Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 71

Thread: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

  1. #16
    Flash the leather! _Sir_Charles_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,245

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan



    Great read. Love to hear all the nuances that the average fan never knows about.
    2014 predictions:
    99-63 WS champs (Cards take 2nd WC, Mil 3rd, Pit 4th, Chi 5th)
    Bruce/Votto neck and neck MVP race (neither takes it)
    Bailey CYA winner
    Hamilton ROY & GG

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,606

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Excellent discussion. Thanks for posting.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  4. #18
    Battle Toad Historian thatcoolguy_22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    in tornado alley
    Posts
    1,756

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    This should be in the Broxton thread

    DL: Can you talk a little more about Broxton’s cutter?

    RH: We worked on it. I hadn’t caught him much, so I said, “Try some stuff, do a few different things.” He pulled out the cutter and I was like, “Dude, you have to use that.” The next outing he used it once or twice, and then a few more times the next, and after awhile it was probably his second-best pitch. He throws it in the low 90s. Not in the 80s, but the 90s. It’s hard. We were getting a lot of broken bats with it.

    He’s nasty. He’s a veteran guy who’s been around and has pitched in some big games. He’s pitched in some big situations as a closer. He’s a professional with a big arm, and it’s hard to go wrong with a guy like that.
    "Last week I helped my friend stay put. It's a lot easier'n helpin' 'em move. I just went over to his house and made sure that he did not start to load **** into a truck."

  5. #19
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,931

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    I always find it interesting when people talk about Sean Marshall and how he doesn't have dominating stuff. It's like, ok... well then... I know it's not conventionally dominant stuff, but we're not talking about a low K, low BB guy here. He's not Bronson Arroyo. While he may go about it differently, he strikes out more than a guy per inning and does a fantastic job of keeping the ball in the yard.

    I really want to understand why Marshall's dominant results somehow won't hold up in the 9th inning simply because his stuff is different. I totally get not wanting to have a guy who is effective in the way most soft tosser's are, inducing lots of weak contact. But Marshall is a strikeout pitcher with plus command and extreme groundball tendencies. And while he has a platoon split, he's still very effective effective against RH.

    Is it a function of his stuff being effective because it takes advantage of a lack of concentration instead of a deficit in physical ability, meaning that when a guy who comes to the plate with greater focus he can be more effective against Marshall whereas that focus won't give him an extra advantage against Broxton? That's the only thing I can think of. Because the whole "Guys aren’t really going to worry about getting beat, so they can take advantage of his mistakes a little better." doesn't actually seem to show up in his results.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  6. #20
    Mon chou Choo vaticanplum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    7,184

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I always find it interesting when people talk about Sean Marshall and how he doesn't have dominating stuff. It's like, ok... well then... I know it's not conventionally dominant stuff, but we're not talking about a low K, low BB guy here. He's not Bronson Arroyo. While he may go about it differently, he strikes out more than a guy per inning and does a fantastic job of keeping the ball in the yard.

    I really want to understand why Marshall's dominant results somehow won't hold up in the 9th inning simply because his stuff is different. I totally get not wanting to have a guy who is effective in the way most soft tosser's are, inducing lots of weak contact. But Marshall is a strikeout pitcher with plus command and extreme groundball tendencies. And while he has a platoon split, he's still very effective effective against RH.

    Is it a function of his stuff being effective because it takes advantage of a lack of concentration instead of a deficit in physical ability, meaning that when a guy who comes to the plate with greater focus he can be more effective against Marshall whereas that focus won't give him an extra advantage against Broxton? That's the only thing I can think of. Because the whole "Guys arenít really going to worry about getting beat, so they can take advantage of his mistakes a little better." doesn't actually seem to show up in his results.
    He's not flashy. Get him a disco shirt?
    There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

  7. #21
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,606

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I always find it interesting when people talk about Sean Marshall and how he doesn't have dominating stuff. It's like, ok... well then... I know it's not conventionally dominant stuff, but we're not talking about a low K, low BB guy here. He's not Bronson Arroyo. While he may go about it differently, he strikes out more than a guy per inning and does a fantastic job of keeping the ball in the yard.

    I really want to understand why Marshall's dominant results somehow won't hold up in the 9th inning simply because his stuff is different. I totally get not wanting to have a guy who is effective in the way most soft tosser's are, inducing lots of weak contact. But Marshall is a strikeout pitcher with plus command and extreme groundball tendencies. And while he has a platoon split, he's still very effective effective against RH.

