Is he any good?

by mathalot on Jun 24, 2008 12:30 PM EDT

Warning: the following may contain blasphemy.

I have to confess that I'm a bit worried about a member of our bullpen. Jamie Walker helped to hold our tattered 'pen together last year and is one of only two returning bullpen members from 2007 (the other is Chad Bradford). However, I'm worried that he sucks. Shall we examine the evidence?

Year   ERA  WHIP   BAA
2007  3.23  1.21  .244
2008  5.06  1.64  .326

I know that ERA doesn't mean much, but in this instance BAA is the stat that confirms what my eyes have told me: dude is getting rocked. Now, relievers are well-known to go through ups and downs and to suffer slumps. That's fine. But I'm a bit worried that this isn't a slump.

Here's the thing that blows me away. Ostensibly, until he was thrust into the closer's role at the end of last season, Walker was our situational lefty out of the bullpen. This season? He's pitching better against righties, and it's not even close:

vs  WHIP   BAA
LH  1.92  .389
RH  1.29  .219

In 2007, lefties only hit .216 against him.

Thus, my question for the masses: Is Jamie Walker any good any more? If he's not any good (as I suspect), can/should the team do anything about it?

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I used to hold out hope for JW, B!

But that last series against MIL, I found myself asking “Why are you doing this, DD?” when he was brought in to face Cecil Jr. Soon after, my fears were confirmed as Prince hit a HR. Lefties have hit 6 HR’s against him THIS YEAR. They only had 5 all of 06 and 07.

I think I’ve crossed the fence into “he’s just not getting it done anymore” territory. I say we use him situationally vs. RH (since he’s much better against them, now) and try to pad his stats a little to try to get something for him in the next month.

"Chickens are hard to catch." Jennifer Scott (Luuuuuuuke's Mom)

by dayzd toe on Jun 24, 2008 3:32 PM EDT 0 recs

He'll be fine

As you said, relievers are volatile. Between Walker and Bradford, one of them was bound to suck this year. Next year, Walker (and maybe even Baez) will be fine and Bradford will suck.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 24, 2008 3:39 PM EDT 0 recs

Yeaaaaah, relievers are volatile, but slop-throwing guys in their mid-to-late 30s have a habit of hitting the wall pretty hard. I agree with your base point and hope you’re right, but it would not exactly be surprising to never see the effective Walker again.

Too much of Walker this season is reminding me of Steve Reed in 2005. I can’t shrug my shoulders and go “he’ll be fine” with any confidence.

"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on Jun 24, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

but slop-throwing guys in their mid-to-late 30s have a habit of hitting the wall pretty hard

Hmm, maybe there’s hard data on confirming this but you would think that slop, throwing LOOGYS would have a longer peak period because a) they don’t throw a lot IPs, and b) they don’t rely on the heater.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 24, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

Jesse O.

I rest my case

by Y Not on Jun 24, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Jesse O ruled.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 24, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think that's kinda his point

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 24, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

i know, you can't say such thing enough.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 24, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

So, when Loewen gets back...

does Walker go?

by getxstoked on Jun 24, 2008 5:46 PM EDT 0 recs

who says Loewen will be any better than Walker?

Difference between the two of them is that Walker has a history of success..

by Y Not on Jun 24, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

hell no, they're not eating his contract.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 24, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

I've been saying I think he's cooked.

Too bad he’s hurting the team too by hardly pitching any innings (21.3 this year). It’s sad to see.

The O’s have Walker, Baez, and Bradford on the books through 2009. None of them are worth much. The O’s are stuck with these guys while Albers, Johnson, and Sherill carry the load for a fraction of the cost. According to Cots, for 2008:
Sherrill, Johnson, Albers:$1.765 million
Baez, Walker,Bradford: $12.5 million

by drj on Jun 24, 2008 5:51 PM EDT 0 recs

I think it would be fair to point out that

Bradford is baller, and Walker was one of the only reliable pen options we had in an otherwise horrific bullpen last year. They got those contracts because we needed a bullpen and they had proven success.

Johnson had some garbage MLB experiences in the past; Albers is still proving himself…

Stating the obvious..

by Y Not on Jun 24, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

There are lots of instances that point at NOT paying for Baez/Walker/Bradford contracts to fix a bad bullpen.

"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on Jun 24, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

didn't have any other choice

by Y Not on Jun 24, 2008 7:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

the bp could have sucked w/o walker and bradford

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 24, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

yes they did

Promote some dudes. Save some money. Don’t think the problem with an entirely crappy team is the bullpen and that it can be fixed by an already-bad Baez and two situational relievers.

"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on Jun 24, 2008 10:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

You mean, do what they did this year?

by duck on Jun 24, 2008 11:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

pretty much

"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on Jun 25, 2008 12:23 AM EDT up 0 recs

Not exactly sure who we should have promoted last year.. JJ didn’t look like he was going to be very good.. mccrory obviously not ML ready..

I mean, sure I can see just as well as anyone that the bullpen moves didn’t pan out.. but in the same token, I can see the FO’s point of view that the guys they signed should have made the bullpen marginally better.

by Y Not on Jun 25, 2008 7:25 AM EDT up 0 recs

why does it even matter?

the bp sucked w/ baez, walker, and bradford. so if we didn’t sign them last year, it would have sucked even more, but what’s the big deal? Maybe we would have lost a few more games and received the second draft pick this year.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 25, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

It was weird that they had Leo Mazzone, whose greatest real strength was farting out retread, bargain bin bullpen arms in Atlanta, and sunk a bunch of money into the bullpen anyway. They could’ve found some Jay Witasick-type guys and invited them to spring training to see who was looking good. The way they handled that bullpen was yet another example of a front office that absolutely didn’t know what they were doing. Baez was crappy coming in and the other two were in their mid-30s.

The fact that they didn’t suck it up and just rebuild was a lot of the problem. I also see their point of view. I thought it was silly then and think it’s silly now.

"Yesterday I was lying, today I am telling the truth." -- Bob Arum

Camden Chat
Bad Left Hook

by SC on Jun 25, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

maybe they HAD proven success...

but i think last year emphatically disproved their success.

or something.

foghat goes with everything--birdman, 5/16/08

by j.q. higgins on Jun 24, 2008 6:32 PM EDT up 0 recs

Innings Pitched

Bradford – 25.1
Walker – 21.1
Johnson – 40.2
Sherrill – 33.2
Albers – 48.2

The fact that Walker stinks and Bradford is mostly a situational pitcher is making the other guys carry the load. Bradford may be doing well, but he’s leaving it to others to do the heavy lifting.

People raised their eyebrows when the O’s went against conventional wisdom and made getting three relievers their off-season splash in 2006. The best rationale was they weren’t going to do things properly (rebuild), and they weren’t going to break the bank, so trying to shore up the bullpen behind a young pitching staff was the best they could do. Overall, I think the O’s are now another data point for the prevailing conventional wisdom.

by drj on Jun 24, 2008 7:24 PM EDT up 0 recs