PDA

View Full Version : Logan Ondrusek Thread



Kc61
04-22-2012, 07:19 PM
I really like this pitcher and have for some time now. He's consistent and has slowly worked his way back into the late innings after an injured and poor second half last year.

His strikeout of Soriano today was an important out in the ballgame. His numbers are not fantastic, although his ERA is zero, but I still like him very much.

As a former starter he can pitch two innings. He's also closed in the minors so he can give you a good inning toward the end of the game. He seems to do well in pressure spots.

Some folks on here don't like him, so I'm probably picking an argument here, but I'm a Logan fan.

cinreds21
04-22-2012, 07:34 PM
I've always been a big fan of Logan.

Joseph
04-22-2012, 07:38 PM
He gets the job done. Not likely gonna be an all-star [as arbitrary as that can be] but he's effective when called upon. Thats what you want in a pen, guys who do their job and bring that lunchpail mentality.

gilpdawg
04-22-2012, 08:24 PM
Like him a lot. Probably never be a name player, but every team needs a guy or two like him in their pen.

Since I don't believe in the "your best guy should be the closer" theory, I wouldn't mind if he was closing, with Marshall being used in higher leverage situations as they happen.

Tom Servo
04-22-2012, 08:28 PM
I was only ever down on him for a bit last year when he was being run out there every night along with Masset by Dusty and they would proceed to get their brains beaten in. I think he is a perfectly good bullpen arm.

Ghosts of 1990
04-22-2012, 08:38 PM
I like his stuff. And I like calling him Logan From the Ozarks

corkedbat
04-22-2012, 11:38 PM
We could start a Fan Club and call it "Logan's Heroes"...


...and then again...



...mebbe not. :D

Vottomatic
04-23-2012, 07:06 AM
I've never understood the criticism of the guy. Huge jam to get out of. Nicely done.

cumberlandreds
04-23-2012, 08:46 AM
I like him too. He almost always gets the job done. He was just way overused last season was the big reason he was inconsistent at times. Which was no fault of his. In fact I think he could be a closer if givent the opportunity.

Kc61
05-09-2012, 04:09 PM
Bullpen is terrific as is, but I just wonder if Logan might fit the closer role better than Marshall.

Logan closed much in the minors.

Marshall is a great set up man, not sure how comfortable he is as the closer. He relies heavily on that curve ball, it can hang once in awhile.

I'm probably overrating Ondrusek, but he sure has been nails so far this season. Just a thought.

RedsManRick
05-09-2012, 04:11 PM
Bullpen is terrific as is, but I just wonder if Logan might fit the closer role better than Marshall.

Logan closed much in the minors.

Marshall is a great set up man, not sure how comfortable he is as the closer. He relies heavily on that curve ball, it can hang once in awhile.

I'm probably overrating Ondrusek, but he sure has been nails so far this season. Just a thought.

I'm confused. Do curveballs not work as in the 9th inning?

Kc61
05-09-2012, 04:15 PM
I'm confused. Do curveballs not work as in the 9th inning?

Curve balls work, but Sean relies so heavily on that one pitch. Against righties, he can hang it once in awhile.

Sean is an unusual type closer, most of them are more willing to rely on the fastball. Today, Sean really didn't seem to want to use his fastball much.

I don't know, we'll see how it goes, but as someone said in the game thread today, Sean may be more effective setting up.

Nasty_Boy
05-09-2012, 04:20 PM
I just wonder if Sean loses the "sharpness/feel" of his breaking ball only pitching 1-2 innings a week? He's used to getting more work than what he has been since moving to closer. With 3 RH coming up to start the 9th, I would have considered going to Ondrusek anyway. Great job of clutch pitching by Logan to lock up a very nice win.

camisadelgolf
05-09-2012, 04:21 PM
He's my favorite Red. I've met him a couple times, and he's a genuinely nice guy. Plus he's a fan of Marilyn Manson, and although I'm not much of a fan, I think it's awesome that someone picked out one of his songs to be played at Great American Ballpark, which is usually overly sensitive to the public's wishes.

bucksfan2
05-09-2012, 04:30 PM
My favorite Logan Ondrusek moment was in the playoffs when he fielded a ball and threw it 100 feet over Votto's head at 1b. It was at the time when every Reds fan needed a good laugh.

I have thought Ondrusek could potentially be a closer at some point in his career. It seems like he has had trouble in years past as the season wore on because of his usage. You don't necessarily want a closer who wears down as the season goes along.

OesterPoster
05-09-2012, 04:35 PM
He's my favorite Red. I've met him a couple times, and he's a genuinely nice guy. Plus he's a fan of Marilyn Manson, and although I'm not much of a fan, I think it's awesome that someone picked out one of his songs to be played at Great American Ballpark, which is usually overly sensitive to the public's wishes.

I've always liked him, because he's from little old Shiner, Texas. The home of one of my favorite beers.

camisadelgolf
05-09-2012, 05:05 PM
I've always liked him, because he's from little old Shiner, Texas. The home of one of my favorite beers.
I never realized that. Just another reason to love him because believe me--I've had my share of Shiner Bock.

RedsManRick
05-09-2012, 08:10 PM
Curve balls work, but Sean relies so heavily on that one pitch. Against righties, he can hang it once in awhile.

Sean is an unusual type closer, most of them are more willing to rely on the fastball. Today, Sean really didn't seem to want to use his fastball much.

I don't know, we'll see how it goes, but as someone said in the game thread today, Sean may be more effective setting up.

I still don't follow your logic here. I understand the point regarding mixing up his pitches, but what does that have to do with closing vs. setting up? His splits suggest that while he's better against lefties, he's not exactly bad vR.

Or put differently, how does Ondrusek or Arredondo's vR comprare to Marshall's vR?

powersackers
05-09-2012, 08:42 PM
I still don't follow your logic here. I understand the point regarding mixing up his pitches, but what does that have to do with closing vs. setting up? His splits suggest that while he's better against lefties, he's not exactly bad vR.

Or put differently, how does Ondrusek or Arredondo's vR comprare to Marshall's vR?

Not speaking for him, but it's obvious Sean is not a prototypical closer isn't it?

kaldaniels
05-09-2012, 08:50 PM
He's my favorite Red. I've met him a couple times, and he's a genuinely nice guy. Plus he's a fan of Marilyn Manson, and although I'm not much of a fan, I think it's awesome that someone picked out one of his songs to be played at Great American Ballpark, which is usually overly sensitive to the public's wishes.

I think I figured out where he gets his uniform number from...:devil:

Patrick Bateman
05-09-2012, 09:28 PM
Not speaking for him, but it's obvious Sean is not a prototypical closer isn't it?

What, in that he pitches better than most?

He's actually different than most relievers in general. Being a closer doesn't require a unique set of skills like Liam Neeson. It's obvious that the job is to limit runs, something Marshall is very good at.

I am extremely confident that if given enough innings he would succeed in the role. At the same time, I really dont care as long as he is pitching high leverage innings. If the Reds move him out of the closer gig, he will be just as valuable, and actually become less expensive based on the parameters of the contract. It's one of those cases where they could benefit by making a knee jerk reaction without using adequate judgement.

RedEye
05-09-2012, 09:35 PM
He's actually different than most relievers in general. Being a closer doesn't require a unique set of skills like Liam Neeson. It's obvious that the job is to limit runs, something Marshall is very good at.


Nice reference. Love that movie. And BTW, I'm sure Liam would make a good closer. He'd just scare the crap out of anyone who dared enter the batter's box. :thumbup:

kaldaniels
05-09-2012, 09:56 PM
Nice reference. Love that movie. And BTW, I'm sure Liam would make a good closer. He'd just scare the crap out of anyone who dared enter the batter's box. :thumbup:

Speaking of movies, does Marshall remind anyone else of Peter Gibbons?

757690
05-09-2012, 10:04 PM
Not speaking for him, but it's obvious Sean is not a prototypical closer isn't it?

More the a few closers use(d) a curveball as their out pitch. Joe Nation is the first to come to mind. I believe Eck and Fingers relied heavily on a curveball. And Trevor Hoffman used a bugs bunny changeup.

powersackers
05-10-2012, 12:04 AM
More the a few closers use(d) a curveball as their out pitch. Joe Nation is the first to come to mind. I believe Eck and Fingers relied heavily on a curveball. And Trevor Hoffman used a bugs bunny changeup.

Um, Marshall's curveball isn't getting many guys out right now as his 4.91 ERA indicates.

Tom Servo
05-10-2012, 12:09 AM
Um, Marshall's curveball isn't getting many guys out right now as his 4.91 ERA indicates.
His ERA was shot up by that 3 run blown save against the Giants.

powersackers
05-10-2012, 12:12 AM
His ERA was shot up by that 3 run blown save against the Giants.

Or the hanging curve ball he threw to earn those runs. Right?

PuffyPig
05-10-2012, 12:16 AM
Or the hanging curve ball he threw to earn those runs. Right?

Wrong. Pagan hit a pretty good curveball, it happens.

His xFIP is 1.63, he's doing just fine.

Patrick Bateman
05-10-2012, 12:57 AM
Um, Marshall's curveball isn't getting many guys out right now as his 4.91 ERA indicates.

It's been like 13 innings. I assume you are baiting so I wont dignify any further.

VR
05-10-2012, 02:32 AM
Wrong. Pagan hit a pretty good curveball, it happens.

His xFIP is 1.63, he's doing just fine.

On strike 4 as you will recall.

nate
05-10-2012, 02:50 AM
What, in that he pitches better than most?

He's actually different than most relievers in general. Being a closer doesn't require a unique set of skills like Liam Neeson. It's obvious that the job is to limit runs, something Marshall is very good at.

I am extremely confident that if given enough innings he would succeed in the role. At the same time, I really dont care as long as he is pitching high leverage innings. If the Reds move him out of the closer gig, he will be just as valuable, and actually become less expensive based on the parameters of the contract. It's one of those cases where they could benefit by making a knee jerk reaction without using adequate judgement.

I can't wait for Liam Neeson day!

:cool:

membengal
05-10-2012, 06:29 AM
It's been like 13 innings. I assume you are baiting so I wont dignify any further.

He's kind of got a point, though. We can't pretend those runs didn't happen, and I sometime feel like people run to xFIP etc. as the gospel of what should have happened rather than what happened.

cumberlandreds
05-10-2012, 08:03 AM
Every since Marshall gave up the HR to Pagan I have felt that he may not be suited to the closers role. If he's not perfect with that big looping curve ball then it becomes a very hittable pitch. Also most good MLB hitters can fight off that pitch until a better one comes in. Case in point is Ryan Braun yesterday. He fought off a couple of very good breakers then finally got one much more hittable and knocked it out. Most closers throw very hard or have some type of specialty pitch like a fork ball or cutter that is really hard to hit. Ondrusek may be the answer. I don't know. Chapman is a choice too even though I would much rather he start. I hope I'm wrong and Marshall works out but right now I don't know if he will.

