One thing I will add in terms of comparing players: there is value in players who are in the lineup every day. We can say "well this guy is better but he was injured" or "that guy was better but he was a backup to a star". I'm not real big on the "what if" game. I'd prefer to look at the facts of what actually has happened. Projecting future results based on the past is, of course, murkier In a larger context look at the comparisons of Willie Mays & Mickey Mantle: Mays was clearly the better defensive player and had a better arm, but on offense Mantle obliterates Mays. However Mays averaged about 30 more games per season than Mantle. So in one fifth of the season while Mays was playing way better defense than Carlos Gomez could dream of all while hitting 40-50 HR's a season and being a disruptive force on the basepaths, Mantle was on the bench while his backup played. That's why I'd give the nod to Mays. Now I'm not saying Segura is an All-Time great or anything, just using the above as a big picture example. Segura has been durable and hustles all out. There is value there. Would I rather have Tulowitzki for 85-90 games a season than Segura for 162? In a vacuum, yes. But in the larger context of a roster, and how much is owed Tulo, and depending on who else I have to provide offense, it isn't quite so clear. Now for all we know Tulo may never get hurt again and Segura might average 40 games a season for the rest of his career. It's a roll of the dice when looking at player personnel.