Please sign in to complete your action
 
DONE!
Cheer and debate with
6,000,000+ fans!
My Team:
Charlotte
My Team:
Michael
My Team:
Britney
 
 
5/28/09
Derek Jeter is the second-worst infielder of all time in MLB history
For all you Jeter haters out there, this one's for you: Jeter is the second-worst infielder of all time, going all the way back to 1871.
READ MORE:
MLB, San Francisco Giants, Arizona Diamondbacks, Atlanta Braves, Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Indians, Colorado Rockies, Detroit Tigers, Florida Marlins, Houston Astros, Kansas City Royals, Los Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins, New York Mets, New York Yankees, Oakland Athletics, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, San Diego Padres, Seattle Mariners, St. Louis Cardinals, Texas Rangers, Toronto Blue Jays, Washington Nationals, Derek Jeter
submitted by 100%InjuryRate more posts by author
113
Read Article: (www.hardballtimes.com)
It's been proven time and time again that Derek Jeter is a below average infielder. The fact that guy has multiple Gold Gloves is a crime against humanity. He has no range whatsoever.

But even I didn't think he was this bad.

A study by the Hardball Times, a very good online publication, has determined that Jeter is the second worst infielder of all time. And that's going all the way back to 1871. Yikes.
113
COMMENT
SHARE
EMAIL
ADD FEED
113 comments
1  2  2  >

Vote!
Comment!
Your votes determine top comment

5/28/09
12
At least he has less Infield hits to deal with at  their new ballpark. Now he can just watch hits sail over his head 

5/28/09
9

I'm happy to hear it, but it just doesn't make sense. Are you sure these guys weren't hitting the bottle when they did their report?

All for news that makes Jeter look bad, but how valid is it?

5/28/09
9
This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)

5/28/09
12
At least he has less Infield hits to deal with at  their new ballpark. Now he can just watch hits sail over his head 

5/28/09
2
Brendanc8504 wrote:

I'm happy to hear it, but it just doesn't make sense. Are you sure these guys weren't hitting the bottle when they did their report?

All for news that makes Jeter look bad, but how valid is it?

He really doesn't have good range at all. The report has a lot of validity, and is echoing something that has been said by a lot of very intelligent baseball guys and stat geeks across the board. Rob Neyer and Peter Gammons are a few who have pointed this out in the past.

5/28/09
1
Brendanc8504 wrote:

I'm happy to hear it, but it just doesn't make sense. Are you sure these guys weren't hitting the bottle when they did their report?

All for news that makes Jeter look bad, but how valid is it?

How would he be worth so much?

5/28/09
1
The_Pope wrote:
At least he has less Infield hits to deal with at  their new ballpark. Now he can just watch hits sail over his head 
That comment was pure win.

5/28/09
3
Brendanc8504 wrote:

I'm happy to hear it, but it just doesn't make sense. Are you sure these guys weren't hitting the bottle when they did their report?

All for news that makes Jeter look bad, but how valid is it?

If you want a REAL valid argument, read this one by Rob Neyer. Also valid, this UPENN study on Jeter.

Regardless of how you slice, he isn't a good shortstop, never has been. It's all just the NYC hype machine. The fact that he has three Gold Gloves is a joke.

5/28/09
7
 Ive never thought jeter was one of the best.....but 2nd worst of all time? Not sure about that either...hes been a consistent shortstop playing with a good supporting cast over the years...thats all you can ask for....and at the end of the day, im sure hes nt going to be too concerned about articles like this while he sits back and stares at his championships and trophies from years past!

5/28/09
5
seanrrpsnm wrote:
 Ive never thought jeter was one of the best.....but 2nd worst of all time? Not sure about that either...hes been a consistent shortstop playing with a good supporting cast over the years...thats all you can ask for....and at the end of the day, im sure hes nt going to be too concerned about articles like this while he sits back and stares at his championships and trophies from years past!
Key words: from years past.

I hope everyone realizes that it has been almost a decade since the last time the Yankees won a World Series. And yet the Jeter slurping never ends...

5/28/09
8
This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)

5/28/09
3
gobigblue1960 wrote:

How stupid. Is there some secrert society out there who's sole goal is to diminish the acheivements of Derek Jeter.?
100%...you have serious issues when it comes to Jeter. This studi is , to say the least, ridiculous. Even the author of the stats say's he isn't sure if his convoluted formula works, and all but admits at the end that by sure coincidence, his calculations were made up.

Please tell me that you don't belive that every single infielder , say one, is a better than Jeter.? How ridiculous.

What achievements? The only "achievements" this could possibly diminish are his gold gloves. And since those ONLY came after he forced A-Rod to move to 3rd, those were already diminished anyway.

Relax, tough guy. Stats are stats.

5/28/09
5
It took a "study" to realize this? 

5/28/09
5
 His postseason numbers are all that matters and they are pretty impressive....hes won what,like 3 gold gloves....no one claimed him to be the best defensive player in the game....and the chamipionships are a team achievement....he CONTRIBUTED to those wins....along with every other player on the team....last time i checked thats how baseball is supposed to be played........

5/28/09
4
 Gold glove awards are crap anyway look at Rafael Palmeiro he won one at first and only played 26 games. I do not think Jeter is a very good shortstop but this is Yankee hater bs at is best. 

5/28/09
0
This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)

5/28/09
3
Pat wrote:
Key words: from years past.

I hope everyone realizes that it has been almost a decade since the last time the Yankees won a World Series. And yet the Jeter slurping never ends...
10 years from now, when Eli has 5 rings u'll be talking about Tom Brady's glory days, c'mon now. 

5/28/09
5
Stats my ass, "he has no range <sarcastic voice> Bottom line he is one of the most clutch players in baseball. Say all you want you are all on a computer looking up stats and saying how crappy he is, but hes still playing professional baseball for one of the best teams in the League.....3 golden gloves DOES count. Have any of you won one? Hes won world series as the captain of the team, and dove into the stands to make a catch that could have ended his career just to win for himself and his team...So until ANY of you get off your asses and are playing pro ball for a team Id shut the hell up.....

5/28/09
3
ImSourLikeDiesel wrote:
As long as he's on the Yankees. He'll still be getting his leg humped everytime he does something good. If he didn't come into a Yankees team that was winning rings left and right, he probably wouldn't of lasted 3 years.. But wait, I think his HRs are up this year. Ha..I could probably hit a HR at that stadium... in batting practice... with a metal bat... and a golf ball. Maybe a little pinetar to.
They weren't winning left and right.  They hadn't won a WS since '78 when he came around.  His first full season was in '96, the first win of that dynasty, in which he was a huge component, even winning RotY.  He was a key component every year since, even making some of the best plays and catches baseball has to offer.  And this is w/o mentioning his "Captain Clutch" persona on the other side of the plate.  He's got the Gold Gloves.  If u think the MLB is biased, what do u think u haters r?

