I never denied that. There are guys in the HOF who didn't have the terrific talent level of their HOF peers, but still managed to play at a high enough level to be considered among the elite. Now, whether or not you believe these guys were rightly inducted into the HOF is another matter altogether, but guys like Ozzie Smith were still very good players who were helpful to their teams. However, for every Ozzie Smith, there are countless Neifi Perezes, Augie Ojedas, Adam Everetts, and so on. The reason why I equated scrappy hustlers with judy hitters is mostly because most of those judy hitters fall into that scrappy hitter category rather than any other category in baseball, be it big boppers or whatever. And now we're getting into another area altogether, although you make plenty of valid points between these two quoted parts I agree with in full. I think this particular part of your argument is problematic. You're making it sound as if Manny was the one solely responsible for those two runs because he misplayed two balls. He certainly deserves some criticism for screwing up, but the rest of his team let him down by allowing those two runs to score, be it because other defenders screwed up or because the pitcher threw the hitters bad pitches. Also, that loss would have been significantly worse if Manny were replaced with an average player. Instead of scoring three runs, Boston would in all likelihood and probability have scored two or fewer runs. Yeah, maybe one or two of the opposition's runs wouldn't have scored if they had a league average LF out there instead of Manny, but I go back to my argument regarding the other Red Sox also being responsible for those runners scoring. I think we're arguing over semantics at this point, though. Let's just agree we would rather the Cubs keep Aramis Ramirez, would rather have A-Rod over Eckstein, and agree that generally talent is more important to a team's and a player's success than hustle save for certain situations. Sound cool? 8)