Yikes is right, Repoz.

It looks like Hanley is destined to be the new Jeter.

Nothing like good old-fashioned homerism. I kind of like it, in fact. Hanley Ramirez is an outstanding hitter. I mean, he doesn't get on base as well as David Wright and he doesn't slug as effectively as David Wright. And he's one of the worse defensive players in the league, and not nearly as good as David Wright is (error count notwithstanding). But hey, you want to say he's better than DW, you go right ahead.

Ahem.

I thought it was widely known that Hanley was awful defensively?

Widely known here does not mean widely known everywhere. And frankly, if Hanley got moved to CF and proved he could (a) keep hitting there and (b) be at least average there, he wouldn't be a horrible franchise-starting choice. I'd still go with Wright, but it's not like picking Hanley is as crazy as picking...I don't know...Brett Gardner or something.

I think Hanley is an OK choice. He's probably in the top 5 of this discussion.

but it's not like picking Hanley is as crazy as picking...I don't know...Brett Gardner or something.

or Jose Reyes :(

Stick Wright at SS and see how his fielding is.

Really, the difference between the two is pretty small. Last year, Wright's OPS+ was slightly higher in the same number of PAs. If you move Hanley to third, I don't know that he isn't just as good a fielder as Wright is.

he doesn't slug as effectively as David Wright

Wright 2007 SLG: .546
Ramirez 2007 SLG: .562
Both have a park-adjusted lgSLG of .430. Ramirez's batting average is higher, but he still has the advantage using IsoP.

Wright 2007 SLG: .546
Ramirez 2007 SLG: .562
Both have a park-adjusted lgSLG of .430.

We're going with one-year numbers now? Hanley was at .482 in 2006; Wright was .531. Wright has the greater, more consistent track record. I'll grant you that Hanley has a hell of a ceiling, especially on the slugging side.

Really, the difference between the two is pretty small. Last year, Wright's OPS+ was slightly higher in the same number of PAs. If you move Hanley to third, I don't know that he isn't just as good a fielder as Wright is.

Perhaps, but there's no real evidence for that. Just speculation. Until he proves he could handle third base better than he handles SS, Ramirez is just a bad SS with one hellacious bat. Which is very valuable, no doubt. Just not as valuable as David Wright.

I don't know why you two guys are arguing anyway. Regardless of which one of Wright or Ramirez seems better, Pedroia crushes the both of them. James couldn't just come out and say that because it would have seemed too much like a partisan choice and he was trying to be diplomatic.

I don't know why you two guys are arguing anyway. Regardless of which one of Wright or Ramirez seems better, Pedroia crushes the both of them. James couldn't just come out and say that because it would have seemed too much like a partisan choice.

What, is James privy to classified information about a Wizard Of Oz remake?

Regardless of which one of Wright or Ramirez seems better, Pedroia crushes the both of them.

Presented without comment . . . 2008 stats:

Wright: .462/.533/.923
Hanley: .375/.583/.625
Petunia: .250/.294/.313

2007 stats:

Wright: .325/.416/.546
Hanley: .332/.386/.562
Petunia: .317/.380/.442

We're going with one-year numbers now? Hanley was at .482 in 2006; Wright was .531. Wright has the greater, more consistent track record.

Wright is a year older than Hanley and has 50% more career ABs. Being older and having so many more plate appearances his track record should be more consistent. Using only last year's numbers might not be the perfect way to make a comparison, but its much more fair than using their career numbers at this point.
In 2006 when Wright put up that .531 SLG, he was 23 years old and it was his second full season in MLB. When Hanley was 23 and in his second full season, he slugged .562

Kevin, what do you think of Pedroia's chances at the Masters next week? The back nine might eat him up come Sunday, but he's obviously going to make the cut. If he doesn't win at Augusta, there's always the decathlon at Beijing.

Even more fun numbers:

2007 road splits:
Wright: .316/.400/.512 OPS: .912
Hanley: .319/.377/.546 OPS: .923
Pedroia: .282/.349/.380 OPS: .729

Pedrioa's SLG away from Fenway last season is only .005 higher than Neifi's career SLG.

Kismet. A buddy and I were talking about Hanley Ramirez as a guy to build around yesterday. We are both old and impatient now, so we mentioned Arod and Pujols, too.

Well played, Kevin

Kevin, what do you think of Pedroia's chances at the Masters next week?

Let me just put it to you this way. After next week, they're going to be calling Tiger "Kitten".

Apprised of this with the Mets in town to open their season, Wright flashed his red-carpet grin and took gentle exception with James’ choice.

This person is paid to write. And someone is paid to edit what he writes. And yet . . . and yet.

Anyway, this is the kind of argument that could go around in circles forever, but I'll take Wright until the Marlins come to their senses and move Ramirez to CF. The instant that happens, Ramirez is the more valuable commodity. Well, that's over-stating it. The minute it becomes clear that he isn't the butcher in center that he is at short, Ramirez becomes the more valuable commodity.

James likes Wright because he walks, I'd imagine. And that's valid. Of course, the person who wrote this article notes Wright's walks with a tone of distain (or perhaps I'm imagining that), but there you have it.

I'll still go with Pujols, just as I imagine fans of teams in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, Cleveland, Florida(all 8 of them), Tampa, Texas, would/could all probably point to a player on their team to build around. (assuming non-pitchers) You do have to feel somewhat sorry for fans in cities like San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc. that don't even have the luxury of imagining they have a player that is franchise worthy.(current)

there's always the decathlon at Beijing.

A win at the Olympics will be a great springboard for Pedroia accepting both the Democratic and Republican nominations.


Pedroia: A Force to Unite BTF and AMERICA!

Those numbers are deceptive, p2w. They don't account for clutchness and intangibles.

For instance, Pedroia has a very firm understanding of what a force play is, and how it is properly executed.

You do have to feel somewhat sorry for fans in cities like San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc. that don't even have the luxury of imagining they have a player that is franchise worthy.(current)

In my capacity as a Red Sox fan, I point to . . . JACOBY ELLSBURY 4EVAR!

As a person who is forced by proximity to watch the Mariners all the time, I think about Adam Jones and weep.

Not that I'm asking anybody to feel sorry for two of the richest franchises in baseball.

You know, it's funny. If you add Petunia's OBP and his BA together, they don't even equal David Wright's OBP. Fun with numbers. And if you add his OBP, BA, and SLG together, they don't equal Wright's SLG. More fun with numbers.

The thing is, the Red Sox actually don't have a player who actually belongs in this conversation. Or frankly, anyone close.

I do not understand how it is "humbling" to win an award or to be mentioned in this way. Players say this all the time. Plaschke said this in that article linked the other day, wherein he won some award. It is really annoying. I do not think this word means what they think it means.

To quote a woman I used to know: "These are the jokes."

The thing is, the Red Sox actually don't have a player who actually belongs in this conversation. Or frankly, anyone close.

I think that is why Voxter pointed to Ellsbury, I thought he was joking when he said it, just like I think Kevin was joking when he put Pedroia up for that nomination.

The thing is, the Red Sox actually don't have a player who actually belongs in this conversation. Or frankly, anyone close.

And to that intentionally condescending shot, I'll make with the obligatory (and equally obnoxious) "We Sox fans will somehow have to make due with 2 of the last 4 World Series."

"We Sox fans will somehow have to make due with 2 of the last 4 World Series."

Oh yeah??? Oh yeah??? Well . . . well . . . how about 2 of the last 39? Top that, wise guy!

Er . . . wait a second . . . .

(And yes, I know everyone is joking. Why the hell do you think I'm pointing to 2008 stats after three games?)