    Is it a function of his stuff being effective because it takes advantage of a lack of concentration instead of a deficit in physical ability, meaning that when a guy who comes to the plate with greater focus he can be more effective against Marshall whereas that focus won't give him an extra advantage against Broxton? That's the only thing I can think of. Because the whole "Guys aren’t really going to worry about getting beat, so they can take advantage of his mistakes a little better." doesn't actually seem to show up in his results.
    I don't know why, but Marshall has logged enough 9th inning numbers to demonstrate he is pedestrian in that inning. What's weird is that his K rate is double what it is elsewhere, but he's clearly getting hit harder by batters in the 9th inning. http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ear=Career&t=p My guess is has something to do with batter's approach in that final inning than it does Marshall's stuff. Anecdotally, observing the 9th inning of hundreds of games over the past several years, I am convinced the 9th inning is a different animal than the rest of the game. There is a mystical element, which I think leads to there being some "artistry" to the closer, so the "scientific" answer that "any above average reliever could pitch the 9th inning with similar results as A, B or C closer" doesn't adequately explain away the mystery.
    Last edited by traderumor; 12-20-2012 at 02:10 PM.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  8. #22
    KungFu Fighter AtomicDumpling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, OH
    Posts
    2,711

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Marshall has only pitched 55 innings in the 9th inning in his career -- which is not nearly enough of a sample size to prove anything. His .387 BABIP in the 9th inning is freakishly unlucky and highly unlikely to continue.

  9. #23
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,606

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling View Post
    Marshall has only pitched 55 innings in the 9th inning in his career -- which is not nearly enough of a sample size to prove anything. His .387 BABIP in the 9th inning is freakishly unlucky and highly unlikely to continue.
    That's not far from the equivalent of a full season of closing, so I don't think it is easily written off as too small a sample size. It is also nearly a quarter of his total innings pitched in innings 7-9. I'm also not sure how you can claim "too small a sample size for conclusions," then claim BABIP is "freakishly unlucky"???????

    There appears to be something going on.

    Just for grins, define an adequate sample size for this analysis, then explain your rationale.
    Last edited by traderumor; 12-20-2012 at 02:12 PM.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  10. #24
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    20,932

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I really want to understand why Marshall's dominant results somehow won't hold up in the 9th inning simply because his stuff is different. .
    Well, it's hard to take this as 100% gospel, but I recall after Marshal was pulled from closing that he said he was more comfortable with being a setup guy, because the curve was a "feel" pitch and he could throw it better when he was in a more regular role as a setup guy (as opposed to a closer that might go 4 days without pitching).

    Marshall did seem to pitch a lot better after he was removed from the closer role. I'm not saying that he couldn't handle closing, but it's possible that Dusty and him did have a talk that put Marshall on an optimum schedule and his results improved.

    I think Marshal could close, the potential problem is that if he does benefit from a normal schedule, you'd have to pitch him in non-save situations. You'd also have to have a 2nd guy to close to maintain Marshall's schedule too.
    Maybe this conclusion is way off base (Sample size), but based on what Marshall said, I think it's plausible.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  11. #25
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,606

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    Well, it's hard to take this as 100% gospel, but I recall after Marshal was pulled from closing that he said he was more comfortable with being a setup guy, because the curve was a "feel" pitch and he could throw it better when he was in a more regular role as a setup guy (as opposed to a closer that might go 4 days without pitching).

    Marshall did seem to pitch a lot better after he was removed from the closer role. I'm not saying that he couldn't handle closing, but it's possible that Dusty and him did have a talk that put Marshall on an optimum schedule and his results improved.

    I think Marshal could close, the potential problem is that if he does benefit from a normal schedule, you'd have to pitch him in non-save situations. You'd also have to have a 2nd guy to close to maintain Marshall's schedule too.
    Maybe this conclusion is way off base (Sample size), but based on what Marshall said, I think it's plausible.
    I think Marshall would be fine as a secondary closer, when the primary closer is not available. Otherwise, I think his L/R splits work against him in an everyday role. He is not a LOOGY, but there is a significant dropoff against righties. In the closer role of Dusty, you pitch the 9th regardless of batter hand. It just seems like Marshall's value is higher with Dusty's bullpen usage patterns to have him available to get out tough lefties in the late innings. Where Marshall is more valuable than a LOOGY is that he is not awful against righties and can stay in the game when the lefties are split up.

