Just one quick example -In the preseason, Bill James’s projections for Chris Davis were 107/40/118/.302/8 - let's all put a ton of stock in what this Red Sox employee pulls from his nether regions.
Who the heck is touting Jeter as the "best" SS in the game? You can't possibly be as dumb as you look on a computer screen. Perhaps you are. One thing I do know FOR A FACT .... is that you spend 99% of your time with your nose in stats then you do watching the game. Naive and young ones tend to do that. If you are not young then you are just plain ol stupid >>
See the comment by jibssquared at 9:07 on 7/21-"Jeter’s strength, according to James’s system, is his ability to cleanly field balls he reaches. He led all shortstops last year with just 17 defensive misplays in 1,259 innings at short. Even when you count errors — which James claims were not counted in Defensive Misplays, so there’s no doubling up — Jeter comes out as the best shortstop in the majors.
<< <i> I have watched 1000s of games on TV and hundreds in person. I look at all the facts and study the game. I am aware that all teams have a SS, not just the Yankees. All are marvelous athletes, and almost all of them are better defensively than Jeter. I am not blinded by being such a homer that I think my guy must be the best.
Why am I a bad stats geek? Let me guess-it's because you do not like what the stats say. >>
I guess this clown IS that stupid
listen little boy mark, you don't have to LIE that you have watched "1000s" of games on the boob tube. You don't have to tell tall stories about "studying" the game. As much as you cry your 15 year old eyes out about Yankee fans being homers, you are simply a hater in the same level. Nothing more and nothing less. Please don't insult this boards intelligence and try and come off as a "student" of the game.
You are a Yankee hater just the same as a Yankee fan is a Yankee fan. If you are blind enough to continue to bash a guy who will more then likely wind up in the top five all time hit leaders who plays a STEADY SS then their is no use debating with your dense head. >>
SIGH. OK I guess supporting an argument with facts is beyond your ability. I have never bashed Jeter. I have merely observed, as have most sentinet humans, that Jeter is a lousy defensive SS. I have said he is a great ball player, that I wish he played for my team, and that I would vote for him for the HOF (an easy call).
As for my age, I have underwear that is more than 15 years old. I saw my first MLB game at Connie Mack Stadium in 1959. The Phillies beat the Dodgers 2-1. It was in late May or early June. My dad was on his way to Boston University to get his Ph.D.
Anyway, this thread started with a humorous piece about Jeter, but has turned rather nasty. I apologize for my part in that.
Your threads - Jeter Has Jeter's Defense Improved? Jeter's Future Howard v Jeter - 1st post -Has Howard surpassed jeter as the most overrated player in baseball? Who are the other candidates? Jeter Lovers Unite Jeter-Gold Glove -1st post -Should Derek jeter win his third consecutive Gold Glove?
Short answer: Are you kidding me?
2007 Defensive Statistics-Jeter Fans Need Not Look Neyer on Jeter
Nah, no bashing there.
<< <i>See the comment by jibssquared at 9:07 on 7/21-"Jeter’s strength, according to James’s system, is his ability to cleanly field balls he reaches. He led all shortstops last year with just 17 defensive misplays in 1,259 innings at short. Even when you count errors — which James claims were not counted in Defensive Misplays, so there’s no doubling up — Jeter comes out as the best shortstop in the majors. >>
I also do not think Jeter is the best SS ever. I simply gave you what you asked for, a fact from your hero Bill James, whose word is gospel when it fits your agenda. I'm still waiting to see where I insulted you, which you accuse me of at least once in this thread.
To be fair, Markj111 has started a lot of threads in regard to Jeter's 'lack' of defense.
To be fair as well, some posters are being overly sensitive by the pointing out of Jeter's defensive limitations, and are calling names. It isn't nice to call names LOL
The "eyes" argument. The biggest problem with "eyes" is that there is a brain behind them translating the info, and each brain is going to get a different sensation/reaction to the exact same play. Both/all brains cannot be right when they differ. The best trained eyes will be more right. The average fan usually sees things through biased eyes, rendering their opinion useless.
Actually, the most current study of defensive ability is with eyes. Every single play in MLB is studied, charted, etc..and by more than one pair of eyes, via video and from guys in the press box charting each play, etc... So if a fan wants to use the "eye" argument, by all means, do so...but use the most informed eyes.
The "eye" data does indeed have Jeter at the bottom of MLB defensive SS(he looks a little higher this year). Does that mean he is a bad SS? Not at all. He is a bona-fide HOFer who will end up somewhere in the top 10 SS of all-time. So what's the beef?
<< <i>Why am I a bad stats geek? Let me guess-it's because you do not like what the stats say. >>
I'll play. Being able to comprehend the stats and piggyback on what others say is one thing but to be a "good" stats geek you actually have to provide some new insight or statistical model. What new and inventive statistical models have you created in you many years watching and studying stats.
You come off like some sports geek regurgitating Jim Rome.
Yeah Bill James has some great ideas, he also has some lame ones. His predicitions just like most statisticians suffer from something you can't correct for and that's the human factor.
Billy Bean will never win due to this and Bill James and the rest of the stat guys will never figure out a perfect formula for predicting players or how to win.
If you want to question my credibility, I am a scientist that has used statistical modeling for 15 years on things much more important than how to calculate range factor for short stops.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
Billy Bean will never win due to this and Bill James and the rest of the stat guys will never figure out a perfect formula for predicting players or how to win.
Bean did quite well for several years, particularly considering his limited budget. I agree wholeheartedly that stats are not everything, but I believe they have a place. There are many authorities other than Bill James using statistical analysis to make decisions. BTW, the Red Sox have done pretty well since hiring Bill James.
I study the analysis, but I also watch the games. I agree that the human factor must be considered. Jeter is a leader. Someone brought up the Braves SS. He has fine offensive and defensive numbers, but apparently is a disruptive factor and stays in Cox's doghouse. One must consider that when making personnel decisions.
Anyone who ignores the statistical data will make poorer decisions than one who uses all available information.
<< <i>Yeah Bill James has some great ideas, he also has some lame ones. His predicitions just like most statisticians suffer from something you can't correct for and that's the human factor.
Billy Bean will never win due to this and Bill James and the rest of the stat guys will never figure out a perfect formula for predicting players or how to win.
If you want to question my credibility, I am a scientist that has used statistical modeling for 15 years on things much more important than how to calculate range factor for short stops. >>
You have to admit the Red Sox dedication to stats has helped them out of their misery. Shrewd maneuvering regarding Nomar. Shrewd almost disloyal with Pedro. Letting guys like Ortiz and weird beard develop. On the other hand I think they will regret not catering to Manny for a long time.
The question isn't to me whether or not Jeter sucks defensively. The question is whether the Yankees have given themselves their best chance at winning by insisting Jeter play short.
Since I believe the playoffs are a basically a lottery, the only year it may really have hurt them is last year. The Yanks had enough other issues that last years team was probably toast from the outset given how well the Rays came on.
Off topic kind of. My kid isn't jaded like me. He has never seen the Yanks win the World Series, he doesn't hate them, and is basically indifferent towards them. He is nine years old and remembers the Red Sox winning twice and the Twins losing to the Yanks in '96. To him Jeter is just some old guy that plays for the Yanks. It might change this year, but who knows. If Rivera stays healthy the Yanks are going to have a great shot no matter where Jeter plays.
Beane is one guy that does get to me just because of Michael Lewis not Beane himself.
Look, Beane got extremely lucky that he was able to have 3 pitchers all develop and come into their own at the same time. That's it. All his other moves are just window dressing on the fact that Mulder, Zito and Hudson were their most dominant during their time with the A's.
His draft that is highlighted in the book Moneyball has basically went belly up. Nick Swisher was the centerpiece and is on his 3rd team now. After watching him be lazy on fly balls I can see why he has moved around so much. Also, the human factor strikes again as Nick likes to party according to both the A's and Whitesox.
Now without 3 stud pitchers the A's are just like any mid level team, trading away players and running a rat race trying to be competitive. They don't look anywhere near ready to win right now and whats up with signing all the old timers? The Twins have been much better at drafting than Beane ever has and it shows in their ML players rignt now.
The Blue Jays were also modeled after the A's and look at them now, contemplating another rebuild after JP tore down the original team and built it from the ground up.
The Red Sox have Theo and Bill James and use statistical analysis, yes. But they also have a huge payroll to overcome their mistakes and they have made their share (Lugo anyone?). What the Red Sox have done is pay attention and use their money to draft well and actually sign their draftees (this one's pointed at you Neal Huntington!!!) and they also have done well with japanese players.
Two things the Yankees cannot seem to do right. That is why the Red Sox win now, they have more depth at the minor league level and don't have to constantly trade their minor leaguers away or overpay for players.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
You may be correct. I do give credit to Beane for targeting Youkilis at an early date. Unforunately for the As, they could not pry him loose from the RSox.
Stats analysis like the one for Jeter's defense, or the extremely accurate hitting measurements, are different than projecting a 19 year old's future as a MLB player.
The stat analysis is more for MLB players already in the bigs, because a reasonable baseline of performance is already established.
A good analysis is one that also isolates the measurement of the player in question and his ability/value, and not that of his teammates or elements out of said players control. It is in this area where fans often go wrong, because they tend to use measurements that do not apply to the players ability...see RBI, or Wins.
A MLB draft is crapshoot pure and simple. The successful drafter of today has just as good a chance at being the bad drafter of tomorrow as anybody else does. This does not negate the value or validity of a good MLB stat analyst of a player.
The defensive Jeter analysis has nothing to do with player drafts, etc... I don't know how this morphed into that.
Human element? This is already measured in his performance. A good hitting analyst getss 98% of a players hitting value. Whether or not a guy hustled to get a hit, or a guy loafs and misses out on one, it is already part of the measurement. Unless you know there is a guy who is loafing and think you can get him to hustle for a few more hits, then I can see the value of the human element, if you are a GM and want to sign him. The reality is that almost all hitters give their best when at bat, so that hardly matters anyway.
There is A LOT more to the human element than if they hustle dude.
Lets see. Does he take steroids?, is he now off steroids?, is he having marital problems?, does he do hard drugs?, does he have a drinking issue?, does he have a gambling issue?, does he have a partying problem?, does he have an issue with confidence?, does he have mental issues? does he have weight issues? does he still care about playing?
I can name players who have had all of these issues and more that affected their playing ability. Lots of players have had their production drop for "unknown" reasons from one year to the next (I'm thinking Ruben Sierra for one). People aren't machines. They don't go out and produce "98%" efficencies every year like a piece of industrial machinery.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
Players with issues such as those will show a reflection in their performance by looking at certain indicators.
Guys have those issues and still perform at top peak, and only when they lose bat speed or velocity do they become 'bad.' In other words, there are more important physical factors to look at. The first sign of those factors affecting them are in their results...their stats...BUT THE RIGHT ONES need to be looked at!
