Was 2006 an outlier? Yes. But, it's interesting to me that he set SIGNIFICANT career best in HRs, Walks and Ks. In 2005, he had 17 HRs, 39-BB, 103-K in 546-PA. That jumped to 35, 63, 162 in 608. He changed his APPROACH. To me, it is painfully obvious that he went from being a guy simply trying to hit the ball hard ... to a guy TRYING to hit HRs. And for 2006, it worked.
But, the following year, pitchers adjusted. He didn't have the same success, but he had gotten his OPS up to .798 in early July, and then got HURT. I think after the injury, something changed, and since the INJURY in mid-2007, he's been attempting to be that HR-hitter of 2005, (which was the definition of a career year), and it's screwed him up mentally.
If he's going to succeed, it is NOT by trying to hit HRs. He needs to return to simply trying to hit the ball hard, and accept the HRs that his inate power gets him. He's a guy whose TALENT says, he's got 60 points of patience, and can run a 200 ISO. His K count is going to always be high, but a .250/.310/.450 line seems VERY doable to me. A .760 OPS isn't going to excite anyone, (nobody gets excited these days for any OPS below .800). But, Hall was also forced to change positions EVERY year. Prior to his 2006 abberation, he was splitting time between all the infield positions. In 2006, he played 126 games at short. In 2007, he played 130 games in the OF. In 2008, he played 113 games at 3B.
His ISO is way, way down this year. But, I believe it's because he's just all screwed up mentally. I have no idea what Milwaukee was ASKING him to do at the plate. But, I have confidence that Seattle will say simply -- try to have good at bats -- hit the ball hard, (but don't worry about HRs, we'll take what you produce, and Safeco won't help) -- and don't worry about the Ks too much.
I'm with Doc, that this is a cheap long-shot roll of the dice, that *probably* won't work out. But, if you want an example of a shooting star that flamed out ... was written off by EVERYONE, but has subsequently resurrected a dead career ... I give Fernando Tatis. It's POSSIBLE to return. But, I suspect that the players that have this kind of fall-off, are the very ones least likely to be able to SUSTAIN a career. My take? He might have a bounce back to 2005 or 2007 form ... but will be unlikely to sustain that production over time.
Add new comment
1