Simply put, this is Yankee Hate through and through.  Just admit ur envy.  Give into.  It makes u stronger.  Yes, experience the power of the Dark Side, young Skywalker!  

5/28/09
3
YankeeDudeL wrote:
They weren't winning left and right.  They hadn't won a WS since '78 when he came around.  His first full season was in '96, the first win of that dynasty, in which he was a huge component, even winning RotY.  He was a key component every year since, even making some of the best plays and catches baseball has to offer.  And this is w/o mentioning his "Captain Clutch" persona on the other side of the plate.  He's got the Gold Gloves.  If u think the MLB is biased, what do u think u haters r?

Simply put, this is Yankee Hate through and through.  Just admit ur envy.  Give into.  It makes u stronger.  Yes, experience the power of the Dark Side, young Skywalker!  
 Well said, These are all probably badwagon Boston fans who jumped on after they won their first world series in 86 years!!

5/28/09
9
 lol the ignorance of some sports fans, if you read the back and forth here its amazing. Obviously I am a sox fan. Obviously I am not a yankees fan. Do I like jeter? Yes. Do I think he is the second worst SS ever? No. Do I realize that statistics aren't everything in baseball? Yes. But Do I think this article is trash? No, its interesting in its own right. 
Come on guys, all of your bias on both sides is so old, respect the sport for what it is, don't make yourself look like this.

5/28/09
2
 ARV, I can respect your stance on it, Im not asking for someone to step up and say he is the best I am a Die Hard Yankee fan, But trash talking someone in the sport who commands respect of his teammates and other teams and players should get a little respect on a message board. I hate Tom Brady, but i respect the guy as an athlete and a football player, Minus the whole shirtless modeling pics. I just hate to see someone say they think he is the worst JUST on his stats after hes been playing for 10 years and has done SO much for the sport. He is a role model He is clean cut, a good ball player, dedicated to his team, hasnt done roids. He shows up to every game plays his game for himself and his team and plays well, and goes home...no complaints no excuses.... Just respect the guy simple as put

5/28/09
4
Joshadecker wrote:
 Well said, These are all probably badwagon Boston fans who jumped on after they won their first world series in 86 years!!
Believe it or not, the Red Sox had fans before that. Fenway Park has sold out every single game since May of 2003, a year and a half before we won our first WS in 86 years.

How's attendance in Yankee Stadium these days?

5/28/09
1
Joshadecker wrote:
 ARV, I can respect your stance on it, Im not asking for someone to step up and say he is the best I am a Die Hard Yankee fan, But trash talking someone in the sport who commands respect of his teammates and other teams and players should get a little respect on a message board. I hate Tom Brady, but i respect the guy as an athlete and a football player, Minus the whole shirtless modeling pics. I just hate to see someone say they think he is the worst JUST on his stats after hes been playing for 10 years and has done SO much for the sport. He is a role model He is clean cut, a good ball player, dedicated to his team, hasnt done roids. He shows up to every game plays his game for himself and his team and plays well, and goes home...no complaints no excuses.... Just respect the guy simple as put
Right.. he's all of those things, and he's also a womanizer, a diva, and one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball.

And while you think that he has done a lot for the sport, the truth is that the sport has done a lot for him. He's being compensated pretty well for playing as crappy as he does.

5/28/09
1
It is the old school versus new school arguement that is on-going in baseball. Scouts, Older GM's and Joe Morgan just dont believe in anything other than ERA, Batting Avg, and what they think their eyes see. These are the same people that think OPS and WHIP are worthless and live in the past when it comes to rating players. Is Jeter a great hitter, teammate, and champion? Yes. Is he a terrible infielder? Yes.

5/28/09
6
Pat wrote:
Right.. he's all of those things, and he's also a womanizer, a diva, and one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball.

And while you think that he has done a lot for the sport, the truth is that the sport has done a lot for him. He's being compensated pretty well for playing as crappy as he does.
 Yeah its funny just when everyone notices that the Sox are getting kind of good they start attending the games? what does that say about their fans? before 2003 you couldnt give away Sox tickets. and Yes they did have fans before they won the WS I dont discount the 3-4 65 year old men sitting in the bars I used to work at crying because the Sox had blown another to the Yankees. I respect them as fans and feel for them. So as a Yankee fan when the Sox finally DID win a WS I rooted for them For those guys not the crap fans who were fans only a year and a half before. Its funny though Ive been to Yankee Games all across the country since I was a little kid and Usually see at least as many Yankee fans if not more than the Home team...go figure... As for Jeter being a womanizer? Hes a single eligible Bacelor? He can do what he wants, a Diva? I dont think so. And incase you forgot who owns the Yankees, do you really think a Billionaire like George Steinbrenner, who would fire people because he didnt like the statements they made, would keep a "crappy" Shortstop...Give me  break. You have no Idea what your talking about. Show a Little respect. 

5/28/09
0
Pat wrote:
Right.. he's all of those things, and he's also a womanizer, a diva, and one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball.

And while you think that he has done a lot for the sport, the truth is that the sport has done a lot for him. He's being compensated pretty well for playing as crappy as he does.
remember back in the day when the argument was always who was the best shortstop? Jeter, Nomar, or Arod?.........lets check on that.

Nomar now plays 1st base.

Arod now plays 3rd base

Jeter still plays shortstop but is the second worst defensive player of all time..........

there doesn't appear to be a clear winner here.....just a bunch of losers. lol

5/28/09
0
Joshadecker wrote:
 Yeah its funny just when everyone notices that the Sox are getting kind of good they start attending the games? what does that say about their fans? before 2003 you couldnt give away Sox tickets. and Yes they did have fans before they won the WS I dont discount the 3-4 65 year old men sitting in the bars I used to work at crying because the Sox had blown another to the Yankees. I respect them as fans and feel for them. So as a Yankee fan when the Sox finally DID win a WS I rooted for them For those guys not the crap fans who were fans only a year and a half before. Its funny though Ive been to Yankee Games all across the country since I was a little kid and Usually see at least as many Yankee fans if not more than the Home team...go figure... As for Jeter being a womanizer? Hes a single eligible Bacelor? He can do what he wants, a Diva? I dont think so. And incase you forgot who owns the Yankees, do you really think a Billionaire like George Steinbrenner, who would fire people because he didnt like the statements they made, would keep a "crappy" Shortstop...Give me  break. You have no Idea what your talking about. Show a Little respect. 
"before 2003 you couldnt give away Sox tickets"

That statement isn't even remotely true. I don't even need to argue it, because I lived in Massachusetts at the time, and I know exactly how hard it has been to get Sox tickets for a long time.


"Its funny though Ive been to Yankee Games all across the country since I was a little kid and Usually see at least as many Yankee fans if not more than the Home team...go figure..."

