Derek Jeter: Countdown to Retirement
- Thread starter jon abbey
- Start date
- Status
NYCSox said:
Just having some fun.
Personally, I think some very smart people have lost their mind. Again, Derek Jeter is 3rd in career fWAR, and 7th in career bWAR, amongst all shortstops. Ever. If he's the 3rd best, but doesn't measure up to say Ripken (2nd best), Jeter shouldn't be considered an all-time once-a-generation talent?
And no, Larkin is not the superior player. Longevity does count. And WAR does account for defense.
That's pretty much it, I'll move on.
HillysLastWalk said:
Derek Jeter was/is a great player and no one is really saying otherwise. What we're reacting to is the idea that he's not just the best ever at this position, but the best ever Yankee, or even the best ever in terms of MLB, as much of the marketing nonsense is suggesting.
So yeah, he's a first ballot Hall of Famer without a doubt. But he's not the best SS of all time. He's not a unique, once in a generation talent. He's a great player who was in the right place at the right time playing the right position with the right team to become an icon.
Cross-posting from the Olbermann thread, I think EvilEmpire captured it perfectly for me:
EvilEmpire said:
This is spot on perfect.
OK, I'll grant you the point and call them comparable players. That doesn't justify the wildly over the top deification of Jeter.
Note to MLB, there are teams other than the Yankees. At this point, that's really what it comes down too. He's Biggio or Larkin but in pinstripes instead. And that disparate treatment by the league and the media is what this all comes down to.
Note to MLB, there are teams other than the Yankees. At this point, that's really what it comes down too. He's Biggio or Larkin but in pinstripes instead. And that disparate treatment by the league and the media is what this all comes down to.
Ripken's 30's are, essentially, the 90s. Nothing you said is wrong, but for the 90s Ripken hit .278/.341/.443, which was good for 7th among shortstops for the decade, in a very top heavy era. Of the top seven, he had by far the most PA. OPS+ is going to be heavily skewed against him because of the era. At his position, Ripken was more than respectable.mt8thsw9th said:
jodyreeddudley78 said:
If the Red Sox drafted a guy out of high school who then played 20 years for the team, much of that as its' captain and public face, while racking up an insane shitload of hits and a boatload of awards and accolades, coming up big in a ton of memorable moments and contributing substantially to 5 championship runs, while avoiding a single notable scandal or controversy, I'm pretty sure that Sox fans would fucking love the guy, and many would have a hard time being "objective" or rational about him in any way.That he did it for our most hated rival makes it easy to stand apart and say "look at all these morons getting caught up in the hype", but I seriously question whether Boston fans would be immune to that hype were the situation reversed.
Sure. But it wouldn't be the national epidemic that we are suffering. And my Yankee friends aren't morons. That is what is annoying.NatetheGreat said:
The numbers are there in my opinion anyway for him to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. But should the FAME part of Jeter count for anything? I know it is probably an obnoxious question. I mean, he has been a terrific ambassador for the game (if a terrible interview), sold merchandise and put butts in seats. For the past 20 years, he has probably been the most valuable, marketable player that MLB had.
Average Reds said:
I certainly got the impression that some were arguing that even if Jeter had played for the Red Sox, Sox fans would find the hype and hagiography over his retirement overblown and annoying, and I'm just not convinced that's true. One can debate whether, if Jeter had the exact same career (including number of rings and accolades) in Boston that he had in New York, whether he'd get quite the same level of insane media/fan love, but I think he'd certainly get a lot, and I honestly don't think Sox fans would find it that bothersome if that sort of love were being directed at someone who was "our guy".
NatetheGreat said:
I'm not trying to bash Jeter (although I'm guessing JA thinks I am). I've said over and over that he's been a very, very good player for a long time. But to answer your question, yes I would find this bothersome. Part of it is that it's so over the top and unnecessary. Another part of it is that he's hardly been a team first kind of guy and that pisses me off. Would I think he was a great player who I was glad to have on my favorite team for two decades? Absolutely. Would I support this farewell tour and nonstop attention every second of the season? Absolutely not.
TomRicardo said:
Sorry, I wasn't saying Ripken wasn't great, just that a good chunk of his career was spent being pretty overrated (namely his last 10 seasons). He was obviously a far superior player than Jeter on the whole given he had a good glove (and the sense to move off shortstop when the skill he had faded).
Wingack said:
Of course it should count. The Hall of Fame is not about who, if you were given the option to draft them all over again in a vacuum, would be the best player. It is about who over the course of the career they actually had most achieved iconic status. That includes not just overall regular season numbers, but also stuff like postseason performance, memorable moments, off-field scandals (or lack thereof), etc. Does that favor players who got better opportunities playing for better teams in larger markets? Of course, but nobody say the Hall of Fame was supposed to be fair. If two players have identical WAR, but one of them plays for a championship team, hits a bunch of walkoffs and makes some other big plays, becomes super famous and manages to avoid all scandal, while the other toils in obscurity on a bad team while alienating everyone around him, it seems sort of perverse to insist their HoF candidacies should be deemed equal.
NatetheGreat said:
I can't remember if he was drafted out of high school, and he obviously never got his team to 5 championships but--other than that, couldn't you be describing Yastrzemski here?
I've always thought Jeter reveals much more about people in reaction to him than he ever did about himself.
JohntheBaptist said:
If Yaz had somehow won 5 championships with the Sox, I think there's a good chance the entire region of New England would have gone into debt just building statues for the guy.
glennhoffmania said:
I think thats a big part of it, yes. Players who play an important role on championship teams endear themselves in a special way to the fans of those teams. i don't think thats a particularly controversial proposition. If David Ortiz has played in Yaz's era for example and gone ringless, I'm sure he'd be fondly remembered, but I sincerely doubt he'd have the legendary status he has now. And as beloved as Yaz was, had he been the captain of a dynasty I think that would have put him on an even higher pedestal.
Rings, and the associated post-season play, bring in tons of casual fans. The kind of pink hat fans that nations are built from.
A big point in Jeter's favor, relative to Larkin is durability. From 1996-2010, his 3 lowest GP totals were 119, 148, and 149, he averaged 152 games.
Larkin, over his 15 year peak (1987-2002, excluding the 1994 strike year) averaged 123 games.
That's 2 full seasons plus another 111 games that Jeter played and Larkin missed.
Larkin, over his 15 year peak (1987-2002, excluding the 1994 strike year) averaged 123 games.
That's 2 full seasons plus another 111 games that Jeter played and Larkin missed.
If Yaz had won ten rings the hoopla during his retirement tour would've still paled in comparison to what we're experiencing right now. Sure, rings factor in. But they don't explain the magnitude of the hysteria.
glennhoffmania said:
Well the internet didn't exist. And there weren't several 24 national sports channels either. It is a different time now.
Wingack said:
Yeah that's a huge factor. I'd be really curious to see how Sox fans would react to something similar for Yaz today. I honestly don't know what the consensus opinion would be.
HillysLastWalk said:
Great, thanks for making my point for me. They're the same player, only Larkin played a little bit fewer games and only one guy is getting the public blow job to be unanimously selected to the Hall.
moondog80 said:
Which I noted in my first post comparing Jeter to Larkin. Jeter's got about 550 more games played, about 3 full seasons. Not insubstantial. That's one edge for Jeter. Of course Jeter played SS about as well as Stephen Hawking could, so that's an edge for Larkin.
600 less games played, yet similar WARs more than proves your point actually. It exemplifies the idea that Jeter is, in fact, overrated. All time great, but overrated.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Edit: you covered that.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I wasn't directing that at you. But sure, great!
Rasputin said:
Rasputin, you are just wrong here. Again, I'm using WAR, which encompasses defense, and he's still one of the all-time leaders (again, 3rd and 7th). I sure hope Xander breaks out and puts up 10 great offensive years at shortstop so I can see your opinion of him, as a shortstop, a decade from now.
Also, in regards to defense, read that fangraphs article I linked to.
I mean players have flaws, that's why you look at all aspects of the game: baserunning, hitting, defense, position, etc. So sure, it's fun to pick on his weaknesses without mentioning the positives.
I'll let Dave Cameron speak on Jeter: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/derek-jeter-announces-impending-retirement/
EvilEmpire said:
No he doesn't. He has 565 more games played than Larkin as of today. 3 1/2 more seasons.
Does he have 700 more gift baskets delivered? Probably.
NatetheGreat said:
Totally agree--didn't mean to give the impression I disagreed. I get it's annoying--much of it annoys me--but he did give many people many good reasons to edge toward irrationality when discussing him. Sports are inherently irrational, we're all just on sliding scales in our own ways.
EvilEmpire said:
Do Yankees fans feel the same way when discussing Mattingly's HoF case?
Postseason matters, but....
not every player gets equal access to the postseason. Of course, Larkin did win a WS title in 1990, and in his brief postseason play he put up sterling numbers: 338/397/465/862. These are better than Jeter's postseason numbers (308/374/465/838) although obviously Jeter did that in far more games. Jeter was also more fortunate than Larkin in that he played in the Wild Card era, so there were most postseason games available to be played and his team, although they usually won the Division title, did get to use the WC entry a few times. Larkin, starting his career in 1986 didn't have the same opportunity, the WC didn't come about until his 11th year in the league.
