Bradley: Deal with It.

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
timlinin8th said:
I still dont get why the Sox would trade anything of value for frontline pitching when you have three top starters hitting FA this offseason. I keep seeing that bandied about and it makes zero sense to me.

Enjoy you OF depth that is cost controlled, clear salary by trading one of Hanley or Panda if you must. But trading any one of JBJ, Betts or Castillo at this point is crazy. You've got three pieces to one of the best outfields possible right now, and if the bats come around thats gravy.

As these guys have played better the offense has been much improved as well. This OF doesn't need the classic "hide a big bat at LF" type, even though thats what we're accustomed to.
 
Because the Red Sox do not have unlimited payroll and by most people's estimate, payroll space is limited to ~$25M.  Plus, the team could go out and sign, say, David Price, and STILL need to trade for another starter, as outside of Miley and EdRo, there's basically nobody who has proven they will be in the 2016 Red Sox rotation right now (Buchholz health, Kelly/Wright/Owens performance).
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Rovin Romine said:
 
Depends - they're both functional players, just with large contracts.  For example, I'd imagine someone would take Sandoval at 1/2 his salary, plus a fringy prospect, if the Sox were all that much worried about the luxury tax.  We'd end up with a hole at 3b though.  
 
I think we're equally likely to see pitching for pitching trades.   Clay, Porcello, Rodriguez, Wright, Owens, Kelly, Barnes, Miley, Johnson, Escobar (doing very well in his post-asb return).   Someone has to go, especially if we trade for pitching.    
 
With Devers(and Chavis, btw) at least 3 years away, and Moncada 2 years from arrival to the majors, the Sox need a 3rd baseman.  And if you move Sandoval and eat 30%-plus of his salary, then you might as well keep him for the next 2-3 years waiting for two of your top prospects to arrive.  In essence, by opting not to eat 30-40% of Panda's salary, you're getting him at the opportunity cost of $10-$12 mil per year.
 
All of this belongs in the other thread that has been started about corner infielders/outfielders, btw, BUT it still comes back to the one place the Sox have a surplus to trade is 3 outfielders who can all play Center Field.
 

Pandemonium67

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
5,575
Lesterland
I truly believe the way that the situation plays out is that they will trade either Hanley or Panda and the other one plays 3B. JBJ, Betts, and Rusney will be the starting OF in 16.
 
 
I believe that too, with De Aza around as the 4th OFer and sometimes substitute for Rusney.  If JBJ is for real and Rusney continues to shake the rust off, that's a pretty sweet OF with other-worldly defense more than compensating for the slight lack of power on O. 
 
I imagine the Sox would rather trade Panda and keep Hanley. I really think BC got Hanley as the DH-in-waiting for when Papi finally hangs it up, which will possibly be next year.  Hanley is abysmal in left, may be tolerable at third, and could excel at DH. 
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,421
Not here
jscola85 said:
 
Because the Red Sox do not have unlimited payroll and by most people's estimate, payroll space is limited to ~$25M.  Plus, the team could go out and sign, say, David Price, and STILL need to trade for another starter, as outside of Miley and EdRo, there's basically nobody who has proven they will be in the 2016 Red Sox rotation right now (Buchholz health, Kelly/Wright/Owens performance).
 
No, there's really only a need to get one starter, and that starter has to be an ace. Then you go into spring training with Buchholz, Porcello, Miley, Kelly, Rodriguez, Owens, Johnson, and Wright as potential starters. You end up with something like Ace, Buchholz, Rodriguez, Porcello, Miley. As long as Miley is the worst starter, we're okay. We can't really count on Buchholz for a whole season, but with Kelly, Owens, Johnson, and Wright as depth, I'm not that concerned. 
 
I am much more concerned about the bullpen where it's less easy to just go out and buy one. I'd do my best to sign Cueto and trade for Chapman, but I don't know if that's going to be doable.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Pandemonium67 said:
 
I believe that too, with De Aza around as the 4th OFer and sometimes substitute for Rusney.  If JBJ is for real and Rusney continues to shake the rust off, that's a pretty sweet OF with other-worldly defense more than compensating for the slight lack of power on O. 
 
I imagine the Sox would rather trade Panda and keep Hanley. I really think BC got Hanley as the DH-in-waiting for when Papi finally hangs it up, which will possibly be next year.  Hanley is abysmal in left, may be tolerable at third, and could excel at DH. 
 