    And we can debate whether Dusty uses his bullpen properly until the cows come home, but this is where the GM earns part of his keep--to give his manager guys that fit the way he uses the bullpen.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  12. #26
    I hate the Cubs LoganBuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,126

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Marshall's 9th inning problems are related to the days where his command of his curve isn't there. If he doesn't have the command of the hook right handers OWN him. The problem with the ninth inning situation and Marshall in Cincinnati is that Dusty uses the dedicated closer model. He doesn't like to make changes in the ninth inning. If Marshall is struggling in the eighth you pull him and bring someone else in. In the ninth, the options, if there isn't a Chapman or Broxton sitting down there, suddenly look like Jose Arredondo and Logan Ondrusek. Dusty will stick with his guy. Suddenly Marshall is standing there without his only true plus pitch, trying to make do on an average fastball.
    The Sox traded Bullfrog the only player they've got for Shottenhoffen. Four-eyes Shottenhoffen a utility infielder. They've got a whole team of utility infielders.

  13. #27
    Member Superdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,779

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    Well, it's hard to take this as 100% gospel, but I recall after Marshal was pulled from closing that he said he was more comfortable with being a setup guy, because the curve was a "feel" pitch and he could throw it better when he was in a more regular role as a setup guy (as opposed to a closer that might go 4 days without pitching).

    Marshall did seem to pitch a lot better after he was removed from the closer role. I'm not saying that he couldn't handle closing, but it's possible that Dusty and him did have a talk that put Marshall on an optimum schedule and his results improved.
    That's always been my impression. I still think he would do just fine at closer, but he's probably more effective if he gets regular work. Leaving him available earlier also allows Dusty to match him up a bit more. Marshall's no loogy, but it's nice having him available to mow down some tough lefties late in the game.

    Awesome interview overall. I wanna see what Mez can do, but that interview seems to back up the anecdotal evidence that Hanigan is a vital part of the pitching staff's success. That's definitely gonna be a tough situation to manage.

  14. #28
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by mattfeet View Post
    "Pitchers think they know, but sometimes they have no frigging clue. Itís so funny listening to them talk about what they think hitters are doing. Iíll tell them, ĎYou have no idea.Ē A lot of pitchers are good at it ó donít get me wrong ó but sometimes a guy will be like, ďOh, Iíll just throw my fastball by him.Ē Iíll be like, ďOK, letís see what happens.Ē But they learn real quick."

    He sounds like a more diplomatic Ted Williams who used to call pitchers "dumb."
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  15. #29
    Ripsnort wheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    7,549

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I always find it interesting when people talk about Sean Marshall and how he doesn't have dominating stuff. It's like, ok... well then... I know it's not conventionally dominant stuff, but we're not talking about a low K, low BB guy here. He's not Bronson Arroyo. While he may go about it differently, he strikes out more than a guy per inning and does a fantastic job of keeping the ball in the yard.

    I really want to understand why Marshall's dominant results somehow won't hold up in the 9th inning simply because his stuff is different. I totally get not wanting to have a guy who is effective in the way most soft tosser's are, inducing lots of weak contact. But Marshall is a strikeout pitcher with plus command and extreme groundball tendencies. And while he has a platoon split, he's still very effective effective against RH.

    Is it a function of his stuff being effective because it takes advantage of a lack of concentration instead of a deficit in physical ability, meaning that when a guy who comes to the plate with greater focus he can be more effective against Marshall whereas that focus won't give him an extra advantage against Broxton? That's the only thing I can think of. Because the whole "Guys arenít really going to worry about getting beat, so they can take advantage of his mistakes a little better." doesn't actually seem to show up in his results.
    I'm right there with you.

    He's a ground ball pitcher, and as a matter of sheer coincidence some of those grounders had eyes while he was slotted as the closer. The chorus of "He can't close!" rang out, Redszone proclaimed the deal to acquire him too steep, and by early May he was ousted.

    Baffling.
    "We know we're better than this, but we can't prove it." - Tony Gwynn

  16. #30
    Party like it's 1990 Blitz Dorsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    4,716

    Re: Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

    Hanigan is one of those guys that some Reds fans won't truly appreciate until he's gone. He has The Scott Rolen Effect on this team, but the difference is Hanigan is still in his prime. He's a "young" 32 for an MLB catcher since there's not that much wear and tear on his body. The guy is a complete difference-maker as a leader and especially defensively (including handling the pitching staff). Also a solid offensive weapon.

    He is the "Scott Rolen" of catchers. Not with the offensive power of Rolen, but everything else is similar.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25