Study says Jeter overrated, New Yorkers can't believe it

[KurtBevacqua]

To my way of thinking, this study is just backing up what every serious baseball fan not a Yankee fan has been saying for years. I love the various New Yorker comments.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172008...ing__98050.htm

"I don't know what they're smoking down at Penn," said Yankees fan Mike Birch, 32. "That's preposterous. I completely disagree. Jeter's a clutch player."

"It's ridiculous," said fan Jay Ricker, 22. "Jeter is all-around awesome. He's better than A-Rod any day. Character has a lot to do with it. He's out there for his teammates, not just himself. He does it for the good of the team. That's the kind of guy you want on the field."

I'd love to see the actual study if anyone knows where it might be linked.

[jarmenia]

This one's even better:

"It's ridiculous," said fan Jay Ricker, 22. "Jeter is all-around awesome. He's better than A-Rod any day. Character has a lot to do with it. He's out there for his teammates, not just himself. He does it for the good of the team. That's the kind of guy you want on the field."

As if character has anything to do with fielding a ball...

[marioh]

Not New Yorkers, Yankee fans.

Not everyone in NY is a Yankee fan and thinks that Jeter is some sort of god.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by marioh

Not New Yorkers, Yankee fans.

Not everyone in NY is a Yankee fan and thinks that Jeter is some sort of god.

Neither do all Yankee fans. I, for one, would love to see him move out of SS in the next year or two. However, I never thought he should have moved to 3b. His slow reactions would have killed him at 3rd.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by marioh

Not New Yorkers, Yankee fans.

Not everyone in NY is a Yankee fan and thinks that Jeter is some sort of god.

Yeah, it's kind of odd that when you leave NY, if you tell people you're from NY, they assume you're a Yankee fan.

The city itself is split nearly 50/50. It's just that the Mets' market doesn't go too far outside the city (except maybe Long Island).

When I lived in Providence, where everyone is either a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan, if I said I was from NY, they wouldn't even ask. They would just assume I liked the Yankees. They don't even know what to say when you tell them you're a Mets fan.

[1998 Yankees]

Jeter has brought quiet leadership to the team, has been a good player offensively and defensively over the years, and has often come through in the clutch. However, he is not now, nor has he ever been, god nor the son of god. In fact, he has seldom, if ever, been the best player on the team.

- A Yankee fan who has not been aged 22 for quite a while.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

To my way of thinking, this study is just backing up what every serious baseball fan not a Yankee fan has been saying for years. I love the various New Yorker comments.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172008...ing__98050.htm

I'd love to see the actual study if anyone knows where it might be linked.

The firejoemorgan.com take on this article is humorous (as usual). Too many good things to quote without pilfering the entire posting, but this is probably my favorite:

Originally Posted by firejoemorgan.com

However, Frank Angelo, 50, gave A-Rod his due. "He's the best shortstop in the American League playing third base," Angelo said.

Then Angelo realized what city he lived in, and what newspaper he was talking to.

But Jeter as one of the worst?

"That's not true," Angelo said. "He's a good fielding shortstop." He even said he would keep Jeter at short. "Jeter's the captain, he was there before A-Rod," said Angelo.

By this logic, Jeter never should have taken over for Tony Fernandez. Fernandez was there before Jeter. Jeter should've had to slide over to third. But wait, Wade Boggs was at third. No go. Already there. But hey, should Boggs have even been there? No! He took over for Charlie Hayes. That never should have happened.

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE CHANGED POSITIONS EVER. After the original roster of the 1903 New York Highlanders died, all baseball should have stopped being played forever. Thanks, Frank Angelo.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

As if character has anything to do with fielding a ball...

Character=better work ethic=maximized skills

So, yes, character has something to do with fielding a ball.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by bababui

Character=better work ethic=maximized skills

So, yes, character has something to do with fielding a ball.

So if two players field the balls as good as each other, and one has better character, it means that player is an overachiever with less talent?

So you either don't care about characters, since the fielding ability is the same, or you'd choose the one with worst character, because the talent has not been maxed out?

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

So if two players field the balls as good as each other, and one has better character, it means that player is an overachiever with less talent?

So you either don't care about characters, since the fielding ability is the same, or you'd choose the one with worst character, because the talent has not been maxed out?

I'm not understanding your point. Character usually means a better work etic which usually translates into more improvement and slower decline.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by bababui

I'm not understanding your point. Character usually means a better work etic which usually translates into more improvement and slower decline.

