November 13, 2006
Hybrid Theory
By Jack Jablin
.jpg)
Years ago, the man you all know as 'Lefty' started a small website. Today, that website is widely known as YankeesSuck.com, and it has blossomed into something previously unimaginable. The site was initially a satire on the modern world of Baseball, and it quickly became an internet phenom before the outbreak of 'blogging sites.' As of late, we have lost our focus, becoming a more straight-laced website.
Over the years, YS.com has undergone a series of changes, like the aforementioned. Some would say that we peaked in 2004/5, and some would argue that we were better far before the Red Sox won the World Series. However, there is one thing that we can all agree on: YS.com has gone through a lot. Writers, styles, formats, readers -- you name it and I can guarantee that we have gone through it like a schizophrenic goes through personalities. Well, today is no exception to the theory of evolution; in fact, today we plan to make the largest leap in the history of YS.com.
Over the past year, Lefty has branched out into other ventures, and while he loves YS.com, he has come to appeal for somebody to take his place as the head editor. I am proud to announce that I have been selected to fill this capacity, and that - together with Lefty - I have formulated a game plan that will make YS.com one of the greatest Sports Websites all over again! The first step is to listen to you, the readers, and follow your advice.
The first addition that you will notice is that we are bringing back the original comment system ASAP. This will allow anybody to state their two cents at whatever time they feel like it. What does that mean? Well, in short, it means that freedom of speech has returned!
In the days that follow, I hope to make this site a living contradiction. This site will EVOLVE through new writers, new polls, new columns and other innovative ideas, and at the same time we will DEVOLVE by adding (and retaining) some of the flavor that made this website so fascinating in the seasons prior. Above all other things, I hope to bring this site back to how it was years ago; satirical, witty and entertaining to a broader audience...
Furthermore, while YS.com is branching out and buying up the two cents of new writers, we also hope to invest in the greatest commodity that YS.com ever acquired - the knowledge and talent of a strong baseball community. It is for that reason that I am proud to escort you all into this new era, here at Yankees Suck dot com.
Thank you all, and enjoy the ride. It's true! The power is back in your hands!
Cheers,
Jack Jablin
TrackBack
Lefty you had a great run as the GM and moderator, but I think a changing of the guards is a good thing for the site and the readers. I for one look forward to the oldway of YS and the new writers with different perspectives won't hurt either. Oh and fans of ODC should welcome the fact that it will now be a weekly post.
Me too. I'm still around, but I'm too busy to give the site the tender loving care that it needs. We think that by making Jack the new editor, we can reinvigorate the site and in the words of that old sports lover, Marhta Steuart, "That's a good thing.
Alright back to the old days!
Now let's get this started, we'll start easy, like.....Why do we all think the Yankees Suck?(Well most of us that is...)
hahaha Sloan I don't think we need to start right this minute right on this thread, but if you want I guess because of the money and the arrogance of the players and fans.
Sorry, that was me. I can't believe this place is back to the old way!
As for the Yankees sucking...
The Yankees are not the same as they once were. Not with GM Cashman wielding the power he now enjoys. The latest proof is that it was the Red Sox who gave the obnoxious sum of money just for the right to give even more to Boras. If the Yankees had done that, you guys would have 90 posts trashing the Yankees.
Sonshine,
I don't think I blame any team for bidding for the rights to get Daisuke Matsuzaka, I think I blame a team for spending an overly-ambition sum on a free agent.
Besides, even the Rangers bid $30+ million.
"The latest proof is that it was the Red Sox who gave the obnoxious sum of money just for the right to give even more to Boras."
Ahh yes, it sucks to lose out on a player your team coveted, doesn't it? Welcome to how Red Sox fans felt after just losing out on Contreras, A-Rod, RJ, and Damon the past 4 years. Quite frankly, I'm thrilled the Red Sox finally used their financial muscle to their advantage. It's about time.
Um, if the Yankees "coveted" Matsuzaka so much, they would have the rights to negotiate with him. I am proud that Cashman is showing fiscal restraint. This player may end up costing the Red Sox $75 million over three years, only time will tell if it's a good deal. I don't know if he has better stuff than becket, but he better perform better for that money.
The cynic in me can't help but entertain the thought that maybe the Sox have no intention of signing him. Maybe, just maybe, they intended to blow everyone out of the water, only to not agree to terms, thus getting their money back, and keeping him from other teams.
And for the record, the Red Sox could have had A-Rod, had they not tried to squeeze every last dime out of HIcks. The same goes for Damon, they never thought he would leave, so they never offered him his true value. I never knew the Sox wanted Johnson, they can have him.
that Damon shit is just that, shit. He wanted more money which is what he went for. The difference between the Sox offer and Yanks was about 8 mil. Now to us that's a lot, but in a 46 mil to 54 mil it's not. And I believe he said two things 1. he'd take a hometown discount and would want to spend the rest of his baseball days with the sox and 2. He'd never play for the Yanks. So right now whatever Damon says or has shit has about as much validity to me as a white power conspiracy theorist saying that there was no holocaust.
"Sloan I don't think we need to start right this minute"
Ahh, but don't you see? We just did....:)
And the Sox are gonna be making some big moves this off-season, so be ready....
"Um, if the Yankees 'coveted' Matsuzaka so much, they would have the rights to negotiate with him."
The Yankees absolutely coveted him and were beat at their own game. Anything else is just spin.
"The cynic in me can't help but entertain the thought that maybe the Sox have no intention of signing him."
He'll be pitching for the Red Sox next year. You can book it.
"And for the record, the Red Sox could have had A-Rod, had they not tried to squeeze every last dime out of HIcks."
Not true. A-Rod, Boras, the Red Sox, Rangers, and Tom Hicks all agreed to the deal only to have the players union nix it before it could go down.
"The same goes for Damon, they never thought he would leave, so they never offered him his true value."
Paying a 32 year old Damon 4/40 was absolutely a fair deal for him. He just wanted more money and got it from the only team who would give it to him. I don't fault him for taking it, but I'm glad the Sox didn't budge from their stance.
The players union DID allow A-Rod to devalue his contract.
"...but I'm glad the Sox didn't budge from their stance."
Yeah, that worked out really well for the Sox.
This will cost the Red Sox far more than $75 million over three years...I hope for their sake Matsusaka can "handle" Boston...
Contreras had crazy nasty stuff too
"Yeah, that worked out really well for the Sox."
Unless Damon was gonna pitch for the Sox, his difference wouldn't have mattered anyway.
You can spin it any way you want, but getting Matsuzaka is a HUGE move for the red sox. Not only because of his ability, but because they now took a big step into the door of Japaneese baseball. It also puts the yankees in a strange situation. Where do they go from here? Im pretty sure they thought no one would go over their bid of 39 million, but the red sox did, and now the yankees are stuck. Do they go after Zito? Theyll try but will not succeed. Schmidt? Cashman is too smart to go after an aging NL pitcher with a history of injuries (RJ was george's move). I think theyll try to sign clemens and or pettite, which would be another awful idea because the rotation would include: Moose, RJ, Clemens, Pettite...yea pretty old and at least one of them will go down with an injury. If i were gm, i would bring up Phillip Hughes, sign two second tier starters (Gil Meche?), and try to trade for Adam Dunn to play first base, maybe offere Eric Duncan and Andy Phillips. Not a good start to the offseason for the bronx bombers, hopefully they can turn it around.
First of all, the Yankees bid 31 million, not 39.
Here is the breakdown:
Red Sox 51.1 mil.
Mets 35+ mil.
Yankees 31 mil.
Rangers 27 mil.
I think many people are missing what's going on with the Yankees. This is a new, and focused Yankee regime, with Brian Cashman wielding real power. It is shortsighted to think he without a plan and vision for his team. The fact that he got something for Sheffield, when most teams would have just let the loud mouth walk, shows his determination.
I think it is critical for the Matsuzaka signing to work out for Boston. If he doesn't, it will not be easy for them to recover.
Did you forget about the Wang?!
