Ranking Derek Jeter?

[538280]

If you favor Gehringer over Morgan, you're going based on inflated era stats and a complete hatred and failure to properly weight a walk. In any real statistical model that actually has to do with why teams win games Morgan has a huge and insurmountable offensive edge over Gehringer. There's no way in the world to dispute that. Go along with your incorrect subjective feelings if you want though. :rolleyes:

[DoubleX]

I think Jeter is one of the most polarizing players of recent times. You either love him and think his "intangibles" and "baseball smarts" make him the greatest. Or you react to that overhype and underrate him, citing his sabermetrically poor defense and his numbers being a product of his teams. The truth is probably somewhere closer to the middle (though leaning to the great side :)). Anywho, I was wondering where people would rank Jeter among all-time SS at the end of his career if he put up certain numbers. This is all hypothetical, but I came up with some numbers that I felt he could reasonably finish with, and if he did, where do you think he would rank on the SS list? (Remember, this just meant to be a silly hypothetical :))

All of these numbers are figuring that Jeter plays until he's 40, which is 9 more seasons, and in which he is free from major injury and gradually declines from ages 35-37, with a more steep decline from 38-40. I assumed from 32-35 that he'd put up his regular-type numbers:

Hits
Current: 1936
Projected: 3436
All-Time Ranking: 6th
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 167 (keep in mind, Jeter has never hit less than 183 in a healthy season, and that was his rookie year).

Batting Average
Current: .314
Projected: .304
All-Time Ranking: Outside Top 100
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: Honestly, I just pulled .304 out from my backside. A 10 point career drop seems reasonably, especially given that he's still in his prime and could raise a little before it drops.

Runs
Current: 1159
Projected: 2074
All-Time Ranking: 7th
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 102

RBI
Current: 763
Projected: 1333
All-Time Ranking: T-75th
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 64

Home Runs
Current: 169
Projected: 295
All-Time Ranking: Outside Top 100
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 14

Stolen Bases
Current: 215
Projected: 350
All-Time Ranking: 101st
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 15

As for defense...Consider it to whatever extent you want. He has won 2 GG's and could very well win some more, but then again, many people (myself included) don't think he was deserving of those awards (and likely any future ones). However, his defense has improved in recent years, and that could continue. It is not unprecedented for a player to peak defensively in their mid 30s, Wade Boggs is an example. On the whole, I'd say the perception of Jeter's career defense in 9 years will not be as harsh as it is now because he will have better seasons in the next 9 years than he had in his first 10 (of course, this is all just hypothetical, so just play along and humor me :)). So on the whole, at the end of his career I'm thinking he'll be regarded as an average to slightly above average defensive SS for his career.

Also, because Jeter is so polarizing, please keep in mind that this is meant to be nothing more than a fun hypothetical, so just humor me and roll with it if you can. Thanks. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Jeter, Yankees' SS, 1995-2006, Yankee S.--------------1999, Yankee S.--------------June 14, 2002, Shea S.---BB Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jeterde01.shtml)
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Image42-2.jpg
----------------------1999
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/jhjh.jpg

August 18, 2007, Yankee Stadium
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Bills%20Rare%20Photo%20Finds/075423501.jpg

July 1, 2006
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Bills%20Rare%20Photo%20Finds/015747398.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek's Relative Stats:

----Relative BA-----Rel.Slg.-------Rel.Onbase----Rel.ISO-------OPS+
-----117. (41th)-------107-------------114-----------------------122 (t 277th)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
leecemark; November 11, 19, 2004, 05:56 AM
The Final Tally
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Congratulations to Honus Wagner as our first unanimous #1 selection.
1. Honus Wagner 250
2. Alex Rodriguez 187
3. Arky Vaughan 153
4. Cal Ripken........141
5. J.H. "Pop" Lloyd 98
6. Ernie Banks........96
7. Robin Yount.......67
8. Luke Appling......61
8. Joe Cronin.........61
10. George Davis.....45

--And the second 10
11. Barry Larkin........33
12. Lou Boudreau......22
13. Derek Jeter.......21
13. Ozzie Smith........21
15. Willie Wells.........19
16. Vern Stephens....14
17. Hughie Jennings...12
18. Alan Trammell.......9
18. Phil Rizzuto..........9
20. Louis Aparicio.......8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
538280; November 24, 2005, 04:38 PM
The results are now in. We had 16 ballots. Not surprisingly, Honus Wagner was a near unanimous #1 selection. A-Rod also claimed the #2 spot in a close race against Arky Vaughan. Here are all players who received 10 or more points (first place votes in parenthesis):

1. Honus Wagner-189 (15)
2. Alex Rodriguez-120
3. Arky Vaughan 114
4. Cal Ripken Jr.-88
5. Pop Lloyd-83 (1)
6. Ernie Banks-64
7. Barry Larkin-55
8. Robin Yount-51
9. Luke Appling-31
10. Joe Cronin-26
11. George Davis-17
12. Ozzie Smith-15
13. Willie Wells-12
14. Derek Jeter-11
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Burgess; May 2, 2007, 07:13 PM
OK. This poll/survey has been open for 11 days now, and it it time it closed.
Here are the results of our 3rd round of Greatest Position Players for Shortstops. I go by the 10-9-8 system.

1. Honus Wagner - 186
2. Alexander Rodriguez - 157
3. Cal Ripken - 122
4. Arky Vaughan - 92
5. John Lloyd - 83
6. Ernie Banks - 79
7. Robin Yount - 78
8. Barry Larkin - 53
9. Luke Applilng - 39
10. Ozzie Smith - 28
11. Joe Cronin - 24
12. Derek Jeter - 22
13. George Davis - 13
14. Babe Dahlen - 9
15. Herman Long - 4
15. Hughie Jennings - 4
15. Rabbit Maranville - 4
15. Willie Wells - 4
15. Lou Boudreau - 4
20. Alan Trammell - 3
21. Miguel Tejada - 2
22. Joe Sewell - 2
23. Luis Aparicio - 1

[Blackout]

If his hasn't peaked yet and can throw together some more great all-around seasons, he can get inbetween projected A-rod and Honus/Pop Lloyd

If he has peaked, he'll finish below projected A-rod, Honus, Pop Lloyd (my current #1) and possibly Arky Vaugn and Ernie Banks.


A-rod is projected to finish #1 in my opinion

Jeter right now is in my top 10, but not top 5

[DoubleX]

A-rod is projected to finish #1 in my opinion

Jeter right now is in my top 10, but not top 5

A-Rod will be your number 1 even if he never plays full-time at SS again? I think if he spent his entire career there, or even just a few more years, the Wagner/A-Rod debate would have been interesting, but I personally can't put him ahead of Wagner if he doesn't play SS anymore.

[Myankee4life]

If jeter ends up with a .305 career avg........300HR's........1350RBI's.....3500 hits.....2000 runs scored.....and 350 SB.......Then this will make him one of the most well-rounded shortstop's of all time and deserving of a top 5 spot. He's fielding will probably end up being considered adequate-above average. Add in the fact that he's played in 6 WS and won 4.........AND he plays for the Yankees his entire career he could end up as high as 3rd.

[torez77]

I think he's already a top 10 SS. Assuming your hypotheses above pan out, I'd put him in the top 5 easily.

[Blackout]

A-Rod will be your number 1 even if he never plays full-time at SS again? I think if he spent his entire career there, or even just a few more years, the Wagner/A-Rod debate would have been interesting, but I personally can't put him ahead of Wagner if he doesn't play SS anymore.


Honus Wagner played 900 games away from SS



granted, Honus Wagner was far more dominating than Jeter compared to his league, but things have changed so much over the last 100 years in terms of league quality that I cant overlook them

[torez77]

If jeter ends up with a .305 career avg........300HR's........1350RBI's.....3500 hits.....2000 runs scored.....and 350 SB.......Then this will make him one of the most well-rounded shortstop's of all time and deserving of a top 5 spot. He's fielding will probably end up being considered adequate-above average. Add in the fact that he's played in 6 WS and won 4.........AND he plays for the Yankees his entire career he could end up as high as 3rd.

Well said.

[Edgartohof]

A-Rod will be your number 1 even if he never plays full-time at SS again? I think if he spent his entire career there, or even just a few more years, the Wagner/A-Rod debate would have been interesting, but I personally can't put him ahead of Wagner if he doesn't play SS anymore.

Well, that also goes back to the whole issue that he would be playing SS if he could, but he moved to 3B to help his team, not because he wasn't as good at SS. He has always been better than Jeter, better offensively and defensively, and Wagner didn't play at SS his whole career, so that should be a "moo" point (too many FRIENDS re-runs)

[Dontworry]

Jeter is below average defensively at Short. He still has excellent value as a SS, because his production on offense is better than most. But his defense cuts into his value, it does not enhance it.

Here is a metric proving it:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/012856.php

This is detailed data, based on a detailed record of all balls in play...where they were hit and into what zone, what type of ball, grounder, line, pop, etc...., and how hard they were hit.

With all this data, some really smart people can tell you a very simple thing:

Who is doing a better job at converting balls hit into their zone into outs.

Also his Career FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average) is -124.

He's not good with glove, plain and simple.

[KCGHOST]

I gave him a top five ranking. First he has already peaked (his age 25-26 seasons were clearly his best) but hasn't really hit a declined that much. Nor is there a current downward trend in his numbers. He has zero shot to catch Wagner, and very little chance to catch Vaughn. If Arod gets back to SS then he isn't going to catch him either. He should catch Davis but needs to stay healthy. The only others I would put ahead of him are the one or two great Negro League SS's.

[DoubleX]

Jeter is below average defensively at Short. He still has excellent value as a SS, because his production on offense is better than most. But his defense cuts into his value, it does not enhance it.

Here is a metric proving it:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/012856.php

This is detailed data, based on a detailed record of all balls in play...where they were hit and into what zone, what type of ball, grounder, line, pop, etc...., and how hard they were hit.

With all this data, some really smart people can tell you a very simple thing:

Who is doing a better job at converting balls hit into their zone into outs.

Also his Career FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Average) is -124.

He's not good with glove, plain and simple.

Perfect example of one of those two polarized groups I was talking about...You either love Jeter and over-estimate everything he does, or you react to that by under-estimating Jeter and placing a lot of emphasis on defensive sabermetrics.
))
Then again, you do admit he still has excellent value at SS despite the defense, so I suppose you're a tweener. :)

[Dontworry]

Perfect example of one of those two polarized groups I was talking about...You either love Jeter and over-estimate everything he does, or you react to that by under-estimating Jeter and placing a lot of emphasis on defensive sabermetrics.

Below are the different ratings from different sources, followed by Jeter's rating and either the league average or his rank amoung SS's.

Fielding Average(Baseball-Reference.com) .979 .972

Range Factor (Baseball-Reference.com) 4.56 4.17

Zone Rating (SI.com) .830 16th

Rate 2 (BaseballProspectus.com) 104 100

UZR(Mitchel Lichtman) -16 29th

Fans Scouting Report (Tangotiger) 59 63

PMR (BaseballMusings.com) -.0413 31st

Range (HardballTimes.com) -16 25th

Plus/Minus (The Fielding Bible) -34 31st

Relative Range Factor
(Bill James/The Fielding Bible) -3 0

Now according to virtually all of these tools. It has improved, but not enough to put him near the top of the league, as his GG would have suggested.


" or you react to that by under-estimating Jeter and placing a lot of emphasis on defensive sabermetrics "

Yes, there are holes, lots of them, and they're not to the point where they can evaluate defensive production with the same confidence with which we can judge offensive production. But, as more information becomes available, and as technology improves, the holes are being filled.

[DoubleX]

Well, that also goes back to the whole issue that he would be playing SS if he could, but he moved to 3B to help his team, not because he wasn't as good at SS. He has always been better than Jeter, better offensively and defensively, and Wagner didn't play at SS his whole career, so that should be a "moo" point (too many FRIENDS re-runs)

I agree, A-Rod's the superior SS, and I have him 2nd all-time. If I had my druthers, A-Rod would be at SS and Jeter would be in CF for the Yanks (will Bill Mueller or some other warm body playing 3B until Eric Duncan is ready in a couple of years).

The argument about Wagner playing a lot of games away from SS is a very good one. He played about 600 more games at SS than A-Rod, and with era adjustment, is very, very close. To me, A-Rod just needed a few more years at SS and I probably would throw my support to him for no. 1 (though I'm still not adverse to the argument that he is no. 1). I'm not looking forward to seeing how far up he climbs on the third-base list, given that 3B gets really thin and debatable after the first 5 or 6 players. If A-Rod has say 8-10 productive years at 3B at somewhere in between what he did for the past two years, and can snag a couple of Gold Gloves at 3B, I can definitely see him being in the Top 5 at 3B in addition to being in the Top 2 at SS. Pretty darn impressive.

[DoubleX]

Below are the different ratings from different sources, followed by Jeter's rating and either the league average or his rank amoung SS's.

Fielding Average(Baseball-Reference.com) .979 .972

Range Factor (Baseball-Reference.com) 4.56 4.17

Zone Rating (SI.com) .830 16th

Rate 2 (BaseballProspectus.com) 104 100

UZR(Mitchel Lichtman) -16 29th

Fans Scouting Report (Tangotiger) 59 63

PMR (BaseballMusings.com) -.0413 31st

Range (HardballTimes.com) -16 25th

Plus/Minus (The Fielding Bible) -34 31st

Relative Range Factor
(Bill James/The Fielding Bible) -3 0

Now according to virtually all of these tools. It has improved, but not enough to put him near the top of the league, as his GG would have suggested.


" or you react to that by under-estimating Jeter and placing a lot of emphasis on defensive sabermetrics "

Yes, there are holes, lots of them, and they're not to the point where they can evaluate defensive production with the same confidence with which we can judge offensive production. But, as more information becomes available, and as technology improves, the holes are being filled.

That's great and all, but you're just verifying my original point about Jeter being so polarized, and I agree that he didn't deserve the GG. Consider Jeter's defense anyway you want, I'm just curious to see if he puts up my hypothetical offensive numbers, where you would rank him (and when you consider that ranking, consider how you think you'll view his career defensively when it is over in 9 hypothetical years). I'm not interested in this being another "Jeter is so great because of his intangibles" vs. "Jeter isn't so great because sabermetrics show how bad his defense is" debate. I just made some hypothetical numbers that I think are reasonable for Jeter, provided good health, and I'm curious to see how people would consider his career if he did in fact put up those numbers.

[538280]

Jeter as a hitter is about the same player as Barry Larkin, though he is yet to have the kind of peak Larkin had. Given that his rate stats are just a tiny bit better than Barry now, they'll probably end up worse or the same by the time his career ends.

If he does achieve those career totals you give, and he doesn't improve his peak, I don't see how on earth he goes ahead of Barry Larkin IMO. All he would have is pure longevity. People don't realize the true greatness of Barry Larkin over his career. Look at this handy little chart:

RCAP
Honus Wagner 1060
Arky Vaughan 598
Alex Rodriguez 506
BARRY LARKIN 488
George Davis 452
Joe Cronin 431
Cal Ripken 408
Robin Yount 408
Luke Appling 375
Alan Trammell 365

That shows runs created in his career above the average SS during his time. Larkin is 4th all time, behind the three players pretty much conceded as the best offensive SSs ever.

Over his career Larkin had an OPS 21% better than SSs of his time (just player OPS divided by league average, not OPS+). Jeter so far is 15% better than the other SSs. That is also bound to go down. Barry Larkin is the better offensive player.

As of right now, Larkin's peak is also better. Larkin had one year (1996) which was about the same in quality as Jeter's great 1998 year. Other than that Larkin has five other seasons above 130 OPS+, Jeter doesn't have one other year above 130.

His peak isn't as good, his rates would be worse, and his fielding, oh his fielding.

Derek Jeter can't hold Barry Larkin's jockstrap in fielding. Barry Larkin was a tremendous defensive shortstop in his peak, he was trmendous over his career. All around greatness. Jeter is, well, horrible out there. I have no other way of phrasing it. He'd probably make top 10 given those numbers, but he's not moving ahead of Larkin.

Why Larkin has never gotten respect for what he is (an all time great) is beyond me. The fact Jeter has been considered better is an all out crime.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Jeter as a hitter is about the same player as Barry Larkin, though he is yet to have the kind of peak Larkin had. Given that his rate stats are just a tiny bit better than Barry now, they'll probably end up worse or the same by the time his career ends.

If he does achieve those career totals you give, and he doesn't improve his peak, I don't see how on earth he goes ahead of Barry Larkin IMO. All he would have is pure longevity. His peak wouldn't be as good, his rates would be worse, and his fielding, oh his fielding.

Derek Jeter can't hold Barry Larkin's jockstrap in fielding. Barry Larkin was a tremendous defensive shortstop in his peak, he was trmendous over his career. All around greatness. Jeter is, well, horrible out there. I have no other way of phrasing it. He'd probably make top 10 given those numbers, but he's not moving ahead of Larkin.

Why Larkin has never gotten respect for what he is (an all time great) is beyond me. The fact Jeter has been considered better is an all out crime.
The reason Larkin is underrated is because he is not a specialist. He didn't have the one skill that people can focus on, like Tony Gwynn's BA or Mark McGwire's HRs. Larkin had good all around baseball skills, hitting, defense, baserunning. He wasn't great in any one of those areas but strong acorss the board. His greatest asset was his all around skills. Those kind of players are always underrated. I hope one day he gets inducted into the HoF. :rolleyes:

[torez77]

The reason Larkin is underrated is because he is not a specialist. He didn't have the one skill that people can focus on, like Tony Gwynn's BA or Mark McGwire's HRs. Larkin had good all around baseball skills, hitting, defense, baserunning. He wasn't great in any one of those areas but strong acorss the board. His greatest asset was his all around skills. Those kind of players are always underrated. I hope one day he gets inducted into the HoF. :rolleyes:

Larkin is the Hank Aaron of SS's. Did everything quietly. Well, Aaron did smash the career HR record, but never was really special in any one season.

[torez77]

If A-Rod has say 8-10 productive years at 3B at somewhere in between what he did for the past two years, and can snag a couple of Gold Gloves at 3B, I can definitely see him being in the Top 5 at 3B in addition to being in the Top 2 at SS. Pretty darn impressive.

And perhaps a top 5 all-time player in your eyes?

[538280]

The reason Larkin is underrated is because he is not a specialist. He didn't have the one skill that people can focus on, like Tony Gwynn's BA or Mark McGwire's HRs. Larkin had good all around baseball skills, hitting, defense, baserunning. He wasn't great in any one of those areas but strong acorss the board. His greatest asset was his all around skills. Those kind of players are always underrated. I hope one day he gets inducted into the HoF. :rolleyes:

I agree. I think Bill James makes a good point in his NHA when he calls Larkin one of the most complete players to ever play the game. He had no weakness whatsoever. He doesn't get attention for being so well rounded though because he doesn't have any real apparent strength. Ozzie Smith is a player who has been remembered by history as much better than Larkinr The average fan can understand that Ozzie is great because of his really great fielding, but they can't understand that the sum of Larkins' parts is better. In other words, Larkin isn't regarded to be as good basically because he's a better hitter.

Bill Burgess can't seem to respect Larkin either. I remember once I asked him about him and he wasn't even in his top 25 SSs. Hopefully he's changed his mind.

Here's a good article about Larkin:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/larkin-for-the-hall/

And look at this crap I found on another website:

http://journals.aol.com/sportzassassin/SPORTZASSASSINSSPORTSJOURNAL/entries/436

Yeah, whatever. Larkin doesn't belong in Cooperstown alongside "greats" like Phil Rizzuto and Luis Aparicio. Do your homework, pal.

[dl4060]

If jeter ends up with a .305 career avg........300HR's........1350RBI's.....3500 hits.....2000 runs scored.....and 350 SB.......Then this will make him one of the most well-rounded shortstop's of all time and deserving of a top 5 spot. He's fielding will probably end up being considered adequate-above average. Add in the fact that he's played in 6 WS and won 4.........AND he plays for the Yankees his entire career he could end up as high as 3rd.


I look at Jeter as being a top 5 guy. But when you add "AND he plays for the yankees his entire career" you seem to be suggesting that this makes him a better player than if he plays for another team. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong, but playing for the yankees does not in and of itself make one better. It will certainley help him in the eyes of hall of fame voters, who have historically overrated players from New York, but it does not make him a better player.

[DoubleX]

And perhaps a top 5 all-time player in your eyes?

I'll have to see how the rest of his career shakes up, but it's quite possible. I already have him around 20th all-time.

[DoubleX]

Jeter as a hitter is about the same player as Barry Larkin, though he is yet to have the kind of peak Larkin had. Given that his rate stats are just a tiny bit better than Barry now, they'll probably end up worse or the same by the time his career ends.

If he does achieve those career totals you give, and he doesn't improve his peak, I don't see how on earth he goes ahead of Barry Larkin IMO. All he would have is pure longevity. People don't realize the true greatness of Barry Larkin over his career. Look at this handy little chart:

RCAP
Honus Wagner 1060
Arky Vaughan 598
Alex Rodriguez 506
BARRY LARKIN 488
George Davis 452
Joe Cronin 431
Cal Ripken 408
Robin Yount 408
Luke Appling 375
Alan Trammell 365

That shows runs created in his career above the average SS during his time. Larkin is 4th all time, behind the three players pretty much conceded as the best offensive SSs ever.

Over his career Larkin had an OPS 21% better than SSs of his time (just player OPS divided by league average, not OPS+). Jeter so far is 15% better than the other SSs. That is also bound to go down. Barry Larkin is the better offensive player.

As of right now, Larkin's peak is also better. Larkin had one year (1996) which was about the same in quality as Jeter's great 1998 year. Other than that Larkin has five other seasons above 130 OPS+, Jeter doesn't have one other year above 130.

His peak isn't as good, his rates would be worse, and his fielding, oh his fielding.

Derek Jeter can't hold Barry Larkin's jockstrap in fielding. Barry Larkin was a tremendous defensive shortstop in his peak, he was trmendous over his career. All around greatness. Jeter is, well, horrible out there. I have no other way of phrasing it. He'd probably make top 10 given those numbers, but he's not moving ahead of Larkin.

Why Larkin has never gotten respect for what he is (an all time great) is beyond me. The fact Jeter has been considered better is an all out crime.

I definitely agree with you that Larkin is vastly underrated, and it's sad that he'll probably have a more difficult time getting into Cooperstown than he deserves. I usually have him ranked 6th (sometimes 7th) in my SS rankings, and it's really only Ernie Banks' incredible peak that puts him ahead of Larkin (the other four being Wagner, Rodriguez, Ripken, and Vaughan). However, when you talk about peak, I don't know if Larkin ever had a year like Jeter's '99. Also, when you mention Larkin's OPS being compared to the SS's of his day, remember he was mostly going against the more traditional light-hitting SS's, whereas Jeter has been in the era of unprecedented offense from SS's. Larkin didn't have his entire peak matched against A-Rod and Nomar and Tejada and now Michael Young. Who was the second best offensive SS (let alone the next three guys) in the NL during Larkin's prime? Whoever it is, they are nowhere on the level of the guys Jeter is against. If Larkin's offense was compared to A-Rod and Nomar and Tejada, I'm sure he would be greatly overshadowed.

Anywho, if Jeter finishes 6th all-time in career hits and 7th all-time in career runs, with a BA over .300, and approximately 350 SBs, I can really see no argument for him being outside the Top 10 all-time in SS, and quite possibly Top 5. It's not just longevity that gets you 3400+ hits, you have to be pretty darn good to get that high. I also envision his defensive play continuing to improve, as it has in the past few years, so on the whole, he'll be viewed as at least an average SS for his career when it's all said and done. But again, this is all hypotheticals, but 3400+ hits and 2000+ runs is pretty darn impressive to me.

[leecemark]

--Jeter is a top 20 SS thru last season. I think he is pretty sure to stay good long enough to crack the top 15. If XX's projected numbers come to fruition then he cracks the top 10. Regardless of his offensive totals, his below average glove will keep him out of the top 5 though. If he was a dominating hitter like Wagner or Rodriguez or Vaughan (or Banks or Ripken or Yount at their peaks) then maybe, but he is merely very good with the stick.

[Bill Burgess]

I like Derek Jeter as a player. I have him in the 10-15 range. But let's not throw our common sense away. Derek will never arrive in the Wagner/Lloyd/ A-Rod class.

And that's not criticism. Neither Derek's bat/glove combo can carry any of the above trio's jockstraps. And to suggest otherwise is the most efficient way to get Derek ripped up.

If you really want to get Derek good reviews, try comparing him to Vaughan, Cronin, Boudreau, Marty Marion, Bobby Wallace, Herman Long, Hughie Jennings, Rabbit Maranville, Glenn Wright, Barry Larkin, George Davis, Robin Yount, Luke Appling, Alan Trammell, Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, Luis Aparicio, Maury Wills, Cal Ripken, Dave Concepcion, Omar Vizquel, Julio Franco, Nomar Garciaparra, and the other historical guys.

But don't go near the Gods of Mt. Olympus, I entreat you. It's dangerous to Derek's reputation, and a disservice to Dutchman, Pop, and A-Rod. Just don't go there, please. Stay within reason.

Bill Burgess

[Ubiquitous]

Derek Jeter is one of the best shortstops of all time. He is what every manger/GM/Scout dreams for in a SS. A captain on the field and off. Knows the game inside and out, always has his head in the game, and figuring out all the angles. A prototypical #2 man, will bunt the runner over if need be or hit him home with a double or homer. Captain the greatest team in baseball history and did it with quiet class and dignity. A totally unselfish player who will give up his body for his team on the field. A clutch god who delivers key hits and plays when his team needs it most. Honus Wagner brought one World Series to Pittsburgh, Alex Rodriguez hasn't brought any to anyone, Jeter has brought 4 World Championships back to the team and town that they belong too. In this time of roided up freaks swinging for the fences and me-first syle of play Derek Jeter is breath of freash air, no a burst of oxygen to a suffocating victim. He is what is right in baseball and for that he is truly great.

[Bill Burgess]

Honus Wagner brought one World Series to Pittsburgh, Alex Rodriguez hasn't brought any to anyone, Jeter has brought 4 World Championships back to the team and town that they belong too. In this time of roided up freaks swinging for the fences and me-first syle of play Derek Jeter is breath of freash air, no a burst of oxygen to a suffocating victim. He is what is right in baseball and for that he is truly great.

And you were going so well. Reggie Jackson brought more pennants to his teams than Babe Ruth. Or did he? No one brings a pennant anywhere. The team wins a pennant, not a superstar. Is Derek more valuable than Barry Bonds? Never saw the day. But Barry can't bring the pennant home to a team that isn't good enough.

Even if a player can tip many games to his team, it's the team that wins the majority of the games, not the individual. And I suspect you know that. You simply got carried away with Derek. I like him too, but let's not get carried away.

Bill

[csh19792001]

I agree. I think Bill James makes a good point in his NHA when he calls Larkin one of the most complete players to ever play the game. He had no weakness whatsoever.

Agreed, and nice post, Chris. I always liked Larkin, and in many ways, he was very much like Jeter- above and beyond his very good numbers, he represented his city and his team, he was a leader in every sense of the word. Brainy, selfless- and another guy who didn't have the big numbers, but always did the little things to sacrifice for his team (and help them win more than the one dimensionals do, in the end).

I hope he doesn't need the PR to get into the HOF, but he very well might given the lack of monster seasons and big offensive numbers, along with the fact that he didn't play in NY, LA, or Boston. I'd campaign for him readily if he doesn't get in within his few years of eligibility.

[csh19792001]

Derek Jeter is one of the best shortstops of all time. He is what every manger/GM/Scout dreams for in a SS. A captain on the field and off. Knows the game inside and out, always has his head in the game, and figuring out all the angles. A prototypical #2 man, will bunt the runner over if need be or hit him home with a double or homer. Captain the greatest team in baseball history and did it with quiet class and dignity. A totally unselfish player who will give up his body for his team on the field. A clutch god who delivers key hits and plays when his team needs it most. In this time of roided up freaks swinging for the fences and me-first syle of play Derek Jeter is breath of freash air, no a burst of oxygen to a suffocating victim. He is what is right in baseball and for that he is truly great.

Is this toungue-in-cheek, Ubiq? I honestly can't tell, but given that you've never come over as a sentimentalist/purist AT ALL, and also that you've stated "I don't care about steroids at all", this is totally uncharacteristic of you.

Aside from the "bringing championships" thing (I somewhat agree with Bill there), that was an excellent post.

[Brooklyn]

If his hasn't peaked yet and can throw together some more great all-around seasons, he can get inbetween projected A-rod and Honus/Pop Lloyd


I know people over-rate Jeter, but this is ridiculous. Wagner is a top-5 all time player, and a projected A-Rod is certianly a top ten. Putting Jeter in the top-10 all time is quite a stretch.

[Ubiquitous]

And you were going so well. Reggie Jackson brought more pennants to his teams than Babe Ruth. Or did he? No one brings a pennant anywhere. The team wins a pennant, not a superstar. Is Derek more valuable than Barry Bonds? Never saw the day. But Barry can't bring the pennant home to a team that isn't good enough.

Even if a player can tip many games to his team, it's the team that wins the majority of the games, not the individual. And I suspect you know that. You simply got carried away with Derek. I like him too, but let's not get carried away.

Bill


It isn't just hitting homers and high batting average that wins. Its being a team leader, its setting the example. If the highest paid player and brightest star is willing to dive into the stands for an out, or play when in hurt it sets the example. It sets an atmosphere of winning, people focus more, try and harder and in the end play up to their ability, and when you have 25 guys doing that you win a lot of games. Derek is the reason for that. Paul O'Neil is not a great player, Scott Brosius is not a great player, Tino Martinez is not a great player but when you put them altogether behind a great player you have a great team.

[csh19792001]

It isn't just hitting homers and high batting average that wins. Its being a team leader, its setting the example. If the highest paid player and brightest star is willing to dive into the stands for an out, or play when in hurt it sets the example. It sets an atmosphere of winning, people focus more, try and harder and in the end play up to their ability, and when you have 25 guys doing that you win a lot of games. Derek is the reason for that. Paul O'Neil is not a great player, Scott Brosius is not a great player, Tino Martinez is not a great player but when you put them altogether behind a great player you have a great team.

Three cheers to that, man.

That's basically why I've been trying to (strongly) discourage the incessant statistics palaver (which, in and of itself, invariably leads to acrimony) and get back to the game, the teams, and the players themselves as people, not just a number or a set of numbers. Of course stats are going to infuse themselves into most conversations at some point, but when they completely dominate basically every thread of the history forum, it's no longer a forum where you can learn about the history of the game, and it becomes neither fun nor edifying.

[Bill Burgess]

It isn't just hitting homers and high batting average that wins. Its being a team leader, its setting the example. If the highest paid player and brightest star is willing to dive into the stands for an out, or play when in hurt it sets the example. It sets an atmosphere of winning, people focus more, try and harder and in the end play up to their ability, and when you have 25 guys doing that you win a lot of games. Derek is the reason for that. Paul O'Neil is not a great player, Scott Brosius is not a great player, Tino Martinez is not a great player but when you put them altogether behind a great player you have a great team.
Another nice post, Ubi. One that none should disagree with. I was only taking exception to the concept that "someone brings the pennant home."

Been down that road before, and most agree that it takes a team to do that. If a certain player, due to his excellent intangibles, facilitates that in a team, we all give him his due credit. And I've been defending Derek Jeter here from his critics for a long time.

Just don't want ANYONE over-credited with "winning a pennant." If Bonds can't bring us a pennant, then it takes a team.

Nice work, Ubi, as per usual.

Bill

[Blackout]

I know people over-rate Jeter, but this is ridiculous. Wagner is a top-5 all time player, and a projected A-Rod is certianly a top ten. Putting Jeter in the top-10 all time is quite a stretch.

I have Wagner as a top 10 player, but not top 5

If Jeter has anymore 1999 seasons left in him and continues to improve on defense, skys the limit

especially if the Yankees win more championships in the future


Wagner had the better peak, and was better against his competition, as I stated earlier, but in terms of career value I dont think Wagner is top 5 honestly

[Bill Burgess]

especially if the Yankees win more championships in the future
Just don't see how one can isolate Derek if Yanks win more pennants. Seems to minimize the contributions of A-Rod, Giambi, Rivera, Posada, etc. The Yanks win on their balance. Sure, Derek does his work beautifully, but he doesn't "bring home the pennants". Few ever could.

Bill Burgess

[Edgartohof]

I have Wagner as a top 10 player, but not top 5

If Jeter has anymore 1999 seasons left in him and continues to improve on defense, skys the limit

especially if the Yankees win more championships in the future

Wagner had the better peak, and was better against his competition, as I stated earlier, but in terms of career value I dont think Wagner is top 5 honestly

So Wagner was better at his best, and lasted much longer than almost anyone, at the top in many areas, ending with 3400+ hits, 700+ SB's, and was a much better defensive SS than Jeter was, is, or will be, yet Jeter could still be better? Don't get me wrong, I like Jeter, he's a heck of a player, but he just doesn't have what it takes to pass A-rod or Wagner, and most likely not even Vaughn or Ripken (or Yount, or Lloyd, etc...).

That's a 150 OPS+ compared to a 121 OPS+. No matter how you turn that, even with every era adjustment, you can't make a 29 point difference disappear, also adding in dominance, and defensive disparity between the two. Wagner is top 5, and even if he isn't, Jeter still isn't anywhere near him.

And the chances of Jeter having even one more '99 season is very unlikely, let alone several, so not much going on there, and even if he improves on defense, he is not going to by much, and that would only put him as a decent defensive SS, not great.

[Bill Burgess]

If his hasn't peaked yet and can throw together some more great all-around seasons, he can get inbetween projected A-rod and Honus/Pop Lloyd

If he has peaked, he'll finish below projected A-rod, Honus, Pop Lloyd (my current #1) and possibly Arky Vaugn and Ernie Banks.


A-rod is projected to finish #1 in my opinion

Jeter right now is in my top 10, but not top 5
Patrick,

I'm not sure of your position. In the Wagner poll, you ranked him #9th all time, but in your Official Member's Opinions, you ranked him #8th.

You ranked John Lloyd #7th, and A-Rod #11 all time.

Are you sincerely suggesting that if Derek continues to have good seasons, you will eventually rank him above both Lloyd/Wagner in your all time list?

Is that what you're saying?

Bill

[Blackout]

yes, although thats a big IF and may not ever happen

[Cyclone792]

I've lived in Cincy my entire life and I literally bleed Cincinnati Reds baseball. I recently did my own comprehensive shortstop rankings, and I ended up ranking Larkin 6th (not including Negro Leaguers ... I'd rank Larkin 7th if Negro Leaguers were included as I'd have Pop Lloyd ahead of him). Really, if he doesn't find his way into Cooperstown it will be as big a disgrace as it is leaving Ron Santo out.

Jeter's current career path is, IMO, slightly lower than Larkin's. Jeter really needs another solid peak season to match Larkin's peak ... for example, I see Larkin's 1995 and Jeter's 1999 as a wash, but Larkin's next four best seasons were better than Jeter's next four best.

Right now I have Jeter ranked 15th, but he'll move up as he continues to accumulate value. If he continues his current pace and has a typical decline phase, I'd project him to rank in the 7-10 slot ... right behind Larkin and in the Cronin/Appling/Banks grouping. That's not too shabby at all, I don't think.

[Bill Burgess]

yes, although thats a big IF and may not ever happen
OK. That's an acceptable viewpoint. You're giving Derek a pretty big assignment to fulfill. Those are VERY big shoes you're asking him to fill. Time will tell. I hope he can, but I fear the odds are too long.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

My slate of candidates for Top 20 Shortstops. I also value defense more than offense at this position, as well as catcher.

1. Honus Wagner - 1897-1917. Need I explain? Best hitter, fielder, runner in league from 1900-10. 2nd best player ever. 'Nuff said.

2. John Henry "Pop" Lloyd - 1906-32. Greatest SS ever produced by Negro L. Happily, He hit tremendously also. Wagner said that it was a compliment to be compared to "The black Wagner". Decorative ornament to ANY league.

3. Alex Rodriguez - 1994-present. Even though only 8 full seasons at SS, he is the quality of Bench, Schmidt at his position. Yanks erred in keeping Jeter at SS. Like Wagner, Hornsby, Schmidt, Bench before him, re-defined his position offensively.

As monster as his stats are, I must remember that Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Griffey were going berserko as well. Era might go down as most inflated ever, PLUS shrunken strike zone.

4. Ernie Banks - 1953-71. First showed that a slim guy with whiplash bat speed could slug good. Mr. Cubbie was loved at Wrigley long time. Switched to 1st.

5. Arky Vaughan - 1932-43, '47-48. Hit very well in high-offensive era. Best of Cronin/Boudreau.

6. Joe Cronin - 1926-45. Average glove, good bat.

7. Herman Long - 1889-1903. All time glove. Scored lots of runs in his peak, hit well 1894-97.

8. Hughie Jennings - 1891-1902. Star defender, but weak arm. Played shallow field. During his peak, with Orioles, hit .335, .388, .401, .355. .328. Became lawyer, manager. Even with historical adjustment, he's impressive.

9. Barry Larkin - 1986-2004. Nice glove/bat combo. 12 All-Star games, 3 GG, 9 Silver Sluggers, I MVP; 5 Top 10 SB, 3 Top 10 BB, 4 Top 10 BA., 2 Top 10 SLG., 2 Top 10 OPS+.

10. Willie Wells - 1924-49. 2nd greatest Negro Leaguer. Hit for lots of power. He also played 2nd, 3rd, pitched and managed.

11. Bobby Wallace - 1894-1916. Defense on par with Wagner. Hit .268 BA. career, but hit BA. .335 in 1897 and .324 in '01. Mostly glove. Would have liked more bat.

12. Luke Appling - 1930-50. Won 2 BA titles, 1 OBP title, great glove.

13. George Davis - 1890-09. Good bat, fine glove over long time. Had a TPR of 6.2 in '99 and 4.1 in '05. Led league both yrs. Rare for SS.

14. Glenn Wright - 1924-35. Best defensive glove man, after Wagner/Wallace. Hit adequate for his era.

Traynor/Wright, 1924-28, formed the tightest left-side of the diamond since Wagner/T.Leach. Traynor/Wright were constantly lauded as the tightest duo seen in many years, perhaps ever. They stood to post for the Pirates from '24-28. And while they stood guard, they formed a solid, stone wall. Wright was constantly compared to Wagner defensively by all the veterans of the Pirates organization. And while they played together, they conferred onto each other a "shared Halo" of fame/greatness.

15. Cal Ripken, Jr. - The streak, longevity, character; 1st couple of yrs. hit very well. Although his bat cooled, he still won 3 Win Shares titles, and 4 Total Player Rating titles from Total Baseball. Steady, reliable quality stamped Cal as major asset to any team.

16. Ossie Smith - 1978-96. Best-known modern D. man. Career BA. .262, hit .303 once. Terrible bat.

17. Luis Aparicio - 1956-73. Slick glove, great DP combo with Fox. Led league in SB from '56-64.

18. Derek Jeter - 1995-present. Nice blend of bat/glove. Yankee bounce. Up for clutches. 2004 GG.

19. Alan Trammell - 1977-96. Hit well long time. Longevity case.

20. Robin Yount - 1974-93. Same as Trammell.

21. Monte Ward - (1878-1883, pitcher)(1884-1892, SS) Former fantastic pitcher, star runner, good glove, great leader/Mgr. Hit .275 BA career, but still managed .338 in 1887, .335 in '90, and .328 in '93

22. 23. Omar Vizquel - 1989-present - All-Time great glove, 10 GGs, led league in sacrifice hits 4 times, 3 all star teams, hit .333 in 1999, 342 SB, career .274, .341, .358.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all the guys here, I probably have the most extreme balance between offense/defense. But at SS/C I have always been more willing to sacrifice offense for defense. But I didn't include either Rabbit Maranville or Marty Marion, who contributed no offense.

Bill Burgess

[DoubleX]

I've lived in Cincy my entire life and I literally bleed Cincinnati Reds baseball. I recently did my own comprehensive shortstop rankings, and I ended up ranking Larkin 6th (not including Negro Leaguers ... I'd rank Larkin 7th if Negro Leaguers were included as I'd have Pop Lloyd ahead of him). Really, if he doesn't find his way into Cooperstown it will be as big a disgrace as it is leaving Ron Santo out.

Jeter's current career path is, IMO, slightly lower than Larkin's. Jeter really needs another solid peak season to match Larkin's peak ... for example, I see Larkin's 1995 and Jeter's 1999 as a wash, but Larkin's next four best seasons were better than Jeter's next four best.

Right now I have Jeter ranked 15th, but he'll move up as he continues to accumulate value. If he continues his current pace and has a typical decline phase, I'd project him to rank in the 7-10 slot ... right behind Larkin and in the Cronin/Appling/Banks grouping. That's not too shabby at all, I don't think.

Terrific post, and I think I agree with just about everything you said there (from Larkin, to Santo, to the rankings). I think when all is said and done, 7th will feel about right for Jeter. However, if he does get well past 3000 hits, I think I'll have to slot him ahead of Larkin. But no matter what Jeter does, I think it's a virtual certainty that he'll never pass my top 3 (Wagner, Rodriguez, and Ripken), and he will be increasingly hard-pressed to pass my next three (Vaughan, Banks, Larkin). So I guess I can't see Jeter getting higher than 4th or 5th (as I doubt he'll be able to pass Vaughan as well) when it's all said and done.

[DoubleX]

17. George McBride - 1905-06, '08-20. Deluxe defense.

Bill, I'm simply aghast by this, especially considering the players you have him ahead of (Larkin's not even on your list).

When a guy is a .215 hitter with a career OPS+ of 65, I don't care how good his defense is, that player has absolutely no business playing Major League Baseball. I can't believe you would think that he is better than much more complete players like Alan Trammell, Robin Yount, and Barry Larkin?! There is no way McBride's defense could make up for his HUGE deficiency at the plate. McBride's offensive value is like nothing. There is no way his defense was contributing more to his teams than Yount and Trammell and Larkin were contributing to their teams with good all-around games, or even Derek Jeter (despite his defensive shortcomings).

Let's you and I draft two teams, you have McBride as your SS, and I'll take Trammell or Yount or Larkin or Jeter, and I guarantee I'll get a lot more value out of the position.

[Myankee4life]

I look at Jeter as being a top 5 guy. But when you add "AND he plays for the yankees his entire career" you seem to be suggesting that this makes him a better player than if he plays for another team. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong, but playing for the yankees does not in and of itself make one better. It will certainley help him in the eyes of hall of fame voters, who have historically overrated players from New York, but it does not make him a better player.

Playing for the Yankees doesn't make him a better player but it helps him playing for a big market and the most storied franchise in sports. Also in this era where most players switch teams, Jeter being able to play his entire career for 1 team bodes well for the writers.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, I'm simply aghast by this, especially considering the players you have him ahead of (Larkin's not even on your list).

When a guy is a .215 hitter with a career OPS+ of 65, I don't care how good his defense is, that player has absolutely no business playing Major League Baseball. I can't believe you would think that he is better than much more complete players like Alan Trammell, Robin Yount, and Barry Larkin?! There is no way McBride's defense could make up for his HUGE deficiency at the plate. McBride's offensive value is like nothing. There is no way his defense was contributing more to his teams than Yount and Trammell and Larkin were contributing to their teams with good all-around games, or even Derek Jeter (despite his defensive shortcomings).

Let's you and I draft two teams, you have McBride as your SS, and I'll take Trammell or Yount or Larkin or Jeter, and I guarantee I'll get a lot more value out of the position.
Mike,

I agree with you. I put McBride in there because I like to credit the defensive stars. I think someone called me on Barry Larkin. Think it was Chris the younger, 528280. And I remember going back and including him in my list, and am now surprised to not find him listed there. I believe I inserted Larkin around 8-12, somewhere. I must have forgotten to hit the save button. So I agree I need to go back over my lists and update them. Sorry for the omission, Mike. Good head's up, my old friend.

Bill

[DoubleX]

Mike,

I agree with you. I put McBride in there because I like to credit the defensive stars. I think someone called me on Barry Larkin. Think it was Chris the younger, 528280. And I remember going back and including him in my list, and am now surprised to not find him listed there. I believe I inserted Larkin around 8-12, somewhere. I must have forgotten to hit the save button. So I agree I need to go back over my lists and update them. Sorry for the omission, Mike. Good head's up, my old friend.

Bill

Phew, for a second there I thought you went completely insane with the no Larkin on the list. :crazy

I know you like to give credit to the defensive stars, and I think the attention you give to some players helps us get to better know players that history has overlooked. So I for one definitely appreciate that aspect of your rankings. But can you really justify McBride's defense as making him a better and more valuable overall player than Trammell and Yount?

[Bill Burgess]

Phew, for a second there I thought you went completely insane with the no Larkin on the list. :crazy

I know you like to give credit to the defensive stars, and I think the attention you give to some players helps us get to better know players that history has overlooked. So I for one definitely appreciate that aspect of your rankings. But can you really justify McBride's defense as making him a better and more valuable overall player than Trammell and Yount?
Not really. I might over-credit some defensive catchers/shortstops. It's one of my weaknesses. Many of my defensive guys could hit better than they were known for, but not all of them.

For instance, Omar Vizquel hit well in 1999, but not any time else. Can anyone tell me why? Big mystery to me. But Long, Jennings, Lloyd, Appling, and Davis were all somewhat hitters, although nowhere as good as I'd like them to have been.

Crediting defensive players is an ongoing problem, which I have not been able to solve satisfactorily. I could really appreciate an assist in that area. I agree with the Fever members consensus that hitting takes precedence over fielding in a player's value. But I still need to find a way to not exclude the best gloves too, assuming they could hit a little.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Very soon, I will correct the omission of Barry Larkin in my list. Might make the top 10. Thanks for the sharp eye, Mike.

Bill

[DoubleX]

But I still need to find a way to not exclude the best gloves too, assuming they could hit a little.

