Cruz is not a full-time, DH, for the record. He's played about two thirds of his games in the outfield. However, with Seager/Miller around at 3rd/SS and one defensive liability out there already with Cruz, it's hard to see how Hanley could fit onto the Mariners.
2016: Corner Infield and Corner OF
- Thread starter NDame616
- Start date
grimshaw said:
Another bridge option would be to pencil in Shaw for 1B and pair him with a RHH in a platoon situation.
Somebody is going to take a buy low flier on Mike Napoli under the rationale that his 2015 struggles were related to the disruptions created by his off-season surgery and that he might be fully recovered for a 2016 resurgence. This would be a low cost, bridge option that would allow the Sox to take a closer look at Shaw with some insurance. One benefit is Shaw's ability to play 3B and LF, although if he regresses to his minor league numbers then they are stuck with Napoli and whatever other AAAA 1B options they pick up to fill the gaps in Pawtucket (It's hard to imagine that Craig would be in the picture any longer). Napoli obviously fell off a cliff this season, but even a return to his ZiPS projected slash line of .224/.331/.420 would be of some value, especially if he ends up splitting time and facing more lefties than righties.
jscola85 said:
Right, the fact that Cruz has played so much outfield is an argument for them to go after Heyward or Upton (or whomever, pick your favorite outfielder) in free agency, not for them trading for Hanley.
I agree. HR played over 100 games at third for the Marlins and Dodgers and I don't think he was horrible. His fWAR stats weren't bad. I saw some of his games at third and thought, gee, why wasn't he used there more in his career? First game I saw him in LF for Boston, I very strongly felt it wasn't gonna work. The key is Pablo though. If he loses about 30 pounds, 40 to really nail it, he could get back to being at least average, or even an above average third baseman again. What does DD and the GM he hires do though, check in with Pablo all winter for his weight and try to decide what to do based on that?Harry Hooper said:
Al Zarilla said:
You could get creative and redo his contract adding weight incentives throughout the rest of the contract. So that if he makes the target weights he makes more money via bonus, if he doesn't he makes less. Something like : Same money as scheduled if lost ~20 which I think is a minimum. Loses 20-40 --- he collects more total than current contract, loses less than 20 or gains he makes less than current contract
NDame616 said:
He wouldn't be able to reduce his deal unless he got something of value in return, ala A-Rod (his right to the Red Sox brand in licensing was not considered enough even though I think he could have made a ton of money with it.)
No way they would let Sandoval reduce his deal, no way he would want to. They might allow him to defer some of his deal if he got a benefit like additional pay (like a guaranteed investment) but I don't know why he'd bother unless it facilitated a trade.
A quick glance at teams who might need a 3B next year - San Diego, White Sox, Milwaukee, Cleveland (possibly?), Atlanta... I'm also not familiar with any of those teams' minor leagues, so they might have someone on the horizon I don't know about.
Maybe the Red Sox will need a 3B next year - after they move Sandoval to 1B.
Not being clever. I recall reading last winter that the long range plan for Sandoval was a transition to 1B. He pencils in quite well in my opinion - corner reactions, ability to stretch/split, defensive territory reduced, no throwing errors...but all of that comes with a predictable increase in power, which has not been displayed.
I bring it up because either Shaw is the solution at 1B (who knows, I can't judge based on small looks) or they need to pick up a 1b or a 3B (under the Sandoval relocation scheme). We're talking about corner fielders here and the universe of good available ones seems to be pretty small.
Not being clever. I recall reading last winter that the long range plan for Sandoval was a transition to 1B. He pencils in quite well in my opinion - corner reactions, ability to stretch/split, defensive territory reduced, no throwing errors...but all of that comes with a predictable increase in power, which has not been displayed.
I bring it up because either Shaw is the solution at 1B (who knows, I can't judge based on small looks) or they need to pick up a 1b or a 3B (under the Sandoval relocation scheme). We're talking about corner fielders here and the universe of good available ones seems to be pretty small.
geoduck no quahog said:
Well, Shaw does play 3B, sorta. I'm 94% sure there's no way they'd go into 2016 with Shaw as the opening day starter at any position, but if this was a video game you could just flip Shaw to 3B and Sandoval to 1B. I guess Holt as the backup if Shaw turned into a pumpkin. If Shaw's defense at 3B is better than 'worst in MLB' then he'd be an improvement over 2015 Sandoval.