News flash... it's the same way for the Red Sox. And the Cubs, for that matter. What's your point?

It has nothing to do with respect. And the fact that Steinbrenner kept Jeter means nothing. Steinbrenner is, and always has been an idiot.

Yes, Jeter's a diva. If he wasn't, he would have agreed to switch positions when Alex Rodriguez, a far better defensive shortstop, came to the team. Instead, he forced A-Rod to move to 3rd, giving the Yankees a defensive liability at TWO positions (unil A-Rod learned how to adjust to the new position), instead of only one.

5/28/09
0
Joshadecker wrote:
 Yeah its funny just when everyone notices that the Sox are getting kind of good they start attending the games? what does that say about their fans? before 2003 you couldnt give away Sox tickets. and Yes they did have fans before they won the WS I dont discount the 3-4 65 year old men sitting in the bars I used to work at crying because the Sox had blown another to the Yankees. I respect them as fans and feel for them. So as a Yankee fan when the Sox finally DID win a WS I rooted for them For those guys not the crap fans who were fans only a year and a half before. Its funny though Ive been to Yankee Games all across the country since I was a little kid and Usually see at least as many Yankee fans if not more than the Home team...go figure... As for Jeter being a womanizer? Hes a single eligible Bacelor? He can do what he wants, a Diva? I dont think so. And incase you forgot who owns the Yankees, do you really think a Billionaire like George Steinbrenner, who would fire people because he didnt like the statements they made, would keep a "crappy" Shortstop...Give me  break. You have no Idea what your talking about. Show a Little respect. 
Give me one valid reason why I should "respect" Derek Jeter, and I'll give you 5 more reasons why I shouldn't.

5/28/09
0
The only real suprise here is that 100%injuryrate scooped this up before Pat did...... you're slackin Pat!!

5/28/09
1
Jeter would be known as an average shortstop had he been on any other team...I'd argue he might not have gotten as many ABs as he has over his career. The Yankees are dumb for holding on to him and for paying as much as they do

5/28/09
0
 Then whos first Nick Green!

5/28/09
0
beerstudk wrote:
The only real suprise here is that 100%injuryrate scooped this up before Pat did...... you're slackin Pat!!
This is true. I feel like I've failed you all by not picking up on this first. My apologies, everyone.

5/28/09
0
Nobody is talking about the true crime here.  How in the world is Dean Palmer on the list of bad infielders? lol

5/28/09
0
 Wow, Jeter sucks. If is infielding is poor his brain is poor. Maybe he's got a poor life, with poor eyesight.  Maybe this letter is poor, but I gotta tell you something. Derek Jeter sucks the heck outta the park!  

5/28/09
0
gobigblue1960 wrote:

How stupid. Is there some secrert society out there who's sole goal is to diminish the acheivements of Derek Jeter.?
100%...you have serious issues when it comes to Jeter. This studi is , to say the least, ridiculous. Even the author of the stats say's he isn't sure if his convoluted formula works, and all but admits at the end that by sure coincidence, his calculations were made up.

Please tell me that you don't belive that every single infielder , say one, is a better than Jeter.? How ridiculous.

If you want more valid arguments, read this argument by Rob Neyer. Also this UPENN study on Jeter. Conclusion, he's the worst shortstop in the game, according to multiple people.

The Neyer is particularly interesting.

5/28/09
0
how many other shortstops have 4 rings in 5 years,please leave the bull$#!t behind no he's not the best but he is the capt. and leads by example not to much of that on other teams that i see

5/28/09
1
gobigblue1960 wrote:

How stupid. Is there some secrert society out there who's sole goal is to diminish the acheivements of Derek Jeter.?
100%...you have serious issues when it comes to Jeter. This studi is , to say the least, ridiculous. Even the author of the stats say's he isn't sure if his convoluted formula works, and all but admits at the end that by sure coincidence, his calculations were made up.

Please tell me that you don't belive that every single infielder , say one, is a better than Jeter.? How ridiculous.

If Derek Jeter weren't "Derek Jeter" he would have been moved to second base or the outfield long ago.  His defense has always been underwhelming and now it is just horrendous.  This does NOT take away from the fact the he is a clutch hitter with four rings and the guy with the right temperament to be captain of the Yankees.  As the old saying goes, you can't measure fielding with statistics, (which is why I would greatly discount the notion of this "study" that he is the second worst infielder ever) but anyone who has watched the man in the field for the last 13+ years knows the truth - only the worst homer or a blind fool would try and defend his fielding. 

5/28/09
0
Brendanc8504 wrote:
remember back in the day when the argument was always who was the best shortstop? Jeter, Nomar, or Arod?.........lets check on that.

Nomar now plays 1st base.

Arod now plays 3rd base

Jeter still plays shortstop but is the second worst defensive player of all time..........

there doesn't appear to be a clear winner here.....just a bunch of losers. lol
The only reason A-Rod plays third base is because the Yankees (foolishly) didn't move Jeter to second when they signed him.  A-Rod always had more range and a better arm, but I suppose on one level it makes sense to show respect for your captain, but it would have been better for the team all around if Jeter had moved from short.

5/28/09
2
dserra wrote:
how many other shortstops have 4 rings in 5 years,please leave the bull$#!t behind no he's not the best but he is the capt. and leads by example not to much of that on other teams that i see
Thanks for an incredibly irrelevant argument. I guess Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neil and Scott Brosius are among the all-time greats too, right? Of course not.

Come on man... don't come in here with that weak stuff.

5/28/09
2
FYI, Jeter doesn't have 4 rings in 5 years. He has 4 rings in 15 years. If you're going to talk about the years he won, don't forget all the other years, too.

5/28/09
0
100%InjuryRate wrote:
If you want more valid arguments, read this argument by Rob Neyer. Also this UPENN study on Jeter. Conclusion, he's the worst shortstop in the game, according to multiple people.

The Neyer is particularly interesting.
checked out the report's you mentioned, interesting it seems everything is maybe's and could be's but concrete facts none

5/28/09
0
dserra wrote:
checked out the report's you mentioned, interesting it seems everything is maybe's and could be's but concrete facts none
And what have you brought to the table? Team stats? Subjective awards? How are statistics anything BUT concrete facts?

Get your head out of the clouds. It's your kind of thinking that has held the Yankees back from winning championships for 8 straight years, despite outspending every other team in the league by a huge amount. That's pathetic.

