapman - 29.0 IP, 3.72 ERA, 3.36 FIP

Overall, their bullpen had a 4.77 ERA (24th in MLB) and a 4.45 FIP (22nd in MLB). They won the World Series with that group. Bradford kicked over from the rotation to lend a few innings, but it was mostly LeClerc, Sborz, and Chapman carrying them. And while we’re at it, you know whose bullpen was almost as bad as TEX’s? Arizona’s.

Anyway, I say all that just to object to the general concept that we “can’t win” with something we have now (or without something we lack now). That we can’t win with Kremer as our SP4 or Hays/Mullins/Mateo as starters or with a bullpen anchored by Kimbrel/Cano/Coulombe. Yes, we can. Other teams have done it with worse, in each of those departments.

 

Obviously, it increases our chances of winning if we get better in these areas. And I agree with you that the bullpen is the biggest area of present need, so I will join you in hoping that they make a significant addition there. I just don’t think we need to succumb to hopelessness and despair if we don’t see any major personnel changes there between now and October.

The one thing I’ll add is that I think the results in the playoffs tend to be heavily driven by your top 12ish players. Some combination of (approximately) your top 6 hitters, top 3 SPs, and top 3 RPs. I think what the 2024 team needs is enhancement of the top half of the roster — I feel like our depth is fine and more than sufficient to get us through 162, even in the bullpen. But if we’re going to make additions, I’d like to see someone who can slot into that “top 12.” Which means a high-end closer type, rather than a couple additions to the middle of the bullpen. A reliever version of the Burnes deal.

Yeah, but the Rangers had one of the best performing lineups in baseball throughout the playoffs. The Orioles consistently go MIA on offense. Very Inconsistent.

If you have a subpar bullpen, you need an offense that can score enough to bail them out. (And vica versa).

[milbest77]

Is our system deep or extremely top-heavy? I have a feeling teams are asking for Holliday, Mayo, and Basallo while balking at most anyone else. 

[SilverRocket]

4 hours ago, Malike said:

Collectively, BBRef has them at -1.0. If you're going to add the positive WAR guys you have to add the negative WAR guys, fair is fair. If you use fWAR they have Cano at -0.2 and the FIP is close to 4.60. Just look down the RP column for the team at number 20. Hover over BAL and you'll see every player who has pitched in relief this season on the list.

2024 MLB Team Position Performance by Wins Above Average | Baseball-Reference.com

That's Wins Above Average, not Wins Above Replacement. Though the numbers are weird because the average team is at around -0.6 wins for RP. I'm not sure how they're scaling "average" exactly but in any case the Orioles' bullpen is 20th, so a little below average.

[Malike]

14 minutes ago, SilverRocket said:

That's Wins Above Average, not Wins Above Replacement. Though the numbers are weird because the average team is at around -0.6 wins for RP. I'm not sure how they're scaling "average" exactly but in any case the Orioles' bullpen is 20th, so a little below average.

Good catch I was working and was hustling. The current pen collectively is worth 0.2 bWAR without knowing what Suarez has been worth since he's been in the pen. He's at 0.9 but heavily weighted toward 3 starts. It's not good either by WAA or by WAR.

[Safelykept]

What happened to all the M. Kopech love?

[RZNJ]

2 hours ago, Safelykept said:

What happened to all the M. Kopech love?

Ha.  And Mason Miller looked unnervingly human the day before.

[OriolesMagic83]

19 hours ago, oriolediehard said:

What is Elias thinking about fixing our bullpen?  Does he think because we won 101 games last year that he doesn't need to do anything now?  Is he going to to wait until we are 8-9 games out in August?

People try to talk to him about improving the bullpen and other parts of the team, but he keeps repeating 101 almost like a nervous tic.