| Sponsored Links |
|
|
Well 2 of the three say he was good. Being one run per year below average for 10 years in CF is good. His arm though probably cost him 4-5 runs per year, he made up some of it with range. So yeah, it matters. But a subpar hit tool, range, or fielding tool likely would all cost more than 5 runs.
If a good outfield arm were really worth many runs, then Jeff Francoeur would maybe be a good player.
Fielding 4th?? WTF is that? LOL sorry but at the SS position which usually gets the most balls hit to in the infield, if you can't field it, then your arm and speed don't matter much. I don't see how fielding wouldn't be first.
If you have the strongest arm in baseball, but you're the worst at fielding, i don't see how that's better than someone who fields everything and has a weaker arm.... you'd cost the team so much more by not being able to field the ball, letting it get by you into the OF and such....
Last edited by bklynny67; 12-20-2012 at 08:25 PM.
When I put it fourth, I don't mean they are a butcher out there, about an average fielder. I'll take an average fielder with great range and arm at SS than a great fielder with average range and great arm.
Also I mean this more as looking for talent as a scout rather than MLB players. You'd hope all players can field a ball at this level. You can always become a better fielder, but you can't increase range or get a stronger arm substantially.
The point of this post is you need to draft solid fielders and not hope they hit 30 homers [see Duda] in order to hold a starting position. And SSs and CFers are usually the best athletes.
Bob
Met fan since 1969