I think Clemens will be back in Boston. And I hope the Yankees can get Pettite. There is also a long shot deal with the Marlins for Willis, but other teams have more to offer than the Yankees do(Cabrera).
The market just sucks for ace caliber pitching and will only continue to get worse with teams aces getting locked up long before they reach free agency. Some scouts say they think Matsuzaka is one of the 5 best pitchers in the world. I'm not too sure of that, but the talent is obvious and the Red Sox payed through the nose to get it. I'm glad they did for once.
Sonshine, i was stating that those four could be in the rotation, i didnt forget wang. As far as the red sox signing clemens, i dont think they have much more room in their rotation or in their budget to spend 20+ million on him.
"As far as the red sox signing clemens, i dont think they have much more room in their rotation or in their budget to spend 20+ million on him."
I've heard numerous reports saying that if Raj wants back in Boston, they'll come up with the money to get him. A 6 man rotation with Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Wakefield, Papelbon, and Clemens makes a lot of sense for most of those pitchers.
If the Red Sox are willing to spend some serious cash this offseason, they'll beat the Yankees. Like if they sign J.D. Drew, and than trade Manny to the Orioles for Tejada. They talked about it last year, so they could do it again. Than use Willy Mo Pena at left. Let Pedroia play second base. As for the closer, I think they should try to sign Eric Gagne to a contract and see if he can rebound. If not, put Hansen there.
Youkilis, Tejada, Ortiz, Pena, Drew, Lowell, Varitek, Crisp, Pedroia
That is a sweet-ass lineup.
I have a question:
If the Red Sox do sign Matsuzaka, does the 51 million go toward the cap? Also, if it does, does it all count in the first year, since that is when it will be paid?
I would love for the Yankees to lower payroll, and for the Red Sox to increase theirs. Would the Sox be the next "evil empire"?
YSS-
"Would the Sox be the next 'evil empire'?"
That's the second time I've heard that, and it scares me. But no, it won't happen. The Yankees might lower their payroll, but not all that much. And the Red Sox WILL raise theirs, but they still have limits.
I hope we sign Matsuzaka, but deep down inside me, I think the Sox just made that crazy bid, so we could hold the Yankees off one more year from getting him. I think we will be the ones that get him, and from all I have researched, the guy is NAS-TY. But I don't know, no one does. As for Manny for Tejada....That's not happening. There were rumours of Willy Mo and someone for Brad Lidge, and that would be a good move because we need a closer. However, I got by the motto: "if it ain't broken don't fix it", and I think Big Pap should still be our closer. But I'm not the manager sooooo.
Either way, Theo said this off-season was gonna be a big one. So tighten your seat belts, and put on you hats, cause it's gonna be a ride.
Sonshine the 51 mil doesn't count towards the cap and won't be included in luxury taxes. Sloan Papelbon will not ,and I repeat WILL NOT, close for the Red Sox next year, the year after, or maybe even ever again. Why? Because he does not have the closers build, he can't go and throw on an irregular basis. He may be lights out, but I'd rather have a guy who can hold a team to 1 or 2 runs through 7-8 innings than a guy who can pitch 1 scoreless inning. I mean who would you rather have, J. Santana or M. Rivera?
I never said he was going to close. All I am saying is we don't know how well he will do as a starter. Yeah, he did alright two years ago, but he hasn't started a game since then. All I am saying, is if were me (which it isn't), we would leave things as they are. We don't know if he will be lights out for 7-8 innings next year. I sure hope he is, but we are uncertain. I think we are taking enough chances with Matsuzaka, why chance Pap when we know he is a sure thing closing? It doesn't matter, we know what's gonna happen, Pap's a starter, all I am doing is stating my opinion.
Also....think about it:
Santana- definate 20-25 games you will win because he pitched. Wether he gets the win or not doesn't matter, you WILL win 20-25 games.
Mo- definate 40-50 games won. Mo comes in 50 times, you're gonna win 48 of those games. It might not be because of him you win, but none the less, you do in fact WIN.
It's the different ways you look at it. I would rather have Santana, but you have to look outside the box too.
"I mean who would you rather have, J. Santana or M. Rivera?"
Mariano Rivera. I know because i am a yankee fan this may seem like a homer choice, but i dont care. Ill take the most dominant closer of all time, over the premier pitcher of his era (thus far). I know this question was trying to say, "who would you rather have a dominant starter or a dominant closer?" but i wouldnt be so quick to answer. Come crunch time you will be taking back your answer.
First off Rivera isn't the most dominant closer of all time, I believe the Trevor Hoffman owns that title. Second who gives a shit if you have a lights out closer when you can't hold the lead. Look at Chad Cordero, don't you think he'd have a few more saves if he was with a team that had more offense and better pitching? Point being is that with a dominant closer you win in 1 inning, but if it were as easy as that then yes Mo would be the best choice. And Sloan I don't think that you get that Papelbon CAN'T be a closer, his arm will crap out and he will be injured. What good is that going to do for us? Nothing, a healthy starter is much much much better than a lights out closer who gets hurt half way through the season.
Rivera is the best closer of all time. Maybe not the most dominant with insane seasons from Eckersley, Gagne and even Papelbon this past season. But he's the most consistent.
With that said, there's no way a GM would take him over Santana. Or a dominant closer over a dominant starter. Dominant starters are just worth a lot more to their teams. For instance, what's the job of a closer? To save games, right? Well Jonathan Papelbon and Brad Lidge had nearly the same save conversion rate last season. One had an ERA under 1 and the others was over 5. Saves are a crapshoot. The Tigers made the World Series with Todd Jones as their closer. So yeah, crapshoot indeed.
Jack Sox,
Your right, in the regular season closers are inferior to starters, still very important but not as valuable. The real value of a dominant closer comes into play during the postseason. If i have learned anything watching the yankees the past 20 years, it is that Mariano Rivera was the most vital part to the yankees dynasty of the late 90's. Yes even more so than derek jeter or andy pettite, and yes pettite was a dominant post-season starter at least during his tenure as a yankee.
"If i have learned anything watching the yankees the past 20 years, it is that Mariano Rivera was the most vital part to the yankees dynasty of the late 90's."
I absolutely agree with that. Rivera - even as a Yankee - is very difficult to root against. Class act all the way. And some Yankee fans I've encountered try to blame him for their shortcomings in '01 and '04. I honestly get really ticked off when I hear that. He's easily been their best player over the past 10 years and it's not close.
I have never heard any of my Yankee friends blame Rivera for anything. That's not to say some dopes don't do it, but they are probably just fringe fans, the type that would actually boo him. True Yankee fans know what a treasure we have in Rivera- it's pretty certain he will be first ballot HOF inductee.
Funny thing... after I mentioned that I couldn't help but wonder if the Sox just bid high on Matsuzaka to keep him from the Yankees, without planning on actually signing him, I heard something interesting from a friend. He said that if the Sox don't make what is deemed a reasonable offer to Matsuzaka, they run the risk of being blackballed from participating in future bidding. The theory being that honor is very important to the Japanese people. None of this may be true, and the Sox may have every honorable intention.
But if they don't, then the following quote becomes more interesting.
"...they now took a big step into the door of Japaneese baseball."
And if Matsuzaka is signed, will the Red Sox be able to do much more after locking up ONE HUNDRED MILLION over three years? Not to mention if his stuff doesn't befuddle Major League players, what then?
I mean no malice here, these are legitimate questions. Personally, I just want the Yankees to get pettite back where he belongs.
CTS,
Your'e crazy, Pettite had a strong second half, and would do well with the Yankee production. Also, he a proven post-season winner.
Yeah yeah, I was being a smartass since he was kicking around retirement. But yeah he could be good with any team that has some offense.
Jablin I represent an equipment bag that can hold 5 bats, 2 batting helmets, and a box of baseball and he can start for your team next spring for the dirt cheap price of 12 million dollars a year!
