PDA

View Full Version : Harang pitches ideas to fix up the ballpark



OnBaseMachine
08-27-2008, 12:32 PM
Harang pitches ideas to fix up the ballpark

By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

HOUSTON Aaron Harang is not an architect, although he took a drafting class in the eighth grade and his parents have designs he did of a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house.

Harang is willing to take his ideas no charge to Cincinnati Reds owner Bob Castellini on how to eliminate cheap home runs in Great American Ball Park.

"What they should do is remove two rows of seats in the right-field stands and raise the wall to the same height as it is in left field (12 feet)," Harang said. "That would eliminate line-drive home runs that barely clear the wall (8 feet) and end up in the first row.

"And they should raise the wall to the same height in center to eliminate home runs that barely clear the wall and land in the grass," he added.

"They should put wind screens up in that gap in the stands between home plate and third base that causes a jet stream to right and center," Harang added.

"I'm not *****ing about this because of my record (4-13), but I know that would save our pitchers 20 home runs a year and at least 30 runs," he said. "How many line drives barely clear that wall in right, and how many balls barely clear the center-field wall and drop into that grass? I know I've given up a few."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2008/08/27/ddn082708spredsnotes.html

RedEye
08-27-2008, 12:33 PM
Methinks the man has a good idea. I wonder what Brandon Phillips would have to say about this? Is he willing to give up 10 HR per year?

RedsManRick
08-27-2008, 12:35 PM
With Junior gone, it makes sense to bring back some sensibility to the park designed to aid his quest for the all-time record. I think Harang is on the right track.

Screwball
08-27-2008, 12:59 PM
I like the idea to lengthen and heighten the RF wall, as there are plenty of cheap HRs given up to that part of the park. However, I don't really have a problem with the CF wall. It seems to me that if you hit one out to straightaway center then you deserve to circle the bases.

flyer85
08-27-2008, 01:01 PM
The ball that Berkman hit to end the game last night would have been a HR at GABP.

RedsManRick
08-27-2008, 01:07 PM
The ball that Berkman hit to end the game last night would have been a HR at GABP.

As would have Joey Votto's 410 foot fly ball caught at the base of Tal's by Bourn in the 6th or 7th.

rotnoid
08-27-2008, 01:08 PM
Never thought about the gap creating a jet stream like that. I always assumed since the prevailing winds are from the west that wouldn't play a factor. Show's what I know.

Roy Tucker
08-27-2008, 01:14 PM
IIRC, part of the reason why they made the 8 ft high wall so outfielder's could jump and grab balls going over the wall.

They could pretty easily raise the CF wall from the LCF bullpen all the way around to RCF where the seats start.

I'm no architect, but raising the RF wall 4 feet would probably eliminate more that 2 rows of seats. Plus it costs $$$. I think that's a tough sell to Reds management and Hamilton Co. (or whoever owns GABP).

OnBaseMachine
08-27-2008, 01:16 PM
The ball that Berkman hit to end the game last night would have been a HR at GABP.

Yep. I thought for sure it was gone off the bat. The GABP used to never bother me, but now that the Reds actually have some young pitching it's frustrating to see long flyouts turned into homeruns. I wouldn't want anything like Petco Park but I wish they had built the park to be a little more pitching friendly like St. Louis or Pittsburgh.

Matt700wlw
08-27-2008, 02:04 PM
Don't the White Sox have one of the top pitching staffs in the AL in a big time hitters park?

Johnny Footstool
08-27-2008, 03:28 PM
Don't the White Sox have one of the top pitching staffs in the AL in a big time hitters park?

Yep. The Sox home park is an even bigger homer haven than GAB, yet they're 4th in the AL in ERA.

In other news, prepare to be stunned...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

GAB is almost exactly neutral this season. HR are very easy to come by, but hits, doubles, and triples are neutral.

Maybe it's the pitching after all.

Reds1
08-27-2008, 03:32 PM
The problem is we cut loose Dunn who those changes would not have affected and with this current team we may not get any HRs. :). I guess though we can stop a few homers from other teams so I'm all for it.

schroomytunes
08-27-2008, 04:30 PM
Yeah I am all for raising the RF wall a couple more feet to aid our pitching staff, but as far as the rest of the field I would leave it alone, but yeah the wind screens wouldn't be a bad idea if that's all they changed. IMHO though we need to develop or lure Ground ball pitcher's to GABP!

