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.
Poll: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Hanley?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 22, 2015 15:47:07 GMT -5
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I just pointed this out two days ago ... There has more or less never been a human being who played 3B better than 1B, given equal experience. It's like saying you think a guy will be better in CF than in LF ... only more extreme. Hanley at 3B is a much bigger gamble than Hanley at 1B, because he is guaranteed to be worse there.The proof of this is very simple ... make a list of guys who tried to play 1B and really just couldn't, like Dick Stuart and Sam Horn. Can you imagine any of them playing 3B? Were any of them ever tried there, after they demonstrated they couldn't handle 1B? If it turns out that Hanley can't play 1B, then you know he can't play 3B IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Theoretically if Hanley should be able to play any position, having been a SS for the longest time, 3b should be it. A lot of players when they can't handle SS shift over to 3b. Petrocelli and Valentin quickly come to mind. Right, and when 3B stop being able to play 3B, they get moved to 1B, the same way.Again, you keep on saying that you imagine, in your opinion, that Hanley could do even "more damage" at 1B than 3B. If this were humanly possible, then at some point in baseball history some below-average defensive 1B would have been moved to 3B. If this were at all possible, in fact, it would be a tremendous move, because 1B hit much better than 3B. You gain offensive value just by moving a 1B to 3B, which is why Theo always wanted to move Youk back to 3B (and was planning to do so the year they signed Beltre, when Beltre was playing hard to sign). If it were at all possible for a bad defensive 1B to play 3B better, you would have seen this move often in MLB history. But THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL.
NEVER.
So what you keep on asserting (and not just you, but some others) is DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE. It's like saying the guy on your track team doesn't have the endurance to run 1500 meters, so let's try him at 5K. Every skill that a 1B requires, a 3B requires to have better. (Because catching throws on one hop is just a much easier version of catching ground balls on one hop.)
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Aug 22, 2015 16:07:36 GMT -5
Somewhat surprised that management is not, at least, had Hanley taking ground balls at first. The idea that we NOW start working harder in improving in left field is somewhat ridiculous. Ben was adverse to the possibility in season, and I guess so is Dave. Why? What are we going to lose? I would appreciate them giving Hanley the message that you either work your tail off at becoming a decent first baseman, or we are sending you to the Anchorage Eskimos. Where does it seem rational to coddle a player who has so under-performed. Lets forget this leftfield experiment and see if there is anyway of "saving" this signing. NO WAY would I ever want him in left next year. NO WAY should he be hurting the development of those 3 young outfielders we have. Bradley and Betts should be playing everyday. I even feel Rusney should. This is probably impossible, but have him START the transformation now or, at least, find out he is a stiff and can't make the move.
Dave is evaluating everyone currently. He better start evaluating whether Hanley Ramirez even has the "guts" and effort to make that change now. IMO Hanley Ramirez should not be in the outfield next year unless there is 40 days and 40 nights of continual rain. Get him taking grounders NOW!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 16:38:16 GMT -5
Nice application of "analytics" right there. As if what one player does has ever had any bearing on what another player does. Hey Ben, why not toss in a sweeping generalization as to the strike zone judgment of all Dominican players while you're at it? Stop being a jerk. How the hell do you know what the did or didn't do? Sent from my SM-G920P using proboards I could just as easily call you a jerk for ignoring what was routinely written about Hanley prior to this last offseason.
www.mlbdailydish.com/2014/9/23/6363019/hanley-ramirez-free-agency-preview
"The ugly flip side of that is Ramirez's poor defensive play. Though always a below average fielder, the Dodgers shortstop has truly outdone himself this year. His -16.7 UZR/150 is the lowest it has been since 2007, according to FanGraphs, and only six players in the majors have been worse by that metric.
American League teams would have the option of sticking Ramirez in the DH slot from time to time, lessening the blow of his fielding troubles. That could make him more likely to switch leagues this offseason, especially considering Ramirez might sign a contract that will take him into his late 30s. By then, he could exclusively become a DH or corner infielder."
