Maybe Hanley Ramirez Should Actually Start At Shortstop?
The Los Angeles Dodgers have many stars. The Los Angeles Dodgers don’t have a star third baseman, at least not one that is slated to start third base this year. The Dodgers *do* have many good defensive shortstops, and none of them is starting at shortstop. The weirdest thing is that it might all make sense, at least for now.
Hanley Ramirez hasn’t been a great defensive shortstop, at least not in the major leagues. He hasn’t ever added a win of fielding plus positional value, and his best UZR/150 at the position was +0.9, in 2008. That was a long time ago, and since — only three shortstops have played 1000 innings at the position over the last three years and been worse with the glove than Hanley Ramirez.
It might cause some consternation, then, to discover that a good defensive “system” shortstop (Luis Cruz) is slated to play third base next to Ramirez in 2013. Cruz only has five hundred major league innings at short, but he’s never had a season in which he was a minus-fielding shortstop. Say what you want about Dee Gordon‘s defense — Bullpen Banter’s Steve Fiorindo said he “wasn’t worried about” Dee Gordon’s defense due to his athleticism which should lead to “plenty of range and arm” — but there are other shortstop types on the roster too: Juan Uribe, Nick Punto, Justin Sellers, and Jerry Hairston, Jr to say the least. By UZR/150, all of them are better-than-scratch defenders at shortstop that have had better-than-scratch defensive seasons at the position more recently than Ramirez.
Ceding double-digit runs at shortstop when you’ve got multiple scratch or better defenders as options on the current roster seems like folly.
But there are the particulars of Ramirez’s defense. Baseball Info Solutions breaks down each infield defender on balls straight to them and to their left and right. To his right, Hanley had been terrible for two straight years before joining the Dodgers: -14 and -21 at shortstop. That was in opposition to decent numbers up the middle (-2 and +2) and good work to his left (+1 and +7).
Admittedly, there are two ways to look at these numbers if you are his acquiring team. You could think that moving him to third base essentially eliminates the need for range to his right. Or you could put a great defensive third baseman next to him that could get to some of those balls to Ramirez’s right.
Obviously we know which path the Dodgers decided to go down. Since Cruz was best to his left and straight on (+4 and +6 compared to +1 to his right), it seems to have worked out fine. Ramirez went from double-digit bad to his right to -7 with Cruz as his partner. And the team as a whole was 15th in the league in UZR/150 (0.9) and BIS’ Defensive Runs Saved (+4), with the fifth-lowest BABIP allowed (.283). There’s no evidence, at least, that a massive defensive shortcoming was part of the team’s failing.
And there might have been benefits to the decision to put Ramirez at short.
Hanley Ramirez hasn’t taken well to criticism, seemingly. In 2010, Fredi Gonzalez pulled him from a game for lack of hustle, and when given a chance to be contrite, the shortstop responded with “It’s his team. He can do whatever he f——- wants.” When asked to cut his hair and change his style, Ramirez also bristled. He once took his manager to task for failing to retaliate when the player was hit. Ozzie Guillen had harsh words once the shortstop was gone, too — but to be fair, he said the same when Ramirez was still in town.
Most of these comments came during the star shortstop’s worst years. There’s a chicken and the egg thing going on though — was he performing poorly before he was criticized, or did the criticism keep him from righting the ship? Joe Girardi is not the softest of managers, but he coached Ramirez through his best seasons, and Ramirez once tearfully thanked him for it. But Ramirez might have been a better player, and more athletic, those days.
Now approaching thirty, Ramirez is once again negotiating a relationship with a new staff. Perhaps they thought a kinder, gentler approach would get the most out of their new shortstop. When asked about defense and his team’s acquisition, Dodger skipper Don Mattingly said “He can do this.” And small samples aside, Ramirez responded with better offense (8% better) and defense with the Dodgers.
The Dodgers might be losing a few runs here or there due to Hanley Ramirez playing at shortstop despite his bad range to his right. With a good defender to his right, though, that negativity is mitigated. And by showing him a little positivity, maybe the Dodgers will reap the best Ramirez has to offer.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
It is interesting to consider whether a no-bat third baseman with Hanley at short is much worse than a no-bat shortstop next to Hanley at third. Normally I’d be opposed to coddling malcontents, but maybe you’re right that this is the “best” out of some bad options.
Coddling Malcontents would be a good band name.
What exactly is the problem with “coddling malcontents”? If he’s more productive and valuable than the options, what’s the point of making the distinction?
The problem with it, according to most managers, is the precedent it sets: first, the expectation you will be coddled as a malcontent whether you’re productive or not; and, second, that the way to get coddling — if such you seek — is to become a malcontent. Over and above whatever effect one malcontent might have on the team as a whole, you may be breeding more.
Yeah, that’s how it works in Little League, where you have to treat everyone the same.
I think in the adult world everyone understands that there ARE different rules for people based on talent. The MVP at your workplace can get away with stuff that the replacement level worker cannot.
Be almost solely responsible for all of your company’s success, and I bet they tolerate a bunch of your crap.
However, the more of a malcontent you are, the more productive you need to be. The only time people really get tired of others is when their bad outweighs the good.
I suppose we could start a conversation about Miguel Cabrera’s detriment to the team via lack of leadership.
Coddling malcontents and “having to deal with personalities” are two different things.