5/28/09
0
HE IS GETTING OLDER BUT HE CAN GET IT DONE IN CRUNCH TIME

5/28/09
0
Joshadecker wrote:
 Yeah its funny just when everyone notices that the Sox are getting kind of good they start attending the games? what does that say about their fans? before 2003 you couldnt give away Sox tickets. and Yes they did have fans before they won the WS I dont discount the 3-4 65 year old men sitting in the bars I used to work at crying because the Sox had blown another to the Yankees. I respect them as fans and feel for them. So as a Yankee fan when the Sox finally DID win a WS I rooted for them For those guys not the crap fans who were fans only a year and a half before. Its funny though Ive been to Yankee Games all across the country since I was a little kid and Usually see at least as many Yankee fans if not more than the Home team...go figure... As for Jeter being a womanizer? Hes a single eligible Bacelor? He can do what he wants, a Diva? I dont think so. And incase you forgot who owns the Yankees, do you really think a Billionaire like George Steinbrenner, who would fire people because he didnt like the statements they made, would keep a "crappy" Shortstop...Give me  break. You have no Idea what your talking about. Show a Little respect. 
 I agreed with the statement you made before, and I thought I was done commenting here, but I don't like some of the misconceptions you left here.
1) there are band wagon fans everywhere. Sox. Yanks. Rays, jays, you name it. We don't have to like them, but they exist in every sport, every team. 
2) Yes prior to the 2003(ish) season, fenway was a very different place then it is now, and you can blame bandwagon fans for that if you will, but there comes a time as a fan when you get fed up with how an organization (or its players, i.e. cubs/mets choke) is running your team into the ground, you just can't take it anymore.
3) You mention many years when you would travel around and see yankees fans everywhere, you do not mention the fact that the yankees were a very successful team for quite a long time, they are a big name franchise as well. If you watch any of the four big names in baseball, they have fans all over the place, attending games, and in the case of the recent success sox, you will see the same thing you saw during the yankees hayday, this isn't because the fanbases are different, they are not, they follow the same trends, because a fanbase is a huge sampling of people. It's human nature your dealing with, its only different because of the different success the teams have had at different times.
4) I'm not going to comment on the womanizer/diva stuff, *shrug
5) Do I think Steinbrenner would keep a crappy shortstop around all these years? Yes, if you look at the yankess managment decisions lately it's not something that would surprise me. Do I think he did keep a crappy shortstop in Jeter? No I think he can't field, but as I said before, he has qualities unmeasureable by statistics (i.e. Jason Veritek)

5/28/09
0
Derek Jeter <clap clap clapclapclap>!!!  C'mon, everybody!  Derek Jeter <clap clap clapclapclap>!!!

5/28/09
0
Pat wrote:
And what have you brought to the table? Team stats? Subjective awards? How are statistics anything BUT concrete facts?

Get your head out of the clouds. It's your kind of thinking that has held the Yankees back from winning championships for 8 straight years, despite outspending every other team in the league by a huge amount. That's pathetic.
your a red sox fan of course your gonna say that, worry about your own team instead of hating on the yankees

5/28/09
0
 A-ROD is better than derek jeter and derek is not the best short stopSlayer on Foundry, 05/25/09

5/28/09
0
I agree that Derek Jeter is waaaaaaaaaaaaay over-rated just because he is on the Yankees team doesn't mean that he is the best short stop there is. In my opinion I think that Jose Reyes is the best shortstop currently.

5/28/09
1
dserra wrote:
your a red sox fan of course your gonna say that, worry about your own team instead of hating on the yankees
Thank you once again for proving my point. You obviously have nothing intelligent to say about the subject. You just think he's great because he's a Yankee, and you just LOVE the Yankees. Forget the facts... he's just so dreamy, and you'll defend him to the death, right? Exactly.

5/28/09
0
It's funny because it's true.

5/28/09
0
Pat wrote:
Thank you once again for proving my point. You obviously have nothing intelligent to say about the subject. You just think he's great because he's a Yankee, and you just LOVE the Yankees. Forget the facts... he's just so dreamy, and you'll defend him to the death, right? Exactly.
i don't think he's the best but certainly not 2nd worst all time and you prove my point reading what you want not what's written

5/28/09
0
barry larkin-975, ozzie smith-978 ,cal ripken jr.-979,derek jeter-975,all very close in fielding percentage

5/28/09
1
We can all agree that Jeter smells really nice.

5/28/09
0
i suppose that makes them 3rd, 4th, 5th, worst all time according to you guys

5/28/09
1
love me some controversy.

5/28/09
2
dserra wrote:
barry larkin-975, ozzie smith-978 ,cal ripken jr.-979,derek jeter-975,all very close in fielding percentage
Thank you for proving that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyone who thinks fielding percentage matters at all is clueless. Period.

Go read the article, and then come back and try to talk about it.

5/28/09
1
Wow, four people PQ'd me because i defended a Hall of FAME BASEBALL player. I really don't know what to think...8 users gave me afor defending the same player...and i don't know what to think. Don't you just love sports.!!

5/29/09
1
Pat wrote:
He really doesn't have good range at all. The report has a lot of validity, and is echoing something that has been said by a lot of very intelligent baseball guys and stat geeks across the board. Rob Neyer and Peter Gammons are a few who have pointed this out in the past.
Yes, he lacks the range that he used to have.  To say that the report has validity is completely outrageous.  A guy who play 13 years at SS for the same team and win four rings as the captain cannot possibly be called the second worst SS, for all intents and purposes, in the history of the game. 

5/29/09
0
dserra wrote:
barry larkin-975, ozzie smith-978 ,cal ripken jr.-979,derek jeter-975,all very close in fielding percentage
fielding percentage means less than nothing.

5/29/09
0
Did anyone else read the article who knows anything about baseball and math alike?  There are about 15,000 flaws in the logic of this system.  It's about as accurate as if you sat on a cactus and tried to blindly guess which needle poked you in the *** first.  Trying to simplify the range of a player based on only these variables is laughable at best. 

5/29/09
0
Pat wrote:
Thank you for proving that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyone who thinks fielding percentage matters at all is clueless. Period.

Go read the article, and then come back and try to talk about it.
i'm sorry did i hurt your feelings i'll go look for a red sock to cheer you up

5/29/09
0
Fielding Percentage is overwhelmingly more accurate than this elementary attempt to compensate for the range of a player by using a handful of variables.  There are hundreds of variables that would need to be included in this "formula" in order to even come close to accurate results.  Fielding % is an accurate measure of a player's ability to make plays on balls that they are able to play.  It is clear that it doesn't take into account balls that some players could have gotten to that others were not able to reach.  There is a reason that it doesn't take this into account.  The formula would be so complicated it would make Einstein's head spin.

5/29/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
Yes, he lacks the range that he used to have.  To say that the report has validity is completely outrageous.  A guy who play 13 years at SS for the same team and win four rings as the captain cannot possibly be called the second worst SS, for all intents and purposes, in the history of the game. 
Why not? Good teams and/or good players don't have weaknesses? Statistics lie? What is so outrageous about it?

5/29/09
0
i would love to be this bad in tha infield if i could ge tha females he gets,his list of females trumpss his bad infield play

5/29/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
Yes, he lacks the range that he used to have.  To say that the report has validity is completely outrageous.  A guy who play 13 years at SS for the same team and win four rings as the captain cannot possibly be called the second worst SS, for all intents and purposes, in the history of the game. 
He won his rings in 4 of his first 5 years in the league, when he was more than passable at shortstop.  But age and injuries have slowly taken what little range and arm he once had to the point where it is laughable he is thought of as an upper echelon fielder.  If I was a Yankees fan, I would never ever shut up about how bad his fielding is.  I cannot believe that most Yankees fans turn such a blind eye, or do you just believe what Michael Kay and John Sterling tell you.  People wonder why I rail so loudly against Yankees fans and their lack of independent thought - Jeter as a "quality" shortstop ranks up there as a reason.

5/29/09
0
jacobmrley wrote:
He won his rings in 4 of his first 5 years in the league, when he was more than passable at shortstop.  But age and injuries have slowly taken what little range and arm he once had to the point where it is laughable he is thought of as an upper echelon fielder.  If I was a Yankees fan, I would never ever shut up about how bad his fielding is.  I cannot believe that most Yankees fans turn such a blind eye, or do you just believe what Michael Kay and John Sterling tell you.  People wonder why I rail so loudly against Yankees fans and their lack of independent thought - Jeter as a "quality" shortstop ranks up there as a reason.
I don't believe I called him an upper echelon fielder.  I believe I said it's outrageous to call him the second worst in the history of baseball.  Yankee fans love Jeter because he is a clutch hitter and a great leader.  If his only downfalls are his range and an average arm, the positives far outweigh the negatives.  Making generalizations about the fans of a team based on your interactions with 1% of them is pretty ignorant.  The problem is that the people on both sides of the argument don't have the mental capacity to make an unbiased observation.  The ones who think Jeter is the greatest SS in the game are just as far off as the ones who think he is the second worst in the history of baseball.  "But age and injuries have slowly taken what little range and arm he once had" - perfect example.  Jeter was known for having excellent range early in his career and a strong arm.  Has it deteriorated?  Absolutely.  But to say that it never existed just isn't logical for someone who knows anything about the game.

5/29/09
0
Fielding Percentage is overwhelmingly more accurate than this elementary attempt to compensate for the range of a player by using a handful of variables.  There are hundreds of variables that would need to be included in this "formula" in order to even come close to accurate results.  Fielding % is an accurate measure of a player's ability to make plays on balls that they are able to play.  It is clear that it doesn't take into account balls that some players could have gotten to that others were not able to reach.  There is a reason that it doesn't take this into account.  The formula would be so complicated it would make Einstein's head spin.

5/29/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
Fielding Percentage is overwhelmingly more accurate than this elementary attempt to compensate for the range of a player by using a handful of variables.  There are hundreds of variables that would need to be included in this "formula" in order to even come close to accurate results.  Fielding % is an accurate measure of a player's ability to make plays on balls that they are able to play.  It is clear that it doesn't take into account balls that some players could have gotten to that others were not able to reach.  There is a reason that it doesn't take this into account.  The formula would be so complicated it would make Einstein's head spin.
So... because some people aren't smart enough to figure it out, it's not valid? That's absolutely ridiculous. Fielding percentage is useless.

5/29/09
0
(Edited by dserra)
Pat wrote:
So... because some people aren't smart enough to figure it out, it's not valid? That's absolutely ridiculous. Fielding percentage is useless.
look yankee fans no matter what you say, red sox and mets fans will always hate the yankees , especially jeter   so stop trying to argue with people who will go to any lengths including false mathematical calculations to make him seem 1000 times worse than he actually is .if you read the article and i do mean read not skim to what you want to see there is a lot of conjecture .anyway almost all baseball publications still use fld. pct. so i guess any manual or baseball magazine you buy is useless

5/29/09
0
Pat wrote:
So... because some people aren't smart enough to figure it out, it's not valid? That's absolutely ridiculous. Fielding percentage is useless.
I'm saying it's not valid because the math isn't accurate.  The formula used in this article is based on only a few variables, leaving out dozens of others.  You clearly didn't read what I wrote or you would have gotten that much. 

5/29/09
0
I love when top comment is voted PQ

5/29/09
0
dserra wrote:
look yankee fans no matter what you say, red sox and mets fans will always hate the yankees , especially jeter   so stop trying to argue with people who will go to any lengths including false mathematical calculations to make him seem 1000 times worse than he actually is .if you read the article and i do mean read not skim to what you want to see there is a lot of conjecture .anyway almost all baseball publications still use fld. pct. so i guess any manual or baseball magazine you buy is useless
I have (thoroughly) read more baseball articles than I would ever care to admit, about this and countless other topics.  I assure you... no one is making false calculations. Unless, of course, there are literally dozens of reputable baseball people all conspiring to come to the same conclusion about Derek Jeter. That, of course, would be ridiculous.

5/29/09
1
u know what derek jeter is awesome

5/29/09
1
4 rings in 5 years. all star MVP, world series MVP (same season).  14 years=2592 hits. 315 carrer batting avg 213 HR's 1024 rbi's
309 lifetime playoff batting average. . 3 gold gloves ,3 silver sluggers,rookie of the year, 12 all star appearances. so many intangibles  it would take forever to post. need I go on? 123 post season games played  17 post season home runs 49 rbi's.

5/29/09
0
Pat wrote:
I have (thoroughly) read more baseball articles than I would ever care to admit, about this and countless other topics.  I assure you... no one is making false calculations. Unless, of course, there are literally dozens of reputable baseball people all conspiring to come to the same conclusion about Derek Jeter. That, of course, would be ridiculous.
look  this is the 3rd time i'm saying this .I DON'T THINK HE'S THE BEST ,i just don't buy 2nd worst all-time .i've read alot of your other articles pat and i've enjoyed most of them but jeter 2nd worst all-time i'll never agree with that

5/29/09
1
blueseat9 wrote:
4 rings in 5 years. all star MVP, world series MVP (same season).  14 years=2592 hits. 315 carrer batting avg 213 HR's 1024 rbi's
309 lifetime playoff batting average. . 3 gold gloves ,3 silver sluggers,rookie of the year, 12 all star appearances. so many intangibles  it would take forever to post. need I go on? 123 post season games played  17 post season home runs 49 rbi's.
Only 1 of the stats that you even mentioned was remotely relevant to the conversation... and it was a subjective award. Rafael Palmeiro won a gold glove when he only played 28 games at 1B, so those are irrelevant too, obviously.

So... what's your point?

5/29/09
1
everybody knows Tino was robbed that year of the gold glove. I respect your opinion but I'm not buying it.my point is that anybody can come up with numbers. go by the only numbers that matter. putouts+assists+errors / put outs and assists = fielding %. Jeter's fielding % is .975.    ripken is .979  the wizard is .978  Yount is .964  Pee Wee Reese .962. these are all Hall of famers as well.you can go throw that theory out the window....

