Nomar vs. Jeter revisited

Leather · Jul 16, 2014

I can't wait until Yankees fans get this upset about Dustin Pedroia retiring in 7 years when a huge deal is made about what a gamer he is and how he's a model...

Oh, wait.

seantoo · Jul 16, 2014

ivanvamp said:
Either way you slice it, Nomar's peak is better than Jeter's peak. So at the height of their respective powers, Nomar Garciaparra was a better baseball player than Derek Jeter.

Jeter's career obviously has been far superior, but can we really say that he was better at this sport than Nomar was?

I'll also submit that with even a decent fielding firstbasemen along with Nomar's superior range he'd have less errors, more outs and a better defensive grade increasing his bWar. Jeter was a statue compared to Nomar.

nocode51 · Jul 16, 2014

Hmm, I didn't notice you tracking the calmness of their eyes. I mean Nomar's eyes have a negative WAR for kindness on any system that you use where as Jeter is the all time leader.

Leather · Jul 16, 2014

There's really no question that Nomar was a better player than Jeter for most of Nomar's tenure with the Red Sox. I mean, even objective Yankees fans agreed, but it was basically beside the point because from 1996-2000, Jeter wasn't expected to lead the team in terms of offense the way Nomar was. They had Bernie and Tino and O'Neil and Strawberry (remember him?) for that. Nomar was compared to Ted Williams...by Ted Williams. It was a different level of expectations, because Nomar earned them.

In fact, it could be argued that Jeter's "leadership" and "calm demeanor" and all that crap was originally a justification created by Yankees fans/writers/announcers as to why, in the face of objectively better performance in Nomar, they they were justified in thinking Jeter was a better player. Of course, over time Nomar fell apart, got traded, got forgotten, A-Rod, well... Tejada got disgraced, and suddenly Jeter was all alone as the Premier Shortstop.

bankshot1 · Jul 16, 2014

I used to be a member of the NY Times on-line forum (1997-2007, they pulled the plug in '07) and there was an active American League forum that attracted several Yankee and Sox posters, and this topic was debated constantly in the 1997-2001 years. and it was always Nomar's stats versus Jeter's rings.

Entering this year both guys had career ba of .313 (Nomar slight edge when rounded to 4 places). I find myself getting a little too much pleasure as Jeter has slipped below Nomar in that regard.

.

Philip Jeff Frye · Jul 16, 2014

seantoo said:
Jeter was a statue compared to Nomar.

Oh come on, didn't you see that play last night at the start of the ASG!? I mean, McCutchen was almost out! What other shortstop could do that?

BosRedSox5 · Jul 16, 2014

seantoo said:
I'll also submit that with even a decent fielding firstbasemen along with Nomar's superior range he'd have less errors, more outs and a better defensive grade increasing his bWar. Jeter was a statue compared to Nomar.

Agreed. Jeter was extremely lucky to play a chunk of his prime with Tino Martinez. Martinez was never a defensive wizard, he didn't have a lot of range or anything like that, but he had good footwork and could pick it. Nomar had Mo Vaughn, Brian Daubach and Jose Offerman as first basemen. Yikes.

SaveBooFerriss · Jul 16, 2014

ivanvamp said:
Either way you slice it, Nomar's peak is better than Jeter's peak. So at the height of their respective powers, Nomar Garciaparra was a better baseball player than Derek Jeter.

Jeter's career obviously has been far superior, but can we really say that he was better at this sport than Nomar was?

I am not sure is much of this is debatable. In the big picture, their peaks are fairly close, but Jeter's longevity really sets him apart. Not much to see hear.

dcmissle · Jul 16, 2014

Correct -- unless you're willing to throw Yaz under the bus.

Streaking stars don't rank up there unless they are named Koufax and otherwise have historical importance.

Edit:

Completely get the Jeter fatigue. You can be great and overhyped. I having Manning fatigue too.

8slim · Jul 16, 2014

Nomar is our Mattingly.