None of that will happen of course, but I wonder if we'll see a little more Shaw at 3B this season. Usually I would assume Shaw could stand around in LF without embarrassing himself too much, but we're probably not allowed to make that assumption anymore.
geoduck no quahog said:
Meh. I don't think Pablo's bat will ever profile at 1B again. If you play him at first you've now got a fringe corner IF on offense and need to bring in an even better 3b to compensate, or pick up the value somewhere else. I think the only position where Panda profiles once he wears out at 3b is DFA.
But going back to the "which one goes" question, the other possibility if Hanley can play a passable 1B is that neither one goes. Which, again, is why I think you need to let him start working there defensively now. And it also means the Hanley / Pablo exit saga could reasonably stretch well into spring training if he's still competing for a spot at that point.
nothumb said:
Pretty much agree with this. Panda's value is playing a decent 3rd base. Hopefully he gets lean and mean this off-season.
Really have to unload Hanley, he looks cooked all the way around: no defense/no speed/no base running instincts, banged up to the point of not being able to practice. Whatever savings we get from that use towards pitching. Use salaries coming off towards pitching
Look to add a RHH Pearce or Valencia as a platoon partner for Shaw at 1B. OR search around for AAA RH bats blocked. OR just maybe Craig heals enough to be an option as a platoon partner at 1B.
Maybe some thought to Swihart being a back up option at 1B, when he's not catching.
Castillo RF / JBJ CF / Betts LF - we need to see it. We've seen the upside recently and its glorious. If we get certainty there it opens up all kinds of payroll flexibility for many years.
Need a 4th OF, once again dig around the bargain bin. D'Aza, blocked AAA, Margot potentially ready by 2016 mid-season?
Most of the free'd up money needs to be directed towards signing/trading for 2 top 30 starting pitchers and a couple of pen arms.
Al Zarilla said:
That would be great, but I can't see any chance of that happening. He's lost weight at various points of his 20s but he's always put it back on. He turns 30 next year. He's to the point where it's hard to lose the weight to begin with, much less keep it off.
Why is it harder to lose weight and keep it off at 30 vs., say, 26, especially when your career is at stake? I get the impression Dombrowski doesn't f___ around. A good poll would be at what weight Pablo reports to ST next spring. How do we get the truth on it though. He did make an athletic play tonight.curly2 said:
The metabolism doesn't just take a left turn at age 30. Based on the Mifflin - St. Jeor BMR formula for a male:
BMR = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5
So with every year of aging, he needs 5 less calories a day to maintain weight if in a coma, and around 6 to 7.5 less calories a day to maintain weight if active (assuming a 1.2 to 1.5 activity multiplier to get from BMR to TDEE). So at age 30 he could eat 60 to 75 less calories a day than at age 20 and lose the same amount of weight. It's quite easy to cut out 75 calories.
BMR = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5
So with every year of aging, he needs 5 less calories a day to maintain weight if in a coma, and around 6 to 7.5 less calories a day to maintain weight if active (assuming a 1.2 to 1.5 activity multiplier to get from BMR to TDEE). So at age 30 he could eat 60 to 75 less calories a day than at age 20 and lose the same amount of weight. It's quite easy to cut out 75 calories.
Quoted from: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/08/cherington-on-ramirez-donaldson-sandoval.html
This frustrated me when I read it. Anyone who was there stop when he said this or confirm? If they wanted Donaldson, they should've fought more. Doesn't seem like they tried to get Beane to play ball.
Edit: Clearly my lack of analytical skills is only surpassed by my inability to post this in the correct message board thread. Sorry folks. *embarrassed*
- Cherington adds that the Red Sox contacted Billy Beane and the Athletics about trading Josh Donaldson last offseason, only to be told the A’s weren’t interested in dealing Donaldson. They did, of course, ultimately trade him to Toronto, and Cherington says he credits the Blue Jays for their persistence.
