Derek Jeter -- Not A Hall of Fame Player?

Derek Jeter

with any other team is not a hall of famer. He'd be a .290 hitter with no protection in the lineup and a strike zone the size of anyone else's. He's benefitted so ridiculously much from the lineup he's been in for his career that he's become a hall of famer for it.

unfortunately, as much as I loathe everything about the guy, he'll finish a hall of famer. however, if he retired right now and i had a say, i would definitely not vote for him. as is, he'll finish his career with the #s. and i hate it.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2007 6:33 PM PDT reply actions

so dumb

Its one thing to overvalue someone because he plays in on 161st street, and its just as bad to undervalue him for the same reason How many teams would trade their ss for him? He's been an elite player for the last decade, if you can see that than you're not looking in the right place.

by rjcicc on Aug 17, 2007 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Show me where I said he doesn't belong

in the HoF.

I said he will be, and that I hate it (more to the point, I hate it because I hate him)...not that he shouldn't be.

I'm just not convinced that he isn't one of the biggest beneficiaries of lineup protection and a small strike zone that I've ever seen...and he strikes out a ton for a guy with no K-zone. He's spent his entire career getting hitter's pitches wherever he wants, and not getting them called as strikes as often as other's. And why does he get pitched to, and thus get to hit all the time at will? Because he's never been even close to the most dangerous hitter in the lineup. You have to pitch to him in order to get him out and face the next guy in the lineup who would be even more dangerous...because let's face it, Jeter isn't gonna hit it out of the yard.

That rant aside, his career as it stands, without the what-ifs, based on what he actually HAS done, will land him in the Hall of Fame without question.

But fuck his muppet-face.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Where was the lineup protection in 1999?

When Jeter led the Yanks that year in Runs, Hits, B.A., OBP, SLG & OPS, and the team won the World Series, he was protected in the lineup by the fearsome ... 36-year-old .285 hitter Paul O'Neill. Weird how this so-called beneficiary of lineup protection had his best year when the lineup included Chad Curtis in left, the .247/.307/.414 Scott Brosius at 3B, and a .245 year from Jorge Posada.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions

I guess Bernie Williams (157OPS+)

or Tino Martinez (110OPS+) or Chuck Knoblauch (125OPS+) all mean nothing? And knock Paul O'Neill all you want (no, seriously...please do, I loathe the bastard), but he still had a 114OPS+ that year.

Granted it wasn't as good that year as it was any other year in his career, but don't short change both sides of argument by implying that the 195 at-bat Chad Curtis was the cornerstone of Derek Jeter protection that year. The two guys directly behind Jeter in the lineup most often, who would be the "biggest" protection for him that year were Williams (again, 157OPS+ is on par with a Vlad or A-Rod) and O'Neill (114OPS+ is nothing to sneeze at either, toss the 36 year old part out the window).

Again, not his best lineup protection, but definitely (especially in Williams' case) dangerous enough.

For his career, the batters batting directly ahead or behind him include: Alex Rodriguez, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Bobby Abreu (both suck and non-suck version!), Hideki Matsui, Alfonso Soriano, David Justice, Tino Martinez, and Wade Boggs.

No where on this page have I denied that the guy will be a hall of famer (which makes it all the more confusing that I'm the one getting the most shit here). He will be. All I've been doing is pointing out what I thought was a fairly obvious fact: the guy has benefited his entire career from TREMENDOUSLY favorable circumstance.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Here's how it works

You say "he's never been even close to the most dangerous hitter in the lineup."
I point out that, in fact, he was not only close to being the most dangerous hitter in 1999, he was the most dangerous hitter on the WS-winning team in 1999. He was "close" in other seasons, too.
You brush that off and move on.

There really have been tons of academic studies done on the chimera of "lineup protection," and with not a single exception I'm aware of, they've concluded that there's no such statistically significant thing.

As for whether you believe Jeter will make the Hall, I don't understand why you think I would care. It's about whether you think he should, and what arguments (or lack thereof) that you or others put forward to support that, that I'm interested in.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorry for the misunderstanding then

I'm a big fan of hyperbole. Yes, he has been the best in his lineup (as you said, 1999, by a slim Margin over Bernie) for a season at a time.

I'm aware of studies on the subject (although only vaguely aware of the results), but it's one of those things that you're hard pressed to let go of, not so much out of stubborn resolve, but rather because of an ever-present feeling that there is something hiding beyond the realm of statistical analysis: i.e. does clubhouse chemistry really ever win a single game?

The strike zone argument, while seemingly petty and unproven (although I would have liked to know what the quest-tec results for Jeter's at-bats show) really don't sit well with me. Having watched a ton of Yankees games while on the east coast, the guy really does have a strike-zone about the size of a baseball.

In regards to what I believe? The HoF, in its current state, will (and should) admit Jeter. The HoF, if I had been in charge of it from day one, including any and all admissions to it? He wouldn't be there, because I have some ridiculously lofty standards for all players. Milestones indicative of instant admission (500HR, 3000 hits, 300 wins), would be removed, and you'd see something like, 3 guys a generation, get in.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions

The darling of MLB, the Tim Duncan of MLB,

the David Beckham of MLB will get in, if the mainstream sportsmedia gets its way.

by PieceOfAase on Aug 17, 2007 6:42 PM PDT reply actions

Because Duncan doesn't deserve it, either?

Repeat after me:

Overrated players can still be great. ESPN-bashing does not = analysis.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions

what the east coast...

especially new york needs to realize that most of the country doesn't give a crap about the sports bubble they live in.

by thejd on Aug 17, 2007 7:02 PM PDT reply actions

Also

the argument is less about IF he is going to the hall of fame, then it is IF HE DESERVES TO. There's no argument about whether or not he will go. He is going to, like it or not...all there is to it.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2007 7:20 PM PDT reply actions

i guess if you wear...

the pinstripes, consistently get voted into the all-star, occupy a roster spot for some world series championships, and make the big plays a team leader is supposed to make then you can punch your ticket to cooperstown.

by thejd on Aug 17, 2007 7:47 PM PDT reply actions

Tell that to Joe Gordon

And Goose Gossage, Willie Randolph, Graig Nettles, Charlie Keller, Thurman Munson, Elston Howard, Chuck Knoblauch, Ron Guidry and Roger Maris. And later, to Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Paul O'Neill, and Andy Pettite.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions

If Paul O'Neill

makes the Hall of Fame, I'm punching a baby.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions

You won't punch a baby...

... and wearing pinstripes while playing well for World Championship teams won't ever become an automatic ticket to Cooperstown.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, don't worry

I don't buy that argument in the least. I won't deny, however, that it doesn't help some people. We just won't mention his name in respect to the recently deceased ;). Automatic ticket= definitely not even close. Helpful because of the obvious increase in exposure= I'd have to say yes.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions

i forgot...

bang hot celebrities and wear a low number for the yankees also helps.

by thejd on Aug 17, 2007 7:48 PM PDT reply actions

and alienate a future...

hall of fame teammate while fooling everybody into thinking you are the one taking the high road. and don't forget to manipulate the media who votes you in with an always available quote.

by thejd on Aug 17, 2007 7:50 PM PDT reply actions

what?

I read that post, and for most of it you seemed to make the case about what a great/good player he is.

He is so without question a Hall Of Famer, it's almost silly. He will get 3000 hits. He won 4 rings and has been to the playoffs every full season of his career. The HOF loves postseason players like that.

Now in the field he sucks. It's difficult to know exactly how much, but I think for most of his career he was probably something like the 25th best defensive shortstop in the world, only the other 24 guys were all in the majors too.

For the good of the Yankees he should have been moved to CF years ago. Anyway, I can understand if someone says they hate him, or he is a big phony, or they are jealous of all the poon he gets, but he will get in the upper 90%'s when the writers get to vote on him.

by elricsi on Aug 17, 2007 8:02 PM PDT reply actions

I'm fine with everything you said

except the 4 rings bullshit.

If I never hear another person in my life make an argument for someone in the HoF based on rings again, it will be too soon.

FUCK

the ring argument.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2007 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions

sorry

These asshole Yankee fans say this so much around here it just sunk into my head. It does sound snooty.

Let's just say he played in the World Series, A LOT, and that means something.

by elricsi on Aug 17, 2007 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes, it does mean something

it means Derek Jeter was 4% of a 25 man roster for several years in a row in which George Steinbrennar opened his wallet and bought championships. Baseball is such a team sport that it doesn't matter at all if you have rings in relationship to Hall of Fame credentials (obviously rings mean something in terms of personal satisfaction, etc.). This kind of nonsense thinking got a career .273 hitter with 38HRs and a .706OPS in the hall of fame simply because he had 9 rings with the Yankees in their hey-day.

