Hanley ,The Monster, and LF: It's a "work in progress"

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Papelbon's Poutine said:
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.
 
Well, I'm not exactly agitated about it since I don't get agitated about a game played by other people for our amusement. I am, however in WTF mode.
 
I'm a fan of Hanley and assume his contributions at the plate are eventually going outweigh his deficits in the field, particularly Left Field where shitty outfielders go to die (or learn). Hanley should also better protect Ortiz once/if he starts hitting like he's capable. None of us know if he's hurt. I'll repeat, however, that the plate approach I'm referring to is at minimum...curious. It almost looks like it could be a "fuck you" to someone - or it could just be Hanley being Hanley.
 
More importantly, this lineup needs Ramirez to be a force that triggers a positive effect for Ortiz and Sandoval/Napoli and therefore Betts/Pedroia. That's just stating the obvious. I have confidence he'll find that power again and the whole lineup will benefit because, if he doesn't, the offense is much less likely to win games on its own. Talk of benching Ramirez or Ortiz (or Napoli) is the talk of fools - this team will be nowhere unless those three start hitting like they're supposed to. They can't hit from the bench. 
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
Rovin Romine 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. 
 
I think the kind of stat you're looking for doesn't really exist at this point. I don't think you could even piece it together from game logs - you'd have to watch every game and make your own subjective judgments. The closest advanced stat that takes context into account would be something like WPA, which doesn't really give as much weight to defense such that it would answer your question.
 
I've thought about the kind of question you're asking a lot, actually. Our most-used advanced statistics are almost totally context-neutral - I think mostly because determining "whether someone cost a team the game" is pretty difficult to measure. A big feature of WPA is that it weighs the importance of a 1st inning HR in a 1-0 game differently than a 9th inning HR in a 1-0 game. Now, that run is the same whether it's in the 1st or 9th inning, but you have to look in retrospect to know how much importance to give that 1st inning HR. And in a sense maybe it was less important because both teams had an opportunity to make it irrelevant. It's a difficult question.
 
At least with offensive stats the question that's being asked of stats is "how good is this player" rather than "how much did this player actually effect the outcome of this game." In fielding, where Hanley probably makes 80% of the plays an average defensive LF makes, and maybe 5 balls are hit to him per game, assuming the missed plays are evenly distributed throughout the games the missed play often wouldn't the final outcome much. Of course, I would guess that most solo HR don't effect the final outcome of games much, since most games are decided by >1 run. We still count all HR as basically the same, though. 
 
At any rate, I agree that they'll probably keep sending Hanley out there for a while, especially with the more groundball-y RHP.
 

GaryPeters71

New Member
Jul 29, 2005
168
North Easton, Mass.

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
GaryPeters71 said:
 
Tidbit from Nick Cafardo's Boston Globe piece today:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/11/brock-holt-getting-nod-over-rusney-castillo/lezOlkUA0MBozOqsq1N9wL/story.html
 
Not much help
 
When Dustin Pedroia scored from first on a double by Holt on Wednesday, on-deck hitter Hanley Ramirez was not in position to direct him which way to slide. Pedroia looked askance at Ramirez. Farrell said a “conversation was held” about the matter.
 
What's Boras's angle here?
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,824
Land formerly of Sowheag
He doesn't seem connected to the game. He is kind of floating out there in his own world. I'm not sure what to think. He is an adventure in left field. Just what exactly is gong on with him ?  
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
biollante said:
He doesn't seem connected to the game. He is kind of floating out there in his own world.  
Could be in a state of shock.  He probably walked into Fenway Park this year thinking he had signed a long term contract to be a top hitter for a perennial contender, yet now he finds himself struggling for a cellar dweller.
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
threecy said:
Could be in a state of shock.  He probably walked into Fenway Park this year thinking he had signed a long term contract to be a top hitter for a perennial contender, yet now he finds himself struggling for a cellar dweller.
What you see is what you get. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Hanley. If you don't think so, you probably also thought Revis was resigning with the Pats because he would see things differently than he had in the past.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I'm perfectly fine with him if he gets a helmet that fits. I'm honestly more annoyed watching it fall off every other swing than seeing him butcher a ball in LF.
Seriously.
I'd rather watch a guy at the plate with his gut hanging out.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
biollante said:
He doesn't seem connected to the game. He is kind of floating out there in his own world. I'm not sure what to think. He is an adventure in left field. Just what exactly is gong on with him ?  
 
He's hurt. Shoulder and knee. I thought that was pretty obvious.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
He's hurt. Shoulder and knee. I thought that was pretty obvious.
 
He also may be lacking in confidence out there and as a result, could be playing things safe to avoid the huge blunder. I know it looks like he's not trying, but if he's coming up short to make sure balls don't get past him, it could easily appear to be a lack of effort when it isn't.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
He also may be lacking in confidence out there and as a result, could be playing things safe to avoid the huge blunder. I know it looks like he's not trying, but if he's coming up short to make sure balls don't get past him, it could easily appear to be a lack of effort when it isn't.
 
Last week in Baltimore, he hustled his ass home from second on a single after fouling yet another pitch off that knee, which was really hurting him. The dude is playing hard and he's quite clearly hurting.
 
There's a lot wrong with this team, but IMO Hanley's effort isn't one of the problems.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,393
Park Slope, Brooklyn
Am I crazy or was there not extensive discussion about how misleading UZR was when applied to the unique confines of Fenway's left field - ie; wall balls being counted against a fielder's range, etc. Has LF in Fenway been reasonably accounted for when looking at defensive metrics?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,371
As bad as things are, the Sox would have amassed a mere handful of wins in April without Hanley's offensive contributions. The starting pitching settled down considerably in May, but once Hanley hurt his shoulder there was no one else to carry the lineup.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
catomatic said:
Am I crazy or was there not extensive discussion about how misleading UZR was when applied to the unique confines of Fenway's left field - ie; wall balls being counted against a fielder's range, etc. Has LF in Fenway been reasonably accounted for when looking at defensive metrics?
 
There has been a couple.  Here's one:  http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/3352-manny-ramirez-average-left-fielder/.  Didn't have a chance to read the entire thread but glancing through, it seems like the correct one.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,393
Park Slope, Brooklyn

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Last week in Baltimore, he hustled his ass home from second on a single after fouling yet another pitch off that knee, which was really hurting him. The dude is playing hard and he's quite clearly hurting.
 
There's a lot wrong with this team, but IMO Hanley's effort isn't one of the problems.
Sometimes might a person, when embarrassed, try less hard? It's hard to argue Hanley is just playing tentatively when he doesn't chase a ball with full intensity. We've seen that more than a few times.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,878
San Andreas Fault
The other worst outfielder of our time, Adam Dunn, was employed by different teams toward the end of his career as a first baseman/outfielder, or DH in the AL. Adam seemed like a good guy, and he could hit, but he was an embarrassment to his team(s) in the field. I really don't want to see an embarrassment in left field for Boston for four or five years. He may be able to play first base because he has handled hundreds thousands of grounders (so, bit of a different spin at first than third, other nuances) at short and third. He has an adequate infield arm for the occasional throws to second or third. He'd be awfully expensive to just DH in the post Edgar Martinez/David Ortiz era. So, tell him he's a first baseman/DH starting next year. Troublesome that he said he's done with being an infielder though. Then, there's his baserunning. Blech, truth be told, I wish they'd never signed him. 
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Al Zarilla said:
The other worst outfielder of our time, Adam Dunn, was employed by different teams toward the end of his career as a first baseman/outfielder, or DH in the AL. Adam seemed like a good guy, and he could hit, but he was an embarrassment to his team(s) in the field. I really don't want to see an embarrassment in left field for Boston for four or five years. He may be able to play first base because he has handled hundreds thousands of grounders (so, bit of a different spin at first than third, other nuances) at short and third. He has an adequate infield arm for the occasional throws to second or third. He'd be awfully expensive to just DH in the post Edgar Martinez/David Ortiz era. So, tell him he's a first baseman/DH starting next year. Troublesome that he said he's done with being an infielder though. Then, there's his baserunning. Blech, truth be told, I wish they'd never signed him. 
 
Did you feel this way when he 10 home runs in a month before hurting his shoulder?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
twibnotes said:
Sometimes might a person, when embarrassed, try less hard? It's hard to argue Hanley is just playing tentatively when he doesn't chase a ball with full intensity. We've seen that more than a few times.
 
I think yes, he's playing the field tentatively. I don't follow that they must mean he doesn't care, isn't interested, etc. I think the newness of his LF position has got him all screwed up in the head.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,878
San Andreas Fault
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Did you feel this way when he 10 home runs in a month before hurting his shoulder?
Did I think it would last? Did anybody, with him playing an average of 107 games the last two seasons? To be fair, one year, it was a really bad HBP that put him out. I didn't hear a lot sighs of relief, or cheering when he left the NL, especially from the NL West. His fielding, baserunning and lack of baseball acumen, to put it kindly, made him a questionable asset.despite his hitting.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
catomatic said:
Yeah, that was it—thanks. In general it supports the idea that there's plenty of subjectivity in these metrics as applied to LF in Fenway. 
This might be very well impossible, or, alternately, already done, but wouldn't one way to get a rough estimate of how much UZR "penalizes" people playing in Fenways LF be to calculate the UZR of all visiting left fielders at Fenway?  I realize that looking at the UZR ratings for an individual player would be senseless, but if you treated them all as a conglomerate and looked at their collective numbers, might that give us somewhat of a reference point for how Fenway's unique dimensions impacts UZR for left field?  
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
“@jtomase: Lovullo: “Hanley is a work in progress. That was a tough play tonight. We have to understand where he’s come from and where he’s at.””
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
soxhop411 said:
“@jtomase: Lovullo: “Hanley is a work in progress. That was a tough play tonight. We have to understand where he’s come from and where he’s at.””
If they really had to understand that, he wouldn't still be roaming Fenway's cavernous left field.

Somebody should have played him Mookie's catch on their phone.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,393
Park Slope, Brooklyn
effectivelywild said:
This might be very well impossible, or, alternately, already done, but wouldn't one way to get a rough estimate of how much UZR "penalizes" people playing in Fenways LF be to calculate the UZR of all visiting left fielders at Fenway?  I realize that looking at the UZR ratings for an individual player would be senseless, but if you treated them all as a conglomerate and looked at their collective numbers, might that give us somewhat of a reference point for how Fenway's unique dimensions impacts UZR for left field?  
Very sound thinking but I personally wouldn't know where to begin with that task. Good notion, though.
 

martybarrettoverdrive

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
497
Mountain View, CA
I may be chastised for posting a slightly drunken and clearly reactionary post after tonight's game. But goddamnit, this is one instance when there is such a justifiable and overwhelming reaction by not just the fans but relatively thoughtful media that it is borderline obstinate not to move Hanley from the outfield. The rest of the season is a 2016 audition and I'd like to see Travis Shaw continue to try to prove he may be a potential longer term 1B option/platoon partner. But at the same time, not giving the Bradley-Betts-Castillo combination enough opportunities to also continue to audition hurts the team overall. Regardless of how much money is going to one particular player, Spock-in-Wrath of Khan-rules need to apply here. 
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
The problem is that there is still a clubhouse to run and among the other question is the question of whether Hanley can improve in the OF enough to be part of a mix.  At least for 2016 the Red Sox are much better off if Hanley has a position.  It may stink and suck that every night the lineup is missing a guy we would all like to see playing, but it's preferable organizationally and future planning wise to not have Hanley disconnect completely.
 
Granted that some may argue he already has, and that his refusal to practice because his body can't handle both practice and playing is not a mark in his favor (whether it's mental, "lazy", or if his body really can't handle it - any of the three should have been discovered in the interview process before signing him to that deal).  But they have him for another 4 years.  Unless they plan on DL'ing him until he can DH, they need to get him engaged to play somewhere.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Yeah, the thing is though that we should now realize that Hanley in LF is not going to work. He could improve significantly and still be the worst defensive player in baseball. 
 
How much shit did the Tigers take for running Miguel Cabrera out to third base in 2013? Cabrera was 19.9 runs worse defensively per 150 than the average third baseman. Hanley is -32.7. We deserve a little more than 1.5 times the shit the Tigers got for playing Cabrera at third.
 
