1st ballot HOF and a great Yankee, I just don't understand the need to embellish what is a brilliant career by superlatives (top 10 player of all time) that are patently absurd, or projecting hypotheticals about peers.
Fair point about not switching positions when A-rod came. But since A-rod was a jacked-up roider with a future hip condition, it probably was the right thing evevn if it didn't seem that way at the time.
Hero worship? It only appears that way because of the hate around here. I haven't watched a game in years. If he sucks now, well the team sucks so he's not making them any worse.
As far as his fielding, I saw all the defensive metrics years ago and never saw it affect the W/L then, so why criticize now?
Simple as that. The guy has been everything you could have ever wanted as a player for 20 years, but people would rather be on the other side of popular opinion and bash the guy on his way out.
He wasnt everything you could have ever wanted as a player. He didnt hit 40 home runs, and he didnt play defense like Ozzie Smith. Why is it that people who think Jeter is a very deserving HOFer but not one of the handful of immortal MLBers are lumped in as haters and bashers? Why cant we have an honest assessment of his accomplishments and limitations.
Look, Jeter had an amazing career and I wish he had been on my Mets for those 20 years. Great player. But he was never really in the conversation as the best player in the game at any point in his career. Could/should have won one MVP but finished 3rd. I dont see how you can put a guy like that in the pantheon of the top 10 players.
Being a sports fan usually doesn't tell you much about a man.
As far as his fielding, I saw all the defensive metrics years ago and never saw it affect the W/L then, so why criticize now?
What is the basis for saying his fielding did not affect W/L? Are you saying that if he was a plus-plus fielder (ie. if he was Ozzie Smith out there) that the Yankees would not have won more games?
Having a clear-eyed view on Derek Jeter's career is "hate"....what a bunch of bullshit. Rob and Mook and I don't hate Jeter, not by any means. We just don't slobber all over him.
BTW, when the Yankees were actually winning those titles, Bernie was the better player. So why don't people constantly kiss his ass like they do with Jeter? I don't know, maybe it's because Bernie never had Jeter's ego.
but his prime was a lot shorter than Jeter and Jeter benefits by being compared to SS instead of OF.
The key thing for Jeter is that he was a great hitter who could play SS credibly. He was usually one of the worst defenders at his position and also usually one of the best hitters at his position.
1) I have not been ahuge fan of the farewell tour, and I said the same for Mo last year. But, chastising Jeter for not being the best player ever is ridiculous. the tour is about honoring a guy who is essentially the face of of baseball for the better part of 2 decades.
2) It's easy to dissect Jeter's career the way Olberman did. But, it is also just as easy to look at his career numbers in hits, runs, SB, etc.
3) Those who say he is the best SS in history are wrong. That discussion should begin and end with Wagner. After him, there are few players who can lineup for a shot at #2. Jeter is one of them, but may fall a little lower depending on who is judging and how.
4) Whoever said the 4 best players in history are the same as the 4 best Yankees is ignoring some all time greats that may be able to stake a claim for the #1 spot, let alone one of the next 4. This list includes Mays, Bonds, Aaron, Williams, and some others.
5) Did he actually compare Randolph to Jeter? I loved Willie, but let's be serious.
6) The worst part about this topic is that a lot of people end up appearing on the wrong side of the argument. If you disagree with Olberman, you are just a Jeter lover. If you agree with anything Olberman said, some of which is factual and/ior statistically proven, then you appear as a hater. The truth is, you can love and appreciate Jeter without slobbering all over him. But, this argument makes that difficult.
Those are the 4 athletes who stand above all others when it comes to marketing/advertising in this country over the past 20 years. Jordan, Tiger, and Peyton are all on the GOAT shortlist in their respective sports. Jeter, not so much. Jeter was put on that pedestal because he was an integral part of a Dynasty, he was playing in NYC, and he was a handsome and likeable guy. He wasn't a once in a generation type of talent like Tiger/MJ/Peyton were.
So he was absolutely overhyped. He was the most popular player in the game for a 20 year span, yet he was probably never the best player in the game for any one of those seasons.
