Which type of player is best overall

[krownroyal83]

1. A great shortstop with bad hitting ability

2. An average shortstop with average hitting ability

3. A bad shortstop with great hitting ability

Let’s say they had to play the position, which order would you put those in best to worst.

[renojedi]

Originally Posted by krownroyal83

1. A great shortstop with bad hitting ability

2. An average shortstop with average hitting ability

3. A bad shortstop with great hitting ability

Let’s say they had to play the position, which order would you put those in best to worst.

1,2,3 is my order. I try to get the best offense I can while not sacrificing defense at C, SS, and CF. Pretty old school, but it works for me. If I have a #2 situation, I usually have a #1 on the bench as a defensive replacement later in the game.

[md40022]

I would be the exact opposite.

I'd go 3, 2, 1.

And I'm not trying to twist your question around, but when you say "let's say they had to play the position" I just don't see what scenario would ever FORCE them to play the position. A bad glove at SS can normally be groomed into an adequate glove at 3B or 2B relatively quickly and easily within one spring training and if the guy's bat is legitimately THAT good, than absolutely give me that bat and I'll work on molding him into playing 3B.... I know that twists your question around, sorry for that. I just don't see any situation where he would ever have to remain at SS.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by krownroyal83

1. A great shortstop with bad hitting ability

2. An average shortstop with average hitting ability

3. A bad shortstop with great hitting ability

Let’s say they had to play the position, which order would you put those in best to worst.

It really depends on how my team is made up in the rest of the positions, if I have a strong defense at 3B and 2B my order will most likely be 2,1,3.

If my team's defense is weak and ranked below average, I would always pick the SS with good defense first.

[pilight]

If he's a great hitter you can move him to left field or first base or DH (if you use that). If he's a great hitter for a shortstop your options are more limited.

[ZepTepi]

Originally Posted by krownroyal83

1. A great shortstop with bad hitting ability

2. An average shortstop with average hitting ability

3. A bad shortstop with great hitting ability

Let’s say they had to play the position, which order would you put those in best to worst.

Since your question is centered around this player being a shortstop in your scenario I won't put him somewhere else in my answer and being that's the case then option 3 will always be #3 for me. If the rest of my infield & CF are stout then I could probably get by with a player such as #2 but otherwise #1 is always going to be #1 in this scenario. I'll get my offense elsewhere.

[Brad K]

We have players playing the same position and in the same era. This might be a time when WAR actually has a good practical application. Pick the player with the best WAR.

[snepp]

I don't mind a mediocre defender at short, assuming they hit like a truck. A shortstop that can hit well is harder to find than one that fields well. That said, they'd likely only remain there until I can arrange a defensive upgrade and move them to a more appropriate corner spot.

[NoOne]

Depends on what "bad" means.. but if serviceable on low-side, that's a top-3 SS making top-dollar, so #3.

if they don't deserve to play SS, they aren't a SS in my mind, so anything sub 45-ish is just a player pretending to be a SS. they are filtered out and don't exist as options for that position. Will go lower on that threshold at other positions. A 40 in LF isn't too scary.

Should be able to consistently have a speedy-obp SS coming through system and supplemented by an occasional well-priced FA. Always need a couple leadoff hitters, and might as well be at a spot that costs more for power bats.

Or, if in a 20 market, spend like a drunken sailor and it won't matter much where you throw it around.

Bad choices = bad planning more times than most will admit.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by renojedi

1,2,3 is my order. I try to get the best offense I can while not sacrificing defense at C, SS, and CF. Pretty old school, but it works for me. If I have a #2 situation, I usually have a #1 on the bench as a defensive replacement later in the game.

Same. Although I would look at it in the context of my team and organization. Every team needs good defense at SS. But, if I already have that, I might take a look at #2 or #3, particularly if #3 could DH or learn a different position. And, as others have said, a guy who at least played SS, if badly, should be decent at 2B or 3B. (But not always. Some guys don't have the reactions for 3B. And some can't twist and turn the DP at 2B. It happens.)