Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 7/27/2009
And it will remain so until someone puts a 1B at SS. Which will be never


I guess I took this to mean "No team will put a guy getting regular playing time at 1B at SS. It just won't happen."

Because, if that's what it meant, Carlos Guillen certainly qualifies. You know, because he got regular playing time at SS and 1B for two consecutive years.
7/28/2009 10:44 AM
The point stands. He was a 1B playing SS because they had no one else and he had experience there. Age, injury and probably body composition necessitated the change

Up until 2005, he was an average SS. After he became a 1B playing SS, his numbers dropped.

But a team did actually put a 1B at SS.
7/28/2009 11:56 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 7/28/2009I'm not sure I can fully reconcile your point(s) ... you want the defense error rate at SS to go up "more" for the not-qualified SS ... which you think will drive owenrs to play them at 3B ... so that there will be more "3B" on the market for you?
you do know you could just sign these "3B masked as SS" and play them at 3B? ... or, sign those defensive SS that people are apparently not using in favor of using 3B at SS and play them at 3B ... or, if the sub-par defense isn't as punative as you think it "should" be, why not join the party and play a RF at 3B?

I get all that, it was poorly worded... I shall perhaps return later when i have time with a more concise version.. I do play RF at 3B these days..
7/28/2009 11:57 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 7/28/2009
The point stands. He was a 1B playing SS because they had no one else and he had experience there. Age, injury and probably body composition necessitated the change

Up until 2005, he was an average SS. After he became a 1B playing SS, his numbers dropped.

But a team did actually put a 1B at SS.

Do you mean Derek Jeter?
7/28/2009 11:58 AM
No, I meant "STFU, Wang Chung."
7/28/2009 12:01 PM
Not that this needs re-hashing, but a BP article that went up today specifically addresses the decline in drafted shortstops in recent years:



The lesson to take from that fact is that if you can mash, they'll find a position for you, but for some inside the game who are responsible for finding new talent, there is a bigger issue here: some believe that true -side infielders are more hard to find than ever. The problem is even more profound at shortstop, as fewer seem to be available with each passing year, as baseball has seen a steady decline in merely the number of shortstops selected in the draft:


Shortstops Taken In Picks
Years 1-100 1-50 1-10
1965-69 16.2 9.2 1.8
1970-79 14.0 8.2 1.8
1980-89 13.6 6.7 2.1
1990-99 11.8 6.0 1.2
2000-09 10.6 5.3 1.1

Beyond the numbers of shortstops themselves is the fact that the position itself is often a misnomer. The best athlete at most high schools is usually the shortstop, but that rarely means it's a legitimate reflection of those players' eventual position; it's easy to forget that even Gorman Thomas was drafted as a shortstop. In draft history, 581 shortstops have been drafted among the first 100 selections; of those, 116 had major league careers spanning 500 or more games, but just 46 spent the majority of their career actually at shortstop. Put more simply, only about two out of every 25 players drafted as shortstops in the first 100 picks had anything resembling a career there.
8/10/2009 1:44 PM
So this needs to be addressed again. My situation is common so I present it as proof there is a problem. I have a team in Kaline. I signed a starting SS this year, and have a backup.

Starter 80-83-90-91

Back up 95-93-94-95

Starter played in 62 games at SS and made 14 errors. Over a season that is about 33 errors. Fielding pct .964

Backup played 22 games and had 6 errors. Over a season that would be about 40 errors. Fileding pct .957

I realize this is a small sample, but it is common. SSs should field better. The ones that are close to the WIS stats should play much better, even people in the range, of which there are far to few, should play better. Even ones far outside the range whould play much better.

Anton says in real life there are less real SSs and more people just playing SS, and yet they play much better than the SSs in HBD.
8/18/2009 4:04 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 8/18/2009I realize this is a small sample, so I will STFU
ty
8/18/2009 4:11 PM
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
8/18/2009 4:15 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 8/18/2009
So this needs to be addressed again. My situation is common so I present it as proof there is a problem. I have a team in Kaline. I signed a starting SS this year, and have a backup.

Starter 80-83-90-91

Back up 95-93-94-95

Starter played in 62 games at SS and made 14 errors. Over a season that is about 33 errors. Fielding pct .964

Backup played 22 games and had 6 errors. Over a season that would be about 40 errors. Fileding pct .957

I realize this is a small sample, but it is common. SSs should field better. The ones that are close to the WIS stats should play much better, even people in the range, of which there are far to few, should play better. Even ones far outside the range whould play much better.

Anton says in real life there are less real SSs and more people just playing SS, and yet they play much better than the SSs in HBD.

Huge fallacy in your arguement. Currently, most SS have about 450-500 chances. Prorated, that amounts to about 650 in a season. Based upon your stats, for a player to have committed 33 errors and have a .964 fielding percentage, he would have over 900 chances. That is just your main guy. And you have your backup fielding roughly the same amount. More chances = more errors. Not necessarily worse fielding.
8/18/2009 5:44 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 8/18/2009So this needs to be addressed again.
No, actually it never even needed to be brought up in the first place. Your argument simply holds no water. Find a new crusade. Thank you.
8/19/2009 1:50 AM
There are clearly too many errors being committed by SSs.

Everyone has a reason why, but people act like because there is a reason it isnt a problem.
8/19/2009 5:22 PM
....there isn't. The difference is that everyone actually seems to understand the reason except for you.

Now, if you want to argue that the REASON is the problem...then you'll probably gain some traction with people, and maybe actually get some support.

But since you only seem to like pointless crusades, I highly doubt THAT is going to happen any time soon...
8/19/2009 6:32 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 8/19/2009
There are clearly too many errors being committed by SSs.

Everyone has a reason why, but people act like because there is a reason it isnt a problem.

But, their fielding percentage is line
8/19/2009 8:41 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 7/21/2009

I haven't been following this thread, but for some bizarre reason shortstop ratings spilled over into the HFA thread, so I thought I'd post this here:

Slow day at work, so I took at look at the recently completed season in MG.

32 shortstops qualified with enough defensive innings played to be listed among the league leaders in fielding.

14 of those shortstops had defensive ratings at or above the HBD recommendations of 80/85/85/85. Combined, they had a cumulative fielding percentage of .978.

The other 18 shortstops, who were under the recs in one or more rating, had a cumulative fielding percentage of .966.

Overall fielding percentage for the 32 shortstops was .971.

Draw your own conclusions. But it seems pretty clear that HBD shortstops with defensive ratings above the recs outperform the MLB average, and HBD shortstops with defensive ratings below the recs underperform the MLB average.

8/19/2009 9:27 PM
◂ Prev 1...12|13|14|15 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.