I have no problem with that Bill, that's why I only highlighted McBride fron your list - he couldn't hit a lick (whereas everyone else could at least a little). I didn't really agree with most of your rankings, but I recognized that you were coming from a defensive standpoint, so I accepted them. McBride, however, I thoguht was a particular reach, and that's why I singled him out. Nevertheless, you have been successful in causing me to pay more attention to McBride than I ever thought I would, and that's certainly not a bad thing.

[Bill Burgess]

McBride, however, I thoguht was a particular reach, and that's why I singled him out. Nevertheless, you have been successful in causing me to pay more attention to McBride than I ever thought I would, and that's certainly not a bad thing.

Funny thing is, I didn't pay McBride much attention until these posts.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=392496&postcount=2

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=392494&postcount=1

[538280]

Also, when you mention Larkin's OPS being compared to the SS's of his day, remember he was mostly going against the more traditional light-hitting SS's, whereas Jeter has been in the era of unprecedented offense from SS's.


I disagree with this reasoning. I think that the fact there were less great hitting shortstops in Larkin's time makes his offense even more valuable. When great hitting shortstops are scarce it makes those ones in the league worth more.

[DoubleX]

I disagree with this reasoning. I think that the fact there were less great hitting shortstops in Larkin's time makes his offense even more valuable. When great hitting shortstops are scarce it makes those ones in the league worth more.

My post had nothing to say about value. I was just saying that the competition has been stiffer in the AL in the past decade then it was in the NL of Larkin's prime.

[Myankee4life]

I disagree with this reasoning. I think that the fact there were less great hitting shortstops in Larkin's time makes his offense even more valuable. When great hitting shortstops are scarce it makes those ones in the league worth more.

It makes Larkin look more impressive. Yet if he were to go up against A-rod, Nomar and Tejada his hitting relative to shortstops woul be unimpressive. Its unfair to Jeter to compare him with the greatest hitting shortstops of all time and Larkin with your average slap and judy hitter and say Larkins better because of the relative stat.

[ElHalo]

I disagree with this reasoning. I think that the fact there were less great hitting shortstops in Larkin's time makes his offense even more valuable. When great hitting shortstops are scarce it makes those ones in the league worth more.

While this might technically speaking be true, it's really not anywhere close to fair to take this into consideration. It's just the luck of the draw as to when talent accumulates, and you shouldn't really penalize a player just because they happened to get lucky and have a time of acute positional scarcity at their position.

As to Larkin himself... everybody knows that I don't pay much attention to the NL, so while I was always aware that Larkin was a pretty good player, I never really considered him to be any better than Omar Vizquel or Jeff Blauser or John Valentin or Travis Fryman. I heard somebody on here mention him as a potential HoF'er, it seemed completely ludicrous to me, until I looked up the numbers and saw that it wasn't that much of a stretch. Just goes to show how a player who expects to get name recognition should never, ever, play for National League teams in flyover states.

[DoubleX]

While this might technically speaking be true, it's really not anywhere close to fair to take this into consideration. It's just the luck of the draw as to when talent accumulates, and you shouldn't really penalize a player just because they happened to get lucky and have a time of acute positional scarcity at their position.

As to Larkin himself... everybody knows that I don't pay much attention to the NL, so while I was always aware that Larkin was a pretty good player, I never really considered him to be any better than Omar Vizquel or Jeff Blauser or John Valentin or Travis Fryman. I heard somebody on here mention him as a potential HoF'er, it seemed completely ludicrous to me, until I looked up the numbers and saw that it wasn't that much of a stretch. Just goes to show how a player who expects to get name recognition should never, ever, play for National League teams in flyover states.

EH,

I have to say, that I am often in awe of how you are able to make a nice point, yet discredit yourself at the same time. :)

[ElHalo]

EH,

I have to say, that I am often in awe of how you are able to make a nice point, yet discredit yourself at the same time. :)

As long as I admit to it, I don't see why it's a problem if I don't know much about the NL. I follow American League baseball and NBA basketball. I couldn't name you a single goalie in the NHL, because I don't follow hockey. I couldn't name you either of the starting quarterbacks in the most recent Superbowl (which, proud to say, I didn't watch; haven't watched a single NFL game since the 2001 Superbowl), and I can't name more than three or four people on any given NL team outside the Mets. I only pay attention to NL players insofar as they're rumored to be going to the AL. People don't look at me askance when I tell them I don't follow the NHL. Why should I then get strange looks for saying I don't follow the National League?

[DoubleX]

As long as I admit to it, I don't see why it's a problem if I don't know much about the NL. I follow American League baseball and NBA basketball. I couldn't name you a single goalie in the NHL, because I don't follow hockey. I couldn't name you either of the starting quarterbacks in the most recent Superbowl (which, proud to say, I didn't watch; haven't watched a single NFL game since the 2001 Superbowl), and I can't name more than three or four people on any given NL team outside the Mets. I only pay attention to NL players insofar as they're rumored to be going to the AL. People don't look at me askance when I tell them I don't follow the NHL. Why should I then get strange looks for saying I don't follow the National League?

You realize you would have missed Pepper Martin's entire career if you were alive during the 30's and had the same kind of approach the current game? :)

[538280]

It makes Larkin look more impressive. Yet if he were to go up against A-rod, Nomar and Tejada his hitting relative to shortstops woul be unimpressive. Its unfair to Jeter to compare him with the greatest hitting shortstops of all time and Larkin with your average slap and judy hitter and say Larkins better because of the relative stat.

Now, first of all, it would not be unimpressive if compared to the SSs of Jeter's time. Larkin would still be about 13% better than the average SS, which is I believe top 10 all time among SSs. Still impressive.

Second, Jeter is not being compared to the greatest shortstops of all time. He is being compared to the average shortstop of his time, Larkin is being compared to the same thing.

Third, the fact Larkin was able to separate more from the average shorstop in his time does indeed make him more valuable. If a great hitting shorstop is harder to find (as it was in Larkins' era), then it does make those great hitting shorstops in the league more valuable. The whole premise behind positional adjustments is that a player is made more valuable because of how other players in the leauge hit at his position. Shortstops in Jeter's time hit 4% worse than league in OPS, shorstops in Larkin's hit 11% worse. In other words, there were less great hititng shorstops while Larkin was playing and this means that he deserves a bigger positional adjustment. He was a significantly better hitter compared to the league sverage shorstop in his time. Here's some proof for you:

OPS SS OPS DIFF*
Barry Larkin .815 .678 20.2%
Derek Jeter .848 .737 15.1%

[Blackout]

a vote for outside top 20 hahahahahahahaha

just insane

[Blackout]

Now, first of all, it would not be unimpressive if compared to the SSs of Jeter's time. Larkin would still be about 13% better than the average SS, which is I believe top 10 all time among SSs. Still impressive.

Second, Jeter is not being compared to the greatest shortstops of all time. He is being compared to the average shortstop of his time, Larkin is being compared to the same thing.

Third, the fact Larkin was able to separate more from the average shorstop in his time does indeed make him more valuable. If a great hitting shorstop is harder to find (as it was in Larkins' era), then it does make those great hitting shorstops in the league more valuable. The whole premise behind positional adjustments is that a player is made more valuable because of how other players in the leauge hit at his position. Shortstops in Jeter's time hit 4% worse than league in OPS, shorstops in Larkin's hit 11% worse. In other words, there were less great hititng shorstops while Larkin was playing and this means that he deserves a bigger positional adjustment. He was a significantly better hitter compared to the league sverage shorstop in his time. Here's some proof for you:

OPS SS OPS DIFF*
Barry Larkin .815 .678 20.2%
Derek Jeter .848 .737 15.1%


but that also has to keep in mind that A-rod/Nomar/Tejada/Young is alot tougher offensive competition than the best SS's in the NL when Larkin played

[ElHalo]

Third, the fact Larkin was able to separate more from the average shorstop in his time does indeed make him more valuable. If a great hitting shorstop is harder to find (as it was in Larkins' era), then it does make those great hitting shorstops in the league more valuable. The whole premise behind positional adjustments is that a player is made more valuable because of how other players in the leauge hit at his position. Shortstops in Jeter's time hit 4% worse than league in OPS, shorstops in Larkin's hit 11% worse. In other words, there were less great hititng shorstops while Larkin was playing and this means that he deserves a bigger positional adjustment. He was a significantly better hitter compared to the league sverage shorstop in his time. Here's some proof for you

Chris,

This is absolutely silly reasoning. Is Richie Ashburn just an average CF because he had to compete with Mays and Snider in his league, and Mantle in the AL? Is Greenburg a ho-hum 1Bman because he had Gehrig and Foxx in his league?

[538280]

Chris,

This is absolutely silly reasoning. Is Richie Ashburn just an average CF because he had to compete with Mays and Snider in his league, and Mantle in the AL? Is Greenburg a ho-hum 1Bman because he had Gehrig and Foxx in his league?

EH, by the line of reasoning I just used Richie Ashburn is not being compared directly to Willie, Mickey and the Duke, and Greenberg is not being compared directly to Gehrig and Foxx. They are being compared to the average CF and 1B during that time. I'm sure that Richie and Hank's offensive performance would still be impressive despite the presence of the greater stars, just as Jeter's offensive performacne vs. the average player at his positoin is still impressive despite the presence of Nomar and A-Rod.

I do think, however, that the fact there were more other great hitting 1B and CF during their eras does make their hitting slightly less valuable. I think the fact it was easier to get a great hitting CFer in Ashburn's time than in most others does make Ashburn's hitting less valuable. As I said before, when there are less great hitters at a position in the league it makes those great hitters there are at that position more valuable. The fact that it was harder to get a great hitting SS in Larkin's era does make Larkin's hitting more valuable IMO.

Anyway, I think we're all missing the point here. Despite what the performance of the average shorstop in their era is, Larkin will still almost certainly end up the better hitter, unless Jeter has a way better second half of his career which is very rare for a shortstop.

Larkin's OPS+ right now is only 5 points lower than Jeter, and Larkin has already retired and been through his entire decline phase while Jeter is still in his prime. It is clear that by the time Jeter's playing days are over his OPS+ will be about the same or even lower.

Also, Larkin has had way more impressive seasons. Jeter did have one truly great hitting year in 1999, when he had a 161 OPS+, a .325 EqA, and drove in 102 runs. Barry Larkin has a truly great offensive season to match that in 1996, when he had a 154 OPS+, a .326 EqA, and hit 33 home runs.

Outside of his great 1999, Jeter's offensive prowess really isn't as great. His career high in OPS+ outside of that was 127 in 2003. Larkin has had two seasons over 140 OPS+, and six seasons above 130. Much more great offensive seasons.

Jeter's main advantages I suppose most people would claim is that 1.He is considered to be greater and is more famous, 2.He is a great clutch player, adn 3.He has been money in the postseason. I'll address each of those.

1.He is considered to be greater and is more famous

He definitely is more famous, but that doesn't make him a better ballplayer. If Jeter had played his whole career in Cincinnati instead of New York he wouldn't be any more celebrated than Larkin is.

Is he considered to be greater? Maybe, but evidence doesn't necessarily support it. Larkin won an MVP award in 1995, Jeter has never won one. We all know MVP awards tend to come from players on great teams, and despite the fact Jeter has played on tremendous teams his whole career he has never won the award.

Jeter has been an All Star six times, or 60% of his 10 full seasons (full season defined as playing 100+ games). Larkin has been an All Star 12 times, or 80% of his full seasons (I counted 1997 as a full season because he did make the All Star Game).

Those are the normal methods used to determine how a player was thought of in his time. Seem to favor Larkin rather than Jeter.

2.Jeter is a great clutch player

Jeter over his career has batted .324 with men on base and .304 with no men on. But, he has hit for less power with men on base with a .470 SLG% with no one on and a a .446 SLG with men on. He has hit one HR per 29 ABs with the bases empty, one HR per 45 ABs with men on base. He has hit slightly worse (.313) with runners in scoring position than overall (.315).

Overall, it is hard to see how Jeter has been a particularly great clutch player.

Larkin over his career has hit 27 points higher with men on base than with them empty. He has also hit for more power with men on base, with a SLG 28 points higher. He has hit 4 points worse with RISP, but his OBP is higher.

It's hard to see how Jeter has been a better clutch player than Larkin

3.Jeter has been money in the postseason

Jeter has obviously had more postseason games played than Larkin, so it is unfair to compare their raw totals.

Larkin has batted .338/.397/.465 in the postseason. His BA is 43 points high than in the regular season, his OBP is 26 points higher, and his SLG is 21 points higher. He has been significantly better in the postseason than in the regular season.

Jeter has batted .307/.379/.463 in the postseason. His BA and OBP are 7 points worse than they are in the regular season, and his SLG is two points higher. Hard to see how he has hit any better there than in the regular season.

But here's some revealing information for you:

In his entire post-season career, a total of 99 games spread over eight seasons, Derek Jeter is a .210/.355/.306 hitter with runners in scoring position and a .245/.345/.329 hitter with men on base. He is a .176/.263/.323 hitter in "close and late" situations. Jeter has actually been incredibly "un-clutch" in the postseason.

[538280]

Here's a good article about Jeter in regards to that playoff clutch data I gave:

http://www.aarongleeman.com/2003_10_26_baseballblog_archive.html#1067320995863 22001

The article is in two parts, try to read both.

[Tigerfan1974]

I just don't like Jeter for some reason. I am not sure why.
I would put him dead last all-time.

I know he his not bad, actually very good. But I just don't like him.
Give me Freddie Patek or Tom Veryzer first.

[538280]

I just don't like Jeter for some reason. I am not sure why.
I would put him dead last all-time.

I know he his not bad, actually very good. But I just don't like him.
Give me Freddie Patek or Tom Veryzer first.

Yeah, real great reasoning there. Can you ever look at anything objectively? I don't like Jeter either, but I at least recognize him as a very good player and one of the best in the game (he deserved the 1999 MVP award IMO).

[BoSox Rule]

Yeah, real great reasoning there. Can you ever look at anything objectively? I don't like Jeter either, but I at least recognize him as a very good player and one of the best in the game (he deserved the 1999 MVP award IMO).
Well, Pedro Martinez did, depending on how you choose your personal MVP's.

[538280]

Well, Pedro Martinez did, depending on how you choose your personal MVP's.

Nah, I don't see him as being more valuable. In the current era where pitchers are leading the league with 220 or so innings, they pretty much can't be more valuable than the best position players. I don't really think they should win it anyway.

[DoubleX]

Nah, I don't see him as being more valuable. In the current era where pitchers are leading the league with 220 or so innings, they pretty much can't be more valuable than the best position players. I don't really think they should win it anyway.

I agree. Pedro was great that year, but for a pitcher to be MVP, they have to pitch a lot more than 213 innings, IMO.

[BoSox Rule]

WARP1/WARP3

Pedro: 12.7, 12.7
Derek Jeter: 8.9, 11.0

[yanks0714]

EH, by the line of reasoning I just used Richie Ashburn is not being compared directly to Willie, Mickey and the Duke, and Greenberg is not being compared directly to Gehrig and Foxx. They are being compared to the average CF and 1B during that time. I'm sure that Richie and Hank's offensive performance would still be impressive despite the presence of the greater stars, just as Jeter's offensive performacne vs. the average player at his positoin is still impressive despite the presence of Nomar and A-Rod.

Great post. I've been a Barry Lrkin fan for some time. He displayed a complete package of talent. Unfortunately, none of those talents particularly stood and grabbed attention. Therefore, it seems as if fans never really noticed the great job he did day in and day out.
IMHO, Barry Larkin should be a shoo-in for the HOF, but I think he's going to have tough time of gaining entry.

I may have to turn in my Yankee pinstripes for this next comment...but here goes: I believe Barry Larkin to be, not only, a better SS than Derek Jeter, but a better player as well.

This is me trying to be objective as a Yankee fan and a fan of Derek Jeter.

[yanks0714]

Nah, I don't see him as being more valuable. In the current era where pitchers are leading the league with 220 or so innings, they pretty much can't be more valuable than the best position players. I don't really think they should win it anyway.

I never did and still don't believe a pitcher should be the MVP. How can someone who plays every 4th or 5th day be the MVP of a league???

Besides, the pitchers have their own award, CYA.

BTW, I'm too tired from work to look this up (okay, I admit it, too lazy) but has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA?

[ElHalo]

I never did and still don't believe a pitcher should be the MVP. How can someone who plays every 4th or 5th day be the MVP of a league???

Besides, the pitchers have their own award, CYA.

BTW, I'm too tired from work to look this up (okay, I admit it, too lazy) but has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA?

Sure. Lots. Reliever John Konstanty was the most recent in the NL, Bobby Shantz in the AL.

[SeaverGooden]

Jeter will be remember as one of if not the greatest short stop in baseball history. Why? Because he's a Yankee. If anyone has ever become a superstar by being a product of the New York media machine it's Derek Jeter. He is an extremely solid player, who puts up very solid numbers, and used to play a very solid short stop. Jeter still puts up terrific number offensively, and I think was very under appreciated in his job as a lead off hitter. However he will be incredibly overrated as time passes and remembered in a hollow respect as Mantle, Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle are. Jeter commands respect and is given it, however I believe because he was fortunate enough to play on four championship teams his stock is a little too high. If Jeter was the short stop for the Kansas City Royals does anyone believe he'd be revered in the same God like aura? Nomar Garciaparra can't avoid the injury bug, yet he has a higher career batting average, and has twenty more homeruns than Jeter in a little under 2,00 less career at bats. Jeter has almost 600 more hits than Nomar, but then again has 2,000 more at bats. I believe Derek Jeter will be a hall of famer, deserves to be a hall of famer, but if he is, then so should Barry Larkin, and a argument could be made for Garciaparra based on statistics alone. In another quick note, Jeter was never half the player A-Rod was, and it's too bad he was forced to move to third because he was viewed as a player who could handle the transition better. A-Rod is hands down a better player in every aspect of the game, and before some one responds about how A-Rod is terrible in the clutch, Jeter was responsible for the last out of a Yankee game over twenty times in 2005 when the Yankees were losing by 2 or less runs.

One more note I would like to add before someone leaves a comment about me being an idiot, I'd like to note I respect Jeter, dislike A-Rod as a player and a person, but think Jeter is extremely overrated.

[DoubleX]

Jeter commands respect and is given it, however I believe because he was fortunate enough to play on four championship teams his stock is a little too high. If Jeter was the short stop for the Kansas City Royals does anyone believe he'd be revered in the same God like aura?

Great post. I singled this part out, however, because the first part of it makes it seem like Jeter was just some passive figure along for the ride on those championship teams. Granted, those were well built teams that had great chemistry and great balance, but Jeter was a very, very vital clog to those championship teams. I'm not saying he single-handedly won it (as I believe the best player was Bernie Williams during that period), but I say its doubtful that they win those four and six pennants without Jeter's presence and production at SS (though they still may have won a few).

The second part I singled out because even if he had been brought up with the Royals, there is a good chance that he'd be on a bigger market team now anyway, and perhaps even the Yankees. Jeter would likely have priced himself out of the Royals market long ago just as Furcal did this offseason with Atlanta, just as Renteria did in St. Louis, and Tejada did in Oakland, or Damon, Dye, and Beltran did with the Royals while playing different positions (and all not being as good as Jeter). KC is also a more hitter friendly park than Yankee Stadium, so Jeter may have actually put up better offensive numbers as a Royal, and certainly would have attracted attention just as Damon, Dye, and Beltran did. Those three players just go to show you that if you're good, you'll get recognition, even in K.C. (though it would certainly not be at the level that Jeter gets in New York).

[Blackout]

Jeter will be remember as one of if not the greatest short stop in baseball history. Why? Because he's a Yankee. If anyone has ever become a superstar by being a product of the New York media machine it's Derek Jeter. He is an extremely solid player, who puts up very solid numbers, and used to play a very solid short stop. Jeter still puts up terrific number offensively, and I think was very under appreciated in his job as a lead off hitter. However he will be incredibly overrated as time passes and remembered in a hollow respect as Mantle, Ruth, DiMaggio, and Mantle are. Jeter commands respect and is given it, however I believe because he was fortunate enough to play on four championship teams his stock is a little too high. If Jeter was the short stop for the Kansas City Royals does anyone believe he'd be revered in the same God like aura? Nomar Garciaparra can't avoid the injury bug, yet he has a higher career batting average, and has twenty more homeruns than Jeter in a little under 2,00 less career at bats. Jeter has almost 600 more hits than Nomar, but then again has 2,000 more at bats. I believe Derek Jeter will be a hall of famer, deserves to be a hall of famer, but if he is, then so should Barry Larkin, and a argument could be made for Garciaparra based on statistics alone. In another quick note, Jeter was never half the player A-Rod was, and it's too bad he was forced to move to third because he was viewed as a player who could handle the transition better. A-Rod is hands down a better player in every aspect of the game, and before some one responds about how A-Rod is terrible in the clutch, Jeter was responsible for the last out of a Yankee game over twenty times in 2005 when the Yankees were losing by 2 or less runs.

One more note I would like to add before someone leaves a comment about me being an idiot, I'd like to note I respect Jeter, dislike A-Rod as a player and a person, but think Jeter is extremely overrated.

mets fans :crazy

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Wow someone actually put him on top 3.... I have nothing to say to that.... its offensive to even consider him among the top 10 shortstops ever when he isnt even the best on his team.

[DoubleX]

Wow someone actually put him on top 3.... I have nothing to say to that.... its offensive to even consider him among the top 10 shortstops ever when he isnt even the best on his team.

Joe DiMaggio once roamed CF while Mickey Mantle played in right, despite Mickey being the better CFer. I guess by your logic, DiMaggio can't be a top 10 CFer because he was playing the position despite not even being the best on his team?

[Ubiquitous]

Well no he didn't say top 10 he said top three. Could Derek be top 10 and still not be the best SS on his team? Yes but its kind of hard, almost impossible to be top three and not be the top SS on your team.

[DoubleX]

Well no he didn't say top 10 he said top three. Could Derek be top 10 and still not be the best SS on his team? Yes but its kind of hard, almost impossible to be top three and not be the top SS on your team.

He actually said:

...its offensive to even consider him among the top 10 shortstops ever when he isnt even the best on his team.

[yanks0714]

Sure. Lots. Reliever John Konstanty was the most recent in the NL, Bobby Shantz in the AL.

Correction, ElHalo. I don't think the CYA was around when Konstanty won the MVP.

Secondly, Bobby Shantz won the CYA, right? He didn't win MVP did he?

My question was, I think, was there ever a pitcher who won the MVP and NOT the CYA?

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Joe DiMaggio once roamed CF while Mickey Mantle played in right, despite Mickey being the better CFer. I guess by your logic, DiMaggio can't be a top 10 CFer because he was playing the position despite not even being the best on his team?

An extreme case..... apples and oranges.... The comparison between Jeter and ARod is nowhere near as close to Mantle and Dimaggio. I can see no objective reason why Jeter should play short on that team, nor can i see one for putting him in the top 10. And anyone who puts him in the top 3 has some serrious issues to work out.

[RogersMaris]

Wow someone actually put him on top 3.... I have nothing to say to that.... its offensive to even consider him among the top 10 shortstops ever when he isnt even the best on his team.

He isn't top 3 if ends up with these numbers? :confused: How isn't he?