KronoRed
08-27-2008, 04:32 PM
The park is fine, why spend cash on losing seats and moving walls when it could be better spent on players who aren't flyball kings.

Reds1
08-27-2008, 04:33 PM
The park is fine, why spend cash on losing seats and moving walls when it could be better spent on players who aren't flyball kings.

Problem solved! I agree!

RedlegJake
08-27-2008, 05:45 PM
The park is fine, why spend cash on losing seats and moving walls when it could be better spent on players who aren't flyball kings.

Exactly. GAB has a weird effect on grounders, too. It has played below avg in BABIP for ground balls each year. Whatever would make that a difference isn't clear to me (infield cut, defense - although the Reds should make it higher not lower so the effect seems only more marked, air currents, humidity?) but it is a year in and year out thing. GAB is death on grounders pretty neutral for everything else except for homers - which is well above norm. So groundball pitchers like Edinson, when they get in trouble, don't get creamed as easily because the ballpark plays for them in essence. Which makes Harang and Arroyo's relative success in GAB pretty remarkable - and makes Cueto's struggles even more understandable.

Jocketty seems to recognize this, or perhaps the Reds finally have as an organization. Volquez, Massett, Buck all groundball pitchers. Fisher being pushed - groundball pitcher. Zach Stewart - groundball pitcher. Maybe the days of dumb Milton-esque mistakes signing guys doomed to fail in GAB are over. Don't change the park - change the pitching staff to take advantage of it, get fast flying outfielders to cut down those gaps and MAKE those over the wall catches and load the lineup with line drive hitting high OBP types. High OBP Hitters, Groundball pitchers. Mantra. Even Ryan Hanigan can hit homers in GAB - get guys who get on base and let the power take care of itself.

Matt700wlw
08-27-2008, 05:56 PM
The park is fine, why spend cash on losing seats and moving walls when it could be better spent on players who aren't flyball kings.

What a shocking concept.

reds44
08-27-2008, 05:58 PM
Yep. The Sox home park is an even bigger homer haven than GAB, yet they're 4th in the AL in ERA.

In other news, prepare to be stunned...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

GAB is almost exactly neutral this season. HR are very easy to come by, but hits, doubles, and triples are neutral.

Maybe it's the pitching after all.
And wasn't the reason Coors was such a friendly hitters park pre-humidor because of how big the outfield was?

*BaseClogger*
08-27-2008, 06:10 PM
And wasn't the reason Coors was such a friendly hitters park pre-humidor because of how big the outfield was?

Part of the reason. The thin air certainly didn't hurt, either...

Strikes Out Looking
08-27-2008, 06:26 PM
Couldn't you put flexiglass on the wall and raise it up four feets and not have to lose the seats. The fans would just watch the game through the wall.

Kc61
08-27-2008, 06:30 PM
What a shocking concept.

But an incorrect one.

The Reds have a hard enough task finding winning players. That task has been made even tougher -- much tougher -- by the ballpark. It's not good enough for the Reds to acquire good players. They must be good players with certain specific skill sets to meet the needs of this home run paradise.

So they need ground ball pitchers. They need strikeout pitchers. Even good pitchers who tend to give up fly balls present a problem for the Reds. Johnny Cueto has a 1.36 WHIP, superb for a rookie starting pitcher, but his 26 HRs allowed killed his ERA this year.

And the Reds need home run hitters. Gap hitters aren't that successful because there aren't large gaps in which to hit. Reds are next to last in doubles in the NL.

This type of ballpark also affects the team's play on the road. It's a tough transition from GABP to, say, the west coast stadiums which are more expansive.

So the concept of making some limited changes to the stadium to partially neutralize some of these tendencies is a good one.

Matt700wlw
08-27-2008, 06:47 PM
Tell that to the White Sox.

Their hitters haven hasn't seem to held them back.


Doesn't mean opposed to making the park a bit bigger...but it always seems to be an excuse on why they can't win...

Johnny Footstool
08-27-2008, 06:53 PM
Tell that to the White Sox.

Their hitters haven hasn't seem to held them back.

Yep. Blaming the park is just a bad excuse, yet another way to dodge the actual problem (lack of talent).