I'm failing to see why there is any confidence in Hanley being "tolerable" at 3B, particularly from the same folks who think he's abysmal and apparently hopeless in LF.  3B is a harder position than LF, and his experience as a below average SS isn't all that encouraging.  If Hanley can't play LF, he needs to continue to move left on the defensive spectrum, which is either 1B or DH.  He shouldn't be moving back to the right.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
Rough Carrigan said:
Generally, yes, but there are guys who are perfectly competent infielders who just don't work in the outfield.  Not many.  And Hanley may be one.
 
Youkilis was certainly that way. Good lord he hated the outfield. Chipper Jones, too.
 
It generally makes sense to move left on the defensive spectrum, but some players are weird and their talents just don't translate to the "easier" positions as well.  
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
alwyn96 said:
Youkilis was certainly that way. Good lord he hated the outfield. Chipper Jones, too.
 
It generally makes sense to move left on the defensive spectrum, but some players are weird and their talents just don't translate to the "easier" positions as well.
Well, as I understand it the Defensive Spectrum is largely based on the general athleticism required to play a position. But just because two positions are "next" to each doesn't mean they have the same requirements.

First Base and LF - neither of which requires being a great athlete - do require players to have fundamentally different skills to be effective. Reading fly balls and fielding grounders to be specific. Hanley had crappy range for years but did have good hands. Crappy SS range is not a problem at 1B. But he has demonstrated a complete inability to read the flight of a fly ball. One assumes this can be a skill aquired by constant practice - which he is unwilling to do by all accounts (possibly for very good reasons).

His real position is DH .. Have him platoon with Ortiz next year and play an occasional LF. The Large Father should be shuffling off to his deserved retirement by 2017 and the problem is solved.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
alwyn96 said:
 
Youkilis was certainly that way. Good lord he hated the outfield. Chipper Jones, too.
 
It generally makes sense to move left on the defensive spectrum, but some players are weird and their talents just don't translate to the "easier" positions as well.  
Didn't Youk just do it a few times in an emergency situation? I imagine we might have seen different results if he committed to it full time with an entire spring to prepare.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
moondog80 said:
Didn't Youk just do it a few times in an emergency situation? I imagine we might have seen different results if he committed to it full time with an entire spring to prepare.
 
He played 22 games in his career in the OF, 18 of them in 2006.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Well, as I understand it the Defensive Spectrum is largely based on the general athleticism required to play a position. But just because two positions are "next" to each doesn't mean they have the same requirements.

First Base and LF - neither of which requires being a great athlete - do require players to have fundamentally different skills to be effective. Reading fly balls and fielding grounders to be specific. Hanley had crappy range for years but did have good hands. Crappy SS range is not a problem at 1B. But he has demonstrated a complete inability to read the flight of a fly ball. One assumes this can be a skill aquired by constant practice - which he is unwilling to do by all accounts (possibly for very good reasons).

His real position is DH .. Have him platoon with Ortiz next year and play an occasional LF. The Large Father should be shuffling off to his deserved retirement by 2017 and the problem is solved.
The really surprising, and disappointing thing about Hanley's poor play in left field is that he looks uncertain of himself at all times.  He looks like he's afraid to screw up and so he opts for the failure of excessive caution by seldom coming in hard to get even balls that drop close in front of him.  You don't think you'll get that from a shortstop.  The shortstop is the high volume playmaker of the infield.  You don't think those guys will ever play over cautiously at an easier position.  At least I didn't.  I was wrong.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
moondog80 said:
Didn't Youk just do it a few times in an emergency situation? I imagine we might have seen different results if he committed to it full time with an entire spring to prepare.
 
Yeah, I think his hatred of it was just so strong that he wanted no part of that. Hard to say what would have happened if he committed to it, but seems like he had no intention of ever doing that. I think his outright refusal was one of the reasons there was some tension between him and Bobby V. Sometimes guys don't work in various positions for psychological/stubbornness reasons in addition to talent/ability reasons.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
alwyn96 said:
 
Yeah, I think his hatred of it was just so strong that he wanted no part of that. Hard to say what would have happened if he committed to it, but seems like he had no intention of ever doing that. I think his outright refusal was one of the reasons there was some tension between him and Bobby V. Sometimes guys don't work in various positions for psychological/stubbornness reasons in addition to talent/ability reasons.
How was Youk's inability/reluctance to play LF in 2006 a source of tension between he and Bobby V in 2012?
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
Red(s)HawksFan said:
How was Youk's inability/reluctance to play LF in 2006 a source of tension between he and Bobby V in 2012?
 
Because he hated it so much in 2006 he didn't want to do it in 2012. That was the sense I got, anyway. Am I the only one who remembers that? Maybe I was reading between the lines too much. It was a dark time.
 
At any rate, I apologize to all that my little digression has nothing to do with Bradley, subject of this thread. And who is lookin good.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Pandemonium67 said:
 
I believe that too, with De Aza around as the 4th OFer and sometimes substitute for Rusney.  
 
