Jack Hannahan, Middle Infielder
Adrian Beltre is set to come off the disabled list and join the team in Kansas City today. That means that the M’s are going to have to send out one of their infielders, and since Jack Hannahan has options left, he’s the obvious candidate. Chris Woodward is certainly not as good as Hannahan, but he offers Wak experience at shortstop, and coupled with Hannahan’s ability to go to Triple-A for a month, it makes this a fairly easy call.
However, the M’s have Matt Tuiasosopo playing third base regularly down in Tacoma, and after missing most of the season due to an elbow injury, he needs the reps over there. They could play him at first base, but that’s currently being manned by Mike Carp, Brad Nelson, and Bryan LaHair, so it’s a little crowded as well. So, where should Hannahan play in Tacoma while waiting for the rosters to expand in September?
I vote for second base and shortstop. Hannahan has been extremely impressive defensively at third base, showing off terrific range at the hot corner. UZR agrees with what we’ve seen, too – he’s +5 runs in just 151 inning as a Mariner, which is a +38.2 UZR/150 pace. His career UZR at third base is +22.8 in 1,831 innings, which works out to about +16.5 runs over a full season. For comparison, his defensive numbers are almost exactly a match to Evan Longria. Hannahan can really pick it at third.
Last winter, I did a couple different posts showing that players who can play third base are quite likely to be able to play second base as well. There’s very little shift in defensive performance if a player moves from 2nd to 3rd or vice versa, suggesting that the two positions are fairly equal in terms of relative defensive ability and importance.
We can infer, from Hannahan’s defensive excellence at third base, that he should be able to be above average defensively at second base as well. Not surprisingly, he actually has a decent amount of experience there, having played 97 games at second base in Triple-A in 2006 and 2007. Getting him work at second base down in Tacoma would give him the chance to get re-adjusted to turning the double play and getting the middle infielder’s footwork down, and give the M’s more flexibility in how to use him when he comes back to the majors.
But I wouldn’t stop at using him at second base. I’m fairly sure he could play there without any real problems. His defensive skills make that an easy move. I’d challenge him a bit by sticking him at shortstop as well, and taking some time to evaluate whether or not he has the range to stick at the most demanding defensive position on the field. I think he just might.
It’s not as crazy as it might sound. Marco Scutaro was a 2B/3B when he came up through the minors – the A’s didn’t shift him to shortstop until he was 29. Ryan Theriot spent most of his time playing second base in the high minors and got to the big leagues as a 2B, but moved over to shortstop when the Cubs had a need and has solidified himself there. Neither of these guys are flashy, Omar Vizquel type defenders, but they were solid fundamentally and had enough range to convince their teams to let them slide over, and it’s worked out exceedingly well.
Hannahan has that kind of ability, I think, and I’d like to see the M’s evaluate his ability to play shortstop. As you know, the M’s have nothing in terms of depth of middle infield in the upper minors, and they’re running out a bad player if either Wilson or Lopez get hurt. If Hannahan shows he can handle the middle infield, he just got a lot more valuable to the M’s.
As a left-handed bat with patience and gap power, Hannahan is a significantly better hitter than your typical reserve infielder. If the M’s grow him into a guy who can cover all four infield spots, they could have a left-handed Mark DeRosa, the kind of versatile play-everywhere-and-hit guy that managers dream about and makes the team quite a bit better. As a super-reserve, Hannahan would become one of the better bench players in the game, and be a significant asset to the 2010 Mariners squad.
The M’s have an opportunity here, with Beltre’s return buying them some time to experiment in Tacoma. Send Hannahan down and try him out at 2B/SS. If you like what you see, you’ve just added another real nice piece to the 2010 team.
Update: Or, they could just keep Hannahan around as the team’s only backup infielder and have him work on his 2B/SS skills at the big league level. Which is apparently the plan.
Comments
67 Responses to “Jack Hannahan, Middle Infielder”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Totally agree. It is very difficult to project how well a guy will adjust to a new position, especially in the infield where plays happen quickly. It’s a pretty individualized thing. Sometimes it doesn’t work out (Piazza at 1B, for example), but sometimes it works out well (e.g. Kelly Johnson to 2B). In Hannahan’s case, this is a perfect time to find out.
I’ve been thinking much the same thing, myself. Hannahan’s a solid bench player, and a good guy for the team to have around. I didn’t know he had options left, and was hoping that the M’s would just release Woodward and let Hannahan be the 2B/SS reserve.
Knowing that he has options, then your plan sounds even better.
Hannahan reminds me a lot of Doug Strange, and I remember how much good use Lou Piniella got out of Strange back in ’95.
Great post Dave, and I have been thinking the same thing. It would be nice to give one of Wilson, Beltre or Lopez a day off when a tough righty is on the mound or just one day off a week each against righties. I’m wondering though if it is really necessary to send Hanahan down to accomplish this or if it can be done by working with coaches before the games.
I’d love to see Hannahan and Langerhans in super-utility roles next year. Langerhans as the 4th OF and Hannahan as the LF compliment to Wilson, Lopez, and Beltre/Tui would be a very solid start to a productive MLB bench. Having a ++ defensive sub at 2B/SS/3B who is a patient LH hitter would be a great asset to the team.
I believe the research that has been done which suggest 2nd base is a closer translation to 3b than SS. But it seems to me that 2b would be every bit as demanding as SS. Its essentially the same position just on the other side of the infeild. Does a SS really have that many more balls hit to him than 2b? Where would you find those numbers?
Ripken was another player shifted from third to short, when Earl Weaver took a chance on him.
Not saying the M’s have any Ripkens on their bench… Billy Ripken, maybe.
Great stuff Dave, and I totally agree.
Does a SS really have that many more balls hit to him than 2b? Where would you find those numbers?.
Yes. FanGraphs.
I doubt Hannahan would be worse defensively than Lopez.
Is there any indication that the M’s will do this? I suppose they might be forced to do it, given the roster makeup in Tacoma. After all, Shelton was forced to play 3B.
Most teams put an infielder at shortstop until they prove that they can’t handle the position, right? So I guess we ought to ask, “Why did the A’s move Hannahan off of short and over to third in the first place?” Does anyone know?
So I guess we ought to ask, “Why did the A’s move Hannahan off of short and over to third in the first place?â€
Actually, it would be the Tigers that made that decision, assuming that Hannahan was a shortstop when he came out of the University of Minnesota (which I don’t know if he was).
I like it!!! I don’t know why I hadn’t thought of it before, because it seems so obvious now. (Which is a pretty typical reaction for me after reading one of Dave’s pieces…) Hopefully the FO views it as a no-brainer and gives it a shot. What’s to lose?
Good for you, Dave. I was just wondering, at 5 in the morning, what the M’s were going to do with Hannahan.
Brilliant post Dave. I’m loving both Hanahan and Langerhans and will be sad to see one of them leave. Having Hanahan as a SS in AAA would just give us another option in 2011 when Jack Wilson leaves (or who knows, if Hanahan impresses enough in AAA maybe he could be our starting SS in 2010). A patient lefty off the bench who can play 2B, SS, and 3B would be a great asset to this team. Combine that with Langerhans coming off the bench with the ability to play good defense for all three outfield spots, and we would have the best defensive backups (and I actually mean good defense, unlike Willie Bloomquist in CF and his supposed above average defensive ability) in the league as well as a good safety net in case any of our starters should get injured.
He came up through the Tigers (traded in Aug 2007). It looks like the Tigers played him at 2nd more than they played him elsewhere. (in 2006 and 2007)
Looks like the A’s played him at third because of an injury to Eric Chavez.
bio link
Minor league stats:
97 games played (all or part) at 2B
1 game played (all or part) at SS
I can’t find his college stats but it looks like his Big Ten player of the year award listed him as a 3B.
Aren’t there any takers for Adrian Beltre? He’s probably not coming back to the M’s. SAFECO kills his power numbers and Boras is his agent. He’ll take whoever pays him the most.
Hannahan will be 30 at the beginning of next year. Isn’t that normally considered a threshold for a drop off in defensive ability? Do you think he would still transition well to a more demanding defensive position late in his baseball career?
Lets say Hannahan excels at SS down at AAA. His defensive skillset fits there perfectly, and he shows there’s a good chance he can be a daily MLB Shortstop; Do you pick up Wilson’s option? Could we get a Willy Bloomquist/Felipe Lopez etc. cheaper than the $8M Wilson would get? This is probably a long shot, but it be a very nice problem to have. Wilson is the man at the position though, so Hannahan would need to be quite impressive to pull this off.
Let’s not get carried away, folks. The chances of Hannahan being a *good* shortstop are pretty slim. He may be a good 2B, a great 3B and a passable SS, which would be handy enough. I don’t think he’s the long-term solution at SS.
From Dave’s Fangraphs post (linked above)
Jack Hannahan, 6’2″, 210 lbs.
He probably played 3B because he looked like a 3B.
Passable SS? What I wouldn’t have given for a passable SS the first couple months of the year.
Why stop there? I’ve been dying for a passable SS the past two seasons at least.
Amen
Read the post, Dave is advocating he be the wonder-utility-infielder that could spell the regulars, while getting on base, provide some gap power, and not overly sacrifice defense. He never mentioned “everyday” solution in his post.
Great idea, these are the kind of role players whose plate discipline and defensive ability make great options off the bench. I hope the FO is taking notice like your Langerhans post. Btw, it’ll be great to have Beltre back in the lineup and on the field.
I second the motion…. buh bum bump….
Basically, I’m advocating that Hannahan should become the new Mark McLemore.
It will be good to have Beltre back, and so fast too! It will also be great if Hannahan can play the middle infield.
Can you imagine if we had picked up Garret Adkins so he could play for 4 weeks? Hannahan was a much better fit defensively and monetarily.
Another great deal by Jack Z!!!
And Adkins wouldn’t have hit any better than Hannahan did during his stint.
To bad that Hannahan isn’t a “proven veteran” who “has done it before.”
Oops, should read “Too bad . . .”
I’ve said for years that Mark McLemore was why the Mariners won 116 games in 2001, by giving most of the regulars frequent rest without giving up much at the plate or in the field. It would be awesome to have somebody like him back.
I think McLemore’s a stretch, which is why I mentioned Doug Strange in a comment above. McLemore, in his three good years with the M’s, ran OBPs of .353, .384, and .380, plus solid stolen base numbers.
Hannahan’s run OBPs more in the range of ~.305. There’s a substantial difference in offensive production between the two.
I like the idea and the McLemore comparison is apt. A solid player that didn’t induce cringes when brought in off the bench. I remember nodding and thinking “Good call Lou” more than once, when seeing McLemore step out of the dugout. Quite different from the association I have between Bloomquist and throwing up in my mouth just a little.
McLemore hit for a little more average and had a little less power. But, check out his batting lines before he came to Seattle – it’s not like he was a good hitter before he showed up with the M’s.
Dave, let’s say that the M’s are reading and follow through with your suggestion (or thought of it themselves). Let’s say Hannahan goes down, adapts quickly, and looks like he can be a +5 SS glove (which isn’t really unreasonable since his range is +17 at 3rd). Obviously no way to test this, they would have to trust their scouts.
Now, this makes Hannahan a +1.5 WAR player as a starting SS who would earn the league minimum, while Jack Wilson is a +2.0 WAR player as a starting SS who would earn $8.4 million.
Do the M’s think about declining Wilson’s option at that point and rolling the dice on Hannahan as a starting SS? I mean, Wilson’s upside is probably 2.5 WAR, while Hannahan’s downside is 1.0 WAR. Seems to me like if the difference between Wilson and Hannahan ends up being about .5 to 1.5 WAR, then you pocked the $8.4 million and look for a more efficient way to improve the team elsewhere (Sheets / Harden for the rotation?). At the same time, 98% of fans and commentators would scream at the top of their lungs about declining Wilson’s option and running with Jack “Ronny Cedeno” Hannahan.
I don’t really think the M’s would do this, but should they do this if Hannahan ends up being able to play above-average defense at SS?
“Does a SS really have that many more balls hit to him than 2b? Where would you find those numbers?.
Yes. FanGraphs.”
Well, I think it’s more the nature of the chances than the total number. Fangraphs shows assists, where 2 2Bs lead the pack. ESPN lists total chances, and again it’s Aaron Hill on top.
To get more of an idea about where the batted balls are going, you can go to the Hardball Times, sort for fielding, then for Balls in zone (BIZ). You’ll see 2B and SS are basically dead even, though it’s 2 SS who lead MLB (with Hill and Uggla right behind).
Still, the SS group have more out of zone plays and they’ve also got to make the more difficult plays thanks to a longer throw.
SS is a heck of a lot harder, but not because there are more total chances.
Jeez, that was exactly what I was thinking when you were doing the original post.
Which leads me to a question: why hasn’t a “super sub” player been a viable strategy in constructing a baseball team? It seems to me that having a “bench” player who’s not quite a regular everyday player but is a cut above typical bench players is a real winner, both in wins and in flexibility, in building a team.
Granted, finding someone who can do shortstop can be a stretch, but 2nd base/OF doesn’t seem to be that hard? Is that skill set that hard to find?
The kind of defense you get at short from Wilson is worth the cost. Is it a great value? No. But it is definately worth the cost. Wilson probably saves you one hit a game at minimum, add that up over a season and you are talking about major contribution. Plus I think Wilson may actually hit a bit better in the AL because he will see more soft stuff.
As an aside please do not hit Jack Wilson in the two hole Wak.
Great post. I thought I heard Chris Woodward say that it was tougher to go from third to second than to go from third to SS. Is that true? I do miss Mark McLemore.
And before anyone argues that there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD(!!!) Hannahan could be a +5 defender at SS, just remember that Scutaro was a +0.1 UZR/150 career defender at 2B, a -0.1 career defender at 3B (small sample size), and a career -1.1 career defender at SS. So assuming Hannahan would make a huge dropoff in UZR just because he switched to SS isn’t necessarily the safest assumption.
Curiously, Scutaro has never been rangy at 2B or SS (-4.5 and -10.1, respectively). But he has made up for that by not making errors (4.9 and 9.0, respectively). So when Scutaro shifted from 2B to SS, he got to 0.5 wins fewer balls, but made 0.5 wins fewer errors.
It is done all the time, to varying degrees of success. Chone Figgins, Scutaro, McLemore, Freel, DeRosa, Felipe Lopez, Willie Bloomquist, Wigginton, Aybar, Zobrist, to name a few. I think what usually happens, though, is a guy will either (a) turn out to be good enough to play every day, either because his team has a hole at a position or because he’s really quite good – in that case, he isn’t really a super-sub (de Rosa, Figgins) – or (b) he won’t be a good enough hitter to really make a positive contribution, even though he’s flexible defensively (Bloomquist). Even in Bloomy’s case, though, he was an adequate 25th man.
Add Tony Phillips to the list of super subs.
Trying out Hannahan at second or short seems like a good enough idea, but is he really “significantly better than your typical reserve infielder”?
Jack Hannahan– .298 wOBA
Chris Woodward– .292 wOBA
Alex Cora– .292 wOBA
Geoff Blum– .303 wOBA
Jerry Hairston Jr.– .313 wOBA
I know he’s a patient hitter with some decent pop, but he’s also a career .226 hitter who has struck out in a little under 30% of his ABs as a big-leaguer.
Trying him out in the middle infield is a fine idea, but I’m just not sure about him being a “significantly” better hitter than your average utility guy.
And I’m pretty sure the DeRosa comparison was just meant in terms of his potential flexibility, since of course DeRosa is about twice the offensive threat Hannahan is.
Okay. His wOBA varied from .283 up to a high of .349 in his earlier years, and then he rolls into Seattle and posts a .362 and .345 in ’01 and ’02.
I’m just hoping to temper expectations, here, because McLemore had a couple of terrific seasons with the M’s. We should be happy to get a .300-.310 wOBA out of him, and defensive flexibility around the infield.
If you’re saying Hannahan = McLemore over McLemore’s career, that’s great. But McLemore came in and posted a couple of career years in Seattle, and that’s what folks remember.
A point which some people may have overlooked;
If Hannahan proves he’s passable at Short, it frees up another roster spot that the M’s would otherwise have to waste on a single-dimension Woodward/Cintron type player.
That could have some major impact on whether the M’s can carry another legitimate bat on the bench, or another arm in the bullpen.
Does someone of Hannahan’s tenure get sent to winter ball (to try to play SS and 2B), or is that only for young up and coming players?
I am just thinking more playing time at those positions would give us a better read on if he can play them at the big league level.
I know he’s a patient hitter with some decent pop, but he’s also a career .226 hitter who has struck out in a little under 30% of his ABs as a big-leaguer.
900 plate appearances. He also posted a .403 wOBA in Triple-A in 2007. There’s more offensive ability there than you think.
I’ve always wondered if Beltre could play short. Any thoughts?
“SS is a heck of a lot harder, but not because there are more total chances”
That makes sense. Thanks marc
Beltre could play short and probably pretty well, but why would you move one of the best third sackers ever off of his natural postion.
Jack – you may be right that DeRosa is twice the offensive threat Hannahan is (career wOBA of .336 vs. .298), but Hannahan is twice the defensive threat that DeRosa is at 3rd (-8.7 career UZR/150 vs. 16.5). I mean, over 150 games Hannahan is 2.5 WINS better than DeRosa defensively! That is crazy.
Just to try and guess what kind of UZR Hannahan might put up at SS, here are a few other players to think about:
Bill Hall: 4.8 career UZR/150 at 3B, 1.6 career UZR/150 at SS
Jhonny Peralta: -2.9 at 3B (small sample), -5.7 at SS.
Geoff Blum: 7.1 at 3B, 5.7 at SS
Maicer Izturis: 1.8 at 3B, 7.0 at SS
Abraham Nunez: 0.0 at 3B, -14.2 at SS
Alex Gonzalez (out of baseball one): 6.l at 3B (small sample), -0.8 at SS
Craig Counsell: 18.8 at 3B, 7.6 at SS
Anectdotal? Sure.
Convincing enough (to me) that the M’s definitely, definitely, definitely need to give this a try? Yes.
It seems to me that most 3B men are at the position due to the lack of range/foot speed/hands that would allow them to play the more difficult position at SS.
So by this (very gross I admit) logic, if you had an elite defensive 3B like Beltre or Hannahan who show all the basic physical ability to play short, then it just comes down to a question of familiarity with the position.
In other words, I have no doubt that if Hannahan has the tools to play short, that given enough opportunity, he’d play it almost as well as third.
But, of course, his relative defensive numbers would take a nosedive, because the pool of players he’d be compared against would be significantly better.
This is what people always miss when we talk about shifting players around between defensive positions and their respective ratings. Hannahan has a certain level of ability at third that might make him a +10 run defender there, but those exact same skills might only make him a +0 or -5 defender at short, not because of any change in his ability to play a new position, but simply because the guys playing shortstop are way better defensively than the guys playing third.