Degenerate39
05-10-2012, 10:40 AM
I can't wait for Liam Neeson day!

:cool:

That sounds like something off of Seinfeld

PuffyPig
05-10-2012, 10:50 AM
Every since Marshall gave up the HR to Pagan I have felt that he may not be suited to the closers role. If he's not perfect with that big looping curve ball then it becomes a very hittable pitch. Also most good MLB hitters can fight off that pitch until a better one comes in. Case in point is Ryan Braun yesterday. He fought off a couple of very good breakers then finally got one much more hittable and knocked it out. Most closers throw very hard or have some type of specialty pitch like a fork ball or cutter that is really hard to hit. Ondrusek may be the answer. I don't know. Chapman is a choice too even though I would much rather he start. I hope I'm wrong and Marshall works out but right now I don't know if he will.

Query why then has Marshall been so unhittable the last few years if hitters can simply fight off his curve balls until they get something they can drive?

At the end of the year when you compare Marshall to Ondrusek you'll see why Marshall is so much better.

PuffyPig
05-10-2012, 10:52 AM
He's kind of got a point, though. We can't pretend those runs didn't happen, and I sometime feel like people run to xFIP etc. as the gospel of what should have happened rather than what happened.

When you are comparing pitchers who have racked up about 10 iinings each. Looking at the actual results can be particularly deceiving.

xFIP is a better stat at projecting what will happen in the future than ERA.

Puffy
05-10-2012, 10:57 AM
You know whats ironical and stuff - - people on here relentlessly attack Baker for conforming to managerial typecasting. "Catchers bat eighth, dude."

Yet, a lot of those same people are now typecasting Marshall because, and I quote, he is not a typical closer. He "doesn't throw hard" enough to close. He relies on a curveball for an out pitch and closers don't do that.

Pot.......I would like to introduce you to kettle.

M2
05-10-2012, 11:25 AM
xFIP is a better stat at projecting what will happen in the future than ERA.

Sure, but not in any specific way. Great K/BB, crazy high BABIP, high GO%, low LD% gets you to the same place.

And membengal's point wasn't about what may happen moving forward, it was that we can't ignore that Marshall has been a little inconsistent so far. I think Marshall's dynamite and I'm thrilled the Reds have him, but he's needs to be more reliable so praise him for what he is rather than speculate about what he should be.

marcshoe
05-10-2012, 12:36 PM
I tend to thonk that Marshall will be fine in the closer role. He's been one of the best bullpen arms over the last couple of years, and we've seen that in most of his appearances this year. I'm more comfortable with him than I would have been with Cordero.


Having said that, I really like what Dusty did yesterday and would have been fine leaving Chapman in. You do what you can to get a win, and that means putting the best guy for the job in no matter the role.

And I'm not just saying that because I'd picked up Logan on my fantasy team (holds count) the day before. :)

PuffyPig
05-10-2012, 12:43 PM
And I'm not just saying that because I'd picked up Logan on my fantasy team (holds count) the day before. :)

Marshall got a hold yesterday BTW.

marcshoe
05-10-2012, 01:01 PM
Marshall got a hold yesterday BTW.
Yep, but he's owned. I also have Chapman, though, so I got the win.

And I need every point I can get.

traderumor
05-10-2012, 01:09 PM
Isn't evaluating pitchers about getting guys out, not what pitch is used to do that? The suggestions that "curveball pitchers shouldn't be closers" is illogical and grasping at straws. Marshall has a track record of dominance with his repetoire. I don't think it has anything to do with what inning he pitched.

GoReds
05-10-2012, 01:14 PM
Marshall and Latos are new additions to the team who are being met with very high expectations - their own included. Marshall's role is new to him - I expect some bumps along the way, but I don't question his skillset. Latos was essentially brought over to be "the man". Once they settle in, they'll be fine.

mth123
05-10-2012, 01:23 PM
I have no issues with Marshall, but put me down as a guy who'd prefer to use his hammer when he has a really tough nail to drive rather than saving it for the 9th when the situation is unknown and an all purpose tool can usually get the job done. IMO, both Chapman and Marshall should be the guys Dusty leans on when the game is on the line in the later innings when the starter is done. Give me those guys when there are tying runs on base or the meat of the order coming up (which could be the 9th sometimes) and let one of those other guys (Ondrusek, Arredondo, Masset or Bray if healthy), who are still pretty good pitchers, be slotted for the generic 9th inning, no body on situation. Especially hate saving/wasting the top guys when its 6, 7, 8; 7, 8, 9 or 8, 9, 1 coming up.

jojo
05-10-2012, 01:26 PM
Marshall is clearly a bust. Jocketty needs to trade him to the Ms for Miguel Olivo....

cumberlandreds
05-10-2012, 01:39 PM
Query why then has Marshall been so unhittable the last few years if hitters can simply fight off his curve balls until they get something they can drive?

At the end of the year when you compare Marshall to Ondrusek you'll see why Marshall is so much better.

Lot of difference between being a closer than a set-up man. Maybe he threw more fastballs in the set up role as opposed to the closer? I don't know. Anyway I hope Marshall saves 50 games this year and makes me look foolish. I don't really care who saves them,Marshall,Ondrusek or Corky Lopez. As long as someone does is all that matters.

jojo
05-10-2012, 01:43 PM
Maybe he threw more fastballs in the set up role as opposed to the closer?

Nope.

PuffyPig
05-10-2012, 02:06 PM
Lot of difference between being a closer than a set-up man.

There are likely few pitchers who can be very successful set-up men but poor closers. And it's not like Marshall has failed, he's 5/6 in save opportunities.

bucksfan2
05-10-2012, 02:22 PM
There are likely few pitchers who can be very successful set-up men but poor closers. And it's not like Marshall has failed, he's 5/6 in save opportunities.

I disagree. I woudn't consider Marshall's performance yesterday a success. That said I think there is a major difference between setup men and closers. I think with someone like Marshall he more often than not has been put in situations more advantageous to him. If he weren't the closer I doubt Dusty would have used him against Ryan Braun rather he would have brought a right hander off the bench to face him. In today's game closers get the ball in the 9th without regard to who is due up in that inning.

Reds1
05-10-2012, 02:52 PM
I disagree. I woudn't consider Marshall's performance yesterday a success. That said I think there is a major difference between setup men and closers. I think with someone like Marshall he more often than not has been put in situations more advantageous to him. If he weren't the closer I doubt Dusty would have used him against Ryan Braun rather he would have brought a right hander off the bench to face him. In today's game closers get the ball in the 9th without regard to who is due up in that inning.

I got a Hold in my fantasy league. :)

Caveat Emperor
05-10-2012, 03:02 PM
He's kind of got a point, though. We can't pretend those runs didn't happen, and I sometime feel like people run to xFIP etc. as the gospel of what should have happened rather than what happened.

There's eventually a rubber-road moment in all of this -- having amazing peripherals and great looking advanced metrics only means so much if a pitcher isn't getting the job done.

Nasty_Boy
05-10-2012, 03:07 PM
I don't think there is a difference between set up men and closers... I think there is a difference between good pitchers and bad pitchers, or good match-ups and bad match-ups. The better the pitcher the better he'll be regardless of the situation.

I didn't want to go to Marshall in the 9th yesterday because of the three right handed hitters the Brewers had coming to the plate. After the way Ondrusek pitched to Braun and others on Monday night, I would have went to him if I were going to take Chapman out. I have a ton of confidence in Sean Marshall as a good pitcher, closer title or not, but I also think the "save" is such a joke. Its an arbitrary stat that affects how managers handle their bullpen. If there were no such thing as save or if the Brewers had Braun Ramirez and Hart due up in the 7th inning Ondrusek would have been in the game. I don't buy into the mental aspect... I buy into a guy have dominating stuff to get tough outs.

Patrick Bateman
05-10-2012, 03:30 PM
There's eventually a rubber-road moment in all of this -- having amazing peripherals and great looking advanced metrics only means so much if a pitcher isn't getting the job done.

The difference in this situation is that we are talking about a guy who's ERA and crap like that have historically matched his peripherals.... this isn't a case where I think there is really much doubt that Marshall's "results" are going to conform.

jojo
05-10-2012, 03:32 PM
There's eventually a rubber-road moment in all of this -- having amazing peripherals and great looking advanced metrics only means so much if a pitcher isn't getting the job done.

Marshall has been one of the best relievers in baseball for several years. I submit that Marhall is not a suitable test case for the rubber road theorum....

If we're going to poke at misapplied statistical concepts, why not talk about sample size?

RedlegJake
05-10-2012, 03:36 PM
I don't think there is a difference between set up men and closers... I think there is a difference between good pitchers and bad pitchers, or good match-ups and bad match-ups. The better the pitcher the better he'll be regardless of the situation.

I didn't want to go to Marshall in the 9th yesterday because of the three right handed hitters the Brewers had coming to the plate. After the way Ondrusek pitched to Braun and others on Monday night, I would have went to him if I were going to take Chapman out. I have a ton of confidence in Sean Marshall as a good pitcher, closer title or not, but I also think the "save" is such a joke. Its an arbitrary stat that affects how managers handle their bullpen. If there were no such thing as save or if the Brewers had Braun Ramirez and Hart due up in the 7th inning Ondrusek would have been in the game. I don't buy into the mental aspect... I buy into a guy have dominating stuff to get tough outs.

I completely agree about the save stat. The attempt to give a number to a relief pitcher measuring his value to a team in preserving wins has resulted in the artifice of using certain pitchers in exclusive situations and that is crazy. If there were no save stat I'll bet managers would handle their bullpens very differently.

Caveat Emperor
05-10-2012, 03:38 PM
Marshall has been one of the best relievers in baseball for several years. I submit that Marhall is not a suitable test case for the rubber road theorum....

I don't disagree -- Marshall has been fantastic. But he's never closed ballgames before and dealt with the issues involved with being a closer: irregular pitching schedule, irregular warmup time (a closer might only begin throwing 1 or 2 outs into an inning if his team takes the lead in their at bat), added mental issues associated with being "the closer," etc.

