http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/stor...

Or a catcher? What if a catcher threw out 100% of base stealers and always called the pitches the batter was least expecting. And he could frame pitches 4 inches outside to look like strikes. Would you play him if he couldn't hit at all?>

I assume some sabermetrician has tried to quantify it. Bill James once identified Dal Maxvill as the worst hitter who ever had a decent-sized career, because he was such a great fielder. Here are his batting numbers.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p...

It's not just the .217 average, it's the complete lack of power that amazes. (Curiously, 1968 might have been his best year as a hitter.)

So maybe Dal Maxvill is the closest thing to a real-life answer to your question at SS. He did commit errors, though. Would an error-free Maxvill have been able to keep his spot hitting .100? I don't think so.

I picked 1971 as a representative year. Maxvill hit .225, getting 80 hits in 356 at-bats. He committed 13 errors. If he'd hit .100, he would have had 35-36 hits. So error-free Maxvill would have given up around 45 hits on offense in exchange for 13 errors. That can't be a good trade. It's an example of something we've seen before -- hitting varies more than fielding.

Two further points about Maxvill.

-He never reached 500 AB in a season, presumably because he was such an offensive liability. So despite his defensive skills, he was just on the margin of being able to play.

-Even so, maybe he saw more action than he should have. He played in an era in which managers often put speedy low-average guys who never walked in the leadoff position, a strategy now thought to have been complete idiocy. Maybe if he had played in the Moneyball era, Maxvill never would have gotten out of the minors.

The catcher question is tougher. If a catcher could really turn a staff of Gary Gentries into Tom Seavers, that would be worth an awful lot. Could any catcher do that? I'm skeptical, but I don't know.

<Jim Bartle: I think having a really outstanding defense gives confidence to a teams' pitchers. Whitey Herzog wrote in his books he told his pitchers, "Throw strikes, you've got a great defense behind you which can run down most balls.">

The ideal shortstop I imagined not only doesn't make errors, he gets to every conceivable ground ball and outfield blooper.

Let's say he makes on a brilliant play on a sure hit once every two games, like the Tigers shortstop running down that popup in the World Series a couple of years ago.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l...

First thing I noticed was they were actually third in the American League in runs scored (and, as you might expect, first in fewest runs allowed). So, initially I thought the Hitless Wonders moniker was just media hype.

But when I looked further, I saw that they were dead last in hits and team batting average (.230, which even for 1906 is awful). As a team, they hit <7> home runs all year!

So, how did they do score so many runs? Well, first, they played in a pitcher's park, which distorts their numbers a little. If you look at OPS, they were tied for last (natch), but if you look at OPS+ (which adjusts for park effects) they move up to sixth. So they were slightly better hitters than their raw numbers make them appear.

But the bigger factor is walks. They had 444 walks, far more than anyone else in the league (the A's were second with 385). They were also first in the league in HBP. I don't think the high walk totals happened by accident. They were also first in the league in walks in 1907 and second in 1905.

Incidentally, whatever their batting averages were, at least some of Weaver's great Orioles teams could score. In 1969, when they lost to the Mets, they were second in the AL in scoring. The 1970 World Series winners were first.

In 1979, when they lost to Stargell's Pirates, they finished 8th out of 14th in runs scored in the AL. But in runs allowed they were incredible, nearly 100 fewer than the second-place Yankees.

Let's give Robo-SS and his competition 650 AB (because if Robo-SS doesn't play regularly, we lose the value of his amazing defense, plus I'm guessing he doesn't walk a lot).

A .250 hitting decent fielding shortstop will get 162 hits, 97 more than .100-hitting Robo-SS. But Robo-SS takes away 100 hits.

So, it's pretty much a toss-up.

How amazing a fielder would Robo-SS have to be to get 80 hits that a good shortstop wouldn't get? I suspect he'd have to be beyond incredible, like jumping eight feet in the air. But again, I don't know.