which is more important in a SS....

Having a great range or being sure handed? For example if you had a short stop that had exceptional range, he can get to say 40% more balls hit than the average MLB caliber short stop, but had slightly below average hands in that he also makes slightly more errors than the average MLB caliber short stop, say 5% more errors. Is that better than say a short stop that get to an average number of batted balls but makes 40% fewer errors than the average MLB caliber short stop?

I'd rather have a SS with great range. Trust me, I'm a Yankees fan and I've watched Jeter's range decrease yearly, almost to the point where he has no range. It's really frustrating to give up little infield hits that were almost outs if gotten to.

id rather no range... alto if he is throwing stuff away (to 1st and 3rd) i guess thats worse than no range

I'm not sure I understand the question, because the answer seems so obvious. First, I will say that I dont think that any shortstop in history has had such incredible range that he gets to 40% more balls than average....but if one could.....

If we call them players A (greater range) and B (less errors) ...my answer is to take "A", the SS with the greatest range. If an average SS gets to 400 balls a year (thats probably conservative, right off the top of my head), the first guy, Player A, with the great range will be far more valuable. If he (Player A) could make 40% more plays...that might be, what, 160 additional hits he is taking away. If, in turn he makes 5% more errors, thats about 2 extra errors a year more than average. So player "A" is still plus roughly 158 plays a year.

Player "B", the surehanded guy, does NOT make the 150-160 extra plays due to his lack of range, but gets what, a few more outs, maybe 10-12 by virtue of making less errors.

In short, if a SS doesnt get to a ball, he doesnt make the play. If he gets to the ball, but boots it, he still doesn't make the play. Player "A", the guy with the exceptional range, will make far, far more plays than Player "B". It really isn't a contest. Player "A" is the guy you want.

The guy with the great range.

excelent analsys swampy... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

I'm not sure I understand the question, because the answer seems so obvious. First, I will say that I dont think that any shortstop in history has had such incredible range that he gets to 40% more balls than average....but if one could.....

If we call them players A (greater range) and B (less errors) ...my answer is to take "A", the SS with the greatest range. If an average SS gets to 400 balls a year (thats probably conservative, right off the top of my head), the first guy, Player A, with the great range will be far more valuable. If he (Player A) could make 40% more plays...that might be, what, 160 additional hits he is taking away. If, in turn he makes 5% more errors, thats about 2 extra errors a year more than average. So player "A" is still plus roughly 158 plays a year.

Player "B", the surehanded guy, does NOT make the 150-160 extra plays due to his lack of range, but gets what, a few more outs, maybe 10-12 by virtue of making less errors.

In short, if a SS doesnt get to a ball, he doesnt make the play. If he gets to the ball, but boots it, he still doesn't make the play. Player "A", the guy with the exceptional range, will make far, far more plays than Player "B". It really isn't a contest. Player "A" is the guy you want.

---

Swampdog FTW!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

I'm not sure I understand the question, because the answer seems so obvious. First, I will say that I dont think that any shortstop in history has had such incredible range that he gets to 40% more balls than average....but if one could.....

If we call them players A (greater range) and B (less errors) ...my answer is to take "A", the SS with the greatest range. If an average SS gets to 400 balls a year (thats probably conservative, right off the top of my head), the first guy, Player A, with the great range will be far more valuable. If he (Player A) could make 40% more plays...that might be, what, 160 additional hits he is taking away. If, in turn he makes 5% more errors, thats about 2 extra errors a year more than average. So player "A" is still plus roughly 158 plays a year.

Player "B", the surehanded guy, does NOT make the 150-160 extra plays due to his lack of range, but gets what, a few more outs, maybe 10-12 by virtue of making less errors.

In short, if a SS doesnt get to a ball, he doesnt make the play. If he gets to the ball, but boots it, he still doesn't make the play. Player "A", the guy with the exceptional range, will make far, far more plays than Player "B". It really isn't a contest. Player "A" is the guy you want.

---

That's who I would sign up, too....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

I'm not sure I understand the question, because the answer seems so obvious. First, I will say that I dont think that any shortstop in history has had such incredible range that he gets to 40% more balls than average....but if one could.....

If we call them players A (greater range) and B (less errors) ...my answer is to take "A", the SS with the greatest range. If an average SS gets to 400 balls a year (thats probably conservative, right off the top of my head), the first guy, Player A, with the great range will be far more valuable. If he (Player A) could make 40% more plays...that might be, what, 160 additional hits he is taking away. If, in turn he makes 5% more errors, thats about 2 extra errors a year more than average. So player "A" is still plus roughly 158 plays a year.

Player "B", the surehanded guy, does NOT make the 150-160 extra plays due to his lack of range, but gets what, a few more outs, maybe 10-12 by virtue of making less errors.

In short, if a SS doesnt get to a ball, he doesnt make the play. If he gets to the ball, but boots it, he still doesn't make the play. Player "A", the guy with the exceptional range, will make far, far more plays than Player "B". It really isn't a contest. Player "A" is the guy you want.

