Smith up, Sipp down

over 2 years ago millionairesrow 29 comments 0 recs |

Comments

why send down Sipp?

by world dictator on Jun 9, 2009 3:47 PM EDT reply actions

Normally I would say that there’s no transaction too small for us to analyze here (what, we got Rob Mackowiak?!?), but it’s hard to get too interested in a Sipp/Smith switch. Sipp has only pitched once since his recall (and again had a couple of walks). They probably just figured that Smith was a better fit for now.

This is the first bullpen transaction in a long time where we are sending down a guy who’s not horrible. So hooray for having our bullpen depth to 8!

by dgcambridge on Jun 9, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Meanwhile, a guy who iS horrible and has clearly been deemed un-useable by Wedge, remains on the bench, chatting with Chuck Hernandez. I refer, of course, to Jensen Lewis. Is he out of options? If he isn’t, I’d have sent him to Columbus and kept Sipp, who at least gives us a lefty who has been effective at times (although his control issues are real).

by peter m on Jun 9, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Good point.

by NickFantana on Jun 9, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

That would have made sense…. He should have an option left, since he didn’t debut until 2007, shouldn’t he? Maybe they figure why use an option when Sipp has already bounced around a few times?

Hard to know how Lewis is going to figure it out if he never gets to pitch in meaningful games though.

by Logodaedalus on Jun 9, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I think Wedge would rather use Lewis than Sipp right now, simple as that.

by dgcambridge on Jun 9, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions

i forgot all about JLew

The gamelog’s say he hasn’t pitched since June 4th.

by world dictator on Jun 9, 2009 4:20 PM EDT reply actions

They also says that, with the exception of his implosion against the Rays, he hasn’t been horrible over his last 10 or so appearances, although they haven’t been high leverage.

by FredOx on Jun 9, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions

He did get charged with a run in 5 of those ten appearances, but I guess that’s not horrible as you. The thing I noticed, and hadn’t really realized, is that lefties are batting over .400 (with an OPS over 1.3 against him) while rights are hitting under .200 (with an OPS under .6). A situational righty if there ever was one, it appears.

by peter m on Jun 9, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions

that should say as you “say” in the first line. I was trying to call YOU horrible!!

by peter m on Jun 9, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I am horrible. I’d say that Jensen has moved from horrible to merely ugly. The scale is:

Borowskish → Horrible → Ugly → Really Bad → Bad → Mediocre → Blah → OK → Kinda Good → Good → Really Good → Awesome → Magnificent → Cliftonian

by FredOx on Jun 9, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions

To the left of Borowski I’d put Jimenez and that lefty (forgot his name) from a few years ago. And i mistyped again — I was NOT trying to call you horrible (my proofreading skills are).

by peter m on Jun 9, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Scott Stewart —>

by JRontherim on Jun 9, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions

> Ryan Drese

From, Ben

by bentausig on Jun 9, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions

ha, sorry

Ryan Drese —→

From, Ben

by bentausig on Jun 9, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Wow, yeah… He also walks lefties more than 3 times as often as righties, and strikes them out less than half as often, leading to a K/BB differential of 6.7 vs. 0.9. The OPS differential is there in both OBP (.467 vs. .226) and ISO (0.442(!) vs. .155. (I’m using ISO rather than SLG here because it’s completely separate from OBP)

This is all over only 28 innings, but the magnitude of the differences, coupled with the number of separate indicators that converge on the same conclusion, suggests that it’s meaningful. I don’t have time now to go back and do similar comparisons for other relievers, or for Jensen in previous seasons, to get a sense of how extreme and stable, respectively, this is, but I’m surprised that this hasn’t been brought up before (to my knowledge).

by Logodaedalus on Jun 9, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Did you cruise on over to the “IR” and “IS” columns in the game log? (I haven’t, just asking if you have.)

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on Jun 9, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

12 inherited runners; 7 scored (if I’m reading it right, anyway).

by peter m on Jun 9, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions

I read 9; 2

From, Ben

by bentausig on Jun 9, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions

You’re closer than i was. I read the first ten games (duh). It’s 7 and 2, I think. It looks as if he entered three games with a lead. Blew one, held one, and narrowed the margin from 3 to 1 run in the third.

by peter m on Jun 9, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions