Are we seriously still crying about Hanley? Let it go.

 

 

Yoko bro, I know you liked Hanley but at this point it's not really crying. The guy has done enough things for some fans to dislike him and he really didn't have anything worthy to overshadow those facts.

 

It's not a matter of liking him or not. I don't care about him at all anymore, he's not a Marlins player. It's like obsessing over an ex. Are we going to scrutinize every quote and every play from him for all eternity? Let him be an idiot in LA.

f*** him. *shrug* Let him think he's the sh*t, and once he starts to suck again and the "Dodger Faithful" are booing him, maybe he'll shut up.

 

 

To me, Hanley's the sh*t and the urine.

Sampson chose his words poorly, how is that Hanley's fault?

 

 

always showing class, that Sampson...

From the article and quotes I read, I don't see how what Sampson said was really bad. He said they couldnt win with him. He didnt call names. Really didn't get specific.

 

I think if Bell was the name instead of Hanley, I think some would have a different feeling.

 

I still think Samson overall is pretty lame but I don't really think he went to far this time.

From the article and quotes I read, I don't see how what Sampson said was really bad. He said they couldnt win with him. He didnt call names. Really didn't get specific.

 

I think if Bell was the name instead of Hanley, I think some would have a different feeling.

 

I still think Samson overall is pretty lame but I don't really think he went to far this time.

 

 

In that case, what Hanley said wasn't wrong either. As a matter of fact, what Hanley said was more correct considering it can be supported with statistical evidence.

 

What Samson said was stupid considering how overly simplistic it was.

 

Also, if Samson said it about Heath Bell now...of course it would make more sense. Heath Bell is one of the most overpaid players in baseball, filling a role that is easily replaceable. So, yes; if it was Heath Bell, people would have a different feeling.

From the article and quotes I read, I don't see how what Sampson said was really bad. He said they couldnt win with him. He didnt call names. Really didn't get specific.

 

I think if Bell was the name instead of Hanley, I think some would have a different feeling.

 

I still think Samson overall is pretty lame but I don't really think he went to far this time.

 

 

 

In that case, what Hanley said wasn't wrong either. As a matter of fact, what Hanley said was more correct considering it can be supported with statistical evidence.

 

What Samson said was stupid considering how overly simplistic it was.

 

Also, if Samson said it about Heath Bell now...of course it would make more sense. Heath Bell is one of the most overpaid players in baseball, filling a role that is easily replaceable. So, yes; if it was Heath Bell, people would have a different feeling.

 

 

What hanley said is correct which I never diasgreed it wasn't. By stats he pretty much is correct but even then alot of other parts had changed so really it's hard to prove that that winning percentage would be different.. My statement to Yoko was to point out the reason of the reason why their is dislike when it comes to Hanley and why people continuing to talk about him.

 

I don't however really agree with your last point on Bell depending on what we are looking at it.. If we are comparing or trying to find te difference between Heath and Hanleys performance, is it based on current performance at the time or are we talking about past or expected performance?

 

If we were talking about current performance and current performance only, i would venture to say both are overpaid for what they are providing and both could be replaced without to much trouble with Hanleys current production being slightly harder to replace than Bells.

 

If we are going on past and expected performance, Hanley is by far the harder to replace. Before this year though, even though he was diminishing, bell was still one of the best closers in the game. So he can't be too beat down. Over paid, yes.

 

I assume we are going on past production and the position of the player in general

 

Hell, I could just throw it out that people hate on bell more because he's hefty and now we cant hate on the black guy since he's off the team. .. I kid. Seriously I kid.

Hanley is overpaid, but he's still been worth 2.6 fWAR this year.

Heath Bell is not only overpaid; he's just an absolutely liability to the team this year.

 

His win probability is the worst in baseball this year (-3.34) among relievers and it isn't even close. Even if you don't care for that #, his more standard ERA/WHIP #'s are telling enough. We're paying Heath Bell money to do a job that a lot of minor leaguers can do for league minimum.

 

As disappointing as Hanley has been, it's a lot more difficult to replace what he does.

That's why you can get an arm like Eovaldi (good or not, he was the Dodgers 2nd best prospect) + another arm for a disappointing Hanley and you can't get anything for a disappointing Heath Bell.

Hanley is overpaid, but he's still been worth 2.6 fWAR this year.

Heath Bell is not only overpaid; he's just an absolutely liability to the team this year.

 

His win probability is the worst in baseball this year (-3.34) among relievers and it isn't even close. Even if you don't care for that #, his more standard ERA/WHIP #'s are telling enough. We're paying Heath Bell money to do a job that a lot of minor leaguers can do for league minimum.

 

As disappointing as Hanley has been, it's a lot more difficult to replace what he does.

That's why you can get an arm like Eovaldi (good or not, he was the Dodgers 2nd best prospect) + another arm for a disappointing Hanley and you can't get anything for a disappointing Heath Bell.

 

 

Hanley was still worth a 2.6 war? That's surprising in itself.

A 2.6 WAR puts Hanley 8th among the 10 NL 3B with 400 PA. As far as regular third basemen go, I don't think that's "pretty good" when you factor in the contract. If you take money out of the equation, maybe.

 

Part of the problem is that the guy just cannot field.

Also, Hanley wouldn't be overpaid if he were still performing like people had expected him to during 2007-2009. There really wasn't any reason to expect the bat to drop off like it had. Although there was certainly reason to never expect improvement in defense.

 

Furthermore, I think that Bell would be overpaid even if he weren't sucking. That's because closers are overvalued by most teams and the Marlins share that mindset despite their ability in the past (when they didn't have money) to find solid guys to close at next to nothing.