---

Not ONLY this but along the same lines, there are some plays that Player B (we'll call him ummm...Jeter) simply cannot make. Balls hit more than 3 feet to the side of him for example are beyond his range. I'll take the guy who at least has a chance to get to that ball, even if he kicks a few or throws them in to the firstrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Not ONLY this but along the same lines, there are some plays that Player B (we'll call him ummm...Jeter) simply cannot make. Balls hit more than 3 feet to the side of him for example are beyond his range. I'll take the guy who at least has a chance to get to that ball, even if he kicks a few or throws them in to the firstrow.

---

We'll call him Furcal. :D

I would take great range. He woul make up for the errors by taking away more hits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

We'll call him Furcal. :D

---

lol that is DEFINATLY a 3 pointer lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

I would take great range. He woul make up for the errors by taking away more hits.

---

especialy since there are so many guys who dont run hard and sometimes the player can recover and still throw him out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

especialy since there are so many guys who dont run hard and sometimes the player can recover and still throw him out

---

I want to see Manny play SS, just for fun. They should do that in Spring Training. He would redefine lack of range :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

We'll call him Furcal. :D

---

I was thinking about Offerman, but Furcal works

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

Having a great range or being sure handed? For example if you had a short stop that had exceptional range, he can get to say 40% more balls hit than the average MLB caliber short stop, but had slightly below average hands in that he also makes slightly more errors than the average MLB caliber short stop, say 5% more errors. Is that better than say a short stop that get to an average number of batted balls but makes 40% fewer errors than the average MLB caliber short stop?

---

you really can't answer a question like this. obviously it can't be entirely one or the other.

Whichever guy converts more balls into outs.

You can answer the question, as it was put. And that answer is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

I'm not sure I understand the question, because the answer seems so obvious. First, I will say that I dont think that any shortstop in history has had such incredible range that he gets to 40% more balls than average....but if one could.....

If we call them players A (greater range) and B (less errors) ...my answer is to take "A", the SS with the greatest range. If an average SS gets to 400 balls a year (thats probably conservative, right off the top of my head), the first guy, Player A, with the great range will be far more valuable. If he (Player A) could make 40% more plays...that might be, what, 160 additional hits he is taking away. If, in turn he makes 5% more errors, thats about 2 extra errors a year more than average. So player "A" is still plus roughly 158 plays a year.

Player "B", the surehanded guy, does NOT make the 150-160 extra plays due to his lack of range, but gets what, a few more outs, maybe 10-12 by virtue of making less errors.

In short, if a SS doesnt get to a ball, he doesnt make the play. If he gets to the ball, but boots it, he still doesn't make the play. Player "A", the guy with the exceptional range, will make far, far more plays than Player "B". It really isn't a contest. Player "A" is the guy you want.

---

thanks, that was very helpful:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Whichever guy converts more balls into outs.

---

yes but at what points does outs converted versus giving the other team extra chances does the greater range guy lose value? do you see what I am getting at?? maybe I am being not very clear...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

yes but at what points does outs converted versus giving the other team extra chances does the greater range guy lose value? do you see what I am getting at?? maybe I am being not very clear...

---

I don't see what you're getting at at all.

If the guy with greater range turns more balls into outs, he's better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

yes but at what points does outs converted versus giving the other team extra chances does the greater range guy lose value? do you see what I am getting at?? maybe I am being not very clear...

---

Odds are its they guys with greater range ..

Well the average SS made about 16 errors last year .. Even if a "bad" SS doubles that number and a "good" one halves that number that leaves a differemce of 24 --

24 extra outs in increased range is a very moderate amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Odds are its they guys with greater range ..

Well the average SS made about 16 errors last year .. Even if a "bad" SS doubles that number and a "good" one halves that number that leaves a differemce of 24 --

24 extra outs in increased range is a very moderate amount.

---

ok, I see what you are saying, the raw difference of 24 from good SS to a bad SS of two identical range short stops, then throw in the extra outs from a good short stop WITH greater range then the 24 additional batted balls converted into outs goes UP, which is what HGM was trying to say I think, therefore more range is better overall than good hands because of the potential to take away more runs than he will give extra chances to the other team due to his greater range will always be greater than the extra chances he will give to the other team.

There's also this...getting to a ball and making an error is better than not getting to it in the first place. If you don't get to it, it increases the chances of extra bases for the hitter AND the baserunners already on base getting further along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

There's also this...getting to a ball and making an error is better than not getting to it in the first place. If you don't get to it, it increases the chances of extra bases for the hitter AND the baserunners already on base getting further along.

---

gotcha, thanks

Sure, a 40% advantage in range over the MLB average more than offsets a 5% increase in errors. Or at least it should, in theory, but: A) I don't think that's a realistic number (I'd have to actually look more closely at range factors to be sure, but intuitively, it sure doesn't seem realistic), and B) if someone actually had a 40% advantage in range above average, the "extra" outs he'd generate would probably largely be from balls that you would normally expect the second baseman, third baseman, and maybe even the centerfielder to get to.