I would like to be the first to say here that Derek Jeter was robbed of the only thing he is missing in his career. You can say all you want about, "if he was on the royals he would be a nobody" or, "he is a terrible fielder", but this year Derek Jeter was without a doubt the most VALUABLE player in the AL. I am very upset about this whole thing; a little too upset.
I'm not sure Morneau was the best choice for the award, but he's not undeserving either. I'm not sure how you can say Morneau was better than Mauer. And I think there's no argument that Mauer was better than Jeter.
I am happy Jeter didn't win though, because I'd have a hard time giving an MVP to a guy with 14 home runs and crappy defense. That's just me though.
And who is in the middle of the most potent line up in baseball. Injuries through out the year or not that team still had Juicin Jason, Cano, Matsui, Sheffield, A-Rod, and then got Abreau and Wilson.
CTS,
Did u just mention Craig Wilson in that sentence? Anyway, sheffield and matsui were out for the majority of the year so they dont count. Abreu was there for a month and half so he really doesnt count. And trust me A-Rod was not protection at all for jeter, even though his numbers were still decent, there is not one pitcher who would rather face jeter than arod this year. I hate to say this because many have said it in the past, but, you have to watch derek jeter play everyday to realize how great of a player he is. Im sure yankeesonshine can back me up on this because were probably the only ones here who do watch him everyday.
im back and all u f@g redsoxs fans still havent changed.... i think its real cute that a team that finshed in 3rd is saying all this bull. i mean the highlight of the season is that the g@ysoxs finished 8 games over 500...and of course lester beatung cancer....if u really wanna start saying sh!t about the season...the highlight had to be the boston massacare of 06...all u little pu$$ies crying..lol...good luck with that over paid j@p..how many pitches has he thrown in the major leauges...oooooooo as many playoff games that g@ysoxs played
"im back and all u f@g redsoxs fans still havent changed.... i think its real cute that a team that finshed in 3rd is saying all this bull. i mean the highlight of the season is that the g@ysoxs finished 8 games over 500...and of course lester beatung cancer....if u really wanna start saying sh!t about the season...the highlight had to be the boston massacare of 06...all u little pu$$ies crying..lol...good luck with that over paid j@p..how many pitches has he thrown in the major leauges...oooooooo as many playoff games that g@ysoxs played"
Oh my god! Best! Post! Ever!
I am going to be totally honest:
Jeter deserved the MVP more than the Gold Glove.
But saying he plays "crappy defense", is purely farcical.
Well, seeing how you didn't even know that range could be adequately measured, don't take offense when I say the stats prove you wrong. He's not a butcher out there by any means, but he has no range. And nearly every metric backs that up. So yeah, he's below average.
If I'm going to give a player with fewer than 15 home runs the MVP, I'm going to give it to Joe Mauer who not only plays a more challenging position than Jeter, but plays it much better than Jeter plays his.
"Well, seeing how you didn't even know that range could be adequately measured..."
- How about being honest here? I know it is measured, I just maintain that they way it is done is suspect and inaccurate. MLB, which is all about stats, does not even list the ones you mentioned.
"...but he has no range"
-Yet he has won the Gold Glove two years in a row. I guess you are just so much smarter than everyone else.
It is pretty obvious that you are biased against Jeter. That's fine, but to me, Jeter is everything that is right with the game.
"How about being honest here? I know it is measured, I just maintain that they way it is done is suspect and inaccurate."
There's certainly truth to this, however, Jeter still ranks below average in nearly every defensive stat that proves range. So while none are universaly accepted, that's a pretty solid indication that the notion is true.
"MLB, which is all about stats, does not even list the ones you mentioned."
Umm, yeah, I don't know what this even means.
"-Yet he has won the Gold Glove two years in a row. I guess you are just so much smarter than everyone else."
It doesn't take a genius to look at the stats and see that the guy has below average range. And please don't cite gold gloves as some sort of standard for good defense. That's gone out the window when DH Raffy won in by playing 29 games in the field.
"It is pretty obvious that you are biased against Jeter. That's fine, but to me, Jeter is everything that is right with the game."
Buddy, I'm not biased against Jeter. I just try to be objective. A guy who DOES play below average defense and hits 14 home runs is not my definition of an MVP. I'm just amazed how similar Carlos Guillen and Derek Jeters' seasons were, yet one finishes 2nd in the MVP race while the other finishes 10th. I really wonder why that is.
"It doesn't take a genius to look at the stats and see that the guy has below average range."
-The funny thing is I never hear that said from any baseball analysts. Just because you repeat it over and over, doesn't make it true.
"Buddy, I'm not biased against Jeter. I just try to be objective."
-Objective? You may be trying to be objective, but if you truly were, you would know just how good a fielder Jeter really is. As I have said, I see almost every game he plays, he is a stellar fielder.
'MLB, which is all about stats, does not even list the ones you mentioned.'
"Umm, yeah, I don't know what this even means."
- Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was if you go to the MLB site, they won't list any of those fielding stats you mentioned. So in effect, baseball, which is all about stats, puts no credence in those fielding stats. Probably because they are flawed.
"-The funny thing is I never hear that said from any baseball analysts. Just because you repeat it over and over, doesn't make it true."
Except the stats do make it true. So in essence me repeating it does as well.
"You may be trying to be objective, but if you truly were, you would know just how good a fielder Jeter really is. As I have said, I see almost every game he plays, he is a stellar fielder."
Your eyes are deceiving you. I thought Mark Loretta was a stellar fielder this season too, but then I looked at his stats and saw that he had brutal range in the field. Yup, same with Jeter.
"So in effect, baseball, which is all about stats, puts no credence in those fielding stats. Probably because they are flawed."
That's mostly because MLB.com is not up to date with new and improved sabermetrics. There are plenty of other sites which go much further into depth into more advanced metrics, mlb.com is simply not one of them.
"Except the stats do make it true. So in essence me repeating it does as well."
Please, just the bogus stats that you seem to enjoy. I have never heard a respected baseball analyst say such things about Jeter. If what you say is true, some analyst somwhere would be saying it.
"That's mostly because MLB.com is not up to date with new and improved sabermetrics."
Maybe they know most of those Fielding stats are flawed, and thereby unreliable.
Maybe you just hate Jeter because he is the captain of the team you hate. Even the Red Sox players respect Jeter, they shoud know him,or are they as confused as the Gold Glove voters?
You will probably continue to rag on Jeter, but you shouldn't portray your "feelings" as facts.
"Please, just the bogus stats that you seem to enjoy. I have never heard a respected baseball analyst say such things about Jeter. If what you say is true, some analyst somwhere would be saying it."
So now we can't look at stats to formulate our own opinions, we have to have the likes of John Kruk and Tim McCarver shove them down our throat? That's just silly. The stats aren't bogus either, but believe what you want to believe.
"Maybe they know most of those Fielding stats are flawed, and thereby unreliable."
That's merely a guess on your part and it's a wrong one at that. If you honestly believe GMs around the league don't place a high value on advanced defensive statistics then I don't know what to tell you.
"Maybe you just hate Jeter because he is the captain of the team you hate."
This is the same tired logic you can always count on from Jeter fanboys. Instead of accusing me of being a "hater", why don't you try considering what I'm saying is, oh I don't know, the truth? I have nothing against Jeter, he's a great player. I certainly don't hate him, but I also will acknowledge his shortcomings which his range is one of whether you chose to acknowledge it or not.
"Even the Red Sox players respect Jeter, they shoud know him,or are they as confused as the Gold Glove voters?"
Well try this quote from Curt Schilling on for size:
"Alex Gonzalez is the best shortstop I've ever seen"
Just sayin'.
"You will probably continue to rag on Jeter, but you shouldn't portray your 'feelings' as facts."
Utter non-sense. This has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with facts. Honestly, YOU need to take your own advice here because it's evident your feelings are clearly getting in the way of the facts. Whatever.
"So now we can't look at stats to formulate our own opinions..."
-Sure, but how about REAL stats, the kind that Major League Baseball uses?
"...we have to have the likes of John Kruk and Tim McCarver shove them down our throat?"
