Again dallas,you are a moving target and refuse to address questions when you know the answer will not help your argument. You said there was nothing historic , good or bad, about jeters play at as. There you are wrong. In the time period he and a rod were teammates, he was historically bad. Can you prove your case otherwise? We both know you can't, and you were speaking in conjecture and got caught so you will continue to try to change the subject. I know how you roll
@craig44 said:
Yes Dallas, they definitely should leave 3rd empty. Good grief. You do realize there are other ways to acquire talent, no? Put the historically bad SS on first, the good SS at SS and maybe sign or trade for a good third baseman. Not that difficult.
I know you can't believe Jeter was a serviceable SS at this time, you just don't like to loose an argument. You are a numbers guy, just look at the numbers. They are historically bad.
You are faulting Jeter, and NY, for not using a player who was not on their roster at third base. Silly as that sounds, that is exactly what you're doing. In the real world, the Yankees options at third base were AROID and Jeter. In the hypothetical world in your imagination, I agree that they should have played Chipper Jones at third, or brought back Brooks Robinson from 1964 and played him at third. There's no shortage of quality alternatives at third base when you aren't limited by rosters or the laws of nature.
You falsely claim that Jeter wasn't "serviceable" at shortstop, but then claim the better alternative was to play someone who didn't exist at third. Tell me who you would have had the Yankees play at third or the question of winning or losing an argument is moot - you aren't even making an argument. If you want to conjure into being a high quality third baseman who hits better than the Yankee whose roster position he would have taken, and assume that the Yankees didn't have to give away anything to get him, then I agree you win the argument; it's just such a silly argument, though, that it hardly seems worth winning.
You don't think the yanks could have signed a third baseman after securing a rod in the off season? Or made a trade for another option at third? It isn't rocket science and it happens every year. They didn't have either option though, because the ego of their SS at the time wouldn't allow for it. Jeter wouldn't move off SS whether it was better for the team or not
The Yankees acquired Alex Rodriguez to play 3rd. Why, after landing him to fill their hole at third base, move him to short?
How's that make any sense?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@craig44 said:
Yes Dallas, they definitely should leave 3rd empty. Good grief. You do realize there are other ways to acquire talent, no? Put the historically bad SS on first, the good SS at SS and maybe sign or trade for a good third baseman. Not that difficult.
I know you can't believe Jeter was a serviceable SS at this time, you just don't like to loose an argument. You are a numbers guy, just look at the numbers. They are historically bad.
You are faulting Jeter, and NY, for not using a player who was not on their roster at third base. Silly as that sounds, that is exactly what you're doing. In the real world, the Yankees options at third base were AROID and Jeter. In the hypothetical world in your imagination, I agree that they should have played Chipper Jones at third, or brought back Brooks Robinson from 1964 and played him at third. There's no shortage of quality alternatives at third base when you aren't limited by rosters or the laws of nature.
You falsely claim that Jeter wasn't "serviceable" at shortstop, but then claim the better alternative was to play someone who didn't exist at third. Tell me who you would have had the Yankees play at third or the question of winning or losing an argument is moot - you aren't even making an argument. If you want to conjure into being a high quality third baseman who hits better than the Yankee whose roster position he would have taken, and assume that the Yankees didn't have to give away anything to get him, then I agree you win the argument; it's just such a silly argument, though, that it hardly seems worth winning.
You don't think the yanks could have signed a third baseman after securing a rod in the off season? Or made a trade for another option at third? It isn't rocket science and it happens every year. They didn't have either option though, because the ego of their SS at the time wouldn't allow for it. Jeter wouldn't move off SS whether it was better for the team or not
The Yankees acquired Alex Rodriguez to play 3rd. Why, after landing him to fill their hole at third base, move him to short?
How's that make any sense?
No, the yanks acquired the best SS in baseball who agreed to move to third because the Yankee "legend" refused to do what was best for the team and move to first. Doing this made for a weakened left side of the infield. All because of ego
Aaron Boone walks it off in 2003 ALCS, blows out knee playing hoops. Red Sox make deal for A-Rod, MLB says no, Yanks swoop in, block Sox and get A-Rod and have him slot in at 3B.
At no point was there ever a thought of taking the Yankee Captain off of short. And you may also want to recognize that franchises want to make money first and win second. Taking the most popular player on the team and messing with him in the prime of his career is bad business.
I know it's been almost fifteen years but this is why numbers can't tell the story entirely. In 2004 and the steroid era, this guy was the face of baseball. Walk on water stuff.
Derek Jeter did have a massive ego. Still does. He did play short too long. But 2004? No need to move him off the position. At all. And ego had nothing to do with it because he was never going to be asked to move - by Torre or Cashman or anyone else.
Be careful with any metrics based on assumptions rather than outcomes.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I am well aware of what happened in 2004. I remember it well. I am saying this was not a baseball Decision, it was placating to a selfish player who would not change position to the detriment of his team. There was major bad feelings between the two players and no one would dare hurt the captain's feelings by bringing up a position change.
By the way, in 2004, Jeter was already a very bad SS. Feel free to dispute that statement using empirical evidence and not conjecture. To give you a hint, that will be a very difficult thing to do.
@craig44 said:
I am well aware of what happened in 2004. I remember it well. I am saying this was not a baseball Decision, it was placating to a selfish player who would not change position to the detriment of his team. There was major bad feelings between the two players and no one would dare hurt the captain's feelings by bringing up a position change.
By the way, in 2004, Jeter was already a very bad SS. Feel free to dispute that statement using empirical evidence and not conjecture. To give you a hint, that will be a very difficult thing to do.
Fielding Percentage Leaders at Shortstop in American League 2004
1) David Eckstein
2) Christian Guzman
3) Omar Vizquel
4) Derek Jeter
5) Bobby Crosby
6) Carlos Guillen
7) Michael Young
8) Miguel Tejada
9) Jose Valentin
10) Julio Lugo
There were 14 teams in the American League in 2004 and I included a bunch of (meaningless) stats above. You can debate (with someone else) the value of each or all of the above metrics and their validity. What is there in the data is proof that Derek Jeter was not the worst in the American League (not in any single metric I could find, anyway) nor was he 'historically bad' but rather was, at the absolute worst, an average defender. There's no conjecture anywhere - this is all data driven empirical analysis. If you pick the right list, you can cast him in an unflattering light. But I think when taken in totality, you get a clearer picture of who Derek Jeter was defensively.
That said, please feel free to feel the way you do about Derek Jeter's defense based on data you have neither presented nor specified. Saying 'all the metrics' isn't using data. The above is using data.
And it wasn't very difficult.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@craig44 said:
I am well aware of what happened in 2004. I remember it well. I am saying this was not a baseball Decision, it was placating to a selfish player who would not change position to the detriment of his team. There was major bad feelings between the two players and no one would dare hurt the captain's feelings by bringing up a position change.
By the way, in 2004, Jeter was already a very bad SS. Feel free to dispute that statement using empirical evidence and not conjecture. To give you a hint, that will be a very difficult thing to do.
I would like to see some proof that Jeter was asked to move anywhere when Arod was acquired. As I have stated, Arod was probably a better SS, but he was MUCH better suited to play 3rd because of his stronger arm. Going out and getting another player to play 3rd and moving Jeter anywhere is just silly, 2 HOF type players is as good as it gets on the left side of the IF.
Moving Jeter to 2nd makes more sense, but then you need to get someone to play 3rd. The question here would be why bother? Three of your four infielders are already All-Stars, with Giambi being at his steroidal peak, Jeter is certainly not going to 1B.
Personally, I don't care for either player much, they both killed the Twins on a regular basis.
In 2004 Jeter's fielding percentage was .981 while the league average was .972, empirical evidence as far as I am concerned. He also won the Gold Glove, which I already know you will (incorrectly) say is meaningless.
The other three SS on the AS team; Carlos Guillen, Miguel Tejeda and Michael Young were at .974, .970 and '972 in FLD% (and failed to win GG ;- 0). MORE empirical evidence that Jeter was not "historically bad", but actually SUPERIOR to three of the best SS that year.
There were better fielding Shortstops in 2004, none of them could hit very well.
If you look at Rtot and Rdrs in the same year, Jeter was better than Guillen, Young and Tejeda in Rtot and only Tejeda was better in Rdrs. I don't put a lot of stock in these numbers, but they are all being measured, and Jeter again comes up as the best or second best of the group. Certainly not "historically bad".
Not sure where they were at mid season, but looking at the entire year I would have named Tejeda the AS game starter and GG winner.
I don't have a problem with anyone not liking Jeter and even saying he was over rated, but let's not let our personal feelings detract from the FACT that he was a damn good Shortstop.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
fielding percentage was never a problem for jeter, he had pretty good hands. his biggest problem was lack of range. he normally was error free on balls he got to, he just didnt have the range to get to as many balls as an average ss. he also had a somewhat weak arm.
When the Yanks acquired Arod, my first thought was to move Jeter to 2B, play Arod at SS, and then surely find a better hitter at 3B(compared to what Miguel Cairo was providing at 2B). But the next year Cano was playing 2B and it was pretty much moot where the three(Jeter, Arod, Cano) played.
As for the topic, Yount or Jeter, they are extremely close in almost every measurement. However, there is one key measurement where Jeter puts some distance between them, and that is their Win Probability Added.
For their career, Jeter sits at 30.2 wins, and Yount at 20.3.
That is a pretty big difference.
Interestingly, here are their best eight year peaks:
Yount 20.7
Jeter 23.3
So Jeter's peak is actually a bit better than Yount's. Sure, Yount's two best seasons are better than any of Jeter's best two, but as a GM, you had to settle for a lot of lesser years in between Yount's peak 1982 and 1989 best seasons. It wasn't like he could be counted on as a consistent elite those years and then build your team accordingly. Also, outside of Yount's peak you had to settle for 12 seasons with an accumulated Win Probability Added of negative .4!
In other words, of Younts 20.3 career Win Probability Added, 7.9 of them came in his best two years...spaced seven years apart.
Jeter actually had three different eight year peaks better than Yount's best eight year peak.
@craig44 said:
fielding percentage was never a problem for jeter, he had pretty good hands. his biggest problem was lack of range. he normally was error free on balls he got to, he just didnt have the range to get to as many balls as an average ss. he also had a somewhat weak arm.
So a couple of people provided quite a bit of evidence that there was nothing "historic", good or bad, about Jeter's play at short and this is all you have in response? A claim of "hirtorically bad", it seems to me, requires at least something besides your opinion. But, when you there are no stats in existence that will support your claim, I understand why your opinion is all you're willing to provide.
And your argument about acquiring another player to play third still means nothing. WHO should they have acquired? WHICH of the Yankee starters would you have benched to make room for this unnamed third baseman? WHO would they have had to give up, either in trade or on their roster, to make room for this unnamed third baseman? Answer those questions and you have an argument; don't answer them and you have stale talking points, most of which are false.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If only the yankees had been smart enough to hire craig back then , he would have make the correct personnel decisions , he could have been assistant to the traveling secretary or something.
Like that guy that convinced them to switch to cotton uniforms that one time.
@craig44 said:
fielding percentage was never a problem for jeter, he had pretty good hands. his biggest problem was lack of range. he normally was error free on balls he got to, he just didnt have the range to get to as many balls as an average ss. he also had a somewhat weak arm.
So a couple of people provided quite a bit of evidence that there was nothing "historic", good or bad, about Jeter's play at short and this is all you have in response? A claim of "hirtorically bad", it seems to me, requires at least something besides your opinion. But, when you there are no stats in existence that will support your claim, I understand why your opinion is all you're willing to provide.
And your argument about acquiring another player to play third still means nothing. WHO should they have acquired? WHICH of the Yankee starters would you have benched to make room for this unnamed third baseman? WHO would they have had to give up, either in trade or on their roster, to make room for this unnamed third baseman? Answer those questions and you have an argument; don't answer them and you have stale talking points, most of which are false.
I provided stats earlier in the thread. Go back and look. From the period they acquired aroid till Jeter retired, they are historically bad.
I am not sure why you are so stuck on your "phantom" third baseman. There are around 30 or so starting in MLB and 2 times that number in the minors. The yanks could have traded for any one of those. I don't understand why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Move the really really bad ss to first, play the good ss in position and trade for a third baseman. It is super super easy. Trades happen all the time. This one couldn't happen though, because the "captain" had to save face
@craig44 said:
fielding percentage was never a problem for jeter, he had pretty good hands. his biggest problem was lack of range. he normally was error free on balls he got to, he just didnt have the range to get to as many balls as an average ss. he also had a somewhat weak arm.
Your words themselves say he was not "historically bad". Sure, the Shortstops that couldn't hit were better fielders DUH! If you are a shortstop who can't hit very well, you better be a great glove man. Jeter may have had a lack of range, but your stats are not convincing as most defensive stats are flawed.
Jeter was a great hitting shortstop, not as good as Arod as a hitter or a fielder, but again, as your post says, Jeter had a somewhat weak arm, so he doesn't move to third, any benefit you get by helping him with his range problem by moving him to 3rd is cancelled out by his weaker arm.
Moving Jeter because you just picked up Arod is also ridiculous. They had all-star/MVP players at three of the four infield positions. That's better than anyone else had. Especially with Cano in the minors.
You have still offered nothing but your opinion on weather Jeter was ever asked to change positions. Personally I would have kept him at short.
Obviously, you can't stand Jeter, I couldn't stand Reggie Jackson!
Getting back to your original post, I like Yount a little better than Jeter. Both HOFers and deserve it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Skin2 said:
As for the topic, Yount or Jeter, they are extremely close in almost every measurement. However, there is one key measurement where Jeter puts some distance between them, and that is their Win Probability Added.
For their career, Jeter sits at 30.2 wins, and Yount at 20.3.
That is a pretty big difference.
Interestingly, here are their best eight year peaks:
Yount 20.7
Jeter 23.3
So Jeter's peak is actually a bit better than Yount's. Sure, Yount's two best seasons are better than any of Jeter's best two, but as a GM, you had to settle for a lot of lesser years in between Yount's peak 1982 and 1989 best seasons. It wasn't like he could be counted on as a consistent elite those years and then build your team accordingly. Also, outside of Yount's peak you had to settle for 12 seasons with an accumulated Win Probability Added of negative .4!
In other words, of Younts 20.3 career Win Probability Added, 7.9 of them came in his best two years...spaced seven years apart.
Jeter actually had three different eight year peaks better than Yount's best eight year peak.
Overall, the slight edge goes to Jeter.
I looked into WPA when it showed Jeter was a lot better than Yount and it seems that it only takes batting into consideration. Fangraphs says; " Pitchers receive all of the positive or negative credit on a defensive play. Position players only gain or lose WPA on offense."
Fangraphs also says; "WPA is tricky because there’s an innate desire to use it as a measure of “which player has delivered when it matters most!” In reality, it’s far more complicated than that because it’s an additive measure. To accrue big WPA totals, you need to be presented with many opportunities to come through with the game on the line. A player with a 5.0 WPA for the year hasn’t necessarily been more “clutch” than one with a 2.0 WPA, they may simply have had many chances with the bases loaded late in close games."
Looks a bit like RBI totals to me; the guy that has the most opportunities with men on in scoring position is going to get more RBI's, that doesn't mean he's the better run producer.
My take on this is that this isn't a great stat in comparing player A to player B unless they both had the same number of opportunities. Jeter played on a team that MAY have given him a lot more opportunities than Yount's Brewers. The Yankees were so good they were in the postseason 16 times and the Brewers only twice. I would ASSUME that playing on a superior team would give you more opportunities to win a game in the late innings than on a average team.
It also doesn't take defensive play into consideration and that's an important factor when comparing Shortstops.
I think these two guys are as close to equal as any two players can be. I still like Yount, but not by much.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
I provided stats earlier in the thread. Go back and look. From the period they acquired aroid till Jeter retired, they are historically bad.
I am not sure why you are so stuck on your "phantom" third baseman. There are around 30 or so starting in MLB and 2 times that number in the minors. The yanks could have traded for any one of those. I don't understand why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Move the really really bad ss to first, play the good ss in position and trade for a third baseman. It is super super easy. Trades happen all the time. This one couldn't happen though, because the "captain" had to save face
You did provide stats, but none of them supported your claim that Jeter was "historically bad"; I was asking for THOSE stats.
The rest of your argument is so circular it's making my head spin. I grasp your "argument" (still, absolutely nothing but an opinion), but it doesn't lead anywhere. You appear to be assuming, without evidence of any kind, that anyone with "3B" next to their name is automatically a better fielder than Jeter (assuming what you are trying to prove is known as "begging the question", a common logical fallacy), that the Yankees don't have to give up anything of value to acquire him, and you are completely ignoring the player who no longer gets to play when this phantom 3B takes his spot in the batting order (so you are assuming that the phantom 3B is a better hitter than a player you still haven't named).
Stop. Go back to the beginning and start over. Make an argument. You believe without evidence that Jeter was asked to move to another position and refused. You believe, without evidence, that it would cost the Yankees nothing in fielding or hitting to add a random replacement at third base, bench a starter at another position, and play Jeter out of position. I "grasp" that you hold these opinions; there is no need for you to repeat them any more. What I don't grasp is WHY you hold any of these opinions, because you have yet to make an argument.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
I provided stats earlier in the thread. Go back and look. From the period they acquired aroid till Jeter retired, they are historically bad.
I am not sure why you are so stuck on your "phantom" third baseman. There are around 30 or so starting in MLB and 2 times that number in the minors. The yanks could have traded for any one of those. I don't understand why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Move the really really bad ss to first, play the good ss in position and trade for a third baseman. It is super super easy. Trades happen all the time. This one couldn't happen though, because the "captain" had to save face
You did provide stats, but none of them supported your claim that Jeter was "historically bad"; I was asking for THOSE stats.
The rest of your argument is so circular it's making my head spin. I grasp your "argument" (still, absolutely nothing but an opinion), but it doesn't lead anywhere. You appear to be assuming, without evidence of any kind, that anyone with "3B" next to their name is automatically a better fielder than Jeter (assuming what you are trying to prove is known as "begging the question", a common logical fallacy), that the Yankees don't have to give up anything of value to acquire him, and you are completely ignoring the player who no longer gets to play when this phantom 3B takes his spot in the batting order (so you are assuming that the phantom 3B is a better hitter than a player you still haven't named).
Stop. Go back to the beginning and start over. Make an argument. You believe without evidence that Jeter was asked to move to another position and refused. You believe, without evidence, that it would cost the Yankees nothing in fielding or hitting to add a random replacement at third base, bench a starter at another position, and play Jeter out of position. I "grasp" that you hold these opinions; there is no need for you to repeat them any more. What I don't grasp is WHY you hold any of these opinions, because you have yet to make an argument.
I think his dislike for Jeter has led him to make unsupportable conclusions. Until someone comes forward with evidence that Jeter was even asked to switch positions, it's just speculation.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Again dallas,you are a moving target and refuse to address questions when you know the answer will not help your argument. You said there was nothing historic , good or bad, about jeters play at as. There you are wrong. In the time period he and a rod were teammates, he was historically bad. Can you prove your case otherwise? We both know you can't, and you were speaking in conjecture and got caught so you will continue to try to change the subject. I know how you roll
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The Yankees acquired Alex Rodriguez to play 3rd. Why, after landing him to fill their hole at third base, move him to short?
How's that make any sense?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
No, the yanks acquired the best SS in baseball who agreed to move to third because the Yankee "legend" refused to do what was best for the team and move to first. Doing this made for a weakened left side of the infield. All because of ego
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Aaron Boone walks it off in 2003 ALCS, blows out knee playing hoops. Red Sox make deal for A-Rod, MLB says no, Yanks swoop in, block Sox and get A-Rod and have him slot in at 3B.
At no point was there ever a thought of taking the Yankee Captain off of short. And you may also want to recognize that franchises want to make money first and win second. Taking the most popular player on the team and messing with him in the prime of his career is bad business.
I know it's been almost fifteen years but this is why numbers can't tell the story entirely. In 2004 and the steroid era, this guy was the face of baseball. Walk on water stuff.
Derek Jeter did have a massive ego. Still does. He did play short too long. But 2004? No need to move him off the position. At all. And ego had nothing to do with it because he was never going to be asked to move - by Torre or Cashman or anyone else.
Be careful with any metrics based on assumptions rather than outcomes.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I am well aware of what happened in 2004. I remember it well. I am saying this was not a baseball Decision, it was placating to a selfish player who would not change position to the detriment of his team. There was major bad feelings between the two players and no one would dare hurt the captain's feelings by bringing up a position change.
By the way, in 2004, Jeter was already a very bad SS. Feel free to dispute that statement using empirical evidence and not conjecture. To give you a hint, that will be a very difficult thing to do.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
good to know
??
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2004-specialpos_ss-fielding.shtml
Hightlights:
Basic Stats (min 100 GS)
Fielding Percentage Leaders at Shortstop in American League 2004
1) David Eckstein
2) Christian Guzman
3) Omar Vizquel
4) Derek Jeter
5) Bobby Crosby
6) Carlos Guillen
7) Michael Young
8) Miguel Tejada
9) Jose Valentin
10) Julio Lugo
Advanced Stats (min 100 GS)
Rtot/Yr
1) Lugo
2) Valentin
3) Jeter
4) Tejada
5) Eckstein
6) Vizquel
Rtz
1) Lugo
2) Valentin
3) Jeter
4) Tejada
5) Eckstein
6) Vizquel
Rdrs (Defensive Runs Saved)
1) Crosby
2) Tejada
3) Lugo
4) Vizquel
5) Valentin
6) Guzman
7) Eckstein
8) Berroa
9) Jeter
RF/9 (Range Factor per 9/IP)
1) Tejada
2) Guillen
3) Crosby
4) Valentin
5) Lugo
6) Berroa
7) Guzman
8) Jeter
9) Vizquel
There were 14 teams in the American League in 2004 and I included a bunch of (meaningless) stats above. You can debate (with someone else) the value of each or all of the above metrics and their validity. What is there in the data is proof that Derek Jeter was not the worst in the American League (not in any single metric I could find, anyway) nor was he 'historically bad' but rather was, at the absolute worst, an average defender. There's no conjecture anywhere - this is all data driven empirical analysis. If you pick the right list, you can cast him in an unflattering light. But I think when taken in totality, you get a clearer picture of who Derek Jeter was defensively.
That said, please feel free to feel the way you do about Derek Jeter's defense based on data you have neither presented nor specified. Saying 'all the metrics' isn't using data. The above is using data.
And it wasn't very difficult.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Oops - I missed a post - you do have a bunch of data.
Nice.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I would like to see some proof that Jeter was asked to move anywhere when Arod was acquired. As I have stated, Arod was probably a better SS, but he was MUCH better suited to play 3rd because of his stronger arm. Going out and getting another player to play 3rd and moving Jeter anywhere is just silly, 2 HOF type players is as good as it gets on the left side of the IF.
Moving Jeter to 2nd makes more sense, but then you need to get someone to play 3rd. The question here would be why bother? Three of your four infielders are already All-Stars, with Giambi being at his steroidal peak, Jeter is certainly not going to 1B.
Personally, I don't care for either player much, they both killed the Twins on a regular basis.
In 2004 Jeter's fielding percentage was .981 while the league average was .972, empirical evidence as far as I am concerned. He also won the Gold Glove, which I already know you will (incorrectly) say is meaningless.
The other three SS on the AS team; Carlos Guillen, Miguel Tejeda and Michael Young were at .974, .970 and '972 in FLD% (and failed to win GG ;- 0). MORE empirical evidence that Jeter was not "historically bad", but actually SUPERIOR to three of the best SS that year.
There were better fielding Shortstops in 2004, none of them could hit very well.
If you look at Rtot and Rdrs in the same year, Jeter was better than Guillen, Young and Tejeda in Rtot and only Tejeda was better in Rdrs. I don't put a lot of stock in these numbers, but they are all being measured, and Jeter again comes up as the best or second best of the group. Certainly not "historically bad".
Not sure where they were at mid season, but looking at the entire year I would have named Tejeda the AS game starter and GG winner.
I don't have a problem with anyone not liking Jeter and even saying he was over rated, but let's not let our personal feelings detract from the FACT that he was a damn good Shortstop.
@craig44
Just to be clear, I enjoy your point of view. It's interesting and has made me think.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yount was better than Jeter.
fielding percentage was never a problem for jeter, he had pretty good hands. his biggest problem was lack of range. he normally was error free on balls he got to, he just didnt have the range to get to as many balls as an average ss. he also had a somewhat weak arm.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
When the Yanks acquired Arod, my first thought was to move Jeter to 2B, play Arod at SS, and then surely find a better hitter at 3B(compared to what Miguel Cairo was providing at 2B). But the next year Cano was playing 2B and it was pretty much moot where the three(Jeter, Arod, Cano) played.
As for the topic, Yount or Jeter, they are extremely close in almost every measurement. However, there is one key measurement where Jeter puts some distance between them, and that is their Win Probability Added.
For their career, Jeter sits at 30.2 wins, and Yount at 20.3.
That is a pretty big difference.
Interestingly, here are their best eight year peaks:
Yount 20.7
Jeter 23.3
So Jeter's peak is actually a bit better than Yount's. Sure, Yount's two best seasons are better than any of Jeter's best two, but as a GM, you had to settle for a lot of lesser years in between Yount's peak 1982 and 1989 best seasons. It wasn't like he could be counted on as a consistent elite those years and then build your team accordingly. Also, outside of Yount's peak you had to settle for 12 seasons with an accumulated Win Probability Added of negative .4!
In other words, of Younts 20.3 career Win Probability Added, 7.9 of them came in his best two years...spaced seven years apart.
Jeter actually had three different eight year peaks better than Yount's best eight year peak.
Overall, the slight edge goes to Jeter.
So a couple of people provided quite a bit of evidence that there was nothing "historic", good or bad, about Jeter's play at short and this is all you have in response? A claim of "hirtorically bad", it seems to me, requires at least something besides your opinion. But, when you there are no stats in existence that will support your claim, I understand why your opinion is all you're willing to provide.
And your argument about acquiring another player to play third still means nothing. WHO should they have acquired? WHICH of the Yankee starters would you have benched to make room for this unnamed third baseman? WHO would they have had to give up, either in trade or on their roster, to make room for this unnamed third baseman? Answer those questions and you have an argument; don't answer them and you have stale talking points, most of which are false.
If only the yankees had been smart enough to hire craig back then , he would have make the correct personnel decisions , he could have been assistant to the traveling secretary or something.
Like that guy that convinced them to switch to cotton uniforms that one time.
I provided stats earlier in the thread. Go back and look. From the period they acquired aroid till Jeter retired, they are historically bad.
I am not sure why you are so stuck on your "phantom" third baseman. There are around 30 or so starting in MLB and 2 times that number in the minors. The yanks could have traded for any one of those. I don't understand why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp. Move the really really bad ss to first, play the good ss in position and trade for a third baseman. It is super super easy. Trades happen all the time. This one couldn't happen though, because the "captain" had to save face
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Your words themselves say he was not "historically bad". Sure, the Shortstops that couldn't hit were better fielders DUH! If you are a shortstop who can't hit very well, you better be a great glove man. Jeter may have had a lack of range, but your stats are not convincing as most defensive stats are flawed.
Jeter was a great hitting shortstop, not as good as Arod as a hitter or a fielder, but again, as your post says, Jeter had a somewhat weak arm, so he doesn't move to third, any benefit you get by helping him with his range problem by moving him to 3rd is cancelled out by his weaker arm.
Moving Jeter because you just picked up Arod is also ridiculous. They had all-star/MVP players at three of the four infield positions. That's better than anyone else had. Especially with Cano in the minors.
You have still offered nothing but your opinion on weather Jeter was ever asked to change positions. Personally I would have kept him at short.
Obviously, you can't stand Jeter, I couldn't stand Reggie Jackson!
Getting back to your original post, I like Yount a little better than Jeter. Both HOFers and deserve it.
I looked into WPA when it showed Jeter was a lot better than Yount and it seems that it only takes batting into consideration. Fangraphs says; " Pitchers receive all of the positive or negative credit on a defensive play. Position players only gain or lose WPA on offense."
Fangraphs also says; "WPA is tricky because there’s an innate desire to use it as a measure of “which player has delivered when it matters most!” In reality, it’s far more complicated than that because it’s an additive measure. To accrue big WPA totals, you need to be presented with many opportunities to come through with the game on the line. A player with a 5.0 WPA for the year hasn’t necessarily been more “clutch” than one with a 2.0 WPA, they may simply have had many chances with the bases loaded late in close games."
Looks a bit like RBI totals to me; the guy that has the most opportunities with men on in scoring position is going to get more RBI's, that doesn't mean he's the better run producer.
My take on this is that this isn't a great stat in comparing player A to player B unless they both had the same number of opportunities. Jeter played on a team that MAY have given him a lot more opportunities than Yount's Brewers. The Yankees were so good they were in the postseason 16 times and the Brewers only twice. I would ASSUME that playing on a superior team would give you more opportunities to win a game in the late innings than on a average team.
It also doesn't take defensive play into consideration and that's an important factor when comparing Shortstops.
I think these two guys are as close to equal as any two players can be. I still like Yount, but not by much.
You did provide stats, but none of them supported your claim that Jeter was "historically bad"; I was asking for THOSE stats.
The rest of your argument is so circular it's making my head spin. I grasp your "argument" (still, absolutely nothing but an opinion), but it doesn't lead anywhere. You appear to be assuming, without evidence of any kind, that anyone with "3B" next to their name is automatically a better fielder than Jeter (assuming what you are trying to prove is known as "begging the question", a common logical fallacy), that the Yankees don't have to give up anything of value to acquire him, and you are completely ignoring the player who no longer gets to play when this phantom 3B takes his spot in the batting order (so you are assuming that the phantom 3B is a better hitter than a player you still haven't named).
Stop. Go back to the beginning and start over. Make an argument. You believe without evidence that Jeter was asked to move to another position and refused. You believe, without evidence, that it would cost the Yankees nothing in fielding or hitting to add a random replacement at third base, bench a starter at another position, and play Jeter out of position. I "grasp" that you hold these opinions; there is no need for you to repeat them any more. What I don't grasp is WHY you hold any of these opinions, because you have yet to make an argument.
I think his dislike for Jeter has led him to make unsupportable conclusions. Until someone comes forward with evidence that Jeter was even asked to switch positions, it's just speculation.