This frustrated me when I read it. Anyone who was there stop when he said this or confirm? If they wanted Donaldson, they should've fought more. Doesn't seem like they tried to get Beane to play ball.
Edit: Clearly my lack of analytical skills is only surpassed by my inability to post this in the correct message board thread. Sorry folks. *embarrassed*
There were numerous tweets about this from the Seminar.Murby said:
How hard do you know hard the Sox fought or didn't figth? It all comes down to the players the Sox were willing to give up. According to all reports, there were a number of untouchable players for the Sox. Your watching them on the field and you can see why the Sox felt that way about them. Odds are that Beane wanted at least one of them. That wasn't going to happen.
For the eight millionth time, the Sox didn't have a package to match Toronto's. BB wasn't looking to rebuild but rather reload and Brett Lawrie was key to that trade getting done. The Sox had no such piece to move.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Brett Lawrie (.266, .301, .400; -3 DRS, -16.2 UZR/150; world-class douchebag) was the key to that trade? Either Beane has lost his marbles, or somebody is peddling a bill of goods. If the Red Sox could not have beaten a package of Lawrie and oddments, then Cherington and the rest of the front office earned the blood bath they just drowned in.
I think we're getting the bill of goods, and I don't believe a word of it. A more likely version is that Cherington made perfunctory inquiries a few weeks before Donaldson wore out his welcome in Oakland (Donaldson made some choice comments that greased his skids out of town, iirc), and instead went for his preferred target, Sandoval, who had just put on a spectacular playoff performance, batted left-handed (most of the time), and was between eating binges in late 2015.
The stories about how the Red Sox pursued Donaldson but didn't get him are all about saving face. Those who saved their faces just lost their heads.
Rasputin said:
That strikes me as too pat a story for even the credulous. Why would Beane shift from 'he is unavailable' to 'you can have him for a package of Lawrie and dreck' in the space of one week? A cost-controlled, middle-of-the-lineup power hitter who almost dragged the A's to the playoffs. Do you believe that Beane is really that impulsive? That's not Moneyball thinking -- that's pure idiocy.
That Lawrie hasn't had a good year doesn't discredit the notion. I'm on mobile or I would link (and will later when I get home if you don't feel like googling it), but pretty much every review of the trade cited that he was selling high on Donaldson and getting what could easily be a cheaper, near equivalent replacement in Lawrie - assuming he stayed healthy and met his ceiling. Now, it hasn't happened this year, but that's his MO. The Sox didn't have an MLB ready piece to make that swap. It's not saving face for anyone, it realizing that not every team is a good fit for every trade. They could possibly have tried some kind of three way, but if they were told he wasn't on the block, why go through the machinations?
Papelbon's Poutine said:
They needed to go through the machinations because 1) the Sox had plenty of tradeable prospects with which to build a package, 2) the Sox had an available 3B in Middlebrooks (who fetched a decent return in Hanigan instead), and 3) Donaldson was head and shoulders above Sandoval and Headley among available 3B. To be sure, Beane might have preferred Lawrie to Middlebrooks -- based on the last three year's performance, both of them suck.
It didn't take much watching of Toronto and Oakland last year (and I've watched plenty of both teams, having lived in both towns for ten years combined, and following both since) to know that Lawrie is no prize and that Donaldson is, and remains, the best at his position in the AL.
@soxhop, if you buy that story, why did Beane shift his story so radically just one week later and sell off Donaldson for low value? That wasn't selling high, that was a fire sale. Is Beane really such a reactive idiot? Michael Lewis didn't think so a decade ago, and I don't think so now.
I'll say it again: the public line put out by the Red Sox front office was about saving face. For that, among plenty of other missteps, they deserved to lose their jobs.