Think of it in terms of height. If Hannahan is the defensive equivalent of a 6’0 guy, then the average third baseman is something like 5’11, and the average shortstop is 6’1. He’d go from above average to below average by just moving from one group to another.
No one thinks Hannahan is going to be a +10 to +15 shortstop. He’s obviously not Jack Wilson. But if he can be a -5 to +5 shortstop, while offering a decent bat as well, then he’s a pretty nifty 10th man.
Baker reporting that Hannahan stays, Woodward DFAd.
Dave’s idea was great, then this happens.
Maybe their just going to do what Dave suggested at the big league level?
Yep, sounds like it. Hannahan will start taking ground balls at 2B/SS with the M’s.
Re: The update. Given that this season is lost, there’s really no significant penalty to letting Hannahan work on his defensive skills at the big league level. Right?
The downside? He doesn’t get as much actual playing time at SS/2B. The upside? He gets to stay on a major league roster, which makes any player happy.
Sure, but does that mean that the 417 plate appearances he accumulated in ’07– when he was a 27 year old playing in AAA– mean more than the 900 or so he’s struggled in the majors?
I’m not saying there’s absolutely no chance he’s a little better of a hitter than what we’ve seen from him, but at the same time I feel like if that were the case, me might have already seen some of that. And even if he is a little better than a .298 wOBA hitter, is he that so much better that you could call him “significantly” better than your average utility player? Especially while he’s playing in the AL, in a tough hitting environment?
No one can take away from his defensive abilities, and I agree that he could make a good 10th guy if he proves himself in the middle infield. But 417 PA two years ago in AAA isn’t enough to convince me the past 900 in the majors are less indicative of his abilities.
[dupe]
It’s not like he’s been consistently bad in the majors. He was an average bat for the A’s in ’07, and he’s been an average bat for us since the trade. He just had a miserable 2008 season, but you can’t pretend that he hasn’t had solid stretches of good hitting at the major league level.
I’m not. And again, I’m not saying it’s totally impossible he’s a little better than what he’s shown so far. I also never said he’s been consistently bad. He just hasn’t been– and won’t be in my humble opinion– significantly better than your average utility player offensively.
It’s also worth noting that the “miserable” season he had in ’08 was the only time he’s gotten even semi-regular playing time. Coincidence, or were his weaknesses as a hitter just being exposed?
I’m not disagreeing with your overall sentiment Dave. I think Hannahan is a useful player.
Mariner’s activate Beltre and DFA Chris Woodward. Looks like they agree with the value of Jack as a Backup Middle infielder. Impressed that they made this move.
Sometimes it just takes a while for a guy to hit.
Raul Ibanez through age 28: .241/.295/.383
Jose Guillen through age 27 (2000 PAs): .260/.305 /.398
Mark McLemore through age 26 (about 1000 PAs): .225/.295/.289
Rich Amaral would be another example- he didn’t start hitting until he was pushing 30 in AAA, and then turned into an OK bench player.
I tend to think these are best case scenarios for Hannahan’s offensive development, but it’s worth a shot, and his defense is good enough that if he turns into a .250/.320/.400 hitter (well under Mark DeRosa’s career numbers), he’d be useful.
How soon before we can put him in there? When does Lopez or Wilson need a day off? I got to watch when he plays, along with not missing any more Ian Snell starts.
Not that I disagree with the overall premise, because I think Hannahan has most of what he needs to be a decent hitter, but you can’t just pick and choose his hot stretches and use them as evidence that he’s better than his numbers. Hannahan has 900 PAs of poor hitting in the bigs, and 1300 PAs of okay in AAA. Pointing to his solid partial season with the A’s in 2007 (supported by a .363 BABIP) is like saying Raul Ibanez is a decent ML fielder because he has a good 2009 UZR.
I like his approach, and I like most of his skillset, but Ronny Cedeno had the same argument in his favor as well, and, uh
Hannahan played third at college with Scott Welch – briefly of Spokane – playing beside him at short.