Numbers Don’t Lie: Derek Jeter is a Horrible Shortstop
My brother is a journalism grad student and wrote this story. He asked me for ideas based on his assignment, the "math and science beat." Believe me, he hates the yankees just like the rest of us. The story is basically about defensive metrics being developed and is meant to be for the casual reader, not all you AN vorpies. let me know what you think and i'll pass it along. I got the idea for this here.
Numbers Don’t Lie: Derek Jeter is a Horrible Shortstop
A New Tool Purports to Deliver the Most Accurate Fielding Statistics Ever
The New York Yankees might want to switch out Derek Jeter with Alex Rodriguez at shortstop, according to new results from the SAFE baseball fielding rating. [Credit: Keith Allison, flickr.com] By Alex Liu | Posted October 26, 2009
Posted in: Featured, uncategorized
New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez batted a .286 in 2009. That’s .283 on Astroturf, .268 at night and .313 for games played away from home. His batting average may be scrutinized ad infinitum, but how his defensive performance stacks up is less clear. Baseball players accumulate a wealth of hitting and pitching statistics throughout their careers, but quantifying how they field has always proved difficult. Now, all that could change. A team of statisticians at the University of Pennsylvania developed a model they say is the most accurate fielding measurement ever published.
It’s called the Spatial Aggregate Fielding Evaluation, or SAFE. It is designed to improve upon other models that rate players now, such as the Ultimate Zone Rating, UZR, and the Plus/Minus system.
Models like the UZR and Plus/Minus system divide the field into zones and calculate the average percentage of balls fielded in these zones. Fielders then receive a score based on their aggregate performance in assigned zones relative to the expected total.
For example, if the average second baseman is expected to field 11 out of 20 balls hit to one zone, but actually fielded 13, he would receive a “+ 2” rating for that zone. Ratings for each of his zones are then added to get his final fielding score.
But statistics professor Shane Jensen, who created the new model, contends that the use of zones often misestimates a fielder’s contribution. These models could have a large amount of data in one zone and none in another, which throws off the rating.
SAFE, instead, treats the field as a continuous plane and uses statistical modeling to predict fielding ability. Using this model, Jensen can take existing data and calculate the probability that a fielder would get a ball, even if it wasn’t hit to that particular part of the field .
So, say a player reliably catches balls hit 100 feet to his left, but has never caught a ball hit 20 feet to his left. One would assume he could catch those balls, but previous models wouldn’t give him credit. SAFE, however, looks at all the balls this player has fielded and assigns probabilities he could catch others across the continuous plane.
SAFE even impresses UZR creator, Mitchel Lichtman. SAFE “is definitely the way to go,” he said. “If I had the statistical knowledge that [Jensen] has … I would do it that way.”
While Jensen and his team had published data from the 2002-2005 seasons last year, the dataset’s accuracy was difficult to validate without data from more seasons. However last month, at a symposium for sports statistics wonks in Cambridge, Mass., he unveiled results from data up to the 2008 season. These numbers bolster his belief that SAFE is the best fielding metric that has been published.
One of SAFE’s calculations surely pleased the Cambridge crowd and confirmed what analysts have argued for some time: Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees has been one of the consistently worst defensive shortstops playing today.
Jeter “did have sort of a weird blip up in 2008,” Jensen said. “He’s no longer terrible and more like mediocre.”
SAFE also gives statistical backing to other claims that pundits have ranted about. For example, Manny Ramirez of the Los Angeles Dodgers has been one of the worst left fielders, while Andruw Jones of the Texas Rangers and Chase Utley of the Philadelphia Phillies come out on top in center field and second base, respectively.
Jensen also found that winners of the Gold Glove, given to players judged to be exceptional fielders, were “generally no better than other players in terms of SAFE, and a few were actually much worse.” For example, despite some of the worst SAFE rankings, Jeter managed to win three Gold Gloves from 2004 to 2006, while second baseman Bret Boone won three Gold Gloves from 2002 to 2004 during his time on the Seattle Mariners.
Also, if he still plays like he did with the Rangers, SAFE predicts Alex Rodriguez might be better at shortstop than Jeter.
However, according to Dave Cameron, a baseball analyst for The Wall Street Journal, while it appears “there are some interesting things” with SAFE, most baseball analysts have not given the ratings an in-depth look.