Let me try again:

If a player has a talent of 8, and he works hard and maximize his talent, his performance would be 8.

If a player has a talent of 10, and he works only 80% as hard, his performance would be 8.

We should be indifferent about the character, since what we want is the performance. There is no reason to pick the character guy.


If we believe in our coaching and managing skills to get more out of players, we should pick against the character guy.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Let me try again:

If a player has a talent of 8, and he works hard and maximize his talent, his performance would be 8.

If a player has a talent of 10, and he works only 80% as hard, his performance would be 8.

We should be indifferent about the character, since what we want is the performance. There is no reason to pick the character guy.


If we believe in our coaching and managing skills to get more out of players, we should pick against the character guy.

The flaw there is that talent levels arent static. As I mentioned earlier, lower character guys are likely to decline earlier and faster and never fully reach their potential. And their poor attitudes can infect others in a clubhouse. I think character counts.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by bababui

The flaw there is that talent levels arent static. As I mentioned earlier, lower character guys are likely to decline earlier and faster and never fully reach their potential. And their poor attitudes can infect others in a clubhouse. I think character counts.

Talent levels are definitely way more static than efforts spent.

Character counts in the sense that it helps individuals to overachieve. At the organization level, it's not that important.

For an organization, it really doesn't matter if the output is based on 100% potential or 50% potential, as long as the output is the same. Also as I've said again and again, it two people have performances at the same level, and one is already working his butts off, while another is just cruising, which one would be more valuable? I think the answer is obvious. Just think about the bad years Randy Moss had with the Raiders. You definitely wouldn't prefer someone who already gave his all but only had that kind of performance over Randy Moss.

Ideally, we would want the ones with the best character and the best talent, but we are picking that because it generates the best performance, not because those guys have the best character.

[eriqjaffe]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Yeah, it's kind of odd that when you leave NY, if you tell people you're from NY, they assume you're a Yankee fan.

I'm in the same boat, except that the split is a bit more pronounced here - and not in my team's favor.

[Babrook]

The article was about fielding, not leadership or clutch.

[Luis_Rivera]

This is old news. He's been rated at the bottom of the league by PbP metrics since they were developed.

[DiMaggio5CF]

Jeter is not the worst fielding shortstop. He does some things very well, and some things he's bad at.

As far as statistics, I don't think that there is now, nor will there ever be, a good statistic to measure fielding.

The majority of offensive statistics are quantitative in nature. Obviously, the counting ones -- hits, runs, homeruns, stolen bases, etc. -- are. A lot of others are as well. Batting average is simply the number of hits divided by the number of at-bats. Other are at least based on quantifiable statistics. OBP, Slugging, OPS, etc. are all based on the amount of some particular stat that a player has.

In fielding, it's much harder to do this. You can measure fielding percentage by checking how many errors a player makes against how many balls he handled. But how do you measure how often a player can get to a particular ball based on how far away it is from him?

That's why I think fielding skill has to be based on observation. And what I observe from Jeter is that he's among the best at making the over-the-shoulder catch in the outfield. He also does a good job at getting to groundballs in the hole and he's probably the best at making the throw from there. He also does a decent job of coming in on the ball. He struggles immensely going up the middle. His throwing arm is strong, but sometimes the throws are off for no good reason. A good firstbaseman -- Doug Mientkiewicz or even Jason Giambi whose lone strength at first base is scooping balls out of the dirt -- can make him look good.

So what is Jeter overall? It's kind of hard to say because of the large disparity in skill depending on the type of play. I'd say he's average to slightly above average.

Based strictly on skill (take away the name and the Captain status), there are a handful of guys I'd take over him at short. Under the same situation, I'd rather have A-Rod play short -- if we say that Jeter could play third as well as A-Rod does, which I don't think is true.

But overall, watching him play the position day after day, I don't have any complaints about him. I'm confident with Jeter as my team's shortstop, and I think that's basically the bottom line when it comes to assessing fielding ability.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

This is old news. He's been rated at the bottom of the league by PbP metrics since they were developed.

Yea, we have known the defensive shortcomings of Pastadiving Jeter for a while now.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by DiMaggio5CF

In fielding, it's much harder to do this. You can measure fielding percentage by checking how many errors a player makes against how many balls he handled. But how do you measure how often a player can get to a particular ball based on how far away it is from him?

But new fielding stats are already calculating how often a player can get to a particular ball based on how far away it is from him.

[Mattingly120]

Hey, I'm a Yankee fan and I will be the first to admit Jeter is a ****ty fielder.