Hanley should be required to spend time before the game taking reps in left field. If he feels good enough to play, he plays. If he's too tired or sore, he gets the night off.
Hanley ,The Monster, and LF: It's a "work in progress"
- Thread starter jimbobim
- Start date
You are proving my point by implying that it's a fact that Hanley is ill-prepared to succeed in the field when you went out of your way to say that it's your perception.RetractableRoof said:
If someone on the Red Sox said it, I'd like to know who other than an "unnamed source."
grimshaw said:
The vesting option is irrelevant until the start of 2017 since the PA he must accumulate to trigger the option have to come in the 2017 and 2018 seasons. He could sit out the rest of this season and all of next season and not have it affect the vesting option one iota.
It is my PERCEPTION that he is ill prepared defensively. And I am drawing conclusions based on my perception. You want to say I am implying it is a fact, then you can read into it what you want. I went out of my way to emphasize that it was MY perception.Average Reds said:
For whatever reason you are making a mountain out of this molehill because of a couple of capitalized words. Find someone else to be an ass to, maybe if you do a good enough job no one will want to post here and you can have the place to yourself.
Don't state your perception as if it is a fact. And don't move the goalposts when you are called on it.
Simple, really.
Simple, really.
Yes, absent some other explanation, which as not been made public, Hanley to 1b for at least some of the games down the stretch seems obvious.
As far as I can tell the primary argument for not getting Hanley some reps at 1b this year is that he does not want to do it, it might embarrass him, it would piss him off, you do not want to lose the clubhouse etc.
To that, there are few points in response.
1. The "evidence" that he does not want to, or will not, play 1b is sketchy at best. Unless I have missed something, the Bradford piece in June 2015 where Hanley is quoted as responding "Hell No" to the idea (http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/06/10/hanley-ramirez-has-no-intention-of-ever-returning-to-infield/) is the only media account since he signed where Hanley even addresses the topic. But in that article, he is also quoted as saying “I’m just an employee here so I just want to win. It’s just like where I hit in the lineup. Wherever they think I should be to win, that’s what I’m here for" so there is at least some ambiguity here and the "hell No" comment quoted on its own is simply misleading.
2. Given the ambiguity of the response, why has the media not pursued this issue further with Hanley? Because it fits the narrative of Hanley as a bad apple, or is somehting else going on?
3. There is also this report before he signed where he said publicly that he is willing to play "wherever there is a need." http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/07/hanley-ramirez-willing-to-play-wherever-theres-a-need-including-third-base/. Surely this matters for something?
4. Hence it strikes me as unfair to Hanley to presume that he is the impediment to a move to 1b.
5. However IF he is refusing to allow or making it difficult for us to make him a 1b, this strikes me as a reason to do it, not the other way around. In the end, as he has acknowledged, who plays where is a manager's decision, not a player's. The notion that he might tank to some extent if forced to play 1b is anathema and IMO, if this is the concern, it needs to be confronted squarely, not accommodated.
As far as I can tell the primary argument for not getting Hanley some reps at 1b this year is that he does not want to do it, it might embarrass him, it would piss him off, you do not want to lose the clubhouse etc.
To that, there are few points in response.
1. The "evidence" that he does not want to, or will not, play 1b is sketchy at best. Unless I have missed something, the Bradford piece in June 2015 where Hanley is quoted as responding "Hell No" to the idea (http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/06/10/hanley-ramirez-has-no-intention-of-ever-returning-to-infield/) is the only media account since he signed where Hanley even addresses the topic. But in that article, he is also quoted as saying “I’m just an employee here so I just want to win. It’s just like where I hit in the lineup. Wherever they think I should be to win, that’s what I’m here for" so there is at least some ambiguity here and the "hell No" comment quoted on its own is simply misleading.
2. Given the ambiguity of the response, why has the media not pursued this issue further with Hanley? Because it fits the narrative of Hanley as a bad apple, or is somehting else going on?
3. There is also this report before he signed where he said publicly that he is willing to play "wherever there is a need." http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/07/hanley-ramirez-willing-to-play-wherever-theres-a-need-including-third-base/. Surely this matters for something?
4. Hence it strikes me as unfair to Hanley to presume that he is the impediment to a move to 1b.
5. However IF he is refusing to allow or making it difficult for us to make him a 1b, this strikes me as a reason to do it, not the other way around. In the end, as he has acknowledged, who plays where is a manager's decision, not a player's. The notion that he might tank to some extent if forced to play 1b is anathema and IMO, if this is the concern, it needs to be confronted squarely, not accommodated.
And that is YOUR perception. I stated in my original statement that it was my PERCEPTION. I've done nothing other than to state that it was my PERCEPTION.Average Reds said:
Simple, really.
Average Reds said:
Isn't the evidence that he is ill-prepared out there for all to see? There's butchery, and then there's what Ramirez is doing this year. Its not like he's a cripple either. He can run.
Anyway, for the folks who think HR in left should continue, what would you disagree about in the following statement? Ramirez is mentally or instinctually incapable of playing left field now, but can be expected to make great gains in understanding the position with continued repetitions. Additionally the team does not have a conventional corner OF to replace him, and his ability to be a competent 1B is unclear. Therefore he needs to be pushed to keep playing LF until he becomes a meh fielder, which coupled with a rebound at the plate makes him the best available option at LF.
Is that the gist of the pro-HR/LF argument? And if so, what is the backup plan if we get this Hanley Ramirez again?
Toe Nash said:
Well, the hope is that he finishes strong and makes himself a more desirable subsidized trade candidate. So I'm not sure that in that situation these teams don't pick up the phone: Jays (Smoak), White Sox (LaRoche), Houston (Gattis is a FA, right?) and Trumbo isn't exactly tearing it up for Seattle. I'm assuming Twins are committed to Sano and the Rays play it cheap, and A-Rod doesn't get caught for roids again, and someone like Kendrys Morales doesn't shred his knee between now and the end of the playoffs.
But I'd guess we're looking at a market of maybe 6-7 teams. Odds are we're stuck with him. But Ben might get lucky with a call to Anaheim if they fall apart with Albert getting no protection.
RetractableRoof said:
I'm going to be blunt here: why should anyone give a rat's ass about your perception? Granted, almost everything posted on the main board is speculation or conjecture, but in a sea of such subjective posts, why does your particular perception merit such a vigorous defense? I don't think anyone cares. You can spare yourself the effort.
And in that sea, why was that post singled out to be attacked? I'll let this go, but I went out of my way not to do something and then got attacked for it. It makes for a crappy place to be a part of, and I've enjoyed this place on many levels for many years.The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Remember when a bunch of people (me included) were excited about HanRam's hit chart overlaid on Fenway's dimensions? It's also not crazy to think that a guy who was a starting SS could transition to possibly the easiest OF position in MLB. It seems like at least some of the attacks on Ben wrt to HanRam exemplify 20/20 hindsight. At the time of the acquisition I don't remember a ton of people saying it was dumb. In fact it seemed like he left some money on the table b/c he wanted to come here. I did expect him to struggle a little bit with Fenway's LF dimensions in year 1 before settling in. His defensive struggles have far surpassed what most people would've expected & almost entirely rule out he improves enough to play passable LF next year.
It's not crazy to think that a guy who was a starting MLB SS at age 30 could play at least average 1B two years later at 32. Offensively, his ~0.750 OPS is totally within his career range but on the low side, not necessarily indicative of a new downward trend. It would not surprise at all if he bounces back next year closer to his normal > 0.800 OPS.
It's not crazy to think that a guy who was a starting MLB SS at age 30 could play at least average 1B two years later at 32. Offensively, his ~0.750 OPS is totally within his career range but on the low side, not necessarily indicative of a new downward trend. It would not surprise at all if he bounces back next year closer to his normal > 0.800 OPS.