At some point, he's going to have to prove that his numbers translate to the different role.

powersackers
05-10-2012, 03:53 PM
I don't disagree -- Marshall has been fantastic. But he's never closed ballgames before and dealt with the issues involved with being a closer: irregular pitching schedule, irregular warmup time (a closer might only begin throwing 1 or 2 outs into an inning if his team takes the lead in their at bat), added mental issues associated with being "the closer," etc.

At some point, he's going to have to prove that his numbers translate to the different role.

Exactly. I wasn't baiting, because this is relevant conversation and I was stimulating it. Turns out all afternoon on MLB Radio Sirius/XM just about all they talked about were Marshall and Robertson (NYY) both 8th inning accomplished guys historically - now thrust into 9th inning duties. I was surprised how many callers and that the hosts agreed Marshall isn't suited to be a closer. Opponents are typically locked in and concentrating in the 9th and maybe they do foul off that hook more often to get a pitch they can drive.

No metric I know of measures fortitude to, in turn, bear down as well and get the high value save. Joe Borowski can save 45 games when most of them invovle a 3-run lead....so can Marshall. But the 1 run saves? Against the heart of the order or stud RH batters? Chapman or Ondrusek might be better options.

PuffyPig
05-10-2012, 05:51 PM
I don't disagree -- Marshall has been fantastic. But he's never closed ballgames before and dealt with the issues involved with being a closer: irregular pitching schedule, irregular warmup time (a closer might only begin throwing 1 or 2 outs into an inning if his team takes the lead in their at bat), added mental issues associated with being "the closer," etc.



An 8th inning set up guy is likley subject to the exact same things.

jojo
05-10-2012, 05:56 PM
At some point, he's going to have to prove that his numbers translate to the different role.

To be fair, he's only pitched 11 innings in a Reds uniform and has 5 saves. I think the "at some point" conversations are premature....

Caveat Emperor
05-11-2012, 08:45 AM
To be fair, he's only pitched 11 innings in a Reds uniform and has 5 saves. I think the "at some point" conversations are premature....

Of course this discussion is all premature -- but it's natural to expect it when you're trotting out a closer that bucks the trend of "RHP who throws really hard."

It needs to be given time to play out.

GoReds
05-11-2012, 09:12 AM
I remember when princeton was around. He was a huge advocate in having a hammer closer. Really would have enjoyed his input here.

fearofpopvol1
08-10-2012, 12:12 AM
Paging JJ Hoover, paging JJ Hoover.

Blitz Dorsey
08-10-2012, 12:17 AM
Ondrusek continues to get worse and worse. A few of my fellow RedsZoners called it months ago. Said he was horrible and his stats were a mirage.

Yep, pretty much. He's been dreadful lately. Amazing that Hoover is not on this team. He's been almost unhittable in Triple-A (and was good in his brief stint with the Reds). Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Tom Servo
08-10-2012, 12:19 AM
Unacceptable. One million years dungeon.

CrackerJack
08-10-2012, 12:26 AM
Make it stop...please.

Superdude
08-10-2012, 12:26 AM
Hoover yesterday please. And get Simon out of the mop up role.

757690
08-10-2012, 12:31 AM
I blame the whole posting in the third person jinx. ;)

George Foster
08-10-2012, 12:33 AM
Hoover yesterday please. And get Simon out of the mop up role.

Bringing up Hoover and sending down Ondrusek might just send a message to this team, and stress a since of urgency.

757690
08-10-2012, 12:35 AM
Ondrusek had a terrible second half last season. He might just not have the stamina to pitch a whole season.

The Operator
08-10-2012, 12:35 AM
Why does Dusty keep forcing Ondrusek into high leverage innings? He belongs in AAA anyway but to use him in a high leverage situation is ridiculous.

Square peg, round hole.

757690
08-10-2012, 12:38 AM
Ondrusek continues to get worse and worse. A few of my fellow RedsZoners called it months ago. Said he was horrible and his stats were a mirage.

Yep, pretty much. He's been dreadful lately. Amazing that Hoover is not on this team. He's been almost unhittable in Triple-A (and was good in his brief stint with the Reds). Dumb, dumb, dumb.

The thing is, the argument was that his BABIP was unsustainable and he would start to give up more hits, and thus more runs. But his BABIP has stayed the same, he's just walking more guys and giving up more home runs. So his critics were correct, but for the wrong reason.

vic715
08-10-2012, 12:43 AM
Bringing up Hoover and sending down Ondrusek might just send a message to this team, and stress a since of urgency.

Send Valdez and Cairo along with him.

camisadelgolf
08-10-2012, 12:56 AM
Ondrusek is probably going to be eligible for arbitration following the season. Anyone looking forward to the big raise he's going to get?

Homer Bailey
08-10-2012, 01:07 AM
The thing is, the argument was that his BABIP was unsustainable and he would start to give up more hits, and thus more runs. But his BABIP has stayed the same, he's just walking more guys and giving up more home runs. So his critics were correct, but for the wrong reason.

No. No. No.

The argument was that he doesn't K anyone, and that he walks way too many. Meaning, he really doesn't have any true skills (relatively speaking). He has relied on an extremely lucky BABIP, and a HR/FB rate that was unsustainable. Not all that shocking to see him give up a decisive home run tonight. Only problem is he didn't have Stubbs to bail him out like he did in Houston.

The argument is that he doesn't have true skills. His critics were not correct "for the wrong reason". I'll say the same exact things about Logan than I would if he would have gotten Soriano to ground into a double play. He has zero elite skills. He's a below average reliever. He's below a replacement level reliever.

Logan is so bad, that his luck STILL hasn't truly regressed to the mean on his BABIP, and he's still found a way to blow recent games to the two worst teams in the NL. He's a AAA arm. I don't mean to harp on Logan, I really don't. He is who is he. The manager that keeps putting him in these ridiculous situations is the man to blame. Taking out your 2nd best reliever for your 2nd worst is completely and 100% unacceptable. Don't gimme the lefty vs. righty crap. It's unacceptable. I said it well before this happened that this needed to stop. I was mocked and ridiculed. Now, the blood is on your hands Dusty.

Oh, and I gave up on the game thread we had from last week where you were trying to make the case that Ondrusek could control his BABIP because I was out of town this weekend, but if you could show your work on that one, that would be great.

WVRedsFan
08-10-2012, 01:13 AM
Blame Dusty. He has the best bullpen in the business and he continues to put Logan out there. Great God, the man has no judgment. As this point, I have no idea. To understand Baker is to be insane.

corkedbat
08-10-2012, 01:15 AM
If there was any truth to the rumor that the Reds could have had Victorino (or anyone else for that matter) for Ondrusek and turned it down, Walt made a big mistake. The scary thing is how many more times will Dusty run him out there in similar situtions? I'm hoping (Baker & Ondrusek) both are gone come spring training.

Homer Bailey
08-10-2012, 01:16 AM
If there was any truth to the rumor that the Reds could have had Victorino (or anyone else for that matter) for Ondrusek and turned it down, Walt made a big mistake. The scary thing is how many more times will Dusty run him out there in similar situtions? I'm hoping both are gone come spring training.

I never believed that rumor. It made no sense.

camisadelgolf
08-10-2012, 01:18 AM
If there was any truth to the rumor that the Reds could have had Victorino (or anyone else for that matter) for Ondrusek and turned it down, Walt made a big mistake. The scary thing is how many more times will Dusty run him out there in similar situtions? I'm hoping both are gone come spring training.
I would've done it just to get Ondrusek away from Dusty. They could've DFAed Victorino the next day for all I care. I'm only half-kidding, but what's obvious to me is this: Ondrusek is a 6th- or 7th-inning guy. I love the guy, but his good luck has been confused for skill. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve a roster spot--and to be honest, maybe he's getting too much flack from the haters--but Dusty has put too much faith in him.

Homer Bailey
08-10-2012, 01:22 AM
I would've done it just to get Ondrusek away from Dusty. They could've DFAed Victorino the next day for all I care. I'm only half-kidding, but what's obvious to me is this: Ondrusek is a 6th- or 7th-inning guy. I love the guy, but his good luck has been confused for skill. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve a roster spot--and to be honest, maybe he's getting too much flack from the haters--but Dusty has put too much faith in him.

His results have not been THAT bad relative to his actual skill. It's the Dusty can't separate the two, so he and Dusty should be separated.

757690
08-10-2012, 01:36 AM
No. No. No.

The argument was that he doesn't K anyone, and that he walks way too many. Meaning, he really doesn't have any true skills (relatively speaking). He has relied on an extremely lucky BABIP, and a HR/FB rate that was unsustainable. Not all that shocking to see him give up a decisive home run tonight. Only problem is he didn't have Stubbs to bail him out like he did in Houston.

The argument is that he doesn't have true skills. His critics were not correct "for the wrong reason". I'll say the same exact things about Logan than I would if he would have gotten Soriano to ground into a double play. He has zero elite skills. He's a below average reliever. He's below a replacement level reliever.

Logan is so bad, that his luck STILL hasn't truly regressed to the mean on his BABIP, and he's still found a way to blow recent games to the two worst teams in the NL. He's a AAA arm. I don't mean to harp on Logan, I really don't. He is who is he. The manager that keeps putting him in these ridiculous situations is the man to blame. Taking out your 2nd best reliever for your 2nd worst is completely and 100% unacceptable. Don't gimme the lefty vs. righty crap. It's unacceptable. I said it well before this happened that this needed to stop. I was mocked and ridiculed. Now, the blood is on your hands Dusty.

Oh, and I gave up on the game thread we had from last week where you were trying to make the case that Ondrusek could control his BABIP because I was out of town this weekend, but if you could show your work on that one, that would be great.

I have always agreed that Ondrusek wasn't that great, and didn't belong pitching in tight situations, just to be clear. In fact, in spring training I argued that he shouldn't make the team, but that was before injuries to Madson, Masset and Bray.

He still is a decent middle reliever, if used properly. He will give up a run around once every three appearances, which is fine for a middle reliever. His HR/FB rate has always been right near the league average, so I'm not sure what you're referring to about that. His walk rate was a bit high going into this year, but pretty standard for a middle reliever. It jumped up big time in the second half of the season, but really wasn't anything to worry about until then.

I don't know if you were arguing that Ondrusek couldn't sustain his HR/FB rate or that he had poor control earlier, but if you were, you would have been mistaken.

I agree he doesn't have elite skills, hence, he is a middle reliever. But he does have skills, enough to be a league average or better middle reliever. I agree that the biggest problem is that he is being used in the wrong situations.

757690
08-10-2012, 01:39 AM
I never believed that rumor. It made no sense.