Matt700wlw
08-27-2008, 06:55 PM
Great grammar, self... :all_cohol:all_cohol

RedsManRick
08-27-2008, 06:56 PM
Yep. Blaming the park is just a bad excuse, yet another way to dodge the actual problem (lack of talent).

I like the analogy of complaining nobody will buy your home because of the color of paint on the walls and ignoring the cracks in the foundation...

If I were a FA pitcher, I'd be much more concerned about the horrific defense behind me than giving up 3 or 4 extra HR per season.

Strikes Out Looking
08-27-2008, 09:48 PM
I like the analogy of complaining nobody will buy your home because of the color of paint on the walls and ignoring the cracks in the foundation...

If I were a FA pitcher, I'd be much more concerned about the horrific defense behind me than giving up 3 or 4 extra HR per season.

That is why the Reds should fix both problems because making the RF wall four feet higher means those home runs will be doubles off the wall. Improved defense will mean that the RF actually plays the ball well off the wall and holds the batter to a double, and when runners are on base, improved defense means the RF hits the cutoff man and than catcher holds onto the throw from the OF. None of this would have occured with the lineup the Reds started the season with, hopefully next years team will.

jojo
08-27-2008, 10:02 PM
I vote for 60ft walls in all fields with the exception of periodic 5ft wide voids where the fence would only be 3 feet high and a 30ft void in direct center field also with a 3ft high fence but in addition it would have a huge steel pendulum that swings back and forth.

johngalt
08-27-2008, 10:18 PM
I am so tired of the players and writers bringing up the "move the fences back" idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm under the assumption that the walls don't change their height or distance from home plate when the opposing pitchers take the mound. Harang says it would "save our pitchers 20 homers and 30 runs" as if this is only an issue for the Reds pitchers. That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.

LoganBuck
08-27-2008, 10:36 PM
I vote for 60ft walls in all fields with the exception of periodic 5ft wide voids where the fence would only be 3 feet high and a 30ft void in direct center field also with a 3ft high fence but in addition it would have a huge steel pendulum that swings back and forth.

You forgot the sharks with friggin' lazers on their heads.

jojo
08-27-2008, 10:59 PM
You forgot the sharks with friggin' lazers on their heads.

I had considered those but I thought including them might take away too many seats.

LoganBuck
08-27-2008, 11:03 PM
I had considered those but I thought including them might take away too many seats.

What about robots? You have to take into account that old people are scared of robots.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-27-2008, 11:03 PM
But HR's are rally killers, so they actually help the staff.

Kc61
08-27-2008, 11:13 PM
I am so tired of the players and writers bringing up the "move the fences back" idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm under the assumption that the walls don't change their height or distance from home plate when the opposing pitchers take the mound. Harang says it would "save our pitchers 20 homers and 30 runs" as if this is only an issue for the Reds pitchers. That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.


It is a major issue for Reds pitchers. They have allowed 164 homers this year, second worst in the NL. This is a problem.

It's not like the ballpark has a slight tendency toward bad hop singles, or some other minor thing. Being a home run paradise has a significant effect on ball games and pitchers.

Visiting clubs obviously face this issue too. But there's a difference. A good pitcher throwing 3 or 4 times a year at GABP will not let it impact his game. He only has to worry about it on occasion.

IMO it is almost impossible for GABP not to impact Reds pitchers who are faced with giving up cheap home runs in half their appearances.

These ballpark tendencies can be overcome but it makes winning harder.

Chip R
08-27-2008, 11:44 PM
Couldn't you put flexiglass on the wall and raise it up four feets and not have to lose the seats. The fans would just watch the game through the wall.


Not a bad idea. Although I have a feeling that most of these HRs would be HRs even if the first 2 rows were knocked out. That could be easily studied by looking at video.

johngalt
08-27-2008, 11:44 PM
It is a major issue for Reds pitchers. They have allowed 164 homers this year, second worst in the NL. This is a problem.

It's not like the ballpark has a slight tendency toward bad hop singles, or some other minor thing. Being a home run paradise has a significant effect on ball games and pitchers.

Visiting clubs obviously face this issue too. But there's a difference. A good pitcher throwing 3 or 4 times a year at GABP will not let it impact his game. He only has to worry about it on occasion.

