Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

[Blitz Dorsey]

I love how we all tout Hanigan's baseball intelligence ... and then when Hanigan points out why Marshall shouldn't be a closer ... you have posters on RedsZone questioning Hanigan and saying they believe Marshall would be a good closer.

Amazing.

I think I'm going to go with Hanigan on this one. Sorry fellas.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Great read. Love to hear all the nuances that the average fan never knows about.

Like him not thinking of hitting until the 2nd inning because he's honed in on the pitching

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Like him not thinking of hitting until the 2nd inning because he's honed in on the pitching

In 16 career PAs in the 1st inning, Hanigan hit .286/.375/.571...

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

In 16 career PAs in the 1st inning, Hanigan hit .286/.375/.571...

Good for him, of course 1.2% of anything is questionable

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Good for him, of course 1.2% of anything is questionable

Coming from the guy who prefers the Foo Fighters to Nirvana!

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Coming from the guy who prefers the Foo Fighters to Nirvana!

Hard to say that really, I don't particularly seek out either at this point

Nor do I think Hanigan should bat in the 1 or 2 slot

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by wheels

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.

So you think RZ influenced the move? I attended a game where he gave up a 3 run homer to Angel Pagan in the 9th that lost the game, so it wasn't just seeing eye singles. He faced the bottom of the order that day with a two run lead and two men promptly got on base before Pagan's blast. Now, all closers give up dingers, but when you have Chapman setting up a guy who is struggling to finish things off, does it really make sense to criticize an early move to a better option?

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

I love how we all tout Hanigan's baseball intelligence ... and then when Hanigan points out why Marshall shouldn't be a closer ... you have posters on RedsZone questioning Hanigan and saying they believe Marshall would be a good closer.

Amazing.

I think I'm going to go with Hanigan on this one. Sorry fellas.

Amazing that people don't follow blindly when there are strong counter facts available?

[wheels]

Originally Posted by traderumor

So you think RZ influenced the move? I attended a game where he gave up a 3 run homer to Angel Pagan in the 9th that lost the game, so it wasn't just seeing eye singles. He faced the bottom of the order that day with a two run lead and two men promptly got on base before Pagan's blast. Now, all closers give up dingers, but when you have Chapman setting up a guy who is struggling to finish things off, does it really make sense to criticize an early move to a better option?

Can't dispute anything you just said.

I prefer Chapman over Marshall as the Closer. Heck, I prefer Broxton over Marshall.

But I do think he'd do a more than adequate job if Broxton went down. I would hope the braintrust would resist shuffling Chapman back to the pen if that happened.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Amazing that people don't follow blindly when there are strong counter facts available?

Right, Hanigan is wrong here and your "counter facts" are correct. That makes a lot of sense. (Nope.)

It's obvious Hanigan knows what he's talking about here. I just think it's funny for people to say (paraphrasing) "Man, Hanigan sure knows baseball inside and out. Oh, BTW, he's completely wrong about Sean Marshall. He would make a good closer!"

Hanigan intelligently pointed out why Marshall is not a closer. Marshall is one of the best left-handed set-up men in MLB and I'm glad the Reds have him. But he's no closer as Hanigan outlined.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Right, Hanigan is wrong here and your "counter facts" are correct. That makes a lot of sense. (Nope.)

It's obvious Hanigan knows what he's talking about here. I just think it's funny for people to say (paraphrasing) "Man, Hanigan sure knows baseball inside and out. Oh, BTW, he's completely wrong about Sean Marshall. He would make a good closer!"

Hanigan intelligently pointed out why Marshall is not a closer. Marshall is one of the best left-handed set-up men in MLB and I'm glad the Reds have him. But he's no closer as Hanigan outlined.

Of course, all I suggested was that Hanigan does not have indisputable baseball knowledge.

Apparently you have a thing for him. It seems very weird how narrow minded you are on this particular issue. It's as if out of nowhere, you have made Ryan Hanigan the meta of baseball knowledge. He seems very intelligent and knowledgeable, but at the same time, I am dumbfounded that after reading literally one article about his baseball acumen, that you are throwing out snide remarks simply at those who could even consider a different side of the argument.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

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.

You do realize that he also caught in the minor leagues and in college, right? He isn't a young 32 because he debuted in the Majors later than most guys.

[757690]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Amazing that people don't follow blindly when there are strong counter facts available?

It would only be following blindly if Hanigan didn't make sense. His point about curveball pitchers not making good closers is logical. Pretty much all hanging curveballs get crushed. You can get by much more often with miss with a missed fastball or sinker.

Also, the facts actually back up his point. Marshall has been hit hard in the 9th, plus there are very few effective closers whose out pitch is a curveball, and all of the have been righties.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by 757690

It would only be following blindly if Hanigan didn't make sense. His point about curveball pitchers not making good closers is logical. Pretty much all hanging curveballs get crushed. You can get by much more often with miss with a missed fastball or sinker.

Also, the facts actually back up his point. Marshall has been hit hard in the 9th, plus there are very few effective closers whose out pitch is a curveball, and all of the have been righties.

Right. I'm suggesting there are facts that suggest otherwise.

I'm not even debating the correct answer.

I'm debating whether it merits discussion.

RMR made some good points as to why Marshall may not have been appreciably worse in the 9th as the stats may suggest. I didn't notice Hanigan discrediting that notion.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

You do realize that he also caught in the minor leagues and in college, right? He isn't a young 32 because he debuted in the Majors later than most guys.

You do realize he was a part-time starter in college, right? And college seasons are pretty short anyway. I'm sure he also played some summer ball, but it's nothing like playing a full professional season. So, from the ages of 18-22, he was catching very few games per year. And while he was in the minors for a while, he got a chance to DH every once in a while. The guy is a "young 32" for a catcher just like I said. Compared to let's say a catcher who comes up to the big leagues and is catching 90 games per year since the age of 23. Get the difference?