But guess what, he handled that "face of the game" responsibility about as well as any athlete ever could. He was an unbelievable face of the franchise for the Yanks. Some people will say Bernie, others will say Mo, but imo Derek Jeter was the MVP and Leader of the Yanks Dynasty. And in an era where seemingly all of the other major stars had their reputations tarnished due to PEDs allegations and off-the-field issues, Jeter never got in trouble and wrote the book on how to handle being a star in NYC.
Jose Canseco is the biggest money hungry rat in recent American sports history and he was outing everyone he could think of to gain attention, yet he went so far as to say that Jeter never used PEDs and Canseco played on the same team as him. Jeter is the biggest possible fish you could out and Canseco would make the most money from outing Jeter, yet he credited Jeter for being one of the "great, clean players in the sport". And Jeter is such a big name that if had been using PEDs, someone else could've outed him because of how much money that would be worth. That's why Derek Jeter is the least likely MLB player to have used PEDs in that past 20 years imo, because his popularity makes him the biggest target and if he had been using he'd have been caught by now.
Eric Chavez said that he wants to "thank" all the PEDs users like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and A-Rod. His argument was that despite those guys being cheaters, they made the rest of the players an incredible amount of money. I'm sure a ton of other players feel the same way. They got PAID because of those PEDs users. Well, Derek Jeter was the Face of the Sport and never got in trouble at all. So Jeter deserves the biggest fucking "thanks" of them all for all he did to maintain the image of the game and help get the rest of the players PAID. That's why I've had no problem at all with this Jeter tour. If there is any player from the past 20 years who deserves to get gifts from the rest of the League, it's Jeter who made more money for the sport than anyone else over that time.
And while I agree that Jeter is overhyped because of the marketing machine, he is still one of the best baseball players in ever.
According to Fangraphs' WAR among position players:
45th best of all-time (1871)
26th best since integration (1947)
16th best of the past 50 years (1965)
5th best of the past 20 years (1995)
5th best statistical player in the regular season of the past 20 years. Top 20 of the past 50 fucking years!
And that's the regular season we're talking about. No individual player has accumulated the career post-season statistics that Derek Jeter has. Most of that has to do with the wild-card era giving Jeter more post-season series to play in. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore the fact that Jeter has the greatest post-season career of any player ever in terms of sheer volume. Jeter's got an entire season's worth of post-season games (158) where he hit .308/.374/.465 compared to his .310/.377/.440 career regular season line. Whereas most players saw their averages dip in the post-season, Derek Jeter maintained his form and arguably even improved.
Top 20 regular season position player of the past 50 years. Greatest post-season resume ever. 5 rings. 3600+ career hits.
The man might not be on that Peyton/Tiger/MJ GOAT candidate level, but he was pretty fucking good...
And if there's ONE thing that the Sabermetric Revolution has taught us about the sport of baseball, it's that Individuals have a very limited impact and can't carry a team. This isn't the NBA where a superstar can make or break a franchise, this isn't the NFL where a great QB can cover up a ton of holes.
I stated earlier that Jeter has the 16th highest WAR of the past 50 years. A-Rod has the 2nd highest WAR of the past 50 years.
Fangraphs' WAR
D.Jeter: 73.7 career --- 4.4 per/162
A-Rod: 111.0 career --- 7.0 per/162
In terms of WAR, the difference between Jeter and A-Rod for their careers is 2.6 games per season.
And this is where "intangibles" do make a difference. A-Rod was worth 2-3 games more than Jeter statistically for his teams. But if you replaced Jeter with A-Rod on the Dynasty Yanks, I think the Yanks would suffer because A-Rod would be a far worse leader and Face of the Franchise. Jeter's ability to handle being the star took so much pressure off of guys like Bernie and Tino and O'Neill. If A-Rod is that face of the franchise, the chemistry on those teams isn't nearly the same. For all the talk about Torre's ability to handle egos, he actually did an absolutely awful job when it came to handling players with big egos. He had no clue how to handle guys like Sheffield, A-Rod, or Matt Kemp. Torre's reputation for being able to handle stars is 100% due to Derek Jeter being the consummate teammate despite being a star. So while A-Rod would provide 2-3 more wins than Jeter in a vacuum, it wouldn't be in a vacuum and A-Rod as the face would create a worse dynamic in the locker room. How many wins does that decrease in Chemistry cost the team? Maybe 2-3. And in the post-season when Chemistry becomes infinitely more important, I'd far rather keep Jeter than have A-Rod in his place.
So A-Rod is a far better individual player than Jeter, yet I'd rather have Jeter as the leader and face of my franchise. A-Rod can carry teams to a greater degree, but I'd be far more wary of him leading my team because of how big of an immature douchebag he has proven himself to be. The NYC media and atmosphere would've torn him apart and there's a 0% chance that A-Rod handles the NYC spotlight as well as Jeter did. That doesn't show up in statistics but it absolutely matters. Intangibles exist and yes, Derek Jeter provides a ton of it.
Jeter is one of the greatest statistical players in the sport's history. Yet his legacy is a lot greater than statistics. He was a tremendous Face to a Dynasty and Face to a Sport. He handled the spotlight as well as anyone has ever handled it. He isn't Mickey Mantle, but he's the best Yankee since Mickey Mantle. The best Yankee of the past 50 years. He was never my favorite Yankee during the Dynasty years but the more time has gone on the more I realize that he was always the most important player on the team. I've grown to appreciate everything he has meant to the franchise and sport and I'm going to miss him.
although closer to Rob's view. In one area where I disagree a bit, because it can't be quantified, is that I find it difficult to compare modern players to all-time players, many of whom played in a different era. My personal opinion, is that the game has gotten much more competitive since the days of DiMaggio as modern coaching is vastly superior. Therefore, to stand out, like Jeter and Ripkin have, for such a long time suggests a "greatness" that transcends the tools we have to analyze them by.
As for Olbermann, he's a disagreeable asshole who makes a living pissing people off - not worth my time and not worth yours either.
You may want to re-think that list of teams. For example, on the Orioles Frank Robinson and Ripken could be considered ahead of him and some may consider Murray or Palmer, as well. On the Reds there are few other players who would be ahead of him as the franchise's best. there may some other players from other teams you listed as well.
Now I'm reading more of the posts and re-read the complete
are what make it hard to be involved in this discussion as an educated fan and not incorrectly come off seeming like you don't like Jeter. Someone calls him a top 10 player of all time. any knowledgeable fan has to refute this, but it will come of as hating on Jeter for those with blinders or ignorance of the game.
Jeter might not be a Top 10 player of all-time, but you could argue that he was a Top 10 position player of the past 50 years. 50 years might not be All-Time, but it's still a long ass time.
1) I didn't get to see Mantle play, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a lot of people who know the game that wouldn't rank him somewhere in the top 10 all time. If he hadn't torn up his knee as a rookie because of a vain DiMaggio, he very well may have ended up the very best of all time. That said, he was broken down physically for the second half of his career, but his numbers don't reflect that. He played through an exruciating amount of pain every single day and yet still performed. Some people talk about him as if he is a power hitter of today. The guy was basically a .300 hitter for his career, not the .250 typical power hitter. He was also one of the fastest guys ever to play the game and that's with a bum leg. How many power hitters today would bunt for a hit? Hell, they don't even do it against the shift.
2) As for the argument of athletes in their primes, and who you start a team with I have always leaned towards another guy I never saw play. I would start any team with Mays, who I think could be argued as the best of all time. I'd also "settle" for Ruth or Mantle.
3) the thing about DiMaggio is I think he is very slightly overrated by fans from his era, and underrated by fans who never saw him play but read now about how he was a prick and then use some BS metrics.
I haven't seen Robin Yount mentioned who imho is better than
I was a huge Mays fan and hated the Yankees. Mantle was feared as was Mays. However Watching Mantle hit homers from both sides of the plate was just ridiculous
RE: I haven't seen Robin Yount mentioned who imho is better than
He will never be confused with the greatest defensive SS of all time. His range to his left is joked about, and rightfully so. But, I always thought his range to his right was good and his arm was a plus. He also had incredible range going back to the OF. He also improved his game later in his career by constantly working on agility, quickness, and positioning. And he has as sure a set of hands as there were in the game. He basically made every play he got to.