If we can sign De Aza to a contract that would be appropriate for the role you describe, we should certainly do it. But I suspect someone will offer him starter money, or at least strong-side-platoon money.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,495
A lot of times, guys can go on big tears because they have fixed a hole in their swing and pitchers haven't adapted.  JBJ has hit a bunch of balls this month based on the fact that pitchers are still busting him inside, aiming for a hole that he has closed up.
I think you may be on to something here. Up until his hot streak, JBJ couldn't hit a fastball at all - pretty much no matter where it was. For example, Fangraphs has his pitch values last year as -6.0 versus FA and -2.3 versus FT. This year, it's 2.9 and 0.2 respectively - probably having a lot to do with the mechanical change which allows him to get his timing down against fastballs.

However, Fangraphs still has him struggling against curveballs (-1.0) and according to his hot zones - http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/hotzones/_/id/32362/jackie-bradley-jr - while he has been crushing the ball middle and higher, he still struggles against pitches at the bottom of the strike zone.

It will be interesting to see once he starts seeing teams for the second time - if they start adjusting by throwing him lots of breaking balls down in the strike zone.

Hopefully he can keep this up and re-adjust to whatever the league may try because it would be great to see him in the outfield for the next decade or so.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
However, Fangraphs still has him struggling against curveballs (-1.0) and according to his hot zones - http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/hotzones/_/id/32362/jackie-bradley-jr - while he has been crushing the ball middle and higher, he still struggles against pitches at the bottom of the strike zone.
 
You have to take into account sample size here.  By my count JBJ has seen 27 strikes (swinging or called) on breaking pitches since his Aug. 9 renaissance -- 12 and 15 from LHP and RHP respectively -- and he has 2 hits on those, both doubles.  That's not "struggling" by any means (an extremely crude rule of thumb for "decent" is 1.5 bases per ten strikes).  (Before Aug 9, he had one single from 38 breaking-pitch strikes, which is pretty bad.)
 
He hasn't hit many strikes at the bottom of the zone (I see two singles, both off fastballs from LHP), and he is still chasing breaking pitches that are below the strike zone, so that does remain something to watch for.  
 
The main thing that he's flying on is an unsustainable streak against fastballs from LHP: 10 hits for 33 strikes, and all of those hits have come on pitches on the inside half of the plate.  That's where LHP especially have been pitching him, and presumably they'll stop doing that soon, so it will be interesting to see how he performs over the next week or so, as word gets around.
 

Ribeye

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
794
The encouraging thing after reading iayork's analysis is that JBJ's HR over the monster a couple days ago iirc was on at outside pitch (breaking ball or fastball can't remember) that he took oppo.
 

Quintanariffic

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2002
5,141
The City of Studios
Ribeye said:
The encouraging thing after reading iayork's analysis is that JBJ's HR over the monster a couple days ago iirc was on at outside pitch (breaking ball or fastball can't remember) that he took oppo.
 
Was the FB.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
OK. Why is JBJ not playing every day? I understand the concept of respecting an older/established player and generally agree with that - but this is a unique situation.
 
Simply put - Bradley must play every game to establish his value (pitchers have never had to think about him too much, we need to see how he does once word gets around).
 
Plus selfishly, meaningless games have more meaning when there's a JBJ in the outfield - because you never know what you may see (this, from an addicted viewer). Just like with Iglesias - he made watching the half innings with the Sox in the field must-see TV.
 
I doubt there's a single person on this board that wouldn't sit Ramirez the rest of the year to give Betts/Bradley/Castillo a chance to shine, assuming the board didn't have to keep clubhouse peace.
 
For me, the real question is: do you move Betts to LF now? Or do you not fuck with him...
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
You don't fuck with Betts, not this year.  But they should be able to give everyone 25% of the games off, letting JBJ move around and play 75%.  And when HR has to leave the game (as he does every day) there's a bit of extra playing time for JBJ there as well.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
geoduck no quahog said:
OK. Why is JBJ not playing every day? I understand the concept of respecting an older/established player and generally agree with that - but this is a unique situation.
 
Simply put - Bradley must play every game to establish his value (pitchers have never had to think about him too much, we need to see how he does once word gets around).
 
Plus selfishly, meaningless games have more meaning when there's a JBJ in the outfield - because you never know what you may see (this, from an addicted viewer). Just like with Iglesias - he made watching the half innings with the Sox in the field must-see TV.
 
I doubt there's a single person on this board that wouldn't sit Ramirez the rest of the year to give Betts/Bradley/Castillo a chance to shine, assuming the board didn't have to keep clubhouse peace.
 