Here's a good list to look at for anyone who wants to think "lots of rings" and "lots of playoff apperances" mean something:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_most_rings.shtml

I'm with WeaverMania on this one. And he just became my favorite HHer for even starting this topic. Let's get together some time so I can buy you a beer and shake your hand. And then maybe have sex...not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't want to sound angry with you elricsi, because I'm not. Derek Jeter arguments just boil my blood. It's nothing personal, believe me.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2007 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions

GET OVER IT

Since 1996:

Top 10 in MVP voting- 6 years
3 Consecutive gold gloves
Top 10 in Ops-5 years
Top 5 in Runs scored- 7 years
Top 5 in BA- 5 years

Player
Jeter
G AB H HR W BA OBP SLUG OPS+
1366 5513 1734 150 559 .315 .385 .463 121
Trammell
1568 5694 1650 133 594 .290 .356 .424 114
Nomar
1029 4133 1330 182 295 .322 .370 .549 133
Banks
1216 4670 1355 298 452 .290 .353 .552 138

by rjcicc on Aug 17, 2007 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions

I was talking about the rings, dude

JUST the rings.

What does ANY of that have to do with the RING argument?

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2007 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions

ok

So he's being penalized for winning 4 world series?

by rjcicc on Aug 18, 2007 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions

Penalized?

No. Just not having it plastered on his Hall of Fame resume as if it has anything to do with something he accomplished personally. Baseball has far far far too many people on the field and the roster to actually make World Series rings any kind of actual symbol of a player's personal, Hall of Fame accomplishments. There's no "penalty" (and you knew that I wasn't implying such a thing) for having them. It just shouldn't somehow make you more eligible for the Hall. It's completely unfair to every guy who never even got a chance. This isn't golf, or tennis, or even basketball where it's between 5-12 guys. Would it be fair to say "but where are his rings?" if Derek Jeter spent his career as a .320 hitting Royal with 3,000 hits? Of course not. So it's equally unfair to say "he won 4 rings with the Yankees". He won those rings as a part of a 25 man roster. El Duque won 3 with them, and another with the Sox. He's right there with Jeter. Doesn't mean shit.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions

agreed

by rjcicc on Aug 18, 2007 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Isn't it funny

That people here aren't supporting his candidacy based on Da Ringz? I guess if you keep boxing that shadow, you're liable to make contact with the wall one of these times.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Trace the path upwards

to the post at the top of this conversation line.

You'll find where it started.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions

By my quick count

There are 10 references to the Ringz-argument here (including the original post); 8 make the case that he's overrated because of them.

Two (by the same person) include them in a longer list of accomplishments, and argue meekly that they should count for at least something, to which he was shouted down with cries of Jim Leyritz.

Meanwhile, Jeter's been one of the best and most consistent players in baseball for the past decade, racking up numbers better than all but one handful of Hall of Fame shortstops.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Which is why

I never said he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Find the quote where I say "Derek Jeter should not be in the Hall".

Read my first post in this linear argument. I said "I'm fine with everything you said..." before saying he needs to toss out the rings argument. He then said "but it means a lot that he's in the World Series all the time". To which I replied "it means he's part of a huge team"...etc. And now we're here. Recapping said argument.

And to conclude:
Derek Jeter = Hall of Famer
Derek Jeter's rings do not = Hall of Fame relevant

Now can we have makeup sex?

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Just because I hit "reply"

Doesn't mean everything I say is 100% a reply to you. Though it's true, I've become confused over who supports what, and I'll be wearing heavy blue eyeshadow for our makeup sex.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions

And a wig

red-headed, if you have it.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 18, 2007 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't worry -- I'm a natural

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I dunno if my girlfriend would approve

Although she has suspected me to be putting from the rough, but I don't.

Maybe just a heterosexual oil rubdown.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill

by WeaverMania on Aug 18, 2007 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions

agree about the ring arguemnt

If thats the case, then put in Jim Leyritz.

by rjcicc on Aug 17, 2007 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Jeter is a Hall of Famer

No doubt. Cmon, Weave, get off your Derek Jeter hatred. What has the guy ever done to you?

He's a great player and because you resent the media coverage he gets in New York you hate him. That's not right. He's one of the best shortstops of the last 15 years, and that get's him in.