NYCSox · Jul 16, 2014

8slim said:
Nomar is our Mattingly.

Short but highly productive peak, broken down by injuries and left the club before they started winning?

Leather · Jul 16, 2014

NYCSox said:
Short but highly productive peak, broken down by injuries and left the club before they started winning?

Those are the objective factors, but I think 8slim was also referring to the tendency to romanticize the player on the basis of "What could have been?", in large part because for a good chunk of their time on their respective teams, they were one of the lone bright spots, and so are remembered with extreme fondness.

dcmissle · Jul 16, 2014

Bruce Harper may walk this road before he is done.

Until things change, dramatically, he should not be embarrassed by being mentioned with Trout.

Leather · Jul 16, 2014

dcmissle said:
Bruce Harper may walk this road before he is done.

Until things change, dramatically, he should not be embarrassed by being mentioned with Trout.

Well, seeing as Bruce Harper retired from the New York Jets in 1984...

But Bryce Harper and Trout are in a completely non-analogous situation to Jeter/Nomar. They just both happen to be good, young, players.

glennhoffmania · Jul 16, 2014

dcmissle said:
Bruce Harper may walk this road before he is done.

Until things change, dramatically, he should not be embarrassed by being mentioned with Trout.

The first line might be a stretch. The second, I totally agree.

Link

Edit- damn you, Leather.

Harry Hooper · Jul 16, 2014

BosRedSox5 said:
Agreed. Jeter was extremely lucky to play a chunk of his prime with Tino Martinez. Martinez was never a defensive wizard, he didn't have a lot of range or anything like that, but he had good footwork and could pick it. Nomar had Mo Vaughn, Brian Daubach and Jose Offerman as first basemen. Yikes.

True, but Nomar (particularly in his early years) was prone to making unwise wild throws as part of his "never give up on a play" mindset and not properly stepping towards 1B on all throws.

dcmissle · Jul 16, 2014

glennhoffmania said:
The first line might be a stretch. The second, I totally agree.

Link

Edit- damn you, Leather.

Yes. The first sentence presumes that Bryce -- with a y -- can ever remain healthy enough to put a Nomar- style run together.

Bryce hits that triple last night, he jams something and is out for 2 weeks.

8slim · Jul 16, 2014

NYCSox said:
Short but highly productive peak, broken down by injuries and left the club before they started winning?

drleather2001 said:
Those are the objective factors, but I think 8slim was also referring to the tendency to romanticize the player on the basis of "What could have been?", in large part because for a good chunk of their time on their respective teams, they were one of the lone bright spots, and so are remembered with extreme fondness.

Yep, both of those aspects is what I meant.

We've been so spoiled the past dozen years, but remember what a remarkable breath of fresh air Nomar was when he arrived? We had just slogged through an era of intermittently good teams, but also what seemed like a large share of (at times) unlikeable (to me) players: Clemens, Boggs (obviously leaving plays a huge role with those two), Rice, etc.

Nomar and Mo Vaughn were guys that seemed to genuinely love playing in Boston and accepted the challenge/burden of trying to win a championship for us long suffering fans. Lots of Sox players before them didn't seem to be at peace with either of those things.

That's what made the saga with Nomar in late '03 and '04 so sad (at least to me).

And of course, Nomar was great for all of 6 years. Sigh.

Leather · Jul 16, 2014

Right.

It's been heavily over-shadowed by the decade that followed, but the 1995-2000 period (pre ownership change) was also a period of resurgence in its own right, and Nomar was the figurehead for that period, along with Vaughn and then Pedro.

His 2001 season was totally de-railed, which allowed Manny to take more of a center-stage role, and then when the new guys like Damon, Cabin Mirror, Mueller, etc... showed up, the personality of the team changed and he lost his role as symbolic leader. This was compounded by the fact (from a PR POV certainly, and likely from a clubhouse POV as well) that he started chafing about his contract and seemed to resent the attention his new teammates were getting("Manny's making 20 Million, Pedro's making 17 Million, A Rod is making 25 Million, Jeter is making 17 Million..."). Then the A Rod thing happened, and it was all over.

