Note: We claimed Tommy Everidge today. Tommy Everidge is a big fat guy who plays like a big fat guy.
-----
It's easy to say things with words. Check it out, I'm doing it right now. And it's with words that the Mariners and, far more importantly, myself have either implied or directly suggested that we're going to go into the 2010 season with Jack Hannahan serving as the utility infielder.
This, rather predictably, has made several people uncomfortable, because we're heading into the year with one of the more fragile starting shortstops in the league, and his backup has all of three games' worth of experience at the position as a professional. How much sense, these people ask, does it really make for a competitive team to go into the year with such uncertainty?
It is, without doubt, a ballsy move. It's the sort of move few people in baseball would be willing to make, like signing Richie Sexson, or joining the Mets. However, that alone is a valueless statement. There are a lot of things that a lot of people in baseball wouldn't do, and it's by doing the right ones that you give yourself a competitive advantage. It doesn't matter that Jack Hannahan is an unusual pick. What matters is whether or not picking him makes sense.
And I believe it does, for four reasons:
When pressed, most people will tell you that third base is a position for sluggers while shortstop is a position for slick little glovemen. This then creates the illusion of far greater difficulty when you play up the middle. To my knowledge, this isn't reflected in real life. We can expect people to look a little worse at short than they do at third, but it's not some kind of ability crippler. If you think about it, what's really the difference? Nothing's the same, but everything's similar. The angles, the range, the off-balance throws...like Hannahan says, it isn't too bad. I'd be more concerned about his adjustment to playing a little second."But anytime you can stay on the same side of the infield, the transition isn't too bad."
...
Hannahan said he felt comfortable during his two-inning stint and doesn't anticipate any difficulties with learning a new position.
On a roster with a lot of questions yet to be answered, I actually have a great deal of confidence in Hannahan's proving capable of handling his job. It's not going to be easy, mind you, but I see no reason to believe that it's too great a challenge for someone of his ability. As always, it's entirely possible that I'm missing something. Hannahan, however, got here because of his glove, and it's a glove that appears able to play a number of positions.
You can worry about Jack Wilson. You can worry about Milton Bradley. I would not worry about Jack Hannahan. He's going to be fine.
1 recs | 58 comments
There's also the fact
that he played a good amount of second base in the minors, so turning the double play isn’t new to him.
davidcameron - January 15, 2010
I think our starting shortstop has about ten times as much uncertainty as his backup
Jeff Sullivan - January 15, 2010
That uncertainty is making me regret a little bit the contract he got
I’m sure it will be fine when the season starts up and he reminds me how good his defense is but I’m afraid he’s gonna start the season off batting 0.100 and then get hurt.
Edgar for Pres - January 15, 2010
I think it's great that we're stealing Oakland's infielders
and also great that my favorite player is going to be contributing greatly this season. People seem to treat Hannahan like an unknown quantity at shortstop when we do have plenty of information that can be applied to him.
Dewey N - January 15, 2010
Aw jeez couldn't we have stolen Mark Ellis
Poochie - January 15, 2010
It sure would be nice to have a competent second baseman
Dewey N - January 15, 2010
Hannahan?
Poochie - January 15, 2010
#2 is the most important point I think
His skillset is more likely to transfer to SS than most of those power 3B types. He’s got great range and reaction time with a good arm, which is what you need at SS.
I think he’ll be okay.
OlSalty - January 15, 2010
Alright.
Here’s my comment for you. Don’t want you to get all butt hurt.
melenious - January 15, 2010
Damn you Graham
Jeff Sullivan - January 15, 2010
I never should have taken this off topic
Jeff Sullivan - January 15, 2010
Hidden subthread!
Dewey N - January 15, 2010
Drive up the comment count to confuse those who can't see this!
Dewey N - January 15, 2010
I didn't fill out Tango's Fan Scouting Reports, but I would agree.
We won’t be below average defensively if Wilson takes some time off at shortstop.
TrustBaseball - January 15, 2010
I'm a firm believer in the strategy of
keeping your defensive-minded backup shortstop at AAA. I love that we’re using Hannahan as the major-league infield backup. If Jack W. goes out for an extended period of time, we can call up Josh W. For a game or two here or there, Hannahan is a terrific idea.
edgar is good - January 15, 2010
I don't know if Josh Wilson is actually that good SS
Not really gonna trust the UZR numbers I see and I haven’t ever heard a real scouting report on him that didn’t sound like PR BS so I’m not really sure what to think of him. I’m pretty sure he’s bad all around but I’m holding out judgement.