CircleChange said it well, since I was considering the Little League model when I asked the question above. It’s more than that of course, and he covered how a company(or organization of any type)’s success hinges more on production than whether you or I or anyone thinks the person in charge of production isn’t a coddled malcontent. That extends to MLB too, and it’s absurd to me to make that distinction at the MLB level of baseball, since essentially, the only thing that’s important is winning (unlike, certainly, Little League) since that’s what drives revenue. A team of 4WAR coddled malcontents is still a team of 4WAR players.
How much, if any, evidence is there that having a extraordinary defender at third (or any infield position) helps mitigate the failings of poor range?
That was my immediate reaction, also. I might add that we are dealing with extremely small sample sizes here–defensive stats divided into 3 splits.
The Dodgers should play Ramirez at 3B and the young defensive whiz at SS, but I hope they don’t.
Yeah I would like to see some more research done there. It seems to me that balls the shortstop misses deep in the whole are rarely gobbled up by 3b. Maybe some positioning “cheating goes on when you have a lefty at the plate but then you are exposing the third base line. Additionally the third baseman generally cuts in front of a shortstop so it’s a play the shortstop does not usually make any ways. Having said that I wonder if the reason Hanley sucks going left is because he gives up on balls he thinks the third baseman is going to get. That would seem to be Hanley type behavior.
Hard hit balls to the right are still going to find the whole with Han-Ram at short and Cruz at 3rd. You can’t keep hiding Han-Ram’s weaknesses. It is inevitable that he will have to make the move at some point in his career, so why not move him to 3rd now?
That new Lexus you just bought is eventually only going to be worth 20 grand, why don’t you sell it to me for 25 now?
The “Lexus” in this case is several years old and has iffy enough electronics that it’s very possible it’s already only worth 20 grand.
A fair point that I’d be completely open-minded to. But TroutKingFisher’s comment says that the inevitability is in the future. And in that case, it only makes sense to extract whatever value you can until that inevitability rises.
This may be the worst analogy I’ve ever seen. I have no idea what is meant to be relevant about it.
All it proves is that you can’t beat a dead horse to expose the clay feet of a metaphor, because sooner or later the rubber meets the road.
I also fully agree with us. See also my comment right above yours.
us=TroutKingFisher
“You could think that moving him to third base essentially eliminates the need for range to his right”.
Do you mean right or stage right?
His right, as I said, because to the right of third base is foul territory, mostly.
Aren’t 3Bs positioning themselves very poorly if range to their right is unimportant? Really seems like for each batter they should be positioning themselves such that they’re as likely to have to move to their right as to their left.
My thought exactly. Whether 3B or SS, range to the right is still important.
I hear you guys a bit, but there’s no defender to his right at third base, so there’s nobody there to help. And generally, you can position him close to the line to mitigate a bad step to the right.
At short, you can’t position him close to the line or anything, but you do have the defender helping.
Don’t forget you typically want your 3B to be a righty w/ glove hand to the left. There’s really no time to physically range anywhere to his right on a (typically) hardhit ball down the line at 3B.
Anyway, seems to me playing 3B tends to be less about range (per se) as about reaction time (although range would include reaction time). Does Cruz have vastly better reaction times than HanRam (for 3B)… perhaps even more so than overall range at SS?
So, having a good defensive 3B makes him a better SS? I don’t follow – and maybe this is why there are problems with the acceptance of defensive metrics. He either can reach the ball in the hole or he can’t. If his “zone of responsibility” is being shifted, the metric should account for that, and penalize him accordingly.
Or, is he actually fielding his position better with a good 3B?
If Cruz is gobbling up the balls in the hole, then Hanley’s total chances will drop in 2013, which will still hurt his UZR (though probably not as much as if he were fielding those balls but with bad results). It’s just that you’re shifting more of the total chances to a player with better fielding ability, so it’s a net gain to the team.
…if I understand it correctly.
There are also possible unaccounted-for psychological factors going on in the pitchers, with an excellent defender at short instead of Hanley. It’s much more comfortable as a pitcher to know a groundball up the middle is going to be easily handled and that could affect their particular game-theoretic decision-making on the mound. This is the value that current stats have a hard time quantifying…the next level will be behavioral sabermetrics, much like what happened in finance.
Juan Uribe is a ‘SS type’ these days?!?
!!!
I wouldn’t think having a good defender at third would do much for a shortstop. If a shortstop’s zone overlapped with the third baseman’s you’d expect very few balls to go through the gap between them.
I think it is an interesting observation. As a dodgers fan, I was impressed w/hanley’s play last year. I have to think his motivation helps his offense and that in turn helps his defense. There is enough talent around him to help keep him motivated. Also, Cruz was surprisingly good down the stretch last year. Hard to sustain and not great pop, perhaps, but he was an upgrade x2 over the over swinging uribe. I’d like Hanley on my fantasy team. I might take an end of the draft cheap flyer on Cruz. Nickatl
A product at having so many with potential at those positions. I would like to see Dee Gordon share time with Ramirez at SS and put the only consistent hitter (Cruz)last year at third.
What’s the fascination with stick figure. He looks like a wobbly 15 year old basketball player.
hanley should be at 3rd base , gordon at short his speed a big plus and cruz at 2nd base .
that should be the lineup and we need a real catcher
Doesn’t position adjustment mean Ramirez is better at SS than 3B anyway, value-wise?
SS is +7.5. 3B is +2.5. To make up the difference, Ramirez would presumably need to be 5 runs better at 3B than at SS, otherwise he actually has more value at SS than 3B. It seems to me that Ramirez didn’t play 5 runs better at 3rd than SS, but I can’t find the numbers. Am I missing something?