So by metrics, you meant errors/fielding %? That's what you're using? Well, okay. That's not anything a person who references the word metrics uses. That's old school stat. Fielding % is based on balls he could get to and what happened. If you read a ball wrong (like running in on a ball and then having to turn around as it goes over your head), or you were too slow to get to a balls others would, it's not considered a chance. Completely discounts range, completed discounts reading the ball well, completely discounts whether or not he threw to the right base and many other things. For all intents and purposes, it only counts balls you got glove on. He could stand in one spot, never move, only try to catch the balls that went right to him, and that's what fielding %/errors would measure. Horrible, horrible way to evaluate defense. You mentioned metrics. I gave metrics. If you watched him play out there all year and actually think he handled himself well, I don't really know where else to go with that except to say that I'd imagine your opinion is the severe minority. He looked ridiculous out there. That's not bias. No one wanted him to stink out there, cause that hurts our team. It's just reality. As for eye test goes, here's an article about it http://www.startribune.com/it-s-time-for-twins-to-pull-plug-on-sano-in-right-field/382047201/ Back to metrics. A comparison: 37 RFs, he was tied for 34th in DRS (even though he barely broke the 300 innings played out there, the guy he tied with had twice as much time out there). The two with worse DRS played way more than him. If he had 600 or more innings out there, he'd be dead last. Horrible. That's not on him, that's on the braintrust who decided putting him out there was a good idea.