Ozzie Smith Omar Vizquel Luis Aparicio Mark Belanger Dave Concepcion Tony Fernandez Alan Trammell Derek Jeter Barry Larkin Roy McMillan Rey Ordonez Gene Alley Larry Bowa Orlando Cabrera Don Kessinger Edgar Renteria Cal Ripken Alex Rodriguez Jimmy Rollins Zoilo Versalles Maury Wills
Obviously not an easy task to win multiple gold gloves and Jeter is tied for 8th all time on the list with three other players.
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.
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.
Is it possible that Everett had 200 balls hit outside his 'zone' while Jeter had say 100?
One thing I hope we all can agree on is that even if statisically Jeter is 16th or higher if you listed every SS the bottom line is that he did not HURT his team while playing there. That even the 25th best SS (according to your ratings) is good enough to have played there.
Sorta like saying Exxon gas is better then Texaco, but someone had to be rated higher then the other.
Now if you are claiming Jeter was 25th best and cost his team wins then I don't buy your rankings.
<< <i>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. lol who has?
Steve >>
Steve, the people who have studied defense have. People keep bringing up the eye test, yet this is the biggest eye test put to him and others! Read the article and that will answer your zone questions.
All these questions are addressed to some degree in the article pasted. Contact John Dewan at baseball info solutions for deeper answers. He may answer them.
Winpitcher, say Jeter was typically ranked #23 on average defensively. You ask if that costs his teams wins? In totality, it simply means that he really isn't gaining as many runs saved/wins defensively, compared to what his competitors at SS are doing.
In totality, his defensive shortcomings do cut into his overall value he provides as a player. As it stands he is an all time SS. Had he been able to get to those extra 50 plays a year that the other SS did in his time, then he would climb even higher.
<< <i> 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. >>
<< <i> All these questions are addressed to some degree in the article pasted. Contact John Dewan at baseball info solutions for deeper answers. He may answer them.
>>
Skinny, why don't you tell john Dewan to contact me? So I can tell him how much of a dope he and the entire stat geek culture is.
I have to say, there has been NOBODY I know who has ever tried to hold up Derek Jeter as Ozzie Smith. At the same time, it is beyond laughable that there are wack jobs like skin (hoopy) who try and overwhelm us with very well worded gibberish about how awful a sure fire first ballot HOF'er and incredibly steady shortstop is. These kind of nuts wouldn't know a great BALLPLAYER from a tomato plant.
Softparade, nobody would take any input from you because you are a biased homer, and really have no clue. Even Axtell was brighter and more knowledgeable than you...and he also use to whip you in your debates.
Like I said before, more eyes, and BETTER eyes than you have seen all of Jeter's plays and all of the plays of other MLB SS. So your so called baby response, "waaahhh, well I saw him play a lot, and he looks solid," is worthless.
Nobody said Jeter was an awful player moron. He is simply a below average defensive MLB SS. As a total value to a team, he is quite good and a HOFer. His value is his offense, and to have the ability to be at least good enough to not suck so bad, that he is capable of playing SS everyday. He just plays it defensively worse than 25 other starters on a yearly average. It doesn't matter what YOUR eyes say, because they are biased and don't have all the information needed to make that assessment.
It is very funny how you call it a stat geek culture, when you use stats yourself...only you use irrelevant information.
It is also very funny how you call it geeks, when you spend countless hours, and waste money by looking at the sharpness of the corners of 1978 topps cards, LOL! What kind of geek is that?
Making fun of someone's hobby interest on a website devoted to that hobby is uncalled for. Debating issues is fine but no need to make fun of the sets someone collects.
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
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.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
<< <i>Making fun of someone's hobby interest on a website devoted to that hobby is uncalled for. Debating issues is fine but no need to make fun of the sets someone collects. >>
Morgoth, softy used 'geek' to describe me and a group of people, and this is a sports talk forum. There will be no holding punches, as the geekiest thing to do is to look under a microscope at a corner of a 1978 Topps card to see if one can find a piece of fuzz on it. Plus it is a poor use of money to buy that stuff. So not only is he 'geeky', he is stupid.
Morgoth, your words in this topic are puzzling. We talked about Mazeroski's defensive measure before, and how he was part product of the situation presented to him, and not the best fielding player ever(as is assumed). Maybe that is why you are strong against the measure of Jeter's poor defense. Hidden agenda?
Maybe you are against the reality of post season success as being a product of randomness because it will put a different light on Mazeroski's home run.
If Mazeroski was so good at rising to the occasion, why didn't he do that more often in the regular season, and rise and hit 50 HR every year, if he indeed was capable of playing better in the post season...they would have been in MORE World Series then. Is he stupid? No. The reality is, it was randomness at work in the post season.
Edited to add...I engage in geeky collecting too...but softy used the geek as an argument because he has NOTHING ELSE to use. I am merely pointing out that if he thinks one thing is a geek, his hobby is as well. So he should use better arguments.
<< <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.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
Steve >>
Winpitcher, that is why I said, compared to you or I, he is great. Compared to MLB SS, he ranks in the 20's annually, and he is below average, COMPARED TO THEM. It is merely a clarification of terms. Softy, being the know nothing, didn't understand that.
Softy still thinks that people are saying he is a bad player. I guess having a man crush on him will cause him to be defensive...but hey maybe it is good for Jeter's camp to have somebody that is good at being defensive.
<<< Morgoth, softy used 'geek' to describe me and a group of people, and this is a sports talk forum. There will be no holding punches, as the geekiest thing to do is to look under a microscope at a corner of a 1978 Topps card to see if one can find a piece of fuzz on it. Plus it is a poor use of money to buy that stuff. So not only is he 'geeky', he is stupid. >>>
Most asinine comment I have ever read here. I guess you think all those diamond appraisers who look at diamonds under high powered lenses are "stupid" also, as well as coin and stamp collectors and anyone else looking at valuables or collectibles under a loupe and adding or subtracting value based on flaws or beauty that the naked eye can't see.