5/29/09
2
blueseat9 wrote:
everybody knows Tino was robbed that year of the gold glove. I respect your opinion but I'm not buying it.my point is that anybody can come up with numbers. go by the only numbers that matter. putouts+assists+errors / put outs and assists = fielding %. Jeter's fielding % is .975.    ripken is .979  the wizard is .978  Yount is .964  Pee Wee Reese .962. these are all Hall of famers as well.you can go throw that theory out the window....
But fielding percentage is useless. Range factor and zone rating are far better and more sensible defensive statistics, and are far more indicative of a player's ability.

If Player A gets to a ball, but it ticks off his glove and he recovers it, holding the batter to a single, but Player B misses the ball entirely, allowing the batter to get a double, who's the better fielder? Derek Jeter is Player B, because he has no range. There's nothing impressive about fielding nearly all of the balls within 5-7 feet of you, when there are other players who can do the same but with a much greater range. That's why Jeter's not a good fielder. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for some people to understand, aside from their lack of desire to understand something that makes their precious shortstop look bad.

p.s. Manny Ramirez is a future HOFer. Want to talk about his defense?

5/30/09
0
Pat wrote:
Thanks for an incredibly irrelevant argument. I guess Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neil and Scott Brosius are among the all-time greats too, right? Of course not.

Come on man... don't come in here with that weak stuff.
Actually Pat if Paul O'Neill or Tino would've been Red Sox you would have been touting O'Neill's leadership abilities a la Veritek and Tino's hitting a la Mike Greenwell. Just sayin.

5/30/09
0
I've seen a lot of fielding metrics and this one seems completely baseless. Do I think Derek Jeter is the second worst FIELDER of all-time? No. I believe what most non-Yankee and non-Red Sox fans believe: He was an above average fielder with great instincts for the game and his abilities have fallen sharply. He can still come up with the odd clutch hit here and there and he SHOULD be on his way out.///////This system had Terry Pendleton the 17th! best fielder of all-time!? I was a rabid Cards fan during the 80's...um he was all right..17th BEST!?? Yikes!

5/30/09
0
MarkTheShark wrote:
I've seen a lot of fielding metrics and this one seems completely baseless. Do I think Derek Jeter is the second worst FIELDER of all-time? No. I believe what most non-Yankee and non-Red Sox fans believe: He was an above average fielder with great instincts for the game and his abilities have fallen sharply. He can still come up with the odd clutch hit here and there and he SHOULD be on his way out.///////This system had Terry Pendleton the 17th! best fielder of all-time!? I was a rabid Cards fan during the 80's...um he was all right..17th BEST!?? Yikes!
the numbers dont lie

5/30/09
0
Brendanc8504 wrote:
the numbers dont lie
Hey Brendan you can manipulate any numbers: see Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris Nov. 2000

5/30/09
0
MarkTheShark wrote:
Actually Pat if Paul O'Neill or Tino would've been Red Sox you would have been touting O'Neill's leadership abilities a la Veritek and Tino's hitting a la Mike Greenwell. Just sayin.
I don't tout Greenwell's hitting, and Varitek's pitch-calling outweighs any leadership that either of them ever had.

And I thought Jeter was the one with the incredible leadership skills? Oh yeah... they won the championships when he was still a young buck. So you mean his leadership has really led the Yankees to... nothing? Wow, shocking.

5/30/09
0
Jeter is New Yorks version of Nomar. You should trade him, maybe you will win the world series and break the 9 year old cuse

5/30/09
0
YankeeDudeL wrote:
They weren't winning left and right.  They hadn't won a WS since '78 when he came around.  His first full season was in '96, the first win of that dynasty, in which he was a huge component, even winning RotY.  He was a key component every year since, even making some of the best plays and catches baseball has to offer.  And this is w/o mentioning his "Captain Clutch" persona on the other side of the plate.  He's got the Gold Gloves.  If u think the MLB is biased, what do u think u haters r?

Simply put, this is Yankee Hate through and through.  Just admit ur envy.  Give into.  It makes u stronger.  Yes, experience the power of the Dark Side, young Skywalker!  
You probably aren't going to get this reply because it was a few days ago but... I'm not saying Jeter didn't do his work and help the Yankees getting some of those rings. I'm just saying that if he came into another team unlike the Yankees he wouldn't be nearly as much as he's set out to be. He's lucky he came up in an organization that will get any and every player they can get. I know my red sox have some spending habits to... but not on a Yankee level.

Simply put, Jeter isn't all he's made out to be. Yeah he's made some nice plays and has gotten a few key hits and HRs. Throw him on a different team and he wouldn't be a captain.He'd have to really step it up and wouldn't just coast in neutral.

5/30/09
0
Pat wrote:
Key words: from years past.

I hope everyone realizes that it has been almost a decade since the last time the Yankees won a World Series. And yet the Jeter slurping never ends...
You hit the nail on the head.  They have jeter and A-Rod and still can't win the big one!  

5/31/09
0
Brendanc8504 wrote:
the numbers dont lie
The numbers may not lie but when you get those numbers from a formula that fails to account for dozens of variables that it would need in order to get the results you want, the numbers are pretty much useless.  The formula they are using is elementary algebra and cannot possibly cover all of the facets that need to be addressed when trying to judge the range of a player.

5/31/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
The numbers may not lie but when you get those numbers from a formula that fails to account for dozens of variables that it would need in order to get the results you want, the numbers are pretty much useless.  The formula they are using is elementary algebra and cannot possibly cover all of the facets that need to be addressed when trying to judge the range of a player.
You say that these numbers fail to account for dozens of variables, yet they account for FAR more variables than fielding percentage, and you were saying we should go by that, earlier. So which is it? Because honestly, the only consistency in your logic appears to be "leave Jeter alone".

5/31/09
1
Pat wrote:
You say that these numbers fail to account for dozens of variables, yet they account for FAR more variables than fielding percentage, and you were saying we should go by that, earlier. So which is it? Because honestly, the only consistency in your logic appears to be "leave Jeter alone".
You picked up on part of my logic but completely failed to see the other part.  Fielding % is very cut and dry and doesn't leave out any variables for the results it is trying to calculate.  Anybody in baseball will admit that Fielding % can't tell you very much about how good a player is other than how often he makes the routine plays.  However, that's all fielding % is designed to do so although it isn't enough to completely judge a player's defense, it is, in itself, accurate.  The purpose of the formula in this article is to include a player's range into a new calculation that would be more informative than fielding %.  However, there are so many missing variables that the results aren't good for anything except trash can basketball.  In short, Fielding % is accurate and complete but doesn't show the whole story.  This article is inaccurate and incomplete so until the formula is correected, the output is useless.  It's as if I had a bicycle and you had a car but your car was missing a couple of wheels and the transmission.  If you had a complete car you would be way better off but my bicycle blows your undriveable car out of the water.  See the difference?