Hits
Current: 1936
Projected: 3436
All-Time Ranking: 6th
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 167 (keep in mind, Jeter has never hit less than 183 in a healthy season, and that was his rookie year).

Runs
Current: 1159
Projected: 2074
All-Time Ranking: 7th
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 102

RBI
Current: 763
Projected: 1333
All-Time Ranking: T-75th
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 64

Home Runs
Current: 169
Projected: 295
All-Time Ranking: Outside Top 100
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 14

Stolen Bases
Current: 215
Projected: 350
All-Time Ranking: 101st
Average Per Year to Reach Projected: 15

[DoubleX]

An extreme case..... apples and oranges.... The comparison between Jeter and ARod is nowhere near as close to Mantle and Dimaggio. I can see no objective reason why Jeter should play short on that team, nor can i see one for putting him in the top 10. And anyone who puts him in the top 3 has some serrious issues to work out.

As RogerMaris just pointed out, it seems like you might have missed the gist of this thread. We're not talking about where Jeter ranks now, as I think most people have him outside of the top 10, we're talking about where we'd rank Jeter after he hypothetically retires at age 40 with certain hypohetical numbers (which RogerMaris just posted).

[ElHalo]

Correction, ElHalo. I don't think the CYA was around when Konstanty won the MVP.

Secondly, Bobby Shantz won the CYA, right? He didn't win MVP did he?

My question was, I think, was there ever a pitcher who won the MVP and NOT the CYA?

No, no corrections needed here. Shantz won the MVP in 1952. Konstanty won it in 1950. Neither one of them won the Cy Young that year.

You said absolutely nothing whatsoever in your previous post about the Cy Young Award having to have existed at the time.

[ElHalo]

An extreme case..... apples and oranges.... The comparison between Jeter and ARod is nowhere near as close to Mantle and Dimaggio. I can see no objective reason why Jeter should play short on that team, nor can i see one for putting him in the top 10. And anyone who puts him in the top 3 has some serrious issues to work out.

Plenty of objective reasons for putting him in the top 10. Top 3, not so much.

And there's a very good reason why Jeter plays short instead of ARod.

Now, keep in mind, if we're strictly talking about what would be the best defensive setup, it would be Jeter in CF and Rodriguez at 3B (though that has as much to do with ARod being a horrible 3Bman as it does with Jeter). But limiting ourselves to the infield...

Jeter's glaring weakness is his lack of glove side range. He's very strong to his backhand. Where does that leave him? If you put him at 3B... all he's got is glove side. His backhand is blocked off by the 3B line. So you're putting him in a position which would accentuate his weakness, and minimize his strength. Similarly, at 2B... you have to cover for the weak defensive 1B by covering a LOT of ground to the glove side as a 2Bman, while your backhand is somewhat covered by the pitcher. In either place, Jeter's strengths would be minimized, and his weaknesses would be magnified. So, yes, as long as we're staying in the infield, the best way to allign guys is to have Jeter at short and ARod at third.

[yanks0714]

No, no corrections needed here. Shantz won the MVP in 1952. Konstanty won it in 1950. Neither one of them won the Cy Young that year.

You said absolutely nothing whatsoever in your previous post about the Cy Young Award having to have existed at the time.


Gee, I wonder why they didn't win the CYA as well???

What I originally asked was, "BTW, I'm too tired from work to look this up (okay, I admit it, too lazy) but has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA?"

And you respond with two pitchers who won the MVP BEFORE the CYA ever existed.

Yeah, you're right....

Now, let me rephrase my question: 'Has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA since the inception of of the CYA.

Sheesh, you had to know what I was asking but instead chose an answer that was technically not applicable. Why would I be asking that question and expect it to apply to pitchers before there was any CYA?

In any event, it is my contention that pitchers should not be eligible for the MVP. They have their own award.

[538280]

Now, let me rephrase my question: 'Has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA since the inception of of the CYA.


I just checked it through. It has never happened. Every pitcher who has won the MVP has also won the CYA.

[DoubleX]

I just checked it through. It has never happened. Every pitcher who has won the MVP has also won the CYA.

Makes sense since the same group is voting for both. Can't imagine that they would see a pitcher being more MVP deserving than Cy Young deserving, especially since many believe that a pitcher has to do some really special things to win the MVP.

[Imapotato]

Perfect example of one of those two polarized groups I was talking about...You either love Jeter and over-estimate everything he does, or you react to that by under-estimating Jeter and placing a lot of emphasis on defensive sabermetrics.
))
Then again, you do admit he still has excellent value at SS despite the defense, so I suppose you're a tweener. :)


Yea and who says that is a "proven" method

It's a group of guys that like math and have too much time on their hands and went into a test to SHOW Jeter sucked defensively

I think Jeter is a very good SS, is he one of the best? Who knows but, besides from Wagner...there isn't alot of competition

[ElHalo]

I just checked it through. It has never happened. Every pitcher who has won the MVP has also won the CYA.

Again, this isn't true at all. You can say: "Since the Cy Young Award has been around, no pitcher has won the MVP without winning the Cy Young Award." But wording it the way you did is simply wrong.

[ElHalo]

Gee, I wonder why they didn't win the CYA as well???

What I originally asked was, "BTW, I'm too tired from work to look this up (okay, I admit it, too lazy) but has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA?"

And you respond with two pitchers who won the MVP BEFORE the CYA ever existed.

Yeah, you're right....

Now, let me rephrase my question: 'Has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA since the inception of of the CYA.

Sheesh, you had to know what I was asking but instead chose an answer that was technically not applicable. Why would I be asking that question and expect it to apply to pitchers before there was any CYA?

In any event, it is my contention that pitchers should not be eligible for the MVP. They have their own award.

I answered the question properly for the way the question was worded. I'm a lawyer; asking the proper question is almost always much, much more important than getting the proper answer.

Who had the best season ever without winning the MVP award? Babe Ruth, 1921. The fact that the MVP didn't exist that year doesn't matter, because that wasn't a condition of my question. Gotta always make sure everything's worded properly, or you'll get silly answers...

[yanks0714]

Again, this isn't true at all. You can say: "Since the Cy Young Award has been around, no pitcher has won the MVP without winning the Cy Young Award." But wording it the way you did is simply wrong.

Don't be obtuse. Clearly my question was has any pitcher ever won the MVP without winning the CYA? Simple question.

Obviously my question pertained to since both awards were given out.

Chris has verified that it has never happened. THAT is why I say pitchers should not qualify for MVP. They have their own award, the CYA now.

Really, if you are elected MVP you literally have to win the CYA. How can someone else win the CYA if a pitcher has won the MVP?

[yanks0714]

I answered the question properly for the way the question was worded. I'm a lawyer; asking the proper question is almost always much, much more important than getting the proper answer.

Who had the best season ever without winning the MVP award? Babe Ruth, 1921. The fact that the MVP didn't exist that year doesn't matter, because that wasn't a condition of my question. Gotta always make sure everything's worded properly, or you'll get silly answers...

Oh.....you're a lawyer....that explains it.

In an earlier post I did say you were right...based on how you interpreted the question.

If we took a poll of all the BBF posters I'd wager the vast majority understood my question. But being a lawyer, you had to twist the question...which happened to place it out of context.

BTW, I hope none of your clients had to ever have you explain who Joe Morgan was in their defense. ;)

Another BTW, that may be an interesting thread....who did have the best season ever without winning the MVP award.... since it's inception?
My vote would go to Ted Williams in 1941.

[yanks0714]

I just checked it through. It has never happened. Every pitcher who has won the MVP has also won the CYA.
Originally Posted by yanks0714
Now, let me rephrase my question: 'Has a pitcher ever won the MVP and NOT win the CYA since the inception of of the CYA.

Thanks. I wasn't sure and got all tangled up with ElHalo being a smart aleck.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

I answered the question properly for the way the question was worded. I'm a lawyer; asking the proper question is almost always much, much more important than getting the proper answer.

Who had the best season ever without winning the MVP award? Babe Ruth, 1921. The fact that the MVP didn't exist that year doesn't matter, because that wasn't a condition of my question. Gotta always make sure everything's worded properly, or you'll get silly answers...

You know... I had always thought you were a lawyer before you even said it...

[redbuck]

I did a study this past summer on shortstops.

Counting at relative weights the values of hitting, fielding and baserunning, Jeter finished as the 7th best last season.

Jeter is perhaps one of the most overrated players in modern baseball history. His power figures are relatively poor and even his on-base isn't as good as many would believe.

His fielding, though, is where he is really below his reputation. His range factor is very low, well below where A-Rod's was as a shortstop when he joined the Yankees. I think the Yankees made a big mistake using Jeter at short and Arod at 3rd.

[DoubleX]

I did a study this past summer on shortstops.

Counting at relative weights the values of hitting, fielding and baserunning, Jeter finished as the 7th best last season.

Jeter is perhaps one of the most overrated players in modern baseball history. His power figures are relatively poor and even his on-base isn't as good as many would believe.

His fielding, though, is where he is really below his reputation. His range factor is very low, well below where A-Rod's was as a shortstop when he joined the Yankees. I think the Yankees made a big mistake using Jeter at short and Arod at 3rd.

I think I speak for a number of us when I say we'd be interested in seeing how you came up with your measurements.

As for the A-Rod/Jeter point, I agree that A-Rod should be playing SS, but I don't think 3B is the place for Jeter (I'd like to see Jeter in CF). As someone pointed out earlier (I think it was El Halo), Jeter's glaring defensive shortcoming is his range to his gloveside, and when you're a 3Bman, that's pretty much where you need the most range since the line cuts off the gap to his throwing side.

[Ubiquitous]

Just curious but how is Derek Jeter's on base not all that good as many would believe? AS for power, the guy is a SS and bats either lead-off or #2. He hits around 30 doubles and 15 homers a year with a good average. So who is he poor against relatively speaking? Derek ranks 18th all time amongst SS in ISO with at least 3,000 PA.

[Blackout]

even his on-base isn't as good as many would believe.

you'll have to elaborate on this

[Appling]

I put Jeter somewhere in the top ten at shortstop -- and he may be the best Yankee shortstop ever. Wouldn't most of us put him ahead of Rizzuto? What other Yankee was a better all-around player at shortstop?

And what Yankee would you put ahead of A-Rod at third base?

Yet it does seem weird to have Jeter at short, when the best MLB shortstop in 90 years is on the same roster.

When Vern Stephens joined the Red Sox, he bumped All-Star shortstop Johnny Pesky to third base; but then a few years later (1951) Pesky returned to shortstop and Stephens moved to Third Base. So changes can happen. Cheer up -- A-Rod may yet play shortstop for the Yankees.

[538280]

And what Yankee would you put ahead of A-Rod at third base?


A-Rod has only had two years on the Yankees, hardly enough to call him the team's all time all star 3B yet. Graig Nettles still holds that position, at least for a few more years.

[Metal Ed]

If Jeter stays healthy and puts up the projected numbers, I'd see him much as I see Nolan Ryan. Someone who was very good for a very long time without ever being great. Someone who is overhyped for reasons involving personality, charisma, likeability, and complete refusal to acknowledge serious flaws in their game (Ryan's walks, Jeter's range to his glove side).

[DoubleX]

If Jeter stays healthy and puts up the projected numbers, I'd see him much as I see Nolan Ryan. Someone who was very good for a very long time without ever being great. Someone who is overhyped for reasons involving personality, charisma, likeability, and complete refusal to acknowledge serious flaws in their game (Ryan's walks, Jeter's range to his glove side).

You don't think Jeter was great in '99? I think he had at least that one season to his credit, in terms of greatness.

[Appling]

Well no he didn't say top 10 he said top three. Could Derek be top 10 and still not be the best SS on his team? Yes but its kind of hard, almost impossible to be top three and not be the top SS on your team.
I see that the "World Baseball Classic" lineup for USA now lists Michael Young at second base, along with Jeter at shortstop and A-Rod at third. Is it possible that Jeter is only the third-best shortstop on that team, even though he will be the starter at shortstop?

[Ubiquitous]

Young has played 2 seasons at SS will be 29 this year and only had last season where he was putting up better numbers then Jeter who is three years older and has been putting up better numbers since before Young got in the league.

[Dontworry]

Here's something Interesting about jeter - A few days ago I was listening to MLB Home plate on XM Radio and they had John Dewan, the author of the Fielding Bible, on. He made a really interesting comment that I think is worth repeating.

Over the past three years, Jeter has been one of the worst, and last year the worst defensive SS in MLB. Although he is above average at getting to fly balls, last year he was a -38 in fielding ground balls--which means that he reached 38 fewer ground balls than the average SS in the league. I guess this goes to show that the Gold Glove, like most of the individual awards is nothing more than a popularity contest. Dewan pointed out that because Jeter positions himself so poorly, he will make many plays that should be routine look harder, ending with an off balance throw.

[DoubleX]

Here's something Interesting about jeter - A few days ago I was listening to MLB Home plate on XM Radio and they had John Dewan, the author of the Fielding Bible, on. He made a really interesting comment that I think is worth repeating.

Over the past three years, Jeter has been one of the worst, and last year the worst defensive SS in MLB. Although he is above average at getting to fly balls, last year he was a -38 in fielding ground balls--which means that he reached 38 fewer ground balls than the average SS in the league. I guess this goes to show that the Gold Glove, like most of the individual awards is nothing more than a popularity contest. Dewan pointed out that because Jeter positions himself so poorly, he will make many plays that should be routine look harder, ending with an off balance throw.

Funny how last year Jeter still finished 2nd in the AL in putouts, 2nd in assists, 2nd in fewest errors, 2nd in fielding percentage, and 2nd in range factor. Definitely sounds like he was the worst SS in the league last year and that he was contributing to less outs despite getting to 38 less balls. :crazy

[Ubiquitous]

He got to 38 less balls then an average Shortstop would have gotten had an average SS played for the Yankees.

[christian gentleman]

I put Derek in the top 5 at shortstop.

[Bronxbommers]

does anyone think that Jeter's amazing defensive plays (diving into the stands, traking the ball right over Cano) make any kind of a dent against his otherwise looked at as average defense?

[christian gentleman]

does anyone think that Jeter's amazing defensive plays (diving into the stands, traking the ball right over Cano) make any kind of a dent against his otherwise looked at as average defense?


Jeter is quite simply a winner.

[Metal Ed]

does anyone think that Jeter's amazing defensive plays (diving into the stands, traking the ball right over Cano) make any kind of a dent against his otherwise looked at as average defense?


He's absolutely phenomenal at going back on pop ups over his head. But if that were enough to compensate for the balls on the ground that he doesn't get to, you'd think that would be reflected in the fielding metrics. Granted, fielding metrics aren't perfect, but hey, neither is casual observation/the highlight reel, which is where the case for Jeter's supposedly great defense comes from.

Instead of the Yankees getting Damon, Jeter should've moved to center field. His ability to get to balls hit over his head would be a tremendous asset and his weakness on balls on the ground would be so much less of a liability. A-Rod, who's the better shortstop, could then move back to his old position. Never happen, though. Derek "team player" Jeter is too much of a New York institution at shortstop.

[Blackout]

He's absolutely phenomenal at going back on pop ups over his head. But if that were enough to compensate for the balls on the ground that he doesn't get to, you'd think that would be reflected in the fielding metrics. Granted, fielding metrics aren't perfect, but hey, neither is casual observation/the highlight reel, which is where the case for Jeter's supposedly great defense comes from.

Instead of the Yankees getting Damon, Jeter should've moved to center field. His ability to get to balls hit over his head would be a tremendous asset and his weakness on balls on the ground would be so much less of a liability. A-Rod, who's the better shortstop, could then move back to his old position. Never happen, though. Derek "team player" Jeter is too much of a New York institution at shortstop.

then what would NY do with 3rd base?

[leecemark]

--They could have acquired a 3B instead of Daman?

[Ubiquitous]

Its a little late now but if they had moved Jeter earlier there were a bunch of 3Bmen available. For instance a stopgap like Joe Randa could have been had cheaply and for several years now.

[Blackout]

Its a little late now but if they had moved Jeter earlier there were a bunch of 3Bmen available. For instance a stopgap like Joe Randa could have been had cheaply and for several years now.

joe randa?

i'd take Damon over that, thank you very much


sides, Jeter had a range of 4.56 last year, well above hte league average of 4.17

[DoubleX]

I see that the "World Baseball Classic" lineup for USA now lists Michael Young at second base, along with Jeter at shortstop and A-Rod at third. Is it possible that Jeter is only the third-best shortstop on that team, even though he will be the starter at shortstop?

You gotta think about versatility though. A-Rod plays a good 3B and Young can play 2B, whereas Jeter has only played SS in his career. Plus, believe it or not, Jeter is better defensively than Michael Young.

[DoubleX]

then what would NY do with 3rd base?

I've long been an advocate of Jeter moving to CF. I think he all the skills to be a good defensive CF. A-Rod would then shift to SS where he has more value than all but a few people who have ever played, and a veteran stopgag is stuck in a 3B. The Yankees did the same thing before the '98 season when they got Brosius. He was a stopgag because it was assumed Mike Lowell would take over in a couple of years (Brosius worked out so well, that Lowell was traded for a high pitching prospect - Ed Yarnall, now that backfired). It's really much easier to find and get by with some veteran player at 3B than in CF (keep in mind, I'm talking about this from the pre-Johnny Damon acquisition). So Jeter is in CF, A-Rod is at SS, and someone like Bill Mueller or Joe Randa is at 3B for a year or two, or perhaps a trade for Joe Crede or Mike Lowell before the Sox acquired him. That person mans the fort for a couple of seasons and then Eric Duncan steps in instead of moving to 1B as he's done (he's been hitting well this spring and was the MVP of the Arizona Fall League).

[Ubiquitous]

joe randa?

i'd take Damon over that, thank you very much


sides, Jeter had a range of 4.56 last year, well above hte league average of 4.17

I wasn't talking about this year but since they got ARod. ARod at SS, Jeter in Center and RAnda at third, at the very least would have been better then Williams in center. And again like I said Randa would have just been a quick fix. Since ARod has come over to the Yanks there have been plenty of thirdbasemen available.

[538280]

I think Jeter would make a very good defensive CF. His great skill on popups might transfer to fly balls, and he is a pretty good runner. I think what may be preventing the Yankees moving him there is the media, to some extent. The media and most fans seem to have latched on to the idea that Jeter is an outstanding defensive shortstop, and to them moving the "face of the Yankees" (and perhaps the whole game of baseball) from his position would be unthinkable. Yeah, I think the Yanks would get it pretty hard from the NY press if they moved Jeter.

[Metal Ed]

Wait, let me rethink this. If Captain Courage moved to center field, then I'd have to listen for the next 40 years about how Jeter was the greatest shortstop ever, but because of his selfless, do-anything-for-the-team attitude, he moved to center. What a team player. What a guy. What an American! Captain Clutch does it again!

Now that I think about it, I'm glad he stayed at short.

[ElHalo]

I think Jeter would make a very good defensive CF. His great skill on popups might transfer to fly balls, and he is a pretty good runner. I think what may be preventing the Yankees moving him there is the media, to some extent. The media and most fans seem to have latched on to the idea that Jeter is an outstanding defensive shortstop, and to them moving the "face of the Yankees" (and perhaps the whole game of baseball) from his position would be unthinkable. Yeah, I think the Yanks would get it pretty hard from the NY press if they moved Jeter.

I think you're kind of missing something on this, though. Yes, Jeter would be a fantastic defensive CF. No, Jeter hasn't been (before the last two years) a particularly good defensive SS. However, even a C- defensive SS has far, far more defensive value than an A+ defensive CF. So why move him?

Well, yes, we had ARod to shift to SS, so that probably would have made good baseball sense, but the Damon acquisition blew that all to hell now.

[Ubiquitous]

However, even a C- defensive SS has far, far more defensive value than an A+ defensive CF. So why move him?




I doubt that is true at all. I'd say depending on the team makeup they are about equal, sometimes one, sometimes the other on top.

[538280]

I think you're kind of missing something on this, though. Yes, Jeter would be a fantastic defensive CF. No, Jeter hasn't been (before the last two years) a particularly good defensive SS. However, even a C- defensive SS has far, far more defensive value than an A+ defensive CF. So why move him?

Well, yes, we had ARod to shift to SS, so that probably would have made good baseball sense, but the Damon acquisition blew that all to hell now.

I get a chance to watch the Red Sox a lot, Damon is nothing special in CF. His range is pretty good (nothing spectacular), but his arm is horrible. I'd call him a C+ or a B- CFer. Jeter would be way better out there.

As to the other part, Jeter isn't a C- SS, he's more like a D or D+ SS, and an A+ CFer doesn't necessarily have less defensive value than a C- shorstop, because you can almost always find a better guy to replace the C- SS.

Also, I think outfield defense (especially CF defense) is largely underrated. Did you know OFers have the largest impact on Defensive Efficiency Ratings?

[DoubleX]

I get a chance to watch the Red Sox a lot, Damon is nothing special in CF. His range is pretty good (nothing spectacular), but his arm is horrible. I'd call him a C+ or a B- CFer. Jeter would be way better out there.

As to the other part, Jeter isn't a C- SS, he's more like a D or D+ SS, and an A+ CFer doesn't necessarily have less defensive value than a C- shorstop, because you can almost always find a better guy to replace the C- SS.

Also, I think outfield defense (especially CF defense) is largely underrated. Did you know OFers have the largest impact on Defensive Efficiency Ratings?

I agree, as a Yankee fan I'd rather have Jeter in CF, A-Rod at SS, and some veteran at 3B until Eric Duncan is ready. But as El Halo said, the deal for Damon has pretty much nixed that possibility. Damon is being paid to play CF, and with Matsui and Sheffield in the corners, CF is where he'll be, and SS is where Jeter will be, and 3B is where A-Rod will be.

[leecemark]

--And the Yankee defense will remain amoung the worst in the game;) . They are a team built based on reps and video game stats. Luckily for their fans they have such a huge margin for error in their budget they don't have to be smart to contend every year.

[538280]

They are a team built based on reps and video game stats.

Did you know Jeter is rated as an A shortstop in last year's MVP baseball?

Is there any bigger joke out there than that?

[Blackout]

Did you know Jeter is rated as an A shortstop in last year's MVP baseball?

Is there any bigger joke out there than that?
maybe if you got your head stuck out of 5 years ago and looked at his play on the field last year you'd see that maybe its not such a joke after all

[Ubiquitous]

So he was supposed to realize all this stuff when he was 9?

[Blackout]

So he was supposed to realize all this stuff when he was 9?

actually I was meaning Jeter's defense is much better now than 5 years ago

but i forgot that hes only 14 years old haha

[538280]

maybe if you got your head stuck out of 5 years ago and looked at his play on the field last year you'd see that maybe its not such a joke after all

Jeter has improved the past two years-to slightly above average. Still hardly deserving of the A grade given to him. MVP has him rated as one of the best defensive SS in the game. He's still really, really far from that.

[ElHalo]

As to the other part, Jeter isn't a C- SS, he's more like a D or D+ SS, and an A+ CFer doesn't necessarily have less defensive value than a C- shorstop, because you can almost always find a better guy to replace the C- SS.