Don't call me Desmond

by highlandhalo on Aug 17, 2007 8:42 PM PDT reply actions

Jeter also failed to sign Matt Harvey

by Stirrups on Aug 17, 2007 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Sign Me Up For This

I completely agree. Jeter's a stud, always has been, always will be. The fact he's been on the hated Yankees shouldn't be held against him, especially when it comes to the Hall. He deserves every bit of his lineage from Ruth, Gehrig, Dickey, DiMaggio, Berra, Rizzuto, Mantle to Jeter and a few I'm sure I left out.

by beercub @ Halos Heaven on Aug 17, 2007 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Say what you will about him being a Hofer

but get him the HELL out of the same sentence as those guys.

He's a mediocre power, .317 hitting shortstop with a shitty glove and a reputation exceeding his numbers. He's not one of the greatest hitters of all time a la Mantle, Ruth, Gehrig, etc. Don't even start.

I made a list recently of 100 better players than Jeter in the last 20 years. I'll post it up later when I have a chance.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2007 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Mantle, Ruth, Gehrig?????

Your talking about the BEST players of all time. Pick an argument, you're all over the place.

by rjcicc on Aug 17, 2007 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions

What?

I'm replying to specific things said by the person I was directly responding to. Look above my post.

http://kotchatthebat.livejournal.com/

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Aug 17, 2007 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions

IF he does get to 3000...

hits and a guy like craig freakin biggio will probably get in, jeter should get in. but it might be the easiest path to 3000 hits any player has ever had with the players he's had hitting in front and behind him for his career.

by thejd on Aug 17, 2007 9:23 PM PDT reply actions

Craig freakin' Biggio

Is better than all but maybe 6 second basemen in the history of the game.

Also -- and this may cause pimples -- having great hitters around you doesn't turn you into a great hitter. People actually study this with some intensity, and find the effects of great-hitter-proximity to be marginal at best.

by mattwelch on Aug 17, 2007 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions

One of the worst arguments I've ever seen

That's an embarrassing piece of hackery. You wanna invoke Bill James? Go read his Hall of Fame book, especially toward the end, when he engages in deliberately dishonest arguments, pro and con, for Don Drysdale's HoF candidacy, making sure in each case to select only the worst (or best) numbers, comparing apples to bicycles, all of the usual dishonest bullshit that comes with the kind of Hall of Fame arguments we expect from newspapers, not well-informed websites. Then reflect that you weren't doing it as a thought-exercise. You truly intend your dishonesty.

I could spend all year going through this poop-pile, but let's just pick off some of the low-hanging turds:

while he was a great player in the league, he was never the best at his position at any moment in time.

Well, except for, um, last year. Also 1999, when he had 35 Win Shares, 3 more than Nomar ... and more than the career highs of Hall of Fame shortstops Ozzie Smith (33), Pee Wee Reese (33), Joe Tinker (33) Dave Bancroft (32), Joe Sewell (31), Bobby Wallace (30), Rabbit Maranville (29), Travis Jackson (25) and Luis Aparicio (22). And please note -- the point of Win Shares is to compare apples to apples, by position, rather than trying to extract meaning from the fact that Garret Anderson -- a left-fielder -- has exactly ONE MORE GAME-ENDING HIT OMG than Derek Jeter.

he has led baseball in hits just one time. To add more against him, he led the league in plate appearances that season as well. [...] He's never led the league in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, or OPS. [...] He has led the league in runs scored just one time. He's led the league in times on base just one time. He's never even hit twenty-five home runs in a season. He's driven in one-hundred runs just once in his career. [...] In the history of baseball at his position, he doesn't even rank in the top fifty in home runs during a season.

Why, you've just described Lou Brock! (I mean, minus the leading-baseball-in-hits bit, and adding an extra league-leading performance in PAs & Runs, plus leading the league in Caught Stealing 6 different times). And Brock, you'll recall, played left field, not shortstop. Among Hall of Fame shortstops, there are very few who can't be described in the way you dismiss Jeter.

He's hit a home run in consecutive games just once in his thirteen year career.

I want you to apologize for this. Seriously, I do.

People talk about how "clutch" he is but fail to realize that his regular season numbers [.317/.389/.462] are actually better than his postseason numbers [.314/.384/.479].

So, his OPS in the postseason is higher, and against far superior pitching than in the regular season, and with more pressure, and yet you say his regular numbers "are actually better"? That's "actually" batshit.

