Author Topic: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?  (Read 24980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Roarin Storen

  • Posts: 1446
  • #teamlocke
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #250 on: June 28, 2009, 04:18:43 pm »
Only gave up one run himself, pretty sick - saved the bullpen pretty nicely!

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #251 on: June 28, 2009, 04:28:16 pm »
Hindsight is 20/20 of course but I thought it was a mistake to send him out in the 8th.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93631
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #252 on: June 28, 2009, 04:34:06 pm »
Hindsight is 20/20 of course but I thought it was a mistake to send him out in the 8th.
it was a mistake to pull him that soon. the little squibbler hit by Wiggington was lucky. He probably would have gotten out of the inning only allowing 1 run, not 2 like Beimel.

Offline Roarin Storen

  • Posts: 1446
  • #teamlocke
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #253 on: July 04, 2009, 03:51:08 pm »
3 ER over 8 today, got the W after a great comeback win! Happy 4th!

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #254 on: July 04, 2009, 03:55:28 pm »
Lannan was Lannan.  He's not an ace, he's not a #5.  He's a solid #3 on a winning team and that's what we're trying to build.  John didn't have his best stuff today, but [manny acta] battled out there today [/manny acta] and gave us a chance.  I never miss one of his starts and haven't since he was called up in '07.  He's a true pro and I'd like to think his hard work and mental make-up inspires his teammates. 


Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93631
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #255 on: July 04, 2009, 10:05:07 pm »
Quote
"He had his good stuff," outfielder Matt Diaz said of Lannan. "We got quite a few hits off him, but he keeps the ball down. When he got in trouble, he induced the double play. You have to give him credit, he didn't give in when he fell behind. He stayed in there and gave them a chance to win. That's how you define a staff ace."

:clap: :clap:

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #256 on: July 04, 2009, 11:40:48 pm »
I wanted him pulled 3 or 4 times today - boy was I wrong. NOTHING rattles that guy. Hanson, Dunn's HR got to him, but Lannan. Nothing. Icewater in the veins.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 17944
  • babble on
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #257 on: July 05, 2009, 12:18:06 am »
He's a stud.  We got to talking to a Yankees fan at the game today who had been in attendance at Lannan's nagin' game in the Bronx, and he was gaga about him. 

I did not worry about a thing today until McDougal's little crisis.

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 18070
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #258 on: July 05, 2009, 12:26:16 am »
i would think his 3.45 ERA is ace-worthy, but that's just me.

he's 25 and he's got a winning record on the worst team in baseball. he's 17th in the NL in ERA, ahead of oswalt, peavy, lowe, hamels, and many others. and this is with his horrendous first couple starts. his mid-2 ERA since april or whatever puts him top 10.

hes saving my fantasy team!

Offline BBQ

  • Posts: 1974
  • Not Werth it.
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #259 on: July 05, 2009, 12:35:27 am »
John Lannan in my opinion is one of our best players. (If not best) Whenever he goes out there we know we have a chance to win.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #260 on: July 05, 2009, 08:41:56 am »
Remember all the posters (mostly me  :D ) griping about not signing Derek Lowe this past offseason? Well, for one thing, we assumed Lowe was an innings eater.  Lannan has actual pitched more innings than Lowe (17 games; 101 1/3 innings for Lowe; 17 games 107 for John).

John also has given up fewer hits, runs and has a much lower ERA.

So, in hindsight, the $60 million the team would have paid to Lowe would have been paid to the #2 pitcher on the staff.  Sixty million dollars for a #2 is one helluva pay toilet!  :icon_mrgreen:

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 18596
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #261 on: July 05, 2009, 08:48:49 am »
Remember all the posters (mostly me  :D ) griping about not signing Derek Lowe this past offseason? Well, for one thing, we assumed Lowe was an innings eater.  Lannan has actual pitched more innings than Lowe (17 games; 101 1/3 innings for Lowe; 17 games 107 for John).

John also has given up fewer hits, runs and has a much lower ERA.

So, in hindsight, the $60 million the team would have paid to Lowe would have been paid to the #2 pitcher on the staff.  Sixty million dollars for a #2 is one helluva pay toilet!  :icon_mrgreen:

I'd rather pay $60M for Lowe than flushing $2.6M for Cabrera.

Offline NatsDad14

  • Posts: 5241
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #262 on: July 05, 2009, 10:36:57 am »
i would think his 3.45 ERA is ace-worthy, but that's just me.

he's 25 and he's got a winning record on the worst team in baseball. he's 17th in the NL in ERA, ahead of oswalt, peavy, lowe, hamels, and many others. and this is with his horrendous first couple starts. his mid-2 ERA since april or whatever puts him top 10.

hes saving my fantasy team!

Lannan is actually just 24 years old. No one seems to mention that in the #4-5 starter discussions. He is capable of improving himself.


For comparisons sake, Tom Glavine had a 4.29 ERA through age 24. Lannan is at 3.78. Even their SO/BB rates were similar, Glavine 4.5-3, Lannan 4.9-3.5. Their WHIP is literally the same, Glavine 1.353 Lannan 1.363.