No, you can't, and that's the exact point. Unless you're the Yankees, if you move a guy like Jeter off of SS, you're going to be replacing him with a guy like Pokey Reese or Christian Guzman. Sure, you might pick up some in the defensive end, but the offensive dropoff between Jeter and the average SS is so much incredibly bigger than the offensive dropoff between the typical CF'er and the replacement CF'er as to make it borderline incomprehensible.

Think about this for a second: Assume, arguendo, that Derek Jeter played for the Red Sox. I know, horror of horrors. And let's assume that, this past offseason, Damon split for the Yankees, and Jeter stayed with the Sox.

Now, we've got a choice. We could move Jeter to CF, and get a replacement SS, or we can keep Jeter at SS, and get a replacement CF. Let's assume that our two best options at the respective positions are, as they turned out to be, Coco Crisp and Alex Gonzalez.

Yes, defensively, we'd be better off moving Jeter to CF, and putting Gonzalez in at SS. But where would that leave us? We'd be giving up Crisp and his 119 OPS+ bat for Gonzalez and his 85 OPS+ bat. Is there really any amount of defense in the world that's worth that kind of an offensive dropoff?

And there's the point. Can you replace a SS glove like Jeter's? Sure; go get Pokey Reese and be a thousand times better. But replacing his offense is much, much, MUCH harder to do in a SS than it is in a CF, unless you have ARod sitting on the bench. In which case, replacing his offense at 3B is much, much, MUCH harder to do than replacing it at CF. If your offensive choices are Joe Randa and Johnny Damon, you take the caveman and take your chances.

[ElHalo]

Jeter has improved the past two years-to slightly above average. Still hardly deserving of the A grade given to him. MVP has him rated as one of the best defensive SS in the game. He's still really, really far from that.

I know Matt and his fancy defensive metrics say something differently, but let's be reasonable here. 2005 AL SS's, Jeter ranked...

F%: 2nd
RF: 2nd
ZR: 5th
A: 2nd
PO: 2nd

So where is he "really, really far" from that? Not the best? Ok, granted. But really, really far from being "one of the best"? That's overstating things.

[Ubiquitous]

No, you can't, and that's the exact point. Unless you're the Yankees, if you move a guy like Jeter off of SS, you're going to be replacing him with a guy like Pokey Reese or Christian Guzman. Sure, you might pick up some in the defensive end, but the offensive dropoff between Jeter and the average SS is so much incredibly bigger than the offensive dropoff between the typical CF'er and the replacement CF'er as to make it borderline incomprehensible.

If your offensive choices are Joe Randa and Johnny Damon, you take the caveman and take your chances.

Okay as you noted our choices to replace Jeter at SS isn't just Christian Guzman or Alex gonzalez but the greatest offensive SS in the history of the game since Honus Wagner. SO in that regarding finding someone to replace Jeter at short is rediculously easy.

Secondly Randa was not the only option. I don't know why everybody latched on that name as if it is the only person who the Yankees could have got. And again thinking its merely Randa or Damon is extremely shortsighted. It could have been Randa instead of Williams for a couple of years now. They could have thrown money at any of the 5 or 6 3bmen who became available in the last two years. Scott Rolen, Troy Glaus, Adrian Beltre, Joe Randa, Bill Mueller, and Vinny Castilla. Not saying that they were already better choices but the point it that in the last two years it was a lot easier to find a quality replacement at third then it was in center. Where you have johnny damon, Carlos Beltran, Preston Wilson, and Kenny Lofton. With Wilson and Damon not becoming available until now. So one could argue that the Yankees with their payroll could have gotten a third basemen moved ARod to SS, Jeter to Center and then a few years later sign Damon and then moved Jeter again. Again this isn't an either or.

[Ubiquitous]

Now it looks like the choice isn't even Damon in center or Jeter in Center and somebody at third.

[ElHalo]

Now it looks like the choice isn't even Damon in center or Jeter in Center and somebody at third.

Um, pretty sure Damon isn't going to be missing the season. Unless you heard something I didn't?

[538280]

I know Matt and his fancy defensive metrics say something differently, but let's be reasonable here. 2005 AL SS's, Jeter ranked...

F%: 2nd
RF: 2nd
ZR: 5th
A: 2nd
PO: 2nd

So where is he "really, really far" from that? Not the best? Ok, granted. But really, really far from being "one of the best"? That's overstating things.

He does pretty good in the standard defensive stats like PO, A, and F%. That doesn't mean anything really. His zone rating is only okay, and every defensive metric I've seen sees him being about average. Always go with the adjusted figure. The Yankees pitchers were favorable to a shortstop last year.

[Blackout]

The Yankees pitchers were favorable to a shortstop last year.
yes that must be it :crazy

[barzilla]

I'm coming to this discussion late, but let me harp on something I read on the first page of the thread.

That's great and all, but you're just verifying my original point about Jeter being so polarized, and I agree that he didn't deserve the GG. Consider Jeter's defense anyway you want, I'm just curious to see if he puts up my hypothetical offensive numbers, where you would rank him (and when you consider that ranking, consider how you think you'll view his career defensively when it is over in 9 hypothetical years). I'm not interested in this being another "Jeter is so great because of his intangibles" vs. "Jeter isn't so great because sabermetrics show how bad his defense is" debate. I just made some hypothetical numbers that I think are reasonable for Jeter, provided good health, and I'm curious to see how people would consider his career if he did in fact put up those numbers.


It seems to me that "traditionalists" are giving us sabermetricians way too much credit. If there was a secret meeting where we were called on to trash Jeter, I certainly wasn't invited. I guess the point is that when the vast majority of sabermetricians all independently say Jeter isn't good defensively then he isn't good defensively.

I really love this argument. I get traditionalists on other sites who say that I can't talk about a shortstop or catcher's offense when talking about how good they are. Now, I'm being asked to hypothetically rank him only according to offensive numbers. The point is that anytime you rank a player you have to consider BOTH. In my mind, Jeter's defense will end up dropping him down between 5th and 10th. Where he stands in that range depends on how much longer he playes. It's hard to project people out because some players suddenly slip while others enjoy lengthy careers. When someone is 32 or 33 it's next to impossible to predict which way they will go.

The intangible side is pretty compelling as he hasn't ever spent a season where he didn't make the playoffs. He's also had some brilliant playoff moments. It's one of those affirmative defense kinds of things. He has intangibles because he's on a great team. The team is great because he has intangibles. I have to admit that he has made the most of his opportunities, but that isn't to say that someone else wouldn't have made something of those opportunities.

[DoubleX]

I'm coming to this discussion late, but let me harp on something I read on the first page of the thread.

It seems to me that "traditionalists" are giving us sabermetricians way too much credit. If there was a secret meeting where we were called on to trash Jeter, I certainly wasn't invited. I guess the point is that when the vast majority of sabermetricians all independently say Jeter isn't good defensively then he isn't good defensively.

I really love this argument. I get traditionalists on other sites who say that I can't talk about a shortstop or catcher's offense when talking about how good they are. Now, I'm being asked to hypothetically rank him only according to offensive numbers. The point is that anytime you rank a player you have to consider BOTH. In my mind, Jeter's defense will end up dropping him down between 5th and 10th. Where he stands in that range depends on how much longer he playes. It's hard to project people out because some players suddenly slip while others enjoy lengthy careers. When someone is 32 or 33 it's next to impossible to predict which way they will go.

The intangible side is pretty compelling as he hasn't ever spent a season where he didn't make the playoffs. He's also had some brilliant playoff moments. It's one of those affirmative defense kinds of things. He has intangibles because he's on a great team. The team is great because he has intangibles. I have to admit that he has made the most of his opportunities, but that isn't to say that someone else wouldn't have made something of those opportunities.

You were quoting me and I actually said consider defense any way you want, this was not meant to be wholly offensive minded. If you want to say Jeter is a bad defender, then throw that into your consideration. I personally believe that when all is said and done, he'll qualify as an average defender for his career, and with the hypothetical numbers, will probably rank in the 4-7 range for me.

[Ubiquitous]

Um, pretty sure Damon isn't going to be missing the season. Unless you heard something I didn't?


No, but the arm that was hurting (shoulder) and already weak isn't going to get any better and it might get worse. To the point where he is going to be a liability out there in Center. He should change his name to Captain Cortisone, and start lining up a kidney donor now.

[Ubiquitous]

One interesting theory I read the other day and have no idea how true it is since I don't get to watch a lot of Yankee games. Okay I admit it I have no desire to watch a yankee game. But anyway one of the reasons while suddenly in defensive metrics Jeter went from piss-poor to around average is because of the arrival of ARod. Supposedly with the arrival of ARod Jeter is able to shade closer to second with ARod covering more ground around third thus allowing Jeter to get to balls he normally doesn't get, thus the nickname "past a diving Jeter". AGain don't know how true that is but its something I heard and it would explain why since 2004 Jeter's defense has "improved".

[barzilla]

Well Ubi, if that is true then give the Yankees credit for minimizing their weaknesses on defense. Unless Jeter is really bad going up the middle, I would think he would get to the same number of balls either way, but hey, if he has a weakness that way and having Arod at third allows them to minimize it then more power to them.

You were quoting me and I actually said consider defense any way you want, this was not meant to be wholly offensive minded. If you want to say Jeter is a bad defender, then throw that into your consideration. I personally believe that when all is said and done, he'll qualify as an average defender for his career, and with the hypothetical numbers, will probably rank in the 4-7 range for me.

Maybe I was being overly harsh DoubleX, but I think the sabermetrical community has taken a special beating on the Jeter front. I think what your post shows is that there are differences in "traditionalists" just like I pointed out that there are differences in sabermetricians. Most of the people I've conversed with are working under the theory that offense and fielding are equally valuable. In that world, it would be hard to go into a ranking debate with the proviso of "consider defense anyway you want." However, my studies have shown that not to be the case and I'm assuming you don't think that either. It's interesting to see a traditionalist come from that point of view.

[DoubleX]

One interesting theory I read the other day and have no idea how true it is since I don't get to watch a lot of Yankee games. Okay I admit it I have no desire to watch a yankee game. But anyway one of the reasons while suddenly in defensive metrics Jeter went from piss-poor to around average is because of the arrival of ARod. Supposedly with the arrival of ARod Jeter is able to shade closer to second with ARod covering more ground around third thus allowing Jeter to get to balls he normally doesn't get, thus the nickname "past a diving Jeter". AGain don't know how true that is but its something I heard and it would explain why since 2004 Jeter's defense has "improved".

I do believe in the A-Rod theory, but not quite for the same reasons. I think Scott Brosius had pretty good range at 3B, as did Robin Ventura, so I don't know how much A-Rod's range factors into it. However, I do think the presence of A-Rod has motivated Jeter to ratchet up his defensive game a notch. With A-Rod there he probably feels like he has to work harder to justify his holding of SS over A-Rod.

[DoubleX]

Maybe I was being overly harsh DoubleX, but I think the sabermetrical community has taken a special beating on the Jeter front. I think what your post shows is that there are differences in "traditionalists" just like I pointed out that there are differences in sabermetricians. Most of the people I've conversed with are working under the theory that offense and fielding are equally valuable. In that world, it would be hard to go into a ranking debate with the proviso of "consider defense anyway you want." However, my studies have shown that not to be the case and I'm assuming you don't think that either. It's interesting to see a traditionalist come from that point of view.

Defense is certainly important, and moreso at some positions than others, SS being a position where it is extremely important. I'm not a sabermetrician, I don't keep advanced statistics (I do follow some measures like OPS+, ERA+, WARP, and Win Shares), but I agree with you in that I don't believe offense and defense are of equal value, even at SS. I think Ozzie Smith is a good example. Probably greatest defensive SS ever, good speed, and his bat was decent for a few years. However, I rank him outside of my top 10 at SS, usually around 11 or 12, because I feel like his defensive prowess, while it will allow him to make a couple of more defensive plays a game, is not enough to overcome a number of players with better all-around games. I think, who would I rather have, a great defensive but light-hitting SS, or a good defensive and good hitting SS? I think I'd rather have the latter - Luke Appling, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell come to mind there.

However, that is not to say offense completely blinds me to defense. If offense was the be all and end all for me, I'd probably have Mike Piazza as the best catcher ever, but I have at least Bench and Berra ahead of him.

[barzilla]

I think we see eye to eye then. I rank Piazza a little lower than that (fourth I believe).

[538280]

yes that must be it :crazy

Why can't that be it? A team has a groundball pitching staff, a shorstop gets more play opportunities, increasing his assists, not because of his ability but rather because of the pitcher's tendencies. It appears that's what happened to Jeter last year, and it explains why he only has average range despite the high assist totals. Yes, that is it. Why don't you accept that reasoning?

[ElHalo]

One interesting theory I read the other day and have no idea how true it is since I don't get to watch a lot of Yankee games. Okay I admit it I have no desire to watch a yankee game. But anyway one of the reasons while suddenly in defensive metrics Jeter went from piss-poor to around average is because of the arrival of ARod. Supposedly with the arrival of ARod Jeter is able to shade closer to second with ARod covering more ground around third thus allowing Jeter to get to balls he normally doesn't get, thus the nickname "past a diving Jeter". AGain don't know how true that is but its something I heard and it would explain why since 2004 Jeter's defense has "improved".

Actually, I'd probably go the other way around. ARod's 3B defense is ATROCIOUS. Almost pathetically bad. Jeter's always played next to fantastic defensive 3Bmen... Charlie Hayes, Scott Brosius, Robin Ventura. When they were playing, they got to a lot of balls that Jeter couldn't get to. Now, Jeter plays deeper than ARod, and any balls that get by ARod (which is most of them), Jeter can actually get to to make plays... and since going to his backhand is a strength of his, this has made him look, statistically, better than he did before, when his statistical value was lower than his actual value due to the fact that he was playing next to fantastic defenders.

[ElHalo]

Why can't that be it? A team has a groundball pitching staff, a shorstop gets more play opportunities, increasing his assists, not because of his ability but rather because of the pitcher's tendencies. It appears that's what happened to Jeter last year, and it explains why he only has average range despite the high assist totals. Yes, that is it. Why don't you accept that reasoning?

Assuming, arguendo, that this is true... then why did all of the other Yankee fielders do so terribly statistically last year? Is it just that the Yankees have a groundball pitching staff, but only to the one portion of the infield where Jeter is? Admittedly, Cano and ARod aren't very good fielders, but wouldn't they have looked statistically better if there was a high propensity for groundballs?

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

You allege that A-Rod is a very bad fielder. You are the only person I have heard who feels this way. Since he was once a SS, and from what I heard, received very good reviews on his fielding, exactly what are you basing your opinions upon. I am not challenging you, merely surprised to hear you talk this way. Please elaborate, either statistically or otherwise.

Bill

[538280]

Jim,

You allege that A-Rod is a very bad fielder. You are the only person I have heard who feels this way. Since he was once a SS, and from what I heard, received very good reviews on his fielding, exactly what are you basing your opinions upon. I am not challenging you, merely surprised to hear you talk this way. Please elaborate, either statistically or otherwise.

Bill

A-Rod has made a rocky shift to 3B. Watching him play or looking at the stat sheet makes that quite obvious.

EH...A-Rod and Cano didn't have such horrible defensive years last year if you look at their plays made. Cano's range factor was significantly above league average, while A-Rod's is just about average (0.01 above actually). A-Rod being even an average 3B is of course ridiculous, and Cano being significantly above average is ridiculous too. Again, defensive metrics are probably seeing through the pretty good raw stats and coming out with the real answer-that the Yankee infied last year was pretty horrible defensively.

[ElHalo]

Jim,

You allege that A-Rod is a very bad fielder. You are the only person I have heard who feels this way.

I'm actually really not the only person who feels this way.

For an example, here's a New York Daily News article on ARod's defense from this past season:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/story/312401p-267257c.html

According to the people at the Hardball Times, ARod was the second worst third baseman in the major leagues last year, ahead of only Joe Randa:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/2005-gold-gloves/

And ask any Yankee fan, and they'll tell you that ARod has been more than a disappointment in the field.

[Ubiquitous]

Actually, I'd probably go the other way around. ARod's 3B defense is ATROCIOUS. Almost pathetically bad. Jeter's always played next to fantastic defensive 3Bmen... Charlie Hayes, Scott Brosius, Robin Ventura. When they were playing, they got to a lot of balls that Jeter couldn't get to. Now, Jeter plays deeper than ARod, and any balls that get by ARod (which is most of them), Jeter can actually get to to make plays... and since going to his backhand is a strength of his, this has made him look, statistically, better than he did before, when his statistical value was lower than his actual value due to the fact that he was playing next to fantastic defenders.


The PbP data used by the guys who put forth this theory suggests that Jeter is getting to more balls up the middle then he once was. Again don't know how true it all is, just passing along the info.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Watching him play in the WBC on defense.... man i dont know how he made the US team other than politics. Anyone who claims his defense is average or above needs to get a wakeup call.

[Bill Burgess]

A-Rod has made a rocky shift to 3B. Watching him play or looking at the stat sheet makes that quite obvious.

A-Rod being even an average 3B is of course ridiculous,
I'd like to know exactly why this is. Is A-Rod weak on going to his right/left?, leaping?, going back into shallow LF?, bunts? What exactly?

Educate someone who never sees him play?

Bill

[barzilla]

Bill,

I'm just guessing here, but I'm guessing that Arod has played shortstop his whole life. He is a superb athlete and most teams put their best athletes at the position from a very early age. So, while it might seem easy to move over to third, I don't think it's quite that easy. This is why the Yankees decision to put Arod at third flies in the face of reason. If making the switch is difficult, why not put the better defender at short (which is more valuable anyway) and make the inferior defender make the adjustment?

[538280]

I'd like to know exactly why this is. Is A-Rod weak on going to his right/left?, leaping?, going back into shallow LF?, bunts? What exactly?

Educate someone who never sees him play?

Bill

Why haven't you seen him play? He plays for the Yankees, they're probably on TV at least once a week, even in California.

A-Rod's main problem, as much as I've seen (not every game, maybe like 10-15 a year) is mostly that he muffs lots of easy plays. He's made quite a few errors, and at third base that's really important because the best 3B rarely make errors while the worst ones make tons.

He also has had some problems with reaction time and getting jumps. It seems he's a step behind many ground balls.

[Bill Burgess]

I should not have said I have not seen him play. I have seen him play, but not enough to give me confidence in ranking his defense properly.

If he is so inadequate defensively, how did he ever get good reveiws for his glave when he played SS? Were all the reports crap?

I just don't understand. My interest in A-Rod is for him to fulfill his historic potential. And because of that, I grieve that he's now at 3B instead of SS. That one switch will be hard to overcome, in terms of his historical importance as an overall player.

Bill

[538280]

I should not have said I have not seen him play. I have seen him play, but not enough to give me confidence in ranking his defense properly.

If he is so inadequate defensively, how did he ever get good reveiws for his glave when he played SS? Were all the reports crap?

He was a much better SS than he has been a 3B. He hasn't made a good shift to the hot corner, and appeared to still be learning the position last year. My guess is that he'll eventually get much better as a 3B and will eventually be just as good there as he was at SS.

A-Rod's SS glove was good (certainly better than his 3B one), but not really great. His glove was overrated because of his bat, most likely. He probably didn't deserve any Gold Gloves. Win Shares calls him a C+ shortstop.

Although his SS defense was good, it will always be a big weakness for him against Wagner.

[538280]

Bill,

I'm just guessing here, but I'm guessing that Arod has played shortstop his whole life. He is a superb athlete and most teams put their best athletes at the position from a very early age. So, while it might seem easy to move over to third, I don't think it's quite that easy. This is why the Yankees decision to put Arod at third flies in the face of reason. If making the switch is difficult, why not put the better defender at short (which is more valuable anyway) and make the inferior defender make the adjustment?

Jeter would be a horrible 3Bman, far worse than A-Rod has been. His HUGE weakness is range to his glove side, and that will manifest itself even more at 3B than it has at short. His strength as a SS was going back on popups, and that will take a lesser role at 3B.

I would think A-Rod's advantage over Jeter at SS wouldn't outweigh the advantage A-Rod has over Jeter at 3B.

I still say they should move Jeter to CF though.

[ElHalo]

I'd like to know exactly why this is. Is A-Rod weak on going to his right/left?, leaping?, going back into shallow LF?, bunts? What exactly?

Educate someone who never sees him play?



It's really easier to say what's right with ARod than to say what's wrong. He's got an extremely strong arm, though he has some accuracy issues. Other than that, there's basically no aspect of defense that he's adequate at. He has terrible hands, booting the most routine of grounders; he has no range to his left or to his right; his reaction time is terrible; he seems lumbering and unathletic in the field; and he doesn't seem to put forth much of any effort at all.

In fairness, I don't know how he is on fly balls, because Jeter tends to dominate the entire left side of the infield and shallow outfield on popups.

I don't know how he ever got rave reviews for his defense at SS; he doesn't seem like somebody who's having issues adjusting to playing a new position so much as somebody who just has no fundamental understanding of the concept of how to play defense in general, and little athletic ability to even make a passable effort to overcome his lack of fundamentals. I can't imagine that he was much better at SS (though, in fairness, I can probably count on one hand with fingers left over the number of times I watched him play at SS).

[Bill Burgess]

Gee, Jim. Why don't you overcome your shyness and come out and speak your mind? Sound so severe on A-Rod's D. Are you as critical of his overall game? I remember you once said he doesn't hit in important moments, and bunches his hits when they don't count.

Why do you hate him so much?

Bill

[ElHalo]

Gee, Jim. Why don't you overcome your shyness and come out and speak your mind? Sound so severe on A-Rod's D. Are you as critical of his overall game? I remember you once said he doesn't hit in important moments, and bunches his hits when they don't count.

Why do you hate him so much?

Bill

Really can't stand the guy. Three reasons for this:

1. He really is what I say he is for the Yanks. He doesn't hit in clutch situations (the HR against Schilling in Boston last year was a jaw dropping anomoly), his defense is atrocious, and his production tends to come in bunches when it's not particularly helpful. It's incredibly frustrating to watch a guy who's just not as good as his stat line.

2. We had to give up Alfonso Soriano to get him. 'Zo is EXACTLY my type of player... hit for good average (at least when he was with the Yanks) with great power, swing with reckless abandon at pitches nowhere even remotely close to the strike zone, reak havoc on the basepaths, and have the oversized, ridiculous persona of a true New Yorker: overweening ego entirely out of proportion to his skill level; party like it's New Year's Eve every night of the week; start ridiculous arguments with unwitting strangers for no discernable reason. He was PERFECT. A mix between Dennis Rodman and David Wells (two of my favorite athletes of all time) with some of the best offense seen from a 2Bman in 70 years... he was everything I could ask for in a player. ARod? I suppose you could call his approach to the game and to life in general as working with "quiet dignity" (read: in the most boring way imaginable). Real Yankees like Billy Martin and Wells were in the paper every other day for getting into drunken brawls at Manhattan bars at all hours; I think the only time ARod's personal activities have made the papers here was when somebody saw him playing poker. His personality and personal life just don't mesh with what I'm looking for in a New York athlete. Derek Jeter is constantly seen (on several occasions by me personally) at New York's swangiest nightclubs with one (or two, or three) of the most beautiful women on earth on his arm. ARod is happily married. It just doesn't fit. Which brings me to...

