which is more important in a SS....

[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?

[koolzach1]

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.

[TheNamelessPoet]

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

[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.

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

The guy with the great range.

[TheNamelessPoet]

excelent analsys swampy...

[koolzach1]

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!

[Rongar]

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....

[filihok]

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.

[OldFatGuy]

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.

[RedsoxRockies]

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

[TheNamelessPoet]

We'll call him Furcal.

lol that is DEFINATLY a 3 pointer lol

[TheNamelessPoet]

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

[RedsoxRockies]

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

[filihok]

We'll call him Furcal.

I was thinking about Offerman, but Furcal works