In a move that has surprised some, the Red Sox announced today that they have moved Jacoby Ellsbury to left field. The offseason’s earlier acquisition of center fielder Mike Cameron gave the Red Sox some flexibility with their outfield alignment, which Christina Kahrl detailed a few weeks back after the signing, but there was, in reality, only one correct move to make, and Boston did just that.
On a defensive level, Cameron is the superior player. Except for a stint in 2007 when he looked sluggish both afield and at the plate for San Diego, he has been average to well, well above in center according to Ultimate Zone Rating. The last two years have seen him net at least +10 in run value out there, and as recently as the last Fielding Bible, his scouting report was still positive: “Still one of the better center fielders in baseball…He ranges effortlessly through the outfield with a sneaky-quick first step…His arm is accurate and stronger than the average center fielder’s.” Boston fans are used to seeing Coco Crisp and Jacoby Ellsbury diving about in order to snag flyballs, but Cameron’s instincts and range allow him to play a less flashy but more effective center.
Ellsbury on the other hand, while much faster than the elder Cameron, lacks the instincts, quick first step and the ability to take effective routes. To borrow a line from a friend, Jacoby Ellsbury takes routes like a wide receiver out in center. It also doesn’t help that he’s better coming in on the ball than going back on it, as he’s forced to play deep sometimes. Much of the criticism for the game-winning hit by Vladimir Guerrero in the ALDS was directed at Terry Francona for his bullpen decisions, but if Ellsbury had been positioned somewhere besides Landsdowne Street with Vlad up at bat, he may have been able to reach that blooper. That’s not to say Ellsbury lost the game single-handedly, but it’s an example of his style of play out there.
What’s most surprising about Ellsbury’s issues in center–whereas Cameron was one of the better center fielders in the majors, Ellsbury posted -18.6 runs defensively via UZR and -11 via FRAA–is that he showed defensive promise in the corners the year prior. His routes were better, he better utilized his speed (i.e., it was an asset, and not just the thing he used to make up for poor jumps) and he was worth +16.5 runs according to UZR and +16 in FRAA. The Red Sox front office agrees with those numbers, to the extent that they have now moved Ellsbury back to a corner outfield spot and are leaving Cameron to roam free in center.
Assuming Ellsbury is able to be at least above-average–never mind if he’s able to replicate his plus-plus defensive production from 2008 now that he’s in left–the Red Sox defense in the outfield will not only be improved from 2009, but will be one of the better units in the majors. Given that the Sox fell from being a top five team via Defensive Efficiency to a bottom five one in the course of a season, that is a necessary upgrade.
There’s less confusion about this deal from a defensive standpoint than an offensive one though, as Ellsbury’s defensive supporters are fewer and farther between than his detractors. The idea is that Ellsbury, who does not hit for power and relies on his batting average a bit, is not suitable for left field because that’s where the big power hitters play. If only there were some way to look at a player’s overall offensive contributions so they could be compared with other players who do dissimilar things. Then we could compare players like Ellsbury who steal bases and hit singles with players who fit the mold of your prototypical left fielder.
Thankfully, we have EqA, and that’s exactly what it does. Ellsbury posted an EqA of .276 last year, which is seven points above the average in center field, but not so high that it makes up for his defensive shortcomings. Left field, on the other hand, has sat at .277 for the past two seasons and was at .275 in 2007. Ellsbury is, for all intents and purposes, an average offensive contributor at the position despite the lack of muscles and his ability to be mobile.
When you take into account the fact that his defense will improve with the switch to left, you realize that he will in fact be worth more as a left fielder than a center fielder, even if you think his skill set fits the latter better than the former. Ellsbury was worth 1.7 WARP in 2009 in center, and 3.0 when he bounced all over the outfield (and had a poorer offensive campaign than last year’s effort). Yes, Jason Bay has the superior bat, but his glove is as poor in left as Ellsbury’s was in center, meaning that the difference between the two players is somewhere around half of a win. Given the difference in cost, that’s quite the coup for Boston.
Essentially, 2010 Cameron should be significantly better than 2009 Ellsbury, by maybe 2-2.5 wins. 2010 Ellsbury and 2009 Bay are either a wash or have half-of-a-win difference between the two, which means the Red Sox upgraded their team considerably while lowering their payroll and making room for some of the other improvements, such as the acquisitions of John Lackey and now Adrian Beltre. With the Yankees already ahead of them in 2009, and deservingly so, and the Tampa Bay Rays creeping up from behind, seizing wins where you can is necessary for Boston, and they have succeeded in this endeavor thus far.
I don't quite buy this... "2010 Ellsbury and 2009 Bay are either a wash or have half-of-a-win difference between the two" You're talking an (all-time) EqA difference of .276 for Ellsbury versus .304 for Bay in 2009. I can't see how Bay's glove could've been bad enough where Ellsbury is worth more. Take into account the strikeout oriented staff that the Red Sox can, and defensive concerns matter a bit less.
Nor can I picture this being the last move. Either the Red Sox pick up a left fielder, promote a rookie (Reddick or Kalish), or they try what they did last year and move Youkilis for a wacky adventure out to left and play Lowell at 1B.
Either way, most teams don't move a young speedy center fielder out of center field unless they plan on trading him or making him a fourth outfielder. I'd drop him a few notches in a fantasy draft.
Just because you strike out a lot of hitters doesn't mean you don't need good fielders. You still want to pick up a high rate of balls in play, and they failed to do that in 2009.
Also, the .276 for Ellsbury is not his all-time one, it's the EqA from the EqA page, which is the one you should be paying attention to.
Bay was never a good fielder, even when he had working knees. He moves much worse now than he used to, and it shows up in his glovework. He's awful, both visibly and statistically, and though his bat is superior, he loses that edge by taking the field.
What really doesn't make sense is that you don't need such a speedy leftfielder in Fenway. Manny did well enough there for years. I have confidence the Red Sox know what they are doing. Perhaps, they have another trade in the works.
I'll agree with hotstatrat. Ellsbury's speed seems like it'll be a defensive waste for 81 games next year.
Not that I disagree with starting him there, given the low $$$ he's making. He enables them to add on salary come time when this season's hopefuls-turned-alsorans start dumping it. But unless he hits in his upper-range, I don't see where he'll be other than a below-average leftfielder in Fenway. And I'm not sure the 2nd-richest team in baseball ought to settle for that.
The problem is that you can't play him in right field in Boston, because while the range would be great, that arm would be a complete and utter disaster down in the right field corner. I personally see it as a good fit. Marc mentions that Jacoby's style has been to come in on the ball (and therefore play deep), and LF at Fenway allows for that style of play since there's less overall space.
His speed was a waste in center, as the metrics show. Given Fenway's unusual dimensions, his speed in left may allow him to be significantly more valuable than his actual skills are, covering a lot of what little ground is out there and hiding his arm.
That aside, if he can post a near 100 OPS+ and add on 70 SB, he'll be at least as valuable as the average LF.
I'm somewhat skeptical of Ellsbury's low ratings. I use Gameday data, and my calculations had him much worse in 2009 than in 08, but going from good to avg, while at the same time I had Bay rise from bad to average. Gameday reports who retrieved the ball, and I have to sue that as a proxy for who had the best chance to catch it. With Bay and Ellsbury playing adjacent and going in opposite directions, it makes me wonder if there were balls hit between them that might have really been Bay's plays to make, but Ellsbury got charged because he threw the ball back in. I would have to break down the numbers by vector to see if the performance shift was between the fielders or evenly distributed. UZR uses BIS and/or Stats, not Gameday, so this may not be an issue with their numbers, but I still suspect and want to investigate a split zone assigment issue.
I would be skeptical too, given the single year of data, but even a non-scout like myself could see that he runs circles in the outfield and screws himself up pretty often.
I probably wouldn't be so sure if this if I didn't see so many Red Sox games, but since this one hits close to home...
Regardless, if you do check that out, let me know what you find. Always down for another take.
Might Ellsbury's hitting also improve since he will not have to cover the gaps quite as much in LF? Podsednik is a better LF than CF even though his appears better suited for CF. Pierre too is another one that suffers due to lack of arm but covers a good deal of territory. I hate the lack of power in LF but if it comes with significant on base skills and SB it may be a reasonable tradeoff. I still prefer 35 homers and 20 steals but I'm not a fantasy player.
I had thought that Hermida had a chance to get significant at bats this year considering he has better lifetime numbers than Cameron does against Righties. Does this move make that possibility less likely, since Hermy cannot take CF at bats away? Or was I being overly optimistic about his playing time potential to begin with?
Your comment about Ellsbury's deep positioning sounded odd to me. A while back somebody at BP (can't remember, sorry) hypothesized that Carlos Gomez is so effective because he plays deep, allowing a few more bloopers but preventing many more doubles. That makes sense to me, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Ellsbury's problems have more to do with jumps and routes.
It depends on the player. B.J. Upton plays shallow because he's fantastic at going back on the ball, so he's able to kill a lot of singles and still keep extra base hits at bay. There are a lot of different ways to pay the position correctly.
The Red Sox use scouting reports in addition to defensive metrics and both were telling them the same thing, that Ellsbury was playing too deep and allowing too many balls to fall in front of him. The was especially evident in Fenway. I would think that catching a ball and making an out would be much more effective in preventing runs that keeping a potential double to a single.
As someone who has watched the vast majority of Sox games during the time that Ellsbury has been on the team, this move makes a lot of sense to me. While it is true that he is better coming in than going back, the truth is that he still wasn't great at it, though part of that was a function of playing so deep to cover his problems with taking proper routes. Where he was excellent however, was moving laterally, and that was where he utilized his speed and made so many spectacular diving catches. Moving to left in Fenway, which is wide and shallow, will allow him to play in (hiding both his arm and his problems going back on balls) while still making use of his ability to catch everything to his left and right. After watching so many soft line drives and bloops fall within ten feet of Bay, I think that Ellsbury in LF will be a revelation. With Beltre replacing Lowell in front of him, I wouldn't be surprised by a substantial drop in BABIP as well as XBH for RHH in Fenway.
You've got it. This flurry of moves will do wonders for their defensive efficiency, which was their most significant weakness in 2009. I don't think people realize how bad it was, because they still won a ton of games, but I don't feel their talent level matched their record. This offseason shows the Sox feel the same way.
I will always remember Cameron for the HR-saving over-the-wall catch in for Seattle after the Griffey trade. I'm not sure if it was the very first game of the season but that's my recollection.
Now let's see him go over the wall in the CF triangle at Fenway... that will be worth seeing.
I listen to a decent number of Red Sox games, or portions of them, on the radio. Dave O'Brien does quite a few Red Sox games, and he has a tendency to speak quite enthusiastically about Ellsbury's defense in centerfield. But(you knew there had to be a "but" coming, right?), when he's doing PBP, and a ball is hit to centerfield, the first thing he says is, "Ellsbury goes back", and the 2nd thing he says is, "now he comes in," or "Ellsbury takes a step in," then, "now he goes back." It's almost a running joke, pun maybe slightly intended.
Putting Ellsbury in left is almost the equivalent of having Doug Mientkiewicz at first base. Defense is definitely a good thing, but left field and first base are supposed to be primary offensive positions and I don't think Ellsbury's bat will hold up. There's also no guarantee he'll play left better than he played center, nor play left at Fenway (with its own pecularities) any better than an Adam Dunn/Pat Burrell does or Manny Ramirez did. Add in the fact the Red Sox are aging, with Ortiz and Lowell no longer the forces they were, and the Red Sox need a bigger bat.
I just don't get the whole 'Sox need another big bat' thing that is so prevalent, especially among so many of the so called Red Sox fans. This is a team that scored more runs than 28 other teams last year. Yes, Bay's offense will be missed. But 4 months of the corpse of Varitek batting being replaced with V. Martinez should be a huge upgrade. The offensive black hole of Lugo/Green/Gonzales will be upgraded by Scutaro even if he does regress. Will Ortiz bat blindfolded for the first two months again? Even if the offense is somehow 80 runs worse than last year, it's STILL a top 10 offense. That doesn't even take into account the 20+ runs better they likely are defensively simply in CF/LF or the 20+ runs better they are 3B and the 10+ runs better they are SS.
A top ten offense just might not be enough in the AL East. The Yankees and Orioles have made moves and the Rays are still strong. Now you might laugh at me mentioning the Orioles, but the division has gotten tougher even if you factor in that the Red Sox won't be facing Halladay regularly anymore.
Meanwhile, you still have a team whose key players are all on the wrong side of 29 with the exception of Pedroia. Though Martinez is a huge upgrade over Varitek, he's still a catcher which is prone to wear and tear and he's 31. Preventing runs is a good thing, but you still have to outscore the other team.