-No, how about an anlayst you respect? Or how about a respected journalist? If Jeter is as poor a fielder as you say, it MUST have been expressed by someone with some credibility.
"Alex Gonzalez is the best shortstop I've ever seen"
-Is that in another language that means Jeter is a poor fielder? Also, didn't Schilling tell Congress they shouldn't put any stock in anything he says?
Kinda telling, that a nondescript quote from a blabber mouth player is the best you can come up with.
-In my opinion you are being ridiculous, when you call a three time Gold Glove winner a below average fielder.
JackSox,
You know, I am sure, that a person can find a "stat" to prove almost any position. I can also show you stats to prove Jeter should have been the MVP. But since someone else has done it, I will just post a link:
http://www.waswatching.com/archives/2006/09/the_2006_al_mvp.html
As I have said, I think Jeter deserved the MVP more than the GG, but I can live with the results. What boggles my mind, is that one guy gave Jeter a sixth place vote for MVP!
"-Sure, but how about REAL stats, the kind that Major League Baseball uses?"
GM's use these stats, last I checked they're involved in the MLB.
"If Jeter is as poor a fielder as you say, it MUST have been expressed by someone with some credibility."
Yeah, his name is Eric Van, he went to Harvard and is a respected sabermetrician who works for the Red Sox. He posts over at SoSH and you should really read up on his work. I'll take his word over any analyst or journalist any day of the week. You'd be wise to do the same.
"Kinda telling, that a nondescript quote from a blabber mouth player is the best you can come up with."
Actually I was just using it in responce to you saying that the Red Sox players were as confused as the voters.
"-In my opinion you are being ridiculous, when you call a three time Gold Glove winner a below average fielder."
Yet your opinion is based on no facts. All you have is the gold glove argument. I'm sorry Derek Jeter has been in the minus in UZR the last 3 years (all gold glove years) and those are facts. So call me ridiculous all you want, but at least I have something to back up my opinion with. You, don't.
"What boggles my mind, is that one guy gave Jeter a sixth place vote for MVP!"
Want to know why it doesn't boggle my mind? Take a look at Carlos Guillen and Derek Jeters seasons. They're VERY similar, yet one finished 2nd, and the other finished 10th. I wonder why?
The Fact is Jeter has won the Gold Glove the last THREE YEARS IN A ROW! It's just too bad that you can't deal with it.
No one in baseball has ever called Jeter a sub par fielder. Just because a zealot Red Sox fan says so, don't make it so.
All you have are fringe stats to prove your point.
Stats that are faulty at best.
I asked you to name one, just one respected analyst or journalist who shared your warped view. You have not named a single one.
If you are going to use Eric Van as your argument, then there is no more to be said.
"No one in baseball has ever called Jeter a sub par fielder. Just because a zealot Red Sox fan says so, don't make it so."
It's just. So. Easy.
"I was amazed. I thought for sure Jeter would get it. Especially after his third gold glove, not a bad record for somebody who is probably the worst fielder at his position in the history of the game, based on chances accepted per game."
-PETE PALMER (sabermetrician and historian)
So this guy is both a baseball historian and a sabermetrician, so yeah, I'd say he qualifies as someone in baseball who's called Jeter a sub par fielder. If you really think no one else has you're in for one rude awakening.
"All you have are fringe stats to prove your point.
Stats that are faulty at best."
Says the guy who didn't know that range can, in fact, be measured. But yea... you know the score over actual sabermetricians who study baseball stats for a living.
"I asked you to name one, just one respected analyst or journalist who shared your warped view. You have not named a single one."
I could name several. But how about you take your own advice and find me baseball people who say Jeter is a "stellar" fielder. Even if you can, I can assure you it won't be anyone nearly as credible as some I've listed. But please, I'm interested.
"If you are going to use Eric Van as your argument, then there is no more to be said."
Ha! Again, the guy studies stats for a living meanwhile you didn't know range couldn't be measured, yet I'm somehow supposed dismiss him and go on your proof? Proof that you actually haven't even showed outside of errors, fielding percentage, and gold glove awards.
Even if you want to dismiss Van - which would be stupid, but it's your call. You still can't get by the grand daddy of them all Bill James. If I were you and thought Jeter was a stellar defender I would not look up James defensive studies- you will be very disapointed with the results.
You are getting ridiculous. I will bet you most people here have never heard of the guys you listed. Sure, I guess these people feel the way you do, they have to push their stats. I asked you to name a reputable baseball person, as in someone with a reputation, someone known (involved with the game,not on the fringe of it). Not one of the people you mentioned actually gets a vote for baseball awards. We are never going to agree, that's for sure. But one thing is undeniable: You and your fringe statisticians are the minority, which is proven by the Gold Gloves Jeter has won, and also by the fact that no baseball writer or analyst has espoused the Jeter deficiencies you have. These are people who know the game, not some numbers only driven person.
I have no problem that we don't agree on Jeter. I just don't like you pawning your belief off as factual, when the real mainstream facts prove the contrary. It's cool that you use stats to prove your point, it's just that the stats you use are not widely accepted. If you would like the last word on this subject it is yours. I am fine agreeing to dissagree. What you and I think about Jeter isn't really that important. I am sure we will see things differently on other subjects as well.
You are getting ridiculous. I will bet you most people here have never heard of the guys you listed. Sure, I guess these people feel the way you do, they have to push their stats. I asked you to name a reputable baseball person, as in someone with a reputation, someone known (involved with the game,not on the fringe of it). Not one of the people you mentioned actually gets a vote for baseball awards. We are never going to agree, that's for sure. But one thing is undeniable: You and your fringe statisticians are the minority, which is proven by the Gold Gloves Jeter has won, and also by the fact that no baseball writer or analyst has espoused the Jeter deficiencies you have. These are people who know the game, not some numbers only driven person.
I have no problem that we don't agree on Jeter. I just don't like you pawning your belief off as factual, when the real mainstream facts prove the contrary. It's cool that you use stats to prove your point, it's just that the stats you use are not widely accepted. If you would like the last word on this subject it is yours. I am fine agreeing to disagree. What you and I think about Jeter isn't really that important. I am sure we will see things differently on other subjects as well.
"I will bet you most people here have never heard of the guys you listed."
Yes, the what? 5 people who post here? Sweet logic!
"I asked you to name a reputable baseball person, as in someone with a reputation, someone known (involved with the game,not on the fringe of it)."
Ha! Because Pete Palmer and Bill James don't count? Well, in the real baseball world, they do have a reputation and yes they're more involved in the game than "on the fringe of it". This is getting comical.
"These are people who know the game, not some numbers only driven person."
Yup. Because Bill James doesn't know baseball. Seriously, you should have quit while you were behind.
"I have no problem that we don't agree on Jeter. I just don't like you pawning your belief off as factual, when the real mainstream facts prove the contrary."
But it is factual. Jeter has poor range in the field. That is a fact. Every defensive stat out there backs that up too. The only mainstream fact you have to hang your hat on is gold gloves which should be baseless after Palmeiro won one by playing 29 games in the field.
"If you would like the last word on this subject it is yours. I am fine agreeing to disagree."
This isn't about having the last word or agreeing to disagree. This is about you simply not wanting to believe what is fact. Jeter has poor range in the field. You can disagree with that, but you'd be wrong.
"But then he said "you're wrong" and I knew he was making the better argument..."
Wait a second, my argument was Jeter has poor range, his was Jeter is a stellar fielder. The stats back up my argument, and don't for his. Am I missing something here? Because that would indicate that yes, he was wrong. Whatever though.
"Way to debate, buddy. Attacking people for having different opinions, wow."
Um, where have I attacked anyone? Oh that's right, I haven't. Clearly you didn't read much of the debate myself and Yankeesonshine were having. As far as different opinions goes, well see the thing was, I backed mine up with facts from some of the most respected sabermetricians in the game. He merely dismissed them and came back with the tired, 'Jeter is a 3 time gold glove, he must be good','no one in baseball has ever said anything bad about Jeter'. Those aren't facts, they're baseless opinions. That's the difference and clearly you didn't see that.