I actually think that the Donaldson move was one of two horrendous and largely inexplicable moves that Beane made last year, the one during the season where he gave up Addison Russell for two solid but unspectacular short-term rentals in Samardzjia and Hammel was the other. I get the frustration about Donaldson seemingly being handed to TOR on a silver platter, but I'm not sure how much to blame Cherington and friends for that as Beane seems to have mildly lost his mind a bit since the middle of last season. Jonah Keri summed it up nicely again last night on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/jonahkeri/status/634949314796761088
Can you imagine how frustrated A's fans must be when they should have a right side of the infield of Donaldson and Russell, the former controlled through 2018 and the latter even longer? Instead they have Lawrie and Semien (31 errors and counting), rough times.
https://twitter.com/jonahkeri/status/634949314796761088
Can you imagine how frustrated A's fans must be when they should have a right side of the infield of Donaldson and Russell, the former controlled through 2018 and the latter even longer? Instead they have Lawrie and Semien (31 errors and counting), rough times.
Sprowl said:
It's weird how Sandoval is almost never described as a guy the Sox actually wanted, but rather the least objectionable option. I don't believe this - I think he was the top target all along. I read something somewhere - I know, great sourcing - that said he appealed to them in part because they felt that his willingness to swing at everything would be a good way to counteract the expanding strike zone, which sounds plausible to me.
Sprowl said:
Oakland got back a starting 3rd baseman who was a league average hitter so far in his career and still under 25, a top 100 SS prospect who can hit, and two potential back end starting pitchers. I wouldn't call Middlebrooks equivalent to Lawrie after putting up a 43 WRC+ in 2014. Maybe a lot of franchises and third party evaluators do like the Sox prospects, but if Beane wanted a legit starting 3rd baseman back for Donaldson, he wasn't doing a deal with Boston. Most likely why he didn't engage with Cherington.
shaggydog2000 said:
What we're hearing from the Red Sox is that Donaldson wasn't available -- not that they were outbid, or that Toronto had a better direct replacement. Lawrie is preferable to Middlebrooks, to be sure, but neither one is very good, and the Red Sox certainly could have put together a package deal or three-way deal that was competitive with Toronto's. How many top 100 prospects do the Red Sox have? So many that most are blocked.
Why would Beane deliberately tell one potential bidder that Donaldson was not available, and then sell Donaldson to another bidder? It makes more sense to get two bidders bidding against each other than to sell to only one interested party. That's what doesn't make sense about the Red Sox claims that Donaldson was not available: it makes Beane out to be his own worst enemy.
Sprowl said:
[SIZE=10pt]I don't understand why that explanation is so incredible. The Donaldson trade, for me, is one of the most confounding in recent memory. Unexplainable, like the Jonah Keri quote posted earlier says. And every time I see the guy come to bat for the Blue Jays, I just incredulously shake my head.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]But I don’t see how the ire can be directed at the Red Sox in this case. Are we to believe that between getting Donaldson in a trade and giving a large contract to Panda (and getting Panda was hardly a guarantee at the time), they just thought the latter was a much better idea? I don’t see it. This, in my view, is all Billy Beane; and yes, in this case, he was his own worst enemy.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]What is most confounding to me is that it’s not even clear Beane tried to create a market for Donaldson. This was one of the most prized assets in MLB. An elite level third baseman with a great contract, controllable for a few year. At the time, at least four teams needed a third baseman – The Sox, the Yankees, the Jays, the Padres and I’m sure there were more that would have loved to trade for him. Yet, other than the Jays, none of those thought Donaldson valuable enough to make a play for him? That makes no sense. There was no iota of a leak that Donaldson was in play or could be had. It's like Sonny Gray now. People ask, but understand when you say he's not in play. Because an asset like that is so valuable, it rarely comes in play. How can you have an asset like that, and not let the word out to people to make you their best offers?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The only explanation, to me, is that Beane just loved Lawrie + some prospects Toronto had, and didn’t care to create a market for Donaldson. Or he had a list for each team that he knew had a need, and said I either get this or don’t bother calling me. I don’t see why this scenario would be so out of the realm of possibility – more so than Cherington going on a public forum to lie just so he could save face. This isn’t just the Red Sox. The Yankees decided they’d prefer Headley? The Padres, who were trading anything and everything, that they just loved Middlebrooks better?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]I get the love for Beane, Moneyball and all that, but the man has had his share of awful trades. And the zooming on players he likes and just ignoring the rest is not unprecedented for Billy. the Samardzija trade to the White Sox happened in similar fashion. Maybe he created a market, but it sure looked like he didn’t; saw what he liked, went for it. What else could he have gotten for Russell if he put him up for open bidding? But I must say, the Donaldson trade takes the cake. If a GM without the aura of Billy Beane did the same thing, he would be excoriated and sent to the gallows. And rightfully so.[/SIZE]
Sprowl, you seem to be assuming the market is rational when it clearly never has been in MLB trades. The best explanation for this is that Beane was operating under some non-rational ground... especially after being publicly criticized by Donaldson. Donaldson is a late bloomer and I can completely understand Beane viewing his breakout as an outlier rather than as the norm. It's quite possible he viewed the trade at the time as a possible steal- getting a younger Lawrie who at least was league average and had room to grow and other parts for a guy who had one good season and was going to regress.
Back to Corner Infield and Corner Outfield discussion of the Red Sox future here:
I can't imagine a better defensive outfield than Castillo, Betts and JBJ and wouldn't break that up. Any of these guys can play any position and in case of an injury to whoever is the CF, there wouldn't be a major drop-off. I understand the rational for trading from a strength of these guys, but losing one to trade and then possibly another to injury turns this outfield quickly into the pre-trade deadline outfield really fast. Offensively, yeah sure there's no "slugger" in the group, but we're looking at a bunch of .750-.775 OPS guys across the board (does it matter if it's SLG or OBP heavy?). Betts has 15-20 HR power. Castillo has 15-20 HR power. Bradley has 10-15 power. That seems to me more than adequate at the plate for the defensive heaven these guys would create. I'm imagining an entire run shaved off every Sox pitchers ERA.
Hanley to first is so clearly the best option I can't believe it's actually being discussed and isn't just a given.
Back to Corner Infield and Corner Outfield discussion of the Red Sox future here:
I can't imagine a better defensive outfield than Castillo, Betts and JBJ and wouldn't break that up. Any of these guys can play any position and in case of an injury to whoever is the CF, there wouldn't be a major drop-off. I understand the rational for trading from a strength of these guys, but losing one to trade and then possibly another to injury turns this outfield quickly into the pre-trade deadline outfield really fast. Offensively, yeah sure there's no "slugger" in the group, but we're looking at a bunch of .750-.775 OPS guys across the board (does it matter if it's SLG or OBP heavy?). Betts has 15-20 HR power. Castillo has 15-20 HR power. Bradley has 10-15 power. That seems to me more than adequate at the plate for the defensive heaven these guys would create. I'm imagining an entire run shaved off every Sox pitchers ERA.
Hanley to first is so clearly the best option I can't believe it's actually being discussed and isn't just a given.
Enough beating a dead horse on Donaldson. Going back to Sandoval...
Can we actually say his career at stake? He still has four years left at ~$19m per, regardless of what he does. He wouldn't be the first player in MLB history to mail it in after a big payday.
Al Zarilla said:
Can we actually say his career at stake? He still has four years left at ~$19m per, regardless of what he does. He wouldn't be the first player in MLB history to mail it in after a big payday.
Trotsky said:
An issue that has been raised, (and so regularly dismissed, in multiple threads) is that during the course of a full season, a LF is only involved in 250 plays, while a first baseman is involved in 900, not including catching pickoff attempts. If Hanley's incompetence has less to do with physical skills, and more to do with lack of focus, then increasing his involvement in a team's defense by 350% could be a disaster.
Secondly, you don't want to mess with a player during the middle of a season, and in this case it would be asking a very unadaptable player to adapt to his third defensive position in 3 years, and 4th position in 5 years. Not to mention he has publicly expressed opposition to the idea.
Any attempt to move him to 1st should happen in the off-season and then tested in Spring training. And if it doesn't work, then what do you do about 1st base at the beginning of April?