Because there is probably a good deal of skill that goes into playing 1B. Footwork on pickoff plays and such, stuff Hanley has NEVER worked on, presumably. My guess is that there's an unwritten code that you don't put players in position to fail like that unless you're desperate. I'd say that if this were the decision, he could start working on stuff and play there some in September, but just tossing him out there now isn't going to happen.The X Man Cometh said:
Let's assume that Hanley is not going to improve in LF, the Sox will not be able to find someone to take him off their hands, they do not want to DFA him, Ortiz will return next year at DH and they cannot move Pablo.
Under those facts, isn't the only solution for next year to insist that he work on 1B over the winter and give Hanley a shot at first next season?
That Hanley has been an abject failure in left does not mean he would be the same at first. It's true that Holt and Betts moved with relative ease to the OF, but not everyone can do that, clearly.
Hanley's apparent lack of drive and effort would seem to make the transition to first equally difficult but first should not be as foreign to Hanley as left, we know he can handle grounders, there is less room to cover at first than the OF and he should be able to dig throws out at first.
What am I missing? What other solutions are there for next season?
I know that Shaw looks promising but maybe he can back up 1st and 3b for a season while we wait for Ortiz to retire and Hanley can move to his best use, DH. And maybe Shaw is just hot and really more like the guy who hit .249 at AAA.
Under those facts, isn't the only solution for next year to insist that he work on 1B over the winter and give Hanley a shot at first next season?
That Hanley has been an abject failure in left does not mean he would be the same at first. It's true that Holt and Betts moved with relative ease to the OF, but not everyone can do that, clearly.
Hanley's apparent lack of drive and effort would seem to make the transition to first equally difficult but first should not be as foreign to Hanley as left, we know he can handle grounders, there is less room to cover at first than the OF and he should be able to dig throws out at first.
What am I missing? What other solutions are there for next season?
I know that Shaw looks promising but maybe he can back up 1st and 3b for a season while we wait for Ortiz to retire and Hanley can move to his best use, DH. And maybe Shaw is just hot and really more like the guy who hit .249 at AAA.
TheoShmeo said:
Worth being said -- it's not unusual for a AAA hitter to look really good in his first call-up to the big leagues, until opposing teams have figured out his weaknesses and pitch accordingly.
Average Reds said:
You appear to believe that a snarky, two-line retort to a reasoned, four-paragraph post turns turns your bias into fact. It does not.
Rasputin said:
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Because he was unfairly called out, that's why. It bugged me as and it's not even my post.
ALiveH said:
Yeah, I gotta admit I thought a former SS transitioning to LF would be a breeze, particularly since the Red Sox had had such success converting other guys to different positions. Maybe he wouldn't be great, but not among-the-worst-in-recent-memory-bad. That's probably part of the reason I'm not a GM. I don't remember many people saying that it was an obviously horrible idea at the time either.
I'm kind of surprised at how optimistic people are about Hanley transitioning to 1B. I understand that it's a hope that he can find a position he's not terrible at, but at least his transition to LF was something he was on board with and prepared for from the start. Doesn't seem like it would bode well for 1B, although part of me wonders if Hanley just gets distracted and spaced out in LF. As a SS you really have to be fully alert and engaged with the rest of the infield on every pitch - maybe being more engaged would be helpful? It seems pretty impossible to predict how he'd transition to 1B given what we've seen so far, but I'm pretty skeptical.
KillerBs said:
I gotta say, I'm reading Hanley's "Hell no" in response to whether he envisioned making a return to the infield any time in the future (near or far), in a piece titled "Hanley Ramirez has no intention of ever returning to the infield" two months ago a little more strongly. That's not to say his feelings might not change, of course. Maybe no one had seriously proposed the subject up to him at that point. Napoli/Sandoval/Bogaerts were all still on the team/healthy so Ramirez may not have wanted to insult them. It's also a slightly insulting question to ask - the implication being that the dude can't handle LF - which is all well and good to say on a message board but requires a little more sensitivity when you're dealing with an actual person - so I can see it maybe not being spoken of much at that point. Although now they may just want to see how long Shaw can keep this up and figure out what they're gonna do in the offseason.
Rasputin said:
You haven't watched many games this year, have you? It's not an assumption. It's a statement based on 699 2/3 innings in left field this season. There has been no improvement. Saying he's a terrible outfielder isn't accurate because he's not any kind of outfielder at all. It would be like calling my cat a terrible dog. The book on Red Sox pitching is now out: hit it to the left side. If it's on a line or on the fly, Hanley won't get it. If it's on the ground, you can watch Pablo fall towards it and then Hanley shamble over to try to pick it up.
Pre-season unnamed Red Sox evaluator:
February 21: Beyeler says the change is "not exactly groundbreaking work," but that the workout is only 15 minutes each day because "I can't hit him 25 fly balls and have him chase them... that would blow him out."
February 31: Hanley arrives early to spring training to practice left field
April 19: Wakefield says Hanley gets to ballpark early so Beyeler can hit fungos to him
May 30:
August 3:
What's more disturbing? The idea that putting in more than 15 minutes of work each day is going to "blow him out"? Or the idea that he's been practicing LF every day this season and he still looks as bad as he does?
Can I just interject a thought here?
Playing Ramirez might be a way of tanking for a better pick.
The Sox have 52 wins. There are three teams with 51. Finishing with fewer wins than those teams would be a good thing.
Playing Ramirez might be a way of tanking for a better pick.
The Sox have 52 wins. There are three teams with 51. Finishing with fewer wins than those teams would be a good thing.
I'll bite. Why does the assumption about Hanley not improving in the OF need to die?
One, sometimes we assume things for the purpose of discussion.
Two, more fundamentally, what, if anything, has anyone seen out of Hanley that suggests that he is going to improve in the OF? The misplay last night was along the lines of what we have seen all year. Farrell and/or Ben have talked about improved OF play from Hanley from time to time, but he has looked awkward and ill suited to the outfield from the outset. He also does not appear to be the kind of player who will put in whatever time is necessary to improve in the field like, for example, Wade Boggs did at third (not that he moved to third from a different position). And Hanley's defensive metrics in left are what they are.
Maybe I'm missing it but I think the assumption that Hanley is not going to improve materially in the outfield is a pretty safe one.
One, sometimes we assume things for the purpose of discussion.
Two, more fundamentally, what, if anything, has anyone seen out of Hanley that suggests that he is going to improve in the OF? The misplay last night was along the lines of what we have seen all year. Farrell and/or Ben have talked about improved OF play from Hanley from time to time, but he has looked awkward and ill suited to the outfield from the outset. He also does not appear to be the kind of player who will put in whatever time is necessary to improve in the field like, for example, Wade Boggs did at third (not that he moved to third from a different position). And Hanley's defensive metrics in left are what they are.
Maybe I'm missing it but I think the assumption that Hanley is not going to improve materially in the outfield is a pretty safe one.
^ I agree that by the eye test he has appeared to improve quite a bit since April. The fact that he still makes the occasional awful misread (the one in Anaheim) or the one last night where he looked like the kids in Cincy shagging during the HR derby, seems to carry more recent weight that he is just as bad as ever. Especially after what we have seen out there from the other guys. The misplays are more infrequent, but he still makes far more than average.
That said, if he doesn't show any more incremental improvement by the end of the year, I hope they do the right thing and try to move him or resolve the logjam in a way that better maximizes everyone's talent.
That said, if he doesn't show any more incremental improvement by the end of the year, I hope they do the right thing and try to move him or resolve the logjam in a way that better maximizes everyone's talent.
grimshaw said:
Hanley's UZR/150 right now is a mind-numbing -31.1. On June 24th, it was -34.9. On May 27th, it was -44.2. So yes, he's been less-awful. But he's gone from "are we sure we're not just playing a folding chair in left" to "Adam Dunn". "Adam Dunn" may be passable if you are posting a wRC+ of 135+ like Dunn did much of his prime, but not so much when you have a 101 wRC+.
Because he at least got trained to play the position. Whether he executes or not is still an issue, alas. But he has some basic idea of what he should be doing.kieckeredinthehead said:
I think, and hope, that they are talking about 2015. Only.
After the season ends, they will have the chance to re-evaluate a lot of things. Particularly if Mookie, Jackie and Rusney finish strong, I would assume one of the things they will be re-evaluating is where to deploy an Adam Dunn like LF in 2016.
After the season ends, they will have the chance to re-evaluate a lot of things. Particularly if Mookie, Jackie and Rusney finish strong, I would assume one of the things they will be re-evaluating is where to deploy an Adam Dunn like LF in 2016.
Why would we even think it was Lovullo's decision to make?TheoShmeo said:
Farrell is gone for the year, Lovullo's job is to steer the ship into port, not get anyone killed, and try while he's at it to see what some of the young guys can offer. He isn't going to suddenly dramatically change the team's direction, he's a stopgap and not a stopgap in the "manager got fired" kind of way.
I could see the club moving Hanley. Hell, I could see Hanley request it. He clearly doesn't feel comfortable around walls. He clearly doesn't read fly balls well at all. First base offers a lot of comfort factors, back in the infield, primarily focused on playing grounders, and it is generally considered the least taxing position on the diamond physically which fits with his clear view of himself as a bat first, glove second guy. Hell, he could even be in a fielding drills unit with Ortiz during ST and that would probably help him focus on what the hell he's doing a bit more.
But they aren't going to do it at this point. They'll ride it out as-is. Which makes a lot of sense with Shaw suddenly hitting and Cecchini up and just two weeks from the rosters expanding. That's two guys for one job already with one already staking out ownership of the lion's share of ABs. Meanwhile the OF has three spots with four (five if you count De Aza, but they're apparently working on flipping him to LA) guys, one of them (Hanley) who needs frequent rest.
They'll ride it out, they won't commit to shit, then they'll see who is available in the off-season, what offers they get for Bradley, Castillo, etc., and react accordingly. The last thing they want is to move Hanley to 1B, then get blown away for Bradley, then have to move Hanley back to LF when the best bat they can find to fill in is a 1B.
How much improvement are we expecting from Hanley? Isn’t it generally true that players who are over 30 decline a little each year, not only offensively but defensively as well? Sure, with more practice, he can get better reads on balls, etc., but he is also entering an age in which his skills should diminish each year and so whatever improvements he makes through practice and hard work will be minimized through normal physical decline. If Hanley were 26 years old, I would feel a little differently about his ability to improve defensively. He will be 32 years old at the beginning of next season.
Hanley can’t play LF and he probably can’t play 1b either (I would play him there for the rest of the season, though, to see how he does). The Hanley acquisition wasn’t bad luck or anything other than a blatant mistake by a front office that has made a lot of mistakes over the past 12 months. Assuming he can't play 1b either, if the Red Sox want to significantly upgrade the defense next year, they must trade Hanley. I agree with LeoC on this point. If the Red Sox subsidize enough of his contract, another AL team will gladly trade for Hanley and use him as a DH. I think this is the best course of action for the Red Sox--they eliminate a big problem and save a little money by finding another team to take on a portion of the contract. Sure, the Red Sox will be paying Hanley to hit HR for another team, but that's what happens when your front office makes a terrible decision.
Hanley can’t play LF and he probably can’t play 1b either (I would play him there for the rest of the season, though, to see how he does). The Hanley acquisition wasn’t bad luck or anything other than a blatant mistake by a front office that has made a lot of mistakes over the past 12 months. Assuming he can't play 1b either, if the Red Sox want to significantly upgrade the defense next year, they must trade Hanley. I agree with LeoC on this point. If the Red Sox subsidize enough of his contract, another AL team will gladly trade for Hanley and use him as a DH. I think this is the best course of action for the Red Sox--they eliminate a big problem and save a little money by finding another team to take on a portion of the contract. Sure, the Red Sox will be paying Hanley to hit HR for another team, but that's what happens when your front office makes a terrible decision.
