Fangraphs Q&A with Hanigan

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

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.

Listen, I'm not saying Ryan Hanigan knows everything about baseball. But let's say when it comes to the topic of whether Sean Marshall would make a good closer, I consider Hanigan a foremost authority. It doesn't make him a baseball historian, but it does probably make him know more than anyone on RedsZone about this particular topic. Especially when he gives detailed reasons why he feels that way. He talks about how good of a pitcher Marshall is and goes out of his way to talk about how nasty Marshall's stuff is. Calls him underrated. Then explains why he wouldn't make a good closer.

No one is acting like Ryan Hanigan knows everything about baseball. Just that he knows quite a bit. Also, he has inside knowledge that we couldn't even comprehend when it comes to the Reds' pitching staff. So, when he talks about a topic about "Would Marshall Make A Good Closer?" I'm listening (and likely agreeing). If you feel differently, that's fair enough. But don't act like it's "weird" that I think Hanigan is an extremely bright baseball mind and an absolute expert when it comes to discussing the Reds' pitching staff.

[kaldaniels]

I see 2 things that may differentiate the 9th from any other inning.

1) There will be pitchers that can't handle the pressure. Rick has alluded to this many times.

2). The offense may be in "just scrape across the tying run" mode, at least more so than other innings.

Unless I am missing something, given the above, what makes Marshall unworthy for the 9th as opposed to other innings?

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by 757690

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.

Mark Davis was a lefty, and a darn good curveball closer.. But yea, I agree. Very few.
I just had to follow Redszone convention and point out the omission. (Please take in a joking manner, I agree with your point).

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

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?

Not really. Most catchers are platoon players anyways. Sure, he has less wear on him than Buster Posey will at 22. But not more than most other MLB catchers.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

If you feel differently, that's fair enough. But don't act like it's "weird" that I think Hanigan is an extremely bright baseball mind and an absolute expert when it comes to discussing the Reds' pitching staff.

It's weird when you advertise his opinion on an issue as being the only acceptable one. If you had done that in the first place (as you just suggested you did), I would not have responded.

[thatcoolguy_22]

You people (I mean people in the most derogatory of senses, but I feel the need to massage egos so :emoticonfacedoingsomething) make Redszone unreadable at times. Why take offense if someone doesn't agree with your opinion?

Hanigans opinion aside, I'm thinking Marshall could close but I prefer him as a set up man. I still do not subscribe to the closer is a position on the roster idea. Marshall is now the best pitcher in the bullpen and I want him pitching high leverage situations. Not to the 6-7-8 hitters just because it's the 9th.

[PuffyPig]

So, in summary, hitters will take advantage of Marshall's mistakes in the 9th inning more than in the 8th.

Oh, and it's expected that his BABIP will be higher in the 9th inning than in the 8th.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight..............

[757690]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

So, in summary, hitters will take advantage of Marshall's mistakes in the 9th inning more than in the 8th.

Oh, and it's expected that his BABIP will be higher in the 9th inning than in the 8th.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight..............

That's not what Hanigan was saying, nor what I was saying.

A closer does more than just pitch the ninth. He pitches literally when the game is most on the line, or at least he should, if used properly. A set up guy is exactly that, he sets up the closer. He pitches in lower leverage situations, and as soon as they turn into higher leverage situations, the closer is then brought in.

A hanging curve ball is the easiest pitch to hit hard, usually for an extra base hit. When pitching in the highest leverage situations, where one bad pitch can cost the game, you'd rather not have a curve ball pitcher on the mound. A curveball pitcher, no matter how good, is far more likely to throw a meatball up there than a fastball or even a sinker ball pitcher. When the game is on the line and one pitch can cost the game, that matters.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

It's weird when you advertise his opinion on an issue as being the only acceptable one. If you had done that in the first place (as you just suggested you did), I would not have responded.

If I had done that in the first place? Sorry, you completely lost me there. Not being sarcastic; honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, just so there isn't any confusion about my stance: Ryan Hanigan makes a lot of sense when he explains why Marshall wouldn't make a good closer, but is a good relief pitcher overall. You might not agree with what he says, but I certainly do.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Not really. Most catchers are platoon players anyways. Sure, he has less wear on him than Buster Posey will at 22. But not more than most other MLB catchers.

No, compared to most of the top MLB catchers (which Hanigan absolutely is) who reach the age of 32, Hanigan has less wear and tear on his body. Part-time starter in college, playing a handful of games per year. Then instead of getting beat up at the MLB level, he played in the minors for a few years.

Compare that to guys like Molina, Posey, Posada (back in the day), Piazza, Bench, Fisk and many, many others ... Hanigan is a very young 32 for a catcher. Those guys were catching 100+ games per year at the MLB level from a young age. Hanigan didn't become a true full-time starter at the MLB level until 2012. If you honestly can't see that Hanigan is a young 32 for an MLB catcher, I don't know what to tell you.

[The Voice of IH]

Reading about his feel of the strikezone takesme back to Game 5. The ball was clearly outside on the 3-2 pitch, there should have been bases loaded with no out. Instead the ump calls strike three and the runner is thrown out at second killing the inning.

Complete crap.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

No, compared to most of the top MLB catchers (which Hanigan absolutely is) who reach the age of 32, Hanigan has less wear and tear on his body. Part-time starter in college, playing a handful of games per year. Then instead of getting beat up at the MLB level, he played in the minors for a few years.

Compare that to guys like Molina, Posey, Posada (back in the day), Piazza, Bench, Fisk and many, many others ... Hanigan is a very young 32 for a catcher. Those guys were catching 100+ games per year at the MLB level from a young age. Hanigan didn't become a true full-time starter at the MLB level until 2012. If you honestly can't see that Hanigan is a young 32 for an MLB catcher, I don't know what to tell you.

You mean full time catchers? You know, where there are what, 5 per season in all of baseball? Here is the list of catchers who caught 130 games this year:
Matt Wieters
Miguel Montero
Yadier Molina
AJ Ellis

That is it. Not a single one caught 140 games. Hanigan is used like most catchers in baseball are. Platooned. It has been that way for a long time now. He isn't really different than most catchers. He is different from a very select few.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I see 2 things that may differentiate the 9th from any other inning.

1) There will be pitchers that can't handle the pressure. Rick has alluded to this many times.

2). The offense may be in "just scrape across the tying run" mode, at least more so than other innings.

Unless I am missing something, given the above, what makes Marshall unworthy for the 9th as opposed to other innings?

His performance. Just like he was not an effective starter, so he was moved to the pen in the first place. Just like certain styles of pitchers don't make starters and are relegated to the bullpen, it seems intuitive to me that certain styles of pitchers don't make closers, so are relegated to other places in the pen, and are found to be very effective there.

It is clearly the case that pitching performance is not linear, whereby you look at statistics and conclude "he pitches to this level in x or y inning, therefore he will perform the same in z inning, where z is the 9th inning.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by 757690

A hanging curve ball is the easiest pitch to hit hard, usually for an extra base hit. When pitching in the highest leverage situations, where one bad pitch can cost the game, you'd rather not have a curve ball pitcher on the mound. A curveball pitcher, no matter how good, is far more likely to throw a meatball up there than a fastball or even a sinker ball pitcher. When the game is on the line and one pitch can cost the game, that matters.

I say any pitch over the middle of the plate is the easiest to hit hard.

I've seen may hanging curves popped up as the hitter is swinging ahead of it.

If Marshall was hanging curves all over the place, you see him giving up HR's all over the place.

In fact, Chapman has given up more HR's than Marshall in each of the last 2 years.

The facts don't support your theory.

[757690]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

I say any pitch over the middle of the plate is the easiest to hit hard.

I've seen may hanging curves popped up as the hitter is swinging ahead of it.

If Marshall was hanging curves all over the place, you see him giving up HR's all over the place.

In fact, Chapman has given up more HR's than Marshall in each of the last 2 years.

The facts don't support your theory.

Never said anything about homeruns. Just pitches getting crushed.

Also never said Marshall was "hanging curves all over the place."

Just talking big generalities here.

Curveballs that miss usually get crushed to a far greater degree than fastballs or sinkers. When the game is on the line, and every pitch counts, you want a guy out there who can get away with more mistakes. Curveball pitchers have to be nearly perfect to succeed as closers, especially lefties. Fastball pitchers and sinkerballers, not so much. In general, lefty curveball pitchers don't make the best closers. History tells us that.

Maybe Marshall can be nearly perfect enough to succeed, I wouldn't bet against it. However, if he does, he's beating the odds.