@brad31 said:
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Jeter is not a Hall of Famer - he was a great player. However he pales in comparison to many of the other players being mentioned.
I am confused on the current people not knowing who Ernie Banks is without “Let’s Play Two” - I don’t think that saying is huge among the kids. People who study baseball history will know both Jeter and Trout. People who don’t will likely know neither of them 50 years after their last game like it is with Ernie Banks.
You don’t think Jeter gets remembered?
He did have some crossover appeal outside of baseball: he was every girls favorite (famous or not), one of a handful of athletes that have hosted SNL, currently owns the Florida Marlins and is the all time leader in a lot of significant categories for the New York Yankees, many of which will stand for a very long time.
Time will tell. When he is out of the game 50 years like Banks is now it will be 2044. A 20 year old born in 2024 may not have heard of Jeter unless from a family of Yankee fans. Huge fans that follow history will know him - but not sure he will be talked about much more than Banks is today. He will always be more known by being from New York - but do not think he will be known by all like Ruth or Jackie or Cy Young. How many 20 year olds know Frank Robinson today? He hasn’t even been out 50 years yet.
Big baseball fans yes. The average 20 year old in 2044 - I am guessing no.
While I do not expect anyone to agree with me, vintage should somewhat follow and track the development of the game. I see vintage as 1968 and earlier... the last season before the expansion and divisions. Starting in 1969, we have what I simply refer to as the Modern era which extends to 1993 and before the next expansion and separation into three divisions that commenced in1994. You can choose between Post-Modern or Contemporary for the time frame of 1994 to the present.
I agree, he’s not from the vintage era of cards. And, again, I have so many more vintage cards than I do modern cards in my collection:
…and watching the way Jeter played, he seemed from a different era. No dancing, no showboating, hard nosed, played hurt, winning is all that matters.
I don’t think there are many guys that hit all those notes anymore. And I’m not knocking the dancers and showboaters, either. Times change and it’s made the game more appealing to a new generation so I’m fine with it all.
Those 60 and 62 Mantles look almost identical to ones I sold earlier this year. Funny if that's them in the first thread I clicked on after joining. Nice collection though.
Mike Trout is great. The Angels are terrible. He has had issues staying healthy. His Update is too expensive for what is not unlike Jeter rcs. I have Trout cards in my collection but I sold every Update I had just because price was too high for what it is. The bashing of Trout to make Jeter look better is foolish, same the other way around. Can we all just agree that the Rangers just spent half a billion dollars and will still finish 3rd at best in the West?
@brad31 said:
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Jeter is not a Hall of Famer - he was a great player. However he pales in comparison to many of the other players being mentioned.
I am confused on the current people not knowing who Ernie Banks is without “Let’s Play Two” - I don’t think that saying is huge among the kids. People who study baseball history will know both Jeter and Trout. People who don’t will likely know neither of them 50 years after their last game like it is with Ernie Banks.
You don’t think Jeter gets remembered?
He did have some crossover appeal outside of baseball: he was every girls favorite (famous or not), one of a handful of athletes that have hosted SNL, currently owns the Florida Marlins and is the all time leader in a lot of significant categories for the New York Yankees, many of which will stand for a very long time.
Time will tell. When he is out of the game 50 years like Banks is now it will be 2044. A 20 year old born in 2024 may not have heard of Jeter unless from a family of Yankee fans. Huge fans that follow history will know him - but not sure he will be talked about much more than Banks is today. He will always be more known by being from New York - but do not think he will be known by all like Ruth or Jackie or Cy Young. How many 20 year olds know Frank Robinson today? He hasn’t even been out 50 years yet.
Big baseball fans yes. The average 20 year old in 2044 - I am guessing no.
Can't the same be said for Robin Yount, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, or any player other than Cal Ripken, that started their career in 1970-2000? And even with Ripken, by that time will anyone even care about a consecutive games streak, considering nobody is even expected to play every game anymore?
I disagree about Jeter being 'forgotten'. I believe the opposite will be the case and that he will be the the transcending player of his generation and the generation just before and after. The elite HOFer who was the face of the the most popular franchise for two decades while winning five World Series will be remembered and promoted more than anyone else in his time.
For instance, September 11, 2001 will always be remembered, and that Yankee team and Jeter is already always connected with that time in sports history. The steroid era will be an era in its own right, and Jeter is already viewed as the clean player among a league of users.
Why are any players of the past still talked about or considered relevant? Do casual fans that even talk about them anyway?
There are really only two players in history that are cemented in relevance for every future generation to come...Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth.
Even Mantle and Mays have a chance to diminish(to a degree) in the spotlight as time goes by as the people who saw them play eventually pass away. They however, are the third and fourth spots of continued relevance gong forward, and I myself believe they will remain relevant.
Other than that, will the casual fan know Jeter from Clemente, or Bonds from Horsnby, or anyone else for that matter anyway?
Casual fans will know Bonds. 73 HR and 762 HR - they will know he has the record. Casual fans will know Clemente as long as MLB keeps honoring him on Clemente day each year with Puerto Rican players all wearing 21.
The cornerstone of my collection is my Banks run - but outside of Chicago most kids have never heard of him even if they are baseball fans. Agree that kids have heard of Ripken and the fact that he has a little league named after him will keep him as known.
I think over time Jeter will be known less than Mantle is today and slightly more than other Hall of Famers of his time. This is in no way a knock on Jeter - there are few truly transcendent players. Big baseball fans will know him and probably continue to argue about his place in history. That is what makes being a fan fun. This is no knock on Jeter - just a fact of where baseball history ranks in importance in the US now. It does not have the place in our culture that it used to.
Think Cy Young is with a Robinson and Ruth just because the award is named after him.
Unfortunately there are many exceptional players that deserve more than a footnote or an occasional reference in passing. There is so much more to the game, the history and what matters than rehashing what really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Baseball cards will only be important over the long term if there is interest and even a renewed look at how the game evolved over time. It is not just about the HOF players but others that were over shadowed but left an impact that cannot be measured or captured by numbers. MLB is about personalities and playing characteristics that set players apart. A complete picture is required to appreciate the game for what it was and what it has become.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@brad31 said:
Casual fans will know Bonds. 73 HR and 762 HR - they will know he has the record. Casual fans will know Clemente as long as MLB keeps honoring him on Clemente day each year with Puerto Rican players all wearing 21.
The cornerstone of my collection is my Banks run - but outside of Chicago most kids have never heard of him even if they are baseball fans. Agree that kids have heard of Ripken and the fact that he has a little league named after him will keep him as known.
I think over time Jeter will be known less than Mantle is today and slightly more than other Hall of Famers of his time. This is in no way a knock on Jeter - there are few truly transcendent players. Big baseball fans will know him and probably continue to argue about his place in history. That is what makes being a fan fun. This is no knock on Jeter - just a fact of where baseball history ranks in importance in the US now. It does not have the place in our culture that it used to.
Think Cy Young is with a Robinson and Ruth just because the award is named after him.
A lot of baseball fan kids who are in grade school now know Jeter. You would be surprised. 2044 is only 22 years away from now. I'm pretty sure Jeter will be just as known then as he is now. 100 years may be a different story.
Derek Jeter was always a class act, which is why Red Sox fans rarely talk trash about him. He was so refreshing after the arrogant and pompous 1970's and 80's Yankees (Reggie, Munson, Piniella, Martin and so on). They were good and wanted to tell everyone how wonderful they were. Jeter just did his job every day and kept a low profile most of the time. Bottom line, even though I am a lifelong Red Sox fan, I have always had the utmost respect for Jeter.
Think Cy Young is with a Robinson and Ruth just because the award is named after him.
Do you really think most people think Cy Young was a real person, or even if he was, why there is an award named after him? It's kind of like most of those hockey trophies. Everyone knows Lord Stanley's name, but can they tell you a thing about him?
@craig44 said:
I love all the talk about trout being such a transcendent slugger.
How many times did this transcendent slugger lead his league in hr, 2b or 3b?
that would be none.
Did anybody call him a transcendent slugger? I must have missed that.
Yep. All I said was that he led the league in slugging three times in five years and that his .583 is best among active players and 9th all time (I refuse to count Charleston, Suttles, and Stearnes because I don't believe the data is close to complete). He's a much more complete player than that.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Mickey Cochran won MVP over Lou Gehrig in a year (1934) where Lou won a triple crown. By the statistics, this is an epic travesty. I don’t think I need to explain why.