Absolutely a false rumor, as evident by what the Dodgers gave up to get Victorino.

camisadelgolf
08-10-2012, 02:08 AM
Absolutely a false rumor, as evident by what the Dodgers gave up to get Victorino.
Definitely. The Phillies got one of the Dodgers' top prosects plus a reliever who is younger, better, under team control for a longer period, and cheaper over the next couple years than Ondrusek. I could see a deal involving Ondrusek and Victorino, but I doubt Ondrusek was the centerpiece.

REDREAD
08-10-2012, 01:00 PM
I wonder if Logan is going to be with the team next year.

No one (that I know of) is arguing that Logan is a 8th inning guy.. but he's still a decent middle reliever. He probably has some decent trade value (although I doubt he would've gotten Victorino)

My guess is that with Masset and Bray in questionable health, Logan will be brought next year, even if that means Hoover in AAA. Walt seems to be a huge believer in "there's never enough pitching".. Not saying it is bad, just speculating.

I hope we can resign Simon next year as well.

Bray at this point seems to be a DFA candidate. Although maybe they plan to move Chapman to the rotation next year (Let's say Broxton is extended).. Then maybe Bray survives as the 2nd lefty in the pen.. I'd almost prefer to go fishing for a better LH reliever in the FA market though. Bray has a lifetime of struggles staying healthy.

Tom Servo
08-10-2012, 01:18 PM
I believe we already have the core of a solid pen, and if we can resign Madson on the cheap...boy would I like that. I don't think jettisoning Ondrusek and Bray would have any negative impact.

Also, REDREAD, Simon is under Reds control until 2016.

RedsManRick
08-10-2012, 01:28 PM
Blame Dusty. He has the best bullpen in the business and he continues to put Logan out there. Great God, the man has no judgment. As this point, I have no idea. To understand Baker is to be insane.

No kidding. You have a guy coming up who can't hit a break pitch but destroys fastballs and you bring in Ondrusek to replace Marshall?

You're not even getting a platoon advantage:

Marshall vR (career): .257/.327/.400
Ondrusek vR (career): .241/.321/.402

I just don't understand it. Ondrusek is CLEARLY the least effective reliever on this team. He's just managed to skirt by on a nice BABIP luck. Please, please stop using him in high leverage situations. And in general, it drives me nuts how much managers over-manage based on the outcome of one at bat.

kaldaniels
08-10-2012, 01:31 PM
No kidding. You have a guy coming up who can't hit a break pitch but destroys fastballs and you bring in Ondrusek to replace Marshall?

You're not even getting a platoon advantage:

Marshall vR (career): .257/.327/.400
Ondrusek vR (career): .241/.321/.402

I just don't understand it. Ondrusek is CLEARLY the least effective reliever on this team. He's just managed to skirt by on a nice BABIP luck. Please, please stop using him in high leverage situations.

I totally agree with your "CLEARLY".

I don't have the knowledge base to put up a strong case to oppose someone on here who is using OPS-against to stick up for Logan. Now I have never seen that stat used to evaluate a pitcher...what are your thoughts on that being used.

reds44
08-10-2012, 01:38 PM
No. No. No.

The argument was that he doesn't K anyone, and that he walks way too many. Meaning, he really doesn't have any true skills (relatively speaking). He has relied on an extremely lucky BABIP, and a HR/FB rate that was unsustainable. Not all that shocking to see him give up a decisive home run tonight. Only problem is he didn't have Stubbs to bail him out like he did in Houston.

The argument is that he doesn't have true skills. His critics were not correct "for the wrong reason". I'll say the same exact things about Logan than I would if he would have gotten Soriano to ground into a double play. He has zero elite skills. He's a below average reliever. He's below a replacement level reliever.

Logan is so bad, that his luck STILL hasn't truly regressed to the mean on his BABIP, and he's still found a way to blow recent games to the two worst teams in the NL. He's a AAA arm. I don't mean to harp on Logan, I really don't. He is who is he. The manager that keeps putting him in these ridiculous situations is the man to blame. Taking out your 2nd best reliever for your 2nd worst is completely and 100% unacceptable. Don't gimme the lefty vs. righty crap. It's unacceptable. I said it well before this happened that this needed to stop. I was mocked and ridiculed. Now, the blood is on your hands Dusty.

Oh, and I gave up on the game thread we had from last week where you were trying to make the case that Ondrusek could control his BABIP because I was out of town this weekend, but if you could show your work on that one, that would be great.
/thread

REDREAD
08-10-2012, 01:57 PM
.

Also, REDREAD, Simon is under Reds control until 2016.

Wow, I didn't know that.. I figured the dude was old enough to be a potential FA.. That's great news.

mattfeet
08-10-2012, 03:14 PM
Wow, I didn't know that.. I figured the dude was old enough to be a potential FA.. That's great news.

That's news to me as well, and wonderful news at that. What an outstanding pickup. :beerme:

-Matt

RedsManRick
08-10-2012, 03:26 PM
I totally agree with your "CLEARLY".

I don't have the knowledge base to put up a strong case to oppose someone on here who is using OPS-against to stick up for Logan. Now I have never seen that stat used to evaluate a pitcher...what are your thoughts on that being used.

That it both undervalues the harm caused by walks and completely ignores the coming BABIP regression.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2012, 10:26 PM
Maybe JJ Hoover missed the first page. Let's try again. Paging JJ Hoover, paging JJ Hoover.

Tom Servo
08-18-2012, 10:28 PM
Stop the Ondrusek, I want to get off.

mattfeet
08-18-2012, 10:30 PM
I bet Masset will replace Ondrusek before too long.

Brutus
08-18-2012, 10:45 PM
Guy gives up a solo homer and this thread gets bumped. We should have a thread for every player to complain when something bad happens.

Vottomatic
08-18-2012, 10:47 PM
Yeah, I didn't see the Simon, Lecure, and Redmond threads light up. :D

Homer Bailey
08-18-2012, 10:53 PM
Guy gives up a solo homer and this thread gets bumped. We should have a thread for every player to complain when something bad happens.

Right. Because it's just the one home run that people are upset about.

Here is Logan's FIP by month. It's pretty amazing.

April: 2.37
May: 6.29
June: 5.80
July: 4.29
August: 8.82 (not sure if that includes tonight or not)

757690
08-18-2012, 10:53 PM
Forget Hoover. Just send Ondrusek down when Votto comes back.

Simon and LeCure can go more the two innings, Arredondo and Marshall can go two innings and Chapman can have 4-5 out saves. Absolutely no need to have 12 pitchers on this 25 man roster.

edabbs44
08-18-2012, 11:02 PM
Right. Because it's just the one home run that people are upset about.

Here is Logan's FIP by month. It's pretty amazing.

April: 2.37
May: 6.29
June: 5.80
July: 4.29
August: 8.82 (not sure if that includes tonight or not)

So people are upset with him because a metric states that he will likey be less effective at some point in the future? With an ERA around 3.40 over 178 career games, that's not bad.

dougdirt
08-18-2012, 11:03 PM
So people are upset with him because a metric states that he will likey be less effective at some point in the future? With an ERA around 3.40 over 178 career games, that's not bad.

ERA is good. But when he comes into the game, I have no faith in him. Call me crazy, but when a pitcher, particularly a reliever, doesn't have control AND he doesn't strike guys out, I get really nervous about him being on the mound.

Homer Bailey
08-18-2012, 11:06 PM
So people are upset with him because a metric states that he will likey be less effective at some point in the future? With an ERA around 3.40 over 178 career games, that's not bad.

Do you think he's a good pitcher that should continue to get opportunities to pitch in close games? Is he a guy you want the Reds to turn to in the postseason?

edabbs44
08-18-2012, 11:10 PM
ERA is good. But when he comes into the game, I have no faith in him. Call me crazy, but when a pitcher, particularly a reliever, doesn't have control AND he doesn't strike guys out, I get really nervous about him being on the mound.

I just find it odd that some are upset with a guy who has been an effective pitcher for his career. He gets the same venom as guys like Valdez and the like because of a metric that is supposedly more predictive than ERA. And maybe it is. But we shouldn't be acting like the guy has been blowing games for years.

edabbs44
08-18-2012, 11:11 PM
Do you think he's a good pitcher that should continue to get opportunities to pitch in close games? Is he a guy you want the Reds to turn to in the postseason?

He is 4th in line in the pen. I don't see that as being awful.

Homer Bailey
08-18-2012, 11:12 PM
He is 4th in line in the pen. I don't see that as being awful.

You think he's the Reds fourth best reliever??

edabbs44
08-18-2012, 11:16 PM
You think he's the Reds fourth best reliever??

I think he is used as 4th in line at this time. 4th or 5th, with Wild Jose in the mix.

Homer Bailey
08-18-2012, 11:22 PM
I think he is used as 4th in line at this time. 4th or 5th, with Wild Jose in the mix.

Wild Jose walks .43 more guys per 9 than Ondrusek does, while striking out 3.27 more batters per 9.

Regardless of where he is "used at this time," I still don't believe you've answered the question. Do you think he's the fourth best reliever on this team?

fearofpopvol1
08-19-2012, 12:20 AM
Guy gives up a solo homer and this thread gets bumped. We should have a thread for every player to complain when something bad happens.

:rolleyes:

Nice try, but the guy has given up home runs in 3 of his last 5 appearances. Season WAR is -0.5. His xFIP in high leverage situations for the season is 6.86 (not including last night). He's been terrible for the SEASON (not just last night).

fearofpopvol1
08-19-2012, 12:26 AM
I just find it odd that some are upset with a guy who has been an effective pitcher for his career. He gets the same venom as guys like Valdez and the like because of a metric that is supposedly more predictive than ERA. And maybe it is. But we shouldn't be acting like the guy has been blowing games for years.

How has he been effective for his career? Unless you look at ERA, which we know is not an effective stat for relievers (unless you believe Rheal Cormier was an awesome reliever in 2006), how has he been good?

His career line (not including last night)...

163 IP / 6.19 K/9 / 3.91 BB/9 / xFIP 4.56 / -0.5 WAR

Matt700wlw
08-19-2012, 12:40 AM
Rheal Cormier mention!

Rep points????

Tom Servo
08-19-2012, 12:50 AM
Dear god, please do not remind me of the 2006 Reds bullpen.

757690
08-19-2012, 01:56 AM
How has he been effective for his career? Unless you look at ERA, which we know is not an effective stat for relievers (unless you believe Rheal Cormier was an awesome reliever in 2006), how has he been good?

His career line (not including last night)...