Cameron praises SAFE’s methodology as “a cool concept,” but he laments that SAFE has not gained much traction compared with other fielding metrics due to its relative lack of availability to the public. “When SAFE was first introduced, there was a lot of excitement,” he said. “It just hasn’t gone anywhere.”
While the UZR and Plus/Minus system are easily accessible and regularly updated, Jensen has been slow to release his results and admits SAFE has remained primarily an academic exercise.
Baseball analysts “have plenty to gain by looking at SAFE,” Jensen said. “But my main audience has been the academic statistics community.” He also cites the large upfront cost to obtain the detailed data he needs as preventative to releasing the data quickly.
Nevertheless, people are noticing his work. Recently, an NBA team contacted Jensen to develop a similar model to predict the shooting ability of players.
Jensen’s next goal is to compare players across seasons. A Boston Red Sox fan, he also plans to keep an eye on Jeter. “I’m going to have a good look at him to see if he’s any better than I remember,” he said. “And unfortunately, I think I’m going to be seeing a lot of him this October.”
Related on Scienceline:
0 recs |
63 comments
| Add comment
Comments
But he's Cap'n Jetes
He’s young(ish), good looking, plays for the Yankees, lives on Manhattan, will have hall of fame credentials, and dates awesome women. I’m the first to raise my hand when asked “who hates the Yankees?”. But when it comes to Cap’n Jetes, “don’t hate the playa, hate the game!”
by StewCrew on Oct 26, 2009 3:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice article
I’m impressed it came from a student. My only note is that I instantly want to know more about the details of SAFE… but perhaps he had to keep his article concise.
by DrDoom on Oct 26, 2009 3:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fielding metrics or not, there aren’t too many guys I’d take over Jeter.
by GoldenArms on Oct 26, 2009 5:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does the "Horrible Shorstop" headline
go with the article, or did you just add it for this FanPost?
If it goes with the article, I’d say it’s unnecessarily inflammatory, and the article itself (which is quite good) doesn’t support it.
But I guess that’s how it often is with newspaper headlines.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 26, 2009 5:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As much as I hate Jeter, his bat more than makes up for his glove
Basically, I agree with this.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 26, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"[Jeter] did have a sort of weird blip up in 2008. He's no longer terrible and more like mediocre."
I think that direct quotation justifies the headline.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Oct 26, 2009 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my understanding is that newspaper editors often choose the headlines, not the authors
I could be wrong on that.
by DDroney on Oct 26, 2009 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kill the editors!
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Oct 27, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was the best of times--and, ironically--the worst of times
To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being crushed under the wheels of the imperial carriage
by elcroata on Oct 27, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my question.
Granted, Jeter is vastly overrated as a SS, which is largely a function of so much unwarranted gushing that no one, even a good defensive SS, could actually be as good as the hype.
But there’s the other extreme too. Eyeballing Jeter, and a slew of other shortstops, for a rather large sample of over a decade, it’s difficult for me to see ranking him as the WORST shortstop defensively — I mean we’ve seen more than a few real stinkers.
“Somewhere in the middle, which is a heck of a lot worse than ZOMG-TERRIFIC,” sure. But literally bottom of the pack? I don’t see that, any more than I see him being a gold glover.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 26, 2009 5:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
do you mean to include
shortstops who were so bad that they don’t stick in the majors? Or journeymen who get by as backups around the league? Most of those guys probably don’t have enough innings for the defensive stats to get a good handle on them, but it’s safe to say that some of them are probably worse defenders than Jeter.
by colin on Oct 26, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Off the top of your head, who in the AL is a worse defensive shortstop than Jeter?
AL West:
Pennington? Debateable.
Aybar? No
Wilson? No
Andrus? No
Central:
OrCa? No
Everett? No
Alexi Ramirez? Debatable
Asdrubal? No
Betancourt? Perhaps
East:
Nick Green? Probably. Jed Lowrie? No.
Jason Bartlett? No.
Scutaro? Debatable
Izturis? Doubt it.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 26, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Betancourt would be it.
But he’s really the only slam dunk on there, the rest are, like you say, debatable.
And your dream, absolve.
And your path, dissolve.
by danmerqury on Oct 26, 2009 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Betancourt has pretty decent range.
He’s just an unbelievably lazy fielder.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
by hero66 on Oct 29, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting...wonder what it will take for sports writers or analysts to look at this as a good addition to the statistical litertature
I also wonder why I read AN vorpies as AN vampires???