The fact is that we signed a guy who was already being viewed as a DH and tried to plug him into a position he'd never played before. Don't try to play revisionist history and make it out like that was a "good gamble" supported by the majority of baseball experts. Most rational observers thought it was an unusual move and took a wait and see attitude regarding what was deemed an "experiment." What I take umbrage with is the idea that Cherington would even think it was okay to take such a gamble in the first place. All the analytics in the world don't matter if you're trying to stick square pegs into round holes defensively. Going forward, under Dombrowski, I'm fairly confident that the team will return to good fundamental baseball that focuses on strong pitching and defense - not defensive "experimentation" in an effort to squeeze every last drop of offense out of the team. Scores of 9-7 or 8-6 might make for better television ratings, but they don't count for anything more in the standings than a nice solid 5-3 win.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 22, 2015 17:26:36 GMT -5
Read the thread title. It's about fixing the problem. You don't think Cherrington knows it was a lousy decision? We have no idea what sort of analysis they did. They needed a left fielder and they thought they'd found one, probably someone they felt they could transition to that DH slot eventually. And stop with the army of straw men. Nobody is revising anything. Lots of posters were skeptical.
I though he'd hit, and that he'd get hurt. He hit, he got hurt, and he's barely hit since. Add to that the horrid defense and it's a real hole. No one is saying it isn't, except those ghosts your conjuring up. Teams gamble all the time. Some decisions work out, some don't. The difficulty is always the same with longer contracts, and that's what they're dealing with right now.
Stick to the issue. My hope is that they try to move him in the off season. That will probably take some sweetner in the form of cash and prospects. Hammering a guy who's already lost his job, and not just because of Ramirez, diverts the thread into useless dialog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 18:03:06 GMT -5
Read the thread title. It's about fixing the problem. You don't think Cherrington knows it was a lousy decision? We have no idea what sort of analysis they did. They needed a left fielder and they thought they'd found one, probably someone they felt they could transition to that DH slot eventually. And stop with the army of straw men. Nobody is revising anything. Lots of posters were skeptical. I though he'd hit, and that he'd get hurt. He hit, he got hurt, and he's barely hit since. Add to that the horrid defense and it's a real hole. No one is saying it isn't, except those ghosts your conjuring up. Teams gamble all the time. Some decisions work out, some don't. The difficulty is always the same with longer contracts, and that's what they're dealing with right now. Stick to the issue. My hope is that they try to move him in the off season. That will probably take some sweetner in the form of cash and prospects. Hammering a guy who's already lost his job, and not just because of Ramirez, diverts the thread into useless dialog. Actually, we do have some idea now what sort of analysis Cherington applied. This tangent began with his words not mine:
"We didn't know what he (Hanley) would be defensively...we made a bet based on the history of what players...look like going from middle infield to outfield... It hasn't gone well."
You say that "teams gamble all the time." That's a huge generality. Sticking to the issue - Hanley's DEFENSIVE problems (since nobody doubts he can smack the poop out of the ball when healthy) - when was the last time you recall a team signing a veteran past the age of thirty to a $100 million contract and plugging him into a position he's never played before?
So, to answer the question "How do you solve a problem like Hanley" - You DON'T. Hanley was never the problem. By this stage in his career, his defense is what it is. His injury history is what it is. The problem was never with Hanley. The problem was with us signing him and expecting him to be something he never was and never will be.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 22, 2015 18:25:18 GMT -5
If you want to go at the FO, do it somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 22, 2015 18:56:37 GMT -5
Nice application of "analytics" right there. As if what one player does has ever had any bearing on what another player does. This complete dismissal of empirics is amusingly misguided. It's almost like you didn't know that scouting is almost entirely based on comparisons to what other players have done in the past. Oh, and your next post asks for historical comps for Hanley's situation.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 19:37:52 GMT -5
I've always thought since day 1 that a guy who was actually playable at SS at one point in time should be able to transition to any other position other than catcher, especially LF or 1B. But apparently, I underestimated the lack of work ethic and/or ability to practice enough without getting hurt to make the transition.
