“That can’t be right,” I remember thinking to myself when I first heard it. “That has to be a mistake.”
I was listening to Dodger Talk on the radio while driving home from the Ravine after yet another dismal Dodgers loss. “Hanley Ramirez has yet to dive for a ball since joining the Dodgers,” the obviously irritated caller said to show hosts Kevin Kennedy and David Vassegh.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the caller was right. I had seen nearly every Dodger game either in person or on TV since Hanley had joined the team and I couldn’t recall seeing him dive for a ground ball even once. Both Kennedy and Vassegh acknowledged that they hadn’t seen him do so either. Kennedy even offered an excuse for Hanley by suggesting that perhaps it was a shoulder injury that Hanley suffered over a year ago that was keeping him from diving for balls for fear of re-injuring his shoulder, but even Kennedy sounded a bit skeptical about this. Vassegh tactfully ended the call by saying that he would personally ask Hanley about it tomorrow.
Well, tomorrow came and went – in fact a month of tomorrows came and went without an answer, but during that month of tomorrows I paid closer attention to Hanley Ramirez and guess what? During that month of tomorrows, Hanley Ramirez did not dive for one ball, not a single one; and there were no less than five that had he done so, he probably would have had a play – including a couple of no-doubters. Now to his credit, I did see Hanley make a couple (and by that I mean two) outstanding and very difficult backhanded plays at shortstop, but those no-doubters really bothered me. Was all of the negative hype about Hanley playing halfheartedly in Miami true after all? It is certainly beginning to look that way.
Last Friday evening while working in the blog spot in the Vin Scully Press Box, I asked David Vassegh if he had ever posed the no diving question to Ramirez. He had not. I then asked Dylan Hernandez and Steve Dilbeck from the L.A. Times if they had ever asked Hanley why he never dived for balls. Neither had, and just as I had done a month earlier, both suddenly realized that it was true (they obviously don’t listen to Dodger Talk). I next went to the Dalai Lama of Dodger baseball – Eric Stephen from True Blue LA. Nope – Eric had never asked him and also suddenly realized that it was true.
After getting these responses from three of the most highly respected members of the media who cover the Dodgers on a daily basis, I began to think that perhaps these three fine gentlemen didn’t want to ask Hanley Ramirez why he never dived for balls – especially with the team struggling terribly. Perhaps they didn’t want to upset Hanley with such a question… something that in the big scheme of things might not be worth the likely anguish or wrath that it might bring upon them from Hanley Ramirez. The thought even crossed my mind to mention this no diving thing to perpetual antagonist T.J. Simers so that he could query Hanley about it, but knowing T.J., he’d throw me under the bus in a heartbeat by pointing at me and saying “This guy here says that you never dive for balls,” and trust me, this is exactly what T.J. would do.
Why not simply ask Hanley myself, you ask? The answer to that one should be obvious (I was born at night but not last night) – I am but a lowly blogger in a press box full of real journalists. I am lower than the bottom rung on the media ladder. I am like Mongo in Blazing Saddles. But more importantly, I really enjoy the honor and privilege of being blessed to participate in the blog spot and its related privileges, so that question will never cross my lips.
So there you have it, a hot topic question that quite possibly might never be asked of Hanley Ramirez – not anytime soon, that is, and most definitely not by me. But sooner or later it will be asked, probably when Ramirez’s reluctance to dive for a ball costs the Dodgers a game (or more). And when it is asked, you can pretty much bet that the sparks will fly. But in the meantime, pay a little more attention to ground balls hit Hanley’s way. Sure as the sun rises, at some point you will see him not dive for a ball that he should have, one that he could have made a play on – and you can take that to the bank.
At first I thought it was laziness on his part, but now I think he’s gun-shy from the injury. I also think he takes too long to get rid of the ball, and that has cost us as well. I’m liking the trade with the Marlins less and less as the season winds down!
If it were up to me I’d sacrafice the bat and play Gordon. IMO he’ll save more runs then Hanley will score !!
“…that question will never cross my lips.”
As Yoda once said to Luke, “That is why you fail.” Only the best journalists ask the tough questions, 53. Shed the moniker of “lowly blogger” and join the ranks of journalism lore! You are a journalistic rose about to bloom forth in the garden of the Dodgers clubhouse, 53! From Dodger fan, to lowly blogger, to Dodger Beat Writer; you can do it! Ask the tough questions, 53!
As for Ramirez, I have a couple of thoughts; I also agree with Dick. Hanley has to be a bit gun shy after injuring his shoulder, and since it’s only been a year post-surgery, he might be protecting himself. Perhaps next year he will shed his training wheels once again. Secondly; Ramirez hasn’t played shortstop until recently and it appears to me that he’s lost his feel for the position. Maybe it wasn’t Mattingly’s best idea to move him back to short. Kind of like A-Rod moving to third base; he’d not make a good shortstop these days even though he was one of the best in the game earlier in his career. A-Rod has excelled at third base since then. Until he can prove otherwise, keep Hanley at third base.
Maybe Mark Ellis gets traded. If Gordon can prove to be an asset at the plate and not just showcasing his defense, then Ellis could be moved to the bench or traded. It would be hard to do that, but it’s the only soloution to the math problem in the infield. Luis Cruz has too much upside to just throw away, so he will play somewhere in the infield next year… and he’s a fan favorite. If you’re a front office guy, how do you make that decision? Five guys; four positions. Do the math. Something’s got to give… and again, it all depends on Dee Gordon.
“Shed the moniker of “lowly blogger” and join the ranks of journalism lore! You are a journalistic rose about to bloom forth in the garden of the Dodgers clubhouse, 53! From Dodger fan, to lowly blogger, to Dodger Beat Writer; you can do it! Ask the tough questions, 53!”
Wow! Let me get my boots – the bovine manure (as Vin Scully calls it) is getting deep in here! 😆
Admit it, Kevin, you could care less about my fate as a “journalist” (which, of course, I am not – but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express).
Your interest is purely to get Hanley’s response to this hot bed question. As I noted, at some point (and I expect soon), one of the more powerful and recognized Dodger beat writers is going to pop this question to Hanley, and when it happens, it’s going to get a little tense in the Dodger clubhouse – even more than it already is.
Nice try, however.
You’re right Ron. He doesn’t dive for anything out there and it has cost the Dodgers at least two games. Ramirez is a third baseman now and I figure in about 3 more years he’ll be a first baseman as his defense further deteriorates. Why Mattingly keeps Cruz at third and Ramirez at short is probably because he lets the veteran players control things too much. Which is probably a topic for a futire post (Mattingly’s tendencies towards keeping the vets happy to the detriment of the team). Hanley’s gun of an arm works fine at 3B.