Where has it been suggested that Hanley's incompetence is due to lack of focus? The eye test tells you that he can't read the trajectory of a flyball. Especially going back or coming in. This skillset is not rocket science. Anybody who has ever played baseball knows it's just something you learn over time. Well HR has had eight months to learn this rudimentary skill .. And the results indicate that he can't do it.WenZink said:
So put him back in the infield where he has, at least the skills to be moderately successful.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
If it's such a rudimentary skill can't be learned by a professional athlete, then it must be his lack of focus.
Fact is over the last 5 years, Hanley has been one the worst (if not the worst) SS in the game, the worst 3B in the game, and, this year, the worst LF in the game. And I''d expect, at 32, he'd be the worst first baseman in the game. If worse comes to worse, they can just stop trying Hanley to be an adequate LF, and have him adopt the Manny Ramirez lazy-boy approach, where he plays a shallow LF in Fenway and then just turn around as the ball goes over your head and learn to play it off the wall. No need to learn how to read the trajectory.
It seems incredibly presumptuous to say Hanley is poor at reading fly balls because of a lack of focus. He just doesn't seem to have the aptitude.
Why would he be so bad at 1B? It doesn't require as quick reactions, long throws, pivoting for double plays...seems like it fits his skillset
Why would he be so bad at 1B? It doesn't require as quick reactions, long throws, pivoting for double plays...seems like it fits his skillset
When I get to a computer I'm going to look up Robin Yount's defensive history, based on being another SS moved to the outfield. I kind of recall that he wasn't that great but I could be wrong.
So saying it's a "lack of focus" is pretentious, but "doesn't seem to have the aptitude" isn't?TheReal15 said:
I consider it presumptious to think Hanley has the skillset for 1st base. He's always played on the left side of the infield. He's never had to stretch out to make the catch and shorten the distance. He's never had to hold runners on, catch a snap pickoff throw from the catcher. Players that are less athletic, with less speed, can play 1st base easier than other positions, but there are all sorts of skills that are required.
There is room for debate on this subject, but I was just replying to Trotsky's comment that "Hanley to first is so clearly the best option I can't believe it's actually being discussed and isn't just a given." It's hardly a given, especially when you realize that Hanley at 1st involves him in 3-4 times more plays than in LF>
WenZink said:
Two rather simple questions.
1. Prior to Hanley moving to LF this season, did you have and express the same level of concern over Hanley's ability to focus while playing defense?
2. Does Hanley's time spent playing LF this season tell us more about his potential ability to play first base then his previous body of work as an infielder?
TheReal15 said:
Why is it "incredibly presumptuous" to say it's a lack of focus, but fine to say it's a lack of aptitude? They're both plausible explanations, and I don't think anyone but his teammates and coaches is likely to have enough information to do more than speculate about which is correct.
And in the end, it doesn't matter that much, because even if it's a lack of aptitude, there's no good reason to assume he won't have a similar lack of aptitude at first. True, he's been an infielder before--a bad one. And 1B involves several skills, such as scooping or leaping for errant throws and working with pitchers around the bag, that left-side infielders don't have to worry about. (Yes, scooping throws is like playing bad hops off the bat. But the difference is that when you can't play a bad hop, it usually costs your team just one base, and your fellow infielders don't get blamed for it.)
WenZink said:
I would REALLY like to retire the argument about "1B is involved in SO MANY PLAYS" forever. The vast, overwhelming majority of those plays are completely routine - among the easiest that any defender at any position will be asked to make. The biggest challenge that he will routinely face is digging out low throws - and Hanley was always regarded as having pretty good hands. We can argue about "lack of focus" vs. lack of aptitude or conditioning or whatever else, but bottom line what this argument is saying is that Hanley at 1B will just forget that he has to receive throws.
I think I made this point in another thread, but if you look at the distribution for UZR/150 among regular and semi-regular 1B compared to the distribution for outfielders or other infielders, the gap between the good and the bad is much smaller for 1B than other positions. Hanley could be a mediocre defensive 1B - say bottom third in UZR instead of rock bottom - and he would still have some positive value if he can get back to 120ish wRC+. However, Hanley as a similarly below-average but not catastrophic LF - which is what a lot of people are guessing / hoping he will be - still struggles to be better than replacement level because he is costing us more defensive runs in LF than at 1B. Personally I think Hanley has a better chance to be a mediocre 1B than he does of achieving even mediocrity in LF (though he absolutely could also stink it up at 1B), but even if he can be mediocre in LF, he's still roughly a replacement level player unless he simultaneously bounces way back on offense, which is a lot to ask.