However, Mickey was the catcher of the team, the manager of the team and had a really solid season as a hitter, quite literally leading the Tigers to the pennant over those Ruth and Gehrig (and Lefty Gonez who was the best pitcher in baseball) led Yankees.
Think about that for a second - catching and managing a pennant winner and hitting .320 to boot!
Of course hitting was so favorable in 1934 that Cochrane only finished 13th.
When people claim Derek Jeter is the ‘worst defensive shortstop ever’, it just seems like the statistics are being manipulated to cast him in a terrible light. In reality, Jeter was an average defender - not the best or the worst - who was lacking in mechanics and footwork early on that he improved as his athleticism declined, helping to keep him an average defender for a bit longer. Obviously, the last few years he was not the same defender and I think it’s very fair to say that his baseball IQ also helped make up for some of his defensive deficiencies.
Let's be very clear: I'm not suggesting that Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop ever. My point is far more subtle, and far more damning than that. I say that Jeter's defense hurt the Yankees more than any other player (at any position) had his defense hurt his team. There are doubtless players who played a short time at short who played it worse than Jeter, but were moved off before they could do as much damage. There are doubtless players who were far worse defenders at less critical positions so that they had the opportunity to hurt their teams less. Unfortunately, Jeter never played a position he could field competently, so we really have no idea which position that would be.
I consider fielding percentage to be a completely garbage stat, so I'm not going to bother looking it up. If challenged, I'm sure I can find some hilarious examples. Gold gloves seem almost random, although they are not, but they are certainly no measure of fielding ability which should have become obvious to the last holdouts when the 1999 Gold Glove for DH.
Let's further stipulate that no one stat can completely encapsulate a player's ability. That is it is impossible, or just silly, to say that Joey Votto is better than Willie McCovey was because Votto's WAR is 64.5 and McCovey's was 64.5. Most stats are far worse (Corey Patterson was better than Ty Cobb because he had a 118 to 117 lead in home runs). Still, if there is a large difference in normed stats then it is hard to ignore. It's hard to believe that Willie Mays (156.1 WAR) wasn't better than Joe DiMaggio (79.2 WAR).
Gary Sheffield (who may have been the worst shortstop ever, except that the Brewers had the good sense to move him to 3rd before he turned 21) is second to the worst in Fielding Runs (-195.3). In fact, given that he played over 300 games as DH and almost 14,000 innings at the ow value "corner outfield" positions a case could be made for Sheffield to be the worst defensive player of all time. Adam Dunn is third at (-167.5) which is a huge difference. With a normed stat, though this is less important in the whole universe as Sheffield and Dunn are necessarily compared to all of their peers as well, a 16.6% difference between second and third is determinative that, as far as helping his team defensively, Sheffield was definitely in the bottom two. Jeter was an astonishing -253.3, or 29.7% worse than Sheffield. Now I'm not saying that Jeter hurt the Yankees defensively 30% more than anyone else in major league history hurt his team(s), but it is reasonable to believe that it is close (say between 25 and 35% worse) and impossible to believe that Jeter was even minimally competent as a shortstop.
Two other points: according to this metric, Jeter's defense actually had a positive contribution twice, in 1998 (2 runs) and 2009 (3). Coincidentally, those were pretty clearly Jeter's second and third best seasons (1999 was clearly his best). Second, to show that this is not a garbage stat, the top ten are B. Robinson, Belanger, O. Smith, Andruw Jones, Beltre, Clemente, A. Simmons, Mays, Yastrzemski, and Piersall.
Comment: It surprises me that Robinson is 21.8% "better than" Belanger, but he played 61.3% more innings, so I guess that makes sense. Man, it must have been fun to watch the Orioles back then.
I have come to the conclusion that those that love Mike Trout haven't actually watched more than a handful of his games. Sure, they get up on the morning, come out of their basement, check the box scores and watch a few highlights while mom makes breakfast, and deem Trout a god.
If they actually watched games involving Trout, they'd see that he is a guy that compiles stats when it doesn't matter, but then shrinks in the big moments, and he obviously takes way too many called third strikes because he's flat out scared. He hears Yordano telling him to, "Look at the scoreboard, kiiiiid!", and he freezes up. There are at the very least, 2 or 3 hitters on EVERY team that you'd rather see at the plate in a critical situation vs having Trout in the batter's box when you need a big hit. Don't give me that WPA nonsense. I mean a truly critical situation, not the 5th inning of a tie game between the Angels and the Rangers when both teams are 15 games out of first place. Be honest. You can probably name 50 guys just off of the top of your head that you'd rather have in there batting, without even taking a pause to think.
I haven't even mentioned his atrocious defense. I've been telling people for years what my eyes have seen, and the metrics are finally catching up to the fact he sucks in the field. He apparently is afraid of the wall, so he plays an abnormally deep centerfield because he would rather come in than go back. He is near the bottom of the league in his "jumps", his reaction to batted balls. He is near the bottom of the league in his routes. He let's way too many balls fall in front of him because he's afraid to dive and get hurt, yet again. Good baserunners can read this, and go first to third or second to home, with ease. He has an inaccurate, Johnny Damon-esque popgun arm which lets runners proceed without fear. Runs score because of his failures as an outfielder. All of this contributes to the "horrible, garbage Angels TEAM" that gets thrown out there as an excuse for his failure to make the postseason. They could have put Bubba Starling in center and spent the other 40 million somewhere else and won a crapload of more games these last few years. They repeatedly finish 4th with Trout, and they just finished 4th without Trout. They lose just as much because of him, as in spite of him. He is not, and will never be, a "winner".
When people claim Derek Jeter is the ‘worst defensive shortstop ever’, it just seems like the statistics are being manipulated to cast him in a terrible light. In reality, Jeter was an average defender - not the best or the worst - who was lacking in mechanics and footwork early on that he improved as his athleticism declined, helping to keep him an average defender for a bit longer. Obviously, the last few years he was not the same defender and I think it’s very fair to say that his baseball IQ also helped make up for some of his defensive deficiencies.
Let's be very clear: I'm not suggesting that Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop ever. My point is far more subtle, and far more damning than that. I say that Jeter's defense hurt the Yankees more than any other player (at any position) had his defense hurt his team. There are doubtless players who played a short time at short who played it worse than Jeter, but were moved off before they could do as much damage. There are doubtless players who were far worse defenders at less critical positions so that they had the opportunity to hurt their teams less. Unfortunately, Jeter never played a position he could field competently, so we really have no idea which position that would be.
I consider fielding percentage to be a completely garbage stat, so I'm not going to bother looking it up. If challenged, I'm sure I can find some hilarious examples. Gold gloves seem almost random, although they are not, but they are certainly no measure of fielding ability which should have become obvious to the last holdouts when the 1999 Gold Glove for DH.
Let's further stipulate that no one stat can completely encapsulate a player's ability. That is it is impossible, or just silly, to say that Joey Votto is better than Willie McCovey was because Votto's WAR is 64.5 and McCovey's was 64.5. Most stats are far worse (Corey Patterson was better than Ty Cobb because he had a 118 to 117 lead in home runs). Still, if there is a large difference in normed stats then it is hard to ignore. It's hard to believe that Willie Mays (156.1 WAR) wasn't better than Joe DiMaggio (79.2 WAR).
Gary Sheffield (who may have been the worst shortstop ever, except that the Brewers had the good sense to move him to 3rd before he turned 21) is second to the worst in Fielding Runs (-195.3). In fact, given that he played over 300 games as DH and almost 14,000 innings at the ow value "corner outfield" positions a case could be made for Sheffield to be the worst defensive player of all time. Adam Dunn is third at (-167.5) which is a huge difference. With a normed stat, though this is less important in the whole universe as Sheffield and Dunn are necessarily compared to all of their peers as well, a 16.6% difference between second and third is determinative that, as far as helping his team defensively, Sheffield was definitely in the bottom two. Jeter was an astonishing -253.3, or 29.7% worse than Sheffield. Now I'm not saying that Jeter hurt the Yankees defensively 30% more than anyone else in major league history hurt his team(s), but it is reasonable to believe that it is close (say between 25 and 35% worse) and impossible to believe that Jeter was even minimally competent as a shortstop.
Two other points: according to this metric, Jeter's defense actually had a positive contribution twice, in 1998 (2 runs) and 2009 (3). Coincidentally, those were pretty clearly Jeter's second and third best seasons (1999 was clearly his best). Second, to show that this is not a garbage stat, the top ten are B. Robinson, Belanger, O. Smith, Andruw Jones, Beltre, Clemente, A. Simmons, Mays, Yastrzemski, and Piersall.
Comment: It surprises me that Robinson is 21.8% "better than" Belanger, but he played 61.3% more innings, so I guess that makes sense. Man, it must have been fun to watch the Orioles back then.
There’s a lot of good statistics there but they are just statistics at the end of the day - a set of numbers to manipulate to support conclusions.
For example, you point to Mays’ 156 WAR as being much better than DiMaggio’s 79 WAR despite the fact that one played 13 seasons (and had no stats for his prime age 28, 29, and 30 seasons) and the other 23 seasons played. Viewed on a per season basis, it’s more like 6.1 for Joe and 6.8 for Willie. Then, if you are willing to factor in the loss of prime years of accumulating stats at the beginning in the PCL (he was signed in 1935 by the Yankees but due to an offseason knee injury, he was left there to prove the knee was healthy among other things 😉) and the WWII chunk of absence mid career, you might come to the conclusion that these players were very close in talent and ability - perhaps significantly more than their 156 to 79 disparity would suggest.
I watched most of the games Derek Jeter played in. And I can tell you that up until his last few seasons (2-3 at the very end) he was not the liability you are making him out to be with the statistics you present. Here’s another person who took the time to play around with stats and produced a different conclusion.
@GreenSneakers said:
See, this thread is exactly why you can’t compliment Jeter to Yankees fans.
Jeter was the best player in the AL in 1999! (Checked my notes, he finished fifth in MVP voting that year)
Jeter is a better player than Trout! Intangibles! (So long as team achievements are weighed more heavily than individual achievements in assessing an individual’s talents?)
Jeter was underrated defensively! All defensive measures suck! Plus, the Flip! (Carlos Correa knows more about playing short than most people on this thread so just reference what he said)
As a Yankees fan and Jeter fan, I respectfully disagree. I will start by saying that most Red Sox fans went from ‘hate and overrated’ early on to eventual begrudging respect for Derek Jeter over his career. And I definitely appreciate that and any compliments thrown his way, particularly from the rival fan base.
Since I made the point you reference, I didn’t say Jeter was the best player in the AL in 1999, simply that a case could be made that he was, and that by that logic he was very likely also the best player on his own team - the actual point I was trying to make to the poster who asserted that Jeter wasn’t EVER the best player on the Yankees in any season. Having watched baseball like crazy at the time, when I think of 1999 the first thing I think of is Pedro Martinez throwing baseballs like wiffle balls. He was cocky and awesome and I hated him. But again, I don’t usually consider pitchers in the same vein as everyday players.
I don’t think Derek Jeter is a better player than Mike Trout, who gets a lot of shade thrown his way because he is on a garbage team run by a foolish and impatient owner. I would not and have never made such a claim.
When people claim Derek Jeter is the ‘worst defensive shortstop ever’, it just seems like the statistics are being manipulated to cast him in a terrible light. In reality, Jeter was an average defender - not the best or the worst - who was lacking in mechanics and footwork early on that he improved as his athleticism declined, helping to keep him an average defender for a bit longer. Obviously, the last few years he was not the same defender and I think it’s very fair to say that his baseball IQ also helped make up for some of his defensive deficiencies.
coming from a Red Sox fan, I do have a begrudging respect for Jeter now that all is said and done. I think he was a very good offensive SS, and a not-so-good defensive SS. now, I also give him credit for being a great team leader and though it is not something i would ever normally say, he had great intangibles. Now, I have no way to measure intangibles or to rank players who i think did have them. but I watched just about every single Jeter playoff game and i saw that he had "it" whatever "it" is. I cant explain it, but I saw it. I also saw it in some other players: George Brett, Smoltz, Schilling and Ortiz also had "it" to one degree to another.
I went to college in New England and formed friendships with mant sox fans. I also watch lots of baseball and more than just Yankees games.
I always felt there were a lot of parallels between Jeter and Dustin Pedroia in that they had the good stats but that didn’t really reveal just how good they really were.
And it could be something stupid like the team just gave up some runs in the top of the third to make it a 2-2 game and he (either guy) leads off the next inning with a double, comes around to score and regain the lead and the team wins 5-2. It goes in the books as a single and run but it was a ‘big hit’ or an ‘answer back’ at a critical point in a game that maybe didn’t determine it’s outcome but helped swing in game momentum. You don’t see that show up, necessarily and with full impact, on a stat sheet. Yes there are metrics that serve to isolate some of it but I have always found it better and more interesting to watch the games, instead.
this is right. Pedroia had "it" and what you said about answering back or swings in momentum are sometimes the things that can win games. I cant quantify it, I really cant even debate it, but I can see it.
Jeter, (even though he was a Yankee) absolutely had "it"
Can't the same be said for Robin Yount, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, or any player other than Cal Ripken, that started their career in 1970-2000? And even with Ripken, by that time will anyone even care about a consecutive games streak, considering nobody is even expected to play every game anymore?
Sadly, I agree. Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Frank Robinson, and Eddie Murray are seemingly already on that list and it is a shame. They had tremendous careers and get so little love.
There are 3 types of lies...Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. And resent reports show that the use of small, meaningless, silly, and stupid statistics was up 0.03% from Feb. to May, then dropped 1.09% from May to Oct. and are up 2.87% during this thread. And where is Blurryface? I miss him.
For example, you point to Mays’ 156 WAR as being much better than DiMaggio’s 79 WAR despite the fact that one played 13 seasons (and had no stats for his prime age 28, 29, and 30 seasons) and the other 23 seasons played. Viewed on a per season basis, it’s more like 6.1 for Joe and 6.8 for Willie. Then, if you are willing to factor in the loss of prime years of accumulating stats at the beginning in the PCL (he was signed in 1935 by the Yankees but due to an offseason knee injury, he was left there to prove the knee was healthy among other things 😉) and the WWII chunk of absence mid career, you might come to the conclusion that these players were very close in talent and ability - perhaps significantly more than their 156 to 79 disparity would suggest.
What about Mays’ 1952 and 1953 seasons he was in military service?
I think that any conclusion that Mays was not superior to DiMaggio is flawed. .7 WAR per season is significant - .7 WAR is worth about $5.6MM in annual salary today. Multiply that by the 13 seasons they both played and Mays is worth $70MM more than DiMaggio. They are both greats of the game but Mays belongs in the most elite company in baseball history.
For example, you point to Mays’ 156 WAR as being much better than DiMaggio’s 79 WAR despite the fact that one played 13 seasons (and had no stats for his prime age 28, 29, and 30 seasons) and the other 23 seasons played. Viewed on a per season basis, it’s more like 6.1 for Joe and 6.8 for Willie. Then, if you are willing to factor in the loss of prime years of accumulating stats at the beginning in the PCL (he was signed in 1935 by the Yankees but due to an offseason knee injury, he was left there to prove the knee was healthy among other things 😉) and the WWII chunk of absence mid career, you might come to the conclusion that these players were very close in talent and ability - perhaps significantly more than their 156 to 79 disparity would suggest.
What about Mays’ 1952 and 1953 seasons he was in military service?
I think that any conclusion that Mays was not superior to DiMaggio is flawed. .7 WAR per season is significant - .7 WAR is worth about $5.6MM in annual salary today. Multiply that by the 13 seasons they both played and Mays is worth $70MM more than DiMaggio. They are both greats of the game but Mays belongs in the most elite company in baseball history.
I am a fan of your cards and opinions. I’m only pointing out that WAR can feel very different depending on how it’s presented.
I think calling Willie Mays a little better than Joe DiMaggio is fair (and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, even) but when put forth as 156 to 79 it makes it seem like DiMaggio basically sucked. Each was considered peerless defending centerfield in their day and both could crush a baseball.
Conversing about this stuff is great and after Ruth, both Mays and Aaron are probably the two greatest players - for what they accomplished coupled with longevity- in the history of the sport ever since Babe Ruth hung the spikes up…
…this coming from one of the bigger (and here, at least, more vocal) Mickey Mantle fans you will find. Neither man could ever touch his legacy or star power, mind you, but that’s in part racial and in part has something to do with the franchises for which they played.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
It has to drive certain Red Sox fans (and any other Jeter haters, I know not all Sox fans hate Jeter) nuts that no matter how much they try to convince the world otherwise, Derek Jeter will be considered for many years to come one of the finest SS HOFers ever. His highlight reel is in the heart of many lovers of baseball to stay.
@beachbumcollecting said:
I thought this was a discussion on the fall in prices from ridiculous levels. I guess I was mistaken
I think it still is; obviously how well he is remembered will have an impact on his card values ok ver time.
It certainly devolved a bit from there but that’s been kind of fun too. He obviously still stirs up a lot of passions in baseball fans. Five years down, 45 to go…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Enjoy this type of discussion. Reminds me of me and my friends in high school arguing over guys while poring through The Baseball Encyclopedia. Have always been a Mays and Seaver guy when arguing about players. This was before WAR was invented.
No disrespect to anyone and their opinion is meant - I hope we are all enjoying this discussion as much as I am. Arguing about which Hall of Famer is better and their place in history is something I enjoy. I think we are all passionate about baseball and the fact that we even bother to argue about this says it all.
I would have thought 20 years ago that Carlton and Schmidt would have had a much larger place in history - so my opinion is far from prescient.
The one thing that we never argued back then was who was best — it was Ruth by such a landslide that all arguments started at 2nd best.
@brad31 said:
Enjoy this type of discussion. Reminds me of me and my friends in high school arguing over guys while poring through The Baseball Encyclopedia. Have always been a Mays and Seaver guy when arguing about players. This was before WAR was invented.
No disrespect to anyone and their opinion is meant - I hope we are all enjoying this discussion as much as I am. Arguing about which Hall of Famer is better and their place in history is something I enjoy. I think we are all passionate about baseball and the fact that we even bother to argue about this says it all.
I would have thought 20 years ago that Carlton and Schmidt would have had a much larger place in history - so my opinion is far from prescient.
The one thing that we never argued back then was who was best — it was Ruth by such a landslide that all arguments started at 2nd best.
i agree about schmidt. the guy was a transcendent player who should have higher standing. both an elite hitter and fielder.
can you imagine if he had been on those 70s yankee teams!!!
When people claim Derek Jeter is the ‘worst defensive shortstop ever’, it just seems like the statistics are being manipulated to cast him in a terrible light. In reality, Jeter was an average defender - not the best or the worst - who was lacking in mechanics and footwork early on that he improved as his athleticism declined, helping to keep him an average defender for a bit longer. Obviously, the last few years he was not the same defender and I think it’s very fair to say that his baseball IQ also helped make up for some of his defensive deficiencies.
Let's be very clear: I'm not suggesting that Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop ever. My point is far more subtle, and far more damning than that. I say that Jeter's defense hurt the Yankees more than any other player (at any position) had his defense hurt his team. There are doubtless players who played a short time at short who played it worse than Jeter, but were moved off before they could do as much damage. There are doubtless players who were far worse defenders at less critical positions so that they had the opportunity to hurt their teams less. Unfortunately, Jeter never played a position he could field competently, so we really have no idea which position that would be.
I consider fielding percentage to be a completely garbage stat, so I'm not going to bother looking it up. If challenged, I'm sure I can find some hilarious examples. Gold gloves seem almost random, although they are not, but they are certainly no measure of fielding ability which should have become obvious to the last holdouts when the 1999 Gold Glove for DH.
Let's further stipulate that no one stat can completely encapsulate a player's ability. That is it is impossible, or just silly, to say that Joey Votto is better than Willie McCovey was because Votto's WAR is 64.5 and McCovey's was 64.5. Most stats are far worse (Corey Patterson was better than Ty Cobb because he had a 118 to 117 lead in home runs). Still, if there is a large difference in normed stats then it is hard to ignore. It's hard to believe that Willie Mays (156.1 WAR) wasn't better than Joe DiMaggio (79.2 WAR).
Gary Sheffield (who may have been the worst shortstop ever, except that the Brewers had the good sense to move him to 3rd before he turned 21) is second to the worst in Fielding Runs (-195.3). In fact, given that he played over 300 games as DH and almost 14,000 innings at the ow value "corner outfield" positions a case could be made for Sheffield to be the worst defensive player of all time. Adam Dunn is third at (-167.5) which is a huge difference. With a normed stat, though this is less important in the whole universe as Sheffield and Dunn are necessarily compared to all of their peers as well, a 16.6% difference between second and third is determinative that, as far as helping his team defensively, Sheffield was definitely in the bottom two. Jeter was an astonishing -253.3, or 29.7% worse than Sheffield. Now I'm not saying that Jeter hurt the Yankees defensively 30% more than anyone else in major league history hurt his team(s), but it is reasonable to believe that it is close (say between 25 and 35% worse) and impossible to believe that Jeter was even minimally competent as a shortstop.
Two other points: according to this metric, Jeter's defense actually had a positive contribution twice, in 1998 (2 runs) and 2009 (3). Coincidentally, those were pretty clearly Jeter's second and third best seasons (1999 was clearly his best). Second, to show that this is not a garbage stat, the top ten are B. Robinson, Belanger, O. Smith, Andruw Jones, Beltre, Clemente, A. Simmons, Mays, Yastrzemski, and Piersall.
Comment: It surprises me that Robinson is 21.8% "better than" Belanger, but he played 61.3% more innings, so I guess that makes sense. Man, it must have been fun to watch the Orioles back then.
There’s a lot of good statistics there but they are just statistics at the end of the day - a set of numbers to manipulate to support conclusions.
For example, you point to Mays’ 156 WAR as being much better than DiMaggio’s 79 WAR despite the fact that one played 13 seasons (and had no stats for his prime age 28, 29, and 30 seasons) and the other 23 seasons played. Viewed on a per season basis, it’s more like 6.1 for Joe and 6.8 for Willie. Then, if you are willing to factor in the loss of prime years of accumulating stats at the beginning in the PCL (he was signed in 1935 by the Yankees but due to an offseason knee injury, he was left there to prove the knee was healthy among other things 😉) and the WWII chunk of absence mid career, you might come to the conclusion that these players were very close in talent and ability - perhaps significantly more than their 156 to 79 disparity would suggest.
I watched most of the games Derek Jeter played in. And I can tell you that up until his last few seasons (2-3 at the very end) he was not the liability you are making him out to be with the statistics you present. Here’s another person who took the time to play around with stats and produced a different conclusion.
And again, at the end of the day I just don’t think statistics are the only way to evaluate players.
You're misreading what I said. A WAR of 156 is much better than one of 79. There is simply no way to dispute that. The only conclusion I draw from that is that Mays was a better player than DiMaggio. I don't attempt to say how much. I'm just saying that that big a difference can't be ignored. I'm not saying DiMaggio was half as good as Mays, or 60%, or 80%, or 30% for two reasons: 1) I have no idea what that would even mean, and 2) I strongly doubt the precision of statistics. My statement simply is, and has always been, that a large difference in a (useful) stat means that the player was better at that.
I read the article you linked, and aside from one howler of an assumption, I generally agree with the author. It doesn't change my point, though. The author agrees that Jeter was a horrible defensive shortstop. His argument is that shortstops tend to be good defenders, so even a bad shortstop is going to be pretty good. This is a silly argument. Putting David Ortiz (or me) at Short wouldn't make him a good defender. (Ortiz would be a vastly better defensive shortstop than I would be.) I come from the chess world, and we have an extremely difficult time evaluating players who lose (or win) all their games, because if I were to lose all my games against the world champion, say ten, I could be about the 25th best player in the world (he really is that dominant), or I could be a teddy bear. We just have no idea. Jeter never played a single inning at a position he could field competently, so we can't say that he was actually a good fielder who was overmatched at Short. There is just no way of knowing.
Personally, I don't believe he was the worst fielder of all time, though I think "about average" is generous. All I'm saying, and all I've ever said, is that he cost his team more with his defense than any other player in history, and I don't think it was particularly close.
