Originally Posted by SI1020
IMHO he was a good to excellent fielding shortstop. In fairness and honesty I was born in 1950, but in my childhood all Cub home games were televised, and I watched as much baseball as possible, really loved living in a city with two big league teams. Banks made a lot of errors in his early years but steadily improved. His range and arm were both good I thought. Of course he hit the hell out of the ball too. I remember when they moved him to first being surprised, but his legs and knees were already wearing down. I also thought he was a decent fielding first baseman. When the much ballyhooed Leo Durocher took over the team in 1966, he seemed to have it in for Banks, but Ernie took on all comers and held onto his position at first base. Ernie Banks is one of the all time good guys in MLB history.
Ah yes, I remember him well. Not much range, great hands, average but accurate arm except for one period of Steve Sax disease where he got the yips making a throw. Smooth looking in the field, call me blasphemous, but not an athletic shortstop who could dive for a ball, bounce to his feet and gun a bullet over to first. They tried him in left field for a while where he was lost. Also at third base. First base was his best field position. Batter was his best position overall. One of the heroes of my past.