Hanley Ramirez Vs. Don Mattingly, 1st Six MLB Seasons
Posted by Steve L. on March 3rd, 2013 · Comments (7)
Here are the numbers:
| Player | WAR/pos ▴ | From | To | Age | G | PA | AB | H | 2B | 3B | HR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Don Mattingly | 24.7 | 1982 | 1987 | 21-26 | 713 | 3079 | 2792 | 923 | 198 | 13 | 123 | .331 | .376 | .543 |
| Hanley Ramirez | 24.9 | 2005 | 2010 | 21-26 | 760 | 3372 | 2982 | 934 | 198 | 24 | 124 | .313 | .385 | .520 |
.
It allows some interesting perspective, no?
Hanley couldn’t wear Donnie’s jock……….
KPOcala wrote:
Hanley’s attitude stinks and, on top of that, I think his skills are slipping.
But Hanley’s first six years? A shortstop that hits like that is worth more than a first baseman. Much as we all love Donnie, a stud shortstop is the rarest of commodities…
@ MJ Recanati: I can’t agree here. Hanleys’ defense was never anything to brag about, attitude drags the team down, and first base metrics leave a lot to be desired. I saw when Mattingly played out in RF, and when he moved to first he was ridiculous with the glove. You could see that his play would demoralize the other team. Hanley, no. Yeah, I know about WAR, but I would bet that plenty of GMs would’ve start a club around Matttingly, not Hanley….
@ KPOcala:
It isn’t so much about WAR as it is about getting “first baseman” production out of a shortstop.
Raf wrote:
This.
@ MJ Recanati: Understood. I understand,totally, where you guys are coming from. And numbers wise, you’re correct. Still, when you have a player who could “play the game, the right way” and do it at a high level, you almost have to have a synergistic effect on the team. I’ll leave “chemistry” out of the “equation”, but I do believe synergy exists, a hell of a lot of teams win more than they “should”, and still are “lucky” (or so I used to think)to keep going deeper and deeper into the playoffs than I would have bet my house on. I don’t the equation of “synergy”, but it out there like “dark matter”. You also see it in combat. That said, can anyone make a good argument that Hanley has “IT”?
@ KPOcala:
Hanley may not have “it” but, sadly, for all the “it” that Mattingly had, it didn’t do the team all that much good. When Mattingly was productive, the team was competitive. When he stopped being productive, all the “it” in the world couldn’t change how lousy the Yankees were.