Phil in the opinion of the bleacher report he's 4 spots ahead of
to list where Jeter ranks from 1995-present considering he was called up in 1995 and his first full season was 1996 and he is retiring this year. No one will argue Jeter's durability or abilty still contribute at points late in his career.
WAR is a compilation statistic and someone good enough and healthy enough to play for this long will eventually have a lot of WAR.
So Jeter is 5th in WAR since 1995. He also happens to rate #1 in games played and #1 in plate appearances (which is aided by playing for a dominant offense the majority of his career). And that #5 position is a monstrous dropoff in WAR from ARod at #1 (200 fewer games) and Bonds #2 (1000 fewer games!).
If you time shift the parameters, and do 1990-2009, Jeter falls to 10th in WAR. And if you change the parameters 5 years in the other direction, from 2000-2014, Jeter ranks 11th in WAR.
Obviously, Jeter is a fantastic player, a Hall of Famer, whose durability and longevity is very impressive in today's era. But when you have someone who played in 20 different seasons, and then use only those 20 seasons worth of stats, of course he is going to be at or near the top, compliation wise.
And as to the idea that the Yankees would be worse with Arod instead of Jeter in NY, I find it an absurd hypothetical. Arod was superior to Jeter in every way on the baseball field. He was a far super hitter, far superior fielder, and a more efficient base stealer. If he were lucky enough to be drafted by the team with the biggest competitive advantage in North American sports instead of Jeter, they would have dominated all the same.
Would they have won 4 rings and 6 pennants from 1996-2003? Perhaps not because the postseason is a crapshoot. Then again, if Jeter and those Yankee teams replayed those postseasons again, they might not repeat it either given the random nature of it all.
It makes me feel worse about Don Mattingly. If his back never gave out, we may have had similar conversations about him. His prime was obviously much shorter, but for the handful of years that he was healthy, I think he was the very best player in the game.
At two different positions, no less. There's definitely an argument to be made for him. Jeter had the more consistent career, but Yount's best seasons were better than Jeter's best.
Having a clear-eyed view on Derek Jeter's career is "hate"....what a bunch of bullshit. Rob and Mook and I don't hate Jeter, not by any means. We just don't slobber all over him.
BTW, when the Yankees were actually winning those titles, Bernie was the better player. So why don't people constantly kiss his ass like they do with Jeter? I don't know, maybe it's because Bernie never had Jeter's ego.
Yes, the only difference between the perception and reception of a deserved first ballot HOFer with crossover appeal's career and a guy who isn't even a fringe HOF candidate that had almost none is the former's ego.
RE: I think Jeter's defense was not as bad as many make it out to be
He will never be confused with the greatest defensive SS of all time. His range to his left is joked about, and rightfully so. But, I always thought his range to his right was good and his arm was a plus. He also had incredible range going back to the OF. He also improved his game later in his career by constantly working on agility, quickness, and positioning. And he has as sure a set of hands as there were in the game. He basically made every play he got to.
Jeter is tied for 5th all-time in gold glove awards for a short stop particularly because of his sure-handedness, "jump throw" and because of his hitting which influence voters. Also, many fans have considered Jeter as an excellent defensive short stop over the years.
So I do think that there are many who confuse Jeter's defense. He did handle everything he got to-- he just got to a whole lot less than others.
I think if you replayed those post seaons, there is still a pretty good chance the Yankees would have replicated the results, or come pretty close. In that span, they were always one of the top 2 or 3 teams in either league. some of their best years (1997) they didn't win it all, and others where they were not at their best in the regular season (2000) they did. But, they were consistently an elite team.
RE: Phil in the opinion of the bleacher report he's 4 spots ahead of
I'm a huge fan of Robin Yount as I watched him all through the 70's and 80's. Great player who never really put it all together until the 80's. Jeter was a better fielder, base-runner, and hit for higher average. Yount was more of a home run hitter after he moved to the outfield.
As great as Yount was, he never quite lived up to his talent level, which I always thought was all-time.
than just 20 years. So I don't get your beef about that.
And you should realize that individual stars have a limited statistical value on their teams in baseball. It's basically the #1 thing that the sabermetric revolution has taught us.