He really should have taken that 4/$60 they offered in spring of 2003.

Kliq · Jul 16, 2014

I guess it's true, but Hack Wilson had a better peak than Stan Musial. If we are just comparing their stats up until 2003, what exactly has changed over the last 11 years? The numbers haven't changed, so why would more time away from the peaks have an impact?

Adrian's Dome · Jul 16, 2014

I will never forgive Al Reyes.

Night of the Keyboard · Jul 16, 2014

drleather2001 said:
There's really no question that Nomar was a better player than Jeter for most of Nomar's tenure with the Red Sox. I mean, even objective Yankees fans agreed, but it was basically beside the point because from 1996-2000, Jeter wasn't expected to lead the team in terms of offense the way Nomar was. They had Bernie and Tino and O'Neil and Strawberry (remember him?) for that. Nomar was compared to Ted Williams...by Ted Williams. It was a different level of expectations, because Nomar earned them.

In fact, it could be argued that Jeter's "leadership" and "calm demeanor" and all that crap was originally a justification created by Yankees fans/writers/announcers as to why, in the face of objectively better performance in Nomar, they they were justified in thinking Jeter was a better player. Of course, over time Nomar fell apart, got traded, got forgotten, A-Rod, well... Tejada got disgraced, and suddenly Jeter was all alone as the Premier Shortstop.

Ted actually compared Nomar to DiMaggio. Williams rarely went out of the strike zone while both DiMaggio and Nomar were more aggressive.

dcmissle · Jul 16, 2014

ivanvamp said:
Well, to me, it's kind of like comparing Pedro to some pitchers in the HOF who weren't as dominant as Pedro (yet who were still great; and make no mistake, Jeter has been a great player), but who just were able to perform at a high level for a lot longer.

It factors into the question of who is the "greatest", but it doesn't change the fact that, at his peak, Pedro is almost certainly the single best pitcher the sport has ever seen.

Koufax might have an argument. One of the problems with these Mt Rushmores -- RS and Yankees -- is the multitude of GREAT players who are now forgotten.

Jeter for example, plainly does not rank with Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, or Mantle. Does he even come in before Berra? I don't think so, but a lot of young people think Berra is an ok player who says funny stuff.

StuckOnYouk · Jul 16, 2014

In the D&C show this morning, NY Post writer Ken Davidoff said he had Jeter as the 3rd best Yankee ever.
Minihane and company were tearing him to shreds.

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa · Jul 16, 2014

Night of the Keyboard said:
Ted actually compared Nomar to DiMaggio. Williams rarely went out of the strike zone while both DiMaggio and Nomar were more aggressive.

I think the Ted Williams comparison on Nomar was that he said Nomar would be the next one to hit .400

Kliq · Jul 16, 2014

ivanvamp said:
Well, to me, it's kind of like comparing Pedro to some pitchers in the HOF who weren't as dominant as Pedro (yet who were still great; and make no mistake, Jeter has been a great player), but who just were able to perform at a high level for a lot longer.

It factors into the question of who is the "greatest", but it doesn't change the fact that, at his peak, Pedro is almost certainly the single best pitcher the sport has ever seen.

I mean, Pedro isn't, but it's apparently illegal to say that on sosh.

CaptainLaddie · Jul 16, 2014

Pedro's peak is the best peak of any pitcher in history. That's not a debate for anyone who recognizes what an ERA+ of 213 over a seven season span means.

Please, Kliq, enlighten me. Because I'd love to hear the counter argument to a 213 ERA+.

foulkehampshire · Jul 16, 2014

CaptainLaddie said:
Pedro's peak is the best peak of any pitcher in history. That's not a debate for anyone who recognizes what an ERA+ of 213 over a seven season span means.

Please, Kliq, enlighten me. Because I'd love to hear the counter argument to a 213 ERA+.

He only won 20 or more games twice in those 7 years.

