Red Sox - Yankees - The Final Showdown

[Galt]

What a memory I have!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html</a><!-- m -->

[GonzoStyle]

as far as errors go, heres a quick run down of 4 ss's over the last 4 seasons.

Jeter
2001 - 15
2002 - 14
2003 - 14
2004 - 13

lifetime fld % .974

A Rod
2000 - 10
2001 - 18
2002 - 10
2003 - 8

lifetime fld % .972

Tejada

2001 - 20
2002 - 19
2003 - 21
2004 - 24

Lifetime Fld % .970

Garciapara

2000 - 18
2002 - 25
2003 - 20
2004 - 9 (79 games)

lifetime fld% .969

Vizquel

2001 - 7
2002 - 7
2003 - 7
2004 - 11

lifetime fld% .983

[GonzoStyle]

What a memory I have!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html</a><!-- m -->

He's basing it on the amount of plays he makes? That's rubbish and one mans opinion ofcourse, I simply don't agree with his argument as much as I dont agree when sports writers call A Rod the best player on the planet, not as long as Bonds is on the same planet.

It's not the quantity its the quality of plays.

[HedCold]

What a memory I have!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html</a><!-- m -->

i mentioned neyer first!

[Galt]

I don't read your posts since ABTG shit the bed.

[Galt]

What a memory I have!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415713.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html">http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1415695.html</a><!-- m -->

He's basing it on the amount of plays he makes? That's rubbish and one mans opinion ofcourse, I simply don't agree with his argument as much as I dont agree when sports writers call A Rod the best player on the planet, not as long as Bonds is on the same planet.

It's not the quantity its the quality of plays.

So, if Jeter just stands in one place like a tree stump and gets every ball hit right to him, then he's the best fielder in baseball?

[GonzoStyle]

I never said that, thats even ridiculous to make a comparison cause you know he doesn't do that, he didnt stand there like a stump when he made the impossible play to posada from the 1st base side or when he dove face first into the stands.

I said quality and not quantity, what should he do? go play every position to make sure he makes the quota of plays?

[HedCold]

can someone cut and paste the articles so i can read them? espn is blocked here

[GonzoStyle]

From the archives: Assessing Jeter's defense

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com


The following column was originally posted on February 7, 2001.

The day we answer the burning question, "So how much is Derek Jeter worth, anyway?"

In recent years, and especially in recent days, it's been the fashion to sing the praises of The Magnificent Derek Jeter. The Greatest Yankee Shortstop, even better than the Scooter. Maybe as good as Nomar Garciaparra. Maybe even as good as Alex Rodriguez, the $252 Million Man.

Jeter's better than Rizzuto. But is he close to being as good as Garciaparra and/or Rodriguez? Here are some key numbers for each of them:


Alex Nomar Jeter
OPS 935 955 862


Garciaparra has certainly benefited from playing half his games in a good hitter's park, but the advantage certainly can't account for a 93-point difference in OPS. Same story with Rodriguez, who's actually spent the last season-and-a-half playing in a great pitcher's park (and before that, the Kingdome wasn't nearly as hitter-friendly as widely thought). As for the "little things," Jeter is a good baserunner, but no better than Rodriguez. And of course he's not often asked to bunt.

As hitters, Rodriguez and Garciaparra both earn A's, and Jeter gets a B+. Nothing to be ashamed of -- there are plenty of Hall of Fame shortstops who didn't hit like Jeter does -- but he certainly doesn't compare favorably with his slugging peers.

Well, if it's not his hitting, it must be his fielding, right? People rave about Jeter's defense, with Tim McCarver leading the wild-eyed hyperbole parade. However, there is virtually no objective evidence to support the notion that Jeter is a Gold Glove-quality shortstop.

The simplest fielding metric is called Range Factor: Putouts plus Assists, per nine innings.

And Jeter's Range Factor is, in a word, execrable. It's execrable every year. Here's where he ranked, in each of the last five seasons, among major league shortstops who started at least 100 games:


1996 20 of 24
1997 16 of 24
1998 23 of 25
1999 21 of 21
2000 23 of 23


Those numbers, elegant in their simple consistency, speak for themselves.

But of course, Range Factor is subject to all sorts of outside influences. Heinous things like pitching staffs and infield surfaces and gosh knows what else. There's a way to account for those outside influences, though. We can compare Jeter to the other Yankees who played shortstop in the same seasons that he did. Unfortunately for the purposes of this little argument, Jeter has been exceptionally durable, but the table below lists Jeter's Range Factor, along with the composite Range Factor of the other Yankee shortstops of the last five seasons.