Highly doubtful. You're thinking about the NBA where that behavior is pretty standard.Rasputin said:
The difference in draft position between 1 and 4/5/6 in MLB is normally pretty insignificant, given the time involved for a top pick to actually mature and contribute to the major league club. There are exceptions when a generational talent is there, but that's not the case in 2016 from what I've read.
soxhop411 said:
They have not put any thought into it? OK. So much for blaming the non-move on Hanley's intransigence etc. The idea has never even occurred to management. On top of it all, that means they aren't reading SOSH.
As for the nightmare scenario of having to move Hanley back to LF, after trying him at first, would it be too much to hope for that he could (like hundreds before him) be able to play 1b and LF?
Let's not forget that the biggest issue about Ramirez last off season concerned his health and an ability to stay on the field. His training in the DR off season included building up his core muscles to the point where he increased his weight to 240 lbs. He no longer had an "athletes" body - but a body designed for power hitting and injury avoidance. I think the biggest thing on his mind was killing the assumption that he couldn't stay on the field - and, theoretically, playing the outfield would give him a better chance at staying out of the trainer's room, particularly with a body that was now designed for strength and injury-avoidance rather than flexibility and speed.
He started out great, providing the RH protection behind Ortiz that Napoli couldn't...and then he hit the wall. Everything has gone downhill since then, and we can't discount his tentative fielding being partly due to his fear of pulling something, dislocating something or tearing something sprinting after outfield hits.
I'm bringing this up only as an attempt at plausible explanation for his play. It doesn't solve anything - just reiterates my opinion that he's going to be a great DH (for someone). It's almost as if all the off season work was designed specifically for him to DH.
I for one would rather see Ortiz at 1B than Ramirez. Hanley has the potential to be an impact RH power hitter for a Red Sox team that needs that, while Ortiz will someday sooner reduce his playing time or retire. I'm not suggesting that Ortiz play 1st to accelerate his demise, but that he's now, and forever will be, a better first baseman than Ramirez.
Either the Red Sox trade an elite RH power hitter away to another American League team, or they figure out a way to make him passable in left field as he's groomed for full time DH. The approach is completely understandable and justifiable to me.
He started out great, providing the RH protection behind Ortiz that Napoli couldn't...and then he hit the wall. Everything has gone downhill since then, and we can't discount his tentative fielding being partly due to his fear of pulling something, dislocating something or tearing something sprinting after outfield hits.
I'm bringing this up only as an attempt at plausible explanation for his play. It doesn't solve anything - just reiterates my opinion that he's going to be a great DH (for someone). It's almost as if all the off season work was designed specifically for him to DH.
I for one would rather see Ortiz at 1B than Ramirez. Hanley has the potential to be an impact RH power hitter for a Red Sox team that needs that, while Ortiz will someday sooner reduce his playing time or retire. I'm not suggesting that Ortiz play 1st to accelerate his demise, but that he's now, and forever will be, a better first baseman than Ramirez.
Either the Red Sox trade an elite RH power hitter away to another American League team, or they figure out a way to make him passable in left field as he's groomed for full time DH. The approach is completely understandable and justifiable to me.
jscola85 said:
Unless you are making the argument that Adam Dunn is Hanley's ceiling, shouldn't that type of direct evaluation with those metrics ideally account for the possibility those improvements continue into next year though?
Even being one of the strongest Hanley-to-first supporters myself, setting a cut off point to now in all that still seems rather unfair.
Considering it's just a projection, not really. There are only 6 weeks left in the season and so far, Ramirez has played in 98 games and since you brought it up, his UZR currently stands at -16.7. With so few games left in the season, why do you think that projection is anywhere near accurate? He'd almost have to double up on however many misplays and balls not gotten to so far this year, according to UZR, in many, many fewer games. I'm not saying that he's not a really bad left fielder mind you. I just think those numbers are unrealistic.jscola85 said:
Let me ask you, how many balls are hit to left field each season? Now out of those balls hit how many do you think an average LF fielder will make a play on? Do you think Ramirez has missed enough plays on balls to cost the team that many runs over what an average left fielder would save? That's a lot of fuck ups.
absintheofmalaise said:
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but this is puzzling. UZR/150 is a rate number, isn't it? If a fielder isn't on a pace to play 150 games--and Hanley certainly isn't--then UZR/150 doesn't ask us to believe that he'll suck extra hard the rest of the way to make up the difference.
