Problem solved tonight when Hanley hit the wall. Hope everyone is happy. Looked more like a shoulder than a wrist injury that forced him to leave the game.
Hanley ,The Monster, and LF: It's a "work in progress"
- Thread starter jimbobim
- Start date
And on the radio broadcast they're reminding us he has already had two surgeries on that shoulder, first for a torn labrum and then for a displacement.
Looked like he jammed it badly, not a classic dislocation mechanism
Bad sprain * 15-day DL = $10
Bad sprain * 15-day DL = $10
No, not his AC joint - the shoulder joint itself. He didn't reach for the top of the shoulder, where the AC joint is
You people always do....luckysox said:Thanks for the clarification. I'm keeping my $10, though.
I'll be curious if they let Hanley stay in LF all season. They probably will, just because there really is nowhere else to put him barring a Pablo/Ortiz injury. But this signing has some serious "egg on face" potential for Cherington. At least until Ortiz retires.
In LF, Hanley is truly a train wreck. Part of it is a lack of instincts, part of it is the fact that he just can't move out there with his bulked up body. Just to name one weakness, he takes forever to run down any balls in the corner or in the gap, and anyone on first base can basically walk home. There are, of course, plenty of other weaknesses.
My assessment is mostly based on the eye test, which certainly is problematic (though so are SSS UZR and WAR as we have been reminded many times), especially since I haven't been to a game live all year. He probably can't get any worse, so I expect at least some improvement over the year, but some improvement might not be good enough to even reach run-of-the-mill "below average" status.
I looked up his UZR numbers out of curiosity, which again, shouldn't be treated as anything close to gospel at this point. But they also match what I think we're seeing, making them at least worth watching as he gets more innings out there. He hasn't hit very well either which doesn't help, possibly related to his AC joint injury. But I think it's pretty safe to say his defensive awfulness is going to significantly cut into whatever offensive value he provides going forward.
UZR: -9.2
UZR/150: -44.2
(both last in the majors for OF, and all fielders for that matter)
WAR: -0.6
If people are wondering why the sum of this team doesn't seem to match up with the individual parts…. maybe we should start here. A square peg in a round hole might just be a bad part.
In LF, Hanley is truly a train wreck. Part of it is a lack of instincts, part of it is the fact that he just can't move out there with his bulked up body. Just to name one weakness, he takes forever to run down any balls in the corner or in the gap, and anyone on first base can basically walk home. There are, of course, plenty of other weaknesses.
My assessment is mostly based on the eye test, which certainly is problematic (though so are SSS UZR and WAR as we have been reminded many times), especially since I haven't been to a game live all year. He probably can't get any worse, so I expect at least some improvement over the year, but some improvement might not be good enough to even reach run-of-the-mill "below average" status.
I looked up his UZR numbers out of curiosity, which again, shouldn't be treated as anything close to gospel at this point. But they also match what I think we're seeing, making them at least worth watching as he gets more innings out there. He hasn't hit very well either which doesn't help, possibly related to his AC joint injury. But I think it's pretty safe to say his defensive awfulness is going to significantly cut into whatever offensive value he provides going forward.
UZR: -9.2
UZR/150: -44.2
(both last in the majors for OF, and all fielders for that matter)
WAR: -0.6
If people are wondering why the sum of this team doesn't seem to match up with the individual parts…. maybe we should start here. A square peg in a round hole might just be a bad part.
Let's try this again.gryoung said:
Outside of the offensive and defensive statistics for Hanley (a tough thing to suggest in this forum, my biggest concern with him is his presence. This was/is my basis for opposing the signing. He's always been, and apparently continues to be, a giant pain in the ass.
With the Sox having so many young core players on the roster, and more likely showing up over the course of the season, he's not the guy these kids should be exposed to every day. Yes, there are several guys there who can show the "right way" to do things, but Hanley certainly sets a very large poor example........
Given the youth movement, bringing him back was a strange decision.