It's not about a "piece of fuzz" you silly jackass, it's about owning the finest collectible ya can own that's available in the price range ya can afford...but I've already wasted enough time trying to explain it to you.
SteveK, it is a 1978 topps card, not a diamond, and not highly valuable. Yup, that one less piece of fuzz on that 1978 Topps common card turned my .05 cent card into a $12(after fees added). Or, if they spend $1,000 on an opinion 10 today, only that ten will continue to lose money as time marches on, and in all likelihood, the nines are the same, just the opinion different.
It is as geeky as anything else that somebody enjoys to do with their desire, so why call another hobby geeky? I pointed out his geeky worthless ventures. Or in your case....wait do you have any brains or cash left?
The guy calls the stat analysis geeky because he has nothing else worth adding.
By the way, you need not have to explain a thing. I sold my high grade stuff a while ago, while the going was good. I am a geeky hobbyist too.
<< <i>SteveK, it is a 1978 topps card, not a diamond, and not highly valuable. Yup, that one less piece of fuzz on that 1978 Topps common card turned my .05 cent card into a $12(after fees added). Or, if they spend $1,000 on an opinion 10 today, only that ten will continue to lose money as time marches on, and in all likelihood, the nines are the same, just the opinion different.
It is as geeky as anything else that somebody enjoys to do with their desire, so why call another hobby geeky? I pointed out his geeky worthless ventures. Or in your case....wait do you have any brains or cash left?
The guy calls the stat analysis geeky because he has nothing else worth adding.
By the way, you need not have to explain a thing. I sold my high grade stuff a while ago, while the going was good. I am a geeky hobbyist too. >>
Okay, understood, but I agree with those who say ya wanna knock my team or knock me fine, but please don't knock any part of our great hobby or whatever a particular card collector chooses to collect, which brings us all together here...know what I'm sayin'?
All these New Yorkers saying Jeter plays good defense because they saw him do it reminds me of a scene from another favorite of New Yorkers-
JERRY: Hey, guess what! Little Jerry ran from here to Newman's in under thirty seconds!
GEORGE: Is that good?
JERRY: I don't know.
Without comparison there is no good or bad. Once these stats start to make comparisons, you can start to say good or bad. Unfortunatley, Jeter is more bad than good in the field when compared to his peers.
<< <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.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
Steve >>
Yep, and look at the ignorant stat geek throw punches now. How dare anybody stand up to the stat twisted gibberish Skinpinch's dull and boring arguements always are born from. I hit a nerve .... for some reason the dope grasps on real hard to the notion that I and "the rest" of Yankee fans shout out about how great of a defensive SS Jeter is. If skin the flin could ever comprehend the English language that is presented before him in our responses instead of being lost in outer space with his references to stupidly written articles and a never ending twist on stats (he says the stats I reference are irrelevant :Funny he would realize the defense being made is a effort to combat the dim witted and ridiculous assertion that Derek jeter is a BAD defensive SS.
Then, the horses a$$ completely disrespects a year of Topps cards that I have collected for reasons only a complete MORON would bring to the plate. Like THAT has anything to do with this thus proving that I struck a nerve with the poor sap ....
AND ..... the before mentioned horses a$$ also spouted off about his past playing ability, his past coaching experience, and his life long gaze off the game on the boob tube as a reason to accept his buffoonery.
And FINALLY, is it any surprise that the moron stands up for Axtell in his blind swings of the fist? Two peas in a pod ..... the only difference is skin tries really really hard to sound so educated with his posts ........ EPIC FAIL
<< <i><<< Morgoth, softy used 'geek' to describe me and a group of people, and this is a sports talk forum. There will be no holding punches, as the geekiest thing to do is to look under a microscope at a corner of a 1978 Topps card to see if one can find a piece of fuzz on it. Plus it is a poor use of money to buy that stuff. So not only is he 'geeky', he is stupid. >>>
Most asinine comment I have ever read here. I guess you think all those diamond appraisers who look at diamonds under high powered lenses are "stupid" also, as well as coin and stamp collectors and anyone else looking at valuables or collectibles under a loupe and adding or subtracting value based on flaws or beauty that the naked eye can't see.
It's not about a "piece of fuzz" you silly jackass, it's about owning the finest collectible ya can own that's available in the price range ya can afford...but I've already wasted enough time trying to explain it to you. >>
thank you, and right on Steve. The true colors of this IDIOT came flying right out. Does this dim witted entity actually think I collect 1978 Topps for what they are worth? What an a$$ The STAT sheet says 1978 Topps is BAD !
<< <i>When compared to the other starting SS in MLB he has been consistently ranked in the 20's in his defensive ability. Whether one wants to call that average, superb, poor, or whatever...given the best available evidence around, it is where he ranks among starters.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
Steve >>
Then, the horses a$$ completely disrespects a year of Topps cards that I have collected for reasons only a complete MORON would bring to the plate. Like THAT has anything to do with this thus proving that I struck a nerve with the poor sap ....
AND ..... the before mentioned horses a$$ also spouted off about his past playing ability, his past coaching experience, and his life long gaze off the game on the boob tube as a reason to accept his buffoonery.
And FINALLY, is it any surprise that the moron stands up for Axtell in his blind swings of the fist? Two peas in a pod ..... the only difference is skin tries really really hard to sound so educated with his posts ........ EPIC FAIL >>
Softie, it is o.k., Jeter can still be your idol, just with a bigger flaw than you realize.
Seems to me the only nerve struck is yours, as it seems like you have tears coming down, LOL. If I am indeed an uneducated fella as you claim, what kind of light does that put you in being that you are consistently dwarfed when we debate?
Again, you are saying that Jeter is not a "bad" shortstop, again...bad compared to what? If he is compared to the all the starting MLB shortstops, he annually ranks somewhere in the high 20's in his rankings. Whatever adjective you want to assign to that ranking is irrelevant.
If you disagree with those annual rankings, then it could only be biased or pure ignorance at work...because you have no evidence to refute the best evidence. Your only current evidence is, "my eyes,"....sorry, I am having a hard time typing thinking of your eyes judging him. Do you have hearts in your eyes when you watch, or large penis's?
If you simply disagree with the adjective assigned, but understand where he ranks(mid-low 20's among starters) among his MLB peers, then hey, you are arguing for nothing.
<< <i> Do you have hearts in your eyes when you watch, or large penis's? >>
Oh man, you really didnt have to go there...thats just REALLY uncalled for.
It's one thing going with debating, puffing your chest saying that you are never wrong because you use stats, even name calling...but that's just dirty. Do you think before you type?
<< <i> Do you have hearts in your eyes when you watch, or large penis's? >>
Oh man, you really didnt have to go there...thats just REALLY uncalled for.
It's one thing going with debating, puffing your chest saying that you are never wrong because you use stats, even name calling...but that's just dirty. Do you think before you type? >>
LOL. No, I didn't think...it just flowed out. Not being puffy chested, just ribbing...like has been going on this board back and forth forever. Just partaking in it.
<< <i>Jeter is more bad than good in the field when compared to his peers That may be so, however the fact remains that he is good enough and that seems to be lost on many here. When adjectives like horrible, terrible and bad are thrown around it does not accurately describe him. Yes compared to Ozzie Smith he is not as good defensively. Also how much of a difference can their be between a SS Rated 10 and one rated 20?
It sounds to me like splitting hairs.
Steve >>
Steve, in a sense it is splitting hairs. Judging the exact value of his defense, and its impact is really only going to determine if he is ranked fourth as opposed to seventh among all time shortstops...or something to that effect.
So in a sense it is splitting hairs.
A lot of the harping on his defense comes because of the Yankee fans insisting that he is a top tier defensive SS, because they "saw" him play. I think it is obvious how flawed the "saw him play" argument is. There is certainly a man crush element to their vision.
A lot of the harping on his defense comes because of the Yankee fans insisting that he is a top tier defensive SS, because they "saw" him play. I think it is obvious how flawed the "saw him play" argument is. There is certainly a man crush element to their vision. >>
The is a complete falacy. As I have said too many times before, I don't know one damn Yankee fan (I know alot of em) who think Derek Jeter is a "top tier" defensive SS.
Skin, you need to comprehend what others write a whole lot more. When I tell you I watch Derek Jeter play everyday and KNOW he is not a nearly bad of a defensive shortstop as the number crunching and twisting that those like you churn out is NOT saying I believe he is a top tier defensive SS.
Jeter has always been above average defensively (he's no Ozzie Smith), and has had some bad stretches, but makes more good plays than bad. Whether he deserved gold gloves is debatable (I think A-Gon was robbed in 2006), but he is certainly not a bad fielder (like "stone hands" Cano ).
<< <i>I am going to attempt to summarize the empirical data that has been put forth to support the allegation that Jeter is an above average defensive SS.
Did I leave anything out? I believe the blank space above covers everything that was said. >>
Thats like saying Franklin Roosevelt did not like Adolf Hitler. Beat you a$$. Skin AT LEAST is not a EXTREME biased putz such as yourself.
Please put your non-responsive reply in English. If you can not attack the argument, attack the messenger. Is that your philospohy? You are calling me names, but have made no attempt to rebut the facts that have been presented.
<< <i>Please put your non-responsive reply in English. If you can not attack the argument, attack the messenger. Is that your philospohy? You are calling me names, but have made no attempt to rebut the facts that have been presented. >>
What arguement? Listen, you are a dope, moron, or idiot. Take your pick. Your "arguements" are number twisted garbage. I bet if you played in a softball game tomorrow and you actually hit the ball you would run to third base.
<< <i>Please put your non-responsive reply in English. If you can not attack the argument, attack the messenger. Is that your philospohy? You are calling me names, but have made no attempt to rebut the facts that have been presented. >>
What arguement? Listen, you are a dope, moron, or idiot. Take your pick. Your "arguements" are number twisted garbage. I bet if you played in a softball game tomorrow and you actually hit the ball you would run to third base. >>
I sense some hostility on your part. Is that how you act when you have no facts on your side? You continue to:
1. Call me names; and 2. Refuse to put forth any statistical evidence re Jeter's ability as a SS.
I will assume from your lack of an intelligible response that you have surrendered the point. Considering what you are working with, I think that is best for you.
How many of your 7000+ posts are just inane rants?
<< <i>Jeter has always been above average defensively (he's no Ozzie Smith), and has had some bad stretches, but makes more good plays than bad. Whether he deserved gold gloves is debatable (I think A-Gon was robbed in 2006), but he is certainly not a bad fielder (like "stone hands" Cano ). >>
Based on this quote, and based on softparades rants about defending Jeter being a "horrible" defensive shortstop, is where things go awry.
Winpitcher gets it.
Is Jeter above average defensively? Again, compared to what and whom? Logically, when measuring his value, it has to be measured against his peers. When this is done, he is not above average. He typically ranks in the bottom 20's on a yearly basis.
Is being the 28th best defensive starting MLB shortstop considered a "horrible" SS? It is a matter of adjectives that is givng people hissy fits. However one wants to describe being the 28th best defensive SS is up to them...but being 28th is still 28th.
If somebody believes that the best and most comprehenisve defensive meaurement to date is not accurate, and that Jeter is really the 12th best defensive SS on an annual basis, then that is a different argument. The adjectives are not longer at question, it is the meaurement used.
In this case, typically people(mainly Yankee fans) ue the eye test to refute the defensive evidence saying that Jeter is in the bottom 20's. The kicker about their argument is that this best measurement IS an eye test...only it is a far better eye test because these eyes are seeing every single MLB play by every single MLB SS for comparisons...and they are doing it without a fandom bias getting in the way. For someone to call that article twisted, is probably an extremely biased person.
1. Call me names; and 2. Refuse to put forth any statistical evidence re Jeter's ability as a SS.
I will assume from your lack of an intelligible response that you have surrendered the point. Considering what you are working with, I think that is best for you.
How many of your 7000+ posts are just inane rants? >>
1. You ARE a DOPE. If you feel picked on then too bad. You are what you are.
2. Why don't you put forth any statistical evidence that the Atlanta Braves have ever had a SS that could possibly be allowed to wash Derek Jeter's dirty boxers?
I rant in quick attention grabbing jabs. Hoop rants in the most boring put me to sleep geek number twisting gibberish.
Then he has the snootiness to hand out the "who gets it" awards >>
Softparade, with a greater attention span on your part, there probably wouldn't be an argument if you actually read the posts. It is pretty straightforward stuff.
I don't twist a thing...only biased and ignorant people do, as that is the only way they can make themself feel good about their flawed stance. Their method is to simply ignore the evidence, and live in la la land...kind of like you have done the entire thread.
Also, why does it make you feel good about yourself in telling Markj111 that he only wishes that the Braves had a SS that could carry Jeter's jock. At first I thought it was man love causing your irrational arguments/stances, but that statement just smells of insecurity on your part. I feel kind of sorry for you.
<< <i> Softparade, with a greater attention span on your part, there probably wouldn't be an argument if you actually read the posts. It is pretty straightforward stuff.
>>
That is incredibly funny! I must have said the same thing about you twenty times as you either can not read or have horrible comprehension skills! You know, the crap about me and other Yankee fans hailing Jeter as a great defensive shortstop. Never happened. So go right ahead and stick your "attention span" comment because its just more bunk coming from your mouth.
Nah, it does not make me feel good to ask the biased hack mark where a Braves SS is dead or alive that might be allowed to wash Jeter's boxers. I call em as they are. Does it make you feel good that you come running to the aid of a nutcase that believes your garbage?
Where the heck has Jerry (ctsoxfan) gone? Boy would he ever ramp up this thread another level. And certainly not with blind statistical pretzel making!
Softparade, nobody is claiming that you think that Jeter is the greatest defensive SS ever. Like I said before dope, you are arguing about which adjectives to use...again READING COMPREHENSION you lack!
It matters little what adjective you use on Jeter, average, below average, horrible, superb...it only matters to know where he actually does rank among MLB shortstops and his run saving value...and that ranking is typically the 28th best defensive SS among MLB starters. If you are arguing that spot, then you have to provide evidence to show it.
What I am pointing out on you is that you think that YOUR eye test is better than the defensive measure that is being used to put Jeter where he truly belongs in the rankings.
If you think that Jeter really is annually the 12th best defensive SS, instead of the 28th, then do something intelligent to refute the findings. By the way, MLB teams do use the fielding information in that study. So yes, it is an accepted method. Far more accurate than a geek collector/fan named softparade.
Softparade, it seems evident that you need Jeter to have recognition in order for you to feel self worth, hence the boasting and bashing about the lack of a Braves SS as good.
You are beyond boring ..... and your comprehension skills are lost somewhere in lower grade school. You are the complete clown who has claimed countless times that myself and Yankee fans in general claim Derek Jeter is a top tier defensive SS. Which is complete bunk. As almost ALL of your boring twisted statistical rants. Do me a favor and shut your geeked up mouth .... unless you admit that the dung that you spew in your twisted statistical rants are on the level with rants of those who "get it" ie those who actually watch ballgames.
<< <i> Softparade, it seems evident that you need Jeter to have recognition in order for you to feel self worth, hence the boasting and bashing about the lack of a Braves SS as good. >>
It is no suprise that a dim wit such as yourself would not see the obvious baffoonery of a Atlanta Braves fan who has a long history of hate on Derek Jeter being the reason for some well deserved shots. Tell me Joey smarty pants. Just why would an Atlanta Braves fan have a non stop fixation on Derek Jeter?
I am hoping a light bulb shines in your coconut now ..... even if so dimly.
Softparade, the post above still applies, read it again. Go ahead and clarify where Jeter ranks defensively. All you have said so far is the...Yankee fans don't think Jeter is a top tier SS. Here is your chance to go ahead and clarify where he has ranked among starters. I have heard people say he is above average. Compared to MLB starters, that is not true.
Do you belive he is better than average MLB defensive starting SS, or below...or 28th where he typically is. Forget those adjectives that are getting your tampons bunched. Clarify. I dont' care to debate adjectives such as horrible, superb, etc...
If you believe he is usually the 12th best defensive SS, contrary to the BEST measurement analysis, then show why and how. But please don't say your 'eyes' because you sound idiotic with that. And the best measurement is an eye test...only better.
You have said nothing. You are actually worse than Axtell. No wonder why he whipped your butt in debates and drove you angry...because he is the same as YOU...only smarter.
By the way, I wiped my arse with a few 1978 Topps cards...I ran out of toilet paper...they are worth about the same. LOL, like I said before...nothing is more geeky than spending hours examining the corner of a .05 cent baseball card! It is funny watching you call somebody geeky, when you partake in a geeky hobby. Again, this is above your head. Others get it. You don't.
You wanted awards? Another award I am about to dish out will be to you...the dumbest poster on here. Or the most Axtell-esque poster. YOu are the leader for both
<< <i> You wanted awards? Another award I am about to dish out will be to you...the dumbest poster on here. Or the most Axtell-esque poster. YOu are the leader for both >>
Its just so amazing we have the same analysis of one another !
<< <i>You guys keep saying he is the 28th best (worst in the league) and show no data yet you want those that claim he is not that bad
to show data.
How about YOU show the data that he is the 28th best?
Steve >>
Plenty of data has been presented showing Jeter's defensive inabilities. If you do not wish to go back and find it in the thread, look in The Fielding Bible (Volumes 1 or 2), baseball-reference.com, billjamesonline.com, the Bill James Goldmine, or John Dewan's analysis.
I am willing to have an intelligent debate on the issue, but debating softparade is like bringing an Uzi to a knife fight.
Comments
Ozzie Smith
Omar Vizquel
Luis Aparicio
Mark Belanger
Dave Concepcion
Tony Fernandez
Alan Trammell
Derek Jeter
Barry Larkin
Roy McMillan
Rey Ordonez
Gene Alley
Larry Bowa
Orlando Cabrera
Don Kessinger
Edgar Renteria
Cal Ripken
Alex Rodriguez
Jimmy Rollins
Zoilo Versalles
Maury Wills
Obviously not an easy task to win multiple gold gloves and Jeter is tied for 8th all time on the list with three other players.
Steve
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.
lol who has?
Steve
Is it possible that Everett had 200 balls hit outside his 'zone' while Jeter had say 100?
One thing I hope we all can agree on is that even if statisically Jeter is 16th or higher if you listed every SS the bottom line is that he did not HURT
his team while playing there. That even the 25th best SS (according to your ratings) is good enough to have played there.
Sorta like saying Exxon gas is better then Texaco, but someone had to be rated higher then the other.
Now if you are claiming Jeter was 25th best and cost his team wins then I don't buy your rankings.
Steve
<< <i>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.
lol who has?
Steve >>
Steve, the people who have studied defense have. People keep bringing up the eye test, yet this is the biggest eye test put to him and others! Read the article and that will answer your zone questions.
All these questions are addressed to some degree in the article pasted. Contact John Dewan at baseball info solutions for deeper answers. He may answer them.
Winpitcher, say Jeter was typically ranked #23 on average defensively. You ask if that costs his teams wins? In totality, it simply means that he really isn't gaining as many runs saved/wins defensively, compared to what his competitors at SS are doing.
In totality, his defensive shortcomings do cut into his overall value he provides as a player. As it stands he is an all time SS. Had he been able to get to those extra 50 plays a year that the other SS did in his time, then he would climb even higher.
<< <i>
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. >>
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>
All these questions are addressed to some degree in the article pasted. Contact John Dewan at baseball info solutions for deeper answers. He may answer them.
>>
Skinny, why don't you tell john Dewan to contact me? So I can tell him how much of a dope he and the entire stat geek culture is.
I have to say, there has been NOBODY I know who has ever tried to hold up Derek Jeter as Ozzie Smith. At the same time, it is beyond laughable that there are wack jobs like skin (hoopy) who try and overwhelm us with very well worded gibberish about how awful a sure fire first ballot HOF'er and incredibly steady shortstop is. These kind of nuts wouldn't know a great BALLPLAYER from a tomato plant.
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
Like I said before, more eyes, and BETTER eyes than you have seen all of Jeter's plays and all of the plays of other MLB SS. So your so called baby response, "waaahhh, well I saw him play a lot, and he looks solid," is worthless.
Nobody said Jeter was an awful player moron. He is simply a below average defensive MLB SS. As a total value to a team, he is quite good and a HOFer. His value is his offense, and to have the ability to be at least good enough to not suck so bad, that he is capable of playing SS everyday. He just plays it defensively worse than 25 other starters on a yearly average. It doesn't matter what YOUR eyes say, because they are biased and don't have all the information needed to make that assessment.
It is very funny how you call it a stat geek culture, when you use stats yourself...only you use irrelevant information.
It is also very funny how you call it geeks, when you spend countless hours, and waste money by looking at the sharpness of the corners of 1978 topps cards, LOL! What kind of geek is that?
Apparently, the Yankees agreed with the stats.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway
implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
Steve
<< <i>Making fun of someone's hobby interest on a website devoted to that hobby is uncalled for. Debating issues is fine but no need to make fun of the sets someone collects. >>
Morgoth, softy used 'geek' to describe me and a group of people, and this is a sports talk forum. There will be no holding punches, as the geekiest thing to do is to look under a microscope at a corner of a 1978 Topps card to see if one can find a piece of fuzz on it. Plus it is a poor use of money to buy that stuff. So not only is he 'geeky', he is stupid.
Morgoth, your words in this topic are puzzling. We talked about Mazeroski's defensive measure before, and how he was part product of the situation presented to him, and not the best fielding player ever(as is assumed). Maybe that is why you are strong against the measure of Jeter's poor defense. Hidden agenda?
Maybe you are against the reality of post season success as being a product of randomness because it will put a different light on Mazeroski's home run.
If Mazeroski was so good at rising to the occasion, why didn't he do that more often in the regular season, and rise and hit 50 HR every year, if he indeed was capable of playing better in the post season...they would have been in MORE World Series then. Is he stupid? No. The reality is, it was randomness at work in the post season.
Edited to add...I engage in geeky collecting too...but softy used the geek as an argument because he has NOTHING ELSE to use. I am merely pointing out that if he thinks one thing is a geek, his hobby is as well. So he should use better arguments.
<< <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.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway
implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
Steve >>
Winpitcher, that is why I said, compared to you or I, he is great. Compared to MLB SS, he ranks in the 20's annually, and he is below average, COMPARED TO THEM. It is merely a clarification of terms. Softy, being the know nothing, didn't understand that.
Softy still thinks that people are saying he is a bad player. I guess having a man crush on him will cause him to be defensive...but hey maybe it is good for Jeter's camp to have somebody that is good at being defensive.
Most asinine comment I have ever read here. I guess you think all those diamond appraisers who look at diamonds under high powered lenses are "stupid" also, as well as coin and stamp collectors and anyone else looking at valuables or collectibles under a loupe and adding or subtracting value based on flaws or beauty that the naked eye can't see.
It's not about a "piece of fuzz" you silly jackass, it's about owning the finest collectible ya can own that's available in the price range ya can afford...but I've already wasted enough time trying to explain it to you.
It is as geeky as anything else that somebody enjoys to do with their desire, so why call another hobby geeky? I pointed out his geeky worthless ventures. Or in your case....wait do you have any brains or cash left?
The guy calls the stat analysis geeky because he has nothing else worth adding.
By the way, you need not have to explain a thing. I sold my high grade stuff a while ago, while the going was good. I am a geeky hobbyist too.
<< <i>SteveK, it is a 1978 topps card, not a diamond, and not highly valuable. Yup, that one less piece of fuzz on that 1978 Topps common card turned my .05 cent card into a $12(after fees added). Or, if they spend $1,000 on an opinion 10 today, only that ten will continue to lose money as time marches on, and in all likelihood, the nines are the same, just the opinion different.
It is as geeky as anything else that somebody enjoys to do with their desire, so why call another hobby geeky? I pointed out his geeky worthless ventures. Or in your case....wait do you have any brains or cash left?
The guy calls the stat analysis geeky because he has nothing else worth adding.
By the way, you need not have to explain a thing. I sold my high grade stuff a while ago, while the going was good. I am a geeky hobbyist too. >>
Okay, understood, but I agree with those who say ya wanna knock my team or knock me fine, but please don't knock any part of our great hobby or whatever a particular card collector chooses to collect, which brings us all together here...know what I'm sayin'?
I understand where you are coming from, and I made sure that I lumped myself in there as a 'geek' collector. I am a hobbyist, and always will be.
Dan is still going by the 'horrible' remark, which is flatout wrong.
Steve
JERRY: Hey, guess what! Little Jerry ran from here to Newman's in under thirty seconds!
GEORGE: Is that good?
JERRY: I don't know.
Without comparison there is no good or bad. Once these stats start to make comparisons, you can start to say good or bad. Unfortunatley, Jeter is more bad than good in the field when compared to his peers.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <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.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway
implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
Steve >>
Yep, and look at the ignorant stat geek throw punches now. How dare anybody stand up to the stat twisted gibberish Skinpinch's dull and boring arguements always are born from. I hit a nerve .... for some reason the dope grasps on real hard to the notion that I and "the rest" of Yankee fans shout out about how great of a defensive SS Jeter is. If skin the flin could ever comprehend the English language that is presented before him in our responses instead of being lost in outer space with his references to stupidly written articles and a never ending twist on stats (he says the stats I reference are irrelevant :Funny
Then, the horses a$$ completely disrespects a year of Topps cards that I have collected for reasons only a complete MORON would bring to the plate. Like THAT has anything to do with this
AND ..... the before mentioned horses a$$ also spouted off about his past playing ability, his past coaching experience, and his life long gaze off the game on the boob tube as a reason to accept his buffoonery.
And FINALLY, is it any surprise that the moron stands up for Axtell in his blind swings of the fist? Two peas in a pod ..... the only difference is skin tries really really hard to sound so educated with his posts ........ EPIC FAIL
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><<< Morgoth, softy used 'geek' to describe me and a group of people, and this is a sports talk forum. There will be no holding punches, as the geekiest thing to do is to look under a microscope at a corner of a 1978 Topps card to see if one can find a piece of fuzz on it. Plus it is a poor use of money to buy that stuff. So not only is he 'geeky', he is stupid. >>>
Most asinine comment I have ever read here. I guess you think all those diamond appraisers who look at diamonds under high powered lenses are "stupid" also, as well as coin and stamp collectors and anyone else looking at valuables or collectibles under a loupe and adding or subtracting value based on flaws or beauty that the naked eye can't see.
It's not about a "piece of fuzz" you silly jackass, it's about owning the finest collectible ya can own that's available in the price range ya can afford...but I've already wasted enough time trying to explain it to you. >>
thank you, and right on Steve. The true colors of this IDIOT came flying right out.
Does this dim witted entity actually think I collect 1978 Topps for what they are worth?
What an a$$
The STAT sheet says 1978 Topps is BAD !
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>When compared to the other starting SS in MLB he has been consistently ranked in the 20's in his defensive ability. Whether one wants to call that average, superb, poor, or whatever...given the best available evidence around, it is where he ranks among starters.
That I'll buy, what this thread was about though was when the OP claimed jeter was 'horrible' at short which to me anyway
implied that he belonged in the minors. (defensively)
Steve >>
Then, the horses a$$ completely disrespects a year of Topps cards that I have collected for reasons only a complete MORON would bring to the plate. Like THAT has anything to do with this
AND ..... the before mentioned horses a$$ also spouted off about his past playing ability, his past coaching experience, and his life long gaze off the game on the boob tube as a reason to accept his buffoonery.
And FINALLY, is it any surprise that the moron stands up for Axtell in his blind swings of the fist? Two peas in a pod ..... the only difference is skin tries really really hard to sound so educated with his posts ........ EPIC FAIL >>
Softie, it is o.k., Jeter can still be your idol, just with a bigger flaw than you realize.
Seems to me the only nerve struck is yours, as it seems like you have tears coming down, LOL. If I am indeed an uneducated fella as you claim, what kind of light does that put you in being that you are consistently dwarfed when we debate?
Again, you are saying that Jeter is not a "bad" shortstop, again...bad compared to what? If he is compared to the all the starting MLB shortstops, he annually ranks somewhere in the high 20's in his rankings. Whatever adjective you want to assign to that ranking is irrelevant.
If you disagree with those annual rankings, then it could only be biased or pure ignorance at work...because you have no evidence to refute the best evidence. Your only current evidence is, "my eyes,"....sorry, I am having a hard time typing thinking of your eyes judging him. Do you have hearts in your eyes when you watch, or large penis's?
If you simply disagree with the adjective assigned, but understand where he ranks(mid-low 20's among starters) among his MLB peers, then hey, you are arguing for nothing.
<< <i>
Do you have hearts in your eyes when you watch, or large penis's? >>
Oh man, you really didnt have to go there...thats just REALLY uncalled for.
It's one thing going with debating, puffing your chest saying that you are never wrong because you use stats, even name calling...but that's just dirty. Do you think before you type?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Do you have hearts in your eyes when you watch, or large penis's? >>
Oh man, you really didnt have to go there...thats just REALLY uncalled for.
It's one thing going with debating, puffing your chest saying that you are never wrong because you use stats, even name calling...but that's just dirty. Do you think before you type? >>
LOL. No, I didn't think...it just flowed out. Not being puffy chested, just ribbing...like has been going on this board back and forth forever. Just partaking in it.
That may be so, however the fact remains that he is good enough and that seems to be lost on many here.
When adjectives like horrible, terrible and bad are thrown around it does not accurately describe him.
Yes compared to Ozzie Smith he is not as good defensively.
Also how much of a difference can their be between a SS Rated 10 and one rated 20?
It sounds to me like splitting hairs.
Steve
<< <i>Jeter is more bad than good in the field when compared to his peers
That may be so, however the fact remains that he is good enough and that seems to be lost on many here.
When adjectives like horrible, terrible and bad are thrown around it does not accurately describe him.
Yes compared to Ozzie Smith he is not as good defensively.
Also how much of a difference can their be between a SS Rated 10 and one rated 20?
It sounds to me like splitting hairs.
Steve >>
Steve, in a sense it is splitting hairs. Judging the exact value of his defense, and its impact is really only going to determine if he is ranked fourth as opposed to seventh among all time shortstops...or something to that effect.
So in a sense it is splitting hairs.
A lot of the harping on his defense comes because of the Yankee fans insisting that he is a top tier defensive SS, because they "saw" him play. I think it is obvious how flawed the "saw him play" argument is. There is certainly a man crush element to their vision.
<< <i>
A lot of the harping on his defense comes because of the Yankee fans insisting that he is a top tier defensive SS, because they "saw" him play. I think it is obvious how flawed the "saw him play" argument is. There is certainly a man crush element to their vision. >>
The is a complete falacy. As I have said too many times before, I don't know one damn Yankee fan (I know alot of em) who think Derek Jeter is a "top tier" defensive SS.
Skin, you need to comprehend what others write a whole lot more. When I tell you I watch Derek Jeter play everyday and KNOW he is not a nearly bad of a defensive shortstop as the number crunching and twisting that those like you churn out is NOT saying I believe he is a top tier defensive SS.
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
Did I leave anything out? I believe the blank space above covers everything that was said.
<< <i>I am going to attempt to summarize the empirical data that has been put forth to support the allegation that Jeter is an above average defensive SS.
Did I leave anything out? I believe the blank space above covers everything that was said. >>
Thats like saying Franklin Roosevelt did not like Adolf Hitler. Beat you a$$. Skin AT LEAST is not a EXTREME biased putz such as yourself.
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
This one too...
^^^^^^^^^
<< <i>Please put your non-responsive reply in English. If you can not attack the argument, attack the messenger. Is that your philospohy? You are calling me names, but have made no attempt to rebut the facts that have been presented. >>
What arguement? Listen, you are a dope, moron, or idiot. Take your pick. Your "arguements" are number twisted garbage.
I bet if you played in a softball game tomorrow and you actually hit the ball you would run to third base.
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>
<< <i>Please put your non-responsive reply in English. If you can not attack the argument, attack the messenger. Is that your philospohy? You are calling me names, but have made no attempt to rebut the facts that have been presented. >>
What arguement? Listen, you are a dope, moron, or idiot. Take your pick. Your "arguements" are number twisted garbage.
I bet if you played in a softball game tomorrow and you actually hit the ball you would run to third base. >>
I sense some hostility on your part. Is that how you act when you have no facts on your side? You continue to:
1. Call me names; and
2. Refuse to put forth any statistical evidence re Jeter's ability as a SS.
I will assume from your lack of an intelligible response that you have surrendered the point. Considering what you are working with, I think that is best for you.
How many of your 7000+ posts are just inane rants?
<< <i>Jeter has always been above average defensively (he's no Ozzie Smith), and has had some bad stretches, but makes more good plays than bad. Whether he deserved gold gloves is debatable (I think A-Gon was robbed in 2006), but he is certainly not a bad fielder (like "stone hands" Cano
Based on this quote, and based on softparades rants about defending Jeter being a "horrible" defensive shortstop, is where things go awry.
Winpitcher gets it.
Is Jeter above average defensively? Again, compared to what and whom? Logically, when measuring his value, it has to be measured against his peers. When this is done, he is not above average. He typically ranks in the bottom 20's on a yearly basis.
Is being the 28th best defensive starting MLB shortstop considered a "horrible" SS? It is a matter of adjectives that is givng people hissy fits. However one wants to describe being the 28th best defensive SS is up to them...but being 28th is still 28th.
If somebody believes that the best and most comprehenisve defensive meaurement to date is not accurate, and that Jeter is really the 12th best defensive SS on an annual basis, then that is a different argument. The adjectives are not longer at question, it is the meaurement used.
In this case, typically people(mainly Yankee fans) ue the eye test to refute the defensive evidence saying that Jeter is in the bottom 20's. The kicker about their argument is that this best measurement IS an eye test...only it is a far better eye test because these eyes are seeing every single MLB play by every single MLB SS for comparisons...and they are doing it without a fandom bias getting in the way. For someone to call that article twisted, is probably an extremely biased person.
I rant in quick attention grabbing jabs.
Hoop rants in the most boring put me to sleep geek number twisting gibberish.
Then he has the snootiness to hand out the "who gets it" awards
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>
1. Call me names; and
2. Refuse to put forth any statistical evidence re Jeter's ability as a SS.
I will assume from your lack of an intelligible response that you have surrendered the point. Considering what you are working with, I think that is best for you.
How many of your 7000+ posts are just inane rants? >>
1. You ARE a DOPE. If you feel picked on then too bad. You are what you are.
2. Why don't you put forth any statistical evidence that the Atlanta Braves have ever had a SS that could possibly be allowed to wash Derek Jeter's dirty boxers?
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>Eh, I don 't know.
I rant in quick attention grabbing jabs.
Hoop rants in the most boring put me to sleep geek number twisting gibberish.
Then he has the snootiness to hand out the "who gets it" awards
Softparade, with a greater attention span on your part, there probably wouldn't be an argument if you actually read the posts. It is pretty straightforward stuff.
I don't twist a thing...only biased and ignorant people do, as that is the only way they can make themself feel good about their flawed stance. Their method is to simply ignore the evidence, and live in la la land...kind of like you have done the entire thread.
Also, why does it make you feel good about yourself in telling Markj111 that he only wishes that the Braves had a SS that could carry Jeter's jock. At first I thought it was man love causing your irrational arguments/stances, but that statement just smells of insecurity on your part. I feel kind of sorry for you.
<< <i> Softparade, with a greater attention span on your part, there probably wouldn't be an argument if you actually read the posts. It is pretty straightforward stuff.
>>
That is incredibly funny! I must have said the same thing about you twenty times as you either can not read or have horrible comprehension skills! You know, the crap about me and other Yankee fans hailing Jeter as a great defensive shortstop. Never happened. So go right ahead and stick your "attention span" comment because its just more bunk coming from your mouth.
Nah, it does not make me feel good to ask the biased hack mark where a Braves SS is dead or alive that might be allowed to wash Jeter's boxers. I call em as they are. Does it make you feel good that you come running to the aid of a nutcase that believes your garbage?
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 certainly not with blind statistical pretzel making!
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
It matters little what adjective you use on Jeter, average, below average, horrible, superb...it only matters to know where he actually does rank among MLB shortstops and his run saving value...and that ranking is typically the 28th best defensive SS among MLB starters. If you are arguing that spot, then you have to provide evidence to show it.
What I am pointing out on you is that you think that YOUR eye test is better than the defensive measure that is being used to put Jeter where he truly belongs in the rankings.
If you think that Jeter really is annually the 12th best defensive SS, instead of the 28th, then do something intelligent to refute the findings. By the way, MLB teams do use the fielding information in that study. So yes, it is an accepted method. Far more accurate than a geek collector/fan named softparade.
Softparade, it seems evident that you need Jeter to have recognition in order for you to feel self worth, hence the boasting and bashing about the lack of a Braves SS as good.
You are beyond boring ..... and your comprehension skills are lost somewhere in lower grade school. You are the complete clown who has claimed countless times that myself and Yankee fans in general claim Derek Jeter is a top tier defensive SS. Which is complete bunk. As almost ALL of your boring twisted statistical rants. Do me a favor and shut your geeked up mouth .... unless you admit that the dung that you spew in your twisted statistical rants are on the level with rants of those who "get it" ie those who actually watch ballgames.
Thats right ... you DO NOT "get it"
Thank 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>
Softparade, it seems evident that you need Jeter to have recognition in order for you to feel self worth, hence the boasting and bashing about the lack of a Braves SS as good. >>
It is no suprise that a dim wit such as yourself would not see the obvious baffoonery of a Atlanta Braves fan who has a long history of hate on Derek Jeter being the reason for some well deserved shots. Tell me Joey smarty pants. Just why would an Atlanta Braves fan have a non stop fixation on Derek Jeter?
I am hoping a light bulb shines in your coconut now ..... even if so dimly.
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
Do you belive he is better than average MLB defensive starting SS, or below...or 28th where he typically is. Forget those adjectives that are getting your tampons bunched. Clarify. I dont' care to debate adjectives such as horrible, superb, etc...
If you believe he is usually the 12th best defensive SS, contrary to the BEST measurement analysis, then show why and how. But please don't say your 'eyes' because you sound idiotic with that. And the best measurement is an eye test...only better.
You have said nothing. You are actually worse than Axtell. No wonder why he whipped your butt in debates and drove you angry...because he is the same as YOU...only smarter.
By the way, I wiped my arse with a few 1978 Topps cards...I ran out of toilet paper...they are worth about the same. LOL, like I said before...nothing is more geeky than spending hours examining the corner of a .05 cent baseball card! It is funny watching you call somebody geeky, when you partake in a geeky hobby. Again, this is above your head. Others get it. You don't.
You wanted awards? Another award I am about to dish out will be to you...the dumbest poster on here. Or the most Axtell-esque poster. YOu are the leader for both
<< <i>
You wanted awards? Another award I am about to dish out will be to you...the dumbest poster on here. Or the most Axtell-esque poster. YOu are the leader for both >>
Its just so amazing we have the same analysis of one another !
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
to show data.
How about YOU show the data that he is the 28th best?
Steve
<< <i>You guys keep saying he is the 28th best (worst in the league) and show no data yet you want those that claim he is not that bad
to show data.
How about YOU show the data that he is the 28th best?
Steve >>
Plenty of data has been presented showing Jeter's defensive inabilities. If you do not wish to go back and find it in the thread, look in The Fielding Bible (Volumes 1 or 2), baseball-reference.com, billjamesonline.com, the Bill James Goldmine, or John Dewan's analysis.
I am willing to have an intelligent debate on the issue, but debating softparade is like bringing an Uzi to a knife fight.
Present it like you keep insisting those that feel otherwise do.
It's easy to claim he is the 28th best.
Just like it is easy to claim he isn't.
Steve
I say he is 17th best in the league, or is it 13th?
I wonder how many people even care?
Steve