"You should go down to the corner store, empty out your allowance, and buy a clue."
And maybe YOU, as a monderator type here, should go up to the Thanksgiving thread and clean it up a bit. But no, you'd rather get involved in a perfectly reasonable debate that doesn't concern you and attempt a lame joke. But hey, at least you have your priorities in order. Thumbs up buddy great ship you're running here!
Aye,
You'll note that the email used by the prior "Jack Jablin" was my old hotmail account. Somebody is having fun with you, mate.
As for "cleaning up", I'm not a nazi, and my job isn't to moderate what people say. This is a site of free speech, and if you're willing to start a debate with other people of intellectual standing, you must be prepared for those who cannot debate on that same level.
Furthermore, I find your poor imitation of me (quotes) to lack as a result of being without my rather unique pinache.
Cheers,
Jack Jablin
JackSox,
I don't think your ego is allowing you to be fair. While it is true that i don't put much stock in saber metrics ( I believe they are flawed in that they don't tell the full story, and can be used to mislead). You obviously put great value in them, we disagree, how am I "wrong"?
I put my belief in more mainstream stats (the ones used to judge Major League Fielders). I also put faith in some baseball analysts, as well as some fine baseball writers- NONE of which seems to share your view on Jeter. What is not factual about what I have said? You don't agree with me, are you wrong? No, we just have different opinions. I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are to yours. Attempting to belittle me does not make your opinion more valid, just make you come off as obnoxious.
Also, I don't think it is fair for you to dismiss the GG Award because Palmiero won it in a year we feel he didn't deserve it. It comes off as sour grapes for a Red Sox fan/Yankee hater to do that. Somehow, I don't feel you would have dismissed the award if a Sox player had won it. And if you don't like the GG award, maybe you shouldn't like any of the baseball awards, being as they are voted on by the same people.
Jack,
Please retract my comments to you based on the website. Whoever posted as you clearly didn't know what they were talking about.
"While it is true that i don't put much stock in saber metrics ( I believe they are flawed in that they don't tell the full story, and can be used to mislead)."
If this is the case, you haven't done your homework. Sabermetrics aren't flawed and they aren't used to mislead. For instance, what is considered the end all and be all stat to evaluate an offensive player? One time it was batting average. Some now consider OPS, and some also consider OPS+ (which account park factors). My point is, there isn't really one stat to define an offensive player that's universally accepted. This is the EXACT same when it comes to defensive stats. None are universally accepted as the end all and be all. But most are very reliable and give a clear picture of how good a defensive players value is. UZR, zone rating, range factor, and several others. Jeter ranked below average in every one of them, so even if you wanted to discount them- which would be silly, that's very alarming and it certainly doesn't help your case if you believe he's a stellar fielder.
"I put my belief in more mainstream stats (the ones used to judge Major League Fielders)."
Yeah? Like what? Please don't cite errors and fielding percentage either.
"I also put faith in some baseball analysts, as well as some fine baseball writers- NONE of which seems to share your view on Jeter."
Oh? Well if you say so, prove it. Find me one writer of analyst who says Jeter has stellar range in the field. If you can, I'll tip my cap to you and say the stats indicate that person was wrong, but please, I'm very interested in what you can come up with.
"What is not factual about what I have said?"
It is not a fact that Derek Jeter has average range for a major league shortstop. It's fact that it's below average.
"Attempting to belittle me does not make your opinion more valid, just make you come off as obnoxious."
No it doesn't, you not backing your opinion up with any substancial facts makes you come off as uninformed on the topic at hand. Also, my perception here couldn't mean anything less to me, so me coming off as obnoxious won't be putting a damper on me anytime soon.
"Also, I don't think it is fair for you to dismiss the GG Award because Palmiero won it in a year we feel he didn't deserve it."
I think it's perfectly fair to not put a whole lot of stock in a defensive award that routinely picks players who are undeserving. Palmeiro is just the most alarming case. Torii Hunter winning in '05 wasn't fair and neither was Jason Varitek. Need more?
"It comes off as sour grapes for a Red Sox fan/Yankee hater to do that. Somehow, I don't feel you would have dismissed the award if a Sox player had won it."
Jason Varitek didn't deserve a gold glove in '05. But, yes, continue.
"And if you don't like the GG award, maybe you shouldn't like any of the baseball awards, being as they are voted on by the same people."
This is just another example of you being uninformed. Gold Gloves and silver sluggers are voted on by baseball managers, and coaches. The Hank Aaron award (another award in which Jeter had no business winning) and comeback player of the year award are voted on by the fans. Meanwhile the MVP, ROY, Cy, MOY are voted on by the baseball writers association. So yeah, not so much.
You are saying the same things over and over again, it still doesn't make your beliefs any More valid than mine. I have stated my position, it has not changed. Unlike you, I get tired of being repetitive.
As for what you have added:
- Why should I find a Baseball writer or analyst say Jeter is great? His awards do that. It is you who say it is common knowledge of Jeter's defensive shortcomings. I maintain, if that were true, how come no one prominent has said so?
- I judge Jeter defensively, by his Fielding stats that are listed on MLB.com, and the nearly every game I see him play.
- I was misinformed about the Gold Glove award, I thought it was also decided by baseball writers. I think the award means even more now that you tell me it's decided by Major League managers. But don't you come off smarmy when you say:
" This is just another example of you being uninformed."
- I have never seen you write here that Jason Varitek was an unfair winner until today, convenient.
- I have been courteous to you in that I have agreed to disagree. But is that enough for you? No, you have to keep beating your drum and pushing your opinions. I am not changing my mind, and neither will the rest of mainstream baseball. You will have to get over it.
"You are saying the same things over and over again, it still doesn't make your beliefs any More valid than mine."
Except mine are facts, and yours are baseless opinions.
"- Why should I find a Baseball writer or analyst say Jeter is great?"
Because you made the claim that no baseball analyst/writer has ever said anything negative about Jeters' range in the field. You stated it like a fact, so if it's a fact, prove it! If you can't, then I suggest you stop playing it off as a fact when it isn't.
"It is you who say it is common knowledge of Jeter's defensive shortcomings."
Because according to nearly every stat that measures range, it is common knowledge.
"I maintain, if that were true, how come no one prominent has said so?"
I listed a quote from Pete Palmer among other names that you just dismissed because according to you they're nothing more then "on the fringe of the game". I can list more from other baseball types too, if you wish. If you would like to make a better case, maybe you should quote someone who claims Jeter has great range like you played off as a fact. And no, saying his awards speak for themselves doesn't work here. You said it, you should prove it.
"- I judge Jeter defensively, by his Fielding stats that are listed on MLB.com, and the nearly every game I see him play."
So essentially, fielding percentage and errors and what else? Please list the stats you go by. And you DO know range factor is listed there too, right? And Jeters' is not very favorable to other SSs around the league.
"I think the award means even more now that you tell me it's decided by Major League managers."
And yet, according to the stats, they do get it wrong more than once in a while.
"- I have never seen you write here that Jason Varitek was an unfair winner until today, convenient."
So essentially you're now accusing me of flip flopping? Isn't that a bit smarmy on your part? Whatever, I don't need to justify this baseless claim with a response because I said the same thing when Varitek won. I-Rod deserved it more, but you go ahead, call me a liar and pretend to think you're right.
Look, you keep saying that you just want to agree to disagree and move on. Normally, I would be fine with that. But you have just listed such a staggeringly small amount of evidence that backs up your claim that Jeter is a stellar fielder, I have a hard time taking your argument seriously. If you gave some proof here or there, I might be compelled to just let it go, but you haven't. Until you do, I will maintain that you are misinformed on what you are debating.
Question...
I've been watching this rivalry go on for about a week now, and here's my question --
JackSox, do you watch the Yankees play on a day-to-day basis? If not, then don't quote other people, watch Jeter for yourself and decide whether or not he's a capable fielder. The fact is, I could see Jeter winning or losing the GG at ShortStop this year, it was that close. The difference is, Jeter makes big plays, and now we all know how easily woo'd the voters are.