When you put the careers of Alan Trammell and Derek Jeter side by side, you see a lot of similarities there. Alan Trammell was the better fielder while Derek Jeter was the better offensive player. No one can argue that. Their peak seasons are almost identical.

Here's what happens when I put the careers of DJ & AT side by side, using Win Shares. Result? Jeter is better. (And I think Trammell belongs in the Hall of Fame.)

DJ: 35/33/28/27/26/26/24/23/19/18/18/01 AT: 35/29/29/26/26/23/21/21/17/16/16/14/13/13/12/06/04/04/01

Note that this doesn't count Jeter's 19.4 Win Shares so far this year, which project to another 26.

They both finished second in the MVP voting during a season but never won one in their career.

As long as you're going to use MVP voting, then you can't just ignore the following (unless you're trying to be dishonest!):

Top 5: Jeter 2, Trammell 1
Top 10: Jeter 6, Trammell 3
Top 15: Jeter 7, Trammell 4
Top 20: Jeter 7, Trammell 6
Top 25: Jeter 9, Trammell 7

And note that Jeter will certainly add to that total.

No one wants to put Andre Dawson in there because he played on such a bad team.

If by "no one" you mean 56.7% of last year's voters, well, sure. Also, I think the objection has more to do with his .323 lifetime OBP, which is even lower than the also-undeserving Garret Anderson!

What are the only things that Garciappara lacks when comparing him to Jeter? He lacks the three Gold Gloves despite being just as good and even better as Jeter in the field. He also lacks a World Series ring. Not entirely his fault.

Other than that, plus 496 Games Played, 570 Runs scored, 662 Hits, 169 SBs, and 373 BBs ... nothing much. Oh -- and a bright future of playing consistently great baseball at a demanding position, as opposed to slugging .363 as a 1B/3B.

Jeter has been a consistently great player for a decade, and deserves to go into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot based on what he's already done, though he's likely to do a whole bunch more. This argument, on the other hand, belongs in the Hall of Garbage.

by mattwelch on Aug 17, 2007 10:47 PM PDT reply actions

i think the real reason most people...

don't want derek jeter to get into the hall of fame is because he is the symbol, the face of a franchise people loathe for very good reasons. the feeling the baseball world revolves around the yankees, they are the only team with history, he is the favorite son of all loud mouthed yankee fans who feel he can do no wrong. he does touch a nerve with a lot of fans outside the yankee nation.

by thejd on Aug 18, 2007 7:34 AM PDT reply actions

The real reason babies cry

Is that they've shat their diapers. I just don't see how that's relevant in a Hall of Fame argument.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions

biggio is a solid player...

but would you ever want to build a team around biggio. was he ever at anytime in his career one of the 5-10 best players in the league? or was he even one of the 5 best players at his position. he probably will and should get in the hall of fame because of attrition not because of excellence.

by thejd on Aug 18, 2007 7:40 AM PDT reply actions

Better than solid

but would you ever want to build a team around biggio.

I'd love to build a team around Biggio (the 1990s version, not the 40something fella). Houston built a team around Biggio (and Bagwell), and made the postseason six times in nine years.

was he ever at anytime in his career one of the 5-10 best players in the league?

According to Win Shares, he was one of the 7 best players in the National League on 7 separate occasions, including six years in a row:

1992 (7th)
1994 (3rd)
1995 (4th)
1996 (6th)
1997 (3rd)
1998 (3rd)
1999 (2nd)

Take a look at that 1997 season for a second -- 146 runs (leading the league), a stunning 309 times on base (thanks in part to 34 HBPs, both totals easily leading the league), 67 extra-base hits, 47 stolen bases ... and not a single GIDP in 744 plate appearances. All while playing Gold Glove second base, and hitting in the league's most extreme pitchers park (he hit 15 homers on the road that year; 16 in 1995).

or was he even one of the 5 best players at his position.

Not only was he one of the five best players at his position in 16 different seasons (according to Win Shares), he was the very best at his position in 10 of his first 12 full seasons, finishing a close second only in 1990 (to Mike Scioscia -- this is back when Biggio was a catcher), and 1992 (to Ryne Sandberg). If you wipe out the one and only season in which he missed significant time due to injury (2000), Biggio was either the best or second-best at his position every year until he turned 36 years old. There are not many players you can say that about, period, let alone those who aren't in the Hall of Fame.

he probably will and should get in the hall of fame because of attrition not because of excellence.

If you take his five-year peak (1994-98), the only 2Bmen in history who played at a higher level during their five-year peaks are Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Morgan and Nap Lajoie. Biggio should get in for his peak performance and his counting-stat longevity. The only years he hasn't been at least a good-to-great player are 2002, 2006, and this year.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Come on

In the article you compare his OPS+ to Richie Sexson and Derrek Lee. He's a shortstop. Compare him to other shortstops. There is no shortstop in history who hit anything like Jeter and is not in the Hall of Fame. He's probably not as good as Barry Larkin because of defense, but that's not a knock - Larkin should be a Hall of famer too.

I support Trammell for the HOF, but Jeter is better. Trammell in his best seasons was as good as Jeter, and his glove was better, but he was nowhere near as consistent. Jeter's never had a bad year at the plate. Trammell mixed in years like 1989 (.243-5-43) or 1985 (.258-13-57) with the great years.

If I went to war and could only take one weapon, it would be an HK47.

by RallyMonkey5 on Aug 18, 2007 8:09 AM PDT reply actions

Here's a list

The top shortstops (1000 or more games, at least 50% as a shortstop) by career OPS+

Wagner 152 HOF
A-Rod 147 Active
Vaughan 136 HOF
Nomar 127 Active
Jeter 123 Active
Boudreau 120 HOF
Stephens 119 no HOF, short career
Cronin 119 HOF
Larkin 116 not yet eligible
Yount 115 HOF
Tejada 113 active
FREGOSI! 113 Angel HOF? Number is retired
Ripken 112 HOF
Appling 112 HOF
Chapman 111 killed by pitch
Trammell 110 screwed over by HOF voters

If I went to war and could only take one weapon, it would be an HK47.

by RallyMonkey5 on Aug 18, 2007 8:24 AM PDT reply actions

Gotta agree with thejd on this one -

People hate on Jeter because he's the face of The Evil Empire.
Do his rings, that incredible play in the postseason a couple of years ago and all his hot babes get him into the Hall if he retired today?
Not on the 1st ballot, but eventually.
If he gets 3,000 hits, and it's likely he will - and pick up a couple more undeserved Gold Gloves - then he'll probably be a 1st-ballot HOFer.

And let's remember that for about 40-50 years before Ripken, the sterotypical SS was someone who didn't hit .300 consistently and drive in a lot of runs.

Biggio - although he's got the numbers - doesn't impress me. Why? Any above-average major-leaguer can get to 3,000 hits if he plays 20 or so seasons. Biggio hung around about 2 seasons too long to get that benchmark. Yes, he's got a lot of other great marks that people have come up with to mark him as a "great player" - but again, I say he stayed healthy long enough, moved positions enough and was good enough (Not HOF worthy, mind you) to hang around and get his 3,000.

"And the Anaheim Angels are the Champions of Baseball!"

by Grichfan on Aug 18, 2007 9:50 AM PDT reply actions

Biggio's better than Grich, btw

And let's remember that for about 40-50 years before Ripken, the sterotypical SS was someone who didn't hit .300 consistently and drive in a lot of runs.

This is an argument against Jeter exactly how?

Also, among the shorstops "40-50 years before Ripken" who did hit .300 consistently and/or drive in a lot of runs are:

Luke Appling (lifetime .310; 1116 RBIs)
Joe Cronin (lifetime .301; 100 RBIs 8 different seasons)
Arky Vaughn (lifetime .318; top-10 in RBI 4 times)
Lou Boudreau (lifetime .295; 100 RBIs twice)
Ernie Banks (1636 RBIs)
Robin Yount (over .300 for six seasons; 1406 RBIs)

And they were appropriately rewarded in Cooperstown.

One of the reasons there weren't many big-bopping shorstops in the '60s and '70s is that there weren't many big-bopping hitters period during that time, what with the mound high & the stadiums cavernous. Still, you had some punch from guys like Fregosi & Petrocelli.

Just because we saw a historic wave of premium shortstops in the late 1990s doesn't mean that A) their achievements should be in any lessened, or B) that shortstop has become a power position. There are more guys out there with power like Orlando Cabrera than Hanley Ramirez, and Jeter's greatest contemporaries have either moved from SS (Nomar & A-Rod), are about to (Tejada), or should have long ago (Jeter).