The other big factor in my opinion is that the amount of muscle he put on may have been just way too much to continue playing in the field.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 22, 2015 20:02:09 GMT -5
I've always thought since day 1 that a guy who was actually playable at SS at one point in time should be able to transition to any other position other than catcher, especially LF or 1B. But apparently, I underestimated the lack of work ethic and/or ability to practice enough without getting hurt to make the transition. The other big factor in my opinion is that the amount of muscle he put on may have been just way too much to continue playing in the field. Until last season I too thought this. However I now believe there are fundamental differences in raw skill sets that suggest this is incorrect. I'll use Xander as my example here. He was flat out bad as a 3b. Possibly because of inexperience or possibly because of insufficient skills. Now for SS it's beneficial to have a quick first step, but not necessary as long as you have very good closing speed. I think this is why Bogaerts is passable at SS, but horrible at 3B. Now to move this to Hanley; it's possible that he's the opposite in that he has a quick forest step, but poor closing speed meaning that he's much more suited to an infield position (3b?) Than he is to an outfield position. Unfortunately I think the same of Panda.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 20:10:45 GMT -5
I've always thought since day 1 that a guy who was actually playable at SS at one point in time should be able to transition to any other position other than catcher, especially LF or 1B. But apparently, I underestimated the lack of work ethic and/or ability to practice enough without getting hurt to make the transition. The other big factor in my opinion is that the amount of muscle he put on may have been just way too much to continue playing in the field. Until last season I too thought this. However I now believe there are fundamental differences in raw skill sets that suggest this is incorrect. I'll use Xander as my example here. He was flat out bad as a 3b. Possibly because of inexperience or possibly because of insufficient skills. Now for SS it's beneficial to have a quick first step, but not necessary as long as you have very good closing speed. I think this is why Bogaerts is passable at SS, but horrible at 3B. Now to move this to Hanley; it's possible that he's the opposite in that he has a quick forest step, but poor closing speed meaning that he's much more suited to an infield position (3b?) Than he is to an outfield position. Unfortunately I think the same of Panda. I think that Xander with his work ethic would become at least average at any position other than catcher.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 22, 2015 20:12:06 GMT -5
Until last season I too thought this. However I now believe there are fundamental differences in raw skill sets that suggest this is incorrect. I'll use Xander as my example here. He was flat out bad as a 3b. Possibly because of inexperience or possibly because of insufficient skills. Now for SS it's beneficial to have a quick first step, but not necessary as long as you have very good closing speed. I think this is why Bogaerts is passable at SS, but horrible at 3B. Now to move this to Hanley; it's possible that he's the opposite in that he has a quick forest step, but poor closing speed meaning that he's much more suited to an infield position (3b?) Than he is to an outfield position. Unfortunately I think the same of Panda. I think that Xander with his work ethic would become at least average at any position other than catcher. We will have to agree to disagree then. He's barely average at SS. I think his fundamental skill set limits him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 20:12:27 GMT -5
I've always thought since day 1 that a guy who was actually playable at SS at one point in time should be able to transition to any other position other than catcher, especially LF or 1B. But apparently, I underestimated the lack of work ethic and/or ability to practice enough without getting hurt to make the transition. The other big factor in my opinion is that the amount of muscle he put on may have been just way too much to continue playing in the field. There have always been questions regarding Hanley's character. When he was traded to the Marlins, it wasn't hard to find people of the opinion "Good riddance." Unfortunately, the character factor will also come into play in determining how much of his contract the team will have to eat should Dombrowski decide to ship him out again. I like the suggestion of the Angels as a target destination though. Compared to Josh Hamilton, Hanley would be low maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 20:18:29 GMT -5
I think that Xander with his work ethic would become at least average at any position other than catcher. We will have to agree to disagree then. He's barely average at SS. I think his fundamental skill set limits him. I don't know how you can say that when you saw what he did between this season and last. If he got moved to the OF, he'd probably work like JBJ and they'd be running into each other in the OF during BP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 20:24:29 GMT -5
We will have to agree to disagree then. He's barely average at SS. I think his fundamental skill set limits him. I don't know how you can say that when you saw what he did between this season and last. Not that I necessarily agree with him, but I think he's basically saying that a step up from abysmal is still just that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 20:26:06 GMT -5
I don't know how you can say that when you saw what he did between this season and last. Not that I necessarily agree with him, but I think he's basically saying that a step up from abysmal is still just that. I don't really have anything to say about someone who thinks Xander is just one step up from abysmal at SS now. That's absurd. He's about 5-6 steps up. And if Hanley is abysmal in LF this year, Xander wasn't even close to abysmal at SS last year if that's the definition.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 22, 2015 20:45:54 GMT -5
The options for Hanley for 2016 are limited.
I think he can do okay at 2b, but we have one already.
I think he would make a fine dh, but we already have one.
We could trade him, if we can find someone desperate enough to take him.
We can leave him in left field next season.
Maybe we can flip him to Philly or San Diego for one of there bad contracts?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 20:48:02 GMT -5
Hanley would be beyond terrible at 2b. Why would you move Pedroia for freaking Hanley Ramirez? You may as well suggest that they trade Uehara and make Hanley the closer.
If you're thinking this way, the only possible answer is to trade him at any cost or pay him to sit at home and do nothing. Because this team isn't going to be better with Hanley on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 21:17:08 GMT -5
Hanley would be beyond terrible at 2b. Why would you move Pedroia for freaking Hanley Ramirez? You may as well suggest that they trade Uehara and make Hanley the closer. I read this and couldn't help but laugh. Hanley's a sly one. He came into camp knowing that his arms would become everyone's favorite non sequitur. Whatever anyone had to say about Hanley, there was always someone else saying "Yeah, but what about the size of his arms!"
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2015 0:22:28 GMT -5
There are four viable options for next year.
A) Trade him to the Orioles, who can very much use him at DH (you can also talk to the Angels and White Sox, but they are unlikely to be sufficiently interested). You would have to eat a large portion of the salary. I happen to think that DHs are worth much more than they're valued by FanGraphs, but they have Ortiz at being worth $17.5M this year. I think if you ate half the contract, you could give him away.
B) Dump him to an NL team that needs a 1B and is willing to gamble on his ability to play there.
In either A or B, you would want to get a 1B, because Travis Shaw projects to be a below-average starting 1B but a great bench piece.
C) Trade him for a better 1B, by a combination of eating salary and adding prospects. You would think about a swap for two absolute studs with insane contacts, Miguel Cabrera and Joey Votto (I mean "think about" literally; I'm too busy to even consider whether that could be a good idea or is doomed to be a terrible one). There are many other viable candidates.
D) Take the gamble that he can play 1B adequately (which on paper is a good one) yourself. If in ST it looks like you are losing that gamble, you can exercise option A or B and go to Shaw, or exercise option C if possible. Because the number of suitors will be smaller, you will probably have to eat more of the contract than if you dumped him over the winter. And you also have the option of returning him to LF and using Castillo off the bench, if that projects to be better--although I think that's quite unlikely.
I think you should absolutely explore option C to the fullest, which might well mean foregoing trading for a young cost-controlled pitcher (either instead of, or in addition to, signing a free agent). I think it is likelier that option D will be more logical, however.
As for options A and B, it's hard to see where dumping his contract and then finding a 1B makes any sense. You might end up spending $35 to $40M a year to sign Chris Davis and eat half of Hanley's contract (or spend $11M for the crow dinner plus the equivalent in prospects if you go the trade route), and only get $15M or $20M more of value out of it. The extra $20M or so could have gone to pitching.
If Hanley plays 140 games at 1B, he'll earn his salary with a 125 wRC+ and average defense, with a 132 wRC+ and - 5 defense, or with a 140 wRC+ and -10 defense. (Maybe 2 or 3 points more of wRC+ when you factor in baserunning.) A conservative hope would be a 125 wRC+ and -6 to -8 defense (it's hard for a 1B to be much worse), which would be worth $15M; at 130 wRC+ and -5 defense, which is realistic, $19M+ (I'm factoring in baserunning now).
(BTW, you can get a great estimate for Batting RAA with (.01 * wRC+ -1) * PA / 9. And a 1B with a 100 RC+ and average defense and who plays 150 G is worth just about 1.0 WAR.)