But at least Cabrera could fucking hit.
 
We need to investigate what Hanley Ramirez, first baseman looks like and keep our outfield spots used on the players who are not definitely going to suck next year. 
 

Wake's knuckle

New Member
Nov 15, 2006
565
Aarhus, Denmark
I'd be very surprised if Hanley didn't get reps at 1st in spring training. It might not be the best position for someone with a tendency towards brainfarts, though. 3rd might be better in that case.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,422
Not here
There are people acting like not playing Castillo and Bradley (and others) is some kind of moral and professional malpractice.

Lighten the fuck up.

We want to see the kids play but we shouldn't confuse what we want to see with what the team needs to see for next year.

What the team needs to see if some indication of whether they have the talent to complete at the major league level.

That doesn't mean they have to play every single day. There's not enough time left in the season to draw any kind of strong conclusions.

The difference between playing all the remaining games and half of the remaining games is not huge. It's a small fraction of a season. Nobody's career is going to be made or lost because they played 25 of the remaining games instead of all of them.

As long as nobody under the microscope gets buried, it's good enough.

Honestly, this is one of those situations where you can trust management to know WTF they are doing. They know what they're looking for. They're going to do their best to balance the need to see the new guys with the need to keep everyone happy with their playing time.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Rasputin said:
The difference between playing all the remaining games and half of the remaining games is not huge. It's a small fraction of a season. Nobody's career is going to be made or lost because they played 25 of the remaining games instead of all of them.
 
I think you are wrong with respect to Bradley.  He had too many ABs last year in failure mode to accept that his numbers this year are real in a small sample size.  People have been saying that if he could hit .250 with his defense he could be a borderline star.  Well he is hitting that number and finding out if that is a mirage, a blip, or him finally producing at the major league level is in my opinion more important than letting a 30 year old who isn't willing/able to put in the practice reps to learn his new position butcher his defensive assignment.
 
I'd also prefer to see Shaw get consistent major league ABs at this point to find out if he is for real.  He has shown good power - I'd like to see him get enough ABs to see how he responds when the inevitable happens and pitchers adjust to him.
 
Castillo is also showing some production and has minimized his own brain farts.  I'd rather watch him in the outfield then Hanley as well, but hey I am biased.
 
What I hate most about any player in Hanley's position is the PERCEPTION that they aren't making an effort.  We've all heard the stories of how Boggs turned himself into a good fielder by making extra effort.  We heard it about Rice, we heard it about Yaz.  We've seen Pedroia on his knees in the infield in a walking boot taking balls because he didn't want to get rusty (regardless of the intelligence of the act). We've heard the stories about Bradley on a daily basis taking a hundred extra balls so that he can improve his read/jump.   This is a freaking game they're being paid to play - I'd rather sit Hanley on the bench for the rest of the year and have him be pissed (and deal with the ramifications) than watch someone butcher it because he isn't making the effort to improve during practice.
 
So, no I won't lighten up.  Hanley has done nothing to embarrass the team off the field that I know of.  I am not saying he is a bad person.  I don't know his contributions to the clubhouse.  But on the field, he is not getting it done defensively (or particularly well offensively either), and my PERCEPTION is that it has to do with preparation.  If he isn't willing to prepare to succeed then I don't want to watch him fail during the games.
 
Edit: to soften first sentence.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Felt bad for Barnes put there last night. What was a fairly promising start got derailed by one big inning keyed by Hanley's poor defense in left. His incompetence is even more striking after watching a week straight of three CFs out there in Betts-JBJ-Castillo, but honestly even De Aza and Holt make that catch without incident.

The experiment is over. It's plain to see Ramirez cannot play in left. Given the need to get Rusney and JBJ reps, it's a big mistake playing him anymore. Zero upside and last night demonstrates it can damage the progress of our young pitchers.

Play him at third, first, DH, wherever, but another month of Hanley in LF does nothing to help this team now or in 2016.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
RetractableRoof said:
You are wrong with respect to Bradley.  He had too many ABs last year in failure mode to accept that his numbers this year are real in a small sample size.  People have been saying that if he could hit .250 with his defense he could be a borderline star.  Well he is hitting that number and finding out if that is a mirage, a blip, or him finally producing at the major league level is in my opinion more important than letting a 30 year old who isn't willing/able to put in the practice reps to learn his new position butcher his defensive assignment.
 