Cheers,
Jack Jablin
The fact that Jeter has won the Gold glove award might be an aberration if he won it once. The FACT that he won it THREE YEARS IN A ROW is every bit as compelling as any of the stats you mention. How can you say what Jeter has accomplished is not evidence of his Fielding? I am tired of your bullying method of reasoning, My opinion is mine, and it is backed up by three GG awards. For you to call me misinformed is no slight on me, it just shows your intolerance. If your stats were as relevant as you say, then Jeter would not have won.
For Pete's sake man, grow up. I am so tired of your hyperbole. We don't agree, move on. If you are confident in what you have said, then you sure showed me and everyone here that you are correct in all you say. Why beat it in to the ground?
Jack,
See the thing is, your eyes can deceive you. Jeter might look like a good fielder within his range, however, another fielder who has quicker instincs, gets to a ball earlier and will make the play look easier. The numbers don't deceive, they're accurate. And they state Jeter has below average range. You don't need to watch the games to understand that.
"The FACT that he won it THREE YEARS IN A ROW is every bit as compelling as any of the stats you mention."
Except for the fact that gold gloves are subjective and the stats aren't. The stats also don't support the decision for three years, so in essense the awards are no where near as compelling compared to the stats.
"I am tired of your bullying method of reasoning, My opinion is mine, and it is backed up by three GG awards."
Yet, you've also tried to back it up with other points that you've recently backed off from. You said no baseball writer/analyst has ever said anything negative about Jeters' defense, I asked you to prove that by providing a quote or two, and you haven't. You've also said you go by the stats listed on MLB.com, so I asked what ones they are, and you haven't provided them either. This has nothing to do with a bullying tactic and everything to do with me wanting to see you back up your claims. If you can't, then all you have is the subjective award of gold gloves. Which is not a very compelling argument on your part, to be frank.
"If you are confident in what you have said, then you sure showed me and everyone here that you are correct in all you say."
I'm very confident in what I say, the problem I have with you is that you seem equally as confident in what you say despite the lack of evidence you've provided.
Look, I'm stubborn, but I do enjoy a good debate. My one issue is that you really can't just make all these claims, not back them up and then try to play the 'agree to disagree' card. It's other one or the other, you can either back up your claim, or concede that what you were arguing may have been wrong.
Here we go again.
- First of all I find your use of statisticians suspect. I did not know the names, but I do remember one guy you mentioned when you said:
"You still can't get by the grand daddy of them all Bill James." You didn't mention that Bill James works for the Red Sox. I think that is important. It is also why I asked you to mention well known people worthy of respect.
And you say Gold Glove awards are subjective, ha!
As for what stats I use- I most certainly did say. If you go to MLB.com, you will see them listed under "fielding".
I maintain (for about a hundred time now), that three Gold Glove awards in a row IS proof that Jeter is a good fielder, at least better than you portray. You said Jeter is a below average fielder, as though it was common knowledge. That is why I asked you to provide me with a person (analyst/writer) who shares your view. You mentioned pioneers in the field of saber-metrics, which I think are micro-stats, that don't offer the full picture. In addition, one, Bill James works for the Red Sox. Another Pete Palmer has done work for the Sox. Does that disqualify them, no, but it at least makes them as "suspect" as three GG awards in a row.
"You didn't mention that Bill James works for the Red Sox."
What is your point exactly? Bill James has been working in the stats community LONG before he became affiliated with the Red Sox. And if you're trying to suggest that he loses credibility because he works for the Red Sox, then that's just silly. A guy with the pedigree of Bill James would never risk his reputation by portraying false stats. False stats against what, by the way? What possible motive could he have by portraying a player is below average defensively if that's not the case? Pretty silly, indeed.
"As for what stats I use- I most certainly did say. If you go to MLB.com, you will see them listed under 'fielding'."
Oh I know which ones are listed, I'm just curious what ones you look at that aren't considered "fringe stats" in your book. Remember one of the stats you tried to dismiss earlier (range factor) is in fact listed on MLB.com. I also see that you've backed off your claim that no writer/analyst has ever said anything bad about Jeters defense, which is fine I guess.
"You mentioned pioneers in the field of saber-metrics, which I think are micro-stats, that don't offer the full picture."
Why do you think this though? You would rather put more stock into an award that Ozzie Guillen said publicly he would vote for A-Rod just to give his guy (Joe Crede) a better chance at winning it. These stats admittedly aren't perfect, but they're much less subjective than gold glove awards. There is simply no way that subjective gold glove awards can be viewed on the same level as advanced defensive metrics. None.
And just for sh!ts and giggles, I came across this last night and please don't try to dismiss it because "he works for the Red Sox". You realize how silly that sounds, right? Anyway:
"BDD: Outside of Derek Jeter, are there any Gold Glove winners who you feel should not have even come close to receiving the award this year?
BJ: No. One of the surprises was that we matched the Gold Glove voters as much as we did. Because the Gold Glove voters picked Jeter, which is basically unforgivable..."
You really have a problem being fair, don't you?
If an employee of the New York Yankees said something negative about a Boston Red Sox player, I am sure you would dismiss it, or at least see the conflict.
I say that the stats you mention don't portray the full picture, because they don't. You do indeed have to see Jeter play everyday to appreciate his fielding.
Ozzie Smith? This is who you bring up? This guy is a know loud-mouthed bigot. Good choice.
As for me backing off my claim that no writer/analyst has ever said anything bad about Jeter's defense, I have not backed off that. If it is as common knowledge as you claim, there should be many examples.
Your failure to accept that someone has an opinion that differs from your own is exhausting. I stand by what I have said over and over again. You seem to have a personal issue with me. I have treated you with respect, and demand no less from you.
Of course I was refering to Ozzie Guillen, not Ozzie smith, I must have infielders on the brain.
Hey, speaking of Ozzie smith, lets tie it all together:
"What kind of shortstop is Derek Jeter? Well, a very effective one, to be sure. I think he's a sleeker and leaner model of a Cal Ripken. He's out of the Cal Ripken mold in that he's tall and rangy, has a great arm, covers a lot of ground and he's a great offensive player." - Hall of Fame Shortstop Ozzie Smith
"If an employee of the New York Yankees said something negative about a Boston Red Sox player, I am sure you would dismiss it, or at least see the conflict."
Umm, no. If Bill James or someone high up in the sabermetric community was working for the Yankees and said Mark Loretta had terrible range in the field, I would absolutely not dismiss it. I'd look up the work they did, and acknowledge the truth behind it. You seem to want to believe that I have some sort of anti-Yankee/Jeter bias, but that just couldn't be further from the truth. I want the facts and go for the least subjective way of obtaining them- statistics.
"I say that the stats you mention don't portray the full picture, because they don't."
But this just isn't true. Yes, no one stat is the end all and be all, but many of them tell a clear picture, and nearly all of them say Jeter has below average range.
"Ozzie Smith? This is who you bring up? This guy is a know loud-mouthed bigot. Good choice."
Um, no not Ozzie Smith (now THAT man had range). But Ozzie Guillen (not too bad of range himself). Not really helping your case bringing up what a douche this guy is, seeing how he has a vote in what you put nearly all your stock in how to judge a fielder.
"As for me backing off my claim that no writer/analyst has ever said anything bad about Jeter's defense, I have not backed off that."
Um, yes you have. You provided on quote by Ozzie Guillen, and I'll get to that later. Last time I checked he was neither a writer or an analyst. So what is it? Where is this proof? You keep saying it, it must be fact, so prove it! Also, speaking of backing off, I notice NOW that you've backed off your claim of what stats you go by listed on MLB.com. What ones were they again?
"If it is as common knowledge as you claim, there should be many examples."
And I have given several examples.
"Your failure to accept that someone has an opinion that differs from your own is exhausting."
