SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
4/8-4/11 Red Sox vs. Orioles Series Thread
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 21:45:40 GMT -5
Yeah, two pitches were badly framed. Who cares? He also gave up two home runs and bounced a slider ten feet in front of home, among other offenses. edit: To be fair...he had McClouth struck out TWICE!!!! No. Stop. That was a complete disaster and it's on Hanrahan. You cannot blame five runs on not getting a couple borderline pitches. You are right...you can only blame four. And the pitches were strikes...not borderline strikes...strikes.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2013 21:46:36 GMT -5
Hanrahan was garbage. End of story. The fact that he might have escaped by the skin of his teeth had a couple strike calls gone his way changes nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 10, 2013 21:47:07 GMT -5
Man, that's a good bullpen. Uehara and Tazawa just rip through lineups. Well that was premature. The Hanrahan of 2012 lives.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Apr 10, 2013 21:49:33 GMT -5
He didn't give up 5 ER in a month other than September last year, when he gave up 5, so let's calm down with the world is ending stuff. Correct, he hasn't exactly done anything to dispel the concern that many had, but it's been 5 appearances
He was terrible tonight, no doubt. But he literally hasn't had a game like this other than a random relief appearance in a 20-0 loss in April 2010
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 21:50:00 GMT -5
Hanrahan was garbage. End of story. So if you are wrong call an end to the debate and declare yourself right. I should try that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 10, 2013 21:51:44 GMT -5
The worst part about loses like this are that your other relievers pitched so well, but then your closer poops the bed.
This was not also a freak occurrence. In at least a few of his other outings this year, Hanrahan has been living dangerously with belt-high fastballs down the middle of the zone. Yes, he's got good velocity, but big league hitters will still hit poorly located gas, and Hanrahan has shown no signs of being able to work the corners or use his breaking ball effectively.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2013 21:51:45 GMT -5
Hanrahan was garbage. End of story. So if you are wrong call an end to the debate and declare yourself right. I should try that. Please make the case that Hanrahan pitched well that inning. I'd love to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 10, 2013 21:54:22 GMT -5
The worst part about loses like this are that your other relievers pitched so well, but then your closer poops the bed. This was not also a freak occurrence. In at least a few of his other outings this year, Hanrahan has been living dangerously with belt-high fastballs down the middle of the zone. Yes, he's got good velocity, but big league hitters will still hit poorly located gas, and Hanrahan has shown no signs of being able to work the corners or use his breaking ball effectively. According to PITCHf/x, his fastball, for his career, has a value of -14.6. This despite the velocity exceeding 95 mph.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 10, 2013 21:55:46 GMT -5
He didn't give up 5 ER in a month other than September last year, when he gave up 5, so let's calm down with the world is ending stuff. Correct, he hasn't exactly done anything to dispel the concern that many had, but it's been 5 appearances He was terrible tonight, no doubt. But he literally hasn't had a game like this other than a random relief appearance in a 20-0 loss in April 2010 His FIP, xFIP, tERA, and SIERA, all indicated that his ERA was likely to skyrocket.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Apr 10, 2013 21:58:12 GMT -5
Salty's receiving is pathetic, the ump screwed up, and that weak Flaherty hit was frustrating. Still, this is entirely on Hanrahan.
2009-2011 Andrew Bailey or 2009-2012 Joel Hanrahan? I got Bailey. I don't bring that up because I think it's time to give up on Hanrahan - I think his stuff is absolutely filthy, but hampered by erratic control and poor pitch sequences - but I was surprised to see him immediately named the closer after the Melancon trade.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 10, 2013 21:59:19 GMT -5
I like Farrell press conference: the questions on the crappiness of Hanrahan was followed immediately by questions on the dominance of Uehara. You know what the reporters were thinking...