Color me unimpressed.

Old Fart Tree · Jul 16, 2014

Kliq said:
I mean, Pedro isn't, but it's apparently illegal to say that on sosh.

It's not illegal to make factually incorrect statements. But there are consequences; specifically, that we clown the shit out of you for making them.

Skeesix · Jul 16, 2014

foulkehampshire said:
He only won 20 or more games twice in those 7 years.

Color me unimpressed.

As someone said above, Jose Offerman and Brian Daubach were at first base. Hell, of Pedro's 3 Cy Youngs, 2 of those were in years where he didn't get 20 wins. While we're here, it's 2014 - I swear it's been at least 2004 since wins were an acceptable measure of a pitcher's worth.

jmcc5400 · Jul 16, 2014

foulkehampshire said:
He only won 20 or more games twice in those 7 years.

Color me unimpressed.

Right, and in one of those years he wasn't even as good as the white guitar player.

Kliq · Jul 16, 2014

Pedro's 1999-2000 seasons are the best two season string anyone has ever done, I admit that. But when we talk about peaks, does it matter that Pedro's peak was a maximum of 10 seasons, while The Big Train's was 15+? I know, I know, different era, but that means something, doesn't it?

A different, but practical approach would be that Johnson's 1913 season is the greatest pitching season ever, because no one post-1901 had a greater impact on his team's performance then he did that year.

A big part of the argument for Pedro's peak being the GOAT is because he put up his numbers in the steroid era, but that isn't really the end all be all. Lefty Grove pitched just as well in a era that was more explosive for offenses then the 90s-early 2000s.

Night of the Keyboard · Jul 16, 2014

foulkehampshire said:
He only won 20 or more games twice in those 7 years.

Color me unimpressed.

The 5-man rotation has made 20-win seasons much more difficult to achieve. Hernandez has won more than 14 games only once in his career but people still refer to him as "King Felix".

foulkehampshire · Jul 16, 2014

Night of the Keyboard said:
The 5-man rotation has made 20-win seasons much more difficult to achieve. Hernandez has won more than 14 games only once in his career but people still refer to him as "King Felix".

If he was a real pitcher, like Jack Morris, he'd preserve more leads and pitch deeper in games.

HriniakPosterChild · Jul 16, 2014

Night of the Keyboard said:
The 5-man rotation has made 20-win seasons much more difficult to achieve. Hernandez has won more than 14 games only once in his career but people still refer to him as "King Felix".

The USS Mariner guys were calling him that before he won 20 games in A ball.

benhogan · Jul 16, 2014

When there is an elephant in the room, always best to discuss it. Nomar sure did break down physically in the end...

8slim · Jul 16, 2014

Nomar adamantly claims he never took PEDs.

Just sayin'.

Dead Balls · Jul 16, 2014

8slim said:
Nomar adamantly claims he never took PEDs.

Just sayin'.

Its not scientific at all, but of all the famous steroid users who of them have really broken down towards the end of their career?

Rovin Romine · Jul 16, 2014

I don't entirely buy the Nomar PED whispers. Nomar hit pretty well at GA Tech in 94 as a 20 year old Junior, showing power, albeit with metal bats. He spent 95 in the minors at AA. In 96 he spent most of the season at AAA, hitting very well, with a decidedly meh call up. 97 was his first full season in Boston and he hit very well. He then built on that in 98. He increased his production again in 99. He then more or less plateaued through 00 until the Reyes fastball broke his wrist in 01, shortly after that SI pick. Coming back, he was excellent never quite the same hitter.

When I look at the numbers I see an excellent player who was slightly ahead of the curve, age wise, but never showed a suspicious leap or surge in power. Interestingly enough, he hit more homers in his 97 and 98 seasons than he did in his elite offensive 99 and 00.

None of that's proof Nomar didn't use PEDs, but apart from the fact that he looks muscular in the 2001 SI cover, there's not much to suggest he did use PEDs. (Unless the argument is he secretly used PEDs throughout his whole career, but was never caught - and that's a box that makes little or no sense to open.) I don't know if PED use causes rips and tears, but it seemed that Nomar was always having hamstring and groin problems. Some people are just prone to that.