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 23, 2015 6:00:56 GMT -5
We will have to agree to disagree then. He's barely average at SS. I think his fundamental skill set limits him. I don't know how you can say that when you saw what he did between this season and last. If he got moved to the OF, he'd probably work like JBJ and they'd be running into each other in the OF during BP. Not that I want to derail this topic away from Hanley, but I will for a moment. I think Xander would be good (read: average or better) at: SS, 1B, LF & CF. His arm probably wouldn't play in RF otherwise he would be fine there too. He doesn't have a quick enough first step for 3B or 2B.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 23, 2015 7:47:04 GMT -5
Theoretically if Hanley should be able to play any position, having been a SS for the longest time, 3b should be it. A lot of players when they can't handle SS shift over to 3b. Petrocelli and Valentin quickly come to mind. Right, and when 3B stop being able to play 3B, they get moved to 1B, the same way.Again, you keep on saying that you imagine, in your opinion, that Hanley could do even "more damage" at 1B than 3B. If this were humanly possible, then at some point in baseball history some below-average defensive 1B would have been moved to 3B. If this were at all possible, in fact, it would be a tremendous move, because 1B hit much better than 3B. You gain offensive value just by moving a 1B to 3B, which is why Theo always wanted to move Youk back to 3B (and was planning to do so the year they signed Beltre, when Beltre was playing hard to sign). If it were at all possible for a bad defensive 1B to play 3B better, you would have seen this move often in MLB history. But THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL.
NEVER.
So what you keep on asserting (and not just you, but some others) is DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE. It's like saying the guy on your track team doesn't have the endurance to run 1500 meters, so let's try him at 5K. Every skill that a 1B requires, a 3B requires to have better. (Because catching throws on one hop is just a much easier version of catching ground balls on one hop.) Eric, none of those guys in your example were a year removed from SS like Hanley was. Dick Stuart and Sam Horn were charitably called 1b, not players who had just moved off of SS. Youkilis certainly never played SS. The only SS to move directly to 1b that quickly comes to mind is Ernie Banks. Most SS transition over to 3b, and yes 3b is usually the stop on the defensive spectrum before going over to 1b. The only reason I said that I'd be more concerned with the defense Hanley supplies at 1b than 3b is because if he plays 3b, everytime there's a grounder to 2b, SS, or 1b, I don't have to hold my breath, and a 3b is far less involved in defense than a 1b is. If he plays 1b, every time the ball's on the ground near an infielder, the thought of Hanley Ramirez having to possibly try to scoop out a low throw, etc. makes me quite nervous. That fear factor aside, I won't make the silly argument that 1b is a higher skilled position than 3b, as we both know it's not. I'd be quite concerned that he'd be terrible at either 3b or 1b. And that's why I use "in my opinion" because simply it's not a fact, so why act like it is? I like Hanley's bat and believe that his defensive conversion has helped messed with him offensively. I still believe he can hit. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Hanley bounces back offensively rather than Sandoval who declines every year. This is why, if I was forced to choose only one to keep, I'd keep Hanley or Sandoval. But I say this rather unenthusiastically. I do believe Dombrowski will dump one of Sandoval or Ramirez, and the Sox will pay at least 60% of the freight to simply dump the player. I'd be disappointed if the Sox stapled a legit prospect to the deal to get total salary relief.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2015 7:48:56 GMT -5
You know what we could do with Hanley that might well work? Start shopping him right now to the Orioles. The Orioles who are 1 game behind the WC and who are one of 5 teams within 1.5 games of the second spot, who are 12th in AL OPS from DH, who have lost four of their last 5 while averaging 3.0 runs a game, and who are using backup catcher Steve Clevenger, career wRC+ of 65, at DH. The tiny fly in this ointment is that Clevenger is "red hot." He had a pair of legitimately great games a week ago where he went 5/10 including a 2B, a HR off of Sonny Gray, and 3 LD singles (1 grounder). Next you've got the team's 1-4 stretch, where he's "stayed hot" at 6/15 ... but that's three infield singles, three ground ball singles to center, no UBB, 4 SO, and a .545 BABIP (6/9 on grounders), which raises his career BABIP all the way to .285. They're obviously smart enough to know that it's not for real, but they will likely have to wait till Clevenger