Edgar for Pres - January 15, 2010
Eh
Honestly, knowing what we know right now, I think I’d much prefer Hannahan. Josh Wilson just isn’t good at anything.
Jeff Sullivan - January 15, 2010
But, but...
he’s bad at offense, so he must be good at defense, right? Or does that only work for catchers?
edgar is good - January 16, 2010
Josh Wilson
isn’t as bad as you think he is.
Paul AB - January 16, 2010
How much better of a SS is Jack Wilson over Jack Hannahan over a full season?
Edgar for Pres - January 15, 2010
I imagine a good number of runs
Jeff Sullivan - January 15, 2010
Probably like 10-15 points of UZR
Poochie - January 15, 2010
I hope so
I’m happy I feel like one of the few pessimists of Wilson around here. He’ll probably be fine and we’ll all be happy. I just need to get rid of that bad feeling I’ve got.
Edgar for Pres - January 16, 2010
Would Figgins shifting over be a better option?
Figgins at 3rd: +5 to +10
Hannahan at 3rd: +5 to +10
Figgins at SS: -5 to -10
Hannahan at SS: ?
Hard to make an argument that it would make much of a difference, but Figgins does have more experience at the position. Also, I believe +5 to +10 is a conservative estimate for Hannahan, but everyone wants to regress his high UZR.
Fuckmikereilly - January 16, 2010
I imagine the team would rather leave Figgins as the regular 3B
Jeff Sullivan - January 16, 2010
I feel like Figgins might be Lopez's backup at 2B when he needs days off
Then Hannahan would fill in at 3B, shifting Figgins to 3B. Only reason why I said that is because I heard somewhere that Figgins is preparing to play 2B or 3B.
Edgar for Pres - January 16, 2010
I'm sure Figgins will play a couple positions this year
but the team, I’m guessing, doesn’t want to use his flexibility to the max.
Jeff Sullivan - January 16, 2010
Yeah I'd agree with this
Mostly just thinking it would probably make Hannahan’s life easier if he only had to backup SS/3B and not worry about 2B. Figgins has played both 2B and 3B a lot so it would probably be easier for him to cover 2B and put Hannahan in at 3B where by all accounts he’s awesome.
Edgar for Pres - January 16, 2010
I really doubt we see Figgins at SS or in the OF much.
And only at 2B due to Lopez getting a day off.
Edgar for Pres - January 16, 2010
Great post. This is the key to the rest of the roster.
If Hannahan can play SS and 2B, then he is a valuable backup with a LH bat. Especially if Wilson misses 30-40 games, and if Lopez is rested for 5-10 games.
I hope that he can play SS and 2B, as it allows the M’s to get that RH bat for LF/1B.
However, if he can play SS and 2B, then it begs the question, Why did Beane and the A’s trade him to the M’s?
I wonder if the M’s are considering Felipe Lopez? He probably would not want to sign here as a Utility player, but he is a switch-hitter, and can play 2B, SS, 3B, and LF (although only average to below-average defense). He could be like a Mark McLemore for us.
Still, I would rather have Hannahan be able to be our LH utility player, and get the RH bat for LF/1B.
baseball forever - January 16, 2010
He’s not a good hitter. With Oakland in in 2008 he had a .289 wOBA, and in 2009 with Oakland it was .291. They gave up on him.
The various projection systems have him somewhere between .302 and ..309 wOBA in 2010.
Paul AB - January 16, 2010
But with solid defense at multiple infield positions, that's not a bad player to have around at all
especially since he has a good approach, a little power, and hits left-handed
seattlebruin - January 18, 2010
Jack Hanahan, break out player of the year.
And that isn’t sarcasm.
Stripesjr - January 16, 2010
Great post. Not just because I love me some Jack Hannahan. I think I actually learned something!
royalcurve - January 16, 2010
Yeah, I don't have much of an issue with Hannahan covering the backup SS duties.
Starting, I would have.
Matthew - January 16, 2010
how reliable are fan projections?
I have seen tangos fan projections used lately and I can’t help but feel that these should be taken with a huge grain of salt. You said that people who have seen a lot of jack h projected him. I would imagine many of those projectors were mariners fans so how much could they have seen him play? I just can’t see using fans projections as a reliable source. Otherwise great piece.