I also don't think that stats are the only way to evaluate players, but they come darn close to being the only way to evaluate his on field contribution. Jeter was a good hitter, and by all accounts a great leader. He was a horrible defensive player, and stats are far, far better than saying "I watched him play and he wasn't that bad." The history of gold gloves shows that even people who do it for a living are poor at evaluating defense. There must have been at any time during Jeter's career at least eight players under contract to the Yankees who could have played Short better than he did. I'd imagine it was his leadership that made it impossible for management to move him to a position he could actually play, similar to how it became impossible to rest Ripken, regardless how beneficial it would have been for the Orioles to have him play 160 games a couple of seasons or a few eight inning games.
When people claim Derek Jeter is the ‘worst defensive shortstop ever’, it just seems like the statistics are being manipulated to cast him in a terrible light. In reality, Jeter was an average defender - not the best or the worst - who was lacking in mechanics and footwork early on that he improved as his athleticism declined, helping to keep him an average defender for a bit longer. Obviously, the last few years he was not the same defender and I think it’s very fair to say that his baseball IQ also helped make up for some of his defensive deficiencies.
Let's be very clear: I'm not suggesting that Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop ever. My point is far more subtle, and far more damning than that. I say that Jeter's defense hurt the Yankees more than any other player (at any position) had his defense hurt his team. There are doubtless players who played a short time at short who played it worse than Jeter, but were moved off before they could do as much damage. There are doubtless players who were far worse defenders at less critical positions so that they had the opportunity to hurt their teams less. Unfortunately, Jeter never played a position he could field competently, so we really have no idea which position that would be.
I consider fielding percentage to be a completely garbage stat, so I'm not going to bother looking it up. If challenged, I'm sure I can find some hilarious examples. Gold gloves seem almost random, although they are not, but they are certainly no measure of fielding ability which should have become obvious to the last holdouts when the 1999 Gold Glove for DH.
Let's further stipulate that no one stat can completely encapsulate a player's ability. That is it is impossible, or just silly, to say that Joey Votto is better than Willie McCovey was because Votto's WAR is 64.5 and McCovey's was 64.5. Most stats are far worse (Corey Patterson was better than Ty Cobb because he had a 118 to 117 lead in home runs). Still, if there is a large difference in normed stats then it is hard to ignore. It's hard to believe that Willie Mays (156.1 WAR) wasn't better than Joe DiMaggio (79.2 WAR).
Gary Sheffield (who may have been the worst shortstop ever, except that the Brewers had the good sense to move him to 3rd before he turned 21) is second to the worst in Fielding Runs (-195.3). In fact, given that he played over 300 games as DH and almost 14,000 innings at the ow value "corner outfield" positions a case could be made for Sheffield to be the worst defensive player of all time. Adam Dunn is third at (-167.5) which is a huge difference. With a normed stat, though this is less important in the whole universe as Sheffield and Dunn are necessarily compared to all of their peers as well, a 16.6% difference between second and third is determinative that, as far as helping his team defensively, Sheffield was definitely in the bottom two. Jeter was an astonishing -253.3, or 29.7% worse than Sheffield. Now I'm not saying that Jeter hurt the Yankees defensively 30% more than anyone else in major league history hurt his team(s), but it is reasonable to believe that it is close (say between 25 and 35% worse) and impossible to believe that Jeter was even minimally competent as a shortstop.
Two other points: according to this metric, Jeter's defense actually had a positive contribution twice, in 1998 (2 runs) and 2009 (3). Coincidentally, those were pretty clearly Jeter's second and third best seasons (1999 was clearly his best). Second, to show that this is not a garbage stat, the top ten are B. Robinson, Belanger, O. Smith, Andruw Jones, Beltre, Clemente, A. Simmons, Mays, Yastrzemski, and Piersall.
Comment: It surprises me that Robinson is 21.8% "better than" Belanger, but he played 61.3% more innings, so I guess that makes sense. Man, it must have been fun to watch the Orioles back then.
There’s a lot of good statistics there but they are just statistics at the end of the day - a set of numbers to manipulate to support conclusions.
For example, you point to Mays’ 156 WAR as being much better than DiMaggio’s 79 WAR despite the fact that one played 13 seasons (and had no stats for his prime age 28, 29, and 30 seasons) and the other 23 seasons played. Viewed on a per season basis, it’s more like 6.1 for Joe and 6.8 for Willie. Then, if you are willing to factor in the loss of prime years of accumulating stats at the beginning in the PCL (he was signed in 1935 by the Yankees but due to an offseason knee injury, he was left there to prove the knee was healthy among other things 😉) and the WWII chunk of absence mid career, you might come to the conclusion that these players were very close in talent and ability - perhaps significantly more than their 156 to 79 disparity would suggest.
I watched most of the games Derek Jeter played in. And I can tell you that up until his last few seasons (2-3 at the very end) he was not the liability you are making him out to be with the statistics you present. Here’s another person who took the time to play around with stats and produced a different conclusion.
And again, at the end of the day I just don’t think statistics are the only way to evaluate players.
You're misreading what I said. A WAR of 156 is much better than one of 79. There is simply no way to dispute that. The only conclusion I draw from that is that Mays was a better player than DiMaggio. I don't attempt to say how much. I'm just saying that that big a difference can't be ignored. I'm not saying DiMaggio was half as good as Mays, or 60%, or 80%, or 30% for two reasons: 1) I have no idea what that would even mean, and 2) I strongly doubt the precision of statistics. My statement simply is, and has always been, that a large difference in a (useful) stat means that the player was better at that.
I read the article you linked, and aside from one howler of an assumption, I generally agree with the author. It doesn't change my point, though. The author agrees that Jeter was a horrible defensive shortstop. His argument is that shortstops tend to be good defenders, so even a bad shortstop is going to be pretty good. This is a silly argument. Putting David Ortiz (or me) at Short wouldn't make him a good defender. (Ortiz would be a vastly better defensive shortstop than I would be.) I come from the chess world, and we have an extremely difficult time evaluating players who lose (or win) all their games, because if I were to lose all my games against the world champion, say ten, I could be about the 25th best player in the world (he really is that dominant), or I could be a teddy bear. We just have no idea. Jeter never played a single inning at a position he could field competently, so we can't say that he was actually a good fielder who was overmatched at Short. There is just no way of knowing.
Personally, I don't believe he was the worst fielder of all time, though I think "about average" is generous. All I'm saying, and all I've ever said, is that he cost his team more with his defense than any other player in history, and I don't think it was particularly close.
I also don't think that stats are the only way to evaluate players, but they come darn close to being the only way to evaluate his on field contribution. Jeter was a good hitter, and by all accounts a great leader. He was a horrible defensive player, and stats are far, far better than saying "I watched him play and he wasn't that bad." The history of gold gloves shows that even people who do it for a living are poor at evaluating defense. There must have been at any time during Jeter's career at least eight players under contract to the Yankees who could have played Short better than he did. I'd imagine it was his leadership that made it impossible for management to move him to a position he could actually play, similar to how it became impossible to rest Ripken, regardless how beneficial it would have been for the Orioles to have him play 160 games a couple of seasons or a few eight inning games.
You are allowed to look at data and use it to support any claims you like; that’s the fun of it.
The Yankees would have been a much different team without his presence at short. There is no shortstop I would have wanted more and I’m fine trading UZR ratings for titles.
And this is where data goes south because the conclusion it leads to - that the Yankees would have been better off with another player at shortstop - is laughable at best and absurd at worst.
It’s like the classic sci-fi scenario where artificial intelligence determines that man is the biggest threat to life and therefore man must be eliminated: the data certainly supports it and it may even be, under the right auspices, the right conclusion.
And it’s still not a good idea.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
i agree about schmidt. the guy was a transcendent player who should have higher standing. both an elite hitter and fielder.
can you imagine if he had been on those 70s yankee teams!!!
Completely agree. Any player would see a 25%-50% boost in popularity and pricing if they played for that team. Yankee players are grossly overrated, except for Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, and Rivera. Dipping my toe into hot take lake.
i agree about schmidt. the guy was a transcendent player who should have higher standing. both an elite hitter and fielder.
can you imagine if he had been on those 70s yankee teams!!!
Completely agree. Any player would see a 25%-50% boost in popularity and pricing if they played for that team. Yankee players are grossly overrated, except for Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, and Rivera. Dipping my toe into hot take lake.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@brad31 said:
Enjoy this type of discussion. Reminds me of me and my friends in high school arguing over guys while poring through The Baseball Encyclopedia. Have always been a Mays and Seaver guy when arguing about players. This was before WAR was invented.
No disrespect to anyone and their opinion is meant - I hope we are all enjoying this discussion as much as I am. Arguing about which Hall of Famer is better and their place in history is something I enjoy. I think we are all passionate about baseball and the fact that we even bother to argue about this says it all.
I would have thought 20 years ago that Carlton and Schmidt would have had a much larger place in history - so my opinion is far from prescient.
The one thing that we never argued back then was who was best — it was Ruth by such a landslide that all arguments started at 2nd best.
As history continues to add characters to the story it is only natural that some will diminish from the spotlight a little. Our first hand experience with players will always make those the main characters from our own point of view. As the story unfolds only the most immersed fan will have passion for every character in the story, and only the top few players will be known by the common man.
When it comes to cards, I believe anyone who is spending money on cards is going to have an interest that either changes or evolves over time. I started buying basketball cards in 1986 because I had already seen or handled pretty much every post war baseball card, so in essence, the baseball cards got a little 'boring' so I expanded into a new realm that was fresh and interesting.
The kid who grows up collecting Juan Soto is only one ESPN 30 for 30 about Mike Schmidt from becoming interested in buying Schmidt's cards....so I wouldn't close the door on Schmidt, Brett, Murray etc....they have all marked a key spot in baseball history through their accomplishments, and there is actual film of all of them, so there will always be an opportunity for new fans to 'stumble' upon them.
Since this thread can at times begin to sound a bit similar to the Point/Counterpoint portion of Jeter's hosting episode, I'm pasting in the text from it as a humorous parallel:
Tina Fey: Now it’s time for an old favorite here at “Weekend Update” – “Point/Counterpoint”. Here to debate tonight are Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter and Boston Red Sox fan Seth Meyers. Tonight’s topic on “Point/Counterpoint”: “Derek Jeter Sucks” – “No, I Don’t”. Derek, why don’t we start with you.
Derek Jeter: Thanks, Tina. I know my friend Seth Meyers here is a Red Sox fan, and that’s great. The fan really are what keep Major League baseball going. But I hope Seth can see that I play hard all the time, and I always do my best for the team.
Tina Fey: Seth, Counterpoint?
Seth Meyers: You suck!
Tina Fey: Seth, you still have, like, thirty seconds.
Seth Meyers: I’ll elaborate. Jeter, you suck in three very specific ways. So Hard, So Bad, and Wicked Bad.
Tina Fey: Derek? Response?
Derek Jeter: Well, I've heard this argument before, Seth. In fact, Red Sox fans have been nice enough to share this argument with me every time I play in Boston. Or walk in Boston. Or go on a date in a fancy restaurant in Boston. Also, sometimes they drive to Baltimore, when we play the Orioles, to tell me I suck. [ Seth starts chanting “Der-ek!” in Derek’s ear ] But if you look at my numbers, you’ll find that I’m a very productive shortshop. Seth, what are you doing? You’ve been following me around all week screaming at me.
Seth Meyers: I’m sorry, Derek.. really.. I really am. It’s just you and people like you ruined my entire childhood. So I swore if I ever got within six feet of a real Yankee, I’d kick his ass. But then I saw you.. and I knew that that could not happen. But, thankfully, this can happen – You suck!
Derek Jeter: Seth, I don’t suck. I’ve won four World Series rings in six years.
Seth Meyers: Valid point. But if there was a World Series of sucking, you’d have, like, a hundred rings!
Derek Jeter: What?! Alright, look.. Nomar Garciaparr’s a great player. Is it okay to say he sucks?
Seth Meyers: [ aghast ] What.. did you say..?
Derek Jeter: I don’t think he sucks, I’m trying to prove a point!
Seth Meyers: [ crying ] Well, why would you say that..? You said that Nomar.. he has a broken wrist.. and he’s so nice.. and he’s like my best friend..!
Derek Jeter: Seth, Seth.. I’m sorry. Is there anything I can do to make you feel better?
Seth Meyers: Will you come play for Boston?
Derek Jeter: No. No.
Seth Meyers: Then, sign my hat?
Derek Jeter: Sure, man, no problem.
Seth Meyers: Will you sign it as Nomar?
Derek Jeter: Whatever.. whatever.. [ signs the hat ]
Seth Meyers: Thanks, Derek. You know, you don’t suck.
Comments
Time will tell. When he is out of the game 50 years like Banks is now it will be 2044. A 20 year old born in 2024 may not have heard of Jeter unless from a family of Yankee fans. Huge fans that follow history will know him - but not sure he will be talked about much more than Banks is today. He will always be more known by being from New York - but do not think he will be known by all like Ruth or Jackie or Cy Young. How many 20 year olds know Frank Robinson today? He hasn’t even been out 50 years yet.
Big baseball fans yes. The average 20 year old in 2044 - I am guessing no.
Those 60 and 62 Mantles look almost identical to ones I sold earlier this year. Funny if that's them in the first thread I clicked on after joining. Nice collection though.
Did anybody call him a transcendent slugger? I must have missed that.
Mike Trout is great. The Angels are terrible. He has had issues staying healthy. His Update is too expensive for what is not unlike Jeter rcs. I have Trout cards in my collection but I sold every Update I had just because price was too high for what it is. The bashing of Trout to make Jeter look better is foolish, same the other way around. Can we all just agree that the Rangers just spent half a billion dollars and will still finish 3rd at best in the West?
Can't the same be said for Robin Yount, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, or any player other than Cal Ripken, that started their career in 1970-2000? And even with Ripken, by that time will anyone even care about a consecutive games streak, considering nobody is even expected to play every game anymore?
I disagree about Jeter being 'forgotten'. I believe the opposite will be the case and that he will be the the transcending player of his generation and the generation just before and after. The elite HOFer who was the face of the the most popular franchise for two decades while winning five World Series will be remembered and promoted more than anyone else in his time.
For instance, September 11, 2001 will always be remembered, and that Yankee team and Jeter is already always connected with that time in sports history. The steroid era will be an era in its own right, and Jeter is already viewed as the clean player among a league of users.
Why are any players of the past still talked about or considered relevant? Do casual fans that even talk about them anyway?
There are really only two players in history that are cemented in relevance for every future generation to come...Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth.
Even Mantle and Mays have a chance to diminish(to a degree) in the spotlight as time goes by as the people who saw them play eventually pass away. They however, are the third and fourth spots of continued relevance gong forward, and I myself believe they will remain relevant.
Other than that, will the casual fan know Jeter from Clemente, or Bonds from Horsnby, or anyone else for that matter anyway?
Casual fans will know Bonds. 73 HR and 762 HR - they will know he has the record. Casual fans will know Clemente as long as MLB keeps honoring him on Clemente day each year with Puerto Rican players all wearing 21.
The cornerstone of my collection is my Banks run - but outside of Chicago most kids have never heard of him even if they are baseball fans. Agree that kids have heard of Ripken and the fact that he has a little league named after him will keep him as known.
I think over time Jeter will be known less than Mantle is today and slightly more than other Hall of Famers of his time. This is in no way a knock on Jeter - there are few truly transcendent players. Big baseball fans will know him and probably continue to argue about his place in history. That is what makes being a fan fun. This is no knock on Jeter - just a fact of where baseball history ranks in importance in the US now. It does not have the place in our culture that it used to.
Think Cy Young is with a Robinson and Ruth just because the award is named after him.
Unfortunately there are many exceptional players that deserve more than a footnote or an occasional reference in passing. There is so much more to the game, the history and what matters than rehashing what really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Baseball cards will only be important over the long term if there is interest and even a renewed look at how the game evolved over time. It is not just about the HOF players but others that were over shadowed but left an impact that cannot be measured or captured by numbers. MLB is about personalities and playing characteristics that set players apart. A complete picture is required to appreciate the game for what it was and what it has become.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
A lot of baseball fan kids who are in grade school now know Jeter. You would be surprised. 2044 is only 22 years away from now. I'm pretty sure Jeter will be just as known then as he is now. 100 years may be a different story.
Derek Jeter was always a class act, which is why Red Sox fans rarely talk trash about him. He was so refreshing after the arrogant and pompous 1970's and 80's Yankees (Reggie, Munson, Piniella, Martin and so on). They were good and wanted to tell everyone how wonderful they were. Jeter just did his job every day and kept a low profile most of the time. Bottom line, even though I am a lifelong Red Sox fan, I have always had the utmost respect for Jeter.
Jeter also did a great job hosting a very good episode of SNL on this day twenty years ago, December 1, 2001.
https://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01g.phtml
Do you really think most people think Cy Young was a real person, or even if he was, why there is an award named after him? It's kind of like most of those hockey trophies. Everyone knows Lord Stanley's name, but can they tell you a thing about him?
Yep. All I said was that he led the league in slugging three times in five years and that his .583 is best among active players and 9th all time (I refuse to count Charleston, Suttles, and Stearnes because I don't believe the data is close to complete). He's a much more complete player than that.
Of course hitting was so favorable in 1934 that Cochrane only finished 13th.
Let's be very clear: I'm not suggesting that Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop ever. My point is far more subtle, and far more damning than that. I say that Jeter's defense hurt the Yankees more than any other player (at any position) had his defense hurt his team. There are doubtless players who played a short time at short who played it worse than Jeter, but were moved off before they could do as much damage. There are doubtless players who were far worse defenders at less critical positions so that they had the opportunity to hurt their teams less. Unfortunately, Jeter never played a position he could field competently, so we really have no idea which position that would be.
I consider fielding percentage to be a completely garbage stat, so I'm not going to bother looking it up. If challenged, I'm sure I can find some hilarious examples. Gold gloves seem almost random, although they are not, but they are certainly no measure of fielding ability which should have become obvious to the last holdouts when the 1999 Gold Glove for DH.
Let's further stipulate that no one stat can completely encapsulate a player's ability. That is it is impossible, or just silly, to say that Joey Votto is better than Willie McCovey was because Votto's WAR is 64.5 and McCovey's was 64.5. Most stats are far worse (Corey Patterson was better than Ty Cobb because he had a 118 to 117 lead in home runs). Still, if there is a large difference in normed stats then it is hard to ignore. It's hard to believe that Willie Mays (156.1 WAR) wasn't better than Joe DiMaggio (79.2 WAR).
Gary Sheffield (who may have been the worst shortstop ever, except that the Brewers had the good sense to move him to 3rd before he turned 21) is second to the worst in Fielding Runs (-195.3). In fact, given that he played over 300 games as DH and almost 14,000 innings at the ow value "corner outfield" positions a case could be made for Sheffield to be the worst defensive player of all time. Adam Dunn is third at (-167.5) which is a huge difference. With a normed stat, though this is less important in the whole universe as Sheffield and Dunn are necessarily compared to all of their peers as well, a 16.6% difference between second and third is determinative that, as far as helping his team defensively, Sheffield was definitely in the bottom two. Jeter was an astonishing -253.3, or 29.7% worse than Sheffield. Now I'm not saying that Jeter hurt the Yankees defensively 30% more than anyone else in major league history hurt his team(s), but it is reasonable to believe that it is close (say between 25 and 35% worse) and impossible to believe that Jeter was even minimally competent as a shortstop.
Two other points: according to this metric, Jeter's defense actually had a positive contribution twice, in 1998 (2 runs) and 2009 (3). Coincidentally, those were pretty clearly Jeter's second and third best seasons (1999 was clearly his best). Second, to show that this is not a garbage stat, the top ten are B. Robinson, Belanger, O. Smith, Andruw Jones, Beltre, Clemente, A. Simmons, Mays, Yastrzemski, and Piersall.
Comment: It surprises me that Robinson is 21.8% "better than" Belanger, but he played 61.3% more innings, so I guess that makes sense. Man, it must have been fun to watch the Orioles back then.
I have come to the conclusion that those that love Mike Trout haven't actually watched more than a handful of his games. Sure, they get up on the morning, come out of their basement, check the box scores and watch a few highlights while mom makes breakfast, and deem Trout a god.
If they actually watched games involving Trout, they'd see that he is a guy that compiles stats when it doesn't matter, but then shrinks in the big moments, and he obviously takes way too many called third strikes because he's flat out scared. He hears Yordano telling him to, "Look at the scoreboard, kiiiiid!", and he freezes up. There are at the very least, 2 or 3 hitters on EVERY team that you'd rather see at the plate in a critical situation vs having Trout in the batter's box when you need a big hit. Don't give me that WPA nonsense. I mean a truly critical situation, not the 5th inning of a tie game between the Angels and the Rangers when both teams are 15 games out of first place. Be honest. You can probably name 50 guys just off of the top of your head that you'd rather have in there batting, without even taking a pause to think.
I haven't even mentioned his atrocious defense. I've been telling people for years what my eyes have seen, and the metrics are finally catching up to the fact he sucks in the field. He apparently is afraid of the wall, so he plays an abnormally deep centerfield because he would rather come in than go back. He is near the bottom of the league in his "jumps", his reaction to batted balls. He is near the bottom of the league in his routes. He let's way too many balls fall in front of him because he's afraid to dive and get hurt, yet again. Good baserunners can read this, and go first to third or second to home, with ease. He has an inaccurate, Johnny Damon-esque popgun arm which lets runners proceed without fear. Runs score because of his failures as an outfielder. All of this contributes to the "horrible, garbage Angels TEAM" that gets thrown out there as an excuse for his failure to make the postseason. They could have put Bubba Starling in center and spent the other 40 million somewhere else and won a crapload of more games these last few years. They repeatedly finish 4th with Trout, and they just finished 4th without Trout. They lose just as much because of him, as in spite of him. He is not, and will never be, a "winner".
And lastly, he has no ❤.
There’s a lot of good statistics there but they are just statistics at the end of the day - a set of numbers to manipulate to support conclusions.
For example, you point to Mays’ 156 WAR as being much better than DiMaggio’s 79 WAR despite the fact that one played 13 seasons (and had no stats for his prime age 28, 29, and 30 seasons) and the other 23 seasons played. Viewed on a per season basis, it’s more like 6.1 for Joe and 6.8 for Willie. Then, if you are willing to factor in the loss of prime years of accumulating stats at the beginning in the PCL (he was signed in 1935 by the Yankees but due to an offseason knee injury, he was left there to prove the knee was healthy among other things 😉) and the WWII chunk of absence mid career, you might come to the conclusion that these players were very close in talent and ability - perhaps significantly more than their 156 to 79 disparity would suggest.
I watched most of the games Derek Jeter played in. And I can tell you that up until his last few seasons (2-3 at the very end) he was not the liability you are making him out to be with the statistics you present. Here’s another person who took the time to play around with stats and produced a different conclusion.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-other-half-of-the-story-about-derek-jeters-defense/
And again, at the end of the day I just don’t think statistics are the only way to evaluate players.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
this is right. Pedroia had "it" and what you said about answering back or swings in momentum are sometimes the things that can win games. I cant quantify it, I really cant even debate it, but I can see it.
Jeter, (even though he was a Yankee) absolutely had "it"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Sadly, I agree. Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Frank Robinson, and Eddie Murray are seemingly already on that list and it is a shame. They had tremendous careers and get so little love.
There are 3 types of lies...Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. And resent reports show that the use of small, meaningless, silly, and stupid statistics was up 0.03% from Feb. to May, then dropped 1.09% from May to Oct. and are up 2.87% during this thread. And where is Blurryface? I miss him.
What about Mays’ 1952 and 1953 seasons he was in military service?
I think that any conclusion that Mays was not superior to DiMaggio is flawed. .7 WAR per season is significant - .7 WAR is worth about $5.6MM in annual salary today. Multiply that by the 13 seasons they both played and Mays is worth $70MM more than DiMaggio. They are both greats of the game but Mays belongs in the most elite company in baseball history.
I am a fan of your cards and opinions. I’m only pointing out that WAR can feel very different depending on how it’s presented.
I think calling Willie Mays a little better than Joe DiMaggio is fair (and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, even) but when put forth as 156 to 79 it makes it seem like DiMaggio basically sucked. Each was considered peerless defending centerfield in their day and both could crush a baseball.
Conversing about this stuff is great and after Ruth, both Mays and Aaron are probably the two greatest players - for what they accomplished coupled with longevity- in the history of the sport ever since Babe Ruth hung the spikes up…
…this coming from one of the bigger (and here, at least, more vocal) Mickey Mantle fans you will find. Neither man could ever touch his legacy or star power, mind you, but that’s in part racial and in part has something to do with the franchises for which they played.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I thought this was a discussion on the fall in prices from ridiculous levels. I guess I was mistaken
It has to drive certain Red Sox fans (and any other Jeter haters, I know not all Sox fans hate Jeter) nuts that no matter how much they try to convince the world otherwise, Derek Jeter will be considered for many years to come one of the finest SS HOFers ever. His highlight reel is in the heart of many lovers of baseball to stay.
I think it still is; obviously how well he is remembered will have an impact on his card values ok ver time.
It certainly devolved a bit from there but that’s been kind of fun too. He obviously still stirs up a lot of passions in baseball fans. Five years down, 45 to go…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Enjoy this type of discussion. Reminds me of me and my friends in high school arguing over guys while poring through The Baseball Encyclopedia. Have always been a Mays and Seaver guy when arguing about players. This was before WAR was invented.
No disrespect to anyone and their opinion is meant - I hope we are all enjoying this discussion as much as I am. Arguing about which Hall of Famer is better and their place in history is something I enjoy. I think we are all passionate about baseball and the fact that we even bother to argue about this says it all.
I would have thought 20 years ago that Carlton and Schmidt would have had a much larger place in history - so my opinion is far from prescient.
The one thing that we never argued back then was who was best — it was Ruth by such a landslide that all arguments started at 2nd best.
i agree about schmidt. the guy was a transcendent player who should have higher standing. both an elite hitter and fielder.
can you imagine if he had been on those 70s yankee teams!!!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You're misreading what I said. A WAR of 156 is much better than one of 79. There is simply no way to dispute that. The only conclusion I draw from that is that Mays was a better player than DiMaggio. I don't attempt to say how much. I'm just saying that that big a difference can't be ignored. I'm not saying DiMaggio was half as good as Mays, or 60%, or 80%, or 30% for two reasons: 1) I have no idea what that would even mean, and 2) I strongly doubt the precision of statistics. My statement simply is, and has always been, that a large difference in a (useful) stat means that the player was better at that.
I read the article you linked, and aside from one howler of an assumption, I generally agree with the author. It doesn't change my point, though. The author agrees that Jeter was a horrible defensive shortstop. His argument is that shortstops tend to be good defenders, so even a bad shortstop is going to be pretty good. This is a silly argument. Putting David Ortiz (or me) at Short wouldn't make him a good defender. (Ortiz would be a vastly better defensive shortstop than I would be.) I come from the chess world, and we have an extremely difficult time evaluating players who lose (or win) all their games, because if I were to lose all my games against the world champion, say ten, I could be about the 25th best player in the world (he really is that dominant), or I could be a teddy bear. We just have no idea. Jeter never played a single inning at a position he could field competently, so we can't say that he was actually a good fielder who was overmatched at Short. There is just no way of knowing.
Personally, I don't believe he was the worst fielder of all time, though I think "about average" is generous. All I'm saying, and all I've ever said, is that he cost his team more with his defense than any other player in history, and I don't think it was particularly close.
I also don't think that stats are the only way to evaluate players, but they come darn close to being the only way to evaluate his on field contribution. Jeter was a good hitter, and by all accounts a great leader. He was a horrible defensive player, and stats are far, far better than saying "I watched him play and he wasn't that bad." The history of gold gloves shows that even people who do it for a living are poor at evaluating defense. There must have been at any time during Jeter's career at least eight players under contract to the Yankees who could have played Short better than he did. I'd imagine it was his leadership that made it impossible for management to move him to a position he could actually play, similar to how it became impossible to rest Ripken, regardless how beneficial it would have been for the Orioles to have him play 160 games a couple of seasons or a few eight inning games.
You are allowed to look at data and use it to support any claims you like; that’s the fun of it.
The Yankees would have been a much different team without his presence at short. There is no shortstop I would have wanted more and I’m fine trading UZR ratings for titles.
And this is where data goes south because the conclusion it leads to - that the Yankees would have been better off with another player at shortstop - is laughable at best and absurd at worst.
It’s like the classic sci-fi scenario where artificial intelligence determines that man is the biggest threat to life and therefore man must be eliminated: the data certainly supports it and it may even be, under the right auspices, the right conclusion.
And it’s still not a good idea.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Completely agree. Any player would see a 25%-50% boost in popularity and pricing if they played for that team. Yankee players are grossly overrated, except for Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, and Rivera. Dipping my toe into hot take lake.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
As history continues to add characters to the story it is only natural that some will diminish from the spotlight a little. Our first hand experience with players will always make those the main characters from our own point of view. As the story unfolds only the most immersed fan will have passion for every character in the story, and only the top few players will be known by the common man.
When it comes to cards, I believe anyone who is spending money on cards is going to have an interest that either changes or evolves over time. I started buying basketball cards in 1986 because I had already seen or handled pretty much every post war baseball card, so in essence, the baseball cards got a little 'boring' so I expanded into a new realm that was fresh and interesting.
The kid who grows up collecting Juan Soto is only one ESPN 30 for 30 about Mike Schmidt from becoming interested in buying Schmidt's cards....so I wouldn't close the door on Schmidt, Brett, Murray etc....they have all marked a key spot in baseball history through their accomplishments, and there is actual film of all of them, so there will always be an opportunity for new fans to 'stumble' upon them.
Since this thread can at times begin to sound a bit similar to the Point/Counterpoint portion of Jeter's hosting episode, I'm pasting in the text from it as a humorous parallel:
Tina Fey: Now it’s time for an old favorite here at “Weekend Update” – “Point/Counterpoint”. Here to debate tonight are Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter and Boston Red Sox fan Seth Meyers. Tonight’s topic on “Point/Counterpoint”: “Derek Jeter Sucks” – “No, I Don’t”. Derek, why don’t we start with you.
Derek Jeter: Thanks, Tina. I know my friend Seth Meyers here is a Red Sox fan, and that’s great. The fan really are what keep Major League baseball going. But I hope Seth can see that I play hard all the time, and I always do my best for the team.
Tina Fey: Seth, Counterpoint?
Seth Meyers: You suck!
Tina Fey: Seth, you still have, like, thirty seconds.
Seth Meyers: I’ll elaborate. Jeter, you suck in three very specific ways. So Hard, So Bad, and Wicked Bad.
Tina Fey: Derek? Response?
Derek Jeter: Well, I've heard this argument before, Seth. In fact, Red Sox fans have been nice enough to share this argument with me every time I play in Boston. Or walk in Boston. Or go on a date in a fancy restaurant in Boston. Also, sometimes they drive to Baltimore, when we play the Orioles, to tell me I suck. [ Seth starts chanting “Der-ek!” in Derek’s ear ] But if you look at my numbers, you’ll find that I’m a very productive shortshop. Seth, what are you doing? You’ve been following me around all week screaming at me.
Seth Meyers: I’m sorry, Derek.. really.. I really am. It’s just you and people like you ruined my entire childhood. So I swore if I ever got within six feet of a real Yankee, I’d kick his ass. But then I saw you.. and I knew that that could not happen. But, thankfully, this can happen – You suck!
Derek Jeter: Seth, I don’t suck. I’ve won four World Series rings in six years.
Seth Meyers: Valid point. But if there was a World Series of sucking, you’d have, like, a hundred rings!
Derek Jeter: What?! Alright, look.. Nomar Garciaparr’s a great player. Is it okay to say he sucks?
Seth Meyers: [ aghast ] What.. did you say..?
Derek Jeter: I don’t think he sucks, I’m trying to prove a point!
Seth Meyers: [ crying ] Well, why would you say that..? You said that Nomar.. he has a broken wrist.. and he’s so nice.. and he’s like my best friend..!
Derek Jeter: Seth, Seth.. I’m sorry. Is there anything I can do to make you feel better?
Seth Meyers: Will you come play for Boston?
Derek Jeter: No. No.
Seth Meyers: Then, sign my hat?
Derek Jeter: Sure, man, no problem.
Seth Meyers: Will you sign it as Nomar?
Derek Jeter: Whatever.. whatever.. [ signs the hat ]
Seth Meyers: Thanks, Derek. You know, you don’t suck.
Derek Jeter: Thanks, Seth. You do suck, a little.
Seth Meyers: I know.. I know..
Tina Fey: This has been “Point/Counterpoint”.