2010 World Series, Rangers vs Giants

This poster is prescient, erudite and witty. He should be immediately locked down with a multi-year contrract.

Have your agent set something up with Admins. I'm sure we can work something out.

I think at the end of Edgar Renteria's career he will be remembered as a decent, not great (but better than most at his peak) two-way shortstop who played for some very good teams, and for two of those teams delivered big hits in the biggest moments. He will be remembered for (roughly speaking) bookending his career with game winning World Series hits.

At the end of his career, Jed Lowrie will be remembered as whatever he turns out to be.

Neither will be remembered as a "World Series shortstop" in the sense that you have described, because I think people will recognize, with the evidence of 100+ World Series winning teams of varied construction, that your notion of a World Series shortstop is a fallacy. Up the middle defense is important, but even the best teams are flawed teams, and there's no one flaw that can't be overcome by other strengths. Teams win with and without great shortstops. Great shortstops lose without great teams.

That would be my guess.

Oh, posh!

Who's talking about World Series of 100 years ago except you

Look, pitching is job #1 in constructing a modern World Series caliber team. Period.

Next comes up-the-middle and I include in that SS, C, and CF. I think good arguments can be made that C might be more important than SS. But whatever.

If the Lansdowne St wino plays SS and you surround him with studs on the mound and everywhere else, even that team could win a WS. Very good point you made.

If I'm building a modern WS championship team, I'm going for WS caliber pitching, SS, C, and CF despite what you say. In recent years WS championship SS have demonstrated all or a combination of special qualities related to defensive ability, offensive ability, and leadership.

Lowrie is what, 27 years old? And he learned to play SS in Salem, Oregon? Coaches up there are neanderthals at producing modern big league SS compared to those in the DR and other Latin countries. I'm sure Jed has learned a lot at Stanford and with the Sox, but I don't think he has what it takes to anchor a WS championship team at a key position like SS.

If the Sox get the next coming of Johnny Bench behind the plate and Willie Mays in CF and Cy Young and Mariano and whoever else on the mound, could Jed be a part of that championship team? Of course. But so what? This would prove there are exceptions to everything.........but I think most of us already knew that

I think Jed could be a serviceable SS on a decent team, regardless of whether that opinion bothers anyone. I think he has Bill Mueller potential at 3B. I think Renteria is a WS caliber SS based on his two WS championship series performances. I think most WS caliber SS in the near future will play the position Latin style, like Iglesias.......and Nunez of the Yanks. I think Tulo is the only current exception to that.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying this is my opinion.

And I am not one bit surprised that you find all this to be a fallacy by suggesting the point has not held 100% for over 100 years. By that measure, pretty much everything is a fallacy

I think at the end of Edgar Renteria's career he will be remembered as a decent, not great (but better than most at his peak) two-way shortstop who played for some very good teams, and for two of those teams delivered big hits in the biggest moments. He will be remembered for (roughly speaking) bookending his career with game winning World Series hits.

At the end of his career, Jed Lowrie will be remembered as whatever he turns out to be.

Neither will be remembered as a "World Series shortstop" in the sense that you have described, because I think people will recognize, with the evidence of 100+ World Series winning teams of varied construction, that your notion of a World Series shortstop is a fallacy. Up the middle defense is important, but even the best teams are flawed teams, and there's no one flaw that can't be overcome by other strengths. Teams win with and without great shortstops. Great shortstops lose without great teams.

That would be my guess.

Focusing on the bold ...

The Giants proved your point - they made up for a make shift lineup with spectacular pitching.

They proved something else too ... the WS is won by the team that gets hot at the right time.

I'm not surprised that you think I mean that something has to be 100% true to have merit. That is not my point, of course.

But more than half of the World Series shortstops of the past decade have simply not been that great defensively, and that includes the mid-30s version of Edgar Renteria.

If your definition of "World Series shortstop" now means "well ok, shortstop defense isn't that important if the guy can hit or has intangibles," then I think that's something different than what you originally suggested when making your case for Latin shortstops as "World Series shorstops."

And if that's the case, I don't understand how that disqualifies Jed Lowrie. He is not an elite defender by any stretch, but nor is he awful. He has shown signs that he would be a better than average offensive player at the position – possibly quite a bit better than average. And he plays for a team that fits the mold as one that doesn't need A+ shortstop performance in order to be successful.

If all goes according to plan, it's a moot point in the long run for the Red Sox. We all know who the shortstop of the future is supposed to be, and he fits the profile that you originally laid out. If Lowrie is the shortstop in the interim...fine, you don't think he's good enough. That's your opinion. I can't tell you that you're wrong.

But if he turns out not to be good enough, I think it will have much more to do with the particular needs of the particular teams that he plays for than with an overarching "World Series shortstop" concept that really only holds up if you continually redefine the narrative to suit the winning shortstops.

What I'd like to see is Lowrie as the starting SS next year. I think what he has is a balance of run creation and run prevention that will be hard to unseat if he's the incumbent.

If Jose can win the job from Jed, and I'd much rather see that happen than to hand him the job at the end of Scutaro's contract, he'll be fun to watch and we'll be in very good shape at the position.

(It is quite possible that a full season at SS will expose Lowrie's defensive weaknesses, but it is also possible that we'll win the World Series)