3. I'm not even going to mention in the most briefest of ways his merits as a baseball player, but I'm the biggest Derek Jeter fan in the world. Suffice it to say that the Yankees had never made the playoffs from the time I was an infant until I was 15, and then the second Jeter stepped in as a rookie, we win the World Series. Regardless of the reasons, or logic, behind it, Jeter walks on water to me... he's been my hero since I was in high school. And ever since that time, I've had to grudgingly admit that ARod was better. And when ARod came over, I was terrified that Jeter's icon and his reputation as a player would be wiped away in the massive wake of ARod. And then he got here... and it was nothing. There wasn't even a flicker in Jeter's eternal flame of being the biggest sports star in the city. You look at how ARod came in insisting on having a say in pitch calling, and was summarily rebuffed by Whitey Ford and Yogi Berra without even a whisper of argument; you look at how ARod slapped the ball out of the pitcher's hands rather than trying to bowl him over; you look at how Jeter's endorsement contracts still pay more than ARod's; you look at how ARod never seems to get angry about not having won a championship... ARod might be a great ballplayer, but as a persona, as an icon, he's not much. And so it INFURIATED me to see this guy who was, for all intents and purposes, a wimp, put on a pedestal over and above my adolescent hero, who is the kind of guy who dominates a room just by walking in and dominates a conversation just by being there, who can make people follow him with just a look and a smile... the thing you have to understand is that in New York, what you do and who you are when you're away from the stadium is AT LEAST as important as what you do when you're on the field. When you're a New York athlete, your personality just makes you into who you are, and is a legitimate part of how you are viewed as an athlete. Which is, in my view, the way it should be. It's why Clyde Frazier is a thousand times bigger in NY than any other former Knick, despite not being maybe as good as some of them. It's why Broadway Joe is ten times as famous as any other NY football player, even though plenty of them have been better. It's why Mike Tyson can still get people to pay ridiculous amounts of money just to look at him, despite the fact that he lost his athletic ability decades ago. When you're an athlete, you're an entertainer, and when you're an entertainer, who you are is at least as important as what you do. And that's the way it should be. And New Yorkers recognize this, and know that Jeter is far more important than ARod. Jeter is another Joe DiMaggio, another Clyde Frazier, a guy who's just incredibly cool and makes people step back and be quiet just by his dominating presense (although hopefully he won't become the charicature both of those guys did in their retirement years), while ARod is another Tim Duncan or Tiger Woods... boring, bland, and uninspiring; perhaps appropriate for Texas or somewhere in the midwest, but not for New York. And New Yorkers recognize this, and know that Jeter is far more important than ARod. And foreigners don't, and whine and complain about how ridiculously overrated Jeter is, and how ARod should be playing short. And it breaks my heart.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

Wow. I guess if you were a GM, seeking a manager, you'd pay McGraw a king's ransom, and spit in Connie Mack's face.

And if you had a chance to acquire certain stars, you'd have loved Hal Chase, and shot Lou Gehrig/Sisler. You'd have loved The Rajah, and had Collins/Lajoie horse-whipped.

You'd have loved Stanky, Frisch and Dykes, and had Matty, Big Train, Spahnie, Maddux and those who comported themselves as gentleman executed.

Here would be a team that you'd have drooled over.

1B - Chase, Anson
2B - Hornsby, Frisch, Evers
SS - Rose, P. Martin
3B - Dykes, J. Robinson
OF - Ruth, Cobb, Belle, Simmons, Williams, Medwick
C - Ewing, Kelly, Cochrane, Bench
P - Dean, Alexander, Clemens, Drysdale, Gibson
Manager - Hanlon, McGraw, Durocher, Martin,

Sound good to you? Make mine bland.

Bill

[torez77]

Never been to New York. Would like to visit it some time. I myself am a boring, bland Midwesterner, so they probably wouldn't appreciate me. ;)

[Imapotato]

Jeter is like Hines Ward

Ward gets pushed out of top WRs because they have better talent and stats

Guys like Steve Smith, Terrell Owens, Keyshawn Johnson

But Ward, BLOCKS and ius the best blocking WR in the game, Ward on a option WR route ALWAYS chooses the right option. Ward knows when to attempt a catch or let it go because if he tips it, it will be an INT

He cried when they lost because a teammate and Steeler Icon at the end of his rope, Jerome Bettis, missed a chance at a ring...how unselfish is that?

But when all is said and done Hines Ward will make the HOF, because of all the intangibles and non WR glory things he does

Same thing why Jeter will be considered one of the top 5 SS of all time


Bill

1st, I was the one who said Alex Rodriguez hit most of his stat-inflating numbers when the game was a blowout on either side, mostly against the crap of the bullpen who needed some work...and I got roasted for that

2nd
I CANNOT believe some of the guys you have at SS on your list, yet Rabbit Maranville is nowhere to be found

Maranville played in the worst hitting park of alltime in Braves Field
Maranville was one of the best Defensive SS of all time, in a POORLY kept IF at said Braves Field

Name one 'good' hitter on the Braves when they played in Braves Field...that shows you how pitcher-friendly it was...you just can't...the Braves are where hitters went to die...yet Maranville did not

When Rabbit went to Pittsburgh, his offense came alive

For a SS whose OPS and BA are low by HOF standards, he is 19th all time in triples
His F% and range were higher then any other SS anyone had ever seen for an extended period...he awed the teens and 20's like Ozzie Smith awed the 80's

Maranville has got to be one of the top 10 ss of all time

[Imapotato]

Never been to New York. Would like to visit it some time. I myself am a boring, bland Midwesterner, so they probably wouldn't appreciate me. ;)


Nah, we love to con...errr meet guys like you :)

[538280]

2nd
I CANNOT believe some of the guys you have at SS on your list, yet Rabbit Maranville is nowhere to be found

Maranville played in the worst hitting park of alltime in Braves Field
Maranville was one of the best Defensive SS of all time, in a POORLY kept IF at said Braves Field

Name one 'good' hitter on the Braves when they played in Braves Field...that shows you how pitcher friendly it was...you just can't...the Braves are where hitters went to die...yet Maranville did not

Wally Berger, Red Smith, Joe Connolly, Dave Bancroft had some good hitting years there, Jack Fournier too, and Hornsby had one MONSTER year there.

When Rabbit went to Pittsburgh, his offense came alive

For a SS whose OPS and BA are low by HOF standards, he is 19th all time in triples
His F% and range were higher then any other SS anyone had ever seen for an extended period...he awed the teens and 20's like Ozzie Smith awed the 80's

Maranville has got to be one of the top 10 ss of all time

Potato, I don't know what you're talking about here. Maranville's offense really didn't come alive in Pittsburgh. It's an illusion of context, which is made by the game's increasing offense in the 1920s. Maranville's real offensive peak was 1917 and 1919. He was an above average hitter in 1917 and 1919, and was also hitting very well in a shortened 1918 season.

Look at Maranville's OPS+, and you'll see his offense actually declined when he moved to Pittsburgh:

Rabbit Maranville OPS+, 1915-1924
1915 BOS-94
1916 BOS-94
1917 BOS-110
1918 BOS-133 (in only 42 PAs)
1919 BOS-112
1920 BOS-97
1921 PIT-90
1922 PIT-88
1923 PIT-76
1924 PIT-86

Rabbit Maranville was a good player, very comparable to Omar Vizquel. He, like Vizquel, is a great fielder from shortstop, and not much of a hitter except in a few years. He's nowhere near top 10 shortstops.

[leecemark]

-I think Maranville's 1918 season was shortened by WWI, not injury. He was an okay hitter for a SS in his prime and a lousy hitter for anybody later. He was a defensive superstar though. Comparable in fame (greater actually) and impact to Ozzie Smith.

[538280]

Comparable in fame (greater actually) and impact to Ozzie Smith.

Comparable in fame but not really comparable in playing ability. Maraville started off as a pretty good hitter for a SS and then got much worse as he aged (and, ironically, moved away from Braves Field). Ozzie started off as a bad hitter and became a much better one as he aged. Ozzie is a much better player than Maraville, really they're not even close. Like I said, Maranville is more like Omar Vizquel than Ozzie Smith as a player.

[Bill Burgess]

2nd
I CANNOT believe some of the guys you have at SS on your list, yet Rabbit Maranville is nowhere to be found
JT,
I was only responding to Jim (ElHalo) crucifying A-Rod for being such a bland non-real Yankee. It wasn't simply his on-field play, but his bland, milk toast, seldom-get-in-trouble, friction-free, non-controversial persona.

So I selected some players who Jim might have found intolerable. Can't have Gehrig/DiMag, or Collins/Sisler, if you want charismatic loudmouths.

I only thought of Rose/Martin off the top of my skull. Was trying to pick a team of scrappy holler guys. Didn't really give it a 5 seconds of thought.

BB

[538280]

BTW, Potato I actually agree with you on Hines Ward. He's a great receiver, one of the first I'd want on my team if I was starting a football team.

But, I disagree with you on how he compares to Jeter. Football and baseball are such different games. Football has tons of little skills that are probably utterly beyond the reach of the statistics (like blocking for a WR). I play football myself (running back) and I can tell that certain players do things that will never be documented numerically. Like, if I run a fake as a running back, if I run it full out and actually make it look like I have the ball, it tends to freeze the linebackers and make then unsure where the ball is going. Some people don't run out their fakes and it takes away that whole element. Makes the linebackers jobs much easier.

Those are very key parts of football that are ignored in the box score. A team can be very good statistically in football and yet lose games. That is not true in baseball though. Much more of the game in captured in the box score. Statistics show Jeter for what he is-a very good hitting shortstop who can't field. He does, no doubt, have contributions outside the statistics like leadership, but for the most part what he does to contribute to his team on the field is captured statistically. THe same is not true for Ward. Football and baseball are different games.

[Bill Burgess]

Football and baseball are such different games. Football has tons of little skills that are probably utterly beyond the reach of the statistics (like blocking for a WR). Those are very key parts of football that are ignored in the box score. A team can be very good statistically in football and yet lose games. That is not true in baseball though. Much more of the game in captured in the box score. Football and baseball are different games.I would truly like to see Chris the younger and ElHalo, (and anyone else who wants to), compile an itemized list of all the things that you truly believe are not captured by the numbers.

Such as a catcher calling a great game, etc. You know what I mean. Intangibles that count towards the winning of a game, but are so very tough to quantify. Like instilling a winning attitude, or a losing one, like Hal Chase.

Do your best, because I'd really like to see how deep your perception can delve. Did a nice job in your football analogy. Just bring it to BB.

Bill Burgess

[DoubleX]

This is just out of curiosity, but if anyone here is in a Rotisserie Fantasy League, could you tell me how long it takes before Jeter is selected? Like how many players and/or rounds there are before Jeter is taken? I imagine he's probably the 2nd or 3rd SS taken, depending on how people feel about Michael Young. Of course, most leagues don't measure defense and if they do, it only penalizes errors, so it's totally offensive minded, but I'm still curious. Also, if anyone can reflect on the past few years of where Jeter was typically taken in past drafts?

[Ubiquitous]

Derek Jeter is on average the 27th pick in ESPN fantasy leagues. For AL only 16th. I believe he is the second highest drafted SS.

[Bill Burgess]

ElHalo,

What do you respond to my post # 63?

Bill

[ElHalo]

Rabbit Maranville was a good player, very comparable to Omar Vizquel. He, like Vizquel, is a great fielder from shortstop, and not much of a hitter except in a few years. He's nowhere near top 10 shortstops.

I don't really think that's fair. Most people have Ozzie Smith either in or near their top 10, and Maranville is, if anything, just a half step behind Smith in total value.

[ElHalo]

So I selected some players who Jim might have found intolerable. Can't have Gehrig/DiMag, or Collins/Sisler, if you want charismatic loudmouths.

I only thought of Rose/Martin off the top of my skull. Was trying to pick a team of scrappy holler guys. Didn't really give it a 5 seconds of thought.

BB

I did a whole big long post on that, but it got lost.

Suffice it to say that guys like Chase and Rose don't do it for me... they're just scumbags, always out for themselves, with never a care for anybody else. Ruth was always out for himself, but he'd also stop to buy everybody else in the bar a drink, and do charity work with kids. Rose and Chase are just bottom feeders. Put it this way: I don't mind if a guy's got shady friends, but if a guy is willing to sell those friends out to make a buck for himself, that's just beyond the pale of what I'll put up with in a ballplayer. Show up every day hungover if you have to (actually, probably better if you are), but show up every day.

As to the rest, yeah, Gehrig's always been a bit too bland for me to really get into. Pepper Martin is my favorite player of all time. So you could be onto something.

Put it this way: Which movie would you rather see... a movie where a guy is constantly on the edge of violence, partying like a rock star all the time, and always a half step away from an untimely and tragic death... or a movie where a guy gets up and goes to work every day for forty years and nothing of note ever happens to him? I'd assume that 99% of the people would rather pay their money to see the former movie. If you want that in films, why not in entertainers/athletes? Why not in your own personal life?

[Bill Burgess]

If you want that in films, why not in entertainers/athletes? Why not in your own personal life?
It's one thing to have exciting, interesting movie stars carry a movie. But we're talking about playing the best baseball. Some of my guys are exciting, some are bland.

My team: Sisler, Collins, Wagner, Schmidt, Cobb, Speaker, Mays, Ewing are a mixed bag. Every single one was a gentleman at all times except the terrible Tyrus.

But though Sisler, Collins, Wagner, Schmidt, Ewing were exemplary gentlemen, they played an exciting brand of fiery ball. So there could be a dichotomy/polarization of personality/ball playing, if you know what I mean.

The Professor

[538280]

I would truly like to see Chris the younger and ElHalo, (and anyone else who wants to), compile an itemized list of all the things that you truly believe are not captured by the numbers.

Such as a catcher calling a great game, etc. You know what I mean. Intangibles that count towards the winning of a game, but are so very tough to quantify. Like instilling a winning attitude, or a losing one, like Hal Chase.

Do your best, because I'd really like to see how deep your perception can delve. Did a nice job in your football analogy. Just bring it to BB.

Bill Burgess

All right, Bill. I'll try. Things in baseball that aren't captured in the numbers....

Leadership
Smart baserunning
Other contributions to the game (like inventing equipment or a new strategy)
Clutch Performance (even though it isn't a consistent skill, it does make a player more valuable if he does better in the clutch. I still don't think we have perfect numbers on how well players really do in clutch situations)

That's all I can come up with for now. Most of what happens on a baseball field can be measured, in fact almost everything. Football is not the same. That's why potato's analogy between Jeter and Hines Ward didn't do it for me.

[538280]

But though Sisler, Collins, Wagner, Schmidt, Ewing were exemplary gentlemen, they played an exciting brand of fiery ball. So there could be a dichotomy/polarization of personality/ball playing, if you know what I mean.

The Professor

Schmidt wasn't really an "exemplary gentleman". He wasn't a clubhouse cancer or anything, but he also wasn't the kind of guy who'd go out of his way to be nice. I wouldn't say he "played an exciting brand of fiery ball" either. He was kind of unemotional, but not in a bad way really, just wasn't the kind of guy who got real excited. He did his job better than anyone in history.

[Ubiquitous]

Leadership
Smart baserunning
Other contributions to the game (like inventing equipment or a new strategy)
Clutch Performance (even though it isn't a consistent skill, it does make a player more valuable if he does better in the clutch. I still don't think we have perfect numbers on how well players really do in clutch situations)



Why wouldn't smart baserunning show up in the numbers?

Why wouldn't inventing new equipment and new stretegies show up in the stats? IF they are better do they not lead to improved performances?

We know exactly how people do in the clutch. That isn't the debate, the debate is whether that is a skill that can be learned, that it is inherent, it is luck, or it is no different then non-clutch situations. Or some kind of combination of those views.

[ElHalo]

All right, Bill. I'll try. Things in baseball that aren't captured in the numbers....

Leadership
Smart baserunning
Other contributions to the game (like inventing equipment or a new strategy)
Clutch Performance (even though it isn't a consistent skill, it does make a player more valuable if he does better in the clutch. I still don't think we have perfect numbers on how well players really do in clutch situations).

I have one for you.

A few years back, I remember a play that went like this:

Yankees in the field, runner on first base. Hit and run is on. Batter loops a liner to right field. Jeter, covering at second, crouches down like he's accepting a throw from the plate. The runner, not having looked to see if the batter made contact, slid into second, assuming that Jeter was about to take a throw from Posada and apply the tag. In fact, the ball fell in for what could have been a run scoring single or even double, that got past O'Neill, but since the baserunner had slid into second, he didn't have enough time to realize his error, get back up, and run over to third before O'Neill got to the ball.

There's a play by Jeter on a line drive to right field where he never made an out and never even came close to touching the ball... but still unequivocally saved at least a base, and probably a run (can't remember who the runner was, but distinctly remember thinking that he was fast enough to have scored on a ball that bounced all the way to the wall in RF).

Where did that show up in a stat sheet?

[ElHalo]

Why wouldn't smart baserunning show up in the numbers?

Without access to play by play data, it's difficult to tell how often a player goes from first to third or scores from first relative to the rest of the league.

Why wouldn't inventing new equipment and new stretegies show up in the stats? IF they are better do they not lead to improved performances?

If a pitcher invents a new type of pitch, and gets some success out of it, but teaches it to another player who gets wild success out of it... well, player A deserves some of the credit for that, but it won't show up at all in his stat sheet.

We know exactly how people do in the clutch.

We really, really don't, because I have yet to see anybody who's got a definition of "clutch performance" that can be considered a plurality opinion.

[538280]

Why wouldn't smart baserunning show up in the numbers?

Stealing bases does, but smart baserunning really doesn't, unless we have PBP data.

Why wouldn't inventing new equipment and new stretegies show up in the stats? IF they are better do they not lead to improved performances?

They may show a player doing better or playing more games or whatever, but they don't show the invention's impact on the game. For instance, Candy Cummings supposedly invented the curveball. Yeah, he probably did better because of it, and that shows up in the stats, but what doesn't show up is that pitchers have been using that pitch ever since he invented it and its probably made the careers of many pitchers.

We know exactly how people do in the clutch. That isn't the debate, the debate is whether that is a skill that can be learned, that it is inherent, it is luck, or it is no different then non-clutch situations. Or some kind of combination of those views.

We don't know "exactly how players do in the clutch". We know how they do in certain defined situations, but we will never know exactly how they do in the clutch. There are many "clutch" situations which are defined as so. Example-Red Sox vs. Yankees, let's say August. The teams are tied for the divsion lead. David Ortiz comes up in the first inning and hits a home run. That's clutch, obviously. But, will it be counted as clutch by any defined "clutch" situations?

[Pghfan987]

I have not taken time to read all of the posts in this thread yet, but I am sure I will- they are quite interesting. I am in the "Jeter is overrated because his defense is not very good" group. This is no doubt at least partially influenced by my Yankee bias (meaning I don't like the Yankees).

Comparing his offensive numbers to other historical shortstops, they look pretty good. But the problem I have is, he is not a very good defensive SS. When rating the best SSs of all-time, I really think that defense should be at the forefront of our minds. I mean, what if Sammy Sosa played SS (in his prime, and ignoring the steroids issue)? If you gave him a ton of practice, I would think that he could become a non-atrocious SS- not as good as Jeter, but not horrible. Use whatever outfielder/slugger you like. IF Sosa had played SS his whole career and put up sub-par defensive numbers but put up the huge offensive numbers he did, does he suddenly rank in the top 5? Top 3?

It might be a moot point. I know that no one here has made a case for Jeter being a Top 5 overall player, just a Top 5 SS, but nevertheless, when I look at this thread, I can't help but think that there are about 30 players, maybe more, that I would rather have than Jeter that are playing in the Major Leagues right now. If Jeter had played outfield his whole career (like, say, if an above-average SS was playing for the Yankees, who we will call, um....Alexei Rodrigo), and we were comparing Jeter to historical outfielders, the comparison would not be too favorable.

I guess what I am trying to say is, when ranking the best SSs, we should really start with defense as a priority. Among SSs all time, Jeter cracks the Top 10, I believe, but not even really that close to the Top 100 players of all time.

Mark

[DoubleX]

I have not taken time to read all of the posts in this thread yet, but I am sure I will- they are quite interesting. I am in the "Jeter is overrated because his defense is not very good" group. This is no doubt at least partially influenced by my Yankee bias (meaning I don't like the Yankees).

Comparing his offensive numbers to other historical shortstops, they look pretty good. But the problem I have is, he is not a very good defensive SS. When rating the best SSs of all-time, I really think that defense should be at the forefront of our minds. I mean, what if Sammy Sosa played SS (in his prime, and ignoring the steroids issue)? If you gave him a ton of practice, I would think that he could become a non-atrocious SS- not as good as Jeter, but not horrible. Use whatever outfielder/slugger you like. IF Sosa had played SS his whole career and put up sub-par defensive numbers but put up the huge offensive numbers he did, does he suddenly rank in the top 5? Top 3?

It might be a moot point. I know that no one here has made a case for Jeter being a Top 5 overall player, just a Top 5 SS, but nevertheless, when I look at this thread, I can't help but think that there are about 30 players, maybe more, that I would rather have than Jeter that are playing in the Major Leagues right now. If Jeter had played outfield his whole career (like, say, if an above-average SS was playing for the Yankees, who we will call, um....Alexei Rodrigo), and we were comparing Jeter to historical outfielders, the comparison would not be too favorable.

I guess what I am trying to say is, when ranking the best SSs, we should really start with defense as a priority. Among SSs all time, Jeter cracks the Top 10, I believe, but not even really that close to the Top 100 players of all time.

Mark

Nice post, but at the end, are you saying that there are less than 10 SS among the top 100 players of all-time? Are you factoring pitchers into that or just positional players? If it's just position players, each position should have an average of 12.5 players in the top 100, making for a good chance that at least 10 SS would crack the top 100. If you throw pitchers in, then the number drops of course. But, IMO, pitchers and position players shouldn't be ranked together when compiling all-time lists anyway since the comparisons are so different, but I might be in the minority in that view.

[Pghfan987]

I was including pitchers, but I am not sure that Jeter should be included among the top 100 position players, either. It would be close

Why does each position deserve the same number of in the all-time polls? That would probably mean that you would have to declare Derek Jeter to be a better player than Jeff Bagwell, as Jeter would be in the top 10 SSs but Bagwell not in the Top 10 first basemen.

[DoubleX]

I was including pitchers, but I am not sure that Jeter should be included among the top 100 position players, either. It would be close

Why does each position deserve the same number of in the all-time polls? That would probably mean that you would have to declare Derek Jeter to be a better player than Jeff Bagwell, as Jeter would be in the top 10 SSs but Bagwell not in the Top 10 first basemen.

Each position doesn't, but some positions, such as C and 3B will likely have smaller representations in the Top 100, thereby boosting the representation at other positions and making it even more likely that at least 10 SS would make the top 100 positional players. In terms of Jeter, it's probably a moot point as far as I'm concerned because I have Jeter at around 13th all-time at SS, and that's very likely outside my top 100 positional players, but probably not by that much.

[Pghfan987]

Just to clarify, I only have Jeter in the Top 10 assuming that he obtains these hypothetical career numbers. If he his career goes into a nosedive (which I don't think it will), then he would not be in my top ten.

