Second best shortstop?

[Notassmartasithought]

So ESPN has a story claiming that Derek Jeter is the 2nd best shortstop of all time, behind Honus Wagner. But you've got to pay to disagree. So here, on a free site, I say Cal Ripken. Fabulous fielder, won a home run derby, very good lifetime average, more home runs than any shortstop (if I l remember correctly). great lockerroom leader, oh, and by the way played more games in a row than any one. Cal may, in fact, be a greater player than the great Wagner.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Alex Rodriguez seems to me to be a very obvious choice.

Then Arky Vaughan.

[Notassmartasithought]

Had Arod spent his career at SS then he might have a claim. (I know, Cal spent half a season at third. So what? It's not several seasons.) And Arky? Look at the stats. He's great, but he didn't beat Lou.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I don't understand what you just said.

Edit - oh, wait. He didn't beat Gehrig's record. That's not really a stat, now, is it?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I don't understand what you just said.

Edit - oh, wait. He didn't beat Gehrig's record. That's not really a stat, now, is it?

He disagrees.

[Marley23]

So ESPN has a story claiming that Derek Jeter is the 2nd best shortstop of all time, behind Honus Wagner. But you've got to pay to disagree. So here, on a free site, I say Cal Ripken.
He did help to change the position, but the second best shortstop ever? Or first? I don't see it.

won a home run derby
So did Garrett Anderson.

very good lifetime average
.276? He did have a very long career and his average came down at the end, but that's not so special. It's 40 points behind Jeter. Jeter is also better at getting on base and his on base plus slugging is also significantly better. Granted Ripken was more of a power hitter (he played about 900 more games than Jeter and has 120 more homers) and Jeter's fielding was subpar until recently - but I don't really know how good Ripken was.

more home runs than any shortstop (if I l remember correctly)
You do. Ripken does have the career shortstop home run record with 345. Alex Rodriguez probably would have smashed this record four years ago, though. And Jeter has more career hits than any shortstop.

great lockerroom leader
Jeter isn't? He also has four more World Series titles than Ripken does and he's likely to play another five years or more.

oh, and by the way played more games in a row than any one.
This is a legendary achievement but doesn't make him a great player on its own. In fact I wonder sometimes if he would have played better had he taken a game off now and then.

Cal may, in fact, be a greater player than the great Wagner.
How do you figure, other than homerism? Wagner's batting average is 50 points higher, he got on base more, he scored more runs in fewer games in a lower scoring era... and I don't even know much about the guy.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

.276? He did have a very long career and his average came down at the end, but that's not so special. It's 40 points behind Jeter. Jeter is also better at getting on base and his on base plus slugging is also significantly better. Granted Ripken was more of a power hitter (he played about 900 more games than Jeter and has 120 more homers) and Jeter's fielding was subpar until recently - but I don't really know how good Ripken was.
...
You do. Ripken does have the career shortstop home run record with 345. Alex Rodriguez probably would have smashed this record four years ago, though. And Jeter has more career hits than any shortstop.

The numbers say that Ripken was a fantastic defensive shortstop. Better than the other guys being discussed by quite a bit.

If A-Rod had, instead of becoming a third baseman to accommodate the media status of a far inferior player, simply been hit by a bus, he would have finished having won an MVP at shortstop, having hit 345 home runs, and with a career 144 OPS+. He's obviously the best player to ever play the position.

[Marley23]

Thanks, Jimmy Chitwood. I should have said in my other post that I'd hesitate to put Jeter as the second best shortstop in the first place.

[RickJay]

It's hard to classify as the "Second best shortstop of all time" a guy who sucks at playing shortstop. Jeter has certainly been a great hitter but being a poor fielder is a significant strike against him.

Honus Wagner's so far ahead of everyone else it's almost like asking who came second in a swordfight. But the position of second best is hard to figure out because everyone looks different. Jeter: Great hitter, bad fielder. Boudreau: Great, short career. A-Rod: Super great, but will end up a third baseman anyway. Luke Appling is much forgotten but was great. Robin Yount? But he was an outfielder half his career. Cal Ripken was great, but in many of his seasons was just a so-so hitter. So I'm not sure.

[RetroVertigo]

What are we asking here? When we say best shortstop, are we talking about best defensively, offensively, or all-around?

Because depending on the criteria I'd have a different answer.

Best defensive SS: Ozzie Smith
Best offensive SS: Arod (though he could be disqualified for moving positions)*
Best all-around SS: Honus Wagner


*If disqualified then Wagner takes his spot.

[ReticulatingSplines]

ARod aside, Ripken vs. Jeter is definitely a tough call. Ripken's peak seasons were better than Jeter's peak seasons, but Jeter has been much more consistent. Ripken was purely a league average numbers compiler for a while. Ripken's fielding was far superior, as was Jeter's speed. I'd give it to Jeter by a hair.

With that said, I don't put a lot of weight on World Series titles, unless you're...Jack Morris or something.

[mhendo]

Jeter isn't? He also has four more World Series titles than Ripken does and he's likely to play another five years or more.Scott Brosius has two more WS titles than Ripken. David Eckstein has one more.

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

If A-Rod had, instead of becoming a third baseman to accommodate the media status of a far inferior player, simply been hit by a bus, he would have finished having won an MVP at shortstop, having hit 345 home runs, and with a career 144 OPS+. He's obviously the best player to ever play the position.
Bolding mine. Jeter is not far inferior. He might not be the 5 tool player that A-Rod is, might lack his range, but he's a hall of fame player, not the September call up that he gets treated as here on occasion. He's got more hits than anyone else to play the position, and I believe that his greatest asset is his leadership (which can't be quantified, and is mostly subjective).

[Marley23]

Scott Brosius has two more WS titles than Ripken. David Eckstein has one more.
Did anybody say Brosuis and Eckstein were the best players ever at their positions, and cite their leadership ability?

[Quercus]

I believe that his greatest asset is his leadership (which can't be quantified, and is mostly subjective).You know that he plays baseball, right? That's b-a-s-e-b-a-l-l, the game of championship teams with 'nine players, nine cabs', the game where teammates interact --other than pitcher and catcher and throwing to the first baseman -- maybe once every four to five innings, and even that is just deciding which one of two people is going to catch the ball? And statisticians can't even find proof that the catcher has any effect on the pitcher, let alone the shortstop?

You're going with leadership as a key skill of a baseball player? As SNL Weekend Update would say, "Really?"



Maybe we can just all agree that aside from hitting and fielding, Jeter's just as good a baseball player as A-Rod.

[mhendo]

Did anybody say Brosuis and Eckstein were the best players ever at their positions, and cite their leadership ability?No, but the number of WS titles is completely irrelevant to that question, and the whole "leadership ability" thing is almost as irrelevant.

[Southern Yankee]

What about giving more weight to defense? Shortstop is a position where, up until the last 20-25 years, defense was much more sought after than offense. To me, Ozzie Smith isn't being given enough credit here, and in the article the OP references, (which is a bit odd, considering that he's often spoken of as the greatest shortstop ever.)

I'm a Jeter fan, and I've watched his whole career very closely and I still don't agree with people or stats that say he's horrible defensively, although he's certainly average, at best. He may wind up in the top 10 ever, but I can't say 2nd.

[ReticulatingSplines]

What about giving more weight to defense? Shortstop is a position where, up until the last 20-25 years, defense was much more sought after than offense. To me, Ozzie Smith isn't being given enough credit here, and in the article the OP references, (which is a bit odd, considering that he's often spoken of as the greatest shortstop ever.)


The greatest overall shortstop ever? Ozzie Smith? Honestly, I have never heard anyone say that.

I'm curious as to why it's important to weigh defense more heavily than offense; after all, a player who is so proficient with the bat that he contributes more runs than his glove surrenders is still a net positive for the team, irrespective of what the conception of a shortstop was.

With that said, while Ozzie's defense was unparalleled, his overall impact was attenuated by his putrid bat. Well, not putrid, but you know what I mean. Not only do I not consider him the greatest shortstop ever, I'm not even sure he's that much better than Bill Dahlen, who never got within sniffing distance of the Hall. Or even Alan Trammell, for that matter.

[zamboniracer]

If memory serves (and it certainly doesn't always do that) wasn't there a thread a couple years ago where we of the SDMD went position by position to determine who were the greatest players? I looked for that thread but couldn't find it. If someone could link to it it might throw some light on the current discussion.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

<snip> To me, Ozzie Smith isn't being given enough credit here, and in the article the OP references, (which is a bit odd, considering that he's often spoken of as the greatest shortstop ever.)

<snip>

Hmm (http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/get-the-fuck-out.jpg).

[RetroVertigo]

With that said, while Ozzie's defense was unparalleled, his overall impact was attenuated by his putrid bat. Well, not putrid, but you know what I mean. Not only do I not consider him the greatest shortstop ever, I'm not even sure he's that much better than Bill Dahlen, who never got within sniffing distance of the Hall. Or even Alan Trammell, for that matter.