5/31/09
1
(Edited by Redhawks1809)
Pat wrote:
I don't tout Greenwell's hitting, and Varitek's pitch-calling outweighs any leadership that either of them ever had.

And I thought Jeter was the one with the incredible leadership skills? Oh yeah... they won the championships when he was still a young buck. So you mean his leadership has really led the Yankees to... nothing? Wow, shocking.
Well actually you just proved how great a leader Jeter is by pointing out his age.  Yes, Jeter's four rings were in his first six years as a Yankee.  For a guy that young to be voted as the captain by his fellow teammates and lead them to 4 World Championships and 6 World Series makes him a natural born leader. 

5/31/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
Well actually you just proved how great a leader Jeter is by pointing out his age.  Yes, Jeter's four rings were in his first six years as a Yankee.  For a guy that young to be voted as the captain by his fellow teammates and lead them to 4 World Championships and 6 World Series makes him a natural born leader. 
I'm sorry... I fail to see the relevance to his poor fielding.

5/31/09
0
Pat wrote:
I'm sorry... I fail to see the relevance to his poor fielding.
It wasn't a comment about his fielding.  I see you had no response to my explanation about that.  This was in response to your comment about Jeter's leadership abilities.  "And I thought Jeter was the one with the incredible leadership skills? Oh yeah... they won the championships when he was still a young buck. So you mean his leadership has really led the Yankees to... nothing? Wow, shocking."

5/31/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
You picked up on part of my logic but completely failed to see the other part.  Fielding % is very cut and dry and doesn't leave out any variables for the results it is trying to calculate.  Anybody in baseball will admit that Fielding % can't tell you very much about how good a player is other than how often he makes the routine plays.  However, that's all fielding % is designed to do so although it isn't enough to completely judge a player's defense, it is, in itself, accurate.  The purpose of the formula in this article is to include a player's range into a new calculation that would be more informative than fielding %.  However, there are so many missing variables that the results aren't good for anything except trash can basketball.  In short, Fielding % is accurate and complete but doesn't show the whole story.  This article is inaccurate and incomplete so until the formula is correected, the output is useless.  It's as if I had a bicycle and you had a car but your car was missing a couple of wheels and the transmission.  If you had a complete car you would be way better off but my bicycle blows your undriveable car out of the water.  See the difference?
Honestly, that's a terrible analogy, and just sounds like the justification of a man who simply doesn't understand the statistics.

Anyone who says "fielding percentage is accurate and complete" is completely mistaken. Even in the instance that you stated, where it only applies to routine plays, it's neither complete nor accurate. Just like the example that I stated earlier, what if Player A gets to a ball but doesn't make the play, but Blayer B doesn't even come close to it? Player A obviously played it better, but he'll get an error, while Player B's fielding percentage won't be affected.

So basically, it's not complete, nor is it accurate, by any standard.

5/31/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
It wasn't a comment about his fielding.  I see you had no response to my explanation about that.  This was in response to your comment about Jeter's leadership abilities.  "And I thought Jeter was the one with the incredible leadership skills? Oh yeah... they won the championships when he was still a young buck. So you mean his leadership has really led the Yankees to... nothing? Wow, shocking."
Well.... 8 seasons and counting... even with stacked teams, his leadership has accomplished nothing. Perhaps that's another aspect of his game that is overrated. It's possible, right? Perhaps Tino, O'Neill, Bernie Williams, etc were the real leaders of the team.

5/31/09
0
Pat wrote:
Honestly, that's a terrible analogy, and just sounds like the justification of a man who simply doesn't understand the statistics.

Anyone who says "fielding percentage is accurate and complete" is completely mistaken. Even in the instance that you stated, where it only applies to routine plays, it's neither complete nor accurate. Just like the example that I stated earlier, what if Player A gets to a ball but doesn't make the play, but Blayer B doesn't even come close to it? Player A obviously played it better, but he'll get an error, while Player B's fielding percentage won't be affected.

So basically, it's not complete, nor is it accurate, by any standard.
Your example is all good and well but you are making inferences about the meaning of fielding % that can't be made.  You clearly aren't getting what fielding % is meant to measure.  It is a measure of the % of balls a player fields that he converts successfully, whether that be getting a ball in from the outfield or throwing a guy out.  You are giving it another definition entirely.  What you aren't getting is that while it may not be a useful stat, it is entirely accurate.  There isn't really much room for interpretation other than judging whether a play is an error or not. 

5/31/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
Your example is all good and well but you are making inferences about the meaning of fielding % that can't be made.  You clearly aren't getting what fielding % is meant to measure.  It is a measure of the % of balls a player fields that he converts successfully, whether that be getting a ball in from the outfield or throwing a guy out.  You are giving it another definition entirely.  What you aren't getting is that while it may not be a useful stat, it is entirely accurate.  There isn't really much room for interpretation other than judging whether a play is an error or not. 
It's not that fielding % is "supposed" to calculate anything in particular. It was originally intended to be the all-encompassing way to measure a player's fielding ability, decades ago when there was far less effort put into statistical analysis as compared to today.

Now, with the addition of far more in-depth and useful fielding statistics, most people acknowledge that fielding percentage is an obsolete and antiquated statistic.

5/31/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
Your example is all good and well but you are making inferences about the meaning of fielding % that can't be made.  You clearly aren't getting what fielding % is meant to measure.  It is a measure of the % of balls a player fields that he converts successfully, whether that be getting a ball in from the outfield or throwing a guy out.  You are giving it another definition entirely.  What you aren't getting is that while it may not be a useful stat, it is entirely accurate.  There isn't really much room for interpretation other than judging whether a play is an error or not. 
"What you aren't getting is that while it may not be a useful stat, it is entirely accurate."

If you admit that it's not useful, then who cares who "accurate" it is? I actually believe it's misleading. But that's fine.

5/31/09
0
Pat wrote:
"What you aren't getting is that while it may not be a useful stat, it is entirely accurate."

If you admit that it's not useful, then who cares who "accurate" it is? I actually believe it's misleading. But that's fine.
My point wasn't so much to show that fielding % is accurate but to show that no matter how bad a stat it is, it is better than some egregious formula with results that aren't accurate.  Essentially what they attempted (I use that word with great care) to do was to take fielding % and expand upon it.  While I do think it is possible, it will be no more useful than fielding % is now if some guy in his mom's basement just gives it the old college try.  If it could be done correctly, it would completely eradicate the need for fielding %.

