Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Whither Hanrahan??


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10 replies to this topic

#1 lexrageorge

  • 3013 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

What, did the trade suddenly not happen? Or was the thread simply removed for heck of it?

#2 snowmanny

  • 2312 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

What are you talking about? Why would the Red Sox trade for Hanrahan?

#3 lexrageorge

  • 3013 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:03 PM

http://www.boston.co...x_hoping_1.html

#4 AlNipper49


  • Huge Member


  • 33636 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:27 PM

I'm remote but there are reports in the mod forum of an accidental deletion. Assume it was for now, if we can dig it up we'll re-merge it into this thread.

#5 941827

  • 3330 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:06 PM

Not sure this is overly meaningful given the relative weakness of reliever ERA as an indicator of anything, but...

The difference between [Hanrahan's] ERA and FIP was 1.74 runs [in 2012].

What does that mean for Hanrahan’s 2013 campaign?

In 2011, five relievers with at least 50 IP had a FIP that was at least 1.5 runs higher than his ERA, and then pitched at least 35 innings the following season (Luis Ayala, Scott Downs,Alfredo Aceves, Eric O’Flaherty, Francisco Cordero).

Each of them, except for Ayala, had their ERA nearly or more than double in 2012.


http://espn.go.com/b...ewers-boost-pen

#6 crystalline

  • 2092 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:56 AM

Not sure this is overly meaningful given the relative weakness of reliever ERA as an indicator of anything, but...


Yes and even more simply, just by chance the probability that 4 of 5 relievers see their ERAs go up is 0.18 (binomial: 1 of 5 successes with P=0.5). And that's assuming that the author did no other pre-selection of the relievers. And assuming no bias upward because pitchers get older every year.

So there are many reasons it's not predictive. (which still means that Hanrahan has a decent chance of being worse next year just because reliever performance is so variable.)


#7 crystalline

  • 2092 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

Yes and even more simply, just by chance the probability that 4 of 5 relievers see their ERAs go up is 0.18 (binomial: 1 of 5 successes with P=0.5). And that's assuming that the author did no other pre-selection of the relievers. And assuming no bias upward because pitchers get older every year, and that you're selecting pitchers that may have outperformed their mean to begin with.

So there are many reasons it's not predictive. (which still means that Hanrahan has a decent chance of being worse next year just because reliever performance is so variable.)



#8 Sille Skrub

  • 3909 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 08:17 PM

What, did the trade suddenly not happen? Or was the thread simply removed for heck of it?


We were trying to invoke a season long, don't ask/don't tell policy on Hanrahan. Failed miserably.

Carry on with discussion.

#9 HangingW/ScottCooper

  • 1032 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:03 PM

Any idea what Hanrahan is expected to earn this year?

#10 someoneanywhere

  • 3132 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:58 PM

Edes projects it at about $7 million.

#11 Edelpeddle

  • 273 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 11:06 PM

Looks like Hanrahan's on the Josh Beckett offseason diet.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users