But you know what's more exhausting? Someone portraying their opinion as a fact when in fact they have very little to support it. I've supported everything I've said. Jeter has below average range for a major league shortstop. That is fact and I've brought up points to support it. The best you've done to counter it is go back to the tired gold glove, writer/analyst argument. You've also dismissed stats I've listed that you say you go in fact go by. You seem to want to argue this because you don't want to believe that you could actually be wrong. Seriously, there's more holes in your argument then in Wily Mo Pena's swing.
And as far as the Ozzie Smith quote, touche. You finally got SOMETHING- despite the fact that he is neither a writer or an analyst- but I'll let that slide. The only problem with it is that Ozzie compared Jeter to Cal Ripken. That also doesn't help your argument because ANYONE would look "rangy" or like they "cover a lot of ground" compared to Ripken. That guy was a statue at shortstop.
Honestly, this is nothing personal at all. So please end the tired 'I've given you nothing but respect' non-sense as if I've been out of line, because that's not true.
Alright, and for the LAST time!
- I don't put all my stock in the micro-stats that you do, period. Yes, I do look at basic fielding stats, such as fielding percentage. I believe you need to see Jeter play day-in-and-out to fully appreciate him.
- The main guy you listed, is an employee of the Red Sox, an important fact you didn't mention. I feel there is a conflict there, is it a fact? No, but I see the possibility, and it's my opinion.
- I think you need to focus on the writer/analyst point. It was never for me to provide any that feel the way I do. It was ,and is my point that if Jeter was such a known bad fielder, some writer, or some analyst somewhere would have mentioned it. You provided none. Instead you listed statisticians (two of whom are associated with the Red Sox) who of course believe in their work. I am not saying their stats cannot be useful, I am saying, especially in Jeters case, that they don't give an accurate portrayal.
- Could I be wrong and you be right? Sure, but that doesn't mean my opinion isn't worthy of consideration, just as yours is.
- I have repeated my beliefs on this subject for the very last time. When you regurgitate the same points again, please just look at the above writings for my response, they will not have changed.
- I will be happy to banter with you in the future, but for now I must quote Jack Jablin when I say to you : "Good day sir".
"Yes, I do look at basic fielding stats, such as fielding percentage."
Right. And you realize that fielding percentage only measures how often a fielder makes an error, right? Which is NOT what I've argued from the start. Jeter is smooth in the field, so he tends to have a good fielding percentage. It's just that on average he gets to less balls than other major league shortstops due to his lack of range. That's my argument and the facts back it up.
"The main guy you listed, is an employee of the Red Sox, an important fact you didn't mention. I feel there is a conflict there, is it a fact? No, but I see the possibility, and it's my opinion."
But that's just so silly. What does Bill James have to gain from portraying false numbers that show Jeter to be below average? First off, what would be his motive to do so? Second, why would he risk his strong reputation? I'm going to be polite when I say that this is extremely flawed logic to base an opinion on, but it's your call.
"It was ,and is my point that if Jeter was such a known bad fielder, some writer, or some analyst somewhere would have mentioned it. You provided none."
That's because I don't need someone elses opinion to force my own. If Joe Morgan or John Heyman wants to tell me someone has great range in the field, I'd go look up the stats to see if they're getting their facts right. If they do think Jeter has great range, they have their facts wrong, Period.
"I am not saying their stats cannot be useful, I am saying, especially in Jeters case, that they don't give an accurate portrayal."
But you realize that the stats are much more simple that your making them out to be? For instance, Carlos Guillen (who's not a very good fielder) played in 55 less innings than Jeter, and despite that, he still made 11 more plays than Jeter in the field. So what does that tell you? It's pretty simple, Guillen has better range than Jeter.
I'll agree to just let this go, because there's no sense in continuing. But I will say this much, in the future if you plan to debate something with me, you better have your facts and logic correct because I am stubborn and I will pick it apart. Also, I will still say Jeter has below average range.
Just found this from Ken Rosenthal:
"The indictment of Jeter's defense in The Fielding Bible, based on exhaustive statistical research, is a far more serious matter. The book includes an essay by Bill James -- yes, Red Sox executive Bill James -- that explains why Astros shortstop Adam Everett is far superior to Jeter at short. James writes that, in the past three years, Jeter was 'probably the least effective defensive player in the major leagues, at any position.'
Wow.
Jeter fans can accuse James of bias, but for years statistical analysts have pointed out that Jeter makes fewer plays than most shortstops. At this point, it's virtually indisputable that on a day-to-day basis, he's a below-average defender. However, the counterargument also is powerful; Jeter invariably finds ways to help the Yankees win. Just watch him play."
Gold Glove, baby!
"... Carlos Guillen (who's not a very good fielder) played in 55 less innings than Jeter, and despite that, he still made 11 more plays than Jeter in the field. So what does that tell you? It's pretty simple, Guillen has better range than Jeter."
- This is a good example. You don't say how many opportunities each had. It is your assumtion that Jeter just didn't get to the balls Guillen did. As you know, balls hit to the shortstop has a lot to do with the pitcher. It may very well be that Guillen had more balls hit to him.
"But I will say this much, in the future if you plan to debate something with me, you better have your facts and logic correct because I am stubborn and I will pick it apart."
- Don't threaten me. I am just tired of you, you have not Proven anything. I have made my case and you made yours. There are people who share my view as well as yours. Opinions are just that, I am not wrong because I don't agree with you.
"Also, I will still say Jeter has below average range."
- And I will say that's based on numbers that don't tell the complete story.
You can keep the quotes coming from Red Sox employees all you want. I find them amusing. I also find it incredible that you don't(or won't admit to) see the conflict. If you didn't think it mattered, you should have said your most heralded example was in the employ of the Red Sox. Spin it all you want, but it is relevant.
"As you know, balls hit to the shortstop has a lot to do with the pitcher. It may very well be that Guillen had more balls hit to him."
What's this? Logic!? Well done! It wasn't a very good example on my part and you're absolutely right on the fact that it could be all about luck. I just knew of the Guillen-Jeter example off the top of my head because I was comparing both players overall value to their teams just a few weeks ago. Neither are very good defensively. With that said, the numbers are over at baseball-reference.com and they DO state that most major league shortstops make more plays than Jeter.
"- Don't threaten me. I am just tired of you, you have not Proven anything."
Woah, calm down there, guy. I didn't threaten you, I just said to back up your claims better in the future or else me being stubborn will pick them apart. No offense, but you presented a very weak argument with plenty of holes, that's why I've been persistent.
"I also find it incredible that you don't(or won't admit to) see the conflict."
Well, you did ask me to list a writer who said Jeter had below average range and I did, but I see your now dismissing it, which is unfair but whatever. But back to the point at hand, please tell me why on earth Bill James would present false numbers because Derek Jeter is a Yankee and he works for the Red Sox? What could possibly be gained by doing so? Seriously? I'm VERY interested in how you spin this.
"Well, you did ask me to list a writer who said Jeter had below average range and I did..."
- I am pretty sure you are aware that the inventor of sabermetrics is not the type of writer I meant. I obviously wanted an example from a respected mainstream writer who isn't trying to promote his or her own theories.
"...please tell me why on earth Bill James would present false numbers..."
- I never said his numbers were false, just not a definitive portrayal.
- Bill James works for the Red Sox, an organization that has publicly smeared the Yankees. You do remember Luchino's "evil empire" statement? So I don't think it is far- fetched to think an employee of an organization might want to curry favor by discounting the Captain of the team for which his boss dislikes. It is not a fact, but you must see the possibility of a conflict of interest.
- I think Bill James IS a Yankee hater- from his days as a Royals fan. Notice I said think, not know. Here is an example from an online chat that Mr. James had:
"Steve, Lawrence: Odd question. Yankees win six out of eight World Series if A) Rivera can throw to second, and B) Wells doesn't get hurt. Would baseball be different if they did win those 2 series?
Bill James: How many do they win if that kid doesn't steal the series from Baltimore in...what was that, '96?"
That "steal the series" line is something I have heard plenty from Yankee haters, they never will say it's just "part of the Game". And maybe it's just a coincidence that the play he references involved a Mr. Derek Jeter.