For me, the real question is: do you move Betts to LF now? Or do you not fuck with him...
 
I'm at least one person that wants to see Hanley play left and see if he improves the last 5 weeks of the season.  Moving him is going to cost the Red Sox close to $30 million if he's just a DH with an OPS+ close to 100.  I don't want to see the Sox have $30 million of dead money against the cap -- it will limit their ability to obtain a front-line starter.  Trying to rehabilitate Hanley is the #1 priority, IMO.  (He took OF practice last night AND played.  That's a good start.)
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
WenZink said:
 
I'm at least one person that wants to see Hanley play left and see if he improves the last 5 weeks of the season.  Moving him is going to cost the Red Sox close to $30 million if he's just a DH with an OPS+ close to 100.  I don't want to see the Sox have $30 million of dead money against the cap -- it will limit their ability to obtain a front-line starter.  Trying to rehabilitate Hanley is the #1 priority, IMO.  (He took OF practice last night AND played.  That's a good start.)
 
Hanley is also going 0 for August and is probably hurting his value more than helping it. Nothing he does in the last 5 weeks is going to make him more attractive. I'm starting to feel like the Hanley saga will either be a complete dump where we eat all his money (which is JWH's decision) or it's going to stretch into ST next year with him trying to show he can field at least one defensive position, hopefully 1B.
 
There is no need to play him right now. If you want to play him anywhere, play him at first.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
nothumb said:
 
Hanley is also going 0 for August and is probably hurting his value more than helping it. Nothing he does in the last 5 weeks is going to make him more attractive.
Really? If he hits in September like he did in April, that won't increase his value?
 

Schnerres

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2009
1,554
Germany
What happens if JBJ has a poor September (possibly because of getting less ABs and just because of having a poor month,..)and his BA drops back to .180 (.245 at this moment) at the end of the season? Nobody mentions this, but this should be an absolute possibility with less ABs coming for the rest of the season compared to the last 4 weeks.
 
 
Was this just a hot summer streak or will everyone (incl.DD) keep him on the roster and give him a shot come spring training or is he a trade possibility or what?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
geoduck no quahog said:
OK. Why is JBJ not playing every day? I understand the concept of respecting an older/established player and generally agree with that - but this is a unique situation.
 
Simply put - Bradley must play every game to establish his value (pitchers have never had to think about him too much, we need to see how he does once word gets around).
 
Plus selfishly, meaningless games have more meaning when there's a JBJ in the outfield - because you never know what you may see (this, from an addicted viewer). Just like with Iglesias - he made watching the half innings with the Sox in the field must-see TV.
 
I doubt there's a single person on this board that wouldn't sit Ramirez the rest of the year to give Betts/Bradley/Castillo a chance to shine, assuming the board didn't have to keep clubhouse peace.
 
For me, the real question is: do you move Betts to LF now? Or do you not fuck with him...
We control JBJ and don't necessarily need to build his value. Benching Hanley otoh could destroy his value and he's the guy who we need to find a taker for.....not to mention the collateral damage of benching a $100m contract. Betts hasn't done a thing to lose his CF job.....moving him mid-season can't even be a consideration.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,915
Salem, NH
As if you needed more proof the JBJ is Dombrowski's binki...
 
“First of all, everyone knows he’s an outstanding defensive center fielder. He’s a Gold Glove-type of center fielder,” Dombrowski said. “When I was back with the Tigers, we actually tried to trade for him this wintertime when we were talking about he and, of course, Anthony Gose at the time, who’s done a great job for (Detroit)."
 
http://nesn.com/2015/08/dave-dombrowski-tried-to-trade-for-jackie-bradley-jr-while-with-tigers/
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
I think I've gone from desperately wanting JBJ to get another chance to being moderately terrified that Dombrowski is going to bet on the wrong young outfielder.
 

TheReal15

New Member
Aug 10, 2015
56
Van Everyman said:
I think I've gone from desperately wanting JBJ to get another chance to being moderately terrified that Dombrowski is going to bet on the wrong young outfielder.
His history seems to show that it's rare for him to bet on the wrong guy.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
407
TheReal15 said:
His history seems to show that it's rare for him to bet on the wrong guy.
 
People keep saying this, like it's any sort of guarantee of future results. If the rate of trading increases, for a farm system ranked among the top 3, so does the likelihood of regretting a few of those trades. That doesn't mean not to do the trade, but there seems to be this presumption that the players traded will turn out to be busts just because it's DD doing the trading.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Van Everyman said:
I think I've gone from desperately wanting JBJ to get another chance to being moderately terrified that Dombrowski is going to bet on the wrong young outfielder.
 