If a top 10 offense and a top 5 pitching staff aren't enough to make the playoffs then I'll tip my cap to the other teams in the AL east. The run differential shouldn't change much from 2009 to 2010. The pitching should be better, even not accounting for the improved defense. The addition of Lackey plus the 2010 versions of Daisuke and Clay should be significantly better than the Smoltz/Penny/Byrd/2009 Daisuke/Tazawa poo-poo platter that started more than 50 games last year.
And if you're going to reference the 'AL East' and 'players on the wrong side of 29', the team that leaps to mind first is not the Sox. Posada,Jeter,A-rod,Johnson,Rivera,Pettite,Vazquez, Burnett and Texiera will all be on the 'wrong side' of that number come April, and 5 of them on the wrong side of 34. Seem to be a couple of 'key players' in that grouping as well.
Yes but the Yankees run differential (+162 vs +138), not to mention win-loss record, was better than the Red Sox. Assume a perfect world where this move works out like you say and that the Red Sox don't need another bat. Does acquiring Beltre/Lackey/Cameron while losing Bay close the gap enough in an offseason where the Yankees got Vasquez/Johnson/Granderson and lost Matsui/Damon? Ignore the idea for a second that the Yankees still complied those numbers with A-Rod missing a month. Do the Red Sox changes outweigh the Yankees changes enough to make up that 25 run differential gap?
If we were talking about a world where only one team can make the playoffs I'd be more concerned, but we're talking about a world where they've combined to make the playoffs 12 out of a 14 possible times in the last 7 years. In the playoffs anything can happen (the 2006 Cards wave hello) and the best way to counter a big slugging team like the Yankees is with a stellar pitching staff and a defense that doesn't give that big hitting lineup extra outs. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), the Red Sox have signed two premium defensive players, upgraded two other postions defensively and signed the premium starting pitcher on the FA market to go with their two in house #1's.
But evaluating defense is so wishy-washy that the various metrics can't even agree year to year or even with each other. A mere two years ago, Ellsbury in CF and Lowell at 3B were considered good if not great defenders, to the point where Crisp was let go. Wouldn't it be better to invest in something more tangible, concrete and measurable like hitting?
And yes, I do agree that there is a difference between the Red Sox playing for more than one playoff slot. But if you believe the hype around the Mariners or Rangers and think the Angels are still strong, the Wild Card might not be the AL East's consolation prize anymore. As a snapshot, Boston was not even leading the wild card race until the last month and a half or so after the Rays and Rangers collapsed.
So you're advocating sinking 7 years and $122m into Matt Holliday because defense is harder to measure? They made a run at Texeira last year but that kind of player wasn't out there this time.
Also, what you call a collapse I call regression to the mean. Be careful with your snapshots; The Redsox were the better team over 162.
How do you get from what I've been saying to Holliday? I'd think more of a trade or a lower tier free agent signing like Spillborgh. If the Yankees can package a lesser player like Melky to get Granderson, I'm sure the Red Sox can come up with something that gives them a defensive player who has experience at the position and can hit.
I get that the Red Sox have significantly upgraded defensively. I get that they are getting Cameron and Beltre in '10 for the cost of Bay in '10, plus all of the payroll flexibility that comes with 1 and 2 year deals versus a 4-5 year deal. So, all in all, the Sox are probably significantly better off from an organizational-resources point of view.
Are they a better team in '10 losing Bay's bat? I think not.
And I think they are, maybe closer to about the same than better, but that's why they play the games. The '07 Red Sox allowed 657 runs, I think the '10 roster could match that. I almost think they should better it given some health luck. And you have to go back a ways to find a Red Sox offense that scored less than 800 runs.
I think of the 2009 squad as having a true talent level closer to 88-90 wins, which is a lot worse than their actual record, and about the same as the Tampa Bay Rays. I haven't done the math out yet, but based on the running tab I'm keeping in my head, they have added about 7-9 wins this offseason between Scutaro, Beltre, Cameron, and Lackey.
Remember, some of the players they are replacing were voids on either offense, defense, or both, and the fifth spot in the Red Sox rotation was never stable in 2009 thanks to the horrid defense. Despite the loss of Bay, we're talking about a 95+ win team here, which is still good enough to make the playoffs and do some damage in them.
Marc, I'm curious how/why you think the 2009 version were a 88-90 win 'true talent' wise? My first thought was maybe they outperformed their Pythag differential, but it seems they nailed that dead on (while the NYY were +6 and the Rays -2). Where did you see them outperforming their true talent out of curiousity? Given the xFIP and BABIP numbers you could argue the pitching staff underperformed relative to their raw stats.
Their performance against the Orioles boosted their run differential. They were 16-2 against the O's, with a +62 run differential from those 18 games along--against the rest of the league combined, they were +74.
I guess it's a scenario that's difficult to prove, since other teams also had their chance to play the Orioles, but you can see how much different they were against Baltimore than everyone else--if they had played them more things would have evened out. Basically, Baltimore allowed Boston to get away with their terrible defense, the holes in the pitching staff and the problems in the lineup (which were more notable on the road).
I enjoy run differential and pythag records, but I think there's a lot you can learn by seeing where those numbers come from, because every year you will find exceptions to the rules.
Initially I scoffed at the notion that putting Ellsbury in left and letting Bay leave made the Sox better but the numbers do paint a different picture. Basically the UZR data on Ellsbury in LF and RF over about 120 games in 07-08 show the gap between Ellsbury and Bay to be astronomical. Even if you believe the numbers will regress a bit, it still looks like about a wash, not even factoring in cost savings or adding Mike Cameron. Hard to believe, I know.
Does anyone actually think Ellsbury defense got 35 runs worse (+16.5 to -18.4 UZR), or 3.5 wins worse, in the span of a year? Its numbers like this that really draw fielding metrics, like UZR, into question. And if you don't trust it for Ellsbury, why beleive it for Cameron? Just how many 34 year olds maintain their excellent defensive value?
I hope Cameron's glove can make up for that ridiculous OPS by Bay with RISP. But hey, Bay strikes out too much. The only problem is that Cameron has struck out at an even higher frequency.
LF in Fenway is the one place in the world you could put a lousy fielder (and teach him to turn around and catch the ball) but the Red Sox chose to shore up their defense at the position at the expense of the offense.
And how about the $ 20 mil they are paying to man 3B ON A SHORT TERM BASIS. Sounds smart to me.
Is OPS with RISP a repeatable skill? I thought the "RBI man" myth was debunked a while ago.
$9m for one year of Beltre is a great contract. They sure can't run Zombie Mike Lowell out there every day. His contract in retrospect wasn't very smart although I think at the time the risk was acceptable.
I don't know if I complained about the Lowell contract in print, but if I could get my dad to vouch for me you would know I hated it at the time because of the years, his age and his home/road splits. My thinking was that if his glove fell to average, he would be a hole in the lineup 81 games a year.
The hip injury sped things up with his defense and caused him to be a total void in the lineup and on the field 81 games a year, and his bat at home wasn't so amazing that it could completely make up for his lack of range and movement.
To some degree, I think the Red Sox signed Lowell in the afterglow of his MVP WS performance. It was for the fans. The Yankees were far less sentimental letting Matsui go.
I agree, they had a tendency to reward players with contracts a few years back, something I hope, as an analyst and a fan, doesn't continue. Please go back to cold-as-ice business practices, thanks.
I was at the 2007 World Series clincher for the Red Sox here in Denver and shortly after Lowell won the WS MVP award, chants of "Sign him now" rang out.
I don't think so. I think they made him a pretty good offer for the same reason they made Scutaro and Cameron pretty good offers this year, their need coincided with his availability, and, like Scutaro and Cameron, he accepted their price in dollars and years.
Lowell's OPS for the year was .811 (.841 post All-star). Hardly the void that Cameron and Beltre were for their teams.
If you want to cherry pick the home / away stats to make your point, you better do that for virtually EVERY Red Sox player (Batters and Pitchers) because just about everyone was better at home than the road. I'm not so sure that Fenway checks out as mch as an offensive park as your making it to be.
Yes, I'm "cherry picking" his .276/.331/.382 road performance for the year that was accompanied by poor defense at one of the better offensive positions in the league. That's why I said "for 81 games a year".
He hit .280/.337/.430 on the road and .321/.374/.540 at home from 2007-2009. He hit a double every 17.8 AB on the road and a homer every 34.0 at-bats on the road, while putting up 13.7 21.0 at home. There are other Red Sox players who gain a boost from Fenway, but none of them perform as poorly on the road, with such a major disparity between the splits, as Mike Lowell. His home numbers inflate his overall line significantly, which was cool when he had two legs to work with on defense but doesn't fly when he's got just the one.
Also, not that I want to encourage your use of OPS given it isn't adjusted for anything and we're talking about league and park differences here, but Cameron's was 795 for the Brewers with plus defense at a position with far lower offensive expectations than that of third base.
You're misreading the UZR numbers. Remember, a player's defensive rating in UZR is relative to his peers at that position.
In 2008 Ellsbury played 58 games in left, 66 games in center and 36 games in right. The defensive skills of players in left field and right field tend to be mostly identical, at least when it comes to fielding balls in play. (Right fielders tend to have better arms.) But they tend to be worse fielders than the ones in center field. If you put an average corner outfielder in center field for 150 games, you would expect him to be about -15 runs - or on the flipside, you'd expect an average center fielder to be about +15 in a corner.
So when Ellsbury went from being a primary corner guy to being a full-time center fielder, we would expect his UZR to drop substantially.
Now there are certainly valid questions to be asked about defensive metrics. And we know that metrics like UZR do a worse job measuring outfield defense than infield defense. And we know that Fenway is about the hardest park in all of baseball to accurately measure defense.
But one player's numbers, especially interpreted incorrectly, do not prove or disprove the validity of ANY metric.
Just throwing this out there for argument sake. Is it possible that the shift to LF, a less demanding position physically, will help Ellsbury's offense (even a tick or two)?
I think it's possible. CF is about twice as much work to play as a corner since you've got more ground to cover and are involved in almost all outfield plays either as the primary fielder or the backup.
If you aren't good at it then I would expect even more wear and tear. Diving for ball other guys get to standing, taking bad routes and having to run hard to make up for it would take more out of a guy.
So with fresher legs, Ellsbury COULD steal more, beat out more infield hits, and maybe hit with a little more power.
Ha! wouldn't putting Cameron in left lesson his chances of a season ending injury in his age 37 season and put him in a position to succeed at aging gracefully? Ellsbury isn't going to get better offensively unless he strikes out less and raises his average and he might even get worse from this Charlie Finley brand of humiliation via a perceived demotion. I'm all for challenging Cameron to break historic ground when it comes to what a 37 year old can do in CF, but lets hope Jacoby doesn't get used to left.
Will Carroll, among others, has studied the effect of a position change on a player's likelihood of injury. Rather than speculating, perhaps we should just consult his work.
67 comments have been left for this post.
I don't quite buy this... "2010 Ellsbury and 2009 Bay are either a wash or have half-of-a-win difference between the two" You're talking an (all-time) EqA difference of .276 for Ellsbury versus .304 for Bay in 2009. I can't see how Bay's glove could've been bad enough where Ellsbury is worth more. Take into account the strikeout oriented staff that the Red Sox can, and defensive concerns matter a bit less.
Nor can I picture this being the last move. Either the Red Sox pick up a left fielder, promote a rookie (Reddick or Kalish), or they try what they did last year and move Youkilis for a wacky adventure out to left and play Lowell at 1B.
Either way, most teams don't move a young speedy center fielder out of center field unless they plan on trading him or making him a fourth outfielder. I'd drop him a few notches in a fantasy draft.
Just because you strike out a lot of hitters doesn't mean you don't need good fielders. You still want to pick up a high rate of balls in play, and they failed to do that in 2009.
Also, the .276 for Ellsbury is not his all-time one, it's the EqA from the EqA page, which is the one you should be paying attention to.
Bay was never a good fielder, even when he had working knees. He moves much worse now than he used to, and it shows up in his glovework. He's awful, both visibly and statistically, and though his bat is superior, he loses that edge by taking the field.
From Ellsbury's DT card here at BP, he had a EqA adjusted for the 2009 season of .269 and a EqA adjusted for all-time of .276
Isn't that what I should be going off of?
What really doesn't make sense is that you don't need such a speedy leftfielder in Fenway. Manny did well enough there for years. I have confidence the Red Sox know what they are doing. Perhaps, they have another trade in the works.
The Redsox still play 81 games outside of Fenway.