Its been interesting to see all of the "Jeter is to baseball what Kobe is to basketball" discussion going around lately. In a way I get it--both were drafted out of high school, debuted in 1996, played their entire multi-decade career for perhaps the biggest franchise in their respective sport (both of which are Boston's biggest rivals), and won 5 championships. But when you get beyond that, I don't think it holds up that well. Kobe is probably a shittier person and teammate than Jeter (even leaving aside the rape scandal, no small thing, he's had far more teammates and coaches who have very clearly hated him), but he's also a much better player. In terms of who was more "iconic" or the bigger face for their team/league, it's tough to say.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I'm just not sure why this is particularly relevant. The Hall of Fame isn't about what each player might have accomplished in the abstract based on their respective skills, but about what each player actually did accomplish. If player A is on a great team that afford him vastly more opportunities to come up big in the postseason and win a bunch of rings while player B is stuck on a perennial loser that never gives him the chance to play in a game that matters, that sucks for player B, but unfair or not player A will still have accomplished more.
NatetheGreat said:
It's not really relevant because a player shouldn't be penalized for the bad luck of having worse teammates than another guy.
Yes, Jeter gets full credit for his postseason work. Yes, Jeter is going to the Hall and deservedly so. No, I don't think that Jeter's far more extensive playoff experience automatically makes him a better player than Larkin. Yes, postseason moments can prove to be the deciding line on a marginal HoF case (Ortiz, and of course Jack Morris for years and years).
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
OTOH, its sort of bizarre to simultaneously insist that making the postseason and winning rings is the entire point of playing the sport, but that actually doing so should have little to no bearing on how we evaluate a player's career because it would somehow be unfair. Now, "better player" and "better career" are not necessarily the same thing, but I think the HoF should be much more about the latter than the former. Two players having roughly equal skillsets doesn't mean they should necessarily have equal HoF candidacies.
I think this is mostly accurate. But I think this board is far more cynical than the average fan and far less tolerant of the over-the-top ball-washing that CI has received over the back-end of his HoF career. BTW, when is Tom Brady's doing his year-long victory lap into Canton? I got to book a room at the Canton Marriott.NatetheGreat said:
bankshot1 said:
Honestly I do think Brady is going to get a shitload of media love when he retires. Maybe not as much as Peyton will, which will undoubtedly rankle some, but I do think Tom will get a lot of glowing retrospective pieces from guys like Peter King, and his last game in Foxborough is going to be treated as a very big deal. If he ends that last game with a gamewinning touchdown, we'll certainly see a lot of gushing about storybook endings as well.
NatetheGreat said:
A player's responsibility is to play to his utmost skills at all times. Neither Jeter nor Larkin could contribute by pitching, so by saying "well the point is to win" you miss the point that there are 24 other guys on each team. Of course in Jeter's case it's easy to forget that as the media never seems to mention it.
It's a team game. No one has ever won a WS by himself. Getting the opportunity to play in the postseason and playing well once there are notches in a player's favor, but then using that opportunity to say a player is better than another who didn't play in the postseason that much is not an accurate representation of either's quality.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
The two players may be equal in ability, but in terms of who ended up having the better career, the one who got better opportunities and took advantage of them likely will, and I think the HOF largely does, and should, reflect that. HoF candidacy is about more than the quality of a player's skillset taken in the abstract, and will inevitably factor in things that weren't fundamentally under the player's control, like whether they ended up in a good situation or a bad one.
No, but it makes him way more of a valuable item to Major League Baseball.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
A player's responsibility is to play to his utmost skills at all times. Neither Jeter nor Larkin could contribute by pitching, so by saying "well the point is to win" you miss the point that there are 24 other guys on each team. Of course in Jeter's case it's easy to forget that as the media never seems to mention it.
It's a team game. No one has ever won a WS by himself. Getting the opportunity to play in the postseason and playing well once there are notches in a player's favor, but then using that opportunity to say a player is better than another who didn't play in the postseason that much is not an accurate representation of either's quality.
NatetheGreat said:
Then we agree that the Hall is a flawed method for measuring a player's worth. Got it, cheers.
And I say all of this noting full well that when Ortiz is up for consideration, those same arguments are going to be made in his favor in comparison to a guy like Edgar Martinez.
The difference is, you seem to think that's a flaw. Myself, I really don't give a fuck about "fairness" to players with bad luck, nor about "factoring out" good situations or good luck. I am very happy with saying that, skillsets being otherwise equal, the guy who played for a better team and won more because of it had a better career and should be rewarded for it.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
A player's "worth" in the sense of skillset taken in the abstract, is really only relevant if you're trying to make some predictive guess about them. Signing player A over player B because player A played for a contender is silly, because playing for a contender or not has no value in predicting how either will perform in a new setting. But once a player's career over, who gives a fuck about predictive value? At that point it stops being about what they could do, and becomes purely about what they actually did, which will inevitably be hugely influenced by the context in which they played. Sure, if player B was in player A's place maybe he would have hit those same iconic hits in the postseason...but he wasn't. Player A was. I see no value in counterfactuals to ignore what actually happened in place of what might have happened had reality played out differently.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Is it the Hall's function to be a method for measuring a player's worth? It's a Hall of Fame, strictly speaking, where this is concerned, should we be worried about whether it's "fair" that Larkin didn't have the opportunity? It's an historical record, I think.
- Status