[The Guru]

I respect your opinion. You have made a couple of good points in both of your posts, but some parts I will respectfully disagree with you on.

One thing that you will not see on the stat sheet is the ability of a fielder to get to a ball that might get through the hole or up the middle. Sometimes just knocking the ball down can be considered a vital play even if the runner happens to be able to still get on base by way of an infield single. It sometimes keeps an existing runner from maybe scoring on a hit up the middle or one hit in the gap. There is a reason why middle infielders are required at the next level to be able to run in the 6.7 to 6.8 range. With just a wild guess, I am going to say that VanHoose is in the 7.4 to 7.5 range. You have to have speed and quickness to potentialy make those plays. I guess what I am trying to say is that perhaps even though one player may have statictical numbers better than another may not be a great indicator of whom the better choice to play the position is. To be honest I dont think there was the first player in the 15th region able to play shortstop at the next level to begin with. Considering the fact of the required ability of speed and quickness, the only two with a remote possibility was either Blanton or Pugh. And in my opinion, neither one had the glove , but they did possess the speed and quickness factor. VanHoose may in deed be Paintsville's best option to play the position this year, but the original debate was the statement that VanHoose should have been the starting short stop the last several years over Pugh. No way. I think it is very evident that Pugh is a much better outfielder than infielder, especially at the next level. However, IMO, Paintsville's staff had the right people in the right spot last season at that position.

Shew......you just like to argue this!!!
Are you sure you are not MRS. Kimble?