Mitch Williams, Steve Blass never had physical issues that caused their play to drop off. There have been tons of pitchers who cant find the strike zone, Rick Ankiel recently, that had no "pyhsical" issue.
I think looking for reasons for drop off in physical attributes first is common sense but sometimes it doesnt make sense.
Also, some guys can perform under duress and some can't that is a human condition.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
There will always be extreme cases, but even in those cases, their performance or stats are showing what you need to know. If a guy has a k/bb ratio of 1/2, then that tells me right there that he will be no good, unless it is an injury causing a drop in velocity, and there is a strong possibility that he will regain that velocity. But until he shows an improvement in performance, his mental state of mind or any of that other stuff doesn't tell you anything.
The statistical indicators are far more telling. How many older guys have you seen say they are in the best shape of their lives? I guess one could take their word for it, but when their OPS is below sea level, I don't care what they say about their shape. Their performance tells me a whole lot more. But it has to be the right performance measurement. Clowns get fooled by RBI totals and such all the time.
My main point is that somebody's performance tells me their value/ability far more accurately than what somebody's eyes think is telling them...especially in baseball hitting(it tells you 98% of the story).
PS. Some humans cannot perform under duress...and in baseball circles 90% of them are weeded out in little league, 8% are weeded out in high school. The remaining 1% 'may' make it through college or minor league baseball, and maybe .005% may make a living in MLB without the ability to perform under sports duress. The rest in MLB have already passed the duress test simply by getting there and staying there.
There are many kinds of duress that you dont face until later in life like
Losing a parent Losing a spouse Losing a child Financial Ruin Dependency on alchohol and drugs.
These things don't get weeded out in t-ball. Re-read the chapter in Moneyball about Chad Bradford if you think 99.995% of all MLers have confidence even when performing well.
The one thing that stats guys hate is the playoffs because thats where these things usually come to light. The cop out is that it's a crap shoot and you can't predict a short series. Well that is because one guy screwing up or not performing under duress actually costs you something because you can't "average" it out over 162 games.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
The ability to handle the pressure of a baseball game or situation is the pressure I speak of. If a player cannot handle that, those guys are most certainly weeded out in little league(at least 90%).
Comparing the pressure to batting with a man on third and down by one is not the same as comparing how somebody handles losing a loved one.
Randomness is the key factor at work in a short playoff series, just like in any regular three game stretch. All those playoff results you get in a short series can be seen by pretty much taking any three game stretch in the regular season.
Those same guys you speak of as not performing under duress in a short game series often do the complete opposite in another important short game series. Did they suddenly learn how to perform under duress??? Oh wait, but then in another short game series they have a bad one again. Did they then forget?
Riddle me this, are these the numbers of a super star? Because these are post season numbers put up by a super star. Is this guy not able to handle duress of the post season?
How about this guy, Ted Williams. His World Series OPS is .533. As a result, he is commonly said not to be a post season, or big game player...and according to your words above, he fits in that criteria in your own words too, because a short series is just magnifying his true choking ability.
Keep in mind that this is the same guy who had countless big hits in pressure packed regular season games, many with the pennant on the line.
We already know he can handle duress of much greater magnitude. What really is at work is randomness...and like most other MLB players, given enough post season appearances, they start to resemble more and more what they do in the regular season.
Winpitcher, I am referring to the notion that players cannot handle the pressure of a game. Those players are out there, and those players are hard pressed to make it past little league because they simply won't have enough success. It is possible they mature. I am not talking about the maturation of physical abilities...as that is more in line with your examples.
So anytime a good player makes a bad play in a key situation its randomness? Hoopster do you no agree that players sometimes just screw up and it doesn't even out? This isn't karma, sometimes players are just given 10, 50 or 100 abs to make something happen. If they can't then it's THEIR fault.
If the A's can't win a playoff series its not statistical karma it's because their players didn't play well enough.
Also this playoff thing for stats guys is cop out IMO as how many ABs does a player need before his stats should get closer to his regular season ones? I think the answer to that would be easy to find, theres a nice homework project for a stats guy.
I never said anything about choking. I am really talking about players that have all the ability in the world but can't play because of other factors non physical. Think of Steve Blass or Rick Ankiel (who's dad is crazy as a loon). This is another variable that cannot be accounted for.
The playoffs was just used as a example of when stats break down. Here are some more.
Stat guys are good at predicting how many games a team will win in a season but they can't predict who will win today with any regularity.
They can't predict very accurately how many hits a player will have today. They can't predict very accurately what the final score will be in a game today. They can't accurately predict when a player will hit a homerun, just how many they should end up with. They can't accurately predict when a player will get hurt. They can't accurately predict when a player figures out a pitcher is tipping his pitches or steals their signs. They can't accurately predict when a Cy Young pitcher misses his target to a .220 hitter and gets taken out of the yard.
In fact I would love it if all stat guys would be honest and preface (like most scientists have to do) with "in general" before every statement. Instead alot of time they are spout things off as fact instead of broad generalizations of data sets like most are.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
Hoopster do you realize that by stating that playoffs stats are not equal to regular season for some players, basically thats stating the data set is scewed on one side or the other at least for some time in their career. It would be interesting to see how many ABs it takes to accurately state a players playoff data set is scewed to the right or left versus their regular season data set.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
Ive been doing my job for 20 years. If something personal is bothering me, admittedly my quality slips. It may happen one night, it may go on for a month or two...maybe even longer. Finally when Im again focused, you can count on my quality being steady. Im sure atheletes are no different.
I certainly agree that predicting the future of a 19 year old draftee will be influenced by factors other than ability.
Morgoth, all those outcomes you listed as to predicting when...like how many hits in a day, a win for the day, etc... In elite play, these guys are so close in ability that those outcomes surely can go one way or another just based on randomness in those small sets. Do I have to list all the reason why? No, the reason are obvious.
Finally, what is your point. This thread was about Derek jeter and measuring his fielding value. What does human element even have to do with that? The results show that he is a below average defensive SS. Whether he did that with Mariah Carey on his mind, or while worrying about Jessica Alba, it matters none, as the results are there. That is all part of his value. I know defense measurement is iffy...
But the hitting measurements are not. If one can ascertain the hittng value that Albert Pujols provided to his team via the use of a highly accurate hitting measurement, then the human element doesn't matter...and if there was some human element it is already woven into his performance. When he has an established baseline of performance, I think it is pretty easy to use his statsitical performance to predict how well he will do next year. When an indicator pops up to show a decline is happening or is about to happen, like Ryan Howard's, then it is the statisical measurement that will be the most accurate to determine this.
****If all you are saying is that Pujols could tank because he may get hurt(which can't be predicted), or he may lose a loved one and fall into a deep depression(which can't be predicted), and that his previous performance indicators will no longer work, then I agree.
****If you are saying that since one cannot predict the future to a high degree because of the inability to predict the unpredictable, therefore measurements that are used to determine how good a guy was, or what his MLB value was, then I disagree strongly.
Winpitcher, below average is actually generous. He has been in the lower bottom half of starting shortstops defensively. There are guys on the bench who are better defenders as well.
He simply doesn't make the same amount of plays on balls in areas where others do, and not nearly enough to offset his good ability to make the routine play(or make a routine play look tough ).
Everyone likes to use the eye test...and the eye test is the one that charts and watches every single play of every single MLB shortstop to get this information.
Here is an article on Jeter's fielding from 2005. It is long, and if read without a preconceived notion or bias, it should shed some light. Basically, even if given every unknown or margin of error, he still will emerge as a below average SS. It mainly compares him to Adam Everett, and shows the vast difference between the best starter(Everett), and the worst in the league(Jeter). You will notice the one part where it was very hard for the analysts to search for a known SS who was worse than Jeter so that a comparison could be made between Ozzie Smith and the worst of his time.
I always say that defense is hazy, but there is no amount of haziness that is going to bring a guy who is buried at the bottom, and vault him near the top.
Jeter vs. Everett
Bill James
We are well aware that we are not the first statisticalanalysts to question Derek Jeter’s defense at shortstop. Others before us have argued that Jeter was not a good shortstop, and yet he has won the Gold Glove the last couple of years, the Yankees certainly have won several baseball games with Jeter at short, and he is among the biggest stars in baseball.
Asked about Derek Jeter’s defense on a radio show in New York one year ago, I answered as honestly as I could: I don’t know. I know that there are Yankee fans and network TV analysts who believe that he is a brilliant defensive shortstop; I know that there are statistical analysts who think he’s an awful shortstop. I don’t know what the truth is. You’ve seen him more than I have; you know more about it than I do.
I am instinctively skeptical. I don’t tend to believe what the experts tell me, just because they are experts; I don’t tend to believe what the statistical analysts tell me, just because they are statistical analysts. I take a perverse pride in being the last person to be convinced that Pete Rose bet on baseball, and I fully intend to be the last person to be convinced that Barry Bonds uses Rogaine. I am willing to listen, I am willing to be convinced, but I want to see the evidence.
So John Dewan brought me the printouts from his defensive analysis, and he explained what he had done. John’s henchmen at Baseball Info Solutions had watched video from every major league game, and had recorded every ball off the bat by the direction in which it was hit (the vector) the type of hit (groundball, flyball, line-drive, popup, mob hit, etc.) and by how hard the ball was hit (softly hit, medium, hard hit). Given every vector and every type of hit, they assigned a percentage probability that the ball would result in an out, and then they had analyzed the outcomes to determine who was best at turning hit balls into outs. One of their conclusions was that Derek Jeter was probably the least effective defensive player in the major leagues, at any position.
So I said, “Well, maybe, but how do I know? How do I know this isn’t just some glitch in the analysis that we don’t understand yet?”
“I knew you would say that,” said John. “So I brought this DVD.” The DVD contained video of 80 defensive plays:”
The 20 best defensive plays made by Derek Jeter.
The 20 worst defensive plays of Derek Jeter, not including errors.
The 20 best defensive plays of Adam Everett, who the analysis had concluded was the best shortstop in baseball.
The 20 worst plays of Adam Everett, not including errors.
How do we define “best” and “worst”? It’s up to the computer. Every play is entered into the computer at Baseball Info Solutions. The computer then computes the totals, and decides that a softly hit groundball on Vector 17 is converted into an out by the shortstop only 26% of the time. Therefore, if, on this occasion, the shortstop converts a slowly hit ball on Vector 17 into an out, that’s a heck of a play, and it scores at +.74. The credit for the play made, 1.00, minus the expectation that it should be made, which is 0.26. If the play isn’t made—by anybody—it’s -.26 for the shortstop.
The best plays are the plays made by shortstops on balls on which shortstops hardly ever make plays, and the worst plays are No Plays made on balls grounded right at the shortstop at medium speed. Sometimes these actually don’t look like bad plays when you watch them. Sometimes the ball takes a little bit of a high hop and Ichiro is running, and he beats the play on something the computer thinks should be a routine out—but it’s still a legitimate analysis, because the shortstop didn’t have to play Ichiro that deep. He could have pulled in two steps; he could have charged the ball. He weighed the risks, he used his best judgment, and he lost. That happens.
Anyway, this business of looking at Derek Jeter’s 20 best and 20 worst plays and Adam Everett’s.. .logically, this would appear to be an ineffective way to see the difference between the two of them. Suppose that you took the video of A-Rod’s 20 best at-bats of the season, and his 20 worst, and then you took the video of Casey Blake’s 20 best at-bats of the season, and his worst. The video of A-Rod’s 20 best at-bats would show him getting 20 extra-base hits in game situations, and the 20 worst would show him striking out or grounding into double plays 20 times in game situations. The video for Casey Blake would show Casey Blake doing exactly the same things. This isn’t designed to reveal the differences between them; this is designed to make them look the same.
That being said, watching Derek Jeter make 40 defensive plays and then watching Adam Everett make 40 defensive plays at the same position is sort of like watching video of Barbara Bush dancing at the White House, and then watching Demi Moore dancing in Striptease. The two men could not possibly be more different in the style and manner in which they run the office. Jeter, in 40 plays, had maybe three plays in which he threw with his feet set. He threw on the run about 20-25 times; he jumped and threw about 10-15 times, he threw from his knees once. He threw from a stable position only when the ball, by the way it was hit, pinned him back on his heels.
Everett set his feet with almost unbelievable quickness and reliability, and threw off of his back foot on almost every play, good or bad. Jeter played much, much more shallow than Everett, cheated to his left more, and shifted his position from left to right much, much more than Everett did (with the exception of three plays on which Everett was shifted over behind second in a Ted Williams shift. Jeter had none of those.)
Jeter gambled constantly on forceouts, leading to good plays when he beat the runner, bad plays when he didn’t. Everett gambled on a forceout only a couple of times, taking the out at first base unless the forceout was a safe play.
Many or most of the good plays made by Jeter were plays made in the infield grass, slow rollers that could easily have died in the infield, but plays on which Jeter, playing shallow and charging the ball aggressively, was able to get the man at first. These were plays that would have been infield hits with most shortstops, and which almost certainly would have been infield hits with Adam Everett at short.
For Everett, those type of plays were the bad plays, the plays he failed to make. The good plays for Everett were mostly hard hit groundballs in the hole or behind second base, on which Everett, playing deep and firing rockets, was able to make an out. These, conversely, were the bad plays for Jeter—hard-hit or not-too-hard-hit groundballs fairly near the shortstop’s home base which Jeter, playing shallow and often positioning himself near second, was unable to convert. And there was literally not one play in the collection of his 20 best plays in which Jeter planted his feet in the outfield grass and threw. There were only three plays in the 40 in which Jeter made the play from the outfield grass, two of those were forceouts at third base, and all three of them occurred just inches into the outfield grass.
Now, I want to stress this: I don’t know anything about playing shortstop. I don’t have any idea whether the shortstop should play shallow or deep, when he should gamble and when he should play it safe, how he should make a throw or whether it is smart for him to shift left and right in playing the hitters. The professional players know these kind of things; I don’t.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m not suggesting that Jeter is a bad shortstop because he plays shallow and throws on the run and gambles on forceouts and shifts his position. What I am saying is this: that watching that video, it was very, very easy to believe that, if Adam Everett was on one end of a spectrum of shortstops, Derek Jeter was going to be on the other end of it. But that video is in no way, shape or form the basis on which we argue that Derek Jeter is not a successful shortstop.
OK then, what is that basis?
First of all, there is the summary of Jeter’s plays made and plays not made. Both Jeter and Everett had plays that they made on the types of balls a shortstop does not usually make a play on, and both Jeter and Everett had plays they didn’t make on balls a shortstop should make the play on. But, as in the case of A-Rod and Casey Blake at the bat, the numbers are quite a bit different.
Adam Everett had 41 No Plays in 2005 on which, given the vector, velocity and type of play, the expectation that the shortstop would make the play was greater than or equal to 50%. Derek Jeter had 93 such plays. 93 plays you would expect the shortstop to make, Jeter didn’t make—52 more than Everett.
On the other side of the ledger, Derek Jeter had 19 plays that he did make that one would NOT expect a shortstop to make (less than 50% probability). Adam Everett had 59. Calling these, colloquially, Plus Plays and Missed Plays:
Plus Plays Missed Plays Derek Jeter 19 93 Adam Everett 59 41
Brief accounting problem. . .Our charts show Adam Everett as being 73 plays better (on groundballs) than Derek Jeter—+34 as opposed to -39. The totals here are 92 plays (40 + 52). Why the difference?
The 93 plays that Jeter missed were not plays on which there was a 100% expectation that the shortstop would make a play. Some of them were plays on which there was a 55% expectation the shortstop would make a play; some of them were 95%. He probably should have made about 75% of them, so the 52-play difference between them on those plays leads to something more like a 40-play separation in the data.
The low defensive rating for Derek Jeter is not based on computers, it is not based on statistics, and it is not based on math. It is based on a specific observation that there are balls going through the shortstop hole against the Yankees that might very well have been fielded. Lots of them—93 of them last year, not counting the ones that might have gone through when somebody else was playing short for the Yankees. Yes, there are computers between the original observation and the conclusion; we use computers to summarize our observations, and we do state the summary as a statistic. But, at its base, it is simply a highly organized and systematic observation based on watching the games very carefully and taking notes about what happens.
Jeter, given the balls he was challenged with, had an expectation of recording 439 groundball outs. He actually recorded 400. He missed by 39. Everett, given the balls hit to him, had an expectation of 340 groundball outs. He actually recorded 374. He over-achieved by 33-point-something.
This is an analysis of groundballs. Shortstops also have to field balls hit in the air—not as many of them, but they still have to field them. That part of the analysis helps Jeter a little bit. Jeter is +5 on balls hit in the air; Everett is -1. That cuts the difference between them from 72 plays to 66.
Could these observations be wrong? It’s hard to see how, but. . .I’m a skeptic; I’m always looking for ways we could be wrong.
This is not the only basis for our conclusion; actually, this is one of four. Another way of looking at this problem is to make a count of the number of hits, and where those hits land on the field.
Against the Yankees last year there were 196 hits that went up the middle, over the pitcher’s mound, over second base and into center field for a hit (more or less. . .near second, and some of them may have been knocked down behind second base by the second baseman, the shortstop, or a passing streaker). That is the most common place where hits go, and an average team gives up 177 hits to that hole. Against Houston, there were 169—27 fewer than against the Pinstripers.
Against the Yankees in 2005 there were 131 hits in the hole between third and short, as opposed to a major league average of 115. Against the Astros, there were 83.
Against the Yankees in 2005 there were 110 hits that fell into short left field, over the shortstop but in front of the ugly Asian left fielder. The major league average is 106. Against the Astros, there were 94.
The Yankees did have an advantage vs. the average team in terms of infield hits allowed; they allowed 85, whereas the average team allowed 89. (The Astros, 79.) But taking all four of the holes which are guarded in part by the shortstop, the Yankees allowed 35 hits more than an average major league team, and 97 more than the Astros.
Yanks Average Astros Infield Hits 85 89 79 Up the Middle 196 177 169 In the SS/3B Hole 131 115 83 In short left 110 106 94 Totals 522 487 425
So there is a separate method, relying on a different set of facts, which gives us essentially the same conclusion: that Everett is an outstanding shortstop, and Jeter not so much.
There is a third method, Relative Range Factor, which is explained in a different article. Relative Range Factor is an entirely different method, relying not on Baseball Info Solutions’ careful and systematic original observation of the games, but on a thorough and detailed analysis of the traditional fielding statistics. It’s just plays made per nine innings in the field, but with adjustments put in for the strikeout and groundball tendencies of the team, the left/right bias of the pitching staff, and whether the player was surrounded by good fielders who took plays away from him or bad fielders who stretched out the innings and created more opportunities. That method is explained on page 199.
In that article, the Relative Range Factor article, I scrupulously avoided any mention of Derek Jeter, which turned out to be more difficult than you might expect. In 2005, Jeter’s Relative Range Factor actually is OK. . .it’s middle-of-the-pack, not really noteworthy. But the Relative Range Factor is not a precise method; there is some bounce in it from year to year. I believe it is more than accurate enough in one year to make it highly reliable over a period of three years, but it is probably not highly reliable in one year.
Jeter’s “OK” performance in Relative Range Factor in 2005 is an aberration in his career. It was only the second time in his career that his Relative Range Factor hasn’t been absolutely horrible. In fact, although I haven’t figured enough Relative Range Factors yet to say for certain, I will be absolutely astonished if there is any other shortstop in major league history whose Relative Range Factors are anywhere near as bad as Jeter’s. I’ll be amazed.
In one part of that article, to illustrate the method, I wanted to contrast Ozzie Smith with some player who would be easily recognized and generally understood by modern readers to be a not-very-good defensive shortstop. I started with a list of team assists by shortstops relative to expectation. . .several of Ozzie’s seasons were near the top end of the list, and I chose one, and then I went to the bottom of the list to try to find a “bad example.”
I was looking for modern seasons, because I wanted modern readers to recognize the player, and I was looking for teams that had shortstops you might remember. Of course, 80% of the teams at the bottom of the list were 25 years ago or more, and most of the other “classically bad” shortstops were guys who were just regulars for one year, so people wouldn’t necessarily remember them.
Eventually I found the player I needed—Wilfredo Cordero in 1995. Everybody remembers Wilfredo; everybody knows he wasn’t much of a shortstop. I found him after walking past six separate seasons of Derek Jeter. While virtually no other recognizable name at shortstop had had even one season in which his team had 40 fewer assists by shortstops than expected, Jeter had season after season after season in that category.
We have, then, a third independent method which confirms that Jeter’s range, in terms of his ability to get to a groundball, is substantially below average. All three methods suggest essentially the same shortfall. We have one more method.
Our fourth method is zone ratings. The concept of zone ratings was invented by John Dewan—the primary author of this book—in the 1980s. Over the years zone ratings have proliferated, some of them better than others. The zone ratings presented here are not exactly the same as the originals. They’re better. . .better thought out, better designed, with access to better accounts of the game.
Zone ratings and the plus/minus system are actually very similar concepts. . .what the zone rating actually is is a simpler and less precise statement of the same original observations that make up the fielding plus/minus. What we do in zone ratings is, we take the data from each of the 262 vectors into which the field is divided, and we identify those at which the shortstop records an out more than 50% of the time. Those are the shortstop’s “responsible vectors”. . .the vectors for which he is held accountable. The zone rating is a percentage of all the plays the shortstop makes in those vectors for which he is accountable.
Derek Jeter’s zone rating is .792, and he made 26 plays outside his zone. Adam Everett’s zone rating .860, and he made 78 plays outside his zone.
We can’t really count this as a fourth indicator that Derek Jeter’s range is limited, because the underlying data is redundant of our first indicator, the +/- system (-39 for Jeter, +33 for Everett). Still, setting that aside, we have three independent systems evaluating Jeter’s defense (as well as the defense of every other major league shortstop). One system—Relative Range Factor—looks at traditional fielding stats, which is to say it looks at outs made. One system looks at where hits landed, which is to say it looks at hits. One system looks at balls in play, and evaluates the fielder by the rate at which balls in play are divided between outs and hits.
All three systems agree that Jeter has extremely limited range in terms of getting to groundballs—and all three systems provide essentially the same statement of the cost of that limitation. It is very, very difficult for me to understand how all three systems can be reaching the same conclusion, unless that conclusion is true. It’s sort of like if you have a videotape of the suspect holding up a bank and shooting the clerk, and you have his fingerprints on the murder weapon, and you recover items taken in the robbery from his garage. Maybe the videotape is not clear; it could be somebody who looks a lot like him. Maybe there is some other explanation for his fingerprints on the murder weapon. Maybe there is some other explanation for the bags of money in his garage. It is REALLY difficult to accept that there is some other explanation for all three.
Those Yankee fans with a one-switch mind will demand to know, “How come we won 95 games, then? If Derek Jeter is such a lousy shortstop, how is it that we were able to win all of these games?”
But first, no one is saying that Derek Jeter is a lousy player. Let’s assume that the difference between Derek Jeter and Adam Everett is 72 plays on defense. That’s huge, obviously; that’s not a little thing that you blow off lightly. But almost all of those 72 plays are singles. What’s the value of a single, in runs? It’s a little less than half a run. 72 plays have a value of 30, 35 runs.
That’s huge—but it is still less than the difference between them as hitters. Derek Jeter is still a better player than Adam Everett, even if Everett is 72 plays better than Jeter as a shortstop. (Jeter created about 105 runs in 2005; Everett, 61.)
In one way of looking at it, it makes intuitive sense that Derek Jeter could be the worst defensive shortstop of all time. Unusual weaknesses in sports can only survive in the presence of unusual strengths. I don’t know who was the worst free throw shooter in NBA history—but I’ll guarantee you, whoever he was, he could play. If he couldn’t play, he wouldn’t have been given a chance to miss all those free throws. If a player is simply bad, he is quickly driven out of the game. To be the worst defensive shortstop ever, the player would have to have unusual strengths in other areas, which Jeter certainly has. It would help if he were surrounded by teammates who also have unusual strengths, which Jeter certainly is. The worst defensive shortstop in baseball history would have to be someone like Jeter who is unusually good at other aspects of the game.
Second, we have not exhausted the issue of defense. There are other elements of defense which could still be considered—turning the double play, and helping out other fielders, and defending against base advancement, I suppose. The defensive ratings that we have produced, while they are derived from meticulous research, might still be subject to park illusions, to influences of playing on different types of teams, and from influences by teammates. There is still a vast amount of research that needs to be done about fielding.
But at the same time, I have to say that the case for Jeter as a Gold Glove quality shortstop is a dead argument in my mind. There is a lot we don’t know, and Derek Jeter could be a better shortstop than we have measured him as being for any of a dozen reasons. He is not a Gold Glove quality shortstop. He isn’t an average defensive shortstop. Giving him every possible break on the unknowns, he is still going to emerge as a below average defensive shortstop.
<< <i> Off topic kind of. My kid isn't jaded like me. He has never seen the Yanks win the World Series, he doesn't hate them, and is basically indifferent towards them. He is nine years old and remembers the Red Sox winning twice and the Twins losing to the Yanks in '96. To him Jeter is just some old guy that plays for the Yanks. It might change this year, but who knows. If Rivera stays healthy the Yanks are going to have a great shot no matter where Jeter plays. >>
Sagard,
First of all, thanks for all of those nice 78 Topps that got me started a few years back
Secondly, if your son is actually a baseball fan, then I suggest giving him a good whack for seeing a ballplayer such as Derek Jeter as "a old man" who will inevitably be in the top FIVE ballplayers in history regarding base hits. Kids are not stupid. Either you are an enabler, your kid is no baseball fan, or you are lying your a$$ off.
Hoopster that is what I am saying. Things can happen outside of anyones control to make a statitical model fail. That is why the "in general" statement should be said before saying what value any player provides to his team.
I agree that when everything works how it should the stats work well. But it since it's humans were talking about there is an uncertainty factor always in play.
Teams should be using stats but they are also increasingly using other measurements as well. Character or how one handles their life day to day is becoming a bigger issue as salaries increased. No one wants a Vick situation for their team.
As far as Jeter goes, the defensive stats are much more generalizations than other data sets. I personally think that just because a ball is hit into a certain zone and a player doesn't make a play on it doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Lets say Jeter has a limited range and gets to a ball outside his range but has to rush his throw and makes a error resulting in the runner going to second. The stats would penalize him for not making a play in a certain zone or making a throwing error but it actually isn't a bad play sometimes to know what plays you just can't make. In this case a single would have been better than a runner on second.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
<< <i>As far as Jeter goes, the defensive stats are much more generalizations than other data sets. I personally think that just because a ball is hit into a certain zone and a player doesn't make a play on it doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Lets say Jeter has a limited range and gets to a ball outside his range but has to rush his throw and makes a error resulting in the runner going to second. The stats would penalize him for not making a play in a certain zone or making a throwing error but it actually isn't a bad play sometimes to know what plays you just can't make. In this case a single would have been better than a runner on second. >>
Morgoth, no it isn't a bad play for Jeter and his skill set to try and force a play that others make routinely. Morgoth, it is a bad thing if all the other SS are making more of those plays. And they make a lot more.
The error is measured too. Basically, if Everett(or anybody) is making five more errors than Jeter, but is in turn getting to 70 balls and turning hits into outs(that Jeter is not). It is quite clear who the better one is.
<< <i>You guys certainly can analyze. I have watched a lot of Yankee games and think Jeter is pretty damn good. >>
Jeter is pretty damn good defensively, compared to you or I.
When compared to the other starting SS in MLB he has been consistently ranked in the 20's in his defensive ability. Whether one wants to call that average, superb, poor, or whatever...given the best available evidence around, it is where he ranks among starters.
<< <i>You guys certainly can analyze. I have watched a lot of Yankee games and think Jeter is pretty damn good. >>
These guys analyze stats. They do not watch the games .... a fatal flaw
When you have stat crunching no game watching geeks saying "Jeter is pretty damn good defensively, compared to you or I" you have analysis by paralysis.
We are supposed to take outrageously flawed stat analysis as delivered by these crackpots and yet have to digest how a player is compared "to you or I"
First of all, thanks for all of those nice 78 Topps that got me started a few years back
Secondly, if your son is actually a baseball fan, then I suggest giving him a good whack for seeing a ballplayer such as Derek Jeter as "a old man" who will inevitably be in the top FIVE ballplayers in history regarding base hits. Kids are not stupid. Either you are an enabler, your kid is no baseball fan, or you are lying your a$$ off. >>
I've tried to pass my Yanks hate on down to him, but he just ain't buyin it. It's going to be something he has to learn for himself, or not if he is lucky.
I was the same way. I never understood my dad's irrational hate of the Yanks. I was too young to remember Reggie as a Yank, even though the '78s are the cards I started collecting. From '82 to '95, the Yanks were basically harmless. That took me from age 11-24 with no hate on the Yanks. I laughed it up when they beat the Braves in '96. Good for them. In '98 it went sour. I had a former teammate pitching for the Braves and the Yanks swept. The hate was born. The Yanks spanking the Twins twice in the post season has sealed it. Their constant flogging of the Jr. Yanks seemed unwarranted as well, but that has at least temporarily been flipped.
As for Jeter, I've come to accept that he is a great hitter for a shortstop and typically the Yanks will have a better shortstop than their opponents. Defense still counts a lot more at the big league level than softball, but defense alone doesn't win squat. I typically believe in the stats geeks and their thoughts about Jeter's defense, but Gold Gloves have been egregiously going to the best hitter at a position for as long as I can remember.
For all the Yanks fans who watch the games and know how great Jeter is defensively, I guarantee you are going to love watching the guy who eventually replaces him work the infield. He just probably won't have the stick Jeter carries.
<< <i>You guys certainly can analyze. I have watched a lot of Yankee games and think Jeter is pretty damn good. >>
These guys analyze stats. They do not watch the games .... a fatal flaw
When you have stat crunching no game watching geeks saying "Jeter is pretty damn good defensively, compared to you or I" you have analysis by paralysis.
We are supposed to take outrageously flawed stat analysis as delivered by these crackpots and yet have to digest how a player is compared "to you or I"
Gotta love it >>
Softparade, I watch, I played, and I coach, so you can throw your theory out the window. I'm not some guy who collects 1978 Topps cards with my pants around my ankles, or holds some Jeter card as a hero to fill some void in my life. Know anybody like that??? HMMM.
What is so hard to understand? Compared to MLB shortstop, Jeter is well below average. You keep harping on seeing him play. Have you seen every single play by every single MLB shortstop?? Obviously not, so then how can you make such a certain claim? The best and most reliable defensive evidence has seen every play by every SS in the last several years. So moron, you can throw your "haven't watched him" argument out hte window, because he HAS been watched. He has been watched, and he just is a subpar SS(yes, better than you or I, but subpar for comparative reasons in MLB). Get it? Or are you too busy staring at the corner of a 1978 Topps card...and you use "geek" to describe somebody else??
Ahh, just another Yankee bandwagon moron who knows no better.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah WE ALL watch, played, and have coached. Please spare me. Let me just say that maybe I'm glad that my sons will never be under your "expertise". So, you are not going to get anywhere with that "I'm the man cause I watch, coach, and played" horse crap. That applies to millions of us .....
You are a statistic freak who obviously weighs raw stats higher then what your friggen eyes see. We see differently and as much as you disagree with me, I laugh nearly everytime you write.
If anyone saw the double play that jeter started this afternoon would see how stats cant always tell the story.
And when Yanks got ARod, what were they suppose to do? Lets face it, ARod has a stronger arm and that is why him playing 3B was a much better choice than taking Jeter out of SS.
Softparade, you still don't get it. You saw Jeter with your eyes. The best evaluative method on defense saw Jeter with their eyes too, AND every other SS as well, AND for every play. I am not sure what kind of life you live, but I doubt that you have seen every ball that was hit in the vicinity of Jeter, let alone the play of every MLB SS for the last several years.
You guys see Jeter make a nice play(or more in truth, make a routine play look hard), and you figure he is the cats meow, but plays like that are being made all across America, only you don't see them. But the evaluators have and do...
The final summation, Jeter spent a lot of seasons as the 29th or 30th ranked SS in MLB defensively, and some years 20th, and this year so far is like 15th(Winpitcher, this is how it varied).
FInally, this is baseball, and it is extremely condusive to the use of statistical measurement as the means of establishing how good a player is, and to a very high degree...especially in hitting. It isn't gymnastics, where you vote. It isn't football where a system can make a player, or a teammate can make you look far better than you really are.
Think of it in terms of measuring a bowler, as it is closer to that. The results of his pins knocked down(his score) is pretty straight forward, and is an accurate way of measuring. It doesn't matter how they look, or how one feels they did. Either they bowled a 260 or they didn't. Measuring the hitter in baseball isn't much different, only the novice doesn't know how too look for the 'pins knocked down' as they often look at measurements that evaluate other things out of the players control, such as teammate performance, as opposed to the skill of the hitter in question.
Comments
<< <i>markj,
Who the heck is touting Jeter as the "best" SS in the game? You can't possibly be as dumb as you look on a computer screen. Perhaps you are. One thing I do know FOR A FACT .... is that you spend 99% of your time with your nose in stats then you do watching the game. Naive and young ones tend to do that. If you are not young then you are just plain ol stupid
See the comment by jibssquared at 9:07 on 7/21-"Jeter’s strength, according to James’s system, is his ability to cleanly field balls he reaches. He led all shortstops last year with just 17 defensive misplays in 1,259 innings at short. Even when you count errors — which James claims were not counted in Defensive Misplays, so there’s no doubling up — Jeter comes out as the best shortstop in the majors.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I have watched 1000s of games on TV and hundreds in person. I look at all the facts and study the game. I am aware that all teams have a SS, not just the Yankees. All are marvelous athletes, and almost all of them are better defensively than Jeter. I am not blinded by being such a homer that I think my guy must be the best.
Why am I a bad stats geek? Let me guess-it's because you do not like what the stats say. >>
I guess this clown IS that stupid
listen little boy mark, you don't have to LIE that you have watched "1000s" of games on the boob tube. You don't have to tell tall stories about "studying" the game. As much as you cry your 15 year old eyes out about Yankee fans being homers, you are simply a hater in the same level. Nothing more and nothing less. Please don't insult this boards intelligence and try and come off as a "student" of the game.
You are a Yankee hater just the same as a Yankee fan is a Yankee fan. If you are blind enough to continue to bash a guy who will more then likely wind up in the top five all time hit leaders who plays a STEADY SS then their is no use debating with your dense head. >>
SIGH. OK I guess supporting an argument with facts is beyond your ability. I have never bashed Jeter. I have merely observed, as have most sentinet humans, that Jeter is a lousy defensive SS. I have said he is a great ball player, that I wish he played for my team, and that I would vote for him for the HOF (an easy call).
As for my age, I have underwear that is more than 15 years old. I saw my first MLB game at Connie Mack Stadium in 1959. The Phillies beat the Dodgers 2-1. It was in late May or early June. My dad was on his way to Boston University to get his Ph.D.
Anyway, this thread started with a humorous piece about Jeter, but has turned rather nasty. I apologize for my part in that.
<< <i> I have never bashed Jeter. >>
Your threads -
Jeter
Has Jeter's Defense Improved?
Jeter's Future
Howard v Jeter - 1st post -Has Howard surpassed jeter as the most overrated player in baseball? Who are the other candidates?
Jeter Lovers Unite
Jeter-Gold Glove -1st post -Should Derek jeter win his third consecutive Gold Glove?
Short answer: Are you kidding me?
2007 Defensive Statistics-Jeter Fans Need Not Look
Neyer on Jeter
Nah, no bashing there.
<< <i>See the comment by jibssquared at 9:07 on 7/21-"Jeter’s strength, according to James’s system, is his ability to cleanly field balls he reaches. He led all shortstops last year with just 17 defensive misplays in 1,259 innings at short. Even when you count errors — which James claims were not counted in Defensive Misplays, so there’s no doubling up — Jeter comes out as the best shortstop in the majors. >>
I also do not think Jeter is the best SS ever. I simply gave you what you asked for, a fact from your hero Bill James, whose word is gospel when it fits your agenda. I'm still waiting to see where I insulted you, which you accuse me of at least once in this thread.
Where are yours stating he is so horrible? You keep harping that no one has shown any analysis yet you have not shown any either!
If you want to see his fielding stats go to baseball reference.com there you can compare him to every SS to your hearts content.
Also, I have not called you any names so I take offense that you continue to claim that I have.
As for bringing up the Braves SS, I guess only you are allowed an opinion here.
Steve
To be fair as well, some posters are being overly sensitive by the pointing out of Jeter's defensive limitations, and are calling names. It isn't nice to call names
The "eyes" argument. The biggest problem with "eyes" is that there is a brain behind them translating the info, and each brain is going to get a different sensation/reaction to the exact same play. Both/all brains cannot be right when they differ. The best trained eyes will be more right. The average fan usually sees things through biased eyes, rendering their opinion useless.
Actually, the most current study of defensive ability is with eyes. Every single play in MLB is studied, charted, etc..and by more than one pair of eyes, via video and from guys in the press box charting each play, etc... So if a fan wants to use the "eye" argument, by all means, do so...but use the most informed eyes.
The "eye" data does indeed have Jeter at the bottom of MLB defensive SS(he looks a little higher this year). Does that mean he is a bad SS? Not at all. He is a bona-fide HOFer who will end up somewhere in the top 10 SS of all-time. So what's the beef?
<< <i>Why am I a bad stats geek? Let me guess-it's because you do not like what the stats say. >>
I'll play. Being able to comprehend the stats and piggyback on what others say is one thing but to be a "good" stats geek you actually have to provide some new insight or statistical model. What new and inventive statistical models have you created in you many years watching and studying stats.
You come off like some sports geek regurgitating Jim Rome.
Yeah Bill James has some great ideas, he also has some lame ones. His predicitions just like most statisticians
suffer from something you can't correct for and that's the human factor.
Billy Bean will never win due to this and Bill James and the rest of the stat guys will never figure out a perfect formula for predicting players or how to win.
If you want to question my credibility, I am a scientist that has used statistical modeling for 15 years on things much more important than how to calculate range factor for short stops.
Bean did quite well for several years, particularly considering his limited budget. I agree wholeheartedly that stats are not everything, but I believe they have a place. There are many authorities other than Bill James using statistical analysis to make decisions. BTW, the Red Sox have done pretty well since hiring Bill James.
I study the analysis, but I also watch the games. I agree that the human factor must be considered. Jeter is a leader. Someone brought up the Braves SS. He has fine offensive and defensive numbers, but apparently is a disruptive factor and stays in Cox's doghouse. One must consider that when making personnel decisions.
Anyone who ignores the statistical data will make poorer decisions than one who uses all available information.
<< <i>Yeah Bill James has some great ideas, he also has some lame ones. His predicitions just like most statisticians
suffer from something you can't correct for and that's the human factor.
Billy Bean will never win due to this and Bill James and the rest of the stat guys will never figure out a perfect formula for predicting players or how to win.
If you want to question my credibility, I am a scientist that has used statistical modeling for 15 years on things much more important than how to calculate range factor for short stops. >>
You have to admit the Red Sox dedication to stats has helped them out of their misery. Shrewd maneuvering regarding Nomar. Shrewd almost disloyal with Pedro. Letting guys like Ortiz and weird beard develop. On the other hand I think they will regret not catering to Manny for a long time.
The question isn't to me whether or not Jeter sucks defensively. The question is whether the Yankees have given themselves their best chance at winning by insisting Jeter play short.
Since I believe the playoffs are a basically a lottery, the only year it may really have hurt them is last year. The Yanks had enough other issues that last years team was probably toast from the outset given how well the Rays came on.
Off topic kind of. My kid isn't jaded like me. He has never seen the Yanks win the World Series, he doesn't hate them, and is basically indifferent towards them. He is nine years old and remembers the Red Sox winning twice and the Twins losing to the Yanks in '96. To him Jeter is just some old guy that plays for the Yanks. It might change this year, but who knows. If Rivera stays healthy the Yanks are going to have a great shot no matter where Jeter plays.
Look, Beane got extremely lucky that he was able to have 3 pitchers all develop and come into their own at the same time. That's it. All his other moves are just window dressing on the fact that Mulder, Zito and Hudson were their most dominant during their time with the A's.
His draft that is highlighted in the book Moneyball has basically went belly up. Nick Swisher was the centerpiece and is on his 3rd team now. After watching him be lazy on fly balls I can see why he has moved around so much. Also, the human factor strikes again as Nick likes to party according to both the A's and Whitesox.
Now without 3 stud pitchers the A's are just like any mid level team, trading away players and running a rat race trying to be competitive. They don't look anywhere near ready to win right now and whats up with signing all the old timers? The Twins have been much better at drafting than Beane ever has and it shows in their ML players rignt now.
The Blue Jays were also modeled after the A's and look at them now, contemplating another rebuild after JP tore down the original team and built it from the ground up.
The Red Sox have Theo and Bill James and use statistical analysis, yes. But they also have a huge payroll to overcome their mistakes and they have made their share (Lugo anyone?). What the Red Sox have done is pay attention and use their money to draft well and actually sign their draftees (this one's pointed at you Neal Huntington!!!) and they also have done well with japanese players.
Two things the Yankees cannot seem to do right. That is why the Red Sox win now, they have more depth at the minor league level and don't have to constantly trade their minor leaguers away or overpay for players.
The stat analysis is more for MLB players already in the bigs, because a reasonable baseline of performance is already established.
A good analysis is one that also isolates the measurement of the player in question and his ability/value, and not that of his teammates or elements out of said players control. It is in this area where fans often go wrong, because they tend to use measurements that do not apply to the players ability...see RBI, or Wins.
A MLB draft is crapshoot pure and simple. The successful drafter of today has just as good a chance at being the bad drafter of tomorrow as anybody else does. This does not negate the value or validity of a good MLB stat analyst of a player.
The defensive Jeter analysis has nothing to do with player drafts, etc... I don't know how this morphed into that.
Human element? This is already measured in his performance. A good hitting analyst getss 98% of a players hitting value. Whether or not a guy hustled to get a hit, or a guy loafs and misses out on one, it is already part of the measurement. Unless you know there is a guy who is loafing and think you can get him to hustle for a few more hits, then I can see the value of the human element, if you are a GM and want to sign him. The reality is that almost all hitters give their best when at bat, so that hardly matters anyway.
Lets see. Does he take steroids?, is he now off steroids?, is he having marital problems?, does he do hard drugs?, does he have a drinking issue?, does he have a gambling issue?, does he have a partying problem?, does he have an issue with confidence?, does he have mental issues? does he have weight issues? does he still care about playing?
I can name players who have had all of these issues and more that affected their playing ability. Lots of players have had their production drop for "unknown" reasons from one year to the next (I'm thinking Ruben Sierra for one). People aren't machines. They don't go out and produce "98%" efficencies every year like a piece of industrial machinery.
The beef was someone (I won't mention who) claimed he was 'horrible' at SS.
Steve
Players with issues such as those will show a reflection in their performance by looking at certain indicators.
Guys have those issues and still perform at top peak, and only when they lose bat speed or velocity do they become 'bad.' In other words, there are more important physical factors to look at. The first sign of those factors affecting them are in their results...their stats...BUT THE RIGHT ONES need to be looked at!
I think looking for reasons for drop off in physical attributes first is common sense but sometimes it doesnt make sense.
Also, some guys can perform under duress and some can't that is a human condition.
The statistical indicators are far more telling. How many older guys have you seen say they are in the best shape of their lives? I guess one could take their word for it, but when their OPS is below sea level, I don't care what they say about their shape. Their performance tells me a whole lot more. But it has to be the right performance measurement. Clowns get fooled by RBI totals and such all the time.
My main point is that somebody's performance tells me their value/ability far more accurately than what somebody's eyes think is telling them...especially in baseball hitting(it tells you 98% of the story).
PS. Some humans cannot perform under duress...and in baseball circles 90% of them are weeded out in little league, 8% are weeded out in high school. The remaining 1% 'may' make it through college or minor league baseball, and maybe .005% may make a living in MLB without the ability to perform under sports duress. The rest in MLB have already passed the duress test simply by getting there and staying there.
Losing a parent
Losing a spouse
Losing a child
Financial Ruin
Dependency on alchohol and drugs.
These things don't get weeded out in t-ball. Re-read the chapter in Moneyball about Chad Bradford if you think 99.995% of all MLers have confidence even when performing well.
The one thing that stats guys hate is the playoffs because thats where these things usually come to light. The cop out is that it's a crap shoot and you can't predict a short series. Well that is because one guy screwing up or not performing under duress actually costs you something because you can't "average" it out over 162 games.
Steve
The ability to handle the pressure of a baseball game or situation is the pressure I speak of. If a player cannot handle that, those guys are most certainly weeded out in little league(at least 90%).
Comparing the pressure to batting with a man on third and down by one is not the same as comparing how somebody handles losing a loved one.
Randomness is the key factor at work in a short playoff series, just like in any regular three game stretch. All those playoff results you get in a short series can be seen by pretty much taking any three game stretch in the regular season.
Those same guys you speak of as not performing under duress in a short game series often do the complete opposite in another important short game series. Did they suddenly learn how to perform under duress??? Oh wait, but then in another short game series they have a bad one again. Did they then forget?
Plate Appearances 194, AVG.262..... OB%.339.....SLG% .405
How about this guy, Ted Williams. His World Series OPS is .533. As a result, he is commonly said not to be a post season, or big game player...and according to your words above, he fits in that criteria in your own words too, because a short series is just magnifying his true choking ability.
Keep in mind that this is the same guy who had countless big hits in pressure packed regular season games, many with the pennant on the line.
We already know he can handle duress of much greater magnitude. What really is at work is randomness...and like most other MLB players, given enough post season appearances, they start to resemble more and more what they do in the regular season.
Hoop I have to disagree with you on that. Many players develop later. I had a kid in LL that could barely walk and chew gum.
Today he is or was a professional rugby player.
You can't make a blanket statement like that. At the LL level many of those kids don't have the muscle memory yet.
Many kids that stunk in LL end up being all county in HS.
Steve
If the A's can't win a playoff series its not statistical karma it's because their players didn't play well enough.
Also this playoff thing for stats guys is cop out IMO as how many ABs does a player need before his stats should get closer to his regular season ones? I think the answer to that would be easy to find, theres a nice homework project for a stats guy.
I never said anything about choking. I am really talking about players that have all the ability in the world but can't play because of other factors non physical. Think of Steve Blass or Rick Ankiel (who's dad is crazy as a loon). This is another variable that cannot be accounted for.
The playoffs was just used as a example of when stats break down. Here are some more.
Stat guys are good at predicting how many games a team will win in a season but they can't predict who will win today with any regularity.
They can't predict very accurately how many hits a player will have today.
They can't predict very accurately what the final score will be in a game today.
They can't accurately predict when a player will hit a homerun, just how many they should end up with.
They can't accurately predict when a player will get hurt.
They can't accurately predict when a player figures out a pitcher is tipping his pitches or steals their signs.
They can't accurately predict when a Cy Young pitcher misses his target to a .220 hitter and gets taken out of the yard.
In fact I would love it if all stat guys would be honest and preface (like most scientists have to do) with "in general" before every statement. Instead alot of time they are spout things off as fact instead of broad generalizations of data sets like most are.
I still disagree, just because a 10 year old can't handle stress does not mean he won't at age 20.
At least 90% of them anyway.
For that matter he could mature at 14 and handle things he could not at 10.
Steve
I certainly agree that predicting the future of a 19 year old draftee will be influenced by factors other than ability.
Morgoth, all those outcomes you listed as to predicting when...like how many hits in a day, a win for the day, etc... In elite play, these guys are so close in ability that those outcomes surely can go one way or another just based on randomness in those small sets. Do I have to list all the reason why? No, the reason are obvious.
Finally, what is your point. This thread was about Derek jeter and measuring his fielding value. What does human element even have to do with that? The results show that he is a below average defensive SS. Whether he did that with Mariah Carey on his mind, or while worrying about Jessica Alba, it matters none, as the results are there. That is all part of his value. I know defense measurement is iffy...
But the hitting measurements are not. If one can ascertain the hittng value that Albert Pujols provided to his team via the use of a highly accurate hitting measurement, then the human element doesn't matter...and if there was some human element it is already woven into his performance. When he has an established baseline of performance, I think it is pretty easy to use his statsitical performance to predict how well he will do next year. When an indicator pops up to show a decline is happening or is about to happen, like Ryan Howard's, then it is the statisical measurement that will be the most accurate to determine this.
****If all you are saying is that Pujols could tank because he may get hurt(which can't be predicted), or he may lose a loved one and fall into a deep depression(which can't be predicted), and that his previous performance indicators will no longer work, then I agree.
****If you are saying that since one cannot predict the future to a high degree because of the inability to predict the unpredictable, therefore measurements that are used to determine how good a guy was, or what his MLB value was, then I disagree strongly.
Steve
He simply doesn't make the same amount of plays on balls in areas where others do, and not nearly enough to offset his good ability to make the routine play(or make a routine play look tough
Everyone likes to use the eye test...and the eye test is the one that charts and watches every single play of every single MLB shortstop to get this information.
I always say that defense is hazy, but there is no amount of haziness that is going to bring a guy who is buried at the bottom, and vault him near the top.
Jeter vs. Everett
Bill James
We are well aware that we are not the first statisticalanalysts to question Derek Jeter’s defense at shortstop. Others before us have argued that Jeter was not a good shortstop, and yet he has won the Gold Glove the last couple of years, the Yankees certainly have won several baseball games with Jeter at short, and he is among the biggest stars in baseball.
Asked about Derek Jeter’s defense on a radio show in New York one year ago, I answered as honestly as I could: I don’t know. I know that there are Yankee fans and network TV analysts who believe that he is a brilliant defensive shortstop; I know that there are statistical analysts who think he’s an awful shortstop. I don’t know what the truth is. You’ve seen him more than I have; you know more about it than I do.
I am instinctively skeptical. I don’t tend to believe what the experts tell me, just because they are experts; I don’t tend to believe what the statistical analysts tell me, just because they are statistical analysts. I take a perverse pride in being the last person to be convinced that Pete Rose bet on baseball, and I fully intend to be the last person to be convinced that Barry Bonds uses Rogaine. I am willing to listen, I am willing to be convinced, but I want to see the evidence.
So John Dewan brought me the printouts from his defensive analysis, and he explained what he had done. John’s henchmen at Baseball Info Solutions had watched video from every major league game, and had recorded every ball off the bat by the direction in which it was hit (the vector) the type of hit (groundball, flyball, line-drive, popup, mob hit, etc.) and by how hard the ball was hit (softly hit, medium, hard hit). Given every vector and every type of hit, they assigned a percentage probability that the ball would result in an out, and then they had analyzed the outcomes to determine who was best at turning hit balls into outs. One of their conclusions was that Derek Jeter was probably the least effective defensive player in the major leagues, at any position.
So I said, “Well, maybe, but how do I know? How do I know this isn’t just some glitch in the analysis that we don’t understand yet?”
“I knew you would say that,” said John. “So I brought this DVD.” The DVD contained video of 80 defensive plays:”
The 20 best defensive plays made by Derek Jeter.
The 20 worst defensive plays of Derek Jeter, not including errors.
The 20 best defensive plays of Adam Everett, who the analysis had concluded was the best shortstop in baseball.
The 20 worst plays of Adam Everett, not including errors.
How do we define “best” and “worst”? It’s up to the computer. Every play is entered into the computer at Baseball Info Solutions. The computer then computes the totals, and decides that a softly hit groundball on Vector 17 is converted into an out by the shortstop only 26% of the time. Therefore, if, on this occasion, the shortstop converts a slowly hit ball on Vector 17 into an out, that’s a heck of a play, and it scores at +.74. The credit for the play made, 1.00, minus the expectation that it should be made, which is 0.26. If the play isn’t made—by anybody—it’s -.26 for the shortstop.
The best plays are the plays made by shortstops on balls on which shortstops hardly ever make plays, and the worst plays are No Plays made on balls grounded right at the shortstop at medium speed. Sometimes these actually don’t look like bad plays when you watch them. Sometimes the ball takes a little bit of a high hop and Ichiro is running, and he beats the play on something the computer thinks should be a routine out—but it’s still a legitimate analysis, because the shortstop didn’t have to play Ichiro that deep. He could have pulled in two steps; he could have charged the ball. He weighed the risks, he used his best judgment, and he lost. That happens.
Anyway, this business of looking at Derek Jeter’s 20 best and 20 worst plays and Adam
Everett’s.. .logically, this would appear to be an ineffective way to see the difference between the two of them. Suppose that you took the video of A-Rod’s 20 best at-bats of the season, and his 20 worst, and then you took the video of Casey Blake’s 20 best at-bats of the season, and his worst. The video of A-Rod’s 20 best at-bats would show him getting 20 extra-base hits in game situations, and the 20 worst would show him striking out or grounding into double plays 20 times in game situations. The video for Casey Blake would show Casey Blake doing exactly the same things. This isn’t designed to reveal the differences between them; this is designed to make them look the same.
That being said, watching Derek Jeter make 40 defensive plays and then watching Adam Everett make 40 defensive plays at the same position is sort of like watching video of Barbara Bush dancing at the White House, and then watching Demi Moore dancing in Striptease. The two men could not possibly be more different in the style and manner in which they run the office. Jeter, in 40 plays, had maybe three plays in which he threw with his feet set. He threw on the run about 20-25 times; he jumped and threw about 10-15 times, he threw from his knees once. He threw from a stable position only when the ball, by the way it was hit, pinned him back on his heels.
Everett set his feet with almost unbelievable quickness and reliability, and threw off of his back foot on almost every play, good or bad. Jeter played much, much more shallow than Everett, cheated to his left more, and shifted his position from left to right much, much more than Everett did (with the exception of three plays on which Everett was shifted over behind second in a Ted Williams shift. Jeter had none of those.)
Jeter gambled constantly on forceouts, leading to good plays when he beat the runner, bad plays when he didn’t. Everett gambled on a forceout only a couple of times, taking the out at first base unless the forceout was a safe play.
Many or most of the good plays made by Jeter were plays made in the infield grass, slow rollers that could easily have died in the infield, but plays on which Jeter, playing shallow and charging the ball aggressively, was able to get the man at first. These were plays that would have been infield hits with most shortstops, and which almost certainly would have been infield hits with Adam Everett at short.
For Everett, those type of plays were the bad plays, the plays he failed to make. The good plays for Everett were mostly hard hit groundballs in the hole or behind second base, on which Everett, playing deep and firing rockets, was able to make an out. These, conversely, were the bad plays for Jeter—hard-hit or not-too-hard-hit groundballs fairly near the shortstop’s home base which Jeter, playing shallow and often positioning himself near second, was unable to convert. And there was literally not one play in the collection of his 20 best plays in which Jeter planted his feet in the outfield grass and threw. There were only three plays in the 40 in which Jeter made the play from the outfield grass, two of those were forceouts at third base, and all three of them occurred just inches into the outfield grass.
Now, I want to stress this: I don’t know anything about playing shortstop. I don’t have any idea whether the shortstop should play shallow or deep, when he should gamble and when he should play it safe, how he should make a throw or whether it is smart for him to shift left and right in playing the hitters. The professional players know these kind of things; I don’t.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m not suggesting that Jeter is a bad shortstop because he plays shallow and throws on the run and gambles on forceouts and shifts his position. What I am saying is this: that watching that video, it was very, very easy to believe that, if Adam Everett was on one end of a spectrum of shortstops, Derek Jeter was going to be on the other end of it. But that video is in no way, shape or form the basis on which we argue that Derek Jeter is not a successful shortstop.
OK then, what is that basis?
First of all, there is the summary of Jeter’s plays made and plays not made. Both Jeter and Everett had plays that they made on the types of balls a shortstop does not usually make a play on, and both Jeter and Everett had plays they didn’t make on balls a shortstop should make the play on. But, as in the case of A-Rod and Casey Blake at the bat, the numbers are quite a bit different.
Adam Everett had 41 No Plays in 2005 on which, given the vector, velocity and type of play, the expectation that the shortstop would make the play was greater than or equal to 50%. Derek Jeter had 93 such plays. 93 plays you would expect the shortstop to make, Jeter didn’t make—52 more than Everett.
On the other side of the ledger, Derek Jeter had 19 plays that he did make that one would NOT expect a shortstop to make (less than 50% probability). Adam Everett had 59. Calling these, colloquially, Plus Plays and Missed Plays:
Plus Plays Missed Plays
Derek Jeter 19 93
Adam Everett 59 41
Brief accounting problem. . .Our charts show Adam Everett as being 73 plays better (on groundballs) than Derek Jeter—+34 as opposed to -39. The totals here are 92 plays (40 + 52). Why the difference?
The 93 plays that Jeter missed were not plays on which there was a 100% expectation that the shortstop would make a play. Some of them were plays on which there was a 55% expectation the shortstop would make a play; some of them were 95%. He probably should have made about 75% of them, so the 52-play difference between them on those plays leads to something more like a 40-play separation in the data.
The low defensive rating for Derek Jeter is not based on computers, it is not based on statistics, and it is not based on math. It is based on a specific observation that there are balls going through the shortstop hole against the Yankees that might very well have been fielded. Lots of them—93 of them last year, not counting the ones that might have gone through when somebody else was playing short for the Yankees. Yes, there are computers between the original observation and the conclusion; we use computers to summarize our observations, and we do state the summary as a statistic. But, at its base, it is simply a highly organized and systematic observation based on watching the games very carefully and taking notes about what happens.
Jeter, given the balls he was challenged with, had an expectation of recording 439 groundball outs. He actually recorded 400. He missed by 39. Everett, given the balls hit to him, had an expectation of 340 groundball outs. He actually recorded 374. He over-achieved by 33-point-something.
This is an analysis of groundballs. Shortstops also have to field balls hit in the air—not as many of them, but they still have to field them. That part of the analysis helps Jeter a little bit. Jeter is +5 on balls hit in the air; Everett is -1. That cuts the difference between them from 72 plays to 66.
Could these observations be wrong? It’s hard to see how, but. . .I’m a skeptic; I’m always looking for ways we could be wrong.
This is not the only basis for our conclusion; actually, this is one of four. Another way of looking at this problem is to make a count of the number of hits, and where those hits land on the field.
Against the Yankees last year there were 196 hits that went up the middle, over the pitcher’s mound, over second base and into center field for a hit (more or less. . .near second, and some of them may have been knocked down behind second base by the second baseman, the shortstop, or a passing streaker). That is the most common place where hits go, and an average team gives up 177 hits to that hole. Against Houston, there were 169—27 fewer than against the Pinstripers.
Against the Yankees in 2005 there were 131 hits in the hole between third and short, as opposed to a major league average of 115. Against the Astros, there were 83.
Against the Yankees in 2005 there were 110 hits that fell into short left field, over the shortstop but in front of the ugly Asian left fielder. The major league average is 106. Against the Astros, there were 94.
The Yankees did have an advantage vs. the average team in terms of infield hits allowed; they allowed 85, whereas the average team allowed 89. (The Astros, 79.) But taking all four of the holes which are guarded in part by the shortstop, the Yankees allowed 35 hits more than an average major league team, and 97 more than the Astros.
Yanks Average Astros
Infield Hits 85 89 79
Up the Middle 196 177 169
In the SS/3B Hole 131 115 83
In short left 110 106 94
Totals 522 487 425
So there is a separate method, relying on a different set of facts, which gives us essentially the same conclusion: that Everett is an outstanding shortstop, and Jeter not so much.
There is a third method, Relative Range Factor, which is explained in a different article. Relative Range Factor is an entirely different method, relying not on Baseball Info Solutions’ careful and systematic original observation of the games, but on a thorough and detailed analysis of the traditional fielding statistics. It’s just plays made per nine innings in the field, but with adjustments put in for the strikeout and groundball tendencies of the team, the left/right bias of the pitching staff, and whether the player was surrounded by good fielders who took plays away from him or bad fielders who stretched out the innings and created more opportunities. That method is explained on page 199.
In that article, the Relative Range Factor article, I scrupulously avoided any mention of Derek Jeter, which turned out to be more difficult than you might expect. In 2005, Jeter’s Relative Range Factor actually is OK. . .it’s middle-of-the-pack, not really noteworthy. But the Relative Range Factor is not a precise method; there is some bounce in it from year to year. I believe it is more than accurate enough in one year to make it highly reliable over a period of three years, but it is probably not highly reliable in one year.
Jeter’s “OK” performance in Relative Range Factor in 2005 is an aberration in his career. It was only the second time in his career that his Relative Range Factor hasn’t been absolutely horrible. In fact, although I haven’t figured enough Relative Range Factors yet to say for certain, I will be absolutely astonished if there is any other shortstop in major league history whose Relative Range Factors are anywhere near as bad as Jeter’s. I’ll be amazed.
In one part of that article, to illustrate the method, I wanted to contrast Ozzie Smith with some player who would be easily recognized and generally understood by modern readers to be a not-very-good defensive shortstop. I started with a list of team assists by shortstops relative to expectation. . .several of Ozzie’s seasons were near the top end of the list, and I chose one, and then I went to the bottom of the list to try to find a “bad example.”
I was looking for modern seasons, because I wanted modern readers to recognize the player, and I was looking for teams that had shortstops you might remember. Of course, 80% of the teams at the bottom of the list were 25 years ago or more, and most of the other “classically bad” shortstops were guys who were just regulars for one year, so people wouldn’t necessarily remember them.
Eventually I found the player I needed—Wilfredo Cordero in 1995. Everybody remembers Wilfredo; everybody knows he wasn’t much of a shortstop. I found him after walking past six separate seasons of Derek Jeter. While virtually no other recognizable name at shortstop had had even one season in which his team had 40 fewer assists by shortstops than expected, Jeter had season after season after season in that category.
We have, then, a third independent method which confirms that Jeter’s range, in terms of his ability to get to a groundball, is substantially below average. All three methods suggest essentially the same shortfall. We have one more method.
Our fourth method is zone ratings. The concept of zone ratings was invented by John Dewan—the primary author of this book—in the 1980s. Over the years zone ratings have proliferated, some of them better than others. The zone ratings presented here are not exactly the same as the originals. They’re better. . .better thought out, better designed, with access to better accounts of the game.
Zone ratings and the plus/minus system are actually very similar concepts. . .what the zone rating actually is is a simpler and less precise statement of the same original observations that make up the fielding plus/minus. What we do in zone ratings is, we take the data from each of the 262 vectors into which the field is divided, and we identify those at which the shortstop records an out more than 50% of the time. Those are the shortstop’s “responsible vectors”. . .the vectors for which he is held accountable. The zone rating is a percentage of all the plays the shortstop makes in those vectors for which he is accountable.
Derek Jeter’s zone rating is .792, and he made 26 plays outside his zone. Adam Everett’s zone rating .860, and he made 78 plays outside his zone.
We can’t really count this as a fourth indicator that Derek Jeter’s range is limited, because the underlying data is redundant of our first indicator, the +/- system (-39 for Jeter, +33 for Everett). Still, setting that aside, we have three independent systems evaluating Jeter’s defense (as well as the defense of every other major league shortstop). One system—Relative Range Factor—looks at traditional fielding stats, which is to say it looks at outs made. One system looks at where hits landed, which is to say it looks at hits. One system looks at balls in play, and evaluates the fielder by the rate at which balls in play are divided between outs and hits.
All three systems agree that Jeter has extremely limited range in terms of getting to groundballs—and all three systems provide essentially the same statement of the cost of that limitation. It is very, very difficult for me to understand how all three systems can be reaching the same conclusion, unless that conclusion is true. It’s sort of like if you have a videotape of the suspect holding up a bank and shooting the clerk, and you have his fingerprints on the murder weapon, and you recover items taken in the robbery from his garage. Maybe the videotape is not clear; it could be somebody who looks a lot like him. Maybe there is some other explanation for his fingerprints on the murder weapon. Maybe there is some other explanation for the bags of money in his garage. It is REALLY difficult to accept that there is some other explanation for all three.
Those Yankee fans with a one-switch mind will demand to know, “How come we won 95 games, then? If Derek Jeter is such a lousy shortstop, how is it that we were able to win all of these games?”
But first, no one is saying that Derek Jeter is a lousy player. Let’s assume that the difference between Derek Jeter and Adam Everett is 72 plays on defense. That’s huge, obviously; that’s not a little thing that you blow off lightly. But almost all of those 72 plays are singles. What’s the value of a single, in runs? It’s a little less than half a run. 72 plays have a value of 30, 35 runs.
That’s huge—but it is still less than the difference between them as hitters. Derek Jeter is still a better player than Adam Everett, even if Everett is 72 plays better than Jeter as a shortstop. (Jeter created about 105 runs in 2005; Everett, 61.)
In one way of looking at it, it makes intuitive sense that Derek Jeter could be the worst defensive shortstop of all time. Unusual weaknesses in sports can only survive in the presence of unusual strengths. I don’t know who was the worst free throw shooter in NBA history—but I’ll guarantee you, whoever he was, he could play. If he couldn’t play, he wouldn’t have been given a chance to miss all those free throws. If a player is simply bad, he is quickly driven out of the game. To be the worst defensive shortstop ever, the player would have to have unusual strengths in other areas, which Jeter certainly has. It would help if he were surrounded by teammates who also have unusual strengths, which Jeter certainly is. The worst defensive shortstop in baseball history would have to be someone like Jeter who is unusually good at other aspects of the game.
Second, we have not exhausted the issue of defense. There are other elements of defense which could still be considered—turning the double play, and helping out other fielders, and defending against base advancement, I suppose. The defensive ratings that we have produced, while they are derived from meticulous research, might still be subject to park illusions, to influences of playing on different types of teams, and from influences by teammates. There is still a vast amount of research that needs to be done about fielding.
But at the same time, I have to say that the case for Jeter as a Gold Glove quality shortstop is a dead argument in my mind. There is a lot we don’t know, and Derek Jeter could be a better shortstop than we have measured him as being for any of a dozen reasons. He is not a Gold Glove quality shortstop. He isn’t an average defensive shortstop. Giving him every possible break on the unknowns, he is still going to emerge as a below average defensive shortstop.
<< <i>
Off topic kind of. My kid isn't jaded like me. He has never seen the Yanks win the World Series, he doesn't hate them, and is basically indifferent towards them. He is nine years old and remembers the Red Sox winning twice and the Twins losing to the Yanks in '96. To him Jeter is just some old guy that plays for the Yanks. It might change this year, but who knows. If Rivera stays healthy the Yanks are going to have a great shot no matter where Jeter plays. >>
Sagard,
First of all, thanks for all of those nice 78 Topps that got me started a few years back
Secondly, if your son is actually a baseball fan, then I suggest giving him a good whack for seeing a ballplayer such as Derek Jeter as "a old man" who will inevitably be in the top FIVE ballplayers in history regarding base hits. Kids are not stupid. Either you are an enabler, your kid is no baseball fan, or you are lying your a$$ off.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
You are still as clueless as I have always remembered you.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Hey Skin,
You are still as clueless as I have always remembered you.
No, just not biased or archaic. The two ares where 95% of baseball fans go awry. Clouds their judgement and decision making abilities.
Jeter is simply below average defensively at SS. Even if given all the benefit of the doubt, he still would be hard pressed to be considered average.
I agree that when everything works how it should the stats work well. But it since it's humans were talking about there is an uncertainty factor always in play.
Teams should be using stats but they are also increasingly using other measurements as well. Character or how one handles their life day to day is becoming a bigger issue as salaries increased. No one wants a Vick situation for their team.
As far as Jeter goes, the defensive stats are much more generalizations than other data sets. I personally think that just because a ball is hit into a certain zone and a player doesn't make a play on it doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Lets say Jeter has a limited range and gets to a ball outside his range but has to rush his throw and makes a error resulting in the runner going to second. The stats would penalize him for not making a play in a certain zone or making a throwing error but it actually isn't a bad play sometimes to know what plays you just can't make. In this case a single would have been better than a runner on second.
<< <i>As far as Jeter goes, the defensive stats are much more generalizations than other data sets. I personally think that just because a ball is hit into a certain zone and a player doesn't make a play on it doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Lets say Jeter has a limited range and gets to a ball outside his range but has to rush his throw and makes a error resulting in the runner going to second. The stats would penalize him for not making a play in a certain zone or making a throwing error but it actually isn't a bad play sometimes to know what plays you just can't make. In this case a single would have been better than a runner on second. >>
Morgoth, no it isn't a bad play for Jeter and his skill set to try and force a play that others make routinely. Morgoth, it is a bad thing if all the other SS are making more of those plays. And they make a lot more.
The error is measured too. Basically, if Everett(or anybody) is making five more errors than Jeter, but is in turn getting to 70 balls and turning hits into outs(that Jeter is not). It is quite clear who the better one is.
<< <i>You guys certainly can analyze. I have watched a lot of Yankee games and think Jeter is pretty damn good. >>
Jeter is pretty damn good defensively, compared to you or I.
When compared to the other starting SS in MLB he has been consistently ranked in the 20's in his defensive ability. Whether one wants to call that average, superb, poor, or whatever...given the best available evidence around, it is where he ranks among starters.
<< <i>You guys certainly can analyze. I have watched a lot of Yankee games and think Jeter is pretty damn good. >>
These guys analyze stats. They do not watch the games .... a fatal flaw
When you have stat crunching no game watching geeks saying "Jeter is pretty damn good defensively, compared to you or I"
you have analysis by paralysis.
We are supposed to take outrageously flawed stat analysis as delivered by these crackpots and yet have to digest how a player is compared "to you or I"
Gotta love it
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Sagard,
First of all, thanks for all of those nice 78 Topps that got me started a few years back
Secondly, if your son is actually a baseball fan, then I suggest giving him a good whack for seeing a ballplayer such as Derek Jeter as "a old man" who will inevitably be in the top FIVE ballplayers in history regarding base hits. Kids are not stupid. Either you are an enabler, your kid is no baseball fan, or you are lying your a$$ off. >>
I've tried to pass my Yanks hate on down to him, but he just ain't buyin it. It's going to be something he has to learn for himself, or not if he is lucky.
I was the same way. I never understood my dad's irrational hate of the Yanks. I was too young to remember Reggie as a Yank, even though the '78s are the cards I started collecting. From '82 to '95, the Yanks were basically harmless. That took me from age 11-24 with no hate on the Yanks. I laughed it up when they beat the Braves in '96. Good for them. In '98 it went sour. I had a former teammate pitching for the Braves and the Yanks swept. The hate was born. The Yanks spanking the Twins twice in the post season has sealed it. Their constant flogging of the Jr. Yanks seemed unwarranted as well, but that has at least temporarily been flipped.
As for Jeter, I've come to accept that he is a great hitter for a shortstop and typically the Yanks will have a better shortstop than their opponents. Defense still counts a lot more at the big league level than softball, but defense alone doesn't win squat. I typically believe in the stats geeks and their thoughts about Jeter's defense, but Gold Gloves have been egregiously going to the best hitter at a position for as long as I can remember.
For all the Yanks fans who watch the games and know how great Jeter is defensively, I guarantee you are going to love watching the guy who eventually replaces him work the infield. He just probably won't have the stick Jeter carries.
Especially in crucial situations.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>You guys certainly can analyze. I have watched a lot of Yankee games and think Jeter is pretty damn good. >>
These guys analyze stats. They do not watch the games .... a fatal flaw
When you have stat crunching no game watching geeks saying "Jeter is pretty damn good defensively, compared to you or I"
you have analysis by paralysis.
We are supposed to take outrageously flawed stat analysis as delivered by these crackpots and yet have to digest how a player is compared "to you or I"
Gotta love it
Softparade, I watch, I played, and I coach, so you can throw your theory out the window. I'm not some guy who collects 1978 Topps cards with my pants around my ankles, or holds some Jeter card as a hero to fill some void in my life. Know anybody like that??? HMMM.
What is so hard to understand? Compared to MLB shortstop, Jeter is well below average. You keep harping on seeing him play. Have you seen every single play by every single MLB shortstop?? Obviously not, so then how can you make such a certain claim? The best and most reliable defensive evidence has seen every play by every SS in the last several years. So moron, you can throw your "haven't watched him" argument out hte window, because he HAS been watched. He has been watched, and he just is a subpar SS(yes, better than you or I, but subpar for comparative reasons in MLB). Get it? Or are you too busy staring at the corner of a 1978 Topps card...and you use "geek" to describe somebody else??
Ahh, just another Yankee bandwagon moron who knows no better.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah WE ALL watch, played, and have coached. Please spare me. Let me just say that maybe I'm glad that my sons will never be under your "expertise". So, you are not going to get anywhere with that "I'm the man cause I watch, coach, and played" horse crap. That applies to millions of us .....
You are a statistic freak who obviously weighs raw stats higher then what your friggen eyes see. We see differently and as much as you disagree with me, I laugh nearly everytime you write.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
And when Yanks got ARod, what were they suppose to do? Lets face it, ARod has a stronger arm and that is why him playing 3B was a much better choice than taking Jeter out of SS.
Sorry I don't buy it. Is he the best? No, but well below average? Hardly.
Please name the 20 or so SS in MLB today that you consider better then Jeter.
To be 'well below average' their has to be at least 20 better and I just don't see it.
Steve.
In one post you claim Jeter was 'simply below average' then in another it was 'well below average'
Which is it?
If Jeter played his entire career in some back water town we would not even be having this discussion.
Steve
You guys see Jeter make a nice play(or more in truth, make a routine play look hard), and you figure he is the cats meow, but plays like that are being made all across America, only you don't see them. But the evaluators have and do...
The final summation, Jeter spent a lot of seasons as the 29th or 30th ranked SS in MLB defensively, and some years 20th, and this year so far is like 15th(Winpitcher, this is how it varied).
FInally, this is baseball, and it is extremely condusive to the use of statistical measurement as the means of establishing how good a player is, and to a very high degree...especially in hitting. It isn't gymnastics, where you vote. It isn't football where a system can make a player, or a teammate can make you look far better than you really are.
Think of it in terms of measuring a bowler, as it is closer to that. The results of his pins knocked down(his score) is pretty straight forward, and is an accurate way of measuring. It doesn't matter how they look, or how one feels they did. Either they bowled a 260 or they didn't. Measuring the hitter in baseball isn't much different, only the novice doesn't know how too look for the 'pins knocked down' as they often look at measurements that evaluate other things out of the players control, such as teammate performance, as opposed to the skill of the hitter in question.
2004-AL-SS
2005-AL-SS
2006-AL-SS
guess who?