You know, it's funny. If you add Petunia's OBP and his BA together, they don't even equal David Wright's OBP. Fun with numbers. And if you add his OBP, BA, and SLG together, they don't equal Wright's SLG. More fun with numbers.

Also, and I'm setting the snark aside this time, in what way is that statement true? Wright had a .697 OBP last year? What am I missing? Or are we talking 4 games from 2008?

EDIT: Okay, I see that it's 2008.

And yes, I know everyone is joking. Why the hell do you think I'm pointing to 2008 stats after three games?)

I missed that 2008 stats until you mentioned it, I was just thinking you were using your Dial glasses when looking at Wright.

Why the hell do you think I'm pointing to 2008 stats after three games?

I just assumed you'd started a career as a sportswriter.

The thing is, the Red Sox actually don't have a player who actually belongs in this conversation. Or frankly, anyone close.

Did someone come up with a list of these guys recently? I seem to recall one, but I forget if it was Dayn Perry or someone else.

"You do have to feel somewhat sorry for fans in cities like San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc. that don't even have the luxury of imagining they have a player that is franchise worthy.(current)"

Why? I would guess most fans like to see entertaining (especially winning) baseball and couldn't care less if someone on the team has been given the franchise label.

I think I would take Ramirez, over wright. While both obviously brilliant hitters I prefer Hanley's athleticism. If I'm starting a franchise from scratch I don't know what other players, and what positions they play will be available. By having Hanley I would feel comfortable playing him at SS or CF in addition ot 3b. That flexiability would allow me the ability to best manage my future player aquisitions.

By having Hanley I would feel comfortable playing him at SS or CF in addition ot 3b.

See, that's the thing. I wouldn't be at all comfortable playing him at SS. And I think it is a real indictment of the Marlins that they continue to do so, because it shows they aren't interested in really winning or trying to build a winning team. If the Marlins are ever going to win, it's going to be with Hanley Ramirez in the OF, or perhaps at 3B. Now that Cabrera is gone, the time to find out if Hanley can handle 3B is NOW. A team trying to find out what it has and where it needs to concentrate its efforts would begin with figuring out where to make Hanley Ramirez a fixture, put him there, and leave him alone. It would have figured out by now it is NOT at SS, and it would have moved him. Then go about the business of building the team around him as your CF or 3B. The longer they kid themselves by leaving him at SS, the harder it's ever going to be to move him (does the name "Derek" ring any bells???).

(does the name "Derek" ring any bells???).

Yeah, but what does Operation Shutdown have to do with this?

The longer they kid themselves by leaving him at SS, the harder it's ever going to be to move him (does the name "Derek" ring any bells???).

Yeah! And its not like the Yanks ever won anything with him at SS.

Why? I would guess most fans like to see entertaining (especially winning) baseball and couldn't care less if someone on the team has been given the franchise label.

fans get attached to players to some extent and identify the team by their star player. Winning is of course first and foremost, but there is always the human element, and the stories and of course the fun conversation which is the 'more adult' version of my dad can beat your dad.

Yeah! And its not like the Yanks ever won anything with him at SS.

When the Yankees were winning World Series, Derek Jeter wasn't anything close to as bad a defensive SS as Hanley Ramirez is. And when the time came when they should have moved him, they couldn't. If the Fish were interested in building a winning team, they'd move Ramirez now -- because he's as bad a SS at 24 as Jeter is at 34. But of course, they're not. Which was my point.

Well, he could get better, Sam. He's only 25 and has the athleticism and the arm to play the position.

Maybe that's what they're thinking. It's not like they stuck Jack Cust oput there just because he could hit.

When the Yankees were winning World Series, Derek Jeter wasn't anything close to as bad a defensive SS as Hanley Ramirez is.

If I remember correctly, there were lots of sabermetric people talking about how bad Jeter was defensively years ago. Its not like he became a bad defensive player in the last two or three years.

I think Jeter at a young age is a very good match for Ramirez today.