"The trouble with baseball is that it is not played the year round." Gaylord Perry
by BERRYJO on Oct 26, 2009 6:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends on who their audience is.
The more mainstream places won’t even touch it… at least not in any depth… as they don’t want to bore their audience.
The more specialized places might.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
by UncleLeo on Oct 27, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
Specialized statistical baseball places (blogs, mostly) went absolutely bonkers over Pitchf/x and the data it spat out. They still are. ESPN, SI, and whatever other “mainstream sources” didn’t touch it.
And your dream, absolve.
And your path, dissolve.
by danmerqury on Oct 27, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tim McCarver seems fascinated
that an object that is put in motion with a single thrust loses speed as it travels 60 feet.
by Future Ed on Oct 27, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tim McCarver hates wind resistance
but he used to like to take a crap in the second inning.
Bill Lee called him “Old Second Inning” for just this reason.
"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard
by Gaijin_Suketto on Oct 27, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He hates wind resistance?
He sure seems like a big fan of hot air.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 27, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unresisted, preferably.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
by UncleLeo on Oct 28, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much all of the examples back up two common points
1. Metrics continuously improve
2. The improvements are pretty much the same, just more accurate
I don’t know whether SAFE really is the best to date, but I do know none of those examples are particularly surprising.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 26, 2009 6:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nooooooooo...
If you’re going to argue that a single metric generally improves, that might fly. But if you’re arguing that metrics in general continuously improve, that’s not supportable.
by JetSam on Oct 27, 2009 4:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you misunderstand
I’m saying wOBA > OPS > Avg. If this one is > UZR it’s just progress marching on.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is A-rod mentioned?
I really like this article by rob neyer about jeters defense
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/795/derek-jeter-s-amazing-transformation
by skalordes on Oct 26, 2009 7:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Some examples
Some example numbers would be helpful. I don’t keep track of all the UZR numbers, but it would be nice to say Jeter had a UZR of X while other shortstop had a UZR of Z. Same with SAFE.
Agree with the above too, why mention Arod? Makes the article seem typically east coast biased.
by Jernskogen on Oct 26, 2009 9:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The "Jeter sucks" argument
Is because he’s so vastly over-rated as a human being, and has a strange irrational plausibility to everything he does. He has the tag “ultimate yankee” which means he is better than A-Rod, even when he clearly isnt: his refusal to move to 3rd and A-Rod’s “anything for the team” in moving there, run in direct contrast to what you read in the media, and as for A-Rods playoff “failures”? his lifetime playoff OPS is about 150 points higher than “capn Jetes”. If other Yankees werent so harshly dealt with, no one would pay attention to Jeter’s over-ratedness, and judge him for who he is.
Jeter has been known as a bad SS for years, Dewans’ essay about him to open the Fielding Bible predated this new one by several years, so SAFE isnt really blowing any minds with this claim that he’s not a good defensive SS. At this point, pretty much everyone knows hes not.
What I disagree with, is attaching run-based numbers to defensive metrics. People desperately want to have nice easy to read number like you have with offense, but both are severely different to each other. You hit a HR, thats a full run on the board, you cannot argue it. The player directly put a run on the board with 1 swing, and its the most valuable thing a hitter can do. So saying “Adam Dunn costs his team’s 40 runs a year by playing him in LF” and then seeing he’s only “worth” $5M a year when he has a 1000 OPS, is something I disagree vehemently with, and I do so with one simple question: “where does he cost his teams these runs?”.
The only way a defender can put a run on the board for the other team would be by take a route opposite to the way the ball was hit, then fumbling around and letting the player hit an inside-the-park HR. This happens how many times a year? A handful. Now the defender who lets inside the parkers happen is indeed terrible at his position, but thats an outlier. Defense relies almost completely on the pitcher. If a pitcher is devastating, and lets one fly ball in that the LF doesnt get to and it drops in for a single, but then K’s the rest of the side, I dont believe that is of any value as a stat against the LF. See, my point against these defensive metrics are that its a team game, and putting any substantial statistical value on the defense is really selling a player short.
by PL78 on Oct 27, 2009 12:27 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
If you're only going to count the runs that actually appear on the board
then you can’t use OPS as a measurement. Why not use RBIs or runs scored, then, as they’re the only ones that actually appear, unarguably? UZR measures defensive runs in the same way that OPS measures offensive runs. OPS doesn’t actually count the runs that a player scored. Rather, it looks at a player’s total offensive production (singles, doubles, walks, etc) and weights them according to how much each event is worth.