163 IP / 6.19 K/9 / 3.91 BB/9 / xFIP 4.56 / -0.5 WAR

Ondrusek isn't very good, but just for the record, WAR is absurdly inaccurate for relief pitchers. In fact, there really isn't one stat that does of good job of telling how effective relievers have been, not even FIP or xFIP. You have to look at a wide range of stats. However, there really aren't any stats that say he's doing a good job right now.

It's rare for a middle reliever to have more than two good years, so this year shouldn't be that big of surprise.

Wonderful Monds
08-19-2012, 01:57 AM
Ondrusek isn't very good, but just for the record, WAR is absurdly inaccurate for relief pitchers. In fact, there really isn't one stat that does of good job of telling how effective relievers have been, not even FIP or xFIP. You have to look at a wide range of stats. However, there really aren't any stats that say he's doing a good job right now.

It's rare for a middle reliever to have more than two good years, so this year shouldn't be that big of surprise.
True, but at the same time he hasn't ever really had even one. It's a minor miracle, IMO, that his career ERA is as low as it is.

757690
08-19-2012, 01:57 AM
Wild Jose walks .43 more guys per 9 than Ondrusek does, while striking out 3.27 more batters per 9.

Regardless of where he is "used at this time," I still don't believe you've answered the question. Do you think he's the fourth best reliever on this team?

Worst part is that sometimes lately, he's been used as the second best reliever on the team. (I'd lol that, but it's just too sad.)

757690
08-19-2012, 02:03 AM
True, but at the same time he hasn't ever really had even one. It's a minor miracle, IMO, that his career ERA is as low as it is.

As middle relievers go, he's had two decent seasons. Didn't walk too many, threw a lot of groundballs, but now he does neither of those.

He's throwing a little harder this year, which might be the problem. Guys like him need sink on the ball, and the harder you throw, the less sink you get. Or it just could be that he's throwing more crappy pitches.

Patrick Bateman
08-19-2012, 03:41 AM
FIP is actually based on past results. It shows that past ERA might be indicative of crap, not skill.

ERA is essentially not relevant in this converasation.

You can believe Ondrusek is as good as people thought Majewski was (in a comparable sample), but it's not a thing. Ondrusek is just an awful, awful pitcher. You can also be defensive of a thread bump, but at some point, you just need to accept that people are going to hate an awful players regardless of whether the hate is rational each and every time that the bad player screws up.

Brutus
08-19-2012, 05:15 AM
Right. Because it's just the one home run that people are upset about.

Here is Logan's FIP by month. It's pretty amazing.

April: 2.37
May: 6.29
June: 5.80
July: 4.29
August: 8.82 (not sure if that includes tonight or not)

For his career, he has an OPS against that's about 30 points less than an average reliever.

At some point, it's going to be time to realize that some of what happens in play does matter for a pitcher, and especially for Ondrusek, he's still managing to get more guys out than many in his position. That counts for something whether you want to admit it or not.

Brutus
08-19-2012, 05:21 AM
I just find it odd that some are upset with a guy who has been an effective pitcher for his career. He gets the same venom as guys like Valdez and the like because of a metric that is supposedly more predictive than ERA. And maybe it is. But we shouldn't be acting like the guy has been blowing games for years.

And it's actually not that much more predictive.

Depending on the dataset being used, FIP correlates to future ERA around .43 and ERA somewhere around .40. That's only a difference in variance of 18.4% to 16%. It's noteworthy, but it's not something that should provide for matter-of-fact conclusions.

Interestingly, SIERA, which takes into account batted balls, is much more predictive than any of the defense-independent stats. To be fair, Ondrusek's SIERA isn't terribly flattering, but it's always been better than his FIP/xFIP which suggests his overall ERA performance isn't as far off as people assume.

edabbs44
08-19-2012, 07:14 AM
Wild Jose walks .43 more guys per 9 than Ondrusek does, while striking out 3.27 more batters per 9.

Regardless of where he is "used at this time," I still don't believe you've answered the question. Do you think he's the fourth best reliever on this team?

He is in the discussion. He is in the group behind the top 3. So I don't see him pitching in the highest of leverage situations come October as those situations should go to the top 3.

I do find the Hoover love going over the top a bit.

edabbs44
08-19-2012, 07:19 AM
DP

edabbs44
08-19-2012, 07:19 AM
How has he been effective for his career? Unless you look at ERA, which we know is not an effective stat for relievers (unless you believe Rheal Cormier was an awesome reliever in 2006), how has he been good?

His career line (not including last night)...

163 IP / 6.19 K/9 / 3.91 BB/9 / xFIP 4.56 / -0.5 WAR

Can I ask why we aren't allowed to discuss ERA for a reliever?

757690
08-19-2012, 07:55 AM
Can I ask why we aren't allowed to discuss ERA for a reliever?

Even if you value ERA as a stat, it's a pretty lousy one for evaluating the past performance of a reliever, since it doesn't include inherited runners, which is one of the most important areas for understanding the past performance of a reliever, imo.

757690
08-19-2012, 08:11 AM
FIP is actually based on past results. It shows that past ERA might be indicative of crap, not skill.

ERA is essentially not relevant in this converasation.

You can believe Ondrusek is as good as people thought Majewski was (in a comparable sample), but it's not a thing. Ondrusek is just an awful, awful pitcher. You can also be defensive of a thread bump, but at some point, you just need to accept that people are going to hate an awful players regardless of whether the hate is rational each and every time that the bad player screws up.

Ondrusek was your typical middle reliever until around June of this season. Since then he's been terrible, mostly due to his wildness, in and out of the strikezone. But he was as effective as any team could expect a middle reliever to be, for about as long as most middle relievers are effective.

Making matters worse, is that his recent ineffectiveness started when Baker began using him in higher leverage situations.

edabbs44
08-19-2012, 09:04 AM
Even if you value ERA as a stat, it's a pretty lousy one for evaluating the past performance of a reliever, since it doesn't include inherited runners, which is one of the most important areas for understanding the past performance of a reliever, imo.

Does Logan have problems with inherited runners?

Patrick Bateman
08-19-2012, 11:33 AM
Can anybody find an example of a pitcher that long term had periperhals similar to what Ondrusek has this year, but still managed a consistently solid ERA for their career? I'm guessing in a large sample it doesn't exist. But I think you would need some comps in order to make a convincing case for him not being awful.

nate
08-19-2012, 12:11 PM
I think a good way to look at it is to take the last three year's performance, compare it to his peers who have pitched a similar amount of innings and rank them.

So here are some of their stats from 2010 - 2012, minimum IP: 160.


Name IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR
Sean Marshall 197 10.32 2.42 0.32 0.311 55.70% 5.60% 2.51 2.11 2.47 6.3
Jonathan Papelbon 180.2 11.11 2.49 0.7 0.301 39.60% 7.50% 3.24 2.55 2.88 5.5
Matt Belisle 225 8.08 1.64 0.6 0.324 50.60% 7.70% 3.12 2.79 3.05 5.3
Matt Thornton 169.2 9.87 2.81 0.53 0.316 48.10% 7.50% 3.24 2.63 2.89 4.7
David Robertson 168.1 12.14 4.54 0.48 0.313 44.60% 6.80% 2.41 2.65 2.97 4.6
Mike Adams 180.1 9.03 2.4 0.4 0.262 43.80% 4.50% 1.85 2.48 3.18 4.6
Rafael Betancourt 168 10.82 1.39 1.07 0.273 30.60% 9.40% 3.11 2.67 2.77 4.5
John Axford 180.2 11.16 3.89 0.6 0.304 48.40% 8.10% 2.99 2.79 3 3.9
Carlos Marmol 190 13.55 6.35 0.43 0.297 39.10% 5.50% 3.46 3.07 3.56 3.9
Tyler Clippard 234.2 10.89 3.57 0.88 0.238 26.20% 7.40% 2.57 3.16 3.6 3.6
Joel Hanrahan 185 10.51 3.16 0.63 0.283 44.90% 7.60% 2.68 2.79 3.08 3.6
Jonny Venters 212.2 10.28 4.44 0.38 0.288 69.60% 11.70% 2.2 3.06 2.98 3.3
Heath Bell 1 80.2 8.87 3.59 0.4 0.306 44.10% 4.50% 3.14 2.92 3.61 3.2
Jim Johnson 168 5.79 2.04 0.54 0.273 60.90% 8.50% 2.95 3.33 3.47 3
Wilton Lopez 185 7.1 1.36 0.63 0.303 57.10% 9.50% 2.72 2.93 2.97 2.9
Joaquin Benoit 174.1 10.22 2.27 1.14 0.24 38.30% 11.60% 2.53 3.24 3.03 2.8
Francisco Rodriguez 181.2 9.86 3.72 0.69 0.315 45.80% 8.40% 3.22 3.18 3.37 2.6
Jason Motte 172 9.21 2.56 0.73 0.256 42.30% 7.80% 2.41 3.05 3.36 2.6
Eric O'Flaherty 160.1 7.75 2.98 0.39 0.282 58.90% 6.90% 1.74 3.01 3.26 2.6
Casey Janssen 172 8.58 2.2 0.78 0.292 46.30% 9.90% 2.83 3.18 3.2 2.5
Octavio Dotel 160.2 10.76 3.25 0.95 0.259 33.80% 8.70% 3.59 3.23 3.42 2.4
Brandon League 190 6.3 2.79 0.52 0.287 56.20% 8.00% 3.46 3.41 3.62 2.4
Jesse Crain 166 9.38 3.9 0.81 0.26 36.10% 7.70% 2.66 3.47 3.8 2.3
Joel Peralta 167.2 9.39 2.09 1.02 0.211 27.30% 8.20% 2.79 3.18 3.52 2.3
Chris Perez 166.1 8.06 3.52 0.65 0.248 33.30% 5.70% 2.81 3.53 4.24 2.3
Grant Balfour 173.2 8.45 3.06 0.78 0.233 34.90% 7.40% 2.44 3.35 3.76 2.2
Brad Ziegler 167.1 6.19 3.39 0.22 0.281 64.70% 4.90% 2.64 3.22 3.53 2.2
Luke Gregerson 188 8.66 2.49 0.72 0.264 48.70% 9.00% 2.87 3.09 3.2 2.1
Jose Valverde 185 8.22 4.23 0.63 0.243 44.80% 6.70% 2.87 3.69 4.15 2.1
Sean Burnett 166 7.7 2.71 0.65 0.278 55.20% 9.60% 2.66 3.27 3.31 2
Kameron Loe 182.1 7.31 2.22 0.74 0.292 59.70% 12.30% 3.31 3.35 3.16 2
Hisanori Takahashi 167.1 8.23 3.07 0.81 0.269 39.60% 8.00% 3.33 3.42 3.73 2
Burke Badenhop 184.1 6.59 2.73 0.59 0.301 55.00% 8.20% 3.86 3.47 3.67 1.7
Alfredo Aceves 165.2 6.79 2.93 0.81 0.23 40.60% 7.50% 2.82 3.97 4.41 1.5
Craig Breslow 184.2 7.9 3.17 0.88 0.279 36.30% 7.50% 3.17 3.7 4.1 1.3
Ramon Ramirez 188.1 7.36 3.87 0.62 0.26 44.00% 6.00% 3.15 3.66 4.25 1.2
Cristhian Martinez 161.2 7.46 1.89 0.89 0.278 49.10% 11.00% 3.73 3.37 3.29 1.1
Shawn Camp 198.2 5.53 2.58 0.77 0.303 52.00% 8.90% 3.58 3.96 4.11 1.1
Edward Mujica 192.1 7.72 1.36 1.26 0.259 47.50% 13.40% 3.37 3.67 3.2 1.1
Mitchell Boggs 183 7.03 3.05 0.64 0.283 51.90% 8.20% 3.15 3.59 3.8 1.1
Matt Capps 167 5.98 1.83 1.13 0.279 44.80% 10.70% 3.4 4.05 3.93 0.8
Jose Veras 169 10.07 5.11 0.85 0.281 39.20% 9.30% 4.05 3.88 3.98 0.7
Matt Albers 185.1 7.14 4.03 0.92 0.283 52.70% 11.40% 3.98 4.28 4.11 0.6
Jamey Wright 173 6.09 4.21 0.52 0.294 61.40% 9.10% 3.75 4.06 4.11 0.3
Francisco Cordero 181.2 6.54 3.77 0.99 0.289 44.90% 10.10% 4.11 4.41 4.39 -0.1
Chad Qualls 177.2 5.88 2.74 1.06 0.326 55.80% 13.20% 5.22 4.24 3.86 -0.4
Chad Durbin 184.1 7.76 3.56 1.37 0.297 42.80% 12.70% 4.25 4.63 4.21 -0.7
Tony Sipp 165.2 9.24 4.29 1.52 0.244 29.00% 12.20% 3.86 4.69 4.28 -0.7
Logan Ondrusek 164.1 6.02 3.89 1.04 0.248 46.80% 10.10% 3.4 4.58 4.58 -0.7