If I remember correctly, there were lots of sabermetric people talking about how bad Jeter was defensively years ago. Its not like he became a bad defensive player in the last two or three years.

They haven't won the World Series in seven years. It's quite possible that he went from an "eh" defender to a "feh" defender within the last five or six years.

See, that's the thing. I wouldn't be at all comfortable playing him at SS. And I think it is a real indictment of the Marlins that they continue to do so, because it shows they aren't interested in really winning or trying to build a winning team. If the Marlins are ever going to win, it's going to be with Hanley Ramirez in the OF, or perhaps at 3B. Now that Cabrera is gone, the time to find out if Hanley can handle 3B is NOW.

I'm not sure that I agree. Ramirez is a terrible defensive SS, but he's young enough that he could improve a little. He'll never be Ozzie Smith, but if he could be -10 runs over the course of a season, I'm not sure the Marlins wouldn't be better off with his bat playing at SS.

I don't believe he's as good as Wright, though. And if we're comparing apples to apples, the age 22 seasons much more heavily favor Wright (Wright: .306/.388/.523; Hanley: .292/.353/.480) than the age 23 seasons favor Ramirez (.311/.381/.531 to .332/.386/.562). If Hanley makes a great leap forward offensively and defensively in his age 24 season, which is possible, I think it makes the question a lot tougher, but you can't assume that, and until then, Wright is the better player.

That's no knock on Ramirez, mind you. He's a great, great player right now and one of the most exciting young players in the game. Put to the question, I'd be hard-pressed to put player other than Wright in front of him for the next 5-10 years unless it would be Grady Sizemore, and that only if you are expecting some regression from 2007. (It happens that I am, because I think Hanley's 2007 power is a little out of line with the rest of his career.)

If I remember correctly, there were lots of sabermetric people talking about how bad Jeter was defensively years ago. Its not like he became a bad defensive player in the last two or three years.

Bpro has been beating the drum since he came up. Of course, they were wrong for the first four or five years of his career. The only years they won when he wasn't around average were in 96, when he was a rookie and still adjusting to the league, and 2000, both years, he was better in the field than Hanley is now. His ZR in those years was about what Jack Wilson/David Eckstein had last year.

#45 might be a tad unfair; it's not just baseballprospectus that has considered Jeter a poor defensive player for most of his career.

I can buy the argument that people exaggerate Jeter's defensive failings as compensation for the overwhelming media love. Of course, that he's regressed as a fielder and yet somehow ended up with even more recognition in the form of his GGs makes it even worse these days.

That's very different from saying that he wasn't ever a plus defensive SS for any significant length of time, and that he has often been one of the weaker fielding SS in the league, which is hard to refute.

Crosby's right - it wasn't just Baseball Prospectus. It was pretty much the convential wisdom among sabermetric circles at the time. So is it now the conventional wisdom among sabermetric circles that Jeter wasn't bad in the 90's - that he was about average? I'm a little surprised, but its possible.

but many of the sabermetric circles were saying he wasn't good, I don't think I saw anyone list him as historically bad until 2001, before that he was just a below average fielder.

So is it now the conventional wisdom among sabermetric circles that Jeter wasn't bad in the 90's - that he was about average?

I doubt it. But the ZR numbers back it up for 97-99. 01-03 and this most recent year are the only years where Jeter suffers horribly compared to his peers. And now that I've looked at the numbers, he was bad in 96, which I'm guessing is due to him being new to the league.

Here's how he ranked in the AL among qualifiers according to ZR:

96: Last
97: 8th out of 12
98: tied for 5th out of 11
99: tied for 6th out of 11
00: 11th out of 12
01: Last
02: Last
03: Last
04: tied for 5th out of 11
05: 5th out of 10
06: 7th out of 9
07: Last

I've noticed that ZR for SS has gone down for SS over Jeter's career. In 00, he had an .811 ZR and he was 11th in the league. In 06, he had a .810 ZR and was 7th in the league.