Again, sorry if I'm missing something (including sarcasm). I just don't quite see where you're going with this.
Savin Hillbilly said:
It's a projection of a rate stat. If he played exactly 150 games in a season, then his UZR and UZR/150 should be identical. Otherwise, it's his UZR projected to a 150 game schedule. Since he's not going to play 150 games this year, he's not actually going to be worth -31.1 runs for the season. I do think the trend of his UZR/150 has dropping over the course of the season is an indication of some sort of improvement, but since UZR only really stabilizes with three years worth of data, it's tough to say exactly how much improvement there's really been.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Unless it supports my argument, in which case it's bang-on accurate out of the gate.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Right, but abs seemed to be implying that anyone who brings up that -31.1 is implying that he will be, and I guess that's what I didn't understand.
absintheofmalaise said:
Well, according to fangraphs, 112 playable balls have been hit into Hanley's zone in about 700 innings so far this year, and he's made plays on 92 of them, for a zone rating of .821. The average zone rating for all LF this year is .892. So an average LF would have made plays on 100 balls, 8 more than Hanley. In 2014, there were 250 balls hit in the Red Sox LF zone, of which 205 the Red Sox LF made plays on, for a zone rating of 0.820. Which is....surprising. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting these numbers somehow.
Now this doesn't take into account the type of ball hit to Hanley (I guess easier than normal?), or the number of out of zone plays he makes (not many), or holding/throwing runners out, and I don't think it takes things like playing a single into a double (or worse) into account either, so I guess maybe that is how that happens? Kinda weird, though. Not what I was expecting.
Rasputin said:
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I'm not trying to win an argument, I don't "hate" Hanley Ramirez and I'm not questioning his work ethic or the move to sign him.
That said, I don't think he's gotten any better.
He reported to Fort Myers six months ago, and I don;t think there's been an ounce of improvement.
You said the idea he can't improve needs to die. Perhaps, but I don't think he can improve with this body.
Last year, Bogaerts at short was truly "a work in progress." When the Sox said he was working on his "first-step quickness," I thought it was great, because that was exactly what he needed to work on. The results have shown.
I think Hanley got too jacked in the offseason. It looks like he has no flexibility, and it takes him a long time to get going. Hanley was already strong enough to hit it out of every park with his swing and bat speed. Whether they plan to play him at first or in left field next year, I think they really need to get him to remake his body, focusing less on bulk and more on flexibility.
I hate, no, loathe benching JBJ for even a single game right now when he may have finally found it. I know it's akin to babying him, but we may really have something in him, at a really young age vs. Hanley being in the back half of his career. If JBJ loses his swing because of missing games to Hanley, I swear I'll kill somebody.Rasputin said:
alwyn96 said:
It's not surprising. The fact that Fenway's left field is a lot smaller than pretty much every other ballpark fucks with all of the attempts to measure defense by zone. There are balls that are easy outs--even for Ramirez--in other ballparks that simply aren't catchable in Fenway Park. Pretty much every Red Sox left fielder always looks bad in those ratings. Hell, years ago before all the defensive metrics we use now even existed, I took the entirety of Mike Greenwell's career as a regular left fielder and compared him to all the other left fielders at the same time and found that he had made fewer plays than any of them.
curly2 said:
I would very much agree that bulking up has turned out to be a terrible mistake and that if he makes the effort to fix that, it will be of enormous help to him.
Al Zarilla said:
He's not going to lose his swing because he's only playing every other day. If that were to happen, he'd lose it in the off season anyway.