When I think about the Top 100 players of all-time, I usually don't try to have different standards for each position- I just try to think of the best 100 players. I think I would have somewhere around 54 outfielders, 20 first basemen, 8 catchers, 12 TOTAL middle infielders, and 6 third basemen in my top list (just wild numbers off the top of my head, but you get the idea).

Sure, Willie Mays' value goes up because he played excellent defense at an important position, just like Johnny Bench's value does. However, Jeter's defense is not very good, so he gets no "bonus points" for playing an important position- he must be compared to the outfield sluggers. So, in spite of the fact that he plays arguably the most important position, I think that I could come up with 100 players who I would rather pick than Jeter.

Mark

[Blackout]

Just to clarify, I only have Jeter in the Top 10 assuming that he obtains these hypothetical career numbers. If he his career goes into a nosedive (which I don't think it will), then he would not be in my top ten.

When I think about the Top 100 players of all-time, I usually don't try to have different standards for each position- I just try to think of the best 100 players. I think I would have somewhere around 54 outfielders, 20 first basemen, 8 catchers, 12 TOTAL middle infielders, and 6 third basemen in my top list (just wild numbers off the top of my head, but you get the idea).

Sure, Willie Mays' value goes up because he played excellent defense at an important position, just like Johnny Bench's value does. However, Jeter's defense is not very good, so he gets no "bonus points" for playing an important position- he must be compared to the outfield sluggers. So, in spite of the fact that he plays arguably the most important position, I think that I could come up with 100 players who I would rather pick than Jeter.

Mark

for the past few years Jeter has been above average on defense and THE most consistant hitting shortstop

[Pghfan987]

Looking at his career numbers, he is an average defensive shortstop. Looking at his offensive production over his career, I find it very very difficult to call him one of the best 100 offensive producers of all-time. Therefore, I find it difficult to call him one of the Top 100 players of all-time.

[Bill Burgess]

I agree with the smart base running. My hero was famous for taking the extra base. He was actually famous for winning games that way.
And he got no stat credit for that. Might have taken thousands of bases that no one else could have. And got zilch on the stat page.

And his rep was so fierce and unpredictable, he also forced more errors than anyone else. He was famous for it, and again got zero stat credit for it.

When he was the lead runner in a double/triple steal, he'd take the heat, and others advanced on his daring. No stat credit.

And he was also known to sucker base runners into running, or not running by his out-fielding. Pretend he couldn't reach a base, sucker a runner into going, then make the catch and double him up.

Another trick as an out-fielder, he pretend to boot a ball, sucker a runner into running, then grab the ball and throw him out. Stat credit? You guessed it. Zero.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

ElHalo,

So how would the following personnel fare with Manager ElHalo? Would there be room on his bench?

Manager Connie Mack, Sisler, Collins, Lajoie, Matty, Big Train, Spahnie, Maddux, Cy Young.

Bill

[Pghfan987]

for the past few years Jeter has been above average on defense and THE most consistant hitting shortstop

Are you saying that Jeter has been a better hitter than Tejada?? :confused:

I would take Michael Young over Jeter as well.

Mark

[ElHalo]

Are you saying that Jeter has been a better hitter than Tejada?? :confused:

I would take Michael Young over Jeter as well.

Mark

Jeter's two years older than Tejada. Since 2002, Tejada's been the better hitter, but not by that much. Before that, Jeter was far and away better than Tejada. Basically, Jeter is better than Tejada at all aspects of offense other than power hitting.

And Michael Young? Not even close. He had a great year last year playing in an extreme hitter's park, but outside of that has never been close to the hitter Jeter is.

As to the other statement about you ranking Jeter against outfielders because his defense isn't great... that's really not the way to go about it at all. If you took Sammy Sosa (or any other decent defensive corner outfielder) and stuck them at SS, they'd cost you at least a run a game. There's a reason why SS is an important defensive position... not everyone can play it even passably well. Few can. If you've got somebody who can hit decently well and play a passable, but not great, SS, then you've got to factor in the fact that not only is he an above average hitter, but he's keeping a terrible hitter (which most guys who can play SS are) out of the lineup. If what you're saying is true, then all teams would just go out and get the 8 best hitters they could find and stick them out on the field. This would be a losing strategy every time. Just the bare ability to passably play a key defensive position (think Mike Piazza or Rogers Hornsby) is immensely valuable.

[ElHalo]

ElHalo,

So how would the following personnel fare with Manager ElHalo? Would there be room on his bench?

Manager Connie Mack, Sisler, Collins, Lajoie, Matty, Big Train, Spahnie, Maddux, Cy Young.

Bill

Like I said, I did write an incredibly lengthy post on this subject, but lost it when my connection timed out.

Matthewson has, in my mind, the single most impressive feat in all of baseball history (the 1905 WS). As a person, he didn't really fit NY, and probably wouldn't have stuck there if he'd come up twenty years later. I think Cy Young is miscast in this group, as is possibly Lajoie. I massively respect Sisler's game, but I think that he would get a lot more respect from people today if he'd had a lot more fire at the time, and had finished his career in a different way (even if he had come back entirely unable to play and had given up on the game because of it, he'd probably get more respect than he does, with the way he way out in a whimper). I think Mack is really overrated, and, yes, as you said before I'd take McGraw over him in a heartbeat. I hate Maddux with a passion that burns with the fire of a thousand suns. Maybe those are the answers you'd expect.

[DoubleX]

As to the other statement about you ranking Jeter against outfielders because his defense isn't great... that's really not the way to go about it at all. If you took Sammy Sosa (or any other decent defensive corner outfielder) and stuck them at SS, they'd cost you at least a run a game. There's a reason why SS is an important defensive position... not everyone can play it even passably well. Few can. If you've got somebody who can hit decently well and play a passable, but not great, SS, then you've got to factor in the fact that not only is he an above average hitter, but he's keeping a terrible hitter (which most guys who can play SS are) out of the lineup. If what you're saying is true, then all teams would just go out and get the 8 best hitters they could find and stick them out on the field. This would be a losing strategy every time. Just the bare ability to passably play a key defensive position (think Mike Piazza or Rogers Hornsby) is immensely valuable.

I agree. To imply that with some practice a mediocre defensive corner OFer, like Sammy Sosa, could play a passable SS, really underestimates just how difficult and demanding SS is. Not just anyone can play SS, it takes a great deal of skill to even pass as a mediocre defensive SS.

[Imapotato]

I would truly like to see Chris the younger and ElHalo, (and anyone else who wants to), compile an itemized list of all the things that you truly believe are not captured by the numbers.

Such as a catcher calling a great game, etc. You know what I mean. Intangibles that count towards the winning of a game, but are so very tough to quantify. Like instilling a winning attitude, or a losing one, like Hal Chase.

Do your best, because I'd really like to see how deep your perception can delve. Did a nice job in your football analogy. Just bring it to BB.

Bill Burgess


I would but I don't have the time to list all of them, and basically all the human element versus different variables makes it impossible

If he thinks OPS is the sole defining criteria of Rabbit Maranville and that he received MVP votes because older baseball evaluation was akin to opening up ones skulls to let evil spirits out....there is no point

[Pghfan987]

I will keep this very brief, as I recall making Tejada vs. Jeter argument in the past with you which, predictably, went nowhere, as you are a Yankees fan and I am a Yankees hater.

I was talking about the last two years, specifically, as someone made the comment "Jeter's defense has been improving over the last two years and has been the most conistent hitter."

I have said before that Tejada is better than Jeter both offensively and defensively, with Jeter holding the edge only in baserunning. Of course, you hold a different view. We can agree to disagree (or continue debating, as I love to do. The choice is yours ;) .

As for Young, over the last two seasons he has had a higher OPS, more homers, a higher batting average, and a higher slugging pct. Jeter, again, only holds the advantage in baserunning. Young certainly seems to be better right now offensively to me.

Mark

[Imapotato]

Schmidt wasn't really an "exemplary gentleman". He wasn't a clubhouse cancer or anything, but he also wasn't the kind of guy who'd go out of his way to be nice. I wouldn't say he "played an exciting brand of fiery ball" either. He was kind of unemotional, but not in a bad way really, just wasn't the kind of guy who got real excited. He did his job better than anyone in history.


Yet he really didn't win anything until the 'overrated' (by stat standards) Pete Rose got there

Hmmmmm....

[538280]

Yet he really didn't win anything until the 'overrated' (by stat standards) Pete Rose got there

Hmmmmm....

So, Mike Schmidt's no good, huh?

Mike Schmidt is one of the top 10 players to ever play the game IMO, perhaps the most underrated of all time. I could even see a case for him as the greatest player of all time, and here you are questioning his legacy because the Phillies never won anything until they had Rose. Cobb never won anything, I guess he's no good.

And Maranville....If OPS+ doesn't do it for you, then please tell me, how exactly did Maranville's offense "come alive" when he got away from Braves Field? And don't just look at his raw numbers. He moved from Braves Field at the same time league offense was going up.

[DoubleX]

I will keep this very brief, as I recall making Tejada vs. Jeter argument in the past with you which, predictably, went nowhere, as you are a Yankees fan and I am a Yankees hater.

I was talking about the last two years, specifically, as someone made the comment "Jeter's defense has been improving over the last two years and has been the most conistent hitter."

I have said before that Tejada is better than Jeter both offensively and defensively, with Jeter holding the edge only in baserunning. Of course, you hold a different view. We can agree to disagree (or continue debating, as I love to do. The choice is yours ;) .

As for Young, over the last two seasons he has had a higher OPS, more homers, a higher batting average, and a higher slugging pct. Jeter, again, only holds the advantage in baserunning. Young certainly seems to be better right now offensively to me.

Mark

I have to agree with you and say that Tejada is better than Jeter and is the best SS in baseball right now. Michael Young, however, is a different story. If we turn to OPS+, this past season was the first that Young has been higher than Jeter, so there are arguments that Jeter has been the better hitter over the last few years with the exception of one season. Also, as you said, Jeter gets the edge for speed, but he probably also gets the edge on defense over Young as Young is probably worst defensively than Jeter. So until Michael Young can string a few more seasons like last year's together, I'd have to say that Jeter has the overall edge. We shouldn't discount Jhonny Peralta in this discussion either.

[ElHalo]

As for Young, over the last two seasons he has had a higher OPS, more homers, a higher batting average, and a higher slugging pct. Jeter, again, only holds the advantage in baserunning. Young certainly seems to be better right now offensively to me.

Mark

Tejada I disagree with you, though I'm not going to go crazy about it. Reasonable people can disagree.

Michael Young, though...

Take away this past single season of Young's, and his career line is .287/.328/.433, playing in the best hitter's park in the AL. Young has 46 HR in those years in that great hitter's park; Jeter has 42 as a right handed hitter in Yankee Stadium. Young had an unbelievalbe, way above his head season last year. Jeter had a pretty typical season for him. Turn 15 of Young's doubles into outs (admittedly, a lot to ask), and Jeter's season was better than Young's in every facet. And Young is an atrocious defender on top of that. Asking Jeter to repeat his numbers from last year is entirely reasonable; asking Young to do the same, not so much. I don't really see this argument as a winner.

[Pghfan987]

Tejada I disagree with you, though I'm not going to go crazy about it. Reasonable people can disagree.



Absolutely.


Michael Young, though...

Take away this past single season of Young's, and his career line is .287/.328/.433, playing in the best hitter's park in the AL. Young has 46 HR in those years in that great hitter's park; Jeter has 42 as a right handed hitter in Yankee Stadium. Young had an unbelievalbe, way above his head season last year. Jeter had a pretty typical season for him. Turn 15 of Young's doubles into outs (admittedly, a lot to ask), and Jeter's season was better than Young's in every facet. And Young is an atrocious defender on top of that. Asking Jeter to repeat his numbers from last year is entirely reasonable; asking Young to do the same, not so much. I don't really see this argument as a winner.

Again, I was ONLY talking about the past two seasons. I believe that Michael Young is hitting his peak now as a great offensive shortstop. Only time will tell if the last few seasons were flukes or not. His numbers have gone up dramatically across the board the last few years.

2002: .262/.302/.388 9 homers, 62 RBIs
2003: .306/.339/.446 14 homers, 72 RBIs
2004: .313/.353/.483 22 homers, 99 RBIs
2005: .331/.385/.513 24 homers, 91 RBIs

It's not like Young has had some sort of unexplained, random offensive outburst like Brady Anderson. I think he has been legitimately transforming himself into a great offensive shortstop.

Again, I made absolutely no comment about his defensive skills. I was simply refuting someone's statement that Jeter was the most consistent hitting SS over the last few years.

Mark

[ElHalo]

So, Mike Schmidt's no good, huh?.267 is .267 no matter how you slice it.And Maranville....If OPS+ doesn't do it for you, then please tell me, how exactly did Maranville's offense "come alive" when he got away from Braves Field? And don't just look at his raw numbers. He moved from Braves Field at the same time league offense was going up.This actually brings up an ancillary point to me, with an entirely different player.

Take a look at Maranville's four seasons before he went to Pittsburgh. Throw out the 1918 season he missed for military service. He played 142, 131, and 134 games. Then look at his four years in Pittsburgh. He played 153, 155, 141, and 152 games. Then look at his next four years. 75, 78, 9, 112.

This isn't a coincidence. This has nothing to do with injuries.

Starting in 1922 in Pittsburgh, Maranville was playing every day next to Pie Traynor. Rabbit had a raging alcohol problem, that was utterly ruining his career. Then he met Pie. Pie was able to instill in Rabbit (much like he did for many other players) an ability to care more about the game than about the bottle, and the ability to stay on the field instead of in bed. This is why Rabbit flourished in Pittsburgh, and this is why Pie is so much better than his numbers.

I can tell from your posting on him that you really haven't read enough about Rabbit Maranville. You should read up on him; he's a fascinating player, one of my all time favorites. He really was a super-star, in the truest sense of the word, based solely on his defense. I can't think of anybody else like that; Smith is the closest, but Rabbit was twice as famous in his day as Smith ever was in his.

And before anybody brings up how I'm giving a pass to Rabbit's .258 but not to Schmidt's .267: That's because nobody is trying to argue Rabbit as one of the top 10 (or even 50) players of all time, and rightly not. Somehow, people seem to have the idea that this type of behaviour is acceptable when discussing Mike Schmidt.

[Pghfan987]

.267 is .267 no matter how you slice it.This actually brings up an ancillary point to me, with an entirely different player.

Take a look at Maranville's four seasons before he went to Pittsburgh. Throw out the 1918 season he missed for military service. He played 142, 131, and 134 games. Then look at his four years in Pittsburgh. He played 153, 155, 141, and 152 games. Then look at his next four years. 75, 78, 9, 112.

This isn't a coincidence. This has nothing to do with injuries.

Starting in 1922 in Pittsburgh, Maranville was playing every day next to Pie Traynor. Rabbit had a raging alcohol problem, that was utterly ruining his career. Then he met Pie. Pie was able to instill in Rabbit (much like he did for many other players) an ability to care more about the game than about the bottle, and the ability to stay on the field instead of in bed. This is why Rabbit flourished in Pittsburgh, and this is why Pie is so much better than his numbers.

I can tell from your posting on him that you really haven't read enough about Rabbit Maranville. You should read up on him; he's a fascinating player, one of my all time favorites. He really was a super-star, in the truest sense of the word, based solely on his defense. I can't think of anybody else like that; Smith is the closest, but Rabbit was twice as famous in his day as Smith ever was in his.

And before anybody brings up how I'm giving a pass to Rabbit's .258 but not to Schmidt's .267: That's because nobody is trying to argue Rabbit as one of the top 10 (or even 50) players of all time, and rightly not. Somehow, people seem to have the idea that this type of behaviour is acceptable when discussing Mike Schmidt.

What does "ancillary" mean? :confused: :D

[ElHalo]

Absolutely.



Again, I was ONLY talking about the past two seasons. I believe that Michael Young is hitting his peak now as a great offensive shortstop. Only time will tell if the last few seasons were flukes or not. His numbers have gone up dramatically across the board the last few years.

2002: .262/.302/.388 9 homers, 62 RBIs
2003: .306/.339/.446 14 homers, 72 RBIs
2004: .313/.353/.483 22 homers, 99 RBIs
2005: .331/.385/.513 24 homers, 91 RBIs


Hate the stat, but... in that same time:

OPS+:

Young:
2002: 74
2003: 98
2004: 106
2005: 133

Up every year, which is certainly impressive, though unlikely to continue.

Jeter:
2002: 113
2003: 127
2004: 116
2005: 121

I'll go with my guy, you can have yours.

[ElHalo]

What does "ancillary" mean? :confused: :D

Ancillary:
adj.
1. Of secondary importance: “For Degas, sculpture was never more than ancillary to his painting” (Herbert Read).

[Blackout]

I will keep this very brief, as I recall making Tejada vs. Jeter argument in the past with you which, predictably, went nowhere, as you are a Yankees fan and I am a Yankees hater.

I was talking about the last two years, specifically, as someone made the comment "Jeter's defense has been improving over the last two years and has been the most conistent hitter."

I have said before that Tejada is better than Jeter both offensively and defensively, with Jeter holding the edge only in baserunning. Of course, you hold a different view. We can agree to disagree (or continue debating, as I love to do. The choice is yours ;) .

As for Young, over the last two seasons he has had a higher OPS, more homers, a higher batting average, and a higher slugging pct. Jeter, again, only holds the advantage in baserunning. Young certainly seems to be better right now offensively to me.

Mark


look where Young plays, its no surprise his raw stats would be higher than Jeters

talent wise however, Jeter wins the edge over Young in my book

[csh19792001]

Mike Schmidt is one of the top 10 players to ever play the game IMO, perhaps the most underrated of all time. I could even see a case for him as the greatest player of all time.

I'm just wondering:

A) Did El Halo miss this?

and

B) If not, why hasn't he flipped out about it yet? :lookitup

[Ubiquitous]

Where did that show up in a stat sheet?

Single to right, baserunner advances one base. Look at all data find out the average baserunner with a single advances two bases. Find out that runner or that style of runner on averages advances three bases. Find out on liners to right average runner takes two bases.

[DoubleX]

Michael Young's last few years remind me a lot of Rich Aurilia at around the same age, but then Aurilia pretty much dropped off the face of the map. Here's a comparison:

Aurilia
Age 27: .281, 22, 80, .780 OPS, 106 OPS+
Age 28: .271, 20, 79, .783 OPS, 104 OPS+
Age 29: .324, 37, 97, .941 OPS, 148 OPS+

Young
Age 26: .306, 14, 72, .785 OPS, 98 OPS+
Age 27: .313, 22, 99, .836 OPS, 106 OPS+
Age 28: .331, 24, 91, .899 OPS, 133 OPS+

This is what Aurilia did in the following three seasons:

Age 30: .257, 15, 61, .718 OPS, 95 OPS+
Age 31: .277, 13, 58, .735 OPS, 91 OPS+
Age 32: .246, 6, 44, .667 OPS, 80 OPS+

I think Young is better than Aurilia was, but it's not a given that Young will continue to develop.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm just wondering:

A) Did El Halo miss this?

and

B) If not, why hasn't he flipped out about it yet? :lookitup

:crazy Wondering the same thing :laugh "See a case?" How far off in the distance is that case...are you in a desert? It that case a mirage?

[ElHalo]

Single to right, baserunner advances one base. Look at all data find out the average baserunner with a single advances two bases. Find out that runner or that style of runner on averages advances three bases. Find out on liners to right average runner takes two bases.

You're right, although that's assuming that you've got play by play data. Now, tell me, where is the SS going to get credit for a play where the ball was hit to the right fielder who threw with no play to the third baseman?

[ElHalo]

I'm just wondering:

A) Did El Halo miss this?

and

B) If not, why hasn't he flipped out about it yet? :lookitup

I made my comment on it; no need to turn yet another thread into that kind of debate. And this particular claim is so outrageuous that I really don't need to make any argument on it. I like Pie Traynor more than most people, but if you ever hear me claim that he was the greatest player ever, feel free to just ignore it.

[DoubleX]

Hate the stat, but... in that same time:

OPS+:

Young:
2002: 74
2003: 98
2004: 106
2005: 133

Up every year, which is certainly impressive, though unlikely to continue.

Jeter:
2002: 113
2003: 127
2004: 116
2005: 121

I'll go with my guy, you can have yours.

Going back to 1996 for Jeter:

1996: 101
1997: 104
1998: 126
1999: 161
2000: 123
2001: 125
2002: 113
2003: 127
2004: 116
2005: 121

[Pghfan987]

Not sure how Jeter's numbers in 1996 help the case that makes him the better player than Michael Young right NOW. A better career, yes, but not better right now. I was not even suggesting that Michael Young will be known as having a better career, only that Michael Young is better than Jeter offensively right now.

Mark

[Ubiquitous]

This is a reply to both ElHalo and 538280 who basically responded the same way.


Stealing bases does, but smart baserunning really doesn't, unless we have PBP data.

We do have access to PbP data so this isn't an issue, on top of that the actual big boys in the statistical department have access to much much more data then we do. So smart baserunning for both the armchair stat-head and the professional statistician will show up.


They may show a player doing better or playing more games or whatever, but they don't show the invention's impact on the game. For instance, Candy Cummings supposedly invented the curveball. Yeah, he probably did better because of it, and that shows up in the stats, but what doesn't show up is that pitchers have been using that pitch ever since he invented it and its probably made the careers of many pitchers.
credit for historical firsts have really nothing to do with actually playing the game, nor really in deciding who is better. At least for me, is Bruce Sutter better then Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera because he was the first to use the split-finger fastball? But even putting that all aside it will still show up in stats, in terms of league quality examinations.


We don't know "exactly how players do in the clutch". We know how they do in certain defined situations, but we will never know exactly how they do in the clutch. There are many "clutch" situations which are defined as so. Example-Red Sox vs. Yankees, let's say August. The teams are tied for the division lead. David Ortiz comes up in the first inning and hits a home run. That's clutch, obviously. But, will it be counted as clutch by any defined "clutch" situations?

this is basically arguing semantics, you and ElHalo. you guys say the stats don't show how players do in the clutch because we can't come to a consensus on what is clutch, but that is not the point. Thats like arguing that the boat floating in the harbor isn't floating because we can't decide whether to call it a ship, a boat, a dingy, or a vessel. It doesn't matter what we call it, it floats. Same with clutch hitting, clutch hitting is success or failure in a certain situation. Well every single hitting event is captured by stats. Its not like there is some black hole when the 9th inning pops up and nobody knows what happened. Define clutch hitting anyway you want the information will be there. There is no scenario one can think of in baseball in terms of batter-pitcher that is not in the data.

[ElHalo]

Not sure how Jeter's numbers in 1996 help the case that makes him the better player than Michael Young right NOW. A better career, yes, but not better right now. I was not even suggesting that Michael Young will be known as having a better career, only that Michael Young is better than Jeter offensively right now.

Mark

I think you can say Michael Young was better offensively than Jeter last season without any argument. Beyond that, whether prospectively or retrospectively, is stretching things.

[Ubiquitous]

I agree with the smart base running. My hero was famous for taking the extra base. He was actually famous for winning games that way.
And he got no stat credit for that. Might have taken thousands of bases that no one else could have. And got zilch on the stat page.