I've gone from hoping that Dombrowski keeps both of them to still hoping that Dombrowski keeps both of them. Mookie can still be an .800 OPS corner OF with plus defense who costs next to nothing for the next several years. Or JBJ could be a full time RF in Fenway, where his amazing defense may be almost as valuable as in CF. Even if Mookie or JBJ end up slightly less valuable in a corner spot, we still have nobody knocking on the door who projects to be a better corner OF, certainly not for the price. How to get the most value out of both is a fun problem for our analytics people.
 
Accepting the short-term risk of getting less value from whichever you play as a corner OF also mitigates the longer-term risk of betting irreversibly on the wrong one.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
I'm to the point now where the only thing I really care about this season is whether JBJ can keep hitting, and the main reason I tune in to Sox highlights is to see the almost-daily defensive wizardry.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm pretty close to that as well, but we all know there would have been 100 posts if Hanley had botched that play in LF in the 9th inning like Bradley did.  Jackie got lucky getting the guy out at home (where was Mookie for the backup?  and Hannigan deserves props for catching that skidder off of the mound!) after playing a fly ball in to a triple
 

RoyalOrange

New Member
Jul 24, 2009
172
I still don't understand why we aren't rolling out JBJ-Mookie-Rusney as much as possible. I get it that Ortiz is trying to get to 500, so that doesn't leave Hanley much room to DH, but can he really not be tried at 1B or just sat? All of this chatter about his shoulder and how rest would more than likely help him more than anything...and we have the perfect storm of young guys that could benefit from the playing time. Rusney has been fantastic since his return, but he's getting to play 50% of the games. Incredibly frustrating.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
RoyalOrange said:
I still don't understand why we aren't rolling out JBJ-Mookie-Rusney as much as possible. I get it that Ortiz is trying to get to 500, so that doesn't leave Hanley much room to DH, but can he really not be tried at 1B or just sat? All of this chatter about his shoulder and how rest would more than likely help him more than anything...and we have the perfect storm of young guys that could benefit from the playing time. Rusney has been fantastic since his return, but he's getting to play 50% of the games. Incredibly frustrating.
Castillo has played 4 of 7 games since Hanley's return. Hanley's played 5 of 7, Bradley 5 of 7 (and a defensive replacement in a 6th game), Betts 6 of 7. I think they've done a pretty good job getting everyone in there a decent amount.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
AB in DC said:
I'm still trying to understand why Ramirez isn't on the DL.  He's obviously not himself.
 
Maybe because he isn't hurt? I mean, I'm not sure how "15-day DL, dislocated personality" would fly with the league or the union.
 
In all seriousness, maybe the Sox are continuing to throw him out there because they think he needs to play his way through this, which might make sense if the problem isn't physical. The team isn't going anywhere, so they should be focusing on whatever will increase his value for 2016, either for us or as part of a trade package. Maybe continuing to play him isn't doing that, but it's hard to see how sitting him would.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,629
Springfield, VA
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Maybe because he isn't hurt?
 
He just missed a full week because of foot problems.  With the shoulder injury and other bumps and bruises I have a hard time believing he's close to 100%.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
AB in DC said:
 
He just missed a full week because of foot problems.  With the shoulder injury and other bumps and bruises I have a hard time believing he's close to 100%.
 
I don't doubt he's not 100%--how many players are by late August?--but that doesn't mean he has a DL-worthy injury. It's hard to understand why they let him come back last week, rather than retroactively DL-ing him, unless they thought he was physically OK and the best thing for him was to play.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,029
Baseless injury speculation is not interesting.
 
In fact, it's annoying.
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,532
Providence, RI
Ian York looked into JBJ's recent success.
 
 
Just as no one expected him to OPS .531, hopefully, no one expects him to continue performing at this level for a full season. However, with his outstanding defense, even half of that 1.513 OPS would make him a very valuable player. The question is whether he can perform at a reasonable level, or whether his last two weeks have been purely driven by luck and chance. One observation suggesting that there may be a real difference is that his breakout has coincided with a significant change in his batting mechanics. Has that improved his ability to hit certain pitches?
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
The last animation in that article shows that he still has some weird motion in his front foot toward the end of his swing...presumably some of that may subside has he develops muscle memory with the new mechanics, but if one looks closely, it suggests it could put some unnatural strain on the ligaments/tendons from the knee down.
 

inJacobyWeTrust

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 12, 2007
1,245
Watertown
On the radio broadcast last night they mentioned Hanley had been asked if his shoulder was still bothering him, and he stated that while the shoulder feels fine his hand (from being hit by a liner while running the bases) continues to give him trouble.