Take your example. You’re not willing to take a point off of an outfielder if he allows a single that doesn’t eventually score. Then why would you care if a batter hit a single and got left stranded on the bases?
And your dream, absolve.
And your path, dissolve.
by danmerqury on Oct 27, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Replace OPS with wOBA and this is right.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
He was using OPS, so I just continued using it. Definitely, wOBA would be a more accurate measure of offensive production, which is why Fangraphs uses it.
And your dream, absolve.
And your path, dissolve.
by danmerqury on Oct 27, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is
wOBA actually “weights [offensive production] according to how much each event is worth,” but yes I generally agree with your point.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You crossed yourself up
You say I cant use OPS but then say OPS “looks at a player’s total offensive production (singles, doubles, walks, etc) and weights them according to how much each event is worth.”
Thats exactly fine to do. Its using raw numbers and valuing them according. Yes, a HR is worth more than a single. This is fine and dandy because like I said, offensive stats are black and white and much more valid than defensive ones. A hit is a hit, theres no “almost-hit”, but a defender can get screwed statistically on an “almost-out” if his speed and range let him get to a ball that just tips his glove, that other OFers wouldnt get to and wouldnt show up in the stats.
My argument is that defense is so vague by nature that its stats cannot be valued the same as offensive ones. Say theres like, a bloop hit that ONE CF can get to, and the rest cant. Does that mean that all other CFs are worthless because one outlier can get to it, no. Are all OFers supposed to be able to get to every ball hit into the outfield? They only get say, 5-9 outs a game between the 3 of them, my example of a “defensive run” is the ITPHR and thats the only valid one because of the onus being on the pitcher to get the hitters out, the defense is secondary and therefore of less value.
by PL78 on Oct 27, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're misunderstanding UZR
Maybe these will help:
Basically, defensive stats are less exact, but not devastatingly so. They’re certainly better than you’re giving them credit for.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 27, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defensive runs are usually express in relation to average.
When someone says that Fielder A was worth 15 runs defensively, he means that Fielder A is 15 runs above the average fielder.
And you’re getting actual runs confused with theoretical runs. The only stats that truly count actual runs are runs scored and RBIs. When someone converts OPS (or wOBA) to batting runs above average (BRAA) for use in a WAR calculation, they’re looking at the theoretical output of that player’s production. Run expectancy tables show us that a single is worth, on average, 0.475 runs. It doesn’t matter if he actually scores. When we sum up a player’s BRAA, we add up all of the theoretical runs that a player produces, according to the run expectancy tables. Defense is the same way. Fielding runs above average (FRAA) talks about the theoretical runs that a fielder allows, not whether he single-handedly caused a run to score via ITPHR or whatever.
And your dream, absolve.
And your path, dissolve.
by danmerqury on Oct 27, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why would you need theoretical data?
when theres so much actual data to work with?
by PL78 on Oct 27, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because the theoretical data
is better at isolating effects.
For example, suppose you’re trying to analyze the hitting ability of Nick Swisher. You can look at the hard numbers and see that he hit 59 singles this year. To assign a value to those singles, you now have a choice. You can look at how many of them really did turn into a run and how many did not; or you can look at all the singles in the entire league and calculate how often they turn into a run on average, and then multiply Nick’s singles by that factor.
The former has the advantage that it measures a real and actual result and is not “theoretical”, but it has the disadvantage that it measures not just Swisher but all the other Yankees who hit before and after him. The purpose of calculating “theoretical runs” is to try to isolate the hitter’s own skill from that of the players around him.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 27, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting
I agree with the offensive value determination in that sense, its just that defensively it doesnt gel as well, its too prone for error because we need to come up with better determinations in valuing defense.
I dont have any problem with the idea of defensive metrics, Id like that to be clear, Id LOVE if some genius came up with exact ways to prove that player A playing CF is exactly saving the team X amount runs playing there than player B, and to not skew the overall importance of that when combining that with a players hitting ability. Right now, it doesnt yet people are jumping the gun on it and wanting it to be right, but it simply isnt.
by PL78 on Oct 27, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume that defensive stats attempt to do something similar
though I’m not familiar enough with the formulas to say exactly how to do it.
I share your skepticism of defensive stats, and I think pretty much everyone agrees they are less reliable than offensive stats.