If by that you mean his attitude, it seems like that has not been a problem this year. He seems to be going out of his way to be a great teammate, all love and kisses, etc. Baserunning and fielding have been the problem with him.gryoung said:
Al Zarilla said:
Yeah, I'm not sure why we are supposed to believe that Hanley is some kind of poor influence on the younger players. Was he a malcontent with a bad attitude as a 23-24 year old in Miami? Yes he was. Was he not a "team player" regarding changing positions when Miami signed Jose Reyes? Yes, and they dealt him away. But he's 31 years old now and has apparently matured.
I think he should get a bit of a clean slate given he came, practically hat in hand, to the Red Sox offering to change positions in order to make himself attractive to them. He wanted to be here, to play with Ortiz, to wear the uniform of the team that originally signed him. The fact that he was included in a meeting today that Farrell had with his veteran "leaders" (Ortiz, Pedroia, Napoli, Sandoval, Hanley) seems to indicate the manager and his teammates don't seem to view him in a negative light.
He's been shit in the field, and shit on the bases, but there's nothing to indicate he's been shit in the clubhouse or dugout.
Speaking if square pegs, I wonder how much of the pitching staff's woes have been because we have a bunch of converted infielders playing outfield. Hanley has obviously been a problem out there. Betts looks better but he's not got a ton of experience, ditto Holt. Add in the immobile Craig in RF early in the season and that seems like a lot question marks or worse out there.radsoxfan said:
Red(s)HawksFan said:
The word among some media members is that Hanley is rarely seen doing any sort of extra fielding work in Fenway. If this is true, then that is both concerning in regard to his playing LF and also in terms of not providing the best example for the young'uns.
He's also been injured for a good portion of the season, so they may want him resting whenever possible.Harry Hooper said:
Papelbon's Poutine said:
On the radio this past week. Sorry to say you can't take the media at face value in this town, so verification is still pending.
E5 Yaz said:
Sheesh, it wasn't whispered in a bar but broadcast on Boston sports radio by someone who seemingly covered the team. I can't recall who, but I bet someone else here can.
Merloni said it on the radio a couple times last week. And Steve Buckley did too on CSNNE the other night. Buck said Hanley was sticking for extra work in the preseason but that stopped when the season started.
Harry Hooper said:
If you're going to throw statements like that around, don't you think you should at least confirm the attribution? You're the one who offered this up. Don't expect others to do it for you.
Alex Speier has a piece in the globe saying Hanley is the worst defensive player in baseball, though he uses defensive WAR and UZR to make his case and the same article says Pedey is below average this year, which I refuse to believe.
To be fair, Pedroia already has 5 errors in 50 games played. The most he's ever had in a season was 7 in 159 games. His fielding percentage of .979 is far below his career average of .991.MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Its obviously because Pedroia doesn't have time for extra fielding work on top of his new duties as hitting coach.
I don't think it has anything to do with diminished range or anything, just that he's had the dropsies a bit. I recall at least one of those likely plays just going right through him which we never see.MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Per Inside Edge fielding, on plays that have a 40-60% of being completed he has missed two out of seven of them (71%), and his career average is 86.1%.
On plays that have a 60-90% of being completed he has made 13 out of 19 of them, a 68.4% success rate compared to his 82.3% average. He has missed one routine play which is average for him to this point.
Partial season UZR and defensive WAR? Those are meaningless numbers, and Speier ought to know better. Very disappointing to see him misuse stats like that.MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
It's one of those deals where Alex tries to have it both ways. He acknowledges WAR and UZR's limitations in the small sample, but then goes ahead and cites the numbers anyway in making his case.
For example:
For example:
While I agree that it is a misuse of stats for a quarter season of data, I think it's interesting from a pure train wreck POV that his season could end at the worst side of that single season metric for whatever that one year of data is worth.The Gray Eagle said:
The Gray Eagle said:
For what it's worth (nothing), Hanley as the worst defensive player in baseball passes my personal eyeball test. I obviously haven't seen every player in baseball, but so far I'd say he looks worse than Manny out there. That seems pretty bad.
grimshaw said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't UZR and defensive WAR approximate how many runs/wins a fielder saves or allows based on range? By that I mean to say it's one of those stats that's useful for determining an abstract level of defensive skill?
In terms of negative defensive WAR, I think we can actually see, concretely, what Hanley does. How many true flubs has he had out there? How many of those flubs have actually been a missed out (resulting in more pitching) or an extra base (resulting or not resulting in an *actual* run), or an actual run? How many of those extra bases or actual runs have made a difference in a game?
While we can't know how many runs a spectacular defensive play prevents, I think we can track pretty directly what the consequences of Hanley's fielding is. I haven't seen enough games to judge, but has he actually cost the team a game?
We went through this with Manny in Fenway.
*PS - I'm not saying that he's not a shitty fielder. I just wonder if defensive WAR measures actual harm in the standings, rather than a level of crappiness that could potentially cost the team X number of games in the standings.
Manny wasn't anywhere CLOSE to how bad Hanley has been. Manny was great at playing the wall, often barehanding balls and firing in to second. He was double-digits in assists three different times. Imagine Hanley doing that?
Sure, Manny was about 9 runs below average per season on average, but that's mostly a range thing. His hands and arm were both more than adequate.
Sure, Manny was about 9 runs below average per season on average, but that's mostly a range thing. His hands and arm were both more than adequate.
alwyn96 said:
I think Speier is also implicitly appealing to the eye test. When a small sample of a long-term series matches the eye test, it's hard not to notice. Hanley has looked by turns lost, tentative, slow and lollygagging. He may be the best example of an infielder who can't make the switch to the outfield. He's looking like a long-term DH / backup 3B.
UZR/150 is composed of (with Hanley's numbers in parentheses): Outfield arm runs saved above average (-3), Good fielding plays runs saved above average (-2), plus/minus runs saved above average (-6), Defensive runs saved (-11), Outfield arm runs saved above average (-2.8), Range runs above average (-6.4), error runs above average (-.1), and UZR which is from Speier's piece. UZR consists of the bolded.Rovin Romine said:
OK, what's with the taking of the pitches (bat on the shoulder) thing. I think I've seen that 3 times lately. WTF? I imagine his teammates don't necessarily appreciate that batting approach.
Is something wrong with this guy? Is he trying to get benched? Does he need to get laid more often?
Is something wrong with this guy? Is he trying to get benched? Does he need to get laid more often?
geoduck no quahog said:
Can you provide some context? Legit question, because I haven't been able to watch the games too intently lately and not sure what you're referring to.
Was it 3-0? 0-2? Just curious as to what's getting you worked up about it. If it's a 3-0 count, I'm not expecting a pitcher to groove him one just to get it over; so frankly, I don't see what difference it makes if his bat's on his shoulder or why his teammates would care. If it's 1-1 and the hit and run is on and he's just standing there...then sure, get upset.
I wish I could find clips. The counts, if I recall correctly, were 0-0 and 0-1...I can't specifically remember the others, but they weren't in obvious "take" situations.
I do recall that I was annoyed at the time because of the situation. I think I've seen it 3 times in the past week. Maybe someone can refresh us on this.
I do recall that I was annoyed at the time because of the situation. I think I've seen it 3 times in the past week. Maybe someone can refresh us on this.
Well, considering you're the only one complaining about it, maybe you should either take better notes or consider if you're being unreasonable? Getting agitated at the posture a hitter takes on a 0-0 pitch seems beyond ridiculous to me. If he's decided to take a pitch who gives a shit if he lays his bat on the ground and picks his nose?
I get that people are upset and agitated with the team right now, especially those that are underperforming and well paid. Hanley has had his bonehead moments, but I think we need to settle down a bit before we start bashing him for not having the proper stance when taking a pitch and going as far as to suggest it may be causing strife with his teammates.
There's plenty to be upset about with Hanley or the team without searching for it.
I get that people are upset and agitated with the team right now, especially those that are underperforming and well paid. Hanley has had his bonehead moments, but I think we need to settle down a bit before we start bashing him for not having the proper stance when taking a pitch and going as far as to suggest it may be causing strife with his teammates.
There's plenty to be upset about with Hanley or the team without searching for it.
One occasion was an 0-1 count which became 0-2. I believe it was in his 2nd or 3rd AB last night. He was clearly not in a hitting position. I was surprised it didn't draw a comment from Remy.
grimshaw said:
Well, that's the math for the stat. I guess what I'm asking, more directly, is: has Hanley's defense actually "made a difference" in any particular Sox loss this year?