I'd also prefer to see Shaw get consistent major league ABs at this point to find out if he is for real.  He has shown good power - I'd like to see him get enough ABs to see how he responds when the inevitable happens and pitchers adjust to him.
 
Castillo is also showing some production and has minimized his own brain farts.  I'd rather watch him in the outfield then Hanley as well, but hey I am biased.
 
What I hate most about any player in Hanley's position is the PERCEPTION that they aren't making an effort.  We've all heard the stories of how Boggs turned himself into a good fielder by making extra effort.  We heard it about Rice, we heard it about Yaz.  We've seen Pedroia on his knees in the infield in a walking boot taking balls because he didn't want to get rusty (regardless of the intelligence of the act). We've heard the stories about Bradley on a daily basis taking a hundred extra balls so that he can improve his read/jump.   This is a freaking game they're being paid to play - I'd rather sit Hanley on the bench for the rest of the year and have him be pissed (and deal with the ramifications) than watch someone butcher it because he isn't making the effort to improve during practice.
 
So, no I won't lighten up.  Hanley has done nothing to embarrass the team off the field that I know of.  I am not saying he is a bad person.  I don't know his contributions to the clubhouse.  But on the field, he is not getting it done defensively (or particularly well offensively either), and my PERCEPTION is that it has to do with preparation.  If he isn't willing to prepare to succeed then I don't want to watch him fail during the games.
 
The bold is a complete strawman, because no one is arguing the contrary.
 
You appear to believe that using all caps turns your bias into a fact.  It does not.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,101
smastroyin said:
The problem is that there is still a clubhouse to run and among the other question is the question of whether Hanley can improve in the OF enough to be part of a mix.  At least for 2016 the Red Sox are much better off if Hanley has a position.  It may stink and suck that every night the lineup is missing a guy we would all like to see playing, but it's preferable organizationally and future planning wise to not have Hanley disconnect completely.
 
Granted that some may argue he already has, and that his refusal to practice because his body can't handle both practice and playing is not a mark in his favor (whether it's mental, "lazy", or if his body really can't handle it - any of the three should have been discovered in the interview process before signing him to that deal).  But they have him for another 4 years.  Unless they plan on DL'ing him until he can DH, they need to get him engaged to play somewhere.
 
 
Minor point of order; he need 1050 PA in 2017/18 for the 5th year option to vest.  I'll take the under.  He's not going to be good/durable enough.
 
Unless Ortiz retires, I think they pay to make him someone else's problem next year.  The case for JBJ and Rusney has advanced beyond "the kids need playing time to improve".  They are simply better players, overall, right now.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
jscola85 said:
Felt bad for Barnes put there last night. What was a fairly promising start got derailed by one big inning keyed by Hanley's poor defense in left. His incompetence is even more striking after watching a week straight of three CFs out there in Betts-JBJ-Castillo, but honestly even De Aza and Holt make that catch without incident.

The experiment is over. It's plain to see Ramirez cannot play in left. Given the need to get Rusney and JBJ reps, it's a big mistake playing him anymore. Zero upside and last night demonstrates it can damage the progress of our young pitchers.

Play him at third, first, DH, wherever, but another month of Hanley in LF does nothing to help this team now or in 2016.
 
Evaluating moving Hanley to 1B in 2016 is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have, and if he turns out to be un-receptive to it in the offseason I'll be the first to criticize him.  
 
Asking a gimpy veteran to put on a new glove with six weeks to go in a lost season and learn on the fly is another thing entirely, and it's simply not practical or worth it.  
-We're really only talking about one blocked spot here; rotating two guys through three spots is a lot closer to playing every day than it is riding the bench.  
-When your goal is to lose out gracefully, it's reasonable to prioritize not risking any amount of clubhouse happiness over pursuit of a marginal win or three that don't matter for shit.  
 
Hanley to 1B, right now, is practically the ur-example of the difference between fantasy lineups and real life.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
407
smastroyin said:
The problem is that there is still a clubhouse to run and among the other question is the question of whether Hanley can improve in the OF enough to be part of a mix.  At least for 2016 the Red Sox are much better off if Hanley has a position.  It may stink and suck that every night the lineup is missing a guy we would all like to see playing, but it's preferable organizationally and future planning wise to not have Hanley disconnect completely.
 
Granted that some may argue he already has, and that his refusal to practice because his body can't handle both practice and playing is not a mark in his favor (whether it's mental, "lazy", or if his body really can't handle it - any of the three should have been discovered in the interview process before signing him to that deal).  But they have him for another 4 years.  Unless they plan on DL'ing him until he can DH, they need to get him engaged to play somewhere.
 
I keep seeing this point, but is it really preferable for the organization to keep throwing him out there with the results everybody can see? I understand this point, but I see a counterpoint, where it's preferable for the organization, long term, to not keep throwing a guy out there who is so terribly inept at his job, and apparently is either unwilling or too scared to (get injured) to work at getting better at it (admittedly, only the Sox really know how willing he is or not, but external anecdotal evidence doesn't work in his favour).
 
They gave out a terrible contract. Frankly, they're stuck with it. At this point, that contract is inching as close to dead money as you're going to get. The question is what do they do about it? You can let that infect other parts of the organization (of the defensive alignment, really), and make the overall team weaker - or you can put the pressure on the guy so he knows he still needs to put in the work. It's one thing if he's willing to work at it and help; if he's not, you may have no choice do everything you can to get him out of town, even if you have to eat most of the money - because in this latter case, the entire team performance gets unduly impacted.
 
Repeating what I said in the other thread, but really belongs here, as I think there's a bigger picture question here that goes beyond Hanley.
 
-----------------------
 
Ultimately, this is the perfect epitome of why this team is in last place, honestly, besides all the under-performance. Continuously, doggedly, and persistently putting weaker teams on the field in the name of God knows whatever bigger picture. Deep depth and protecting assets. Veteran respect. Clubhouse harmony. You don't sit a guy with a big contract. Short sample size. Maybe he'll turn it around. And so on, and so on.
 
Maybe, just maybe, at some point, it may be worth trying a different approach - you know, playing the guys who happen to be better at a given point in time. In a last place team, you may have a couple of malcontents - but everybody will be fairly clear that the primary factor of getting in the line-up will be performance. Instead they'll keep up this freaking 3-DH charade. Oh well. At least I'm not paying for Fenway tickets, beer and parking, so what do I even care?
 

The X Man Cometh

New Member
Dec 13, 2013
390
JimBoSox9 said:
 
Evaluating moving Hanley to 1B in 2016 is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have, and if he turns out to be un-receptive to it in the offseason I'll be the first to criticize him.  
 
Asking a gimpy veteran to put on a new glove with six weeks to go in a lost season and learn on the fly is another thing entirely, and it's simply not practical or worth it.  
-We're really only talking about one blocked spot here; rotating two guys through three spots is a lot closer to playing every day than it is riding the bench.  
-When your goal is to lose out gracefully, it's reasonable to prioritize not risking any amount of clubhouse happiness over pursuit of a marginal win or three that don't matter for shit.  
 
Hanley to 1B, right now, is practically the ur-example of the difference between fantasy lineups and real life.
 
But here's the thing. The bottom line is that Hanley Ramirez has to figure out first base. If he doesn't and David Ortiz is on the team next year we have nowhere to play him.
 
Right now it is August 18th 2015. He has until April 4th 2016. Why not start now? Why would having 2 months fewer to accomplish a task ever be preferable to 2 more? Clearly Hanley needs time to figure anything out.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
The X Man Cometh said:
 
But here's the thing. The bottom line is that Hanley Ramirez has to figure out first base. If he doesn't and David Ortiz is on the team next year we have nowhere to play him.
 
Right now it is August 18th 2015. He has until April 4th 2016. Why not start now? Why would having 2 months fewer to accomplish a task ever be preferable to 2 more? Clearly Hanley needs time to figure anything out.
 
This.  There is essentially no way Hanley will be an outfielder next year, and the team has a desperate need for ABs/innings to give to JBJ/Castillo.  So, how, exactly, does the team benefit by continuing to run Hanley out there in left?
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
moondog80 said:
 
 
Minor point of order; he need 1050 PA in 2017/18 for the 5th year option to vest.  I'll take the under.  He's not going to be good/durable enough.
 
Unless Ortiz retires, I think they pay to make him someone else's problem next year.  The case for JBJ and Rusney has advanced beyond "the kids need playing time to improve".  They are simply better players, overall, right now.
Speaking of the bolded, I was just about to post about speculating why he wasn't DL'd at either point this season (the shoulder thing, and the foot thing).
The shoulder injury, I can kind of understand since he was a force at the plate at the time and they were competitive. 
 
This time . .I'm not sure.  Things were going so well with the OF, and we saw him gimp around 1st last night.  Would it have killed them to just give him another week?  Could he be concerned about that vesting option?  It doesn't make sense to me at this point in the season when they are in garbage time.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
jscola85 said:
 
This.  There is essentially no way Hanley will be an outfielder next year,
 
That's a bit of a stretch.  I don't want him to be a regular outfielder next year, but I certainly don't mind seeing him there every now and then if one of the starters gets hurt.  Particular if someone like Shaw proves he can be a contributor at 1B.  And we really won't know how competent he will be at 1B until he's had an offseason to prepare for it.
 
Unless he gets traded (which is highly unlikely), a little bit of versatility could go a long way. 
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
10,394
Some blind speculation (not that the FO would ever admit this, so it'd have to be blind), but what of the idea that they're running Hanley out there with frequency in the hopes that he can at least mash at the plate, boost his trade value in the season's final six weeks, and increase the likelihood the Sox could deal him to a team with an opening at DH? (Or decrease the amount of freight we'd have to pay on his $22M per? Which would be how much -- would eating $6M do it? That's still $16M more in the coffers to spend on pitching, right?)
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Average Reds said:
 
The bold is a complete strawman, because no one is arguing the contrary.
 
You appear to believe that using all caps turns your bias into a fact.  It does not.
You are wrong, I believe that by emphasizing the word perception in my post I am indicating strongly that I am not at Fenway hours before the game to see if Hanley is working on his defense and therefore, it is my perception which may NOT be accurate.  It is the opposite of trying to make it fact.  I am leaving room for someone to tell they saw/heard/read differently.  
 
Pretty hard to attack someone for using the word perception and suggesting it implied fact.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
LeoCarrillo said:
Some blind speculation (not that the FO would ever admit this, so it'd have to be blind), but what of the idea that they're running Hanley out there with frequency in the hopes that he can at least mash at the plate, boost his trade value in the season's final six weeks, and increase the likelihood the Sox could deal him to a team with an opening at DH? (Or decrease the amount of freight we'd have to pay on his $22M per? Which would be how much -- would eating $6M do it? That's still $16M more in the coffers to spend on pitching, right?)
Who would that team be?
 
Yankees, Jays, Rangers, Mariners, White Sox, Twins and Royals are getting decent or better performance already.
A's are tied up with Billy Butler.
Tigers are tied to Victor and probably hope he rebounds.
Rays and Astros are probably going to go with cheaper options.
So maybe the Orioles, Indians or Angels? That's a pretty limited market, and realistically, the Orioles and Indians aren't going to want to absorb a lot of salary.
 
Of course, if Hanley shows he can play first competently, his market increases.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
RetractableRoof said:
You are wrong, I believe that by emphasizing the word perception in my post I am indicating strongly that I am not at Fenway hours before the game to see if Hanley is working on his defense and therefore, it is my perception which may NOT be accurate.  It is the opposite of trying to make it fact.  I am leaving room for someone to tell they saw/heard/read differently.  
 
Pretty hard to attack someone for using the word perception and suggesting it implied fact.
Who has advanced the argument that Hanley should play even if he "isn't willing to prepare to succeed?"

The answer is no one. But you used your PERCEPTION to imply that people were making the counter argument, which is nonsense.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
The X Man Cometh said:
 
But here's the thing. The bottom line is that Hanley Ramirez has to figure out first base. If he doesn't and David Ortiz is on the team next year we have nowhere to play him.
 