5/31/09
0
Redhawks1809 wrote:
My point wasn't so much to show that fielding % is accurate but to show that no matter how bad a stat it is, it is better than some egregious formula with results that aren't accurate.  Essentially what they attempted (I use that word with great care) to do was to take fielding % and expand upon it.  While I do think it is possible, it will be no more useful than fielding % is now if some guy in his mom's basement just gives it the old college try.  If it could be done correctly, it would completely eradicate the need for fielding %.
1) This stat is a lot more reliable than you give it credit for.
2) There already is no need for fielding percentage.
3) This is not just some people in mom's basement. These stats have been calculated by people who analyze every single baseball play over the course of the entire year.

The only area where I believe the author of this article went wrong was that he tried to go back too far, which incorporated unreliable data. That does not, however, change the fact that based on very reliable data and analysis, Derek Jeter is (and has been) a statistically terrible shortstop.

2nd worst since 1871? Maybe, maybe not. There's no way to tell.
One of the worst regular starting shortstops in baseball right now? Yes, without a doubt.

5/31/09
0
Did you even read the article?  For those who don't speak "math", all they are doing is assigning any ball that was hit in a particular player's direction including hits, outs, and errors.  For hits they are allocating a percentage of that hit to the two players that the hit went in between.  Using this they come up with an arbitrary number of "chances" the player had to make a play.  I say arbitrary because this is where the dozens of variables are ignored.  He even says in the article they have no way of knowing most of the data that would be necessary to do this properly.  An exact quote, "Yes, these results are flawed."  They have no way of knowing where players were positioned when the hits took place.  They don't know exactly where the ball went through the infield.  They don't know how hard the ball was hit.  They don't figure in the different playing surfaces.  They don't consider whether there are other players on base where a shortstop would need to be prepared to get to second base to field a throw from the catcher.  They don't factor in the trajectory of the ball.  They don't factor in wind and other weather conditions.  They have no data on the depth of the infielders.  Is this starting to make sense or do I need to continue?  Perhaps a diagram?  This formula has more holes in it than Dick Cheney's hunting partners.  You seem caught up on fielding % so maybe I should never have used it for comparison.  The issue really has nothing to do with other than to say that the stat hasn't been replaced because there isn't an alternative that presents a clear picture of the range of a player.  The only way it could be done is to watch every single game and chart every single hit in a computer program that would analyze it's exact location, speed, height, etc.

5/31/09
0
 THATS PLAIN RETARTED WHO THE HECK WROTE THIS GARBAGE

6/13/09
0
Well,  I am not a Yankee hater or a Red Sox fan!    I love my Cardinals...... Jetter is one of the worst things to happen to baseball since A-ROID!!!!   A lowsy fielder,,,,,   if baseball had salary cap and all teams had same opportunity at players, he would not be a very good batter even!   But I am glad you New Yorkers like pretty boy, no talent players.  I like my players to act like men...... I'll take Ozzie Smith over your no range pretty boy any day as the model for a shortstop!!!!   I hope you keep all those diva, Jeter, A-Roid, Damon, the whole bunch in New York......  Never would have guess all those tough guy attitides in New York would like the sissy boy on shortstop! 

6/13/09
0
I AM YANKEE HATER BIG TIME GO RED SOX!!!!!!! BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT DEREK JETER IS A PREETY GOOD HITTER AND A GOOD GUY

6/13/09
0
Pat wrote:
Give me one valid reason why I should "respect" Derek Jeter, and I'll give you 5 more reasons why I shouldn't.
I WOULD HOPE YOUR NOT SERIOUS

6/13/09
0
derek is awesome

6/13/09
0
ozziesmail wrote:
I WOULD HOPE YOUR NOT SERIOUS
I am 100% serious.

6/13/09
0
Your right, Jeter sucks.

6/13/09
0
nwahthatsme wrote:
 THATS PLAIN RETARTED WHO THE HECK WROTE THIS GARBAGE
Why exactly is it garbage?  If it's such garbage then refute it.

10/10/09
0
i guess this year was a fluke? you had to realize that A Rod needed some time to adjust to the postioning at third. Jetes would tend to play more towards third. since A Rod became comfortable, Jetes started playing more straight away, hence getting his range back.

10/10/09
1
Pat wrote:
He really doesn't have good range at all. The report has a lot of validity, and is echoing something that has been said by a lot of very intelligent baseball guys and stat geeks across the board. Rob Neyer and Peter Gammons are a few who have pointed this out in the past.
Anyone with a brain knows that Rob Neyer is biased against anything Yankees. And don't get me started on Peter Gammons.  He is one of the worst announcers I have ever listened to.  We know he loves the Red Sox but he cannot even be neutral for one inning.  There is nothing wrong with Jeter's range. Your own team should be atest to that.  Please tell me how many games Jeter lost for the Yankees because of his range?  Screw the math equations, Jeter brings it every single night and that is why his team is up 2-0 and why your team is not. 

10/12/09
0

jeter is awsome, why else would he be the captain and maintain his position?    I am a Whotesox fan, but jeter is an awesome guy!!

10/12/09
0
The_Pope wrote:
At least he has less Infield hits to deal with at  their new ballpark. Now he can just watch hits sail over his head 
i hate jeter. i think he's not 1 of da best player 4 da yanks!!

10/13/09
0
Joshadecker wrote:
Stats my ass, "he has no range <sarcastic voice> Bottom line he is one of the most clutch players in baseball. Say all you want you are all on a computer looking up stats and saying how crappy he is, but hes still playing professional baseball for one of the best teams in the League.....3 golden gloves DOES count. Have any of you won one? Hes won world series as the captain of the team, and dove into the stands to make a catch that could have ended his career just to win for himself and his team...So until ANY of you get off your asses and are playing pro ball for a team Id shut the hell up.....

Thank you for your sanity!

10/13/09
0
I'm still going to wear my Jeter jersey proudly. 

 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine.
Preview

1  2  2  >


SHOP
MLB GEAR
Reebok NFL Equipment New E..
$79.95
New Era New York Yankees N..
$33.95
adidas Los Angeles Lakers ..
$24.95
MLB TICKETS
Loading...
MEET OUR FANS
Over 6,000,000 fans and growing!
Doreen
Female, 30
HI FIVE
Myka
Female, 20
HI FIVE
 more

24/7 competition
12,798,192+
Games Played
ANSWER TODAY'S POLL
 more
What Would Have Happened If Brett Favre Had Stayed On The Jets?
PLAY NEVER-ENDING TRIVIA
 more
The first ever WNBA game was played between which two teams?
Utah v. Houston
Seattle v. Portland
Detroit v. Chicago
New York v. LA
PREDICT THE SCORE
 more
Earn Points! Predict 
176
 games today
NBA
NHL
NCAABB
Soccer
TAKE A QUIZ
 more
who is this wwe superstars?
 

Join Today
About FanIQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Contact Us
Report A Bug
Help

Copyright 2009 Sportelligence, Inc. All Rights Reserved