Best shortstops of all time

Buck, who the bloody hell is Arky Vaughn? He has to pre-date the Flying Dutchman. And even though the "intangibles" card has been beaten to death, if Jeter is twice the batter Vizquel is & Vizquel is twice the fielder Jeter is, then I feel that Jeter's drive to win gives him a slight edge over Omar. Plus, you also have to throw in the four WS rings along with the 2000 All-Star & WS MVP awards. This isn't saying that Omar is a pile of shit, but I'd rate Jeter SLIGHTLY higher than Vizquel.

 

That I'm on what side, G_I? That, yes, fielding makes a difference? Of course it does.

I'm not arguing for an extreme of one over the other -- the Rey Ordonez' or Dave Kingmans of the world. Those guys are 1% of the players that the Cal Ripkens or Frank Thomases were, guys who can do both well. They help their teams at the plate and in the field.

But is a team that can't hit worth a shit any better than a team that can't field worth a shit? No, I don't think so. I think they both suck.

Maybe defense isn't 50/50 with hitting, for position players. But what would you rate it? 40/60? 30/70? It's hard to say, but I certainly wouldn't go any lower than that.

 

I agree with that one. Myself having a father-in-law and brother-in-law as Yankees fan I totally agree. There is no argument that anyone can win with a Yankees fan. They are the most arrogant, misinformed and biased fans for any team in any sport. Outside of talking about the Yankees however I love my father-in-law and brother-in-law.

 

Um, ever watch a game with a Red Sox fan?

 

Fielding is important, just not as important as hitting. There's a reason "good field, no hit," is shorthand for "not a major league player." Vizquel is a marvel. But there isn't one general manager in baseball who'd pick Omar in his prime over Jeter in his. Not even Steve Phillips would do that.

 

An error can be as costly as a home run can be valuable. I wouldn't argue against a 50-50 split.

If anything, a shortstop will likely field more balls in a game than he'll get at bats. So that could put a premium on fielding.

And, Larkin should be higher than 10th.

 

I'd say it's 34/33/33 percent pitching, hitting and fielding split for a team to win ... in a vacuum.

But if a team has dominant pitching, it's percentage within that example goes up exponentially. Nothing drives the train of a winner like dominant pitching.

If a team has dominant hitting, it's percentage goes up a bit, but shitty pitching and shitty fielding trump great hitting almost all the time.

A team with dominant defense? It's percentage of importance doesn't change. Fielding is complementary to pitching and hitting, but is a damn important complement. But a team can't win via fielding alone.

Given that, there are a select few players over time who change the game through their fielding. Many are shortstops.

So while I don't think a great fielder can dominate a game like a great pitcher or (less so) a great hitter can, it shouldn't diminish them when compared to their peers in one of these all-time lists.

 

Pretty reasonable to me.

 

Every day, my wife is a Red Sox fan. (figure that one out)

 

It's like arguing the Bible with a Cradle Catholic ... ;D

 

One counter-argument here is that many big-league teams are run by certifiable idiots.