Lanier is 70, which might make him the oldest current manager in North America. Good for him.

I know who neither Hal Lanier nor the Desert Rats are. All I know of Yuma is Russel Crowe killed a bunch of dudes on the way there.

Nicely done, Repoz. Didn't Lanier have some health problems a year or two back? Starting a new job is encouraging news.

Lanier annual OPS+s as an every-day SS with the Giants, 1965-70: 52-49-42-38-46-47. career OPS+ was 50.

He made up for it with his speed, though (11 for 22 career SB attempts).

Hit a decent-looking .274 as a rookie in 401 PA, and it landed him a decent-sized career in the bigs (3940 PA in 10 years). But maybe the FIVE walks he drew in those 401 PA should have been a hint. He never hit above .233 again...

#4 List the front-line talent for the Giants in the Lanier period and you wonder why they generally finished second. Hal Lanier was a big reason. He could personally offset the value of at least one superstar.

Lanier scored exactly 37 runs every year from '66 through '69, despite playing at least 149 games each season. Ouch.

How in god's name did he stay in the lineup? He didn't bring a single thing to the table offensively. With a season high of 14 sac bunts, he can't have even been much of a bunter.

#6 This is from memory and I wasn't able to follow baseball all that closely back then but:

The Giants would basically make a couple of almost contradictory arguments:

First: He's so good defensively anything we get from him with the bat is a bonus (a fairly common argument back then)

Second: We've been working with him to (insert theory du jour) and expect him to be better with the bat. He coasted off that decent (empty) batting average for years. The Giants honestly seemed to think he was one little adjustment away from hitting.