Also:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nomar-garciaparra-tells-wife-to-meet-him-on-disabl,6135/

SumnerH · Jul 16, 2014

Maddox also had a two year period that's in the discussion with Pedro. He and the aforementioned Walter Johnson are the only two real competitors on that count, apologies to Koufax fans.

Savin Hillbilly · Jul 16, 2014

Kliq said:
Pedro's 1999-2000 seasons are the best two season string anyone has ever done, I admit that. But when we talk about peaks, does it matter that Pedro's peak was a maximum of 10 seasons, while The Big Train's was 15+? I know, I know, different era, but that means something, doesn't it?

Isn't this a bit like saying that because a clarinet can create 90dB of sound for 20 seconds, and a bass drum can make 110 dB of sound but only for 1 second, therefore the clarinet is louder? Of course the difference between Pedro and Johnson is subtler than that, but you see what I mean. I don't know that there's any objective, commonly accepted definition of peak value, but I feel pretty sure that you can't say someone had more peak value just because their peak lasted longer.

A different, but practical approach would be that Johnson's 1913 season is the greatest pitching season ever, because no one post-1901 had a greater impact on his team's performance then he did that year.

Of course, the logical endpoint of this argument is that Pud Galvin in 1884 had the greatest pitching season ever. And hell, maybe he did. But I think "greatest impact" has to be understood as at least somewhat relative to opportunity. Johnson had, inherently, about 1.5x the opportunity to make a positive difference to his team that Pedro did. He could have been 2/3 the pitcher and had the same "impact." How to allow for that difference fairly in evaluating their achievements is a very tricky thing.

A big part of the argument for Pedro's peak being the GOAT is because he put up his numbers in the steroid era, but that isn't really the end all be all. Lefty Grove pitched just as well in a era that was more explosive for offenses then the 90s-early 2000s.

This is why we have numbers like ERA+. And Pedro's was better.

Kliq · Jul 16, 2014

ivanvamp said:
Lefty Grove vs. Pedro Martinez. Each of their peaks - i.e., their top five seasons (by bWAR).

Grove
1936 - 253.1 ip, 2.81 era, 189 era+, 1.19 whip, 4.6 k/9, 11.1 bWAR
1931 - 288.2 ip, 2.06 era, 217 era+, 1.08 whip, 5.5 k/9, 10.1 bWAR
1937 - 262.0 ip, 3.02 era, 159 era+, 1.34 whip, 5.3 k/9, 9.6 bWAR
1935 - 273.0 ip, 2.70 era, 175 era+, 1.22 whip, 4.0 k/9, 9.5 bWAR
1930 - 291.0 ip, 2.54 era, 185 era+, 1.14 whip, 6.5 k/9, 9.5 bWAR

Pedro
2000 - 217.0 ip, 1.74 era, 291 era+, 0.74 whip, 11.8 k/9, 11.7 bWAR
1999 - 213.1 ip, 2.07 era, 243 era+, 0.92 whip, 13.2 k/9, 9.7 bWAR
1997 - 241.1 ip, 1.90 era, 219 era+, 0.93 whip, 11.4 k/9, 9.0 bWAR
2003 - 186.2 ip, 2.22 era, 211 era+, 1.04 whip, 9.9 k/9, 8.0 bWAR
1998 - 233.2 ip, 2.89 era, 163 era+, 1.09 whip, 9.7 k/9, 7.2 bWAR

Let's look at each guy's top 5 seasons for each rate category (min 150 ip):

ERA
Grove: 2.06, 2.51, 2.54, 2.54, 2.58
Pedro: 1.74, 1.90, 2.07, 2.22, 2.26

ERA+
Grove: 217, 189, 185, 185, 175
Pedro: 291, 243, 219, 211, 202

WHIP
Grove: 1.08, 1.11, 1.14, 1.19, 1.19
Pedro: 0.74, 0.92, 0.92, 0.93, 0.95

K/9
Grove: 6.8, 6.5, 6.3, 6.0, 5.8
Pedro: 13.2, 12.6, 11.8, 11.4, 10.8

FIP
Grove: 2.75, 2.92, 2.96, 3.01, 3.09
Pedro: 1.39, 1.61, 2.17, 2.21, 2.24

In terms of raw counting stats, Pedro dominates in K's, despite a lot fewer innings pitched.

K's
Grove: 209, 194, 188, 183, 175
Pedro: 313, 305, 284, 251, 139

The only categories that Grove has the advantage in are wins and innings pitched. That's it. Innings pitched is legit, even though it was a completely different era in baseball history. He would never have gotten that many innings in today's game. And it's those innings that drive up Grove's WAR. Everything else Pedro dominates. And wins…well, we aren't going to put much stock in wins. Though it's worth noting that Pedro's winning percentage is better than Grove's (.687 vs. .680).

Those numbers can be misleading.

For a majority of both men's career, about 1/2 a run more per game was scored during Grove's time compared to Pedro's, that should impact his ERA and his FIP. In addition, Grove's era also included about one more hit per game then Pedro's, which impacts his WHIP. Strikeouts and K/9 are pretty much garbage stats when comparing the two. There were twice as many Ks per game when Pedro played when compared to Grove. Like it or not, Grove is right there with Pedro.

Savin Hillbilly · Jul 16, 2014

ivanvamp covered the ERA+ point nicely. For another way of slicing the same basic point: in his dominant 1930-1936 stretch, Grove's leagues averaged 5.23 runs per game, while he allowed a 2.92 ERA. Pedro's leagues in his 1997-2003 prime averaged 4.95 runs per game, while he allowed a 2.20 ERA. Grove's ERA at his peak was 44% below league average. Pedro's was 56% below. And the difference only gets bigger in Pedro's favor if you use overall runs allowed per 9, not ERA--49% to 35%.

My god, think about those numbers. Pedro in his prime allowed half as many runs as the average pitcher. That meant that if your offense was only half as productive as an average offense, and Pedro was on the mound, you had an even shot at winning. Insane.

ji oh · Jul 16, 2014

Rovin Romine said:
I don't entirely buy the Nomar PED whispers. Nomar hit pretty well at GA Tech in 94 as a 20 year old Junior, showing power, albeit with metal bats. He spent 95 in the minors at AA. In 96 he spent most of the season at AAA, hitting very well, with a decidedly meh call up. 97 was his first full season in Boston and he hit very well. He then built on that in 98. He increased his production again in 99. He then more or less plateaued through 00 until the Reyes fastball broke his wrist in 01, shortly after that SI pick. Coming back, he was excellent never quite the same hitter.

...

When you describe his AA season you leave out the .384 slugging in over 500 abs, which is about the level of power they expected when they drafted him. A year later he started, as you say, "hitting very well."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20547
says that the scouting reports on him put both his power grade as a 30 or a 40 or in some scouts view even a 25.
There are some more optimistic reports floating around.

Nomar vs. Jeter revisited

captain obvious

given himself a skunk spot

toots his own horn award winner

Member

given himself a skunk spot

Member

Member

what's an original thought?

twenty foreskins

Deflatigator

has trust issues

chris hansen of goats

given himself a skunk spot

Deflatigator

given himself a skunk spot

meat puppet

Well-Known Member

Deflatigator

has trust issues

given himself a skunk spot

Member

Member

New Member

captain obvious

Deflatigator

captain obvious

Member

Member

Member

dj paul pfieffer

hillbilly suburbanite

the maven of meat

captain obvious

Member

Member

Member

New Member

hillbilly suburbanite

Member

Granite Truther

has trust issues

New Member

Johnny Rico

captain obvious

Malt Liquor Picker

loves the secret sauce

Member

captain obvious

loves the secret sauce

New Member