Dipre

Top three SS: 1) Hanley 2) Jeter 3) Tulo. Rollins isn't even close.

Apparently not. Is it on ESPN?

An "Elite" Shortstop (or any player for that matter) is a player who's head and shoulder above his current competition. It's a guy whose production is top two or three in the game. Usually the"elite" connotation is defined by your bat, even though defense has to be taken into account, it's always your offense that defines your place among the ranks of the position you play in. Right now, the two SS you could consider as "Elite" performers are Derek Jeter and Hanley Ramirez, who, even though are lackluster (except for Jeter's 2009 with the glove) defensively, their offense is so far above the rest of the playing field, that you can consider them "Elite". You could say the same for Joe Mauer at Catcher or Chase Utley at 2B, ditto for Alex Rodriguez at 3B and Albert Pujols at 1B.

Fair enough.

He hasn't shown flashes of elite potential. Honest question: Do you know what "elite" means when talking about a SS?

First off, the bolded part. Second, did i use defensive statistics when making the comparison? Third, is 110 games enough of a sample size to consider a guy a great defender if we were?, not to mention it's a massive strawman, and an awful use of the statistic. Don't try to make me look like a hypocrite because i don't think 110 games is enough of a sample size to think is a guy is an elite defender, and even worse, when i haven't used defense in my argument at all.Fourth, did you or did you not use the phrase "Glimpses of elite" when speaking about Lowrie? If you did, that means you see the potential for elite there, so don't backpedal. Either back up your argument or lay off it. I'd spend the rest of my very busy afternoon arguing semantics with you, but the fact is Lowrie is not an elite player, was not an elite prospect, and never had elite potential, and he's got chronic injuries to boot. The word "elite" and the name "Jed Lowrie" shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Common sense.

Well if you used some common sense i wouldn't have to make such spectacular contributions. You said something completely asinine then tried to backpedal. Player A: .317/.388 /.459 .847 OPS 2,138 Games Player B: .316 /.386/ .531 .917 OPS 618 games Player C: .235 /.313 /.372 .685 OPS 113 Games. "Glimpses of elite" indeed. It takes thirty seconds to think things through before posting.

Excellent post.

Fielder, Gonzales and Dunn are all better hitters than Pena, with Pena being a better defender than Fielder and Dunn, however, with Youk at first, you can afford to go for the better hitter, and Pena's not the better hitter.

That's because it's a minor procedure, not triple bypass surgery. Logic seems to avoid some people.

Or maybe it's because of the fact that the Lowell that the Red Sox got was no longer the 25+ HR in his prime Mike Lowell. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. Fenway is a haven for RHH's to hit HR's in, and the statistics back it up.

I like you. You're funny.

Offensive stats. Defensive stats. You don't believe in park adjusted stats though, even though logic dictates that if you go from a ballpark that limits your skillset to one that helps it your numbers should improve. See: Lowell,Mike.

Awwwwwww Jacko's all butthurt now. Oh well. You shouldn't talk about bannings and being a douchebag. /bbdoc. /Rivernator. Some adjustments about hypocrisy need to be made to the table.

*sigh*

I just got off the phone with one of Beltre's representatives, and he promised to give Doiji back all of the lunch money he took from him during High School if he promises to STFU about him.

The FO thinks otherwise. I'll believe them. Can you back that up with statistics by the way?

Oh, and Lol backpedals.

Oh, my apologies. Obvious props ORS's way.

^Greatest contribution in TS history.

You don't have moral grounds to call me out on such a manner, you hypocrite. An inconsistent thought process is exactly that. If someone's going to start an argument by saying "I don't care what your "X" stat says" when he has used stats in the past to defend denotes inconsistency. Just like saying "X player can benefit from moving to a new park" when said park is noticeable for benefitting said player's skillset then turning back and brushing aside the same situation for another because it suits your argument denotes inconsistency as well. I will call people out on it again and again and again and 9 times out of 10 you'll be in the front line. You fully expected Jorge Posada to come back from his shoulder issues with little to no impact to offense, but of course, Beltre's going to absolutely suck, not to mention, Fenway park will have absolutely no bearing on his numbers when comparing it to Safeco Field. I fully expect Curtis Granderson to benefit from NYS just like i fully expect Beltre to benefit from Fenway. I also know that the shoulder procedure was not as big a deal as some are making it out to be and that the testicle injury was a completely freak occurence.

You feel called out because you're a victim of inconsistency to the point where a table had to be created to save other posters time when answering your dribble. It's ok, i understand.