IMO it is almost impossible for GABP not to impact Reds pitchers who are faced with giving up cheap home runs in half their appearances.

These ballpark tendencies can be overcome but it makes winning harder.

What about other ballparks that are home run ballparks?

Does pitching half his starts in Minute Maid affect Roy Oswalt's game? Is Cole Hamels becoming a changed pitcher because he calls Citizens Bank Park home?

The problem is that fans and media and players and managers talking about it constantly has gotten into people's heads. Guys shake off broken bat singles and balls that bounce oddly off walls away from defenders and say "that's just baseball." Those are times when they give up cheap hits or runs. Why is it different if they make "their pitch" and the ball happens to carry just over the fence?

Johnny Footstool
08-28-2008, 12:30 AM
It is a major issue for Reds pitchers. They have allowed 164 homers this year, second worst in the NL. This is a problem.

It's not like the ballpark has a slight tendency toward bad hop singles, or some other minor thing. Being a home run paradise has a significant effect on ball games and pitchers.

Visiting clubs obviously face this issue too. But there's a difference. A good pitcher throwing 3 or 4 times a year at GABP will not let it impact his game. He only has to worry about it on occasion.

IMO it is almost impossible for GABP not to impact Reds pitchers who are faced with giving up cheap home runs in half their appearances.

These ballpark tendencies can be overcome but it makes winning harder.

Allow me to reiterate:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?sort=runsFactor&season=2008

GAB is neutral this season when it comes to run scoring.

The White Sox are 4th in the AL in ERA despite playing in a ballpark that is more homer-friendly than GAB.

Kc61
08-28-2008, 12:35 AM
What about other ballparks that are home run ballparks?

Does pitching half his starts in Minute Maid affect Roy Oswalt's game? Is Cole Hamels becoming a changed pitcher because he calls Citizens Bank Park home?

The problem is that fans and media and players and managers talking about it constantly has gotten into people's heads. Guys shake off broken bat singles and balls that bounce oddly off walls away from defenders and say "that's just baseball." Those are times when they give up cheap hits or runs. Why is it different if they make "their pitch" and the ball happens to carry just over the fence?

Most teams go through, say, 18 to 22 pitchers per season. Very few are Oswalts or Hamels. Very few are good enough to overcome ballpark tendencies, especially extreme ballpark tendencies.

And while pitchers may shake off an occasional "broken bat single," home runs have far more impact. And for most pitchers, being faced with a constant barrage of home runs, must affect them.

I'm sure Johnny Cueto could easily withstand some broken bat singles and bad hops. It's another thing to ask him to be unaffected by 26 home runs allowed.

Aaron Harang has experienced great success in past years. He seems like a stand up guy who doesn't blame others factors when he does poorly. I tend to believe him when he suggests that the Reds would be better off if they fixed this problem.

Kc61
08-28-2008, 12:54 AM
Allow me to reiterate:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?sort=runsFactor&season=2008

GAB is neutral this season when it comes to run scoring.

The White Sox are 4th in the AL in ERA despite playing in a ballpark that is more homer-friendly than GAB.

In 2006, the park factor showed GABP as the number one offensive park in baseball. In 2005, GABP was number three offensive park. In 2007, it was number 7.

I haven't analyzed why the number is more neutral this year, but overall the stadium has played heavily in favor of the hitters. (It may have something to do with the anemic performance by the Reds offense this year, which has been equally poor at home and on the road.)

And even if GABP played as a "neutral" ballpark generally, it is clearly one of baseball's home run launching pads. Any pitcher with fly ball tendencies will have problems there. Makes it much harder to stock a pitching staff.

Mario-Rijo
08-28-2008, 01:58 AM
You forgot the sharks with friggin' lazers on their heads.

No Scott, It's Frikkin "Lazerbeams"!

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-28-2008, 02:18 AM
GABP's Little League dimensions reek of Jim Bowden, who was fond of finding any possible way to smoke and mirrors his way to a few highlight-grabbing wins.

Safe to say it hasn't worked out so well.

*BaseClogger*
08-28-2008, 02:20 AM
Any pitcher with fly ball tendencies will have problems there. Makes it much harder to stock a pitching staff.

And that's where the Reds can get an advantage. If they design a team to perform well in GABP they will have more success than the visiting teams whose rosters are built for other parks. In this regard it is better to have a quirky home park than a boring ol' neutral one...

camisadelgolf
08-28-2008, 03:49 AM
The only reason I could think to do this would be to make Cincinnati more attractive for free agent pitchers. Other than that, this would probably help opposing teams more than the Reds because the Reds' best hitters (and many of their best hitting prospects) bat from the left side: Jay Bruce, Joey Votto, Chris Dickerson, Danny Dorn, Yonder Alonso, et al.

Yachtzee
08-28-2008, 09:12 AM
Allow me to reiterate:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?sort=runsFactor&season=2008

GAB is neutral this season when it comes to run scoring.

The White Sox are 4th in the AL in ERA despite playing in a ballpark that is more homer-friendly than GAB.

Sometimes people tend to ignore facts that don't fit with preconceived notions.

And by the way, I don't think the Reds problem with attracting free agent pitchers has as much to do about the park as it does with the amount of money the Reds have been willing to offer.

RedsManRick
08-28-2008, 10:44 AM
Sometimes people tend to ignore facts that don't fit with preconceived notions.

And by the way, I don't think the Reds problem with attracting free agent pitchers has as much to do about the park as it does with the amount of money the Reds have been willing to offer.

Single year park factors aren't terribly reliable. And further, perception is the problem here, not reality. That said, I agree with you when it comes to FA. It's less the park than it is the money and the "winning" tradition. The FA impact is likely felt on short term FA who are thinking of Cincy as a stop on their way to their next big contract. And frankly, those guys aren't where I'd want to be spending my FA dollar in the first place.

Here are the three year factors per mlb.com (http://fantasy411.mlblogs.com/MLB%20park%20factors%202005-07.xls)


R H TB XBH 2B 3B HR
111 101 106 110 104 58 127

Johnny Footstool
08-28-2008, 11:58 AM
Single year park factors aren't terribly reliable. And further, perception is the problem here, not reality.

...

Here are the three year factors per mlb.com (http://fantasy411.mlblogs.com/MLB%20park%20factors%202005-07.xls)


R H TB XBH 2B 3B HR
111 101 106 110 104 58 127

But you have to consider the fact that this year, for the first time since GAB opened, the Reds have actual front-line talent in the rotation. Time will tell if this year's numbers are just a fluke, or actually the result of having some decent pitchers on the staff.

Chip R
08-28-2008, 12:03 PM
Sometimes people tend to ignore facts that don't fit with preconceived notions.

And by the way, I don't think the Reds problem with attracting free agent pitchers has as much to do about the park as it does with the amount of money the Reds have been willing to offer.


You may be right about the money but the Reds were very generous with Milton, Harang, Arroyo and Cordero. I think a lot of it whhat you said in your first sentence. These pitchers aren't going to be checking stats on whether GAB is a bandbox. They are going to rely on personal experience and word of mouth. We all know if you hear something enough times, whether it's true or not, you are going to eventually believe it.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-28-2008, 12:06 PM
Why should a top FA pitcher care about a park's tendency to give up the longball? Let's use C.C. Sabathia for an example. He's ready to cash in on the largest contract of his life. Why would he care if he's going to a ballpark that gives up a bunch of HR's?

A. If he's a good pitcher, it shouldn't matter (and a "top" FA pitcher is good).

B. If he's worried how the HR's may effect his stats and how he's viewed, he would have just signed his big contract. He has paid his dues and hit the lotto. No amount of HR's given up from then on can take that away. Unless he's really worried about his next contract 6-7 years from now, I just don't see how this is a factor.

All things being equal money-wise, I would think the most important thing for a good FA pitcher to look for is:

-playing in a good city that supports the team.
-playing for a good manager.
-playing on a team that will score him some runs so that he can win.

I'm not sure about two of those points, but the Reds do have the perception that Dusty is a player's manager. Probably his only few redeeming qualities are that he's liked by his players and his the ability to sell a FA on his team. We also have an advantage (over the AL) in that CC is going to want to hit. Can you imagine hiim and Owings on the same staff? It would be like having a DH in the lineup 70 games a year.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2008, 12:08 PM
Couldn't you put flexiglass on the wall and raise it up four feets and not have to lose the seats. The fans would just watch the game through the wall.

Didn't they used to have that in the Metrodome?

flyer85
08-28-2008, 04:29 PM
The new Harang seems to give up HRs in bunches in any ballpark.

BRM
08-28-2008, 04:36 PM
The new Harang seems to give up HRs in bunches in any ballpark.

9 in his last 4 starts, including today.

Kc61
08-28-2008, 06:30 PM
9 in his last 4 starts, including today.

I'll take a performance like today's any time. Three runs, seven innings, nine Ks, no walks.

Harang has been fine the last two outings, can't ask for much more. Except from the offense.

You think the Reds need to add some hitting in the off-season?

Rojo
08-29-2008, 05:42 PM
You can get a lot of return from good pitching. Why not build a park that shines 'em up so you can ship 'em out?

RedsManRick
09-07-2008, 04:03 PM
Harang looking lost again. Just no control and topping out at 90-91.

OnBaseMachine
09-07-2008, 04:10 PM
Harang was actually throwing a great game today until he drilled Soto and DeRosa to begin the 7th inning.

RedsManRick
09-07-2008, 04:13 PM
Harang was actually throwing a great game today until he drilled Soto and DeRosa to begin the 7th inning.

Good results prior to the 7th, yes. But he still doesn't seem to be back to normal.

westofyou
10-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Harang had a bad season, getting close to some lofty stats in expansion era Reds ball. But he still has the k/bb ratio that look great for a rebound.


HOMERUNS YEAR HR ERA SO/9 IP BB/9 IP SO/BB
Eric Milton 2005 40 6.47 5.94 2.51 2.37
Tom Browning 1988 36 3.41 4.45 2.30 1.94
Aaron Harang 2008 35 4.78 7.40 2.44 3.03
Ramon Ortiz 2005 34 5.36 5.04 2.68 1.88
Bill Gullickson 1987 33 4.85 4.85 2.13 2.28
Jim Merritt 1969 33 4.37 5.16 2.19 2.36
Tom Browning 1991 32 4.18 4.49 2.19 2.05
Elmer Dessens 2001 32 4.48 5.62 2.46 2.29
Bronson Arroyo 2006 31 3.29 6.88 2.39 2.88
Tom Browning 1989 31 3.39 4.25 2.31 1.84
Brett Tomko 1999 31 4.92 6.91 3.14 2.20

LOSSES YEAR L ERA SO/9 IP BB/9 IP SO/BB
Bruce Berenyi 1982 18 3.36 6.36 3.89 1.64
Jeff Russell 1984 18 4.26 5.00 3.22 1.55
Aaron Harang 2008 17 4.78 7.40 2.44 3.03
Steve Parris 2000 17 4.81 5.47 3.32 1.65
Tony Cloninger 1969 17 5.02 4.88 4.88 1.00
Jay Tibbs 1985 16 3.92 4.05 3.43 1.18
Eric Milton 2005 15 6.47 5.94 2.51 2.37
Mike Remlinger 1998 15 4.82 7.89 4.76 1.66
Mario Soto 1985 15 3.58 7.50 3.65 2.06
Gary Nolan 1971 15 3.16 5.36 2.17 2.47
Danny Graves 2003 15 5.33 3.20 2.18 1.46
Bronson Arroyo 2007 15 4.23 6.66 2.69 2.48
Tim Pugh 1993 15 5.26 5.15 3.23 1.59
Chris Reitsma 2001 15 5.29 4.75 2.42 1.96

*BaseClogger*
10-03-2008, 03:22 PM
WOY, how did Tom Browning have success with those peripherals?

westofyou
10-03-2008, 03:31 PM
WOY, how did Tom Browning have success with those peripherals?

When he had a world class outfield and better stuff (IE the late 80's when he was young) But I'm of the opinion that Browning is the most over rated Reds pitcher in my lifetime, he was average more often than not and past the age of 30 he was done.

RedsManRick
10-03-2008, 04:30 PM
WOY, how did Tom Browning have success with those peripherals?

Browning had a FIP of 4.23 in '89. While Browning didn't strike many guys out, he had a very good walk rate and a stellar defense behind him. When you generally keep guys off the bases, those HR don't hurt so much. It's when you pair HR with a WHIP north of 1.40 that your ERA really starts to pay the price. And he was lucky too...