The Shortstop Championship Belt

[StanMarsh51]

He played 3b for a short time. I should have said Hanley should be top dog right now, the past 3 years have been Tulo but I didn't check how often he was injured in that span, since I know he was out for at least a year during that time.

Hanley hasn't been much better in terms of games played, as he's played in 321 games since the start of 2011 compared to Tulo's 296 (so I'd consider that a wash for the most part).

Hanley's also going to play 95 games this year if he plays every single game the rest of the season...is that enough to claim he's 'regained the throne?'

 

[OutlawImmortal]

Yeah but no one's arguing Hanley as champion in 2011. Hanley has been great ever since he joined the Dodgers. 2011 and this year will mark the only years he's played less than 140 games, and the 3rd time he's played less than 150. This year might be the first year he steals less than 20 bases too, Tulo doesn't run the bags.

95 and .310+ is a hell of a lot more than 47 and .287.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Tulo only played 47 games in 2012. You're right, I was only thinking about how long he played 3b with the Dodgers. With the Dodgers, Hanley drove in almost as many runs as games played last year, which was why I was crossing my fingers hoping he'd stay healthy this year after his injury in the WBC.

We're all entitled to our opinion, I was just clarifying my terrible choice of words.

Tulo only playing 47 games last year is a fair point, but no one really jumped up to claim the throne. Last year was a terrible year for shortstops. It's not like Tulo's performance slipped and someone passed him. He was hurt and no one made a compelling case in his absence.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Yeah but no one's arguing Hanley as champion in 2011. Hanley has been great ever since he joined the Dodgers. 2011 and this year will mark the only years he's played less than 140 games, and the 3rd time he's played less than 150. This year might be the first year he steals less than 20 bases too, Tulo doesn't run the bags.

95 and .310+ is a hell of a lot more than 47 and .287.

He wasn't great for the Dodgers last season by any stretch of the imagination.

Tulo doesn't run the bags? Seriously? Because he doesn't steal bases? Tulo is a perfectly fine baserunner, and no amount of baserunning can make up the gap between the two. Baserunning ability isn't solely defined by stolen bases. There's a lot more to it than that.

And what the heck are those numbers in the last sentence.

 

[OutlawImmortal]

He wasn't great for the Dodgers last season by any stretch of the imagination.

Tulo doesn't run the bags? Seriously? Because he doesn't steal bases? Tulo is a perfectly fine baserunner, and no amount of baserunning can make up the gap between the two. Baserunning ability isn't solely defined by stolen bases. There's a lot more to it than that.

And what the heck are those numbers in the last sentence.

Considering how everyone went on and on about how much of a cancer and washed up he was, yeah I'd say he was great for us last year. He was the top dog on our team until we made the trade for Adrian and company. The only difference from this year and last is less strikeouts and more hits, he was still driving in a good amount of runs though, especially with how impotent we were on offense.

Regardless, stolen bases is still an advantage he has.

Those numbers are games played and average during those games played. Since he pointed out Hanley would have around 90-some odd games if he stays healthy, I knocked Hanley's average down a bit.

Tulo only playing 47 games last year is a fair point, but no one really jumped up to claim the throne. Last year was a terrible year for shortstops. It's not like Tulo's performance slipped and someone passed him. He was hurt and no one made a compelling case in his absence

That's perfectly reasonable. I don't remember any shortstops last year really impressing me, other than Hanley and he was coming in to replace Dee Gordon/Luis Cruz

 

[Brahmsian]

How can you not have Mark Belanger at least once?

Never mind his almost non-existent offense, he and Brooks Robinson were he best left side of an infield
defensively I've ever seen.

 

[uncfan103]

I disagree with Jeter, he was arguably one of the worst, if not the worst, shortstop in the league from 05-07. I know you'll argue his gold gloves, but I think we can all agree that voters basically look just at fielding percentage when voting for that.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I disagree with Jeter, he was arguably one of the worst, if not the worst, shortstop in the league from 05-07. I know you'll argue his gold gloves, but I think we can all agree that voters basically look just at fielding percentage when voting for that.

Um you do know this isn't just about defense, right?

 

[uncfan103]

Um you do know this isn't just about defense, right?

It's not just about offense either is it? You wouldn't want the worst hitter would you?

 

[DragonfromTO]

It's not just about offense either is it? You wouldn't want the worst hitter would you?

Possibly but probably not, but offense has a bigger impact than defense. Team run scoring is entirely about offensive contributions, while team run prevention is a factor of both pitching contributions and defensive contributions, and the first factor is also a bigger part of run prevention than the second.

 

[uncfan103]

Possibly but probably not, but offense has a bigger impact than defense. Team run scoring is entirely about offensive contributions, while team run prevention is a factor of both pitching contributions and defensive contributions, and the first factor is also a bigger part of run prevention than the second.

I guess my question is. are his offensive contributions enough to make up for his lack of defense? It's not like he was by far the best offensive shortstop in the league. There were shortstops during that time with better WARs during those years.

 

[Brahmsian]

Offense has a bigger impact then defense????

Then why didn't the Red Sox win more WS's during Tom Yawkey's decades of owning them.