Right now it is August 18th 2015. He has until April 4th 2016. Why not start now? Why would having 2 months fewer to accomplish a task ever be preferable to 2 more? Clearly Hanley needs time to figure anything out.
 
There's absolutely no reason to think that an extra six weeks now, when he's banged up and learning almost entirely in live-fire situations, will lead to a better-fielding 1B Hanley on 4/4/16 than riding it out now and telling him to show up healthy and with a padded mitt in February.  The answer to "why not start now?" is "because this is the worst possible time to start".
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
LeoCarrillo said:
Some blind speculation (not that the FO would ever admit this, so it'd have to be blind), but what of the idea that they're running Hanley out there with frequency in the hopes that he can at least mash at the plate, boost his trade value in the season's final six weeks, and increase the likelihood the Sox could deal him to a team with an opening at DH? (Or decrease the amount of freight we'd have to pay on his $22M per? Which would be how much -- would eating $6M do it? That's still $16M more in the coffers to spend on pitching, right?)
 
Except he's NOT mashing at the plate.  In the 85 games he's played in left field, he has a .719 OPS, whereas in the 10 games as DH, he has a 1.099 OPS.  That's nowhere near large enough of a sample to learn much, but one could argue that being out there and screwing up non-stop in left has impacted his performance at the plate.  Many pointed to Bogaerts' move to 3rd and subsequent tanking at the plate as connected.  It certainly would not be out of the realm of possibility that the guy is nervous out there, thinking about not making mistakes in the field, and it's affecting how he hits.  He's now in the longest walk-less stretch of his career, and his line on the season is well below his career figures, so I don't see any benefit to continue running him out there under a failed premise from the offseason.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
JimBoSox9 said:
 
There's absolutely no reason to think that an extra six weeks now, when he's banged up and learning almost entirely in live-fire situations, will lead to a better-fielding 1B Hanley on 4/4/16 than riding it out now and telling him to show up healthy and with a padded mitt in February.  The answer to "why not start now?" is "because this is the worst possible time to start".
 
Meaningless games in August/September are a bad time?  If he's banged up, put him on the DL until September.  Give him a Rick Porcello summer vacation, tell him when he comes back it will be with a 1B mitt, and that he can put behind him the debacles in left. 
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Average Reds said:
Who has advanced the argument that Hanley should play even if he "isn't willing to prepare to succeed?"

The answer is no one. But you used your PERCEPTION to imply that people were making the counter argument, which is nonsense.
The Redsox have for one.  The poster I replied to said that playing Hanley would offer no harm to those losing playing time.  If we are all agreed (as you suggest) then that poster was advocating playing an ill prepared Hanley.  
 
I don't know what you are up in arms about - I capitalized one word, two times.  Would you have been less offended if I had bolded instead?
 

The X Man Cometh

New Member
Dec 13, 2013
390
jscola85 said:
 
Meaningless games in August/September are a bad time?  If he's banged up, put him on the DL until September.  Give him a Rick Porcello summer vacation, tell him when he comes back it will be with a 1B mitt, and that he can put behind him the debacles in left. 
 
Exactly. You don't even have to be playing him at 1B in games. You can shut him down and get the work started off the field. I'm sure he'll appreciate the time off to get his body right. 6 weeks is over 1000 hours. I have a hard time thinking that useful improvement cannot occur if the work is put in and the resources of the Boston Red Sox are available.
 
Hanley needs all the practice and study he can get. Why not communicate to him that he is a first basemen in 2016 NOW, and get the ball rolling? Reps outside of games, watching film, using a different kind of mitt, knowing when to hold a runner or when not to, etc.
 
At the end of the day, if you want to compete in 2016, you need 1) a professional outfield 2) a first baseman. Ramirez can solve both of those problems for the Red Sox, or he can be both of those problems. Why not start getting him ready, to the greatest extent you can, right now? Why not communicate expectations for 2016 right now? If the goal is to rebuild, so be it. if the goal is to compete in 2016, so be it. I'm a fan either way. But if the latter is the goal it makes sense to get the ball rolling.