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Apr 10, 2013 21:59:53 GMT -5
He didn't give up 5 ER in a month other than September last year, when he gave up 5, so let's calm down with the world is ending stuff. Correct, he hasn't exactly done anything to dispel the concern that many had, but it's been 5 appearances He was terrible tonight, no doubt. But he literally hasn't had a game like this other than a random relief appearance in a 20-0 loss in April 2010 His FIP and xFIP both indicated that his ERA were likely to skyrocket. xFIP of 2.64 and 2.68 prior to last year when he clearly struggled. ERA a run higher than xFIP in 2010, run lower in 2011, 1.5 runs lower in 2012. So yea, based on just last year, that's correct. But he posted multiple years without a game like this, which I'll take over a 2 game sample size in the last week I don't think he can be a top level closer. I'm also of the mindset that there are maybe 5, at most 10 guys who you should pay to be legitimate closers. Most of the time, the 9th inning isn't even the most "important" inning for relievers to pitch, every study done points that out. The problem is that when the best RP gets tabbed as the closer (not Sox this year of course), the manager refuses to use him outside of the 9th, even if the 8th is more important holding a 1 run lead. So I'd rather have Baily/Uehara as dominant RP free to be used whenever, and Hanrahan in the 9th, than forcing Bailey or Uehara to only pitch in the 9th inning, regardless of the situation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 22:01:24 GMT -5
So if you are wrong call an end to the debate and declare yourself right. I should try that. Please make the case that Hanrahan pitched well that inning. I'd love to hear it. The case is that the umps didn't do their job and call a pitch basically down the middle that would have ended the game a strike. If they had you wouldn't be so moved to compare another human being to waste.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 10, 2013 22:10:51 GMT -5
Brian MacPherson ?@brianmacp 1m Farrell on Hanrahan: "He's obviously our closer. ... We're not running from him."
he will be fine IMO, he had a bad outing, like everyone does once in a while
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2013 22:11:32 GMT -5
If Hanrahan had pitched like someone who deserves to be closing games for a major league team, he never would have been in a position to be victimized by a couple bad calls in the first place.
Two dingers. The catcher didn't do that. The ump didn't do that. That's between him and the hitter. True outcomes, baby.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 10, 2013 22:15:41 GMT -5
His FIP and xFIP both indicated that his ERA were likely to skyrocket. xFIP of 2.64 and 2.68 prior to last year when he clearly struggled. ERA a run higher than xFIP in 2010, run lower in 2011, 1.5 runs lower in 2012. So yea, based on just last year, that's correct. But he posted multiple years without a game like this, which I'll take over a 2 game sample size in the last week What all of those advanced metrics were telling you were that Hanrahan struggled with control, and struggled badly. The entire sample size of his career tells you that Hanrahan has never had exceptional control except for one season: 2011. This game was simply the worst example of a systemic problem: Hanrahan's control problems.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 10, 2013 22:18:00 GMT -5
What all of those advanced metrics were telling you were that Hanrahan struggled with control, and struggled badly. The entire sample size of his career tells you that Hanrahan has never had exceptional control except for one season: 2011. This game was simply the worst example of a systemic problem: Hanrahan's control problems. 4.3 career BB/9.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 11, 2013 7:23:24 GMT -5
The problem with the "your best reliever shouldn't be your closer" theory is that the way closers are viewed and used encourages (almost requires) managers to leave them in, even when they are obviously having a terrible day. If Hanrahan were pitching the same way in the seventh inning, he would've gotten yanked from the game far earlier in this sequence and would not have - at a minimum - allowed that second homerun.
I agree that the highest leverage situations are often earlier in the game, but if we got rid of the culture of "it's now the closer's game to win or lose," I think everyone would be better off. It's not so much "closer by committee" as "the 9th inning is not that unlike every other inning."