Also, this is just a ridiculous statement:

Any above-average major-leaguer can get to 3,000 hits if he plays 20 or so seasons.

With the salaries ballplayers make, if they could do this, why on earth wouldn't they?

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions

thanks grichfan, don't get...

me wrong i think biggio is a good guy, great talent and should go into the hall of fame based on 3000 hits. but if i ever go to the hall of fame someday, i couldn't care less if the biggio exhibit is open or closed. i would love to have biggio as a neighbor or have a beer with the guy but as a hall of fame player i could tak him or leave him. now this is not scientific analysis or isn't neccessary for induction into the hall but i can't believe the following situations have occurred: being pissed off because the dry cleaners screwed up your biggio jersey, being shocked that somebody else has a biggio jersey on when you are wearing yours (this could happen in houston), making biggio a high priority on your fantasy draft, even in his prime fantasy nerds (i'm not one of them) got stuck or settled for biggio not actively drafted him, banking on the value of your biggio rookie card to supplement your backpacking trip across europe.

by thejd on Aug 18, 2007 10:33 AM PDT reply actions

You're right

Biggio in his prime was only good for fantasy drafts if you valued batting average, OBP, SLG, walks, SBs, HBPs, runs, doubles, and HRs from a second-baseman. Other than that, he was just terrible for, uh, backpacking through Europe.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions

good point...

and i know if i ever saw him and had a chance to meet him i'd fawn over him like a schoolgirl at a timberlake concert and probably take your side of the arguement. see ya, take care!

by thejd on Aug 18, 2007 10:53 AM PDT reply actions

I'm sorry, was there an "argument"?

I always assumed that it took more than saying boo-hoo, I hate ESPN to qualify as an actual debating point.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions

ass u ming

only makes an ass out of u and me.

since when did any loss=the end of the season as we know it?

by retrohalo on Aug 18, 2007 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Derek Jeter is a damn good player

My wife wonders why there is so much discussion about Derek Jeter on what is supposed to be an Angels board. Granted, my wife is an Englishwoman, and she doesn't know much about baseball. But she has seen Derek Jeter play and she has read what everyone else has said about him, and accepts he's a damn good player.

Her theory is that if someone hates someone so much that they take the time to write the equivalent of writing a Masters thesis on their hatred of said player, that the author of such thesis probably is harbouring homoerotic obsessions about said player.

Not my words, that's Mrs highlandhalo's.

For what it's worth.

Don't call me Desmond

by highlandhalo on Aug 18, 2007 7:22 PM PDT reply actions

I'm jealous that he didn't give me Herpes

but rather gave it to Jessica Alba.

I'm just tired of idiot Yankees fans saying that Jeter is arguably the greatest shortstop of all-time. Better than Wagner, Larkin, Ripken, Rodriguez, Banks, Smith, and Campaneris? That's laughable.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill

by WeaverMania on Aug 18, 2007 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions

He's better than Campaneris, yes

And if they were all 24 & I was building a team, I'd take Jeter over everyone except Wagner & A-Rod.

by mattwelch on Aug 18, 2007 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Well they're not all 24 years old

So we can't use that arguement.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill

by WeaverMania on Aug 18, 2007 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions

OK.. Jeter's NOT the Greatest SS of All Time

But he's NOT over-rated, definitely Hall of Fame worthy and if I had my choice of anyone in the Modern Era to start a team around in their prime, I'd take Jeter - Why? Because he makes his teammates better - That's something that isn't measured is stats or in recordbooks - just the number of rings on your fingers.

And by the way - I hate the Yankees. Not as much as (in this order) BOSTON, Oakland, the Dodgers, or Seattle... but I loath seeing them and their fans in Anaheim.

"And the Anaheim Angels are the Champions of Baseball!"

by Grichfan on Aug 19, 2007 8:50 AM PDT reply actions

Well said Grich

He just gets it done ... and especially for his teammates. The stat-heads want to claim Jeter can't get to balls to his left. ... I reckon none of them have ever played a game a shortstop in their lives. People who have know how good Jeter is. And I agree with you, if I had to start a team (OK, let's go back about 3-5 years) Jeter would be my first pick.

I'll never forget that play when Jeter came out of nowhere over the first base line to nail Jeremy Giambi in the playoffs. Still one of the most incredible plays I've ever seen.

Don't call me Desmond

by highlandhalo on Aug 19, 2007 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions