Someone should have written poems in green ink on Hanley's glove last year.You know, we didn't discuss this much last year as I recall, but some people really do have trouble staying focused in the OF. There's a lot of doing nothing out there. You watch the pitch, you shift position a bit, you run in and out to back up possible throws, etc., but you're not actually involved in most plays. For some people with attention issues, that's neither fun nor easy, and when they ARE called upon to do something - chase down the fly ball or back up the overthrow - they're a step or more late.
I really don't know whether that was some part of Hanley's problem last year, but comments this spring about how much he likes being involved again as part of the infield group suggest as much. In any case, here's hoping that a Happy and Engaged Hanley results in a Healthy and Productive Hanley.
Speaking or Ortiz, how come his name never comes up in discussions about who plays first base? Yes, he's 40, and in his swan song season, but he plays 1B in nine or ten inter-league games last year. Is he defensively any worse than, say, Prince Fielder or Ryan Howard? Or worse at first than Sandoval was at third last year?Ortiz did an interview recently with one of the Minneapolis newspapers, to whom he lamented the Twins' choice of playing Sano in the OF. Ortiz said that "big boys" get all tired out there, dragging all their weight around, and belong at first or third. He said that by the time HR got up to bat last year, his legs were so exhausted that he couldn't get any power out of them. The reporter's reaction? "Gulp." (i.e., Ortiz might be right and the Twinkies were making a big mistake.)
He's looked competent most of the spring, yesterday was no exception. I doubt he's going to turn into a pumpkin now that they're out of the Florida sun.One game in.... usually when these sorts of threads get bumped up, it's bad news. So no bump= looked at least okay in one game?
I am optimistic.“The difference is like when you go to somebody else’s house compared to your own house. How do you feel? Uncomfortable,” he told WEEI.com’s Rob Bradford. “Going to the infield to the outfield is like going to another house. I’m back home. I never lost that feeling, of the infield. Ever. Never did. I’m always going to be an infielder.”
Added Ramirez of his 2015 frustrations: “That’s in the past. I’ve been a shortstop all my life. I decided to play left field because I wanted to come to Boston, and I want to play left field because I want to win. I think you guys didn’t see that. I know how it is. You guys have to make news any way you guys can. Sometimes we have to find the way to do it the right way, and it didn’t happen. But I feel good now. I feel comfortable. This year is going to be a different level. We have a way better team, and I think we can do a lot of damage.
I have been fairly impressed with Hanley's on the record statements about his fielding, both this year and last year. They are savvy but also convey actual information.From the horse's mouth:
...
Looked ok in that he didn't botch any routine plays. Hanley really didn't have any chances that didn't consist of catching a direct throw and wasn't tested yesterday. It will be much easier to judge him once that first and second ball in the dirt come his way.One game in.... usually when these sorts of threads get bumped up, it's bad news. So no bump= looked at least okay in one game?
I would tend to agree with this. He seems to be all in on this. It started with his offseason work to get a little more lean and agile, continued with him putting in the time and energy with Butter and he continues to show that he is invested in his growth as well as aware of his progress or weaknesses.I have been fairly impressed with Hanley's on the record statements about his fielding, both this year and last year. They are savvy but also convey actual information.
One of the main things he conveys is that he genuinely wants to do the right thing for the team. It makes the criticism of him last year seem especially inapt.
This is true.Did not result in a run.
The overall on Hanley is extremely optimistic. Spent the offseason getting in tremendous shape. Smoking ball opposite field. Doing everything he can to learn first. Saying and doing the right things. There's going to be some bumps, but overall this is about as good as we could have hoped for if we snapshot our 2016 projection on 10/1/15.
What? He smoked the ball last April, hurt his shoulder, and then failed to smoke the ball the rest of the season. I mean, how much more of a cause-and-effect did you want?This is so stupid two games into the season, but I'll add my $.02
I thought it was lame to blame injuries on his lack of production last year because I didn't think they were legit. It may have been an issue after all. It sure is nice to see him smoking the ball after not doing so for much of the second half. He looks like he did in April last year, but he's probably way more confident.
Agreed. I think he's in a for a big rebound season. At the end of the day it's never going to be a great contract but it won't be the black hole people thought it was at the end of 2015. Panda is looking more like the lost cause.This is true.
The Hanley-to-1B experiment is starting out just about as good as anyone could have reasonably expected.
Part of it is liking it, but part of it is having confidence that it will work. I think he underestimated how hard it would be (for him, at least) to play LF, no matter how much work he put in. Sometimes people just suck at things. Infield, in a general sense, is something he knows and knows he can do. That goes a long way to success in any endeavor. He's human.If we could wash 2015 and the move to left field from our brains, we wouldn't be at all worried about a 32 year old third baseman moving to first. We'd probably be actively pushing for it if it hadn't already happened. But the early evidence is encouraging. He likes the infield, that seems fairly obvious and it is clearly translating to his attitude.
Hanley turning into a credible 1B makes Panda's contract turning into a lost cause much more likely, but only because he'll be actively used in a bench role.Agreed. I think he's in a for a big rebound season. At the end of the day it's never going to be a great contract but it won't be the black hole people thought it was at the end of 2015. Panda is looking more like the lost cause.
He never went on the DL from the shoulder injury, so evidently no one in the front office believed it was serious.What? He smoked the ball last April, hurt his shoulder, and then failed to smoke the ball the rest of the season. I mean, how much more of a cause-and-effect did you want?
That's quite a fallacy. Players play through pain that should DL them all the time, often to their detriment. Lackey pitched all of 2011 with a torn UCL and never went on the DL for it (he was on the DL early in the year with an "elbow strain" but came back and pitched the rest of the season, making 28 starts when he should have made 0).He never went on the DL from the shoulder injury, so evidently no one in the front office believed it was serious.
On May 4 Hanley was hitting .283/.340/.609 when he ran into a wall. He didn't play for five days after that so he could recover, which obviously wasn't sufficient, as he hit .239/.275/.372 the rest of the season.He never went on the DL from the shoulder injury, so evidently no one in the front office believed it was serious.
I think this is an underrated negative of the Sox over the last few years: the reluctance to put someone on the DL when dinged up. It has two negative repercussions:Right, some one playing through an injury and having their performance suffer would be unprecedented. Gotcha.
I think the plan looks slightly less odd if you look at it not so much as a way to avoid a weakness in Shaw/Holt/Bradley but as a way to get Young, Pablo and Rusney into games on a regular basis.Yesterday Farrell commented about his intended use of Young to PH for whichever of Shaw or Holt or Bradley first face a LH specialist reliever, see here. That plan will require keeping both Panda and Castillo on the MLB bench so that the IF/OF defense can shift around the various CF/LF/3B options.
Of course, the plan seems particularly odd to me, but that's because those three guys all carry reverse splits at the plate over their respective MLB careers.
And I'm glad my judgment was wrong, but I don't think I was on an island on this issue either. But again, my reasoning is mostly based on the decision to not DL him since they are privy to his medical records. The fact that his hitting has fluctuated dramatically from one year to the next and he was moving to the AL and learning a new position could have also contributed to him not hitting.That's quite a fallacy. Players play through pain that should DL them all the time, often to their detriment. Lackey pitched all of 2011 with a torn UCL and never went on the DL for it (he was on the DL early in the year with an "elbow strain" but came back and pitched the rest of the season, making 28 starts when he should have made 0).
Hanley played through the injury. It affected his hitting, obviously, since he hit 10 HRs in April and 9 the rest of the way.
It's not as though they can unilaterally put him on the DL if he doesn't feel he needs it. If there was nothing structurally wrong with his shoulder that prevented him from playing, then the decision to sit and/or go on the DL is entirely up to Hanley and his comfort level and pain tolerance. That doesn't mean his decision to play through it was the correct one, but it is still his decision to make.And I'm glad my judgment was wrong, but I don't think I was on an island on this issue either. But again, my reasoning is mostly based on the decision to not DL him since they are privy to his medical records. The fact that his hitting has fluctuated dramatically from one year to the next and he was moving to the AL and learning a new position could have also contributed to him not hitting.
I mean, if anyone needed at least a 15 day mental rest period even if they didn't believe it was serious, it was him, but they never granted it to him for whatever reason, so didn't think it was an issue
Of course they can. They absolutely could have DL'd him at any point.It's not as though they can unilaterally put him on the DL if he doesn't feel he needs it. If there was nothing structurally wrong with his shoulder that prevented him from playing, then the decision to sit and/or go on the DL is entirely up to Hanley and his comfort level and pain tolerance. That doesn't mean his decision to play through it was the correct one, but it is still his decision to make.
And if he comes out and says he doesn't want to be on the DL, that he's not hurt and can play, then what? MLBPA gets involved with grievances. Maybe MLB looks into it as a misuse of the disabled list.Of course they can. They absolutely could have DL'd him at any point.
I seem to remember the announcers say that the runner may have held at first if the cutoff man was in place. I also wonder if it is possible that with him being out of place, if that could have had something to do with JBJ's off line throw.He was out of position on a throw back into the infield. I forget if that runner making it to second vs staying at first ended resulting in a run or not.
Not the worst mistake in the world and we had an entire these damning Clay last year for the same, but hoping it's an easy thing for staff to recognize and make sure to reinforce during practice.
What a coincidence that these issues showed up, after a red hot first month, just when he ran into the wall. Amazing coincidence.The fact that his hitting has fluctuated dramatically from one year to the next and he was moving to the AL and learning a new position could have also contributed to him not hitting.
This is total nonsense, because none of us here have the slightest bit of information regarding his mental state at any point in time.And I'm glad my judgment was wrong, but I don't think I was on an island on this issue either. But again, my reasoning is mostly based on the decision to not DL him since they are privy to his medical records. The fact that his hitting has fluctuated dramatically from one year to the next and he was moving to the AL and learning a new position could have also contributed to him not hitting.
I mean, if anyone needed at least a 15 day mental rest period even if they didn't believe it was serious, it was him, but they never granted it to him for whatever reason, even with their advanced metrics we'll never see.
Right, and getting Young into games I can understand. At least when it involves him mashing against LHP. If it were simply Farrell laying out how he hopes to regularly use Young to hit for Holt against a tough LHP in key situations, and then sub in Castillo at LF for better defense...that makes sense.I think the plan looks slightly less odd if you look at it not so much as a way to avoid a weakness in Shaw/Holt/Bradley but as a way to get Young, Pablo and Rusney into games on a regular basis.
He said as much during Spring Training: What if I win a gold glove??If Hanley plays good enough defense at 1b, will he still move to DH? He may actually like playing the field and not be suited to just hitting.