Jeter "Others"
Innings 6767 461
Range 4.27 4.32


Now, this certainly isn't conclusive. But if Jeter were truly a superior defensive shortstop, wouldn't you expect him to make more plays per nine innings, rather than slightly fewer?

As I said, Range Factor is subject to various outside influences. Fortunately, Clay Davenport (one of our colleagues at Baseball Prospectus) goes to great pains to adjust for those influences. Davenport's method rates Jeter as 23 runs worse than the average American League shortstop (given the same playing time). That was the worst in the majors.

It was also the worst showing of Jeter's career, but then he's never done well by this measure. In 1999 he was negative-12; in '98, negative-3.

And you know, it's not just Davenport. Fielding statistics are not, despite what you might have heard from your favorite Luddite, meaningless. They can be quite meaningful in the hands of bright people. And as it happens, any number of bright people -- Bill James, Tom Tippett, etc. -- have designed their own methods for evaluating defensive statistics, and I believe that they all reach the same conclusion: Derek Jeter is, at best, an adequate defensive shortstop. He simply doesn't make many plays, and that's true even if you adjust for the left-handedness (or not) of the Yankee pitchers, and it's true even if you also adjust for the tendency of the Yankee pitchers to allow ground balls (or not).

Is Jeter the worst defensive shortstop in the major leagues? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. There is some evidence to suggest that he is, but I'm sure there's evidence to suggest that he isn't, too. My point is that there's no evidence to suggest that he's an outstanding defensive shortstop, or even a good one.

Wait, that's not precisely true. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence in Jeter's favor. McCarver thinks he's great, and so do a lot of other people. But you know, even Tim McCarver doesn't know everything. McCarver sees that Jeter is adept at snagging pops in short left field, and McCarver sees that Jeter does, indeed, boast a powerful arm. But other observers have seen that Jeter doesn't get a good jump on grounders -- the single most important skill for any middle infielder -- and others have cast doubt on his footwork, especially when he fields balls up the middle.

I simply don't believe that Jeter is a good fielder; nevertheless, the notion that he is a good fielder will likely endure as one of the great baseball myths of our time.

After reading all this, somebody out there will still be arguing, "Yeah, but Jeter's a winner. How many World Series have those other guys won?"

The answer, of course, is that they haven't won any. Zero, compared to Jeter's four.

Vlad Guerrero hasn't played for a World Series winner yet. Does that mean he's not as good as Paul O'Neill? Jeff Bagwell doesn't have a ring yet. Does that mean he's not as good as Tino Martinez? Randy Johnson hasn't reached the Promised Land yet. Does that mean he's not as good as Andy Pettitte?

Of course it doesn't. It's a silly, circular argument. Derek Jeter is great because the Yankees win. The Yankees win because Derek Jeter is great. Round and round we go, and where the specious logic stops, nobody knows.

So what is Jeter worth? If you're the Yankees, he's worth whatever it costs to keep him. Because you've got bottomless pockets, and because Derek Jeter is a very good baseball player.

Those are good reasons. But let's not jump to the ill-founded conclusion that Jeter is in the same class as Rodriguez and Garciaparra. Because he's not.

I have softened on this issue a bit since first writing the column, because Jeter has proved himself to be significantly more durable than Garciaparra.

[GonzoStyle]

Don't believe that Jeter's defense has improved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com


The headline threw me for a loop.

Ever-Improving Jeter Eyes a Gold Glove

This wasn't some rag, some scandal sheet. This was The New York Times. The Sunday Times. The paper of record containing all the news that's fit to print by the Gray Lady herself.

I don't have time to read every newspaper article about baseball that's published, but this one I had to read. About a year-and-a-half ago, I sat down to write a column comparing the great shortstops, and it wound up, mostly, as an examination of Derek Jeter's value as a fielder. I looked at every objective measure I could find, and all of them suggested that Jeter was, at best, average with the glove.

I also came up with my own method. I compared Jeter's defensive statistics to the other Yankees who played shortstop since he's been on the team. If Derek Jeter were really outstanding, as so many people seemed to think, wouldn't he have better statistics than his backups? But in fact, he did not. The other Yankee shortstops, none of them considered brilliant defensive players, actually combined to post slightly better numbers than Jeter.

Nothing I'd ever written got more attention. A day or two later, I went on the radio in New York with Yankees broadcasters Michael Kay and John Sterling, and Sterling did his very best to humiliate me before their many thousands of listeners. He probably did, too. I imagine I came off like a tongue-tied geek, my nose buried in so many books that I don't have time to actually watch baseball games.

Yet, nothing that's happened since has changed my mind. A few months ago, Bill James came out with a new player evaluation method called Win Shares. His tools for evaluating defense are, in many ways, similar to those previously devised by Baseball Prospectus' Clay Davenport, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they reach the same conclusion: Jeter is not a good defensive player. In his book, James assigns defensive "grades" to players with significant career games, and Jeter gets a D+.

But while I've become convinced that Derek Jeter is not, in fact, even a good defensive shortstop -- let alone a great one -- wouldn't it be wonderful to be proved wrong? To learn that either I was wrong all along or that Jeter really has improved since the last time I checked? Wouldn't that be wonderful, to learn something like that? To be surprised?

So it was with great eagerness that I began to read Tyler Kepner's article in the Times.

Truth be told, it did not start off with a bang. Three paragraphs suggesting that Omar Vizquel has a stranglehold on the Gold Glove (that's true) thanks in part to a generous official scorer in Cleveland (probably not true).

But then we get into the meat of the argument, the reasons why Jeter perhaps does deserve to break Vizquel's nine-year streak. Unfortunately, as it turns out, there's not really any meat at all.

First, there's Jeter saying that he wants to get better. Then there's Willie Randolph saying that Jeter's big, but not so big that he can't play shortstop. Then there's Alex Rodriguez saying that Jeter was already good. Then there's Ron Coomer saying that Jeter is daring. And finally, Randolph again, saying that Jeter is still young enough to get better.

Frankly, Alex Rodriguez's opinion is very close to irrelevant. Rodriguez didn't even address the question of Jeter's supposed improvement; he couldn't, because he's only seen Jeter play a few times this season. He simply says that Jeter has "always been really good," a highly suspect assertion because 1) Rodriguez speaks glowingly of everybody, and 2) anyway, we already know there's little or no objective evidence to support the notion that Jeter has always been really good.

The funny thing is, there are some hints within the article that maybe Jeter hasn't been a great defensive player all these years.

According to Kepner, Jeter thinks he's having his best season with the glove. "More than any other year, by far," Jeter said. OK, but if he was a great fielder before this year, could he really be doing far better this year? Doesn't seem likely.

Also according to Kepner, Randolph "noted that Cal Ripken was an extraordinary shortstop despite minimal range because he positioned himself so well. Jeter, Randolph said, is learning to do the same."

The message here? Jeter is comparable to Ripken in terms of his natural range -- after all, Jeter stands six-three, just an inch shorter than Ripken -- but not until this year has he worked so hard to position himself, as Ripken did

It sounds to me like a lot of people already knew, whether they'll admit it or not, that Jeter has not been a great defensive player for most of his career. So the next question is, has he become a great defensive player this year? Does he really deserve to be considered a serious Gold Glove candidate?

Only if all that hard work is paying off. Only if he's actually increased his range. And if he had a lot more range, wouldn't that show up somewhere in the statistics?

Last season, Jeter made 3.8 plays per nine innings.
This season, Jeter has made 3.7 plays per nine innings.

Yes (you're saying), but maybe there simply aren't as many plays to be made this season. Maybe the pitchers haven't given up as many groundballs. True, for the most part they're the same pitchers from last season, but still ...

Granted. So how might we explore that issue? We can, again, look at what Jeter's backups have done. If the pitchers really are doing something to decrease the number of plays available to the shortstops, presumably the other Yankee shortstops would make fewer plays this year than they made last year.

Last season, Enrique Wilson made 4.3 plays per nine innings.
This season, Enrique Wilson has made 4.3 plays per nine innings.

So you've got two shortstops playing for the same team, and their range statistics are virtually identical from season to season, while playing behind the same pitchers. Might not we conclude from this that 1) those numbers fairly represent their skills, and 2) Wilson may well be the better defensive shortstop?

I asked Clay Davenport if he's got any evidence that Jeter's gotten better this year, and Clay was kind enough to run his Fielding Translations for 2002. And the result? "No, statistically Jeter hasn't improved at all."

To me, the conclusion is inescapable. Jeter may think he's making more plays, and he's to be commended for trying to improve. But the evidence that he's actually making more plays ... well, it's just not there. And all the wishing of all the millions of Yankees fans -- not to mention the people who broadcast and write about the Yankees -- isn't going to conjure evidence that doesn't exist.

And so I'll say what I said a year and a half ago ... Derek Jeter is a great player, but he's a great player not because he plays shortstop well, but simply because he can play shortstop. He's Cecil Travis with power.

[Galt]

he is last in the league in putouts and assists. Consistently. He makes less plays than anyone else in baseball (at the time). So he makes the plays that other make easily look difficult, and he doesn't make the plays that others make difficultly.

You love him because he's a) a Yankee and b) pretty.

[Galt]

he is last in the league in putouts and assists. Consistently. He makes less plays than anyone else in baseball (at the time). So he makes the plays that other make easily look difficult, and he doesn't make the plays that others make difficultly.

You love him because he's a) a Yankee and b) pretty.

[GonzoStyle]

yeah you got me, I only give credit to yankees.

I didnt say he was the best SS, but I will defend him on the fact he is not the worst and is among the best.

You have given me a couple articles written by a guy who also said that Nolan Ryans fastball was over rated and doesn't belond in a top 10.

[Galt]

I can't find the Gammons article. He said the same thing.

Find me someone outside New York who says that Jeter is a good fielder.

[GonzoStyle]

he is last in the league in putouts and assists. Consistently.

PO Assists
273 392 - Jeter

200 396 - Vizquel

227 464 - A Rod (2003 as SS)

222 419 - Renteria

121 175 - Garciapara

thats just the top 5 or so, LAST in the league?

[HedCold]

wasn't vizquel injured this year? and garciapara was injured

[HedCold]

ok i just checked vizquel played 148 games, jeter 154, garciapara 79

[Galt]

just searing google. no idea of these people's qualifications....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.baseballtruth.com/fielders_choice/choice_083104.htm">http://www.baseballtruth.com/fielders_c ... 083104.htm</a><!-- m -->

RAL = Range factor. Average = 0
Orlando Cabrerra = 37
Arod = 17
Nomar = 4
Tejada = 8
Jeter = -75
Carlos Guillen = -48

Career SDS (season defensive score) is some statistic he created. Based on that over their careers:
Outstanding Defensive Shortstops - Vizquel, Bell, Bordick and Perez had the numbers to qualify in this category. The jury is still out as to whether A-Rod or Gonzalez belong.
Subpar Defensive Shortstops - Garciaparra, Renteria, Aurilia and Jeter.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.booklocker.com/books/1243.html">http://www.booklocker.com/books/1243.html</a><!-- m -->

The book FIELDER’S CHOICE suggests that Ozzie Smith and Rabbit Maranville are the best fielding shortstops ever. And at the end of the 2002 season, Omar Vizquel was the best active defensive shortstop and Derek Jeter was the worst.

Jeter's response to "Fielder's Choice"'s comment that he was the worst fielder in baseball (same source)

"I'm the worst?" Jeter said when confronted with the numbers. "I don't think I would say that. But I couldn't really care less what some mathematical equation comes out with." "How do you rank defensive shortstops?" Jeter said. "I don't see how a formula can evaluate how somebody plays." "You get a strikeout pitcher on the mound as opposed to a ground-ball pitcher, it's going to affect the statistics you use to evaluate defense. So I don't really think you can."

The book actually states that Jeter is a very good player and is probably on track to join the Hall of Fame some day. But that does not change the fact that when compared to his contemporaries, Derek is a poor fielder.

But it was not always that way. What has happened to Jeter over the past five seasons (1998 to 2002) is that his range factor (the number of balls he makes a play on) has gone dramatically downhill each year. And what about those "strikeout pitchers" that Derek refers to? It is true that if a shortstop gets fewer chances then it may look like he is getting to fewer balls. But, in Jeter's case, his team's strikeouts do not seem to be the problem.

In 1997 (before his decline), Derek Jeter led all shortstops in chances (assists plus putouts). His range compared to the other shortstops was a very good 39 points above the league average. That year the Yankee pitching staff struck out 1165 batters.

By 2002, Jeter's range had fallen to a disastrous 75 points below the league average - the worst in the major leagues. And the Yankee pitchers struck out 1135 batters - virtually the same as in 1997. So, it would appear that the number of strikeouts is not the answer to Derek Jeter's decline in range factor.

some long thread on another board about this exact issue. I haven't read it, but maybe there are some other sources they have listed (the guy who started the thread agrees with Gonzno)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/archive/index.php/t-14004.html">http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/arc ... 14004.html</a><!-- m -->

[GonzoStyle]

double nomars numbers still not as good

and he said LAST, worst, consistently, what about when he had 701 PO's and Assists in 97 and led all SS's?

Once again I never said he was the best but to call him bad or as galt has called him the worst is just plain ridiculous.

[Galt]

I thought range factor was putouts and assists / innings? I thought that was the "range factor" that everyone talks about. Is range factor something different? I keep seeing people say he has the worst range factor in baseball.