- I say that Bill James' stats and ideas can be useful and interesting , but they cannot be used as the definitive value. Isn't it also Bill James who thinks that a closer should not be saved for the ninth inning? While that is still debatable, it didn't work out well for the Red Sox, who then had to acquire in Byung Hyung Kim, and subsequently Keith Foulke.
"- I am pretty sure you are aware that the inventor of sabermetrics is not the type of writer I meant."
Did you even read what I wrote? It was from a Ken Rosenthal article where he quoted Bill James.
"Bill James works for the Red Sox, an organization that has publicly smeared the Yankees."
Hilarious.
"You do remember Luchino's "evil empire" statement? So I don't think it is far- fetched to think an employee of an organization might want to curry favor by discounting the Captain of the team for which his boss dislikes."
That's beyond stupid. No offense.
"It is not a fact, but you must see the possibility of a conflict of interest."
No, I don't, because there's no validity to it. It's purely speculation that doesn't make sense. There's just no point in him doing so. Bill James has nothing against Derek Jeter. And if he did, why would he risk his reputation by portaying false stats? Also, it's not as if he's the only one who runs the numbers that prove Derek Jeter comes up short in range. David Gassko at Hardball times, Keith Law at ESPN, Pete Palmer just to name a few. They all come up with the same conclusion that Jeter has poor range in the field. There's very little to argue on your part.
Also, I think your just complicating the numbers because you refuse to believe they're correct. Over Derek Jeters' career he has made less plays than the average major league shortstop. You can't argue that. You can't dismiss that. Because it's a fact. The guy has below average range and even homer Yankee fans have come to terms with that. Yeesh.
"And maybe it's just a coincidence that the play he references involved a Mr. Derek Jeter."
What? No, again this is just you spinning. Bill James is portraying a fact there by the way. That was an out. But he's just a stupid Yankee hater. Give me a break. You're better than the garbage your spewing.
"Did you even read what I wrote? It was from a Ken Rosenthal article ..."
"...where he quoted Bill James."
-Thank you, that was my point.
"There's just no point in him doing so. Bill James has nothing against Derek Jeter."
- Only Bill James knows for sure. But here is a guy who wanted to be a part of MLB for twenty years, and he finally gets hired by the Red Sox. And you say it's not even POSSIBLE that the guy would want to use his expertise to please his bosses. I am not saying he makes up the numbers, or that he doesn't believe them . True or not, you must see the conflict of interest for an executive of one team critiquing the Captain of his employers biggest rival?
"That's beyond stupid. No offense."
- Much of what you say shows you to be intolerant and obnoxious . No offense.
"The guy has below average range and even homer Yankee fans have come to terms with that. Yeesh."
- Of course I know the knock on Jeter has been his lack of range, I just don't think it's true. The numbers show that he doesn't make as many plays as other short stops, but the numbers don't show how many balls are hit within his reach (other than the plays he actually makes, which is a very high percentage). I watch him every game, and I rarely see him miss a ball I thought he should/could have gotten. There are no stats that measure how close a batted ball was hit to a fielder, that's why actually seeing him play day in and out is more accurate.
"No, again this is just you spinning. Bill James is portraying a fact there by the way."
-Sure, replay shows that to be true. But the fact that he chose to say "steal" is very telling to me. It's also telling that he even chose to bring it up, instead of answering the guy's question.
-Look, you can discount what I say, and call it garbage all you want, but it is no less valid because you say so. You seem to think Bill James is a God, I have pointed out where I think he has been wrong (regarding the closers role).
- I say the stats you believe so much in are misleading in Jeter's case.
- I am beyond tired of this topic, and of you as well. I think both of our viewpoints are out there, and I for one am comfortable with what I have said. I don't need to bash your views to believe in my own. I have explained my opinion over and over. Unless you want to go in a different direction, or go onto another topic, I am done.
"Did you even read what I wrote? It was from a Ken Rosenthal article ..."
"...where he quoted Bill James."
-Thank you, that was my point.
"There's just no point in him doing so. Bill James has nothing against Derek Jeter."
- Only Bill James knows for sure. But here is a guy who wanted to be a part of MLB for twenty years, and he finally gets hired by the Red Sox. And you say it's not even POSSIBLE that the guy would want to use his expertise to please his bosses. I am not saying he makes up the numbers, or that he doesn't believe them . True or not, you must see the conflict of interest for an executive of one team critiquing the Captain of his employers biggest rival?
"That's beyond stupid. No offense."
- Much of what you say shows you to be intolerant and obnoxious . No offense.
"The guy has below average range and even homer Yankee fans have come to terms with that. Yeesh."
- Of course I know the knock on Jeter has been his lack of range, I just don't think it's true. The numbers show that he doesn't make as many plays as other short stops, but the numbers don't show how many balls are hit within his reach (other than the plays he actually makes, which is a very high percentage). I watch him every game, and I rarely see him miss a ball I thought he should/could have gotten. There are no stats that measure how close a batted ball was hit to a fielder, that's why actually seeing him play day in and out is more accurate.
"No, again this is just you spinning. Bill James is portraying a fact there by the way."
-Sure, replay shows that to be true. But the fact that he chose to say "steal" is very telling to me. It's also telling that he even chose to bring it up, instead of answering the guy's question.
-Look, you can discount what I say, and call it garbage all you want, but it is no less valid because you say so. You seem to think Bill James is a God, I have pointed out where I think he has been wrong (regarding the closers role).
- I say the stats you believe so much in are misleading in Jeter's case.
- I am beyond tired of this topic, and of you as well. I think both of our viewpoints are out there, and I for one am comfortable with what I have said. I don't need to bash your views to believe in my own. I have explained my opinion over and over. Unless you want to go in a different direction, or go onto another topic, I am done.
"-Thank you, that was my point."
And apparently you missed the part where Rosenthal himself said:
"Jeter fans can accuse James of bias, but for years statistical analysts have pointed out that Jeter makes fewer plays than most shortstops. At this point, it's virtually indisputable that on a day-to-day basis, he's a below-average defender."
So no writer ever said Jeter was below average defensively, huh?
"And you say it's not even POSSIBLE that the guy would want to use his expertise to please his bosses."
No, I don't think that's remotely possible. I doubt his bosses give a rats ass about how Derek Jeter rates defensively. Just to slight the captain of their rivals? Give me a break.
"True or not, you must see the conflict of interest for an executive of one team critiquing the Captain of his employers biggest rival?"
No, I don't. He uses the same stats to evaluate every player in the majors. Your argument is absurd.
"- Much of what you say shows you to be intolerant and obnoxious . No offense."
Don't care. Don't care.
"The numbers show that he doesn't make as many plays as other short stops, but the numbers don't show how many balls are hit within his reach..."
Umm, what? The numbers just show that out of balls hit to the area of the shortstop, he ranks as one of the worst in the league in terms of getting to them. Just the facts.
"-Sure, replay shows that to be true. But the fact that he chose to say "steal" is very telling to me."
So what? He's just telling it like it is.
"You seem to think Bill James is a God, I have pointed out where I think he has been wrong (regarding the closers role)."
No, I don't. And how was he wrong? No one has ever tried the high leverage closer.
"- I say the stats you believe so much in are misleading in Jeter's case."
And I say even the greatest Yankee homers acknowledge that your opinion is silly and that Jeter does in fact have bad range in the field. You can argue the facts are flawed all you want, but you're still wrong. Done and done.
yfmbjqrc kxzqrpl qoehix lpvxnjkye odmjwbkps zkmf mcoynrfx
Here only the valuable information!!!
soma online
[url=buysomaonline1.blogspot.com] soma online [/url]
Hi Jim. You letter i received. Thanks! Photos is GREAT!!!!
Hi Jim. You letter i received. Thanks! Photos is GREAT!!!!
gekzx ybevfto wjszycin zaoj jyhdowbar furdatq ndbihc
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.yankeessuck.com/nav-commenters.gif)