Howard v Jeter
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Has Howard surpassed Jeter as the most overrated player in baseball? Who are the other candidates?
0
Comments
All that being said, Jeter is a top 10 all time SS with ease! Unless somebody is rating him number one all-time, his rating can't be too far off from the truth.
Howard on the other hand is not even close to sniffing any all time first baseman rankings. He has had one season that was HOF caliber, one close, and then his value is severely over inflated by his high RBI totals(which are/were a product of his team and some good luck....see last year).
People also see Howard's high HR and RBI total and forget the era in which he is doing it in. Some will never understand this aspect, but those are mostly novice fans.
When you have people saying he was as good as Pujols last year(like on this board)....mainly because of the RBI total difference, there is your prime example of his overrated. They are putting him equal/above a player who dwarfs him so soundly that it is ridiculous to even mention them together. That is the very definition of overrated.
It is a good thing, as in the next several years, as Howard morphs into Dave Kingman, Howard's silly comparisons will go the way of the dinosaurs.
Jeter will rightfully take his place among the best SS of all time, and deservedly so.
1. Who is doing the rating?
2. And if you think Player X is overrated, then please tell me where you think Player X should be rated.
It's as though you can tell me that there aren't enough, but you can't tell me how many would be enough.
/s/ JackWESQ
Another Jeter is overrated thread.
<< <i>Tim Hudson, Derrick Lowe, Jeff Francour, Brian McCant, for starters. >>
I have to give you credit-you spelled Tim Hudson correctly. You are batting .250, which is more than Francouer hit.
Are Roger Metzger and Greg Gross on their radar?
In 1,160 at bats for the Astros in 1974, Metzger and Gross hit a grand total of ZERO home runs!
Last season neither Pujols. nor AL counterpart Dustin Pedroia, were the leaders, per most Win Shares, in their respective leagues.
If one feels Win Shares is always correct, then both Pujols and Pedroia were a bit overrated, last season, via the BWA by their MVP selections., or perhaps Win Shares is overrated ?
It's a tough argument to all any of these players overrated with today's inflated contracts. As far as I'm concerned, becoming Rookie of the Year, MVP and a World Series Champion in less than the fingers on one hand, I'd rate Howard highest on the list for reasons for success of my team. Yes, it's a team game but I doubt the Phillies could have done it without him. I'm sure Philly fans are happy to have such an "overrated" player, never mind every single player on the 2008 team. Nobody is putting Howard in the HOF just yet but he's started one heck of a resume on a career started relatively late. As far as the "era" you are talking about, I'm going to guess you mean the "steroid era". NOT ALL players take steroids, if i had to put a million dollars on it, I'd bet it on Howard as being clean. Some players do have natural ability, he's one of them. Look at his build for goodness sake!
/s/ JackWESQ
I'll grant you 2006, I thought he deserved it over Morneau, but please don't tell me you are crying over 1998. He wasn't even the best SS that year (Nomar was better) or most deserving on his own team (Bernie's numbers were outrageous that year despite injuries).
THe object is indeed to win, and the players who contribute most to those wins need their due. Fans don't understand what contributes to winning baseball games, and neither do most writers.
As he morphs into Dave Kingman in the next several years, it won't matter much in his case. People seem to think he is on a HOF path. That is wishful thinking, but feel free to think that. Just don't put too much money to back up your words, or you may be poor.
THe era I refer to is not in regard to steroids. The era was inflated before steroids, unless you think every player all of a sudden decided to take steroids in 1993, a time in which MLB saw offense rise to extreme heights. Seemingly overnight the explosion occured. From 1994 on, offense has been very easy to come by. Take those power numbers with a grain of salt when you compare them to other era's where it wasn't as easy to create offense.
Jaxxr, are you still posting? Finish school first. You should probably stop calling measurements overrated when you don't understand them. Have you learned the role of the walk in OPS yet, or do you still think it is given equal credit as a hit?
<< <i>YYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Another Jeter is overrated thread.
I agree with you.
• 4 time World Series Champs
• 1996: American League Rookie of the Year
• 2000: Babe Ruth Award
• 2000: All-Star Game Most Valuable Player
• 2000: World Series Most Valuable Player
• 2002 ESPY: Play of the Year
• 2004: American League Gold Glove at SS
• 2005: American League Gold Glove at SS
• 2006: American League Gold Glove at SS
• 2006: American League Silver Slugger
• 2006: American League Hank Aaron Award
• 2007: American League Silver Slugger
Look at his post season stats,
Postseason Batting Statistics
SEASON G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Total 123 495 85 153 22 3 17 49 51 96 16 4 .309 .377 .469 .845
Career Stats
SEASON TEAM G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Total -- 1985 8025 1467 2535 411 57 206 1002 813 1376 275 75 .316 .387 .458 .845
I guess he must be over rated. LMAO at haters.
brian
At this point I think injuries and age will clearly start to take their toll, if they havent already.
• 4 time World Series Champs
• 1996: American League Rookie of the Year
• 2000: Babe Ruth Award
• 2000: All-Star Game Most Valuable Player
• 2000: World Series Most Valuable Player
• 2002 ESPY: Play of the Year
• 2004: American League Gold Glove at SS
• 2005: American League Gold Glove at SS
• 2006: American League Gold Glove at SS
• 2006: American League Silver Slugger
• 2006: American League Hank Aaron Award
• 2007: American League Silver Slugger
You are making my point-the three GGs are a joke. If he wins two more world series, he will have as many rings as Charlie Silvera. The argument is not whether the two players are good, but rather which is more overrated. My vote is for Howard, as I believe he is likely to turn into Boog Powell. Jeter is an easy 1st ballot HOFer, but he is still hopelessly overrated by the Yankee fans and media.
You are making my point-the three GGs are a joke. If he wins two more world series, he will have as many rings as Charlie Silvera. The argument is not whether the two players are good, but rather which is more overrated. My vote is for Howard, as I believe he is likely to turn into Boog Powell. Jeter is an easy 1st ballot HOFer, but he is still hopelessly overrated by the Yankee fans and media. >>
How can you say Jeter is an easy 1st ballot HOFer, but he is still hopelessly overrated by the Yankee fans and media??????
Are you seeing fans or media saying Jeter is as good or better than Ruth, Mantle, or Gehrig? I just can't understand how a future first ballot HOF can be considered overated.
Then you mentioned what I said in regards to the Yankees 4 World Series wins....Don't you think Jeter helped get the Yankees to the World Series as well as their Championships.
Then you make an stupid comparison of Charlie Silvera having two more World Series rings.................Geeze that's stupid.....Charlie Silvera was a freaking back up catcher for Yogi Berra during his Yankee days and had virtually nothing to do with their World Series wins and he's certainly not a HOF player.
You have proven my point about Haters in sports.
I respect you and your opinions, but your points are meaningless.
Yours Truly,
Brian
NOT A YANKEES FAN, but a baseball fan who appreciates baseball greats.
<< <i>[q
You have proven my point about Haters in sports.
What do I hate, and how have I proven your point? I merely proved that having a bunch of WS rings does not make a player great. Being a great player makes a player great. I would love to have had Jeter on the Braves for all these years. I had him on my fantasy team for years. He is still a terrible defensive SS, but defense does not count in fantasy. No objective rating has ever had him better that middle of the pack, and most have him as awful. Is Jeter as good as Arod? No. Yankee fans think he is the best thing since five-cent beer, but he is not. On the other hand, I do sympathize with Yankee fans for having to listen to John Sterling for many years. BTDT, and I would not wish that on my worst enemy.
<< <i>The moment fans put Howard on par with Pujols...as people on here said due to his higher RBI total, Howard becomes immensely overrated.
THe object is indeed to win, and the players who contribute most to those wins need their due. Fans don't understand what contributes to winning baseball games, and neither do most writers.
As he morphs into Dave Kingman in the next several years, it won't matter much in his case. People seem to think he is on a HOF path. That is wishful thinking, but feel free to think that. Just don't put too much money to back up your words, or you may be poor.
THe era I refer to is not in regard to steroids. The era was inflated before steroids, unless you think every player all of a sudden decided to take steroids in 1993, a time in which MLB saw offense rise to extreme heights. Seemingly overnight the explosion occured. From 1994 on, offense has been very easy to come by. Take those power numbers with a grain of salt when you compare them to other era's where it wasn't as easy to create offense.
Jaxxr, are you still posting? Finish school first. You should probably stop calling measurements overrated when you don't understand them. Have you learned the role of the walk in OPS yet, or do you still think it is given equal credit as a hit? >>
An interesting side-point. If you took a guy with slightly above-average intelligence (not Isaac Newton incarnate, just a guy who's a little smarter than your average bear), and took a day or so to explain the rules of any of the four major sports and then another two or three hours to explain the 'strategy' that guides these sports, then this guy would, I think, have almost as great an understanding of what makes that sport 'tick' as 95% of that sport's self-described 'serious fans'.
The same goes for writers and radio personalities, which is why sports coverage invariably veers toward gossip (is Anquan Boldin mad at his OC?), silly speculation (will Iverson get traded from the Pistons this year?) and all other manners of idle chatter. The fact is that the media doesn't know enough about the sports they cover to sustain meaningful coverage, and the fan doesn't know enough to demand better from the media.
If this observation is correct, then I think it's a really intriguing dynamic. You have a whole nation of sports freaks, and virtually none of them know much of substance about the games they love to watch and follow. You see this all the time on these boards, but it obviously extends beyond here to to sports-viewing public in general.
In 2005 ,
"Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP," said Pujols.
This week, Pujols did a quick reversal when, despite playing for the fourth-place Cardinals, he won the NL MVP, and Howard, whose Phillies won the World Series, finished second, saying that the statistical accomplishments of a player have to be given heavy consideration.
Despite slight superiority is a few area, like HRF, I doubt any open-minded baseball fan would compare Pujols to Ryan Howard on an overall basis, for any one particular season, perhaps, but to compare their respecdtive careers, is almost as foolish as starting a thread, then inserting it in other threads, comparing Dave Kingman to Honus Wagner. !
<< <i>Albert Pujols himself has altered his own perception of the MVP award;
In 2005 ,
"Someone who doesn't take his team to the playoffs doesn't deserve to win the MVP," said Pujols.
This week, Pujols did a quick reversal when, despite playing for the fourth-place Cardinals, he won the NL MVP, and Howard, whose Phillies won the World Series, finished second, saying that the statistical accomplishments of a player have to be given heavy consideration.
Despite slight superiority is a few area, like HRF, I doubt any open-minded baseball fan would compare Pujols to Ryan Howard on an overall basis, for any one particular season, perhaps, but to compare their respecdtive careers, is almost as foolish as starting a thread, then inserting it in other threads, comparing Dave Kingman to Honus Wagner. !
I know you have trouble with this, so I won't belabor it, but the point was not the Kingman/Wagner comparison. The point was to illustrate the absurdity of the method which produced that comparison; a method, as you might recall, which you yourself endorsed.
However the fact is, I never started a thread comparing Wagner to Kingman. Nor did I ever insert it into other threads, nor did I post a comparison of KIingman to Pete Rose.
What I did do, was offer an alternate response to the continued belitting of player who is , in fact, now a HOFer, maybe comparing to HOF members from the same time span is not so outlandish, and did compare the two players from the same time era, who were often AS game teamates, and emphasized the stats which showed an advantage to the one getting less support. In any debate one does not try to emphazie the shortcomings involved.
I never claimed "OVERALL" betterement of one player, you can go back to many of the long, unfortunately often personal attack laced threads, to see I openly state that the underdog was no sure-fire must have HOF type, but does compare well or exceeds another HOFer in "SOME" , important aspects of baseball.
It is no "method" or technique, as some assume, merely listing some stats and facts, besting an existing HOFer from the same time era, which might show reasonable consideration for the HOF.
<< <i>
<< <i>[q
You have proven my point about Haters in sports.
What do I hate, and how have I proven your point? I merely proved that having a bunch of WS rings does not make a player great. Being a great player makes a player great. I would love to have had Jeter on the Braves for all these years. I had him on my fantasy team for years. He is still a terrible defensive SS, but defense does not count in fantasy. No objective rating has ever had him better that middle of the pack, and most have him as awful. Is Jeter as good as Arod? No. Yankee fans think he is the best thing since five-cent beer, but he is not. On the other hand, I do sympathize with Yankee fans for having to listen to John Sterling for many years. BTDT, and I would not wish that on my worst enemy. >>
It's all good Mark. I don't live on the Wrong (east) Coast so I'm not privy to what they say about Jeter on the streets, but they should brag about him.....He's done pretty well for himself. The Yankees did nothing for years before Jeter and the many NYY heroes joined the club.
Just for conversation, if Jeter is really that terrible at SS, it makes Arod look that much nicer when he said he would play 3B if that helps the Yankees.
<< <i>emphasized the stats which showed an advantage to the one getting less support. In any debate one does not try to emphazie the shortcomings involved.
but does compare well or exceeds another HOFer in "SOME" , important aspects of baseball.
It is no "method"
That is weasel speak right there! That is where you ran into problems.
The point is to be OBJECTIVE, not use selective sampling and ignore very key elements. That is YOUR method, and that is the exact type of method that makes a Kingman/Wagner method possible, and YOURS very faulty. If they are from different eras, just ignore that(like you say), and focus on the areas where he "does compare well or exceeds another HOFer in "SOME" , important aspects of baseball." Do you understand yet????
It is very hard to find objective people, and there are a few on this board, but you are not.
Your methods are similar to a guy claiming a card is mint based on razor corners, and 50/50 centering. However, there is a small crease on the back only visible under magnification, but based on YOUR Jaxxr method you do not emphasize the shortcomings, so you ignore it! If brought up to you, you say it is your opinion, and that magnification doesn't count because if you magnify it enough you will eventually find some flaw, so no magnification counts.
This is more sigline material. Unfortunately Jaxxr, one can write a book with sigline material on your thoughts and methods.
You are on the wrong side of the slope my friend.
The real point is,
it is a large message board, there are many different views, opinions, styles, Etc., for any particular item. Subjective and objective points are made for most talks.
Another point is,
it is now an actual fact, that the two fellows are BOTH members of baseball's HOF, so that particular comparison is not very unreasonable at all. Rice was certainly better than Murray in over a dozen aspects, do they outweigh other aspects, and superior career counting numbers ? Probably not, as I stated sevaral times prior. But do they have many similarities and share the same time era, yes indeed. There is no rational way to compare, Wagner-Kingman, and insert such comparison into other threads.
There was much more volume regarding one side of the discussion, My efforts were to provide some balance, and suggest an alternate way to view things.
'There is no single "method" tp compare ballplayers, just as there is no single way to explain the lack of civil communication skills, shown by those constantluy using coarse, personal insults.
<< <i>"The point is to be OBJECTIVE, not use selective sampling...."
The real point is,
it is a large message board, there are many different views, opinions, styles, Etc., for any particular item. Subjective and objective points are made for most talks.
Another point is,
it is now an actual fact, that the two fellows are BOTH members of baseball's HOF, so that particular comparison is not very unreasonable at all. Rice was certainly better than Murray in over a dozen aspects, do they outweigh other aspects, and superior career counting numbers ? Probably not, as I stated sevaral times prior. But do they have many similarities and share the same time era, yes indeed. There is no rational way to compare, Wagner-Kingman, and insert such comparison into other threads.
There was much more volume regarding one side of the discussion, My efforts were to provide some balance, and suggest an alternate way to view things.
'There is no single "method" tp compare ballplayers, just as there is no single way to explain the lack of civil communication skills, shown by those constantluy using coarse, personal insults.
I think you're missing the key argument. Nobody's denying that there are multiple ways to compare ballplayers; that's a truism. What is being disputed is whether your method had any merit. Again, I don't want to pile on, because you really do seem to me like a genuinely nice guy. But what you need to understand is that if you are given two methods of analysis, and one method controls for variables which were outside of the althetes' sphere of influence, and the other method does not, then the first method is almost always going to be better. It would require a massive misspecification on the part of the modeler of the first method to make this model inferior to the second one.
I'm not trying to sound condescending, but when someone says something like 'we need to control for park factors', or 'we need to control for handedness', do you know what that means? I don't mean 'do you have a basic idea what it means', but rather whether you know actual academic interpretation of the term 'control' is when used in this context? If your analysis of the Rice-Murray debate is any indication I don't think you have a particularly strong grip on what this term means, in which case you'd really be doing yourself a favor if you at least looked it over (30 minutes on the Wikipedia page for the term 'control variable' would probably do). Otherwise, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and you can't expect someone who's genuinely interested in these questions to take you seriously.
Again, I emphasize-- I'm honestly trying to be helpful. It can be difficult to convey the proper sense of tone in an Internet post, so I hope you'll take my sincerety here on faith.
Don't for a secod try to skirt the point at hand. Your entire argument was weasel-like. No matter what you do from now on, anybody who engages in a discussion with you will know that you simply ignore anything that gets in the way of your findings.
You still do not get the Wagner/Kingman Jaxxr method. YOUR method of only emphasizing the things that makes your point works very well in the Kingman/wagner method. You keep bringing up era, but YOUR method is to emphasize ONLY the things that make your case, so era just has to be ignroed accorinding to YOUR method.
Some of the smartest people on this board tried to talk some sense into you, and you still didn't listen to them, or take in what they are saying. Instead you continued your Jaxxr method of ignoring the stuff that doesn't suit you need, and only looking at the stuff that does. The old blind eye.
Your entire method is weasel-like and unworthy of the intelligent speak you desire, and that is why I said you were a moron and such...as it seems to be the truth since you don't listen.
You shouldn't feel alone, because virtually nobody on these boards understands what it means to include control variables in an analysis. Dr. J springs to mind as someone who just doesn't get this, and every single Ryan Howard advocate that's posted on these boards also appears to suffer from this gap in their understanding.
Just as quick example, can you see why using RBI's as the variable of interest when examining hitting ability is an example of a misspecified model? Because unless you control for the number of RBI opportunities which a hitter has the results have no meaning. If one player drives in 100 runs, but had 500 opportunities, and another hitter drove in 80 runs with 200 RBI opportunities, which hitter would you rather have on your team for next year if you hold all other factors constant?
The same goes for home runs. If one guy hits 40 home runs in the Astrodome, and another hits 40 in Coors Field, which player can be expected to perform at a higher rate if all other factors remain static?
Thanks for being civil,
I appreciate any insight, I certainly dont profess to be all knowing about all aspects of baseball.
I wont go into an elaborate detialed response, but a bit about one point you mentioned, I realize park factors exist, they numerically alter Rice's career OPS + by about 4 %.
A large difference is, in the degree of influence they really have. The fact that PF changes from year to year without any alterations to the physical dimensions of the park, or any drastic climate changes, tends to show they are changed somewhat by the players performing in the parks, they can sometimes be a resultant, rather than only a cause
There are other shortcomings, but they do have an imperfectly quantifiable affect.
They are real, and not really anything new, John McGraw has many quotes about hitting in the Old Polo Grounds and its influences. There are specific breakdowns for LH and RH hitters, and also for each type of base hit. We probably disagree on the precise amount of effect they produce. They are never great enough to warrant some foolish statements like Fenway Park is the ONLY reason for some stats, and never slim enough to be discounted fully.
In the case of Fenway, I think every year except one, since the mid 1930's, it was a hitters park compared to the other parks in the league. If there is a model of consistency, that is it. That is based on the one year park factor. The three year park factor has Fenway as a hitters park every seasons since the mid 30's. THat is pretty solid.
If I looked at a Fenway hitter and noticed that despite this park factor that they were not hitting better at home on a consistent basis, then I may conclude that the park may not be helping that hitter to the degree that it helps overall.
If I looked at Fenway and noticed only a some hit better at home, then I may need to dig much deeper and
In the case of RIce, he was better at home at such a consistent basis, the other hitters hit better at home to such a high degree, and his park was rated as a hitters park at such a consistent basis, that I would not have any concerns that there are errors in applying any park factor to him.
Jaxxr, the career length and percentages are one of the many facets you glossed over as well. I'm not going to rehash all that, but when you go out and say you just emphasized the things that supported your points, and igored the ones that don't...it doesn't make for a valid case on your part.