has one to three games with normal luck before they could sell the move in the clubhouse and to the media (assuming they're as smart as Cafardo and the CHB). But that's likely to happen while you're hammering out a deal. I actually think Hanley is very likely to be worth his salary going forward as a DH*, and he has exceptional marginal value to the O's right now if he gets them into the playoffs. Because he has to play 1B for us for two years, probably, there's a price point, somewhere around the $5M to $10M eaten mark, where it's a bargain for both clubs. Of course, you probably want to ea a little more than you have to and get a player back, just so it looks kosher. And, hey, maybe they have a prospect whose stock has fallen. *Because the accurate positional adjustment for DH should be somewhere between 1B and an OF corner. It's that tough to hit when you're sitting on your butt all game.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 23, 2015 7:54:16 GMT -5
You know what we could do with Hanley that might well work? ... Because he has to play 1B for us for two years, probably, .... Why two years? Will Ortiz play in 2017? At 41 and a half? Is there a vesting clause for his 2017 option?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2015 8:27:10 GMT -5
The only reason I said that I'd be more concerned with the defense Hanley supplies at 1b than 3b is because if he plays 3b, everytime there's a grounder to 2b, SS, or 1b, I don't have to hold my breath, and a 3b is far less involved in defense than a 1b is. If he plays 1b, every time the ball's on the ground near an infielder, the thought of Hanley Ramirez having to possibly try to scoop out a low throw, etc. makes me quite nervous. That fear factor aside, I won't make the silly argument that 1b is a higher skilled position than 3b, as we both know it's not. I'd be quite concerned that he'd be terrible at either 3b or 1b. Well, I'm glad you've admitted that your basis for opposing Hanley at 1B is that it would make you nervous. Flying makes many people nervous, too, but I don't see any movement afoot to shut down the airline industry. The fact is, the Red Sox can look at video and get a very good idea of how well Hanley will handle errant throws. SS get a decent number of balls hit on one hop near their position, and most are fairly good at picking them. (Rick Burleson was amazing at it.) If you can't get any of those balls, you probably can't stay at SS. The Sox can look at every such ball hit to Hanley in his last 5 years at SS. And it's a hugely harder play than picking an errant throw. 1) The speed off the bat is often higher than the velocity of a throw. 2) It's also usually traveled less distance, since most errant throws are long ones. So it's going much faster. It's a reaction play, where most picks, you get to line it up. 3) It has unpredictable spin rather than consistent spin. 4) And you're stationary instead of taking a step to your right or left. Yes, we've seen guys tried at 1B who could not pick an errant throw, but they were converted outfielders, guys who couldn't play the infield because they couldn't field grounders well and hence couldn't make that play. Guys who have been successful infielders are very, very likely to have a good-enough one-hop skill to play an adequate 1B. And of course the ironic thing is that you would probably not be "nervous" "every time the ball's on the ground near an infielder" once you saw him play about three games and handle errant throws solidly. You'd go, OK, great, he can do that, I'm relieved! So in fact, the reason you oppose this move is that you're anxious that you will be anxious. (We do this a lot, have feelings about the feelings we expect to have; that's a book I fully intend to write one day, called Feeling the Future.) The only reason I'm guessing -5 or worse for Hanley at 1B is that he will be new to the position and has well-below-average baseball instincts and a slow learning curve. His skills will be perfectly OK, but you can expect half a dozen or a dozen dubious or even bonehead decisions (whether to throw to a base when off balance, how far to range to his right, etc.). That will be ugly, but a good guess is, not so frequent to make him unplayable there.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2015 9:07:55 GMT -5
You know what we could do with Hanley that might well work? ... Because he has to play 1B for us for two years, probably, .... Why two years? Will Ortiz play in 2017? At 41 and a half? Is there a vesting clause for his 2017 option? It's unclear whether the option for 2017 vests, if he gets 425 PA next year. Edes originally reported that just the 2016 option vests, but Cott's has it vesting for both years. He'll almost certainly get to 600 PA this year (he needs to start about 27 of the remaining 39 games) and earn a $16M option for next year. The way he's hit this year, he certainly looks like he'll be useful at least as a platoon DH in 2017.
|
|
|