It's funny. He always stops posting after being proven wrong on Hanley. Always.

is it time we re-open the discussion about how the FO f***ed up badly by not signing Pujols?

It's funny. He always stops posting after being proven wrong on Hanley. Always.

 

 

Or maybe I just don't respond to childish harrasment.

It's funny. He always stops posting after being proven wrong on Hanley. Always.

 

 

Or maybe I just don't respond to childish harrasment.

Or an .874 OPS.

It's funny. He always stops posting after being proven wrong on Hanley. Always.

 

 

Or maybe I just don't respond to childish harrasment.

Or an .874 OPS.

 

Or only 76 RBI as a third batter in 2010 (142 games) or 45 in 92 games. Transposed over Hanley's career high 158 games, that comes out to 85 and 77.2 respectively. That's hardly third batter production, and while I know some of you don't believe in measuring production in actual stats, for Hanley to drive in runs at a rate even lower than the much maligned Alfonso Soriano (over the last two years), amonst many others sums up how Hanley has handled the responsibility of the third hole.

 

His OPS shows that Hanley has been a good offensive player, but they still don't show that he isn't miscast hitting third. Our offense will do great if Stanton delivers this year, as Hanley doesn't have a problem getting on base, but I wish we had a third batter whose best skill wasn't merely passing the buck, and instead actually driving in the runs himself. Because then, when our cleanup hitter is out, like now, we won't have to make excuses for why our offense isn't getting things done.

It's funny. He always stops posting after being proven wrong on Hanley. Always.

 

 

Or maybe I just don't respond to childish harrasment.

Or an .874 OPS.

 

Or only 76 RBI as a third batter in 2010 (142 games) or 45 in 92 games.  Transposed over Hanley's career high 158 games, that comes out to 85 and 77.2 respectively.  That's hardly third batter production, and while I know some of you don't believe in measuring production in actual stats, for Hanley to drive in runs at a rate even lower than the much maligned Alfonso Soriano (over the last two years), amonst many others sums up how Hanley has handled the responsibility of the third hole.

 

His OPS shows that Hanley has been a good offensive player, but they still don't show that he isn't miscast hitting third.  Our offense will do great if Stanton delivers this year, as Hanley doesn't have a problem getting on base, but I wish we had a third batter whose best skill wasn't merely passing the buck, and instead actually driving in the runs himself.  Because then, when our cleanup hitter is out, like now, we won't have to make excuses for why our offense isn't getting things done.

 

Why did you ignore his 2009 season, where he drove in 105 runs?In 2010, he had 75 RBIS due to the lack of solid hitters in front of him. Our lead off hitters that season were Bonifacio, Coghlan, and Maybin. He had no one to drive in.

It's funny. He always stops posting after being proven wrong on Hanley. Always.

 

 

Or maybe I just don't respond to childish harrasment.

Or an .874 OPS.

 

Or only 76 RBI as a third batter in 2010 (142 games) or 45 in 92 games. Transposed over Hanley's career high 158 games, that comes out to 85 and 77.2 respectively. That's hardly third batter production, and while I know some of you don't believe in measuring production in actual stats, for Hanley to drive in runs at a rate even lower than the much maligned Alfonso Soriano (over the last two years), amonst many others sums up how Hanley has handled the responsibility of the third hole.

 

His OPS shows that Hanley has been a good offensive player, but they still don't show that he isn't miscast hitting third. Our offense will do great if Stanton delivers this year, as Hanley doesn't have a problem getting on base, but I wish we had a third batter whose best skill wasn't merely passing the buck, and instead actually driving in the runs himself. Because then, when our cleanup hitter is out, like now, we won't have to make excuses for why our offense isn't getting things done.

 

Why did you ignore his 2009 season, where he drove in 105 runs?In 2010, he had 75 RBIS due to the lack of solid hitters in front of him. Our lead off hitters that season were Bonifacio, Coghlan, and Maybin. He had no one to drive in.

 

Because logic dictates that he is a lot more likely to hit like he has the last two years, which have been his worst, than a year 3 years ago.

How does logic dictate that?

 

Even if he hit the way he did in 2010, it's fine. Like I said, the reason he did not have enough RBIS was due to the hitters in front of him. He hit well with runners on or in scoring position. He just didn't have anyone to drive in.

Sirspud's continuous "The Alfonso Soriano contract was not that bad" crusade is one of my favorite things.

Because logic dictates that he is a lot more likely to hit like he has the last two years, which have been his worst, than a year 3 years ago.

 

 

Logic dictates that judging a player's ability to hit third by RBIs accumulated is exponentially stupid.

Or only 76 RBI as a third batter in 2010 (142 games) or 45 in 92 games. Transposed over Hanley's career high 158 games, that comes out to 85 and 77.2 respectively. That's hardly third batter production, and while I know some of you don't believe in measuring production in actual stats, for Hanley to drive in runs at a rate even lower than the much maligned Alfonso Soriano (over the last two years), amonst many others sums up how Hanley has handled the responsibility of the third hole.

 

 

 

 

In 2011, he hit significantly better with runners on than with the bases empty. He was moderately better with runners on in 2010 and he was significantly better in 09 with runners on.

 

You're making the mistake of saying he was a worse hitter because he had fewer RBIs, when in actuality he had fewer RBIs because he's been a worse hitter; you've got it backwards, see? If you want to make an argument that Hanley doesn't belong in the three spot, you shouldn't do it based on his ability or inability to produce with runners on, because it doesn't really hold up.

 

There is an argument to be made that Hanley should not bad 3rd for this team. That argument shouldn't be "HE CAN'T HIT WITH RUNNERS ON!" Because that argument isn't based on reality.

Sirspud's continuous "The Alfonso Soriano contract was not that bad" crusade is one of my favorite things.

 

 

My contention was never that the Soriano contract was good, it was the Cubs doling out multiple large contracts to guys like Kosuke Fukudome that really did them in.

Yeah, but said contention is still wrong and it's stilly funny that you took an opportunity to sneak it into a discussion about Hanley Ramirez.

 

(By the way, you're pretty demonstrably wrong about Soriano, but it's definitely not worth explaining to you why. Because the explanation doesn't involved RBI.)

Sirspud's continuous "The Alfonso Soriano contract was not that bad" crusade is one of my favorite things.

 

 

This post made me lol

Hanley doesn't have a problem getting on base, but I wish we had a third batter whose best skill wasn't merely passing the buck, and instead actually driving in the runs himself.  Because then, when our cleanup hitter is out, like now, we won't have to make excuses for why our offense isn't getting things done.

 

 

If "[having no] problem getting on base" is "merely passing the buck," then give me 8 guys who merely pass the buck, baby.

I was a participant in the original Soriano exchange. His argument was really LOLworthy at the time.

I just want to see Gaby get back on track.