Comments on: Hanley and Potential History

By: Paul Thomas

Paul Thomas — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:38:42 +0000

“UZR does sometimes have some glaring abnormalities which is why I stick to range factor.”

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…

Excuse me. I don’t know how that slipped ou… ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…

I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself when people break out this kind of comic gold.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:45:05 +0000

He is also ahead of the wonderkid fielder Tulo and an aging Adam Everett. Both praised for defensive prowess.

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:41:08 +0000

Guess UZR says he can now… He was always pretty highly touted with the glove in the minors. Beeing more “toolsy” than “heady”. If he keeps his head in the game in the field, he can be pretty fun to watch.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:18:14 +0000

Would it be possible to add Arky Vaughan to this graph and analysis? I, for one, would like to see how he compares, given the fact that he is ahead of the the two modern shortstops.

By: David

David — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:12:45 +0000

Hanley has what, a 3% chance of maintaining this for 10+ years? Waaaaay too many factors to even do this so early-on.

By: Turkdawg

Turkdawg — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:50:47 +0000

Not sure why Arky Vaughn was mentioned in the open and then not included in the analysis.

I have the mlb package and actually watch Hanley often and my opinion is this; although i think his lingering groin strain has hampered him this season (see the diminished rf) he is no better than a slighlty below average fielding shortstop. He could slip over time (i expect him to continue to get bigger and slower) to become very bad and will likely end up at 3b in 3-4 years. Probably with someone else after this contract is up.

I’d take a slightly below average fielding shortstop to get the extreme relative offensive production from him. Piazza never moved despite being borderline embarassing behind the dish.

By: RA

RA — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:50:50 +0000

UZR does sometimes have some glaring abnormalities which is why I stick to range factor. Hanley’s RF in the 2007 season was 4.3 versus 4.5 and 4.4 in the season prior and the season before. Not much of a difference. Someone would have to present me with an extremely compelling argument for me not to think the UZR was out of whack. It seems pretty obvious.

I’ll take a SS with a 4.4 RF any day if they hit .300 with 30 HR.

That being said, his RF is down below 4 this year but I’d expect him to maintain an acceptable level of play at the position. He’s definitely below average but more than makes up for it with the stick.

By: B

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:51:21 +0000

I’m under the impression other defensive metrics tend to be more optimistic on Hanley’s D than UZR. It’s possible UZR underrates his defense.

By: Jason T

Jason T — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:41:57 +0000

Michael is exactly right. If it hadn’t been for one seasons’s worth of ‘good-God-shield-your-eyes’ UZR we wouldn’t be getting all spun out about this.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:50:57 +0000

Can we please not do this?