(Because I'm thinking that "historically bad" defense would have at least 3 specific games lost that we can personally lay at Hanley's feet.)
That's not how it works though. UZR and DRS are context-independent because you can't just say "well, he didn't lose us any games with his defense." If you played the first 50 games over 1000 times, Hanley's defensive performance is estimated to cost you that many runs on average.Rovin Romine said:
Also, if he misses a ball, it has snowball effects beyond the direct impact of that play, as the pitcher has to throw more pitches, more batters come up, etc., even if there is no damage done in that inning.
None of his home runs "made a difference" either -- they all came in losses or in games the team would have won anyway if you remove the runs from the homer from the game. But no one thinks of it that way because we assume absent really bad luck or something very weird that he's going to hit some HR that count over the course of the year.
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
The bolded is perhaps the greatest lie ever told on this board.
By the time he left the Sox, Manny had become serviceable in left. In his first few years, he was a horror show, and on occasion he would put on displays that would make the mind reel. Take this description from game 1 of the 2004 World Series:
I can't find the video of that moment just yet, but the memory is seared in my consciousness. And if the Sox hadn't bailed Manny out by winning that game, it's possible that he would have become an all-time series goat for his display of ineptitude.
Hanley is bad and clumsy out there right now. But he's nowhere near as putrid as Manny at his worst. The good news is that (like Manny) he'll get better.
Those that keep citing Manny's defense in comparison to Hanley's should keep in mind that while Manny was bad overall, he also had years of OF experience before he put on a Red Sox uniform. Hanley probably had never played an inning out of the infield in his life before this season. Manny was bad because he was bad. Hanley is bad because he's new to the position, or at least we don't have enough data to reasonably conclude anything else.
There was also the patented Manny sideways dive that expressly gave the ball an opportunity to bounce right on by him. Here's Hanley aping him. And if I remember correctly, Manny never really sprinted in the outfield. This was about as hard as he'd go. Hard to imagine him making this catch, for example. Now, admittedly, it doesn't look like there's too much of a difference in motor, there, but I think it is there. All of this is anecdotal, of course, but I just think it's important to remind people just how bad Manny was.Average Reds said:
Look, he's been downright terrible, but learning to judge a ball of the bat is actually very difficult: anyone who's played (forgive me) can testify to that. Betts had some adventures last year for his first couple months, too, and compounding all of this is Hanley's decreased athleticism. The truth is he can only get better, and since a lot of his trouble seems to be with reads off the bat and handling/mishandling the wall, I'm inclined to think he'll get better. Repetitions, baby.
And while we're making comparisons to Manny, there's always this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdp-pSA8kc
Toe Nash said:
Right. I understand how the stat works. (Well, as much as a non-math guy can.) I also understand Hanley isn't great out there.
I'm just clumsily trying to point out the stat isn't reality. Reality being the context dependent actual outcome. The stats measure (in this case) how much he's likely to suck and how much that suck is likely to cost us. They do not reflect, as far as I understand it, how much his learning-curve-play has actually hurt the Sox. I think this is important in the context of everyone suggesting that the deck-chairs ought to be re-arranged. (Calls for Hanley to be moved to 1B or DH). While Hanley in left is statistically gruesome and aesthetically unappealing, I'm not sure Hanley's "historically bad defense" has cost us a game thus far. I could be wrong about that, but no one has put a game forward that Hanley has "singlehandedly" lost.
FWIW, I'm not knocking defensive WAR and UZR in general as a tool to evaluate the amount of defensive skill someone brings on the field. There are better and worse fielders. The eye can deceive. But here we have a small sample for a player that's clearly on a learning curve (brand new position - quirky home park). I'm just curious to know how much this "historically bad" defense has actually shown up in the standings. Which is not to say one can whistle past the graveyard forever - eventually his defense will hurt us.
I suspect that, absent the DH slot being available, Hanley will be given a few more months out there. I'm just not sure his defensive shortcomings are that big of a deal in the context of his overall contract and the teams overall performance.