And here's how they rank in those categories:


Name IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR
Sean Marshall 5 9 13 2 44 10 5 7 1 1 1
Jonathan Papelbon 22 4 14 24 38 36 13 30 3 3 2
Matt Belisle 2 26 4 14 48 16 18 24 7 10 3
Matt Thornton 32 13 22 11 47 20 13 30 4 4 4
David Robertson 34 2 47 8 45 29 9 4 5 5 5
Mike Adams 25 19 12 5 15 32 1 2 2 13 5
Rafael Betancourt 35 6 3 44 18 46 34 23 6 2 7
John Axford 22 3 39 14 42 19 23 22 7 8 8
Carlos Marmol 7 1 49 7 36 39 4 37 15 26 8
Tyler Clippard 1 5 34 35 4 49 11 9 17 27 10
Joel Hanrahan 12 8 28 17 27 25 17 13 7 11 10
Jonny Venters 3 10 46 3 31 1 44 3 14 7 12
Heath Bell 22 20 35 5 43 30 1 25 10 28 13
Jim Johnson 35 48 7 12 18 4 28 21 25 23 14
Wilton Lopez 12 37 1 17 40 7 35 14 11 5 15
Joaquin Benoit 27 11 11 46 5 40 43 8 23 9 16
Francisco Rodriguez 20 14 36 23 46 24 27 29 18 21 17
Jason Motte 30 18 16 26 10 34 20 4 13 20 17
Eric O'Flaherty 49 30 24 4 26 6 10 1 12 17 17
Casey Janssen 30 22 9 29 33 23 37 18 18 14 20
Octavio Dotel 48 7 30 39 11 44 29 40 22 22 21
Brandon League 7 42 21 9 30 8 21 37 29 29 21
Jesse Crain 42 16 41 31 13 42 18 11 31 33 23
Joel Peralta 37 15 8 41 1 48 24 15 18 24 23
Chris Perez 41 27 32 21 8 45 6 16 33 44 23
Grant Balfour 28 23 26 29 3 43 11 6 26 32 26
Brad Ziegler 38 43 31 1 24 2 3 10 21 25 26
Luke Gregerson 10 21 14 25 16 18 31 19 16 14 28
Jose Valverde 12 25 44 17 6 27 8 19 37 42 28
Sean Burnett 42 32 18 21 20 11 36 11 24 19 30
Kameron Loe 19 35 10 27 33 5 46 32 26 12 30
Hisanori Takahashi 38 24 27 31 17 36 21 33 30 31 30
Burke Badenhop 16 40 19 13 38 12 24 43 31 30 33
Alfredo Aceves 44 39 23 31 2 35 13 17 41 48 34
Craig Breslow 15 28 29 35 22 41 13 28 38 38 35
Ramon Ramirez 9 34 38 16 13 31 7 26 35 45 36
Cristhian Martinez 47 33 6 37 20 17 41 41 28 18 37
Shawn Camp 4 49 17 28 40 14 30 39 40 39 37
Edward Mujica 6 31 1 47 11 21 49 34 36 14 37
Mitchell Boggs 18 38 25 20 27 15 24 26 34 33 37
Matt Capps 40 46 5 45 22 27 40 35 42 36 41
Jose Veras 33 12 48 34 24 38 33 46 39 37 42
Matt Albers 11 36 42 38 27 13 42 45 45 39 43
Jamey Wright 29 44 43 9 35 3 32 42 43 39 44
Francisco Cordero 20 41 37 40 32 25 38 47 46 47 45
Chad Qualls 26 47 20 43 49 9 48 49 44 35 46
Chad Durbin 16 29 33 48 36 33 47 48 48 43 47
Tony Sipp 44 17 45 49 7 47 45 43 49 46 47
Logan Ondrusek 46 45 39 42 8 22 38 35 47 49 47

It seems to me that one of these things is not like the other.

Enjoy!

mth123
08-19-2012, 12:29 PM
Can anybody find an example of a pitcher that long term had periperhals similar to what Ondrusek has this year, but still managed a consistently solid ERA for their career? I'm guessing in a large sample it doesn't exist. But I think you would need some comps in order to make a convincing case for him not being awful.

David Weathers during his Red's career might be pretty close.

RedsManRick
08-19-2012, 12:38 PM
I don't know why you people can't accept a simple fact. Logan Ondrusek might not miss a lot of bats. He might walk a lot of people. And he may give up more than his fair share of homers. But the man is extremely talented at limiting his BABIP and stranding runners.

If sabermetrics has taught us anything, it's that pitchers can suck at everything else and still put up a lower BABIP than Mariano Rivera. You guys need to get out of your mother's basement and watch some baseball. Clearly Ondrusek is one of this team's best options in high leverage situations.

mth123
08-19-2012, 12:43 PM
I don't know why you people can't accept a simple fact. Logan Ondrusek might not miss a lot of bats. He might walk a lot of people. And he may give up more than his fair share of homers. But the man is extremely talented at limiting his BABIP and stranding runners.

If sabermetrics has taught us anything, it's that pitchers can suck at everything else and still put up a lower BABIP than Mariano Rivera. You guys need to get out of your mother's basement and watch some baseball. Clearly Ondrusek is one of this team's best options in high leverage situations.

Why the nasty post? Who in this thread is calling Ondrusek a stud?

757690
08-19-2012, 12:51 PM
I think a good way to look at it is to take the last three year's performance, compare it to his peers who have pitched a similar amount of innings and rank them.

So here are some of their stats from 2010 - 2012, minimum IP: 160.

It seems to me that one of these things is not like the other.

Enjoy!

Thanks For the work.

My main take away from that is that very few middle relievers last as long as Ondusek has. Most of the pitchers on that lis(at least 35 by my count) were either closers or set up men or LOOGY's during those years.

Of the remaining 15 or saw actual middle relievers, Ondrusek is middle of the pack in terms of K's, BB's, HR's and top of the pack in terms of GB's and BABIP.

757690
08-19-2012, 12:57 PM
I don't know why you people can't accept a simple fact. Logan Ondrusek might not miss a lot of bats. He might walk a lot of people. And he may give up more than his fair share of homers. But the man is extremely talented at limiting his BABIP and stranding runners.

If sabermetrics has taught us anything, it's that pitchers can suck at everything else and still put up a lower BABIP than Mariano Rivera. You guys need to get out of your mother's basement and watch some baseball. Clearly Ondrusek is one of this team's best options in high leverage situations.

For the record, all snark aside, the one thing that Sabermetrics has taught us, is that our understanding of stats is constantly evolving. We actually are learning that our recent perceptions and opinions on BABIP were not fully correct.

757690
08-19-2012, 01:00 PM
Can anybody find an example of a pitcher that long term had periperhals similar to what Ondrusek has this year, but still managed a consistently solid ERA for their career? I'm guessing in a large sample it doesn't exist. But I think you would need some comps in order to make a convincing case for him not being awful.

I agree that guy probably doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that Ondrusek has been awful. It just means that middle relievers who can get by on low BABIP based on throwing a lot of GB's and nothing else, don't last long in the majors. And it makes sense why they were successful for a short period of time, but not a long period,

VR
08-19-2012, 01:04 PM
For the record, all snark aside, the one thing that Sabermetrics has taught us, is that our understanding of stats is constantly evolving. We actually are learning that our recent perceptions and opinions on BABIP were not fully correct.

The babip love affair was one that I couldn't understand. Very close to the 'steroids can't make you hit a homerun' theory.

nate
08-19-2012, 01:11 PM
For the record, all snark aside, the one thing that Sabermetrics has taught us, is that our understanding of stats is constantly evolving. We actually are learning that our recent perceptions and opinions on BABIP were not fully correct.

Really? What were "our" perceptions and opinions and what is the "correct" way of viewing it now?

Tom Servo
08-19-2012, 01:12 PM
Good post nate, high five.

kaldaniels
08-19-2012, 01:53 PM
I consider (how ever embarrassing it is to you) myself to think along the same lines as both of you guys, Ed and Brutus. So I'm just suprised to see you both totally rejecting the notion that Logan is not expected to do well going forward.

mth123
08-19-2012, 02:04 PM
David Weathers as a Red:

398.2 IP, ERA+ 112, K/9 6.4, BB/9 3.7, HR/9 0.9

Logan Ondrusek:

164.1 I, ERA+ 120, K/9 6.0, BB/9 3.9, HR/9 1.0

DGullett35
08-19-2012, 02:22 PM
David Weathers as a Red:

398.2 IP, ERA+ 112, K/9 6.4, BB/9 3.7, HR/9 0.9

Logan Ondrusek:

164.1 I, ERA+ 120, K/9 6.0, BB/9 3.9, HR/9 1.0

He still has some innings to go to catch up but they are earily similar

nate
08-19-2012, 02:25 PM
David Weathers during his Red's career might be pretty close.

Astute observation:

David Weathers: 2005-2009 (roughly, his time with the Reds)
K/9: 6.04
BB/9: 3.70
HR/9: 0.97
BABIP: .261

Logan Ondrusek: career
K/9: 6.02
BB/9: 3.89
HR/9: 1.04
BABIP: .248

Tidbit: looking up Weathers' stats resulted in an exact duplication of the lower back spasm I felt every time he came in to pitch.

mth123
08-19-2012, 02:34 PM
Astute observation:

David Weathers: 2005-2009 (roughly, his time with the Reds)
K/9: 6.04
BB/9: 3.70
HR/9: 0.97
BABIP: .261

Logan Ondrusek: career
K/9: 6.02
BB/9: 3.89
HR/9: 1.04
BABIP: .248

Tidbit: looking up Weathers' stats resulted in an exact duplication of the lower back spasm I felt every time he came in to pitch.

:lol::laugh:

Crumbley
08-19-2012, 03:24 PM
I don't know why you people can't accept a simple fact. Logan Ondrusek might not miss a lot of bats. He might walk a lot of people. And he may give up more than his fair share of homers. But the man is extremely talented at limiting his BABIP and stranding runners.

If sabermetrics has taught us anything, it's that pitchers can suck at everything else and still put up a lower BABIP than Mariano Rivera. You guys need to get out of your mother's basement and watch some baseball. Clearly Ondrusek is one of this team's best options in high leverage situations.
I feel bludgeoned by intelligence, this is basically a religious experience. We should all be grateful.

Brutus
08-19-2012, 03:41 PM
I consider (how ever embarrassing it is to you) myself to think along the same lines as both of you guys, Ed and Brutus. So I'm just suprised to see you both totally rejecting the notion that Logan is not expected to do well going forward.

I haven't totally rejected the notion, but at this point you could have said that about Ondrusek each of the past three years and yet it still hasn't happened. At what point doe someone accept the possibility that FIP isn't always the best predictor (it's actually not statistically much better a predictor than ERA as I mentioned in post #116)?

My stance all along is that Ondrusek is an average reliever. His OPS, a bottom line metric incorporating everything a pitcher surrenders, continues to support that with some room to spare (as he's technically been above-average for three years running). That allows for some wiggle room if the BABIP does come up a bit. But again... it's been three years and he's still carrying these numbers.

757690
08-19-2012, 05:32 PM
Really? What were "our" perceptions and opinions and what is the "correct" way of viewing it now?

In general, we are finding out that there are more pitchers than originally expected, who can keep a low BABIP over their career. We are finding through advanced PitchFx that more pitchers than expected can increase the amount of weak contact against them. Not talking GB/FB/LD, but actual velocity and trajectory of the ball. Basically, the notion that pitchers can't control their BABIP isn't as true as we had believed.

And this is one that many have missed, but relievers are able to maintain lower BABIP than starters. This actually makes sense, since they pitch very differently than starters. They only see a few batters an outing, and rarely face the same batter more than two or times a season, as compared to starters who see the same batters two or three times a game. There's a lot more differences, but that's a key one.

This is a crude instrument, but I don't have time to do anything more in depth. However, it is still very telling.

It's the BABIP of each team, broken down by starters and relievers. The first number is the number of teams that had a BABIP .280 or below. The second is the lowest BABIP that a team had that season. Again, broken down by starters and relievers

The take away:

From 2003-2012, teams starters compiled 27 BABIP's .280 and below. Teams relievers compiled 67 BABIP's .280 and below. The average lowest BABIP for starters was .271, the lowest average BABIP for relievers was .262. And not on the chart, team's starters compiled 4 BABIP's below .270, while relievers compiled 19 BABIP's below .270.


Year Start #<.281 Start Lowest Relief #<.281 Relief Lowest

2012 6 0.275 10 0.263
2011 1 0.265 10 0.267
2010 2 0.269 5 0.267
2009 3 0.271 7 0.266
2008 1 0.273 4 0.257
2007 1 0.274 2 0.263
2006 1 0.275 3 0.272
2005 4 0.266 8 0.256
2004 2 0.274 6 0.257
2003 6 0.267 12 0.264
Total 27 0.271 67 0.262

Patrick Bateman
08-19-2012, 05:49 PM
In relation to the argument that we have a sufficient sample size for Ondrusek to suggest that he has the ability to outperform his FIP going forward, I would have to disagree with that suggestion. 164 innings of pitching is not a sufficient sample. For example, there are plenty of starting pitchers who have a fluke season, that entails about 180-200 innings. Really, Ondrusek's sample is that of one year's worth of a starting pitcher. There are plenty of examples of a starting pitcher being lucky just for a season.

Secondly, the Reds have had above average defense over the time period that Ondrusek has pitched in the major leagues. Again, considering the relatively small sample size, it would be reasonable to suggest that in front of a good defense, Ondrusek would stand to benefit from that. Mix in some general luck, and there is a clear recipe for how he could outperform his FIP, independent of skill.

Thirdly, I have seen Ondrusek referred to in this thread of being capable of inducing groundballs? He actually has demonstrated no discernable skill to do so.

I think the David Weathers comp (with the Reds) is a good one. And I think over a larger sample size, Weathers would have eventually broke. The fact that there are few other good comps from my original question suggests that these pitchers just don't consistently outperform there peripherals by that much.

In the end, Ondrusek has demonstrated no discernable skills to K players, limit walks, or induce sufficient groundballs to limit home runs. Find me a player with a long term BAPIP of .248, and maybe there is a case here, but there's not.

I'm sticking with my original comp of Gary Majewski. Ondrusek is going to fall apart given enough chances IMO.

Brutus
08-19-2012, 05:53 PM
Thirdly, I have seen Ondrusek referred to in this thread of being capable of inducing groundballs? He actually has demonstrated no discernable skill to do so.



I've already given my thoughts on your other points, so I won't beleaguer the point, but I have to question this statement.

No discernable skill to induce grounders? Patrick, his career GB/FB ratio is 1.24. NL league average this year is 0.85.

How is that not discernable? He's been above league average at inducing grounders in three consecutive seasons. Forty six percent above league average for his career. That seems rather distinguishable to me.

nate
08-19-2012, 05:56 PM
In general, we are finding out that there are more pitchers than originally expected, who can keep a low BABIP over their career. We are finding through advanced PitchFx that more pitchers than expected can increase the amount of weak contact against them. Not talking GB/FB/LD, but actual velocity and trajectory of the ball. Basically, the notion that pitchers can't control their BABIP isn't as true as we had believed.

To me (not "we" or "us"), my understanding of BABIP hasn't changed from this:

Some pitchers have some influence on their BABIP.


And this is one that many have missed, but relievers are able to maintain lower BABIP than starters. This actually makes sense, since they pitch very differently than starters. They only see a few batters an outing, and rarely face the same batter more than two or times a season, as compared to starters who see the same batters two or three times a game. There's a lot more differences, but that's a key one.

This is a crude instrument, but I don't have time to do anything more in depth. However, it is still very telling.

It's the BABIP of each team, broken down by starters and relievers. The first number is the number of teams that had a BABIP .280 or below. The second is the lowest BABIP that a team had that season. Again, broken down by starters and relievers

The take away:

From 2003-2012, teams starters compiled 27 BABIP's .280 and below. Teams relievers compiled 67 BABIP's .280 and below. The average lowest BABIP for starters was .271, the lowest average BABIP for relievers was .262. And not on the chart, team's starters compiled 4 BABIP's below .270, while relievers compiled 19 BABIP's below .270.


Year Start #<.281 Start Lowest Relief #<.281 Relief Lowest

2012 6 0.275 10 0.263
2011 1 0.265 10 0.267
2010 2 0.269 5 0.267
2009 3 0.271 7 0.266
2008 1 0.273 4 0.257
2007 1 0.274 2 0.263
2006 1 0.275 3 0.272
2005 4 0.266 8 0.256
2004 2 0.274 6 0.257
2003 6 0.267 12 0.264
Total 27 0.271 67 0.262

Nice analysis but I would want to see how that compares to the league BABIP and mean BABIP. Or compare that to some multi-season rolling average.

Or not. I don't think it would really change my opinion of Ondrusek.

He sure is tall!

That's my best superlative for him at the moment.

edabbs44
08-19-2012, 06:01 PM
I consider (how ever embarrassing it is to you) myself to think along the same lines as both of you guys, Ed and Brutus. So I'm just suprised to see you both totally rejecting the notion that Logan is not expected to do well going forward.

Dd I totally reject anything?

kaldaniels
08-19-2012, 06:25 PM
Dd I totally reject anything?

Sorry to have misspoke, I guess what I have seen is a rejection (in a broad sense) as to how we evaluate relievers. Don't take that the wrong way. I see ERA and OPS-against being used to evaluate (in support of) Logan. Since when are those top tier stats used to evaluate relievers, especially one with 164 or so total innings in his career.

Brutus
08-19-2012, 06:31 PM
Sorry to have misspoke, I guess what I have seen is a rejection (in a broad sense) as to how we evaluate relievers. Don't take that the wrong way. I see ERA and OPS-against being used to evaluate (in support of) Logan. Since when are those top tier stats used to evaluate relievers, especially one with 164 or so total innings in his career.

I don't care for ERA, but I think OPS is a much better stat to be used than FIP or xFIP which ignore everything in the field of play. In fact, it's been shown now that ERA predictors such as tERA and SIERA have a much higher predictive value to future ERA than the fielding-independent metrics.

I liked FIP for a few years, but as research has evolved, I'm now of the opinion it is too narrow.

Now, I will add, I think an adjusted OPS is better than raw, but I think a raw OPS is better than FIP.

Patrick Bateman
08-19-2012, 07:00 PM
I've already given my thoughts on your other points, so I won't beleaguer the point, but I have to question this statement.

No discernable skill to induce grounders? Patrick, his career GB/FB ratio is 1.24. NL league average this year is 0.85.

How is that not discernable? He's been above league average at inducing grounders in three consecutive seasons. Forty six percent above league average for his career. That seems rather distinguishable to me.

Ondrusek has a career groundball perentage of 46.8%. The current year NL average is roughly 45%. He might be marginally above average, but it's certainly not something to hang your hat on (and I would say is not a "discernable" skill of his).

And where was it addressed that 160 innings is an appropriate sample, and the consideration for the impact of an above average defense over that time period?

Brutus
08-19-2012, 07:07 PM
Ondrusek has a career groundball perentage of 46.8%. The current year NL average is roughly 45%. He might be marginally above average, but it's certainly not something to hang your hat on (and I would say is not a "discernable" skill of his).

And where was it addressed that 160 innings is an appropriate sample, and the consideration for the impact of an above average defense over that time period?

I don't know of any situations where someone with a 1.24 GB:FB ratio is not considered a groundball pitcher. And what's more is that in addition to his GB:FB ratio, which is nearly 50 percent above league average, he's also induced a very healthy 14% IFFB rate in his career. He's keeping the ball down and getting more grounders than flyballs, he's inducing fewer line drives than most players and is getting a high number of infield pop-ups. That's why his OPS continues to be better than average relievers despite his mediocre K:BB rate.

As far as the sample issue, I don't think there's any comparison to 160 innings over the course of 160 appearances and 160 innings over the course of 27 appearances. Whether 160 innings is enough to gauge a reliever or not is debatable, but to suggest that 160 innings is "like" one season as a starter is disingenuous. If a pitcher has a good outing as a starter, that usually carries over for 6-7 innings. But if you have a good outing as a reliever, you have to come right back the next night and do it again and you're still only a third of the number of innings a starter pitched on one night. There's no comparison in sample size between the two because of the dynamics of an appearance.

jojo
08-19-2012, 07:17 PM
A few points:
1) Any pitcher whose effectiveness depends upon maintaining a significantly lower than average BABIP will not be as effective in the future as they have been in the past independent of environment or their teammates.

2) Things like tERA and Sierra are second generation versions of FIP, i.e. they aren't a move away from DIPs theory but rather they are metrics that try to do an even better job of removing factors that are out of the pitcher's control. FIP, tERA, and SIERRA are defense independent metrics.

757690
08-19-2012, 07:27 PM
A few points:
1) Any pitcher whose effectiveness depends upon maintaining a significantly lower than average BABIP will not be as effective in the future as they have been in the past independent of environment or their teammates.

2) Things like tERA and Sierra are second generation versions of FIP, i.e. they aren't a move away from DIPs theory but rather they are metrics that try to do an even better job of removing factors that are out of the pitcher's control. FIP, tERA, and SIERRA are defense independent metrics.

As more evidence comes in, we are finding that #1, while still a good general rule, applies to fewer pitchers than expected.

edabbs44
08-19-2012, 07:28 PM
I have a question. Is the negativity surrounding Logan more because of a negative impact that he has had on the Reds overall or because of a perception of how he will negatively impact the team moving forward?

Brutus
08-19-2012, 07:31 PM
As more evidence comes in, we are finding that #1, while still a good general rule, applies to fewer pitchers than expected.

And number two isn't even accurate. Independent means "not influenced by the thought or action of others." Both SIERRA and tERA are influenced by the actions of others because they're based on having an average defense. It assumes a normal interaction with the defensive players, so it's not completely independent of fielding.

757690
08-19-2012, 07:38 PM
In relation to the argument that we have a sufficient sample size for Ondrusek to suggest that he has the ability to outperform his FIP going forward, I would have to disagree with that suggestion. 164 innings of pitching is not a sufficient sample. For example, there are plenty of starting pitchers who have a fluke season, that entails about 180-200 innings. Really, Ondrusek's sample is that of one year's worth of a starting pitcher. There are plenty of examples of a starting pitcher being lucky just for a season.

Secondly, the Reds have had above average defense over the time period that Ondrusek has pitched in the major leagues. Again, considering the relatively small sample size, it would be reasonable to suggest that in front of a good defense, Ondrusek would stand to benefit from that. Mix in some general luck, and there is a clear recipe for how he could outperform his FIP, independent of skill.


The small sample size argument is a good one, but not just because of luck, or regression, but also because middle relievers strive on being unknown. Once they go through the league, they become known and therefore less effective, which is why a good organization cycles through many middle relievers every few years. If they had the ability to get hitters out over and over again, they would be starters.

As for defense, I see that the same way I see home park effects. Sure some hitters or pitcher strive in certain parks, but that's because they are smart enough to utilize their home field advantage. There are lots of pitchers who have failed in Petco and Safeco, and hitters who have failed in Coors and GABP.

Likewise, a smart pitcher who doesn't have a high K rate can use his smarts to take advantage of his defense. This is especially true now with all the special defenses and shifts. I'm not going to penalize a pitcher because he's smart enough to pitch hitters so that they hit into defensive alignments behind him. With more and more of these shifts happening league wide, I think we will see lower and lower BABIP maintained.

jojo
08-19-2012, 07:43 PM
As more evidence comes in, we are finding that #1, while still a good general rule, applies to fewer pitchers than expected.

Actually, we're not finding that.

Make a list of specific guys whose success has been dependent upon chronically having a BABIP that is significantly lower than their counterparts. Let's discuss those guys.

Both previous points one and two are valid.

kaldaniels
08-19-2012, 08:03 PM
I have a question. Is the negativity surrounding Logan more because of a negative impact that he has had on the Reds overall or because of a perception of how he will negatively impact the team moving forward?

Going forward. I think the Reds are fortunate to have gotten out of him what they have so far.

Patrick Bateman
08-19-2012, 08:37 PM
I don't know of any situations where someone with a 1.24 GB:FB ratio is not considered a groundball pitcher. And what's more is that in addition to his GB:FB ratio, which is nearly 50 percent above league average, he's also induced a very healthy 14% IFFB rate in his career. He's keeping the ball down and getting more grounders than flyballs, he's inducing fewer line drives than most players and is getting a high number of infield pop-ups. That's why his OPS continues to be better than average relievers despite his mediocre K:BB rate.

As far as the sample issue, I don't think there's any comparison to 160 innings over the course of 160 appearances and 160 innings over the course of 27 appearances. Whether 160 innings is enough to gauge a reliever or not is debatable, but to suggest that 160 innings is "like" one season as a starter is disingenuous. If a pitcher has a good outing as a starter, that usually carries over for 6-7 innings. But if you have a good outing as a reliever, you have to come right back the next night and do it again and you're still only a third of the number of innings a starter pitched on one night. There's no comparison in sample size between the two because of the dynamics of an appearance.

We can probably just conclude that he's above average in that regard, but in a way that doesn't have a significant impact on his overall bottom line.

160 innings is 160 innings. Same amount of batters being faced. It's not a significant sample to draw conclustions from. You have a hyopthesis on Ondrusek from that sample, which is fine, but I think history suggests that the hypothesis is likely incorrect. I think what we know about pitchers controls on batted balls that Ondrusek may very well have 'some' control, and as a result might continue to outperform his peripherals to 'some' degree, but I don't think it's to the extent you are suggesting, because there just aren't a history of examples consistent with that analysis.

In the end, you think he's average, I think he's a clear cut below average. That might be the difference between half a win in a given year, so the debate is hardly material. The Reds already figured that whatever he was, they didn't love using him in key situations, hence the Broxton addition.

I'm fine just leaving it at that.

Brutus
08-19-2012, 08:56 PM
We can probably just conclude that he's above average in that regard, but in a way that doesn't have a significant impact on his overall bottom line.

160 innings is 160 innings. Same amount of batters being faced. It's not a significant sample to draw conclustions from. You have a hyopthesis on Ondrusek from that sample, which is fine, but I think history suggests that the hypothesis is likely incorrect. I think what we know about pitchers controls on batted balls that Ondrusek may very well have 'some' control, and as a result might continue to outperform his peripherals to 'some' degree, but I don't think it's to the extent you are suggesting, because there just aren't a history of examples consistent with that analysis.

In the end, you think he's average, I think he's a clear cut below average. That might be the difference between half a win in a given year, so the debate is hardly material. The Reds already figured that whatever he was, they didn't love using him in key situations, hence the Broxton addition.

I'm fine just leaving it at that.

I think he's average despite his OPS being above average. That's because I'm allowing for 'some' regression with balls in play. So really, I don't need to jump very far to make the conclusion because even if you regress some of his BABIP, his OPS-against would be right in line with a league-average reliever. That's the beauty of this... I'm not suggesting that because his OPS is above-average thereby he's above average, I'm suggesting he's probably average because I'll confess one would expect a little bit of a nudge back to center. Regress his BABIP by 20 points and guess what? His OPS is still almost exactly league average.

My point here is that I've given some buffer zone to acknowledge there could still be a little bit of a movement back to center over time.

757690
08-19-2012, 10:00 PM
One real quick point that I think might be causing some confusion.

All middle relievers are below average. They are the worst pitchers on a staff by definition. If they were even average, they would be starters or late inning relievers. Ondrusek is below average as pitchers go, but around average as middle relievers go.

BCubb2003
08-19-2012, 10:09 PM
One real quick point that I think might be causing some confusion.

All middle relievers are below average. They are the worst pitchers on a staff by definition. If they were even average, they would be starters or late inning relievers. Ondrusek is below average as pitchers go, but around average as middle relievers go.

Interesting point. Then he pitches well for awhile, is talked about as part of the Reds' dominating bullpen, is used in high-leverage situations, and is exposed.

757690
08-19-2012, 10:18 PM
Actually, we're not finding that.

Make a list of specific guys whose success has been dependent upon chronically having a BABIP that is significantly lower than their counterparts. Let's discuss those guys.

Both previous points one and two are valid.

I'm not smart enough even if I had the time to do this, lol. However, I think that if someone did attempt this, they would find quite a few relievers on the list. I agree that #1 applies to most starters, but that's because if a pitcher's success is chronically dependent on having a low BABIP, he ain't starting, he's in the pen. But I'm guessing there are quite a few relievers whose sole talent is inducing weak contact.

757690
08-19-2012, 10:19 PM
Interesting point. Then he pitches well for awhile, is talked about as part of the Reds' dominating bullpen, is used in high-leverage situations, and is exposed.

... and Bingo was his nameo ;)

Tom Servo
09-05-2012, 02:44 AM
So I hate to have to bring this thread back, but from the last two games or so I'm getting the impression that Dusty is back to figuring Ondrusek's struggles are "water under the bridge" and that he is one of his top 7th/8th inning guys, dude. :(