Savin Hillbilly said:
"Lack of aptitude" implies that there is a lack of a capacity to learn a non-universal skill. I personally, have a lack of aptitude for singing. Not everyone can sing, no matter how hard they try or focus. Hanley may not have the ability to quickly learn how to play the OF, or may never learn to play it more than poorly.
"Lack of focus" implies there is an innate capability or that the skill is already acquired, but the person in question more or less chooses to prioritize something else.
The second is presumptuous because it assumes A) Hanley really can play LF adequately, and B) the reason he's not playing it adequately is because he's simply not trying. In the context of the thread it means that Hanley isn't paying attention when the ball is hit to him and/or isn't trying to learn how to catch the ball as a LF. I find that a bit absurd. Based on his body language, he clearly wants to be able to catch the ball, is acutely aware that he can't always do it, and does not like the fact that he screws up out there.
Rovin Romine said:
Not at all. "Lack of focus" does not necessarily imply "lack of desire or intention." It could mean that, but it could also just mean that for whatever reason, the ability to concentrate sufficiently to get the job done consistently is lacking. In that case, it's really a specialized form of "lack of aptitude."
I think a lot of folks assume, when some of us use terms like "lack of focus" or "space cadet" to describe what we think we're seeing from Hanley, that we're making a pejorative moral judgment. If anything, it's the opposite; we're trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, thinking that maybe rather than just not giving a shit, or being athletically unfit, he is having genuine difficulty keeping his head in the game. Over the years, I've heard multiple players suggest that this is harder in the outfield than the infield. Some people are a good fit for jobs in which nothing much happens for a long while and then suddenly you have to be very focused and alert. Some are not.
FWIW, FanGraphs has Yount at a total of +25 TZ over 11 seasons at SS and a total of -71 over nine seasons as CF. Your recall is excellent.geoduck no quahog said:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1014396&position=SS/OF#fielding
Sprowl said:
To say that Lawrie and Middlebrooks are both not very good and therefore comparable compresses a lot of levels of not very good into one. Lawrie is a league average hitter or just about, and Middlebrooks has been terrible other than a short stint at the beginning of his career. I don't find them to be comparable commodities. But I guess it's rather irrelevant for the Sox now since they can't go back in time and force Oakland to trade with them. I don't really see who is going to take Sandoval or Ramirez off their hands for a reasonable amount of cash and prospects, and who they would really replace them with. I guess hoping all three of JBJ, Betts, and Castillo work out is the default, but there is no guarantee of that one. Ramirez shifting to 3rd or 1st seems pretty suspect as well. I look forward to seeing what the JBJ and Castillo do over the next few months, and maybe Shaw as well, but Dombrowski is going to have to get a bit creative to either solve these issues or put quality backups in place.
"Red Sox to try Hanley Ramirez at 1B
Interim manager Torey Lovullo said the team will try out their current LF at first base and he may see regular-season action there by the end of the season. Ramirez was working with David Ortiz and coach Brian Butterfield today." ESPN posting on their website. Just a blurb, the link would be to http://espn.go.com/mlb/scoreboard which won't help much.
Surprised it wasn't here first.
Hanley at 1B might just be a great solution to our OF depth problem. And our 1B depth problem.
Interim manager Torey Lovullo said the team will try out their current LF at first base and he may see regular-season action there by the end of the season. Ramirez was working with David Ortiz and coach Brian Butterfield today." ESPN posting on their website. Just a blurb, the link would be to http://espn.go.com/mlb/scoreboard which won't help much.
Surprised it wasn't here first.
Hanley at 1B might just be a great solution to our OF depth problem. And our 1B depth problem.
I say we start to lobby for the softball position of rover to be a 10th fielding position. Problem solved.
Tonight's misplay in LF by Hanley ended up being a major factor in the loss. It seems as if he really can't bend over, so that sure doesn't bode well for a shift to 1B.