which is more important in a SS....

[dickay]

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.

[HoustonGM]

Whichever guy converts more balls into outs.

[Swampdog]

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

[Wassit3]

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

[Wassit3]

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...

[HoustonGM]

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.

[gRYFYN1]

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.

[Wassit3]

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.

[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.

[Wassit3]

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

[dps]

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.