 To be fair, Glavine had a lot more innings at that point than Lannan (626 to 323 innings).

 If Lannan follows the Glavine path then Lannan will be fine. Glavine won a Cy Young at age 25. I hope Lannan can do that.

Offline NatsDad14

  • Posts: 5241
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #263 on: July 05, 2009, 10:38:27 am »
Remember all the posters (mostly me  :D ) griping about not signing Derek Lowe this past offseason? Well, for one thing, we assumed Lowe was an innings eater.  Lannan has actual pitched more innings than Lowe (17 games; 101 1/3 innings for Lowe; 17 games 107 for John).

John also has given up fewer hits, runs and has a much lower ERA.

So, in hindsight, the $60 million the team would have paid to Lowe would have been paid to the #2 pitcher on the staff.  Sixty million dollars for a #2 is one helluva pay toilet!  :icon_mrgreen:

I'd love to have 2 John Lannans instead of 1 and Daniel Cabrera.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 20386
  • BOOM!
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #264 on: July 05, 2009, 10:49:45 am »
I'd rather pay $60M for Lowe than flushing $2.6M for Cabrera.

Exactly.  Then we'd have Lannan AND Lowe.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #265 on: July 05, 2009, 12:54:08 pm »
I'd rather the Lerners pay $60M for Lowe than flushing $2.6M for Cabrera.

fixed.

Offline CALSGR8

  • Posts: 11627
  • BE LOUD. BE PROUD. BE POSITIVE!
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #266 on: July 05, 2009, 05:56:43 pm »
 :worship: :worship: :worship:
 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
 :woop: :woop: :woop: :woop:

 :icon_mrgreen:

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45557
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #267 on: July 05, 2009, 05:57:22 pm »
Anyone catch Boz's post 7/4 with 7 comparables to Lannan.  Mostly old KC pitchers (leibrandt, splitorff, Gura, black, grimsley*).  Low K lefties with good career ERAs. He was more of less comparing stuff, but noted his ERA+ was better than all those guys, and his K/BB and HR/9 was worse.

I wanted to look at GB ratios, since GBs are the key to Lannan, but could not find that data on Fangraphs or Baseball-reference because mostof those guys were pre-1988.  Anyone know other ways to pick up GB rates?

Also, for what it is worth, looking at Lannan's stats this year v. last, his HR/FB is getting back to normal.  It was quite high last year, maybe worst of all qualified starters.  That struck me as odd for a groundball pitcher.  I figured it was because his success was more due to keeping guys off balance, and when they squared up on a ball and elevated it, it flew.  I did not look at his game logs, but early in the season, I think it was still the same.  I think something mayahvechanged aroundthe time McCatty came in.  Seems to be throwing more strikes early (Fstrike%), getting weak contact (O Contact %), yielding more FBs (fb%), but keeping them in the park (Hr/9).  All the while getting fewer Ks.  At least that's what I think these stats say.  This make sense to the stat whizzes?
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=7080&position=P

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #268 on: July 05, 2009, 07:07:34 pm »
I've always liked Lannan and I've never been one to hype him but I'm definitely close to convinced that he's going to be a dependable part of the rotation for a long time to come (provided he doesn't get traded of course).  I don't really care whether he's a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 - the fact is he's a solid dependable starter and we need as many of those as we can get.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45557
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #269 on: July 05, 2009, 07:20:50 pm »
If someone would pay us like he was true quality stretch drive pick up to round out a play off rotation. and offer us a position player who should be a quality starting player, then I'd trade him.  But it would have to be an Alcides Escobar or a consensus top 50 prospect.  IF someone says the Nats are being piggy, I'd say "oink, now pay up or hang up."

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #270 on: July 05, 2009, 07:24:13 pm »
If someone would pay us like he was true quality stretch drive pick up to round out a play off rotation. and offer us a position player who should be a quality starting player, then I'd trade him.  But it would have to be an Alcides Escobar or a consensus top 50 prospect.  IF someone says the Nats are being piggy, I'd say "oink, now pay up or hang up."

i wouldn't trade him.  we're trying to build a young rotation and he's one of the key components.  Strasburg - Zimmermann - Lannan for years to come.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8522
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #271 on: July 05, 2009, 11:59:36 pm »
it was a mistake to pull him that soon.

thats what she said - how did i miss that?!?!?

Offline hammondsnats

  • Posts: 37394

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19056
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #273 on: July 09, 2009, 04:26:50 pm »
good column on our "ace"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070801684.html
Sounds like he's kind of a funny guy, too. Although ... his roommate was Hanrahan? Didn't they ever, you know, talk about how to play baseball? :|

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 20386
  • BOOM!
Re: Um: John Lannan Appreciation Thread?
« Reply #274 on: July 09, 2009, 04:32:11 pm »
Although ... his roommate was Hanrahan? Didn't they ever, you know, talk about how to play baseball? :|

Or you could look at it as "thank GOD they didn't talk baseball" and have Hanrahan influence Lannan.   :lol: