Foxsports.com's Adam Kriegel offers his commentary on why the fans were right to vote 4.5 million times for Derek Jeter. I actually agree with the basic premise of this article (Derek Jeter is good) but this article commits several cardinal sins. Read:
At 35, Derek Jeter is considered well past his prime as an everyday shortstop. Don't take my word for it. Baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have long since rendered their final analysis on the subject.
Actually, baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have offered a meager resistance to the Jeter-love that exists throughout the sports universe, suggesting that perhaps the guy isn't the superhero everyone thinks he is.
And considering that his 2008 numbers were significantly lower than his career numbers in pretty much every category, the mathematicians didn't have to look far to analyze this downturn.
No surprise, either. By their mid-thirties, even the best ballplayers give up the position for less demanding assignments. At 36, Cal Ripken was a full-time third baseman. The logic is inexorable. Age and range are inversely proportional. Hence, Jeter's days are numbered.
It's like he's an old nag, shuffling off to the glue factory. Like Barbaro!
Still, when it came time to select a starting shortstop for the All-Star Game, Jeter received an astounding 4,851,889 votes, more than anyone in the American League, more than anyone not named Albert Pujols and Chase Utley.
Any sensible fan might note that Jeter was facing one of the least competitive positions on the ballot. Who's a good AL shortstop this year? Jason Bartlett?
Whereas Pujols was up against perhaps the most stacked position on the ballot.
He's now the oldest shortstop to start an All-Star Game since 37-year-old Luis Aparacio in 1971.
You are wrong. Ozzie Smith started the 1994 ASG at the ripe old age of 39. Even the MLB.com article correctly states that Jeter is the oldest American League starting shortstop since Aparicio.
Pure laziness on the part of Mr. Kriegel here. Or just a lack of baseball knowledge - since the mid-90s were full of completely unnecessary elections of Ozzie Smith when he was old enough to be like dead and played like eighty games a season.
So here's to the fans. For once, at least, you guys got it right.
Way to go, fans. You managed not to screw up a really easy choice, since Derek Jeter is really having a pretty darn good season this year.
I covered Jeter from '96 — when the burning question in New York revolved around whether he would be the equal of the Mets' defensive wizard Rey Ordonez — to 2001.
Really? That was the question? News to me.
And in all that time, through four Yankee championships, I don't think I ever fully appreciated the guy.
That makes you just about the only writer in America who didn't.
While his dating résumé, now as then, remains exemplary, I considered him too assiduously non-controversial, which is to say, boring.
Has anyone ever thought Jeter was boring just because he isn't an idiot?
In retrospect, it was a reaction to the gratuitously controversial regime that preceded his tenure in the Bronx. Jeter was the perfect consigliere for Joe Torre, a layer of heavy insulation against the irrational ravings of the principal owner. Still, his "Mr. Steinbrenner" act wore thin.
Huh?
But here it is, 2009, and Jeter has more hits than Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. In the next couple of seasons, he'll pass the original iron man, Lou Gehrig, and Babe Ruth. In fact, he's a good bet to end up with 3,600 hits. And in his steady progression toward that number, he's beaten more than the odds.
It would be kind of nice to cite his 2009 statistics, which would be most relevant to this discussion, and clearly support your position, Mr. Kriegel. Yet you pointlessly cite his career hits, which is pretty much all anyone ever discusses when they discuss Jeter.
I think when Jeter gets voted into the Hall of More Than Very Good, he will have the emptiest plaque in Cooperstown. All it will list is his name and however many hits he ends up with. Has he ever even hit a double?
And though the baseball nerds insist he can't field his position, I'll remember with affection the same plays everyone else does: the glove-handed shovel pass that caught Jeremy Giambi at the plate in the 2001 ALDS, and Trot Nixon's foul ball he caught three rows deep in the left-field stands at the old Stadium.
It's too bad the baseball nerds' stats noticed all the times he didn't make those plays. That's almost unfair of them!
Are football and basketball and hockey nerds doing everything they can to actively ruin their respective sports? Or is it just baseball nerds?
Kriegel then goes on to say how great Jeter is, and compares him to a bunch of average shortstops. The conclusion, as I said, is true: Jeter is the best shortstop in the AL right now, and is certainly one of the top in the last 20 years.
But this article still sucks.
I personally think the whole Jeter-winning-the-vote is a shame. Bartlett has been the best AL shortstop by a longshot, and it's not close.
ReplyDelete::sigh:: @ baseball "fans" everywhere.......
To clarify: I'm aware that Bartlett is getting hit-lucky, but there's a clear superiority of a single over a walk (in general), and Bartlett slugging 100 points higher than Jeter, despite a similar OBP, gives him the nod.
ReplyDeleteAlso Bartlett = good at defense, Jeter = teh sux0rz
Derek Jeter is going to the HOF. He is a really good shortstop, and arguably one of the games greatest players. But...
ReplyDeleteFact #1: Derek Jeter has made the all-star game ten out of the last eleven years. The fact that he's making it this year--or even that he got 4.5 million votes--shouldn't really be that surprising because of...
Fact #2: The estimated population of New York City proper is 8.3 million people, with the greater metro area at almost 19 million. Of them about 97.9999% of them are Yankee fans with internet access. You do the math. Actually, given the popularity of the Yankees in non-Boston areas, shouldn't he have gotten more like 8 or 9 million votes?
In conclusion: Jeter/A-Rod 2012.
I also have to agree that Jeter was/is a very good shortstop. He's never really been insanely awesome, but he's been very good for over a decade. He'll make the HOF, but I also have to say that it will be partially due to his showmanship and the things about baseball that aren't quantifiable.
ReplyDeleteWould Jeter be held in such high regard if he played in a smaller market? At the very least he wouldn't be making Arod/Santana/Manny/Pujols money. Jeter also seems to have some overhyped plays. For example his catch where he ended up 7 rows deep when he had time to stop himself before that point. Sure Jeter has had the play or two that people remember (like the flip against Oakland), but I still remember Aaron Rowand making a great catch and breaking his noise. I call anecedotal BS on this article.
He's a very good player, but not really the game changer some in NY and the media would want fans to believe.
Of course I meant nose and not noise. Thanks college education.
ReplyDeleteKreigel covered sports for the Daily News, I recognize the name. What I definitely do not remember is anyone comparing Jeter to Rey Ordoñez. As for the statheads, no one disputes that Jeter has come up with some amazing plays in his career. They just point out that he has had average range for a shortstop in his best years.
ReplyDeleteJeter's stature is based on what dan-bob said-- he hasn't made an idiot of himself in public. He's low-key and stayed away from controversy, and after a while the media here decided that he was Joe DiMaggio and he became 'untouchable.' Factor in the four championships in his first five years, and now he's got a mystique to rival David Eckstein.
It's probable that even fans who hate the Yankees can't find much to hate about Jeter aside from the fact that he's a Yankee. That, plus 3,600 singles, will put you in the HoF.
Dude, how many times are we going to hear about the 2001 ALDS cut-off and the 2004 regular-season diving into the stands play? Holy shit, every time the Yankees are on ESPN they show both highlights ALWAYS, while the announcer (Rick Sutcliffe being the far and away biggest offender here) gushes as if it's the first time anyone has seen those plays.
ReplyDelete"It's like he's an old nag, shuffling off to the glue factory. Like Barbaro!"
ReplyDeleteToo soon man...
p.s. I love Jeter. Screw all the haters!
You know what? You're right, pnoles, and if I'd have done more research before I posted here, I would've pushed Bartlett a lot more.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you guys are wrong about the Bartlett thing.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Jeter's been decent this year defensively by UZR. A lot of it is probably Tex, but he played with Giambi all those years, so let him have his .2 defensive runs.
Bartlett missed a LOT of time. It's the only reason why his rate stats are so good. Jeter has slightly better counting stats, with somewhat similar rate stats over a significantly longer period -- i.e., he's been worth more than Bartlett. In fact, he's been one of the 10 most valuable players in all of baseball, according to FanGraphs.
By the way, he's got over 200 homers and about 450 doubles. He's slugged over .450, which is damn good for a shortstop. Sure he's a singles hitter, but Juanito Pierre he is not.
"He's never really been insanely awesome, but he's been very good for over a decade."
1999, when he OBPed .438 and slugged .550? How is that not insanely awesome? That's better than HanRam has ever been. He was worth like 30 million that season.
P.S. Jeter has more singles and more walks than Jason Bartlett. And more homers.
CitizenX-
ReplyDeleteI'm about the biggest Jeter fan there is, so I hear what you're saying. The problem with Jeter is that he's just never been as good as the hype surrounding him. He's a great player and a Hall of Famer, but the hype machine around him is and always has been ridiculous. His defense has been average to below average for most of his career, but he makes the occasional great play on national television, and that's all we ever hear about.
Yes, his 1999 season was great. He probably should have been the MVP that year, but the award somehow went to Ivan Rodriguez and his .356 OBP. Jeter inexplicably came in 6th.
That season was exceptional, but it was 10 years ago. Jeter's never been that good since. If he was that good every year, he'd get a lot less criticism for being overrated.
Anyway, I forget my original point. Oh yeah, Jason Bartlett is having a good year. Something tells me he's not going to make it a habit. He's never been good before, and will probably never be this good again. Every couple of years a shortstop comes along and has a good year, and we hear about how he's the next big thing. Rich Aurilia, Bobby Crosby, Rey Ordonez, Jose Reyes, etc. Jose Reyes has come close, but even he's been pretty up and down. Jeter's been very good to great for 14 years. Just never as good as Tim McCarver thinks.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's overrated by people like Tim McCarver. In fact, pretty much only three players in our era have been as good as the likes of McCarver have thought Jeter was -- Bonds, Pujols and A-Rod.
ReplyDeleteHis excellence is based more on being very good for a very long time, but he's still had some pretty huge seasons, like 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2007. And this year. It's kind of unfortunate for him that he has to play next to the greatest-hitting shortstop of the era, but he's a multimillionaire athlete, so fuck him.
Where was I? Oh, right. Jeter is a run of the mill hall of famer, and easy decision but not at the top of the Hall. Haters seem to think he shouldn't be in, fellators seem to think he's as good as Dimaggio, neither one is right, blahblah.
The Jeter worship is way overdone, but the guy has a lifetime OPS+ of 121. He doesn't suck. And he's back on his career normal year this season after last year's dip.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that the column sucked, though.