Ozzie got to the Hall because of his glove, not bat.

Fielding Percentage:/ Games
Dahlen .926/ 2139
Trammell .977/2132
Smith .978/ 2511

While Ozzie didn't have a significantly numbers he did it in 379 more games. Also the Total Fielding Runs Above Average* (sorry for getting all saber) of Ozzie over Trammell is frankly ridiculous .

Total Fielding Runs Above Average

Smith-- 238.7
Trammell-- 81.1


* Total Fielding Runs Above Average is the "Number of runs above or below average that the player was worth based on the number of plays made"-- Baseball Reference

[RickJay]

If memory serves (and it certainly doesn't always do that) wasn't there a thread a couple years ago where we of the SDMD went position by position to determine who were the greatest players? I looked for that thread but couldn't find it. If someone could link to it it might throw some light on the current discussion.
There were a number of threads but I never fionished the project. Anyway, the SDMB chose the following shortstops for the SDMB Hall of Fame:

Honus Wagner
Cal Ripken Jr.
Robin Yount
Arky Vaughan
Alex Rodriguez
Luke Appling
Ozzie Smith
Joe Cronin
Ernie Banks
Lou Boudreau
Derek Jeter

Just missed: Barry Larkin

That is ordered by vote total. Wagner was unanimous, IIRC. So at the time the consensus was that Ripken was #2. Note that this was held halfway through the 2008 season, so Jeter has added to his credentials since.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Bolding mine. Jeter is not far inferior. He might not be the 5 tool player that A-Rod is, might lack his range, but he's a hall of fame player, not the September call up that he gets treated as here on occasion. He's got more hits than anyone else to play the position, and I believe that his greatest asset is his leadership (which can't be quantified, and is mostly subjective).

You can feel (and I mean that word literally) however you like about Derek Jeter, but you appear to be unaware of how pedestrian his production has been in the context of the all-time greatest. Alex Rodriguez is going to retire as like the fourth or fifth best player in the history of the game. How far down does Jeter have to be on the list for you to have to acknowledge that nobody's treating him like anything at all other than exactly what he is? He's a great singles and doubles guy who gets on base enough and slugs .450, and is a career liability with his glove at an essential defensive position. He's led the league in hits once, runs once, and plate appearances a couple of times, and nothing else.

He's hit 20 homers three times. When A-Rod hit 30 last year, it was only the third time in 10 seasons that he didn't hit 40.

Jeter's average is only 10 points higher, and A-Rod still has a higher on-base. There is literally nothing that Jeter can do that Rodriguez doesn't do better, except hit singles, and even in that he can only barely claim the edge.

Rodriguez' career WAR is over 99. Jeter's is under 69; right behind Luke Appling and Barry Larkin. Far inferior, oh hell yes he is, and so is everybody else who isn't the Flying Dutchman.

[Southern Yankee]

Hmm (http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/get-the-fuck-out.jpg).

This link brings up a page that says img.moonbuggy.org.

[ReticulatingSplines]

Ozzie got to the Hall because of his glove, not bat.

Fielding Percentage:/ Games
Dahlen .926/ 2139
Trammell .977/2132
Smith .978/ 2511

While Ozzie didn't have a significantly numbers he did it in 379 more games. Also the Total Fielding Runs Above Average* (sorry for getting all saber) of Ozzie over Trammell is frankly ridiculous .

Total Fielding Runs Above Average

Smith-- 238.7
Trammell-- 81.1


* Total Fielding Runs Above Average is the "Number of runs above or below average that the player was worth based on the number of plays made"-- Baseball Reference

Yeah, I didn't say anything differently. But putting aside the question of whether someone deserves the HoF based almost solely on fielding prowess, my point is that a shortstop's contribution to his team is hitting + fielding. If you hit well enough that you negate the runs you give up in the field, defense doesn't matter so much. Adam Everett is one of the most marvelous fielding shortstops I've seen in the league, but don't tell me that he contributes more to his team than Hanley Ramirez. And definitely don't tell me he deserves to go into the Hall.

So what you leave out is that when you account for the bat, Ozzie Smith compiled a career 64.7 WAR (Wins Above Replacement), Trammell 66.8 (in fewer games, I might add), and Dahlen 75.9 (also in fewer games).

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Yeah, I didn't say anything differently. But putting aside the question of whether someone deserves the HoF based almost solely on fielding prowess, my point is that a shortstop's contribution to his team is hitting + fielding. If you hit well enough that you negate the runs you give up in the field, defense doesn't matter so much. Adam Everett is one of the most marvelous fielding shortstops I've seen in the league, but don't tell me that he contributes more to his team than Hanley Ramirez. And definitely don't tell me he deserves to go into the Hall.


Not even if he did contribute more, and does deserve it?

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

You know that he plays baseball, right? That's b-a-s-e-b-a-l-l, the game of championship teams with 'nine players, nine cabs', the game where teammates interact --other than pitcher and catcher and throwing to the first baseman -- maybe once every four to five innings, and even that is just deciding which one of two people is going to catch the ball? And statisticians can't even find proof that the catcher has any effect on the pitcher, let alone the shortstop?

You're going with leadership as a key skill of a baseball player? As SNL Weekend Update would say, "Really?"



Maybe we can just all agree that aside from hitting and fielding, Jeter's just as good a baseball player as A-Rod.

Snark if you will, but I stand by what I said. Thank you for the spelling lesson.

[ReticulatingSplines]

Not even if he did contribute more, and does deserve it?

Well...what are you saying again? That Adam Everett contributes more than HanRam and deserves the HoF? In 200 fewer games Ramirez has posted a WAR of 25.5, versus 9.0 for Everett. For his entire CAREER.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Yes, that Adam Everett deserves the Hall of Fame and is better than Hanley Ramirez.

No, you brought up Adam Everett; the discussion was about Ozzie Smith. My point was that you're saying "don't even tell me X is more valuable than Y," and I'm saying that sometimes an Ozzie Smith is more valuable than a whoever-else, and I don't see why it should matter that the reason is defense, not hitting. The fact that your example was one that nobody anywhere would ever use makes your point a little hard to isolate.

[ReticulatingSplines]

Yes, that Adam Everett deserves the Hall of Fame and is better than Hanley Ramirez.

No, you brought up Adam Everett; the discussion was about Ozzie Smith. My point was that you're saying "don't even tell me X is more valuable than Y," and I'm saying that sometimes an Ozzie Smith is more valuable than a whoever-else, and I don't see why it should matter that the reason is defense, not hitting. The fact that your example was one that nobody anywhere would ever use makes your point a little hard to isolate.

Sure, Ozzie Smith's composite is better than a lot of guys. If I implied otherwise, I apologize. What I was trying to say is that even when you take defense into account, his bat negated some of the runs he saved. Or specifically, negated so many that Dahlen or Trammell become fairly comparable when you also take batting into account. At any rate, I am perplexed at how people thought Smith was so much better that he got in on the first ballot and neither of the other two ever had a chance.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Well, really, who knows what the hell was going on with Bill Dahlen. It was the 1890s; his double play partner may have been a dog.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

This link brings up a page that says img.moonbuggy.org.

Fixed (http://c2.api.ning.com/files/9OGnwofs-1I35rFwsuFwD6HATsZjzTW*EbCA1673Ilq6bwo0lzsLfcIAvwncXop9leD0nMA0Rf9Mh3-IGiIUMu6OQbIxIfXm/gtfo4.jpg)?

[Southern Yankee]

Fixed (http://c2.api.ning.com/files/9OGnwofs-1I35rFwsuFwD6HATsZjzTW*EbCA1673Ilq6bwo0lzsLfcIAvwncXop9leD0nMA0Rf9Mh3-IGiIUMu6OQbIxIfXm/gtfo4.jpg)?

I see the image and caption now, but I'm not getting it in context. Are kicking me off the building because I think Ozzie was a great shortstop?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I see the image and caption now, but I'm not getting it in context. Are kicking me off the building because I think Ozzie was a great shortstop?

No. You're kicked in effigy because you said he was often spoken of as being the greatest shortstop ever.

[Southern Yankee]

Ahh, ok. Can't help that I've heard it, but it's possible I'm thinking of hearing greatest defensive shortstop ever.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Ahh, ok. Can't help that I've heard it, but it's possible I'm thinking of hearing greatest defensive shortstop ever.

That may very well be, but a piece of bread isn't a sammitch.

[RetroVertigo]

While I believe that Trammell (I'm leaving Dehlen out of this because other then looking up his stats I know next to nothing about him.) is a better offensive player. His offensive stats aren't superior enough to Smith's to overcome the relative defensive inferiority.

IMHO

[brianjedi]

You know what comes to mind when I think of Derek Jeter?

All those times he went sailing across the infield chasing balls in the playoffs (into the stands, the flip to Posada from the first-base line), and then all those times a ground ball not hit immediately at him skipped harmlessly through the infield for a base hit.

As much as it pains me to say it, Ozzie's bat probably disqualifies him from this discussion even in spite of his defense.

It's got to be Ripken. Without Cal playing short, guys like A-Rod, Jeter, Garciaparra and even Tejada don't get a shot to play shortstop, because Cal changed the idea of what a shortstop is supposed to be by having a good bat, solid defense and not being, well, short. Without Ripken, we'd have 30 David Ecksteins playing shortstop (OK, 29 David Ecksteins and Omar Vizquel.)

[John DiFool]

That is ordered by vote total. Wagner was unanimous, IIRC. So at the time the consensus was that Ripken was #2. Note that this was held halfway through the 2008 season, so Jeter has added to his credentials since.

With polling now enabled, it might be a good time to revisit the idea.

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

You can feel (and I mean that word literally) however you like about Derek Jeter, but you appear to be unaware of how pedestrian his production has been in the context of the all-time greatest. Alex Rodriguez is going to retire as like the fourth or fifth best player in the history of the game. How far down does Jeter have to be on the list for you to have to acknowledge that nobody's treating him like anything at all other than exactly what he is? He's a great singles and doubles guy who gets on base enough and slugs .450, and is a career liability with his glove at an essential defensive position. He's led the league in hits once, runs once, and plate appearances a couple of times, and nothing else.

He's hit 20 homers three times. When A-Rod hit 30 last year, it was only the third time in 10 seasons that he didn't hit 40.

Jeter's average is only 10 points higher, and A-Rod still has a higher on-base. There is literally nothing that Jeter can do that Rodriguez doesn't do better, except hit singles, and even in that he can only barely claim the edge.

Rodriguez' career WAR is over 99. Jeter's is under 69; right behind Luke Appling and Barry Larkin. Far inferior, oh hell yes he is, and so is everybody else who isn't the Flying Dutchman.

I certainly don't disagree with your rankings, I merely get hypersensitive about the disdain that Jeter causes among the sabermetric crowd. It's as if his teams manage to win despite him, and that attitude rankles this Yankee fan.

[mhendo]

I certainly don't disagree with your rankings, I merely get hypersensitive about the disdain that Jeter causes among the sabermetric crowd. It's as if his teams manage to win despite him, and that attitude rankles this Yankee fan.Bolding mine.

This attitude is all in your head. The sabermetric crowd, for the most part, thinks that Jeter is a terrific baseball player. Perhaps one of the most widely-cited sabermetric analysis websites is Baseball Prospectus. Here's a sampling of what they have had to say about Jeter since his arrival in the Major Leagues:
1996: Another young turk shortstop, and most definitely the real thing.

1997: I expect him to keep the average and power, improve the strikeout and walk numbers and be a great player.

1998: He’ll be a reasonable MVP candidate a couple of times in the next six years.

1999: Even with a below-average glove, Jeter is a special player.

2000: Jeter is one of the best players in baseball, four years into a Hall of Fame career.

2001: Yes, his defense really is that bad. No, it doesn't mean he should be moved. His offense is still more than enough to make him a championship-caliber player...

2002: We give Jeter a lot of flack about his dismal defense, and he deserves it. That being said, he may be one of the most UNDERrated ballplayers ever...

2003: That’s right, we’ve got a trend on our hands: Jeter is in his third year of losing slices of offensive value. That doesn’t make him bad, any more than his consistently execrable defense makes him “bad.” But these things do start adding up to become problems.

2006: Jeter ranked seventh in the American League in OBP and was the highest ranked hitter to bat leadoff, which is why he scored 122 runs in 2005...

2007: An argument can be made that Jeters 2006 was even better than his shoulda-been-MVP 1999 because he was more problematic defensively in the earlier season.This is right in line with what most sabermetric folk have said about Derek Jeter over the years. The only people who interpret these sorts of comments as "disdain" are hypersensitive Yankee fans who aren't happy with anything less than Jeter as the second coming of Jesus Christ himself.

I think the Baseball Prospectus summary for 2005 puts it in a nutshell:For those of us in the performance analysis biz, Jeter is a difficult problem because any realistic evaluation of his skills, no matter how flattering, seems like a slight when compared to his reputation. In the eyes of true believers, Honus Wagner and Superman combined couldn't do half the things Jeter does. In truth, he's terrific at going back on shallow pop-ups and executing the jump throw in the hole. Other aspects of the job—fielding grounders to his left for instance—elude him, and it doesn't take an MS in scouting or statistics to see it. When watching a Yankees game, simply pay attention to the opposing shortstop. He will routinely get to balls that Jeter cannot. As for the Gold Glove, peel back the foil on the award and you'll find there's some tasty chocolate underneath. That's about what it's worth, though at least Jeter was better this year. On offense, Jeter walked less than ever before and doubled his previous high in sac bunts, perhaps because he lost confidence after a shockingly poor April. Jeter is a Hall of Famer to be, a key player on a great team, an inspirational leader, a fine hitter…and he gives up a lot of singles with his glove. In light of the rest, why is that last part so difficult to accept?The bolded sentences could usefully be posted on many a Yankee fan's bedroom door.

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

You're saying that they (sabertronics) think he's terrific, yet they use words like dismal and execrable to define his defense. Gotcha.

[mhendo]

You're saying that they (sabertronics) think he's terrific, yet they use words like dismal and execrable to define his defense. Gotcha.Wow. Really? That's all you got out of those quotes? The mind boggles.

Luckily, most Yankee fans around here, for all their other failings (:)), aren't quite so myopic.

[don't ask]

As a data analyst and a sports nut I am forever looking at articles about analysis in sports. They are fun to read and I know that when I recommend them to other guys they will be read by them.

So I find stuff like:

Winners and Losers (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200903/success-winners-and-losers)

The No Stats All-Star (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

and

Jeter vs Everett (http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/jeter.asp) which is quite revealing.

[Southern Yankee]

Here's an interesting article (http://www.northjersey.com/sports/OConnor_How_Jeter_got_younger_at_age_35.html) about Jeter's trouble going left, and what he did about it last offseason.

[RickJay]

You're saying that they (sabertronics) think he's terrific, yet they use words like dismal and execrable to define his defense. Gotcha.
So what?

Jeter's a legitimately great player who has awful lateral range for a shortstop. That's not just some arcane equation, either; it's visibly obvious to a reasonably trained eye that he had always moved poorly to the ball, especially to his left (he's good at going straight back, though) and leaves his feet way too often and too early.

But since when were all Hall of Famers great at everything? Not every great player does everything well. Mike Schmidt wasn't much of a contact hitter, Babe Ruth was a stupid and reckless baserunner, Ozzie Smith had no power, and Randy Johnson was a worse fielder than most pitchers in my slo-pich league. Were they not great players?

[The Other Jeffrey Lebowski]

Wow. Really? That's all you got out of those quotes? The mind boggles.

Luckily, most Yankee fans around here, for all their other failings (:)), aren't quite so myopic.

No, that's not all that I saw, as he is deservedly commended on his overall game. Their judging of him in 2006 sounds like a backhanded compliment, and it underscores my point of how he is viewed by many. Sure he scored 122 runs, but it was only because of a, b, and c.

I would say that Bill James summation from Don't Ask's link hits the nail on the head regarding Jeter's defense:

There is a lot we don’t know, and Derek Jeter could be a better shortstop than we have measured him as being for any of a dozen reasons. He is not a Gold Glove quality shortstop. He isn’t an average defensive shortstop. Giving him every possible break on the unknowns, he is still going to emerge as a below average defensive shortstop.

[Maserschmidt]

As a data analyst and a sports nut I am forever looking at articles about analysis in sports. They are fun to read and I know that when I recommend them to other guys they will be read by them.

So I find stuff like:

Winners and Losers (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200903/success-winners-and-losers)

The No Stats All-Star (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

and

Jeter vs Everett (http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/jeter.asp) which is quite revealing.

I was talking to a sabermetrician about Jeter and fielding and he wondered if Jeter's playing shallow, and his apparent refusal to move to third, were both about disguising a mediocre arm. He wasn't arguing the case, because he hadn't measured Jeter's throwing speed...he just wondered if that might be a plausible explanation. Yankee fans I know say that's bullshit, and that he has a great arm, so I wonder (reading that Bill James article) if everyone's somewhat correct, and what was really going on was that his mechanics were bad.

[mhendo]

Their judging of him in 2006 sounds like a backhanded compliment, and it underscores my point of how he is viewed by many. Sure he scored 122 runs, but it was only because of a, b, and c.I understand now. It's clear that you don't know anything at all about how the sabermetric crowd think, which is why you constantly misinterpret what they say.

Here is the BP summary of Jeter that i gave for 2006:2006: Jeter ranked seventh in the American League in OBP and was the highest ranked hitter to bat leadoff, which is why he scored 122 runs in 2005...If you knew anything at all about baseball statisticians, you would know that this is not some "backhanded compliment"; it is, in fact, high praise.

OBP is considered by the sabermetrics crowd to be one of the more important numbers in baseball. As stat people never tire of pointing out, every time a hitter makes an out, it brings his team one step closer to the end of the game. Every time a hitter does not make an out, it provides an opportunity for his team to continue batting, and to score more runs. So when a hitter steps to the plate, one of the most important things he can possibly do is not make an out, which is exactly what happens when he gets on base.

The importance of OBP is magnified for the guy hitting at the top of the order. Your lead-off hitter gets more plate appearances every year than any other player on the team, so he has more opportunities than anyone else to get on base and to score runs. A lead-off hitter with poor OBP is a liability, while a lead-off guy with good OBP gives the hitters behind him lots of opportunities to drive him home.

In 2005, Jeter ranked 7th in the AL in OBP, and was the highest ranked hitter to lead off, making him incredibly valuable to the Yankees, and giving all those power hitters behind him (people like Matsui and Sheffield and Rodriguez) a chance to bat him in.

Here, by the way, is the complete BP summary of Jeter for 2006, from which the above sentence was taken:It`s been taken for granted among beat writers and broadcasters that Jeter is miscast in the leadoff role, and that the Yankees instead need a `traditional` leadoff man--someone like Vince Coleman. Let`s be blunt: it`s rank stupidity. Jeter ranked seventh in the American League in OBP and was the highest ranked hitter to bat leadoff, which is why he scored 122 runs in 2005 (he missed tying for the league runs lead by two). The suggestion seems to be that the Yankees would be better with a leadoff man who stole more bases but scored fewer runs. Only in professional sports journalism, where many of the writers make Judith Miller look like a paragon of evenhanded, informed reporting, could that make sense. Johnny Damon will make for a good test of these folks and Joe Torre: will reality win out, or will the batting order be based on a shared foolishness?You interpret stat people's critiques as "disdain" and their actual compliments as "backhanded compliments" because you apparently don't understand them.I would say that Bill James summation from Don't Ask's link hits the nail on the head regarding Jeter's defense:Which is pretty much the whole point that the BP guys were making.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I'm really not interested in insulting you, TOJ Lebowski; far less interested in it than you seem in insulting my 'kind,' but it appears that you are reading very intensely into descriptions in order to find an insult of Jeter. First, yes, many people say that Jeter's defense used to be super-terrible. They've said the same things about Manny Ramirez and Mike Piazza, because in all three cases they are true statements about what they've observed. Do you feel like Piazza and Ramirez have been relegated to replacement level by the '"sabertronics?"

Second, I think it's pretty interesting that when you say:

Their judging of him in 2006 sounds like a backhanded compliment, and it underscores my point of how he is viewed by many. Sure he scored 122 runs, but it was only because of a, b, and c.

you add emphasis to a word which wasn't even in the Baseball Prospectus quote. You literally inserted but when in fact all BP did was say "Jeter being good at A B C led to desirable outcome X." It really seems that you've decided how Jeter is viewed "by many" without a leg to stand on, and I say that as the person who espoused the view of Jeter that you attacked in the first place.

This kind of thing is going on all the time in Baseball Prospectus, I promise. They report what the data indicates; nothing more and nothing less. That is in fact precisely why a lot of us are enamored of their approach. And all of us think Jeter is a great player.

[RickJay]

IOBP is considered by the sabermetrics crowd to be one of the more important numbers in baseball.
I would think it is true that any informed baseball fan considers OBP to be THE most important statistic for measuring the ability of a major league baseball player.

(I'm operating here from the assumption that more complex stats aren't raw statistics so much as they are analytical tools.)

You can pretty much sum up most of Derek Jeter's value by pointing out that his career OBP is .388, which is quite outstanding, especially given that he's a middle infielder who's had a long career; he has been above average at getting on base every year for 14 years in a row, and only once has he missed a significant part of the season to injury. Jeter would be a very valuable player even if he'd been a DH his entire career. Of course he has other strengths - he has good power and is a sensational baserunner - but OBP is the center of major league offense, and Jeter's OBP is dandy.

It's often been said that he really should have been an outfielder, and I happen to agree. As has been mentioned, he's fine at tracking popups but weak as hell moving to his side for grounders, which is consistent with a simple observation of his physical skills; he is VERY fast, but his reactions are slow and his footwork is poor. In the outfield his strengths - speed and moving to the ball on the fly - would be much more important than his weaknesses.

Jeter, IMHO, is (easily) the worst defensive player to ever win a Gold Glove. But if he'd been an outfielder, I think he would have won Gold Gloves in the outfield and I think he would have deserved them.

[mhendo]

I would think it is true that any informed baseball fan considers OBP to be THE most important statistic for measuring the ability of a major league baseball player.

(I'm operating here from the assumption that more complex stats aren't raw statistics so much as they are analytical tools.)Fair enough.

The reason i said "more" rather than "most" was that i was grouping under "stats" the things that you are calling "analytical tools," everything from relatively simple measures like OPS through to much more complex things like WARP and Win Shares. I figured it was easier that way, and i also assumed that anyone who thinks that Baseball Prospectus's 2005 comments about Jeter constitute a "backhanded compliment" wouldn't be very interested in the distinction.

[RickJay]

Fair enough.

The reason i said "more" rather than "most" was that i was grouping under "stats" the things that you are calling "analytical tools," everything from relatively simple measures like OPS through to much more complex things like WARP and Win Shares. I figured it was easier that way, and i also assumed that anyone who thinks that Baseball Prospectus's 2005 comments about Jeter constitute a "backhanded compliment" wouldn't be very interested in the distinction.
Well, yeah. If mounds of raw evidence don't win someone over, something as hideously complicated as Win and Loss Shares isn't gonna make them bite.

Just understanding the centrality of OBP is most of the battle. At the major league level (it's not necessarily true at other levels of ball) OBP is most of the game. Getting on base or not getting on base is the great majority of what distiguishes winning teams from losing teams; if you get more guys on base than the other team you'll win more than you lose. Really, the only complicating factor is power, and it's not quite as important.

If you understand how important getting on base is, it's amazing how much more fun the game can be to watch, because you understand it more. You start to hang on every pitch, because the difference between a ball and a strike veers the at bat so radically in terms of whether the batter's likely to get on base or not. The nature of defense and the decisions that fielders and baserunners make changes. You appreciate pitchers more and throwers less.

I guess I'm rambling, but I suppose where I'm going is I've never understood the "bah, why bother with all that numbers stuff, you don't enjoy the game" attitude. How can you not enjoy something by learning more about it? Doesn't that enhance one's enjoyment of things? I find I just can't learn enough about baseball; I feel like I know 1% of what I'd like to know. Doesn't matter if we're talking about stats, techniques, history, coaching, playing, the way an outfielder should play in certain parks, whatever. I just love baseball, and I can't imagine not wanting to know this stuff.

[gonzomax]

I hate the argument that Arod owes much of his success to Jeter leading off. It does not hold water. Arod is a hitting machine when he is on, a very scary guy to have come up. He is a game breaker.

[mhendo]

I hate the argument that Arod owes much of his success to Jeter leading off. It does not hold water. Arod is a hitting machine when he is on, a very scary guy to have come up. He is a game breaker.I'm curious who has made this argument. Your post was the first time i had ever seen it.

[Hawkeyeop]

There were a number of threads but I never fionished the project. Anyway, the SDMB chose the following shortstops for the SDMB Hall of Fame.


Perhaps, now that we have voting functions it is time to restart it?

Arod played ss long enough along with the fact was capable of playing it longer means I'm comfortable considering him a ss. Thus, he is comfortably 1st or 2nd at ss with Wagner taking up the other spot.

[gonzomax]

I'm curious who has made this argument. Your post was the first time i had ever seen it.

It was not on this thread yet, but when I stared reading on Jeter on line I encountered it. Then I did not remember where the argument originated.Sorry.I read a bit about Jeter, who I thought of as another over hyped overpaid Yankee.

[RickJay]

Perhaps, now that we have voting functions it is time to restart it?
I might restart it but how many voting options can you have in a poll? I was posting lists of 60-70 candidates per vote.

I stopped doing it because interest was dropping quickly; the first ballots got a lot of votes, and the last got very few.

[Munch]

I might restart it but how many voting options can you have in a poll? I was posting lists of 60-70 candidates per vote.
I tested 1000, and it worked - so no problems there. Definitely have a list beforehand, and maybe make a note at the top of your post for people to not post in the thread until the poll is up.