Yawkey's teams almost always had more offense than defense, but how much good is a great offense when you've got the likes of Don Buddin at short and Dick "Dr. Strangeglove" Stuart at 1st base?

FYI, Stuart was being called that and "E3" long before I moved to Boston in 1973. I can't claim credit for either nickname.

 

[Brahmsian]

Nice to see Freddie Patek on this list. I always liked him.

Guys making it to the big time in any sport despite being as small as he was
is something I've always liked seeing.

I'm a bit over 5'10'' myself, so it's not a matter of my identifying with midgets or anything like that.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Offense has a bigger impact then defense????

Then why didn't the Red Sox win more WS's during Tom Yawkey's decades of owning them.

Yawkey's teams almost always had more offense than defense, but how much good is a great offense when you've got the likes of Don Buddin at short and Dick "Dr. Strangeglove" Stuart at 1st base?

FYI, Stuart was being called that and "E3" long before I moved to Boston in 1973. I can't claim credit for either nickname.

Yes offense has a bigger impact than defense. Obviously defense has an impact or else you would just see teams grab a bunch of big boppers, throw them at random positions and say the hell with it I'm sure Albert Pujols will be fine at shortstop.

Your strawman argument proves nothing. In Yawkey's tenure (1933-1976) the Red Sox didn't win any WS (although they came within 1 win three different times) because in that time period they had the 2nd highest ERA of any team in baseball, lower than only the Athletics. They also had the second highest FIP. Defense didn't cost them a chance to win more World Series, the pitching did.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I disagree with Jeter, he was arguably one of the worst, if not the worst, shortstop in the league from 05-07. I know you'll argue his gold gloves, but I think we can all agree that voters basically look just at fielding percentage when voting for that.

1. Jeter certainly wasn't the worst shortstop in the league in that period.
2. I agree with some of this, I think that Tejada held the belt until 2006 so I think the year should be changed. Jeter, however, certainly did enough to gain the belt in 2006
3. I think you're giving the voters too much credit thinking that they look at any stats at all, even if it is just fielding percentage. I'm sure they rely mostly on "this guy has a reputation and I saw him make a nice play against my team once, I'll vote for him"

 

[DragonfromTO]

Offense has a bigger impact then defense????

Then why didn't the Red Sox win more WS's during Tom Yawkey's decades of owning them.

Yawkey's teams almost always had more offense than defense, but how much good is a great offense when you've got the likes of Don Buddin at short and Dick "Dr. Strangeglove" Stuart at 1st base?

FYI, Stuart was being called that and "E3" long before I moved to Boston in 1973. I can't claim credit for either nickname.

I didn't say that defense had no impact, did I? And I know who Dick Stuart was, so you didn't have to clarify the nickname. I know that he also only played a couple of seasons in Boston, so I'm not sure how he doomed the team for very long. The first season that Stuart played for them, they had a team OPS+ of 96. In his last year, it was 100. So it's not like they had a "great offense". And while the defense didn't help they also didn't have much pitching in those years.

In all seriousness though, if you think that defense is more important than offense then the only two possibilities are that you think that run prevention is much much more important than run scoring, or you think that pitching has very little (or even negative) importance. As I outlined before, run prevention is made up of both pitching and defensive contributions, while run scoring is entirely offensive contributions.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Offense has a bigger impact then defense????

Then why didn't the Red Sox win more WS's during Tom Yawkey's decades of owning them.

Yawkey's teams almost always had more offense than defense, but how much good is a great offense when you've got the likes of Don Buddin at short and Dick "Dr. Strangeglove" Stuart at 1st base?

FYI, Stuart was being called that and "E3" long before I moved to Boston in 1973. I can't claim credit for either nickname.

Is this a serious question? Of course offense has a bigger impact than defense.

Don Buddin wasn't a good hitter and Boston was an average offensive team during each of Stuart's two seasons there, so how is that helping your argument?

 

[Brahmsian]

I wasn't around during the Stuart years, so all I know about him is that he was
legendary for his poor fielding. Buddin likewise, relatives tell me. And there were more good offensive Red Sox teams than bad ones during the Yawkey decades. So pardon me for not knowing everything
about the pre-1973 Red Sox.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I wasn't around during the Stuart years, so all I know about him is that he was
legendary for his poor fielding. Buddin likewise, relatives tell me. And there were more good offensive Red Sox teams than bad ones during the Yawkey decades. So pardon me for not knowing everything
about the pre-1973 Red Sox.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing everything...what I do think is silly however is trying to use two guys as as examples as to why Boston didn't win rings.

What about the '04 Sox, since we both remember that....what position other than SS (Combo of Reese and Cabrera) where the Sox 'good' defensively in? They were the best offensive team in baseball by a good margin (949 runs, more than 50+ than the next closest team).

 

[DragonfromTO]

I wasn't around during the Stuart years, so all I know about him is that he was
legendary for his poor fielding. Buddin likewise, relatives tell me. And there were more good offensive Red Sox teams than bad ones during the Yawkey decades. So pardon me for not knowing everything
about the pre-1973 Red Sox.

Not knowing everything isn't a problem at all, none of us know everything and most of us don't pretend that we do. But if you don't know that much about the pre-1973 Red Sox, why enter into a conversation and offer a confident opinion on the reason those teams didn't win more?