Personally, I’m not convinced they are better than a consensus opinion of knowledgeable scouts and analysts, though the latter clearly has its problems as well. It’s nice to consider both.
I think the more difficult problem is not who is a better defender than whom, which is not so hard to glean in most cases, but rather how to measure defensive value against offensive value.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 28, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
I think the more difficult problem is not who is a better defender than whom, which is not so hard to glean in most cases, but rather how to measure defensive value against offensive value.
This.
I think the only way to properly gauge defenders is to have a clinic with a box over home plate, and the ball comes out of it at the defender in say, 20 different random ways (pop out, weak liner, sharp grounder). The fielder would have no idea what would be coming next, and the way he gets to the ball could be graded out of 10. Then do the same thing with a runner on first, then runners on 1st & 2nd and bases loaded. The main problem is that theres so many different scenarios, this would take many hours to complete, but it would give a lot more definition to who was better than who at playing their position, due to the testing hits being a constant. You could definitely say without a doubt “Jimmy Rollins gets to sharp grounders to his left better than Derek Jeter”. Which you can say now gauging off similar plays, but the circumstances behind each play are too varied. This would make every fielder be forced to field the exact same hit.
by PL78 on Oct 28, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we'll have to wait for Hitf/x, then.
It’s coming out…eventually. Much like Pitchf/x, they’ll have multiple high-speed cameras watching every ball as it comes off the bat. Besides the obvious benefits (no more ambiguous batted ball definitions, bat speed, true home run distance), we’ll have concrete data to use for better, more comprehensive defensive statistics.
And your dream, absolve.
And your path, dissolve.
by danmerqury on Oct 28, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes and then the data will be valid
From there it can also be better determined exactly how much more important hitting is compared with defense.
by PL78 on Oct 28, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Iglew has it right.
It’s not theoretical data, in the unproven, imaginary made-up sense. It’s theoretical in the mathematical, calculated sense.
And your dream, absolve.
And your path, dissolve.
by danmerqury on Oct 27, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
“The only way a defender can put a run on the board for the other team would be by take a route opposite to the way the ball was hit, then fumbling around and letting the player hit an inside-the-park HR. This happens how many times a year? A handful.”
How about allowing a ball to drop (go through) with bases loaded and two outs?
Baseball is a team effort, of course. But it is a team effort built upon series of individual efforts, much more than in any other team sport. It is also a sport in which most of these individual efforts can be quantified, some better, some worse.
One can and should argue how precise some of these metrics are and take most of the new ones with a grain of salt. I think anyone — surely you, too — would agree that having Carl Crawford in the LF instead of, say, Manny Ramirez will lead to fewer runs scored by opposing teams. So Manny did “put some runs on the board for the opposing teams”, of course relatively speaking.
The whole science and art of defensive metric systems is to try and put a number to it. Some might do a better job at it, some worse, but they can not be a priori be dismissed as useless, just because this is a team sport.
To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being crushed under the wheels of the imperial carriage
by elcroata on Oct 27, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Paging Luis Castillo.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 27, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It says almost nothing about what SAFE is
It reads like someone who is all pumped up after listening to a sales pitch.
Is Dave Cameron the “baseball analyst” for the WSJ? Who are the baseball analysts that he wants to give a look at it? There is only a small group who have even looked at the stats du jour.
What dataset are they talking about? The 2 big providers use fairly crude methods. Is there some other?
I’d give him a D.
by JetSam on Oct 27, 2009 5:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cameron writes for the WSJ in addition to Fangraphs and USS Mairiner.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Oct 27, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rough gig.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 28, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
easy solution
Ask any knowledgeable baseball fans this question: In any of the years in Jeter’s career, was he ever a top 10 player in the league? No. Was he ever considered the best SS in the game? Maybe in the top 3, but certainly never the best.
If Jeter was playing for the KC Royals, there will never been all these Hall of Fame discussion about him. Living in NY and having seen countless Yankees games, I’ve thought Bernie Williams was a better overall player than Jeter. But no one in the right mind thinks Williams is going to the Hall. Jeter benefitted greatly by playing in NY.
by batterbatter on Oct 27, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is just not true
I hate media worship-like treatment of Jeter as much as the next guy, if not more, but Jeter is a Hall Of Fame member as soon as eligible, regardless whether he plays in New York, Kansas City or Vladivostok.
There have been exactly 4 players in the HISTORY of the game to have played at least 75% of their games at shortstop, have collected 2000 hits and had OPS of .820 and better.
Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan and Joe Cronin are already in the Hall. And by the time Jeter is done, he will be only shortstop ever to have collected 3000 hits.
In a way, I think Jeter’s legacy suffers a great deal due to the unbearable adulation we all are exposed to. But he is one of the best ever to hit from a SS position, regardless. His subpar defense doesn’t do even nearly enough to diminish that.
To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being crushed under the wheels of the imperial carriage
by elcroata on Oct 27, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If jeter were a royal, he would be a yankee
by he time he hit free agency.
by Future Ed on Oct 27, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arby-eligible.
In 2008 I was watching a team that was rebuilding. In 2009 I feel like I'm watching a team that just sucks.
by UncleLeo on Oct 27, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
rebuttal
Let me ask you this. If Jeter played LF for the Yankees while putting up the same offensive numbers, would you put him in the Hall? I think it will be doubtful
Jeter’s play at SS over during his career is averaage at best. I’d argue that the Gold Gloves he won are due to popularity than his true play on the field. When Jeter won his last Gold Glove, NY sports writers were shaking their head at how he won with his mediocre play on the field. I’ts like Obama winning the Nobel. So why should he be rewarded with a spot in the Hall for playing a position that he was never really good at?
by batterbatter on Oct 27, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again
When Jeter finishes his career he will have 3000 hits and a lifetime OPS of over .800. Do you know how many left fielders have done that? Ever?
Only one. And Rickey knows Rickey is a one in a lifetime kind of player.
As the matter of fact out of 19 players who have ever done in it in the history of the game 18 are HOF eligible. And all 18 are in. So, yes, I would put Jeter in the Hall if he played left field.
To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being crushed under the wheels of the imperial carriage
by elcroata on Oct 27, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeter should be in the HOF,
but he’s the only one to get X hits with an X OPS isn’t necessarily conclusive evidence. I mean, hits is a nice proxy for longevity, and OPS a good representative of offensive quality, but those kind of arguments can often look like cherry-picking (not saying this one is).
by Elston Gunn on Oct 27, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is not conclusive evidence
But surely, as you point out, a fair enough sign that this dude played this game on a high level for a long time.
A quick and dirty comparison with his peers shows that other people posting similar numbers are in the Hall. Actually anyone who has 3000 hits period and is eligible for HOF is in, save for Pete Rose. Surely, the case can be made using deeper analysis, but I thought it is rather obvious so I sticked with two simple ones.
To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being crushed under the wheels of the imperial carriage
by elcroata on Oct 27, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure.
But Johnny Damon has a nearly .800 OPS, and could conceivably get to 3,000 hits (though he probably won’t). Imagine instead that he played in Coors or Cincinnati his whole career—he’d probably have that .800 OPS, and 3,000 hits would probably look like a reasonable possibility—and he still wouldn’t be a Hall of Famer. Jeter’s obviously better than Damon, but there are always exceptions to those “magic numbers,” or at least you could imagine there being one.
by Elston Gunn on Oct 28, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OBP
Jeter’s lifetime OBP of .388 over 15 seasons is nothing to sneeze at. That’s the same as Tony Gwynn’s, and a couple points better than Willie Mays’.
Sure, Jeter is over-appreciated because he’s the Yankees’ darling, but to say he’s not a great player is taking it too far in the other direction. Say what you will about his defense, but the dude is a really good hitter.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 27, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah hes going to get 3500+ hits
and possibly challenge Rose’s record if he plays until he’s 43.
no matter how the media perceives him, he’s still going to do things only a handful of players have done before.
by PL78 on Oct 27, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's for sure -- at the very least,
only a handful of players have made me nauseous every time ESPN mentions their name.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 27, 2009 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if nausea is the criterion
then his play to get Jeremy out at the plate really was the best play in the history of baseball.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 28, 2009 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really just don't understand
While Jeter’s horrible defense doesn’t diminish his value that much, but the defense of, say, Adam Dunn does. I mean, you can at least hide Dunn in left. Jeter has played bad defense at a position where defense is arguably more important than offense.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
by hero66 on Oct 29, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
holyyyyyyyyy shit!!!
Bigtime shoutout to this entire “Jeter is a bad defensive SS” argument on Curb Your Enthusiasm tonight!!!
talk about a mind blowing moment! post here if you saw it….
by PL78 on Nov 1, 2009 10:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















