And conveniently give credit to the new genius in town?OCD SS said:
We'll never know what conversations have been going on inside Fenway.
Who plays 1B next year?
- Thread starter johnnywayback
- Start date
We'll never know what conversations have been going on inside Fenway.
We also basically invented his opposition to playing 1b from a single comment back when the party line was all about his commitment to the OF.Red(s)HawksFan said:
I think the takeaway is really that DD is a lot quicker to admit BC's failures than BC would've admitted BC's failures. Which is largely why he was hired.
Of less importance going forward is the question of how catastrophic or foreseeable were BC's failures, or if the FO really had NEVER discussed a transition of HR to 1B. That's farfetched just on its surface. I imagine it had been discussed numerous times and all that's revealed now is that Torey Lovullo wasn't privy to the conversations.
Of less importance going forward is the question of how catastrophic or foreseeable were BC's failures, or if the FO really had NEVER discussed a transition of HR to 1B. That's farfetched just on its surface. I imagine it had been discussed numerous times and all that's revealed now is that Torey Lovullo wasn't privy to the conversations.
Wasn't the question he was answering basically about him playing more 3b when HR played there in an emergency situation? 3b has to be way more physically taxing than 1b, he was still trying to buy in to playing LF, he volunteered to play out of position because he didn't want anyone with 0 experience there to get stuck moving, pretty much a perfect team move.nvalvo said:
LeoCarrillo said:
True, but JBJ starting to rake makes the decision a whole lot more obvious than it was a month ago.
Could HRs absolutely tragic LF defense be hurting his offense? Could he be so scared to not completely fuck up that he doesn't focus well at the plate?
I suspect that's almost certainly the case.canderson said:
I also think getting hit in his bottom hand by Bogaerts' liner is plausibly the other significant contributing factor.
No. But competitive guys who screw up often overcompensate to make up for it. He could be pressing at bat trying to make up for his constant defensive suckitude. In fact, I'd bet on it.canderson said:
Can we stop with the revisionism?
Hanley is allowed to change his mind, but what he said is what he said, unless you think Bradford was lying. Now, it doesn't mean he is selfish, prissy, stupid, or a bad person, and he did also say he'll play where the team thinks is best (but implying he thought OF was best). But he absolutely did say that he didn't see himself playing infield again.
Now, if his mind is really changed, for whatever reason (he wants to stay in Boston while not displacing his buddy David Ortiz, he really likes the affable JBJ, he realizes if he can play 1B it gives the Sox the best chance to put together a team, or he is just terrified of the Monster and wants to get away from it) that is great. People are allowed to change their minds, and Hanley Ramirez playing an acceptable 1B basically solves a huge question for the off-season and lets Dombrowski decide if he wants to deal with it instead of forcing it.
Hanley is allowed to change his mind, but what he said is what he said, unless you think Bradford was lying. Now, it doesn't mean he is selfish, prissy, stupid, or a bad person, and he did also say he'll play where the team thinks is best (but implying he thought OF was best). But he absolutely did say that he didn't see himself playing infield again.
Now, if his mind is really changed, for whatever reason (he wants to stay in Boston while not displacing his buddy David Ortiz, he really likes the affable JBJ, he realizes if he can play 1B it gives the Sox the best chance to put together a team, or he is just terrified of the Monster and wants to get away from it) that is great. People are allowed to change their minds, and Hanley Ramirez playing an acceptable 1B basically solves a huge question for the off-season and lets Dombrowski decide if he wants to deal with it instead of forcing it.
The problem has never been what Hanley said. The problem is how the focus was on his resistance to moving from left field early in the process and not on his stated willingness to do what was best for the team in the long run.smastroyin said:
People seemed almost anxious to create a narrative implying that HR was a selfish, lazy a-hole who needed to go because he was unwilling to do the work needed to succeed. The fact that there was no evidence to support this narrative beyond the Bradford column is (IMO) a big part of the revisionism. People aren't pushing back on what Bradford actually wrote - they are pushing back against how it has been interpreted.
The left field experiment is now officially acknowledged as a failure by all concerned. It still rankles that some in the media and several folks here went right to the "lazy" card as an explanation for that failure.
Can I point out the irony then of both sides of the argument being too lazy to actually look things up or do the first bit of research while calling out or defending a player against being lazy?
Regardless, let's all hope yesterday is the first step toward Hanley Ramirez's All-Star level 2016 at 1B. Because that would really help the makeup of the team.
Regardless, let's all hope yesterday is the first step toward Hanley Ramirez's All-Star level 2016 at 1B. Because that would really help the makeup of the team.
LeoCarrillo said:
I agree it's farfetched, but it does not speak well of Farrell that he didn't schedule some 1B training time for HR. Post-Napoli trade (pre-Travis Shaw), you've got to at least consider it.
Perhaps there's a bunch of stuff we're not privy to.
smastroyin said:
He was publicly gung-ho about LF at that point in time because otherwise it would have seemed like he was lobbying to replace someone in the infield, be it Napoli, Bogaerts or Sandoval. To say nothing of the fact he would have looked like a quitter, giving up so soon on the experiment.
This guy literally can't win. He's been saying all the right things and undertook one position change and is on the verge of another, and yet his attitude and motives are questioned at every turn. He's been horrible in the field and disappointing at the plate, yes, but he's been handling the static around it very admirably, yet he still gets killed for it.
Edit: I don't think smas is questioning Hanley's commitment/character, but his post opened the door for my enlightening and visionary take.
You can do whatever you want, but there is no equivalence in those positions, since "laziness" had nothing to do with the Bradford columns in the first place.smastroyin said:
Hanley was understandably resistant to switching positions after only a short time in left, and he expressed that in the Bradford column. For that to have morphed into what it became is somewhat shameful IMO.
I loved the Schilling comment at the saber seminar about the value of unknown clubhouse leaders and how O-Cab told Manny to cut his moody shit once bc he was screwing up O-Cab's shot at a playoff bonus.Rovin Romine said:
Point being, you could fill the Globe sports section every day with inside clubhouse stuff we're not privy to. And that they're not telling PeteAbe and the journo brigade.
Perhaps the moral is that until a player shoves a traveling secretary or the like, we really don't know much about his attitude or effect on clubhouse chemistry. Hanley being Exhibit A.
Of course, managerial player deployment is fair game. But in addition to JBJ's emergence making the switch a true no-brainer, you've gotta wonder about the dynamics between JF and BC, and if much of the delay was on BC not wanting to admit his mistake.
Is the next move to slide Betts over the LF so that we can get Bradley playing where he should be playing?
LeoCarrillo said:
How much of a delay has there really been?
Napoli was traded on 8/7. Hanley was down with a foot injury from 8/8 to 8/17. Dombrowski was officially hired on 8/18.
Is it perhaps as simple as not wanting to broach the topic of moving to 1B to Hanley until the veteran incumbent was no longer in place? I got the impression from the way he answered Bradford's question way back as he didn't in any way want to appear to be stepping on his teammates' toes by suggesting he was interested in their job (be it Sandoval, Bogaerts, or Napoli) or not interested in doing his job (play LF). We as fans like to poo-poo the inter-clubhouse politics, but they have to have a part in this.
Now, Napoli's gone and maybe Hanley recognizes that LF isn't the place for him long term (especially with the stark contrast we've all seen between he and JBJ defensively just in the last week) and a change would do him and the team the most good.
Isn't it a simpler view that BC/JF agreed with the many posters here that The LF experiment still needed more time before abandoning it? It's not like this was a stupid viewpoint to hold. I didn't agree with it but I could see both sides.
The new broom has an alternate view.
The new broom has an alternate view.
swingin val said:
The optimal defensive alignment (at least for home games) may in fact be keeping Betts in CF and playing JBJ in right, with Rusney in left. Betts perhaps doesn't have quite the range that Bradley does, but it is still good to great, and Bradley's arm is at huge asset in right field. That would be akin to the 2013 team that featured Ellsbury in center with his weaker arm and Victorino in right with his cannon.
jscola85 said:
But Ellsbury's weak arm was a real weakness in CF; it cost us runs and, possibly, a few games. And Victorino wasn't a better CF than Ellsbury in other respects (certainly not by the time we got him, if ever). So the analogy is a little thin.
If we're treating Mookie as having earned incumbency in CF, then so be it, and JBJ will certainly do credit to RF. But we've already seen that Rusney has a decent arm, not quite equal to JBJ's, but stronger than Mookie's. It's a no-lose situation, really, but I would suggest that since they all have excellent range, I would give the nod to JBJ in CF for his surpassing instincts and ability to finish plays; his arm will be plenty useful there as well. I'd put Rusney in RF where both his arm and his speed will work well. And I'd Mookie in LF because he has the weakest arm of the three. His range will be a little wasted there at home, but his coordination and fearlessness will not.
I think I'd agree with that configuration, as long as Mookie doesn't Pete Reiser himself (an outfielder before most people's time here) smashing into the Monster. Why don't they pad that thing up to about seven feet? Of course, Mookie could destroy himself at any outfield position. Mookie can also use his speed and athleticism in LF playing shallow to cut off line drives and duck snorts, while still being able to get back to the wall. That seems to play into Mookie's skills because he goes back well on drives over his head (well, not as well as Mookie, but better than average, I think). It is going to be wonderful feeling confident seeing well hit balls go to any part of the outfield.Savin Hillbilly said:
As for Hanley at 1B, I really hope he can learn to play there, not caring to see him embarrass himself at a second position. I really have no idea what it's going to look like though.
I completely agree. The best OF alignment for the Sox in 2016 has Betts in LF, where his arm will be fine playing in front of the Monster and his footspeed allows him to run down slicing balls in a hurry; Bradley should be in CF where his superlative routes and arm can turn easy XBHs into one or more outs; Rusney gets RF, where his combination of strong range and strong arm allow him to approach what we may have hoped Cespedes would do; and finally, Holt and a cheap sign Hinske-type bench vet back them all up.Savin Hillbilly said:
Buzzkill Pauley said:
Endorsed! A bench of Hanigan, Holt, Shaw (backing up 1B and 3B) and a RHH who can play some outfield would be great.
In fact, I think a more interesting question, now that we know the front office isn't for some reason averse to the Hanley-at-1B plan, is who that Hinske-type will be. Or, to put it another way, who's going to be our Allen Craig since Allen Craig doesn't seem like he's going to be up for the job.
I liked the Danny Valencia idea. Steve Pearce might be another.
johnnywayback said:
There's also Chris Young, who's a FA again this winter. We might have to commit to a couple of years, but he'd be a pretty perfect 4th OF and insurance policy.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Rajai Davis will be out there again as well, and it seems like he's a name frequently discussed around these parts as a useful bench guy.
I don't want to come across as a Ben defender but as some posters have mentioned, there really was not that big a delay before Hanley to first base was discussed by management with Hanley. Don't forget before August 7 the Sox were playing Napoli to increase his trade value. Ramirez was out of the line up with his soreness from 8/8 to 8/17. In addition Bradley and Castillo really did not assert themselves until recently and make the idea of Hanley moving to first base fairly obvious. I think some of the posters here are being unfair in their rush to criticize Ben. Until 2 or 3 weeks ago, Hanley in left field was somewhat defensible.
Since we don't need our 5th outfielder to be able to back up center, I really only have one requirement, the ability to steal bases.Danny_Darwin said:
With a bench of Swihart, Holt, Shaw, I want someone who can pinch run for Sandoval, Ramirez, or Ortiz when we need a base.
And you know what's awesome? Our backup catcher can pinch run and none of our outfielders need to be pinch run for.
I actually believe that De Aza would be a good 4th outfielder. He's going to come cheaper than Young or Davis and it's always better to deal with a player who has played and did a solid job for the Sox. I guess you could always bring Brentz up for a trial run next month and see what you have as well.Savin Hillbilly said:
I'm just happy that the team defense will be vastly improved next year based on Hanley moving. I think he has been hurt since messing up his shoulder in May and has played through it. For all the crap he takes in the media, he's really been for all intensive purposes an okay teammate in the sense that nothing negative has come out about him. His defense has been the worst I've ever seen out of a left fielder at Fenway and it will be a welcome sight to see him move out of left and never return.
Tyrone Biggums said:
I was responding specifically to a scenario in which we wanted a RHH for 4th OF because our bench (Hanigan/Shaw/Holt) in that scenario skewed to the LHH side. If, for instance, we deal Holt and promote Marrero to be our UIF, then it might make more sense to look for a LHH 4th OF like De Aza.
But as to the bolded: what makes you think so? Young and De Aza are very comparable players; Davis is also in the same general tier, but a notch below either, I think, especially because he's three years older.
Since we're talking about the starters being three guys each under 2 full years of service time, I actually think the most important criteria for a 25th man is a vet who accepts his role as PH/PR/2nd sub behind Holt, yet who can still maintain a good clubhouse presence.
If DDski likes his young OF well enough to start the season with them, he needs to sign a guy like Gabe Kapler or Dave Roberts, and not some guy who's going to agitate for playing time at the first sign of a slump.
If DDski likes his young OF well enough to start the season with them, he needs to sign a guy like Gabe Kapler or Dave Roberts, and not some guy who's going to agitate for playing time at the first sign of a slump.
Power is harder to find and Young certainly has more than De Aza. Davis also has more speed than De Aza and could probably command more money because of that and the fact he can actually play solid defenseSavin Hillbilly said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
It's true that Young has more power than De Aza; the flip side is that because he's such an extreme flyball hitter his BABIPs are very low, and that combined with the fact that he doesn't walk nearly as much as he used to makes him a bit of an on-base black hole; he's having his best OBP year since 2012, and it's still only .307. De Aza is no OBP god, but he gets on base respectably (.323 this year, .329 career) thanks to a consistently high LD% (#12 over the past five years out of 325 qualifiers). You may be right that that won't play as well on the FA market as Young's 13 HR, though.
As to the bolded, Davis is a fringe-average to below-average defensive OF by advanced metrics (career DRS: -3, career UZR/150: -3.4) and has always looked a bit ragged out there to me. Just because a guy is fast that doesn't mean he gets good jumps, takes good routes, or finishes plays well.
Don't laugh too loud, but I think Jeff Francoeur would be a good fit for 25th man.
Still has decent power for a PH, can play either corner....and can pitch an inning or two!
Still has decent power for a PH, can play either corner....and can pitch an inning or two!
Given Travis Shaw's out-of-nowhere surge lately, I've been wondering if he's just another Dwayne Hosey or something more special. I'm leaning toward just another Hosey. Still, I found this analysis in Projo interesting.
"It keeps me in the middle of the field and encourages lefties to go the other way, which, when I run the other way, that’s when my swing feels greatest to me," he said Thursday night.
Third, the availability of advanced scouting reports could benefit a hitter such as Shaw more than the average one.
"You have way more numbers and you get all the tendencies, and I pay attention to that. Going up to the plate and having a good idea and knowing what hes going to do, for me is good," he said. "Sometimes I can get too passive trying to feel out what a guy is going to do. If I already have the information, I can go up there with a plan and just go ahead and attack early."
Second, Shaw thinks the presence of the Green Monster at Fenway Park serves as a constant reminder to use all fields for the left-handed hitter.
"It keeps me in the middle of the field and encourages lefties to go the other way, which, when I run the other way, that’s when my swing feels greatest to me," he said Thursday night.
Third, the availability of advanced scouting reports could benefit a hitter such as Shaw more than the average one.
"You have way more numbers and you get all the tendencies, and I pay attention to that. Going up to the plate and having a good idea and knowing what hes going to do, for me is good," he said. "Sometimes I can get too passive trying to feel out what a guy is going to do. If I already have the information, I can go up there with a plan and just go ahead and attack early."
Shamus74 said:
There's also been some discussion (I think Alex in the booth) that Shaw is the type of guy who may be better in the majors than the minors because the strikezone is called better. So the combination of having a plan and knowing what the zone is going to be may give him the benefit of being able to square the ball up better. Not to mention, confidence begets confidence.
Shaw looks pretty confident at the plate and seems to be legit 1st baseman. However I was fairly confident in a few recent Sox players who seemed to struggle hitting once the book was out on then. WMB and Josh Reddick come to mind. Will was raking until the steady diet of curve balls. Same with Reddick even though he seemed to pick back up nicely in Oakland minus the injury bug. Didn't Jason Bay have the same thing happen when everyone fed him curves
How about guys that turned anything pitchers threw to them into hits, like Yogi Berra, Vlad Guerrero, and (used to be) Pablo Sandoval. OK, some guys have great bat control and can hit pitches hard over a much greater area than others. But, I have trouble buying that minor league umps, who may call a strike zone an inch or two different from major league umps, are going to influence a guy's hitting that much. And, if the minor league umps are off, over a large distribution of them, wouldn't they be off in the hitters' favor as often as in pitchers' favor? Still, I have no reason for Shaw doing better in the show than in the minors except he is seizing the moment now with the Sox, like HPC's post said Papi told him to do. Or, maybe the minors depress him.jasail said:
The access to better scouting on pitchers seems like a good explanation to me. Shaw seems to be a guy who wants to put that kind of work in, study pitchers, and go to the plate with a game plan. WMB, on the other hand, was notoriously reliant on getting by with raw talent. In his spare time he was too busy inspecting Jeny Dell's breast augmentation.
Shamus74 said:
This sort of quote makes me wonder if our AAA guys are getting good enough information on opposing pitchers? You'd think that it would be top notch for a few reasons. As a franchise you'd want to maximize your minor league player's stats to increase their trade value. You'd also want those prospects to operate at AAA in a way that's similar to what they'd during their in a ML call up, to ease their transition.
Part of the question for how to fill the backup OF spot is how the organization views Holt. Is he more of an infielder, or an outfielder? If they think most of his time should be spent in the OF, then your extra OF is more of a 5th guy and therefore spending even on someone like Chris Young or De Aza seems a bit overkill. But if he's liable to get the bulk of his starts backing up 2B/SS/3B, spending a bit more on a guy like Young/De Aza/Davis seems like a good idea.
Another hat to throw in this ring would be Will Venable. Can play most any OF spot and at 33 he will likely come cheap and on a shorter deal. His #s have always been a bit suppressed playing in Petco - his road OPS for his career is a healthy .761.
Another hat to throw in this ring would be Will Venable. Can play most any OF spot and at 33 he will likely come cheap and on a shorter deal. His #s have always been a bit suppressed playing in Petco - his road OPS for his career is a healthy .761.
This is certainly true, but I would suspect it's really just a matter of resources. They aren't, in a word, limitless, even for a team like the Red Sox. They would love to expand that kind of information all the way down to A ball, but they would have to build an advanced scouting/analytics department for each minor league team, which isn't easy or cheap. At a certain point, these farm systems are semi-autonomous, and the owner of the Greenville drive is certainly not about to be paying for that so that a bunch of 20-year olds can be better prepared for the majors down the road. As a data analyst, there are always a million projects that I wish I could take on for other departments, but with limited staff, I have to pick and choose what the team works on, and even if it might be useful, the company hasn't given me a blank check to hire as many people as I want.Rovin Romine said:
Making any predictions at this point seems futile given all the changes that are in motion and lack of clarity around DD's approach, but I'd have to think the leader in the clubhouse at this point re: 1B is Hanley as the starter with Shaw as back-up 1B/3B. Given Hanley's injury history, occasional days off for Papi and Panda's apparent futility against tough LHP, I'd think that role would get a good 200-300 ABs over the course of the season. Keep Holt around as your utility IF and 5th OF and then sign a 4th OF with pop who can cover a corner OF position. That of course assumes that the Sox conclude Hanley can be competent at 1B, in which case it's wide open.
DD on Hanley and first base
https://twitter.com/ZackCoxNESN/status/637391866615304192
https://twitter.com/ZackCoxNESN/status/637391866615304192
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/ZackCoxNESN/status/637391866615304192
https://twitter.com/ZackCoxNESN/status/637391866615304192
link to tweet
Well, that's some excellent news. And thoroughly logical. And even though I think we're going to get a lot of "late scratches" as Hanley puts pre-game time into learning 1B, I still think that's a good thing.
May as well see what you've got for 2016 as soon as possible!
May as well see what you've got for 2016 as soon as possible!
I've got no problems with what he plans to do there with HR and 1st base. I'm glad it's a thought out plan but I'm more interested in what Shaw can do from here out. I'd be more inclined to prepare for Panda or Hanley to be dealt in the offseason. Not sure if Hanley could hold his own at 3rd if Panda was dealt but you have options with Hold/Shaw. Same options at 1st if Hanley was dealt.