NYCSox said:
Do you run into scarecrows on regular basis?
HillysLastWalk said:Derek Jeter, although he's not the greatest shortstop ever!!!, he is at least in the conversation.
For players that played the majority of their games at shortstop, at the beginning of the year he was: 3rd all time in fWAR (Honus Wagner and Cal Ripken ahead of him), and 7th all time in bWAR.
There's no denying, this is a great, 1st ballot HOF, star. When evaluating him, you should at least keep it contained to other shortstops no? No matter what you think of his defense. So he's basically a once a generation talent (for example, Cal Ripken and Ozzie Smith being the previous generation greats).
EDIT: 1999 - Ignoring pitchers, he was 3rd in fWAR at 7.4. Only Manny (7.5) and Bagwell (7.8) were ahead of him. I haven't looked at other years, but that probably qualifies for the best of his position.
EvilEmpire said:He's the baseball equivalent of a Kennedy. Of course he is overhyped and has flaws. It isn't about him personally, but what he represents to fans, many of whom don't even follow the game very closely. Or at least closely enough to recognize those flaws.
A lot of people really, really like the idea of Jeter. Many of them are in the media. He gave them something to talk about. It's annoying, and has been for a long time. But at least for me, the bitterness over how things ended won't linger very long once he's gone. He's still a great player. Still seems like a good guy. I don't need him to be the "bestest evah" to be enjoy his career and be a fan.
Ripken's 30's are, essentially, the 90s. Nothing you said is wrong, but for the 90s Ripken hit .278/.341/.443, which was good for 7th among shortstops for the decade, in a very top heavy era. Of the top seven, he had by far the most PA. OPS+ is going to be heavily skewed against him because of the era. At his position, Ripken was more than respectable.mt8thsw9th said:Tom, you had me until the Ripken bit. Ripken was great up until 30, and then he put up 5791 plate appearances with a 97 OPS+ during a pretty extreme offensive era. He was pretty much toast by 36, but stuck around to break 3000 hits, etc.
Larkin, for comparison, had a 116 OPS+ post 30. I wonder what type of career line Ripken would have had if he didn't selfishly insist on playing every game (career-wise August and September were markedly his worst months performance-wise).
Jeter's line is pretty remarkable for a strong defensive shortstop, but the issue was he was pretty dreadful at it. It will be interesting to see the advances there are in quantifying defense as a component of WAR, because the early returns leave him largely indistinguishable from Alan Trammell (and tangent alert, but why is he not in with Lou Whitaker?).
jodyreeddudley78 said:I more or less agree with everything you wrote. Over all, last night was pretty cool. But you lost me with the last line. The reality is, the praise and love Jeter has received during his farewell tour wouldn't have happened had he played for any other team. The last player I remember (aside from Mariano) to get even close to this sort of farewell tour was Ripken (who was, btw, a better player), and it did not reach this level of sanctimony. If you live in NY, you can not avoid the "Jeter wuz the greatestist" parade, or have a rational conversation about just how good he was without having phrases like "intangibles" and "he did things the right way". Do those things change how great he was? No. But they can annoy someone who doesn't buy in, or wants to have a rational conversation with a coworker.
I think we were lucky to watch Jeter play, but I'm ready for the end already.
NatetheGreat said:
If the Red Sox drafted a guy out of high school who then played 20 years for the team, much of that as its' captain and public face, while racking up an insane shitload of hits and a boatload of awards and accolades, coming up big in a ton of memorable moments and contributing substantially to 5 championship runs, while avoiding a single notable scandal or controversy, I'm pretty sure that Sox fans would fucking love the guy, and many would have a hard time being "objective" or rational about him in any way.That he did it for our most hated rival makes it easy to stand apart and say "look at all these morons getting caught up in the hype", but I seriously question whether Boston fans would be immune to that hype were the situation reversed.
Sure. But it wouldn't be the national epidemic that we are suffering. And my Yankee friends aren't morons. That is what is annoying.NatetheGreat said:
If the Red Sox drafted a guy out of high school who then played 20 years for the team, much of that as its' captain and public face, while racking up an insane shitload of hits and a boatload of awards and accolades, coming up big in a ton of memorable moments and contributing substantially to 5 championship runs, while avoiding a single notable scandal or controversy, I'm pretty sure that Sox fans would fucking love the guy, and many would have a hard time being "objective" or rational about him in any way.That he did it for our most hated rival makes it easy to stand apart and say "look at all these morons getting caught up in the hype", but I seriously question whether Boston fans would be immune to that hype were the situation reversed.
Average Reds said:
Is anyone arguing the converse?
NatetheGreat said:
I certainly got the impression that some were arguing that even if Jeter had played for the Red Sox, Sox fans would find the hype and hagiography over his retirement overblown and annoying, and I'm just not convinced that's true. One can debate whether, if Jeter had the exact same career (including number of rings and accolades) in Boston that he had in New York, whether he'd get quite the same level of insane media/fan love, but I think he'd certainly get a lot, and I honestly don't think Sox fans would find it that bothersome if that sort of love were being directed at someone who was "our guy".
TomRicardo said:
Jeter is not even close to Ripken.
Wingack said:The numbers are there in my opinion anyway for him to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. But should the FAME part of Jeter count for anything? I know it is probably an obnoxious question. I mean, he has been a terrific ambassador for the game (if a terrible interview), sold merchandise and put butts in seats. For the past 20 years, he has probably been the most valuable, marketable player that MLB had.
NatetheGreat said:
If the Red Sox drafted a guy out of high school who then played 20 years for the team, much of that as its' captain and public face, while racking up an insane shitload of hits and a boatload of awards and accolades, coming up big in a ton of memorable moments and contributing substantially to 5 championship runs, while avoiding a single notable scandal or controversy, I'm pretty sure that Sox fans would fucking love the guy, and many would have a hard time being "objective" or rational about him in any way.That he did it for our most hated rival makes it easy to stand apart and say "look at all these morons getting caught up in the hype", but I seriously question whether Boston fans would be immune to that hype were the situation reversed.
JohntheBaptist said:
I can't remember if he was drafted out of high school, and he obviously never got his team to 5 championships but--other than that, couldn't you be describing Yastrzemski here?
I've always thought Jeter reveals much more about people in reaction to him than he ever did about himself.
NatetheGreat said:
If Yaz had somehow won 5 championships with the Sox, I think there's a good chance the entire region of New England would have gone into debt just building statues for the guy.
glennhoffmania said:
Really? So the key difference is the number of rings?
glennhoffmania said:
Really? So the key difference is the number of rings?
EvilEmpire said:Rings, and the associated post-season play, bring in tons of casual fans. The kind of pink hat fans that nations are built from.
glennhoffmania said:If Yaz had won ten rings the hoopla during his retirement tour would've still paled in comparison to what we're experiencing right now. Sure, rings factor in. But they don't explain the magnitude of the hysteria.
HillysLastWalk said:Derek Jeter, although he's not the greatest shortstop ever!!!, he is at least in the conversation.
Wingack said:
Well the internet didn't exist. And there weren't several 24 national sports channels either. It is a different time now.
HillysLastWalk said:Derek Jeter - 71.7 bWAR, 73.6 fWAR
Barry Larkin - 70.3 bWAR, 67.7 fWAR
moondog80 said:A big point in Jeter's favor, relative to Larkin is durability. From 1996-2010, his 3 lowest GP totals were 119, 148, and 149, he averaged 152 games.
Larkin, over his 15 year peak (1987-2002, excluding the 1994 strike year) averaged 123 games.
That's 2 full seasons plus another 111 games that Jeter played and Larkin missed.
600 less games played, yet similar WARs more than proves your point actually. It exemplifies the idea that Jeter is, in fact, overrated. All time great, but overrated.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:Great, thanks for making my point for me. They're the same player, only Larkin played a little bit fewer games and only one guy is getting the public blow job to be unanimously selected to the Hall.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Great, thanks for making my point for me. They're the same player, only Larkin played a little bit fewer games and only one guy is getting the public blow job to be unanimously selected to the Hall.
Rasputin said:
No he isn't. He's a terrible shortstop.
If Derek Jeter were the left fielder for the Twins, he'd be a Hall of Fame player that wouldn't make me want to hurl.
Essentially, over the last 100 years, Cal Ripken is the only full time SS we’ve seen that has posted a higher career WAR than Jeter.
So maybe the mainstream media has overrated Jeter over the last 20 years, but if they have, they’ve slightly exaggerated the greatness of one of the greatest players of all time. This isn’t a Ryan Howard or Jack Morris situation, where the narrative has turned an okay player into a superstar based on myth and legend. Jeter is a legitimate legend on his own merits, with no embellishments needed.
EvilEmpire said:Jeter has around 700 more games played than Larkin.
Post-season play doesn't count when evaluating a player's HoF credentials? OK.No he doesn't. He has 565 more games played than Larkin as of today. 3 1/2 more seasons.
Does he have 700 more gift baskets delivered? Probably.
NatetheGreat said:
If Yaz had somehow won 5 championships with the Sox, I think there's a good chance the entire region of New England would have gone into debt just building statues for the guy.
Jeter? Guy's got an Edge.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Which I noted in my first post comparing Jeter to Larkin. Jeter's got about 550 more games played, about 3 full seasons. Not insubstantial. That's one edge for Jeter. Of course Jeter played SS about as well as Stephen Hawking could, so that's an edge for Larkin.
EvilEmpire said:Post-season play doesn't count when evaluating a player's HoF credentials? OK.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
It matters, but....
not every player gets equal access to the postseason.
NatetheGreat said:
I'm just not sure why this is particularly relevant. The Hall of Fame isn't about what each player might have accomplished in the abstract based on their respective skills, but about what each player actually did accomplish. If player A is on a great team that afford him vastly more opportunities to come up big in the postseason and win a bunch of rings while player B is stuck on a perennial loser that never gives him the chance to play in a game that matters, that sucks for player B, but unfair or not player A will still have accomplished more.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
It's not really relevant because a player shouldn't be penalized for the bad luck of having worse teammates than another guy.
I think this is mostly accurate. But I think this board is far more cynical than the average fan and far less tolerant of the over-the-top ball-washing that CI has received over the back-end of his HoF career. BTW, when is Tom Brady's doing his year-long victory lap into Canton? I got to book a room at the Canton Marriott.NatetheGreat said:
If the Red Sox drafted a guy out of high school who then played 20 years for the team, much of that as its' captain and public face, while racking up an insane shitload of hits and a boatload of awards and accolades, coming up big in a ton of memorable moments and contributing substantially to 5 championship runs, while avoiding a single notable scandal or controversy, I'm pretty sure that Sox fans would fucking love the guy, and many would have a hard time being "objective" or rational about him in any way.That he did it for our most hated rival makes it easy to stand apart and say "look at all these morons getting caught up in the hype", but I seriously question whether Boston fans would be immune to that hype were the situation reversed.
This is certainly true of the Yankee fans here as well.I think this is mostly accurate. But I think this board is far more cynical than the average fan and far less tolerant of the over-the-top ball-washing that CI has received over the back-end of his HoF career.
bankshot1 said:I think this is mostly accurate. But I think this board is far more cynical than the average fan and far less tolerant of the over-the-top ball-washing that CI has received over the back-end of his HoF career. BTW, when is Tom Brady's doing his year-long victory lap into Canton? I got to book a room at the Canton Marriott.
NatetheGreat said:
OTOH, its sort of bizarre to simultaneously insist that making the postseason and winning rings is the entire point of playing the sport, but that actually doing so should have little to no bearing on how we evaluate a player's career because it would somehow be unfair. Now, "better player" and "better career" are not necessarily the same thing, but I think the HoF should be much more about the latter than the former. Two players having roughly equal skillsets doesn't mean they should necessarily have equal HoF candidacies.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
It's a team game. No one has ever won a WS by himself. Getting the opportunity to play in the postseason and playing well once there are notches in a player's favor, but then using that opportunity to say a player is better than another who didn't play in the postseason that much is not an accurate representation of either's quality.
No, but it makes him way more of a valuable item to Major League Baseball.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
A player's responsibility is to play to his utmost skills at all times. Neither Jeter nor Larkin could contribute by pitching, so by saying "well the point is to win" you miss the point that there are 24 other guys on each team. Of course in Jeter's case it's easy to forget that as the media never seems to mention it.
It's a team game. No one has ever won a WS by himself. Getting the opportunity to play in the postseason and playing well once there are notches in a player's favor, but then using that opportunity to say a player is better than another who didn't play in the postseason that much is not an accurate representation of either's quality.
NatetheGreat said:
The two players may be equal in ability, but in terms of who ended up having the better career, the one who got better opportunities and took advantage of them likely will, and I think the HOF largely does, and should, reflect that. HoF candidacy is about more than the quality of a player's skillset taken in the abstract, and will inevitably factor in things that weren't fundamentally under the player's control, like whether they ended up in a good situation or a bad one.
Wingack said:No, but it makes him way more of a valuable item to Major League Baseball.
The difference is, you seem to think that's a flaw. Myself, I really don't give a fuck about "fairness" to players with bad luck, nor about "factoring out" good situations or good luck. I am very happy with saying that, skillsets being otherwise equal, the guy who played for a better team and won more because of it had a better career and should be rewarded for it.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Then we agree that the Hall is a flawed method for measuring a player's worth. Got it, cheers.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Then we agree that the Hall is a flawed method for measuring a player's worth. Got it, cheers.
And I say all of this noting full well that when Ortiz is up for consideration, those same arguments are going to be made in his favor in comparison to a guy like Edgar Martinez.