Paseman - January 16, 2010 via mobile
They correlate surprisingly well with the advanced metrics, I believe
Jeff Sullivan - January 16, 2010
Pardon my cynicism,
but I suspect the causality there is working in reverse.
I know people are instructed not to take stats into account when filling the form out. I’d be shocked if that instruction worked any better at insidethebook than it does in courtrooms where juries are instructed to ignore prejudicial statements (which is to say, I’d be shocked if it was even slightly effective).
PaulThomas - January 16, 2010
My only question here is how the biased voters turn a UZR value into rangle/hands/whatever the fan surveys use
Graham MacAree - January 16, 2010
I think this is the main defense to that question
It is a troubling problem though. If the voters are tainted by UZR somehow then the fan’s database will not have anymore use than UZR and therefore you might as well just use UZR. I don’t think that happens because of what Graham says about splitting skills into categories however I’m sure there is some effect that skews the results to fall in line with UZR. Even if it isn’t conscious, I’m sure people use UZR to develop a feeling of how good of a defender players are and use that in rating players.
Edgar for Pres - January 17, 2010
What's wrong with that?
I think that’s good actually. It tells us that educated fans that use stats can make better (possibly, of course) judgment guesses than projection systems. I think that’s interesting. It would mean that somehow the projection systems are not taking into account things that everyday analysts are.
Also, Psych is one of my favorite shows, so I dig your signature. One free rec for you for having it.
CapSea - January 17, 2010
It's really a wisdom of the masses argument, though
500 smart baseball fans average projections will likely be as good as a single projection system since you can eliminate a lot of the noise with the larger sample size
seattlebruin - January 18, 2010
And pardon my cynicism
But so what? If you cheat and get a better answer, you’ve got a better answer. This isn’t school where cheating is (or should be) an automatic failure. This is baseball where cheating… well, nevermind. The point is, if we get better projections, who cares what kind of machinations, cynical or otherwise, led to it? Better is better.
Now, you could argue that we don’t yet know if they are better, or reliably so, and therefore shouldn’t wholly rely on them but offer other more-established projections alongside the fan ones… and hey, lookee there.
wandergeist - January 17, 2010
The point is not the produce the best projections using the fan survey
Its to add new information to the pool.
Tango does it to develop a fielding database independent of the other databases all the other stats use. He is interested in getting new and original thoughts. In the end, if we want to include the UZR info we can always average the two databases together.
Edgar for Pres - January 17, 2010
Why not give Tui that time instead?
Honestly, there is no upside w/ Hanahan whereas Tui could prove to be the blue chipper some think he is. Let him learn as a backup and if Wilson goes down then slide Chone over to SS.
bilbo - January 16, 2010
I looks to me that the front office wants to do as much as they can to keep a good defensive team on the field as much as possible.
There are not a whole lot of people that view Tui as a competent defensive player. It’s only a bench role, so you wouldn’t think it would affect our defense that much, but it does go against their basic philosophy. I think there might also be the desire to see him play regularly right now rather then getting spotty play as a big league backup.
nathaniel dawson - January 16, 2010
Putting a 'blue chipper' on the bench wouldn't be a great idea anyway
If Tui wants to raise his game or prove himself, he should be in Tacoma.
Graham MacAree - January 16, 2010
Exactly
Your good players should be starters. If you think Tui is a good player at a particular position, then you should be drumming for him to get a starting position, not a bench role. Sitting on the bench “learning the game” or whatever effect is so supposed to happen there (osmosis?) should only be employed in small doses, like in September. Anyway, you may remember he got a dose of that (with zero playing time) at the start of last season as well. How much of that does he actually need?
wandergeist - January 17, 2010
Jack Hannahan
I believe Jack Hannahan plays such awesome defense & puts in the work when playing on any given day or not that he will do great at any infield position. He has my vote & confidence anytime!
Hannahoney22 - January 18, 2010
I don't think I can take you seriously with that screen name.
appleshampoo - January 18, 2010
Look at the fanpost she put up last season. She comes by the name honestly.
It was a neat story.
Sec 108 - January 19, 2010
I actually did that, yeah.
I feel kind of bad now. He does indeed seem like a great guy!
appleshampoo - January 19, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.