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 11, 2013 7:43:19 GMT -5
The problem with the "your best reliever shouldn't be your closer" theory is that the way closers are viewed and used encourages (almost requires) managers to leave them in, even when they are obviously having a terrible day. If Hanrahan were pitching the same way in the seventh inning, he would've gotten yanked from the game far earlier in this sequence and would not have - at a minimum - allowed that second homerun. I agree that the highest leverage situations are often earlier in the game, but if we got rid of the culture of "it's now the closer's game to win or lose," I think everyone would be better off. It's not so much "closer by committee" as "the 9th inning is not that unlike every other inning." You sure he'd have come out all that much sooner though? He faced seven batters, and after the first three, he'd only given up a solo shot to make it a one-run game and gotten two outs. The next batter was Flaherty's single and two walks. I'd give you that maybe he wouldn't have faced Machado, and that if Miller were ready, MAYBE he wouldn't have faced McLouth, but it's not like he gave up seven hits or something. Only way he'd have come out all that much sooner is that if we're also altering the scenario such that Miller was ready from the beginning of the inning or something. But if, say, Bailey had struggled in the 8th, I'm not sure he'd have faced fewer hitters.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 11, 2013 7:53:41 GMT -5
Wow, we need to relax a bit here. It was one really bad inning. Everyone else dominated. Sucks to lose a game you should've won but still a lot of positives to take here. Hanrahan was probably named closer for several reasons:
- he's been more durable - he had a better year lat year - bailey's the type of attitude that will thrive and embrace another role - bailey is the better pitcher when both on and not having him close gives you more options of when to use him
Hanrahan will have bumps along he way, but he'll get the job done overall. The rest of the pen is great.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 11, 2013 8:20:54 GMT -5
Right. And at least we have Aceves the Stopper going today.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 11, 2013 8:54:14 GMT -5
Wow, we need to relax a bit here. It was one really bad inning. Everyone else dominated. Sucks to lose a game you should've won but still a lot of positives to take here. You may notice I've been quoting Hanrahan's career statistics. It's not that I don't want him closing games for the Red Sox because of last night. I didn't want him closing games for the Red Sox ever. Because he's not very good. And look, if I'm wrong about this and he has a nice season for the Red Sox, fine, I'll be wrong. But it's not about "one bad inning". It's about putting way too much game leverage in the hands of a reliever who doesn't know where the goddamn ball is going and never really has, and I've been consistant on that all along.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 11, 2013 9:06:42 GMT -5
Somewhere there is a stat relating to team records when that team is leading after 7 innings. Recently, and I'm sorry that I don't have that reference, I heard or saw that the Orioles were 74-0 in that category last year. Prior years I have seen similar type stats for other teams, particularly the Yankees. It underlines that the game has changed with fewer late game rallies due to highly specialized and effective relief pitchers. Not wallowing in nostalgia but that takes away some of the excitement from the game I grew up with. It also underscores that teams with playoff aspirations can't be blowing any measurable number of games late. (Has Rivera ever had a game like that in his career?)I'd like to see our W/L record last year in games where we held leads late. I'll bet it was comparatively atrocious. A 2013 repeat and we can all go back to hoping we will be a .500 team.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 11, 2013 9:12:46 GMT -5
TThis Red Sox bullpen is the perfect example of why command and control of the fastball is more important than pure velocity.
Hanrahan throws 95-97 and touches 99, but he has little control and no command of that fastball. Koji Uehara throws 87-90, but has exceptional command and control. Hanrahan get strikeouts, but also walks far too many people, and is thus struggling (even if it is only a small sample size). Uehara walks almost no one, and gets outs with a minimal number of pitches.
Now I am not saying that Hanrahan should lose his job based upon last night's outing. I might say that I would not surprised to see other blow saves in the future which lead to Hanrahan losing his job.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 11, 2013 9:19:35 GMT -5
It underlines that the game has changed with fewer late game rallies due to highly specialized and effective relief pitchers. In 1992, six relievers struck out over 25% of their batters faced, and two were over 30%. The league leader was Rob Dibble at 38.5%. Cut to 2012, and no less than FOURTY-FIVE guys were over 25%. 19 were over 30%. The league leader was Craig Kimbrel with 50.2%. It's an under-appreciated change in the game, IMO. I'd love to see a study on how much of the current drop in offensive levels can be attributed just to what's now going on in the 8th and 9th innings of MLB games. (edit: actually, as I'm looking at this more through the lens of ERA performance relative to league average, it might not be nearly as different as I think. Then again, ERA is a pretty terrible stat for relievers... umm... someone figure this out for me while I'm at work today.)
|
|
|