And his rep was so fierce and unpredictable, he also forced more errors than anyone else. He was famous for it, and again got zero stat credit for it.

When he was the lead runner in a double/triple steal, he'd take the heat, and others advanced on his daring. No stat credit.

And he was also known to sucker base runners into running, or not running by his out-fielding. Pretend he couldn't reach a base, sucker a runner into going, then make the catch and double him up.

Another trick as an out-fielder, he pretend to boot a ball, sucker a runner into running, then grab the ball and throw him out. Stat credit? You guessed it. Zero.

Bill


I think you are looking at this wrong, you are looking at it too conventionally. He got zero credit in the stats for this because nobody cared. What I mean by that was nobody thought to write any of this down. which is why we don't have strikeouts, sacrifices, or CS for a good chunk of history. But again this stuff isn't impossible to track and they do track it now. Nor is the information lost to the ages for even Cobbs time. They're rebuilding it as we speak.

[Ubiquitous]

Yet he really didn't win anything until the 'overrated' (by stat standards) Pete Rose got there

Hmmmmm....

I guess 3 NL East titles in a row for a franchise who never in their enitire history before that every won two titles in a row, let alone 2 titles in a 25 year span could be considered not really winning anything. Nor having the only seasons in which their franchise won more then 100 games be considered winning anything.

[Ubiquitous]

You're right, although that's assuming that you've got play by play data. Now, tell me, where is the SS going to get credit for a play where the ball was hit to the right fielder who threw with no play to the third baseman?

You or me looking in a box score? No we are not going to find it. But a guy getting paid to track plays he is going to mark it down. Something like: Jeter at second, deke. We already have a taste of that on Retrosheet where they have begun to show things on their PbP data besides single, double, and so forth.


There is this view and again I think its conventional thinking at hand that because we don't have it now or we ourselves don't see it therefore its impossible to do. It isn't. You see Jeter fakeout the runner and keeping the runner at second, why can't you mark that down? There is no elemental or heavenly force preventing one to do so. If you see something happen on the field then it can be tracked, and rather easily in this day and age

[Bill Burgess]

I think you are looking at this wrong, you are looking at it too conventionally. He got zero credit in the stats for this because nobody cared. What I mean by that was nobody thought to write any of this down. which is why we don't have strikeouts, sacrifices, or CS for a good chunk of history. But again this stuff isn't impossible to track and they do track it now. Nor is the information lost to the ages for even Cobbs time. They're rebuilding it as we speak.

ubi,

While you are right, of course, in the main, there were so exceptions to that rule.

While most of the baseball culure hadn't evolved to where they saw the need for better record keeping, some visionaries existed. Ernie Lanigan, Branch Rickey, and other existed. Why those who mattered didn't understand the need for more comprehensive data maintenance is a frustration that never goes away. And yes, Retrosheet is doing the "impossible".

Here is an article of some Detroit sports writers who lamented the lack of better record keeping.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=296314&postcount=9

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

I massively respect Sisler's game, but I think that he would get a lot more respect from people today if he'd had a lot more fire at the time, and had finished his career in a different way (even if he had come back entirely unable to play and had given up on the game because of it, he'd probably get more respect than he does, with the way he way out in a whimper).
Here is a story you may or may not be impressed with about Sisler. There are so few stories on him.

One day, a pitcher got on his butt, and challenged his trying his best to win. Sizz took it as an insult to his integrity. He heard the insult, in front of the whole team. He turned white with rage. He clinched his jaw, his fists. He slowly got up from his seat, walked down to where the pitcher sat, and took him out with one punch. Just cold-cocked him unconscious. Then he went back to his seat and sat down, his point having been made.

Does that qualify him to play in the Big Apple?

Bill

[ElHalo]

Here is a story you may or may not be impressed with about Sisler. There are so few stories on him.

One day, a pitcher got on his butt, and challenged his trying his best to win. Sizz took it as an insult to his integrity. He heard the insult, in front of the whole team. He turned white with rage. He clinched his jaw, his fists. He slowly got up from his seat, walked down to where the pitcher sat, and took him out with one punch. Just cold-cocked him unconscious. Then he went back to his seat and sat down, his point having been made.

Does that qualify him to play in the Big Apple?

Bill

This is certainly the type of thing you look for in a player.

It's the reason why Paullie O, who everybody laughed at when he'd break things in the dugout after striking out, or practice his swing in the outfield, is one of the most beloved former Yankees we have. He wasn't necessarily a wild man off the field (nothing to rival the likes of Wells or Jeter), but we loved him for it nonetheless.

[Imapotato]

I guess 3 NL East titles in a row for a franchise who never in their enitire history before that every won two titles in a row, let alone 2 titles in a 25 year span could be considered not really winning anything. Nor having the only seasons in which their franchise won more then 100 games be considered winning anything.


How many WS appearances with Rose, how many without?

The GREATEST 3rd baseman of all time should have had more if he was so above and beyond other 3rd basemen, huh?

As for 53280 ludicrous statement that Cobb was no good because he never won a WS, he went to 3 straight...on his and Sam Crawford's back...in a PITCHING ERA! Cobb had less talent then Schmidt ever had around him

Schmidt was a specific player...walk, K or HR with overrated defense...he was good, not great, don't care what new sabermetrics say...I watched the man play

Schmidt needed Rose, more then Rose needed Schmidt

[Ubiquitous]

1976 NLCS Reds score 6.33 runs a game
1977 NLCS Dodgers score 6 runs a game.
1978 NLCS Dodgers score 5.25 runs a game

1980 NLCS Houston scores 3.8 runs a game
1980 WS Royals scores 3.8 rusn a game

1981 NLDS Expos score 3.2 runs a game

1983 NLCS Dodgers score 2 runs a game
1983 WS Orioles score 3.6 runs a game

Looks to me like Schmidt needed a pitching staff that could do the job more then he needed Rose.

[Ubiquitous]

There is this view and again I think its conventional thinking at hand that because we don't have it now or we ourselves don't see it therefore its impossible to do. It isn't. You see Jeter fakeout the runner and keeping the runner at second, why can't you mark that down? There is no elemental or heavenly force preventing one to do so. If you see something happen on the field then it can be tracked, and rather easily in this day and age


Speak of the devil:


...he has fifty unfinished books calling out to him, currently ranging from five to a few hundred pages in length, detailing the more than 150 new statistics he has devised but still hasn’t found the time to write about. Until then, the next Win Shares (James’s unified theory of a player’s total contribution to his team’s victories) and Runs Created (a formula for quantifying a player’s contribution to the runs his team scores) will remain locked away in his overloaded hard drive, a dream cache for seamheads.

He’s close to unveiling the Good Fielding Play, or GFP, a sort of anti-error that [counts the number of outstanding defensive plays from a particular fielder. (Carlos Delgado, never ranked among the best fielding first basemen, has scored surprisingly high.) But perhaps more interesting is the Hustle Factor, not so much in what it quantifies—the number of times a player really, truly gives something like 110 percent, such as a catcher’s running to cover first base on a double play—but in how James is quantifying it. Nothing in his beloved box scores will tell him whether a putout, an assist, or even a triple was the product of a player’s heart. Instead, he’s had to watch a season’s worth of games to find those flashes of determination. In the process, he’s turned what was once intangible into just another sum (and gained a newfound respect for the otherwise unremarkable outfielder Coco Crisp)...

[DoubleX]

I thought I'd revisit this conversation given the year Jeter has had this year. This year might be the finest of his career, especially considering that he defense is much improved now compared to how he played in the late 90s. Jeter is a very legitimate MVP candidate this year (especially considering the injuries to the Yankees and the overstated struggles of a certain star), and should finish the season with a .340-.350 BA, 15 HR, 100-105 RBI, 30-35 SB, 220 hits, 110-115 runs, 0.900-0.920 OPS. He's zoomed past 2000 hits this year, and should finish the season around 2150.

So my question is, after this season, which is probably all around better than most predicted Jeter had left in him, has your take on Jeter's all-time standing, or projecting all-time standing, changed?

At this point, Jeter's all-time ranking to me at SS could be as high as 9th, but as low as 13th. I have him in a group with Joe Cronin, Alan Trammell, Ozzie Smith, and George Davis. So I'll split the difference and say that after this season, I have Jeter at 11th all time at SS and most likely rising. In terms of projected all-time ranking at SS for when his career is over, I can see him getting as high as 4th, but the 5-8 range seems more likely.

[Blackout]

My slate of candidates for Top 20 Shortstops. I also value defense more than offense at this position, as well as catcher.

1. Honus Wagner - 1897-1917. Need I explain? Best hitter, fielder, runner in league from 1900-10. 2nd best player ever. 'Nuff said.

2. John Henry "Pop" Lloyd - 1906-32. Greatest SS ever produced by Negro L. Happily, He hit tremendously also. Wagner said that it was a compliment to be compared to "The black Wagner". Decorative ornament to ANY league.

3. Alex Rodriguez - 1994-present. Even though only 8 full seasons at SS, he is the quality of Bench, Schmidt at his position. Yanks erred in keeping Jeter at SS. Like Schmidt, Bench before him, re-defined his position offensively.

As monster as his stats are, I must remember that Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Griffey were going berserko as well. Era might go down as most inflated ever, PLUS shrunken strike zone.

4. Ernie Banks - 1953-71. First showed that a slim guy with whiplash bat speed could slug good. Mr. Cubbie was loved at Wrigley long time. Switched to 1st.

5. Arky Vaughan - 1932-43, '47-48. Hit very well in high-offensive era. Best of Cronin/Boudreau.

6. Joe Cronin - 1926-45. Average glove, good bat. Added last 6 to balance the glove guys.

7. Herman Long - 1889-1903. All time glove. Scored lots of runs in his peak, hit well 1894-97.

8. Hughie Jennings - 1891-1902. Star defender, but weak arm. Played shallow field. During his peak, with Orioles, hit .335, .388, .401, .355. .328. Became lawyer, manager. Even with historical adjustment, he's impressive.

9. Barry Larkin - 1986-2004. Nice glove/bat combo. 12 All-Star games, 3 GG, 9 Silver Sluggers, I MVP; 5 Top 10 SB, 3 Top 10 BB, 4 Top 10 BA., 2 Top 10 SLG., 2 Top 10 OPS+.

10. Willie Wells - 1924-49. 2nd greatest Negro Leaguer. Hit for lots of power. He also played 2nd, 3rd, pitched and managed.

11. Bobby Wallace - 1894-1916. Defense on par with Wagner. Hit .268 BA. career, but hit BA. .335 in 1897 and .324 in '01. Mostly glove. Would have liked more bat.

12. Luke Appling - 1930-50. Won 2 BA titles, 1 OBP title, great glove.

13. George Davis - 1890-09. Good bat, fine glove over long time. Had a TPR of 6.2 in '99 and 4.1 in '05. Led league both yrs. Rare for SS.

14. Glenn Wright - 1924-35. Best defensive glove man, after Wagner/Wallace. Hit adequate for his era.

Traynor/Wright, 1924-28, formed the tightest left-side of the diamond since Wagner/T.Leach. Traynor/Wright were constantly lauded as the tightest duo seen in many years, perhaps ever. They stood to post for the Pirates from '24-28. And while they stood guard, they formed a solid, stone wall. Wright was constantly compared to Wagner defensively by all the veterans of the Pirates organization. And while they played together, they conferred onto each other a "shared Halo" of fame/greatness.

15. Cal Ripken, Jr. - The streak, longevity, character; 1st couple of yrs. hit very well. Although his bat cooled, he still won 3 Win Shares titles, and 4 Total Player Rating titles from Total Baseball. Steady, reliable quality stamped Cal as major asset to any team.

16. Ossie Smith - 1978-96. Best-known modern D. man. Career BA. .262, hit .303 once. Terrible bat.

17. Luis Aparicio - 1956-73. Slick glove, great DP combo with Fox. Led league in SB from '56-64.

18. George McBride - 1905-06, '08-20. Deluxe defense.

19. Derek Jeter - 1995-present. Nice blend of bat/glove. Yankee bounce. Up for clutches. 2004 GG.

20. Alan Trammell - 1977-96. Hit well long time. Longevity case.

21. Robin Yount - 1974-93. Same as Trammell.

22. Monte Ward - (1878-1883, pitcher)(1884-1892, SS) Former fantastic pitcher, star runner, good glove, great leader/Mgr. Hit .275 BA career, but still managed .338 in 1887, .335 in '90, and .328 in '93

23. Omar Vizquel - 1989-present - All-Time great glove, 10 GGs, led league in sacrifice hits 4 times, 3 all star teams, hit .333 in 1999, 342 SB, career .274, .341, .358.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all the guys here, I probably have the most extreme balance between offense/defense. But at SS/C I have always been more willing to sacrifice offense for defense. But I didn't include either Rabbit Maranville or Marty Marion, who contributed no offense.

Bill Burgess


Has Jeter's 2006 been enough to move him above the immortal George McBride?

[Bill Burgess]

Ha ha. It just might. We'll see. Time will tell.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I like Jeter, and I place him in the top 10. I think he'll max out at the top 5, if he gets over 3,000 hits.

I don't see Jeter as rating ahead of Wagner, A-Rod, or Vaughn. If he has a long career, I can see him passing Ripken and a few others. He's got a 50-50 shot at finishing in the top 5.

[john1972]

Has Jeter's 2006 been enough to move him above the immortal George McBride?

LOL. I just referenced George McBride's stats. Am I missing something because it almost looks like he was a bench player.

[brett]

First off, I am not a Jeter hater. I like him and am interested to see where his career stats end up.

I have Jeter at +38 offensive game equivalents through last year. That would put him dead even with Ripken as a career offensive player. If he were an average defensive player at a mid level position he would not be a hall of famer if he retired today.

In addition to offensive game equivalents, SSs get two potential bonuses in my system. One is the degree to which they enhance their lineup by playing a more difficult position. If the Yankees had to replace him with an average offensive SS, and put him somewhere else (typically I assume about half time at RF and 1/2 time at 3B, 2B or CF) they would lose a hitter at the postion he moved to who was better than the one who replaced him at SS. This might come out to about +40 game equivalents for Jeter (a typical offensive CFielder is worth about +2 game equivalents and SS worth about -2.

The final adjustment is for his defense at his position versus the average. The defensive stats presented, if any good, suggest that he is about -20 game equivalents for his position.

Add it up +38+40-20=+58. Therefore he is a hall of famer now by a slim margin (plus post season bonus of some amount).

Ripken, in contrast, who is also +38 offensive game equivalents would be about +55 for lineup enhancement, and rates a plus for relative defense as well, of perhaps 1 game per season at SS (about 15) so he is about +108 for his career.

I have to ballpark the defensive values. I'm just saying that a SS of each of their levels could, in theory, be worth that many games versus average.

If Jeter could almost double his career as of the end of '05, he could surpass Ripken, but personally I think he is on the way down right now. I would not be suprised to see him have a big dropoff even next year.

Wagner, by the way is about +210 or so.

[EvanAparra]

If his hasn't peaked yet and can throw together some more great all-around seasons, he can get inbetween projected A-rod and Honus/Pop Lloyd

If he has peaked, he'll finish below projected A-rod, Honus, Pop Lloyd (my current #1) and possibly Arky Vaugn and Ernie Banks.


A-rod is projected to finish #1 in my opinion

Jeter right now is in my top 10, but not top 5

How is a-rod going to move up to #1 when he doesnt play the position anymore?

[Mariano_Rivera]

How is a-rod going to move up to #1 when he doesnt play the position anymore?
I think he means people that have played a significant portion of their career at SS. I solve this problem by ranking them by groups like all-time left side of the infielders, right side of the infielders, outfielders and catchers.

That said it's tough to project A-Rod over Wagner or below or tied. A-Rod has had the best career up to age 30 of any SS/3B. That said Wagner had the greatest late-career surge in history (or at least one of the best). So it's tough to say how he projects. Jeter is very interesting. He has very little power in a powerful era. He rarely strikes out and hits for a high average in a low average and high SO era. He's a mediocore fielder who was a horrible fielder before and who has a reputation for being a fantastic fielder. he has a great clutch reputation which is basically meaningless and even innaccurate. jeter is a very good player but an all-time player? Not even in the top 20, now why is he playing SS when IMO A-Rod projects to be at LEAST the 3rd greatest player of all time. I haven`t gone past the top 10 players of all-time but I know for a fact that their are 20 better players than Derek jeter in history.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

1. Honus Wagner
2. Arky Vaughan
3. Cal Ripken Jr.
4. Robin Yount
5. A Rod
6. Barry Larkin
7. Derek Jeter
8. Ozzie Smith
9. Joe Cronin
10. Alan Trammell

Can't really see anyone moving up or down the list, unless A-Rod goes back to his natural position at SS.

[538280]

Ha ha. It just might. We'll see. Time will tell.

Bill, I was taken aback by that list. George McBride ahead of Robin Yount and Alan Trammell? Glenn Wright ahead of those two and Cal Ripken? That list is completely ludicrous, Bill. There are a ton more like that I could state as well.

And Robin Yount and Trammell as "longevity cases"? :confused:

[DoubleX]

Bill, I was taken aback by that list. George McBride ahead of Robin Yount and Alan Trammell? Glenn Wright ahead of those two and Cal Ripken? That list is completely ludicrous, Bill. There are a ton more like that I could state as well.

And Robin Yount and Trammell as "longevity cases"? :confused:

In Bill's defense, I called him on that list a while back, especially George McBride. I think Bill's primary concern (and please correct me if I'm wrong Bill) was just to mention some players that history has largely overlooked.

[538280]

In Bill's defense, I called him on that list a while back, especially George McBride. I think Bill's primary concern (and please correct me if I'm wrong Bill) was just to mention some players that history has largely overlooked.

Then why not list a guy like Jim Fregosi, or Tony Fernandez, or Vern Stephens, or Bill Dahlen, or Jack Glasscock, or Dobie Moore among Negro Leaguers, or guys who actually have somewhat of a case to be up there? I just don't see how on earth you can say George McBride is anywhere near as high as Bill has him.

Also, if Bill wants to do that, why is he listing him as a part of his real rankings? Wouldn't it be better to just list them at the end or something with a few notes about them?

And what on earth is up with Robin Yount that low, and how can you call him a longevity case?

Where is Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese?

And Herman Long, Bobby Wallace higher than Ripken, Yount? I could literally go on and on here, even past McBride.

I don't want to sound so critical here, but I'm really taken aback by this list.

[AstrosFan]

Ah, lighten up. Lists are personal, and they don't mean a thing. No sense in worrying about it.

[Bill Burgess]

Also, if Bill wants to do that, why is he listing him as a part of his real rankings? Wouldn't it be better to just list them at the end or something with a few notes about them?
I included George McBride for his glove. I think of him like catcher Bill Bergen. Both were able to stick around the big time only because of their gloves, because they sure couldn't hit a lick.

Here is a quote from the Walter Johnson bio, by his grandson.

"Also new to Washington is 1908 was George McBride, another well-traveled National League and minor-league veteran who had played briefly with Milwaukee in the first American league season of 1901. With the Nationals he found a home, taking over at shortstop for the next dozen years. The gentlemanly, dependable (150 or more games for the next seven seasons) McBride was a wizard at the position, and with Street behind the plate and the fleet Milan patrolling center field Washington was now rock solid up the middle, a situation to gladden the heart of any pitcher. Unfortunately, until Milan blossomed at the plate several years hence none of them provided much offensive support. McBride still holds the record for lowest career batting (.218)and slugging (.264) averages of any player with more than 5,000 at-bats. Street, with his .208 lifetime average and grand total of two home runs in an eight-year career, avoided the distinction only by not playing as much. (Walter Johnson: Baseball's Big Train, by Henry W. Thomas, 191995, pp. 56.)

I was trying to find good gloves at SS, but I agree that George is not the right example. I will remove him from the list.

[Appling]

So my question is, after this season, which is probably all around better than most predicted Jeter had left in him, has your take on Jeter's all-time standing, or projecting all-time standing, changed?


I agree that Jeter is having a fine year -- but no better than I would expect of A-Rod if Alex were allowed to continue at his normal position of shortstop.

I also don't understand the NYY fans -- they seem very forgiving of a few bad plays by their "home grown" players -- lifelong Yankees like DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Bernie Williams or Derek Jeter -- but expect only perfection of the Steinbrenner inports (like A-Rod, or Dave Winfield and Chuck Knoblach before him).

[DoubleX]

I agree that Jeter is having a fine year -- but no better than I would expect of A-Rod if Alex were allowed to continue at his normal position of shortstop.

I also don't understand the NYY fans -- they seem very forgiving of a few bad plays by their "home grown" players -- lifelong Yankees like DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Bernie Williams or Derek Jeter -- but expect only perfection of the Steinbrenner inports (like A-Rod, or Dave Winfield and Chuck Knoblach before him).

That's all true, but A-Rod's ranking isn't the question here as I believe most already have A-Rod ranked higher than Jeter all time at SS, and that should likely not change.

[Windy City Fan]

With those numbers, Jeter is probably top ten material. His defense is too weak to crack the top 5 for me. As to XX's theory that Jeter's defense may be better in his 30's than in his 20's, I think its unlikely. His defensive peak may be in his 30's, but most shortstops experience a steep defensive decline in their mid to late thirties. Many of the all time greats were moved to other positions for this reason: Banks, Ripken, and Yount are 3 prime examples. I think eventually Jeter will join this group and be moved.

Anyway, for me with Jeter's hypothetical stats, the rankings would look like this:

Wagner
Vaughan
A-Rod (Though depending on how his career plays out, he could move ahead of Honus for me, and almost certainly will surpass Vaughan)
Larkin
Ripken
Smith
Yount
Jeter
Banks
Appling
Davis

Jeter could move as high as fifth depending on how is OPS+ and other relative stats look, not to mention how his defense pans out, but he's definately not passing up Ripken or the guys ahead of him.

[Blackout]

I agree that Jeter is having a fine year -- but no better than I would expect of A-Rod if Alex were allowed to continue at his normal position of shortstop.

I also don't understand the NYY fans -- they seem very forgiving of a few bad plays by their "home grown" players -- lifelong Yankees like DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Bernie Williams or Derek Jeter -- but expect only perfection of the Steinbrenner inports (like A-Rod, or Dave Winfield and Chuck Knoblach before him).

what about Babe Ruth and losing the 1926 world series? he wasn't home grown

[Sockeye]

IF he reaches those numbers he'll be top 3

[four tool]

Rizzuto brought more champoinships to the Bronx than Jeter, so by your argument, Philis better than Derek.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I would say it would go something like this for my all time SS:

1. Alex Rodriguez (YES even if he never plays SS again)
2. Honus Wagner
3. Derek Jeter
4. Cal Ripken Jr.
5. Pop Lloyd


If Jeter gets those numbers he's head and shoulders above guys like Yount (who played CF alot, so if A-Rod's numbers at SS aren't good enough for the best how are Yount's numbers at SS good enough to beat out Jeter?), The Wizard of Oz, Ernie Banks, and Barry Larkin. Not so much above Cal Ripken Jr. but if he hits those projections he still edges him out for his early career dramatics.