Q for Mets fans:

How good/bad defensively would Wright be if he was put at shortstop?

From a Jeter D thread about a month ago, SG posted this:

Jeter's runs saved per season using zone rating:

1995: -3
1996: -13
1997: -2
1998: 4
1999: 0
2000: -13
2001: -18
2002: -16
2003: -14
2004: 3
2005: 1
2006: -5
2007: -20

Craig/50:

Mets fans like Wright as a fielder, basically seeing him as an average fielding SS.

Marlins fans see Ramirez as a below-average fielding middle infielder (or average outfielder).

That's not to say that either are right or wrong. But, that's the opinion of those people.

The way I look at it, Wright has more defensive value at third base than Ramirez has at short. Wright isn't going to move to short, and probably wouldn't even if you were starting a team from scratch, so how well he'd play there is irrelevant. Ramirez, on the other hand, may very well play another position, and therefore his defensive value at other positions is relevant to the discussion, but Wright's isn't.

"fans get attached to players to some extent and identify the team by their star player. Winning is of course first and foremost, but there is always the human element, and the stories and of course the fun conversation which is the 'more adult' version of my dad can beat your dad."

Interesting. I've never looked at it that way. Having a franchise player on a bad team never did anything to take the pain out of losing. Not for me anyway. Obviously, others see things differently.

Ramirez is a poor defender, but I don't think the book is closed on him. If I were running the Marlins I would certainly keep him there for this year at the very least, in the hopes that he improves.

But in my mind's eye I see Ramirez as an easy 35+ homer hitter when he's 30 years old, and playing a corner outfielder spot. I see him much more muscular and slower. With Wright, however, I see pretty much the same guy. And he should only get better defensively.

If I'm right, you would have to think that Ramirez has a massive edge hitting to prefer him. And some scouts might think exactly that. But just pointing to the age difference isn't enough to justify the choice ... I think you have to have a strong faith that Ramirez will be hitting like Manny or Vlad, and also faith that Wright will not improve as a hitter.

But in my mind's eye I see Ramirez as an easy 35+ homer hitter when he's 30 years old, and playing a corner outfielder spot. I see him much more muscular and slower. With Wright, however, I see pretty much the same guy. And he should only get better defensively.

I don't see why the faster guy who happens to be the better athelete will age so much worse than the guy who's already stuck in a corner.

Really, the difference between the two is pretty small. Last year, Wright's OPS+ was slightly higher in the same number of PAs. If you move Hanley to third, I don't know that he isn't just as good a fielder as Wright is.

From what I've heard Ramirez's trouble defensively is his reaction time. If true, he would be below average at 2B, 3B or SS; however, his athleticism should make up for his that in CF.

And concerning getting better, isn't defense something that peaks early, like early to mid 20s? He's had a two full seasons in the majors, I don't know that he'd get any better defensively at SS at his age.

I don't agree with saying to keep him there and hope he improves, even if he improves he's never going to be good and eventually he'll become a fixture at that position and it then becomes harder to move. Also factor in how tough it would be to learn a new position at an upper age and I think if you know he's going to move, and you have the ability to move him, you move him as soon as possible.

I don't see why the faster guy who happens to be the better athelete will age so much worse than the guy who's already stuck in a corner.

I didn't mean "much slower than Wright," but much slower than what he is now.

Just a hunch. When I see Hanley's body, and how he moves at shortstop, I think: this guy is going to weigh 220 in a few years. He's not Miguel Cabrera, where huge-ifying was imminent, but he's also not Troy Tulowitzki, who is the same age and the same listed specs (6'3", 200 lbs.), but I'm guessing remains lithe for many years to come.

I'm also not sure if that qualifies as ageing "worse" ... it also suggests that he is going to put on a lot more muscle than Wright will. Wright is a consistent 25-30 homerun hitter now. Hanley reached 29 last year without adding any of the muscle that I'm forecasting ... he very well might turn into an easy 35+ homerun hitter..

If Wright remains what he is as a hitter and slightly improves his defense, and Hanley becomes an even better hitter, but defensively is a Reggie Sanders type, who is more valuable? I'm not going to answer that question because my hunches are getting absurdly specific, and obviously I can't justify them at all.

I don't agree with saying to keep him there and hope he improves, even if he improves he's never going to be good and eventually he'll become a fixture at that position and it then becomes harder to move. Also factor in how tough it would be to learn a new position at an upper age and I think if you know he's going to move, and you have the ability to move him, you move him as soon as possible.


First of all, he's already "good" in the sense that he's a plus player overall. I don't know enough about him to be so confident in his defensive ability as an OF; position changes, even toward the easier side of the defensive spectrum, are not without risk.

A guy who is +30 runs offensively and -15 runs defensively compared to the average SS has similar worth to a guy who is +20 runs offensively and -5 runs defensively compared to the average 3B. In a vacuum, that is. But no team exists in a vacuum.

The Marlins have someone else playing 3B or CF or whereever you intend to move Hanley. If he moves, you replace that player with the best SS in the system. If that SS is better than the 3B/CF he is replacing then it's right to move Ramirez. If that SS is worse, it would cost the Marlins runs to make the move.

This comes up with Derek Jeter all the time. Even most Yankee fans agree that he's a pretty lousy defensive player. But who is the good replacement right now? When the Yankees could have put Jeter in CF instead of the rotting corpse of Bernie Williams and A-Rod at SS, it was probably a very good idea. But now? A-Rod might not ever even be a good defensive 3B again, let along a good SS. Melky Cabrera is a very good defensive player and it's not so clear that Jeter would be such a great upgrade anymore in CF.

As for the worry that when Hanley Ramirez is 32 or 33 and an expensive fixture at the position that it will be hard to relocate him, there are few surer bets in baseball than the one that this will be a problem for some club other than the Marlins.

Considering all things, the best thing for the Marlins is to keep Hanley at SS unless it is potentially going to be a difference maker for a contending team. I think a great-hitting brutal-defense SS brings back more in the inevitable trade than a good-hitting average-defense CF. Add to that the relatively narrow Florida-Hanley window, and is it really such a good idea for them to be tinkering with him and risking some struggles at the plate as he adjusts to his new position?

Considering all things, the best thing for the Marlins is to keep Hanley at SS unless it is potentially going to be a difference maker for a contending team. I think a great-hitting brutal-defense SS brings back more in the inevitable trade than a good-hitting average-defense CF.

If Hanley hits like he did last year, and I don't know if he can but he certainly has the tools and the potential to, he isn't just a great hitting SS, he's a great hitting [insert position]. If you can play him in center, average defense makes him the best player in the league (with all respect to Pujols and Wright). It's not unreasonable IMO, to expect him be better than that, at least, he has the tools to be capable of it. At SS, he will be hard pressed to ever be that when he's spotting the opposition 15-20 runs every year.

Add to that the relatively narrow Florida-Hanley window, and is it really such a good idea for them to be tinkering with him and risking some struggles at the plate as he adjusts to his new position?

I don't think anything the Marlins do here is either good or bad. They obviously don't care about trying to win, developing their players or doing anything worthwhile If they let this guy go, they should all (except for Benifest) kill themselves.

You do have to feel somewhat sorry for fans in cities like San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc. that don't even have the luxury of imagining they have a player that is franchise worthy.(current)

Here in SF, instead of "franchise players" we have what is known as "legacy players." I offer Rich Aurilia v2.0 as evidence.

It is nice having Cain and Lincecum around. I imagine these guys might achieve "franchise" status sometime soon.

Here in SF, instead of "franchise players" we have what is known as "legacy players." I offer Rich Aurilia v2.0 as evidence.

Hmm. There used to be a guy named Rich Aurilia that played for the Giants a long time ago. Is this guy his son?

Hmm. There used to be a guy named Rich Aurilia that played for the Giants a long time ago. Is this guy his son?

Evil twin.

Taking Hanley over Wright is crazy talk. Wright to me is the harder worker, more charismatic, and a better leader. Why would you take the lazier guy?

Regardless of which one of Wright or Ramirez seems better, Pedroia crushes the both of them.

Presented without comment . . . 2008 stats:

Sam's such a sharp guy, it's kind of fun to see him get had on occasion. :-)

If Hanley hits like he did last year, and I don't know if he can but he certainly has the tools and the potential to, he isn't just a great hitting SS, he's a great hitting [insert position].

No argument here.

If you can play him in center, average defense makes him the best player in the league (with all respect to Pujols and Wright).

I don't see how a 145 OPS+ with average defense in CF is better than a 150 OPS+ with good defense at 3B or a 145 OPS+ with superlative defense at 2B. There's a better argument for it being better than a 157 OPS+ with superlative defense at 1B, but I would still take Pujols.

It's not unreasonable IMO, to expect him be better than that, at least, he has the tools to be capable of it.

If Ramirez was a good or even decent SS, I'd be comfortable writing him in to be at least average if you move him. But as a poor defensive player, I'm less confident. Does he have the tools to be a capable defensive CF? Probably. Can you expect it? Probably not.

At SS, he will be hard pressed to ever be that when he's spotting the opposition 15-20 runs every year.

There is little difference between a SS that gives up 15-20 runs and break-even defense at another position where the average offense is 15-20 runs higher. If the Marlins have a pretty good SS in the system that Ramirez is blocking and trash in CF, that's a different story.

Almost all good athletes are overrated. Most of it is due, I think, to sports journalism, which was first developed in the spirit of drama and entertainment and story, and not in the spirit of accuracy. That's what's creating the tension between "traditional" baseball thought, and metrics-oriented "stat-geek" thought. It's hard to write with what I'll call, for lack of a better term, "poetic precision". Drama, story, entertainment--these things are by their very nature inflated with exaggeration, bombast, and hyperbole. Journalists almost always talk about good players this way, which, after awhile, leads to a level of aggrandizement that borders on deification. To me, the ideal way of appreciating and understanding baseball is a combination of the two modes of thought. There are no absolutes, not even statistically, and one of the things I love about James is that he seems to have an acute understanding of this.

Am I remembering wrong or was Wright rated as one of the worst defensive 3B just a couple years ago? Defensive metrics tend to bounce around a lot and I wouldn't guarantee that Wright is the better defensive player just yet.

But I'd still take Wright because of all the revenue being generated by poster sales in Louisville of all places. :-)

Taking Hanley over Wright is crazy talk. Wright to me is the harder worker, more charismatic, and a better leader. Why would you take the lazier guy?

You forgot to mention how Hanley has natural athletic ability. Otherwise, a perfect spoof post re. racist player evaluation.

That is what you were going for, isn't it?

I'm a little confused about this whole Hanley Ramirez - doesn't work hard thing. I mean, this is a guy who, despite his tools, couldn't hit in the Sally League, couldn't hit in the Florida State League, and couldn't hit in the Eastern League. He gets bumped to the majors, and within a season, he's an MVP candidate, in the conversation as one of the best young players in baseball.

Are we all supposed to assume that this happened "naturally", without Ramirez working hard, making adjustments, learning and growing? I find that pretty much ridiculous. Ramirez has translated his five tools into baseball skills, and my guess is that if he played somewhere other than Miami (and if he were a white dude and a native English-speaker), we'd be reading all about the adjustments he made and the work he put in to become one of the best in baseball.

MCoA, indeed. But I think you need a finer distinction than "hard worker" and "lazy". People tend to work on what they're interested in. I'd have no doubt believing, given his appearances, that he has worked really, really hard on offense and neglected his defense. Doesn't make him lazy, just misguided (or poorly coached, IOW).