So yes, I believe that while A-Rod could add 3 wins over Jeter over the course of a regular season... 3 wins can easily be made up in other ways. Jeter took a ton of pressure off of his teammates by being able to handle the NYC media flawlessly. Bernie and Tino never had to answer stupid questions about Jeter. If A-Rod is the face of that team, you bet your ass that the ship doesn't sail as smoothly. So all things being the same A-Rod would add 3 more wins, but all things wouldn't be the same. Unless you think team chemistry has 0 impact on wins, which is ridiculous.
but I'm not sure why we have to call guys the best ever in present time as if to validate their accomplishments. It is what spawns stupid arguments like the one that went on earlier this week with Eli.
Here's what I know - Eli and Jeter are two players who have been lifetime members of teams I follow. Good citizens. Good ambassadors for the game. Solid characters. And winners.
That alone means they will get my respect and my cheers. In sports with a bunch of raving jackasses and attention whores abounding, these two guys go about their business unassuming and with integrity.
Frankly, I could care less if either guy is the 150th best Giant or Yankee - it shouldn't change the respect given for a farewell. I hate the Orioles, but respected Ripken. I never thought he was the best SS or even the best Oriole, but I still loved watching him get the attention for the consecutive games streak.
I'd much rather invest my attention and time towards guys like this than guys like T.O, Deion, Ortiz, A-rod, and others who put themselves above the sport and the team.
I realize the limited value each player brings to a baseball team. I espouse that view every year whenever people want to discuss MVP voting and the ridiclous decisions that many make in that regard.
Chemistry is like clutch and grit. It's there, until it isn't. But mostly, it's just confirmation bias.
if you don't believe that chemistry matters in team sports, I don't know what to tell you. You know how much of a fan of advanced metrics I am and how much I know about them. But I also believe intangibles exist. I do believe in clutch and I do believe in chemistry.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. I love Jeter and I'm glad he was a Yankee and I think he was great for the sport, and he was a great role model and ambassador and I'd rather celebrate a guy like him than a dirtbag.
But I also love baseball as a sport and the history of the game and I did so before Jeter came along. So when people make ludicrous claims, it distorts the history of the game. And like trademarks and reputations, if you don't protect it, you eventually lose it.
It's a similar reason why I take MVP voting far more seriously than perhaps I should. Making terrible judgments eventually distort the history of the game because of how much MVP, All Star, etc. honors are then used to define players' legacies.
Baseball, because of it's long history and record books is an interesting sport to judge. On one hand, it is the single most statistically judge sport, mainly because the earliest of stats (BA, hits, HR, RBI, runs, SB, ERA, W-L) were long studied, repeated, and revered. The record books in baseball are the holiest of all the major sports.
On the other hand, I think all sports have the intangibles that only true fans and students of the game can judge. there are a lot of people who spout all sorts of stats, including many of the newer metrics, who I believe don't truly know the game, or what to look for in a player.
It is in the latter that Jeter really does set himself apart from many of the stars of his era. Many have been mentioned here. Some poo-poo at terms like clutch, for example. But, take a look at the games brightest stars over history. how many of them replicate, let alone surpass, their career numbers in the post season? not many. Yet, Jeter did and he did it over a very large sample size.
if you don't believe that chemistry matters in team sports, I don't know what to tell you. You know how much of a fan of advanced metrics I am and how much I know about them. But I also believe intangibles exist. I do believe in clutch and I do believe in chemistry.
GREAT POST! Statistics dominate sports analysis but intangibles bring championships. Jeter had the intangibles.
of anyone in baseball history, while playing the most difficult defensive position other than catcher. Just to put it in perspective, the last time any active player had as many hits as Derek Jeter was when Pete Rose was hanging on trying to catch Ty Cobb (almost 30 years ago).
When a player has these attributes:
--20 years on one team
--Plays shortstop, a glamorous position
--Almost 3500 hits, 6th all time
--Over 1900 runs scored, 9th all time
--All-time postseason statistical leader in almost every offensive category
--Plays in New York
--One of the biggest contributors to five championships
--Never caught using PEDs when most of his contemporaries with better stats used PEDs
--20th all time in offensive WAR
with great chemistry win, or is it that when teams win, they are happy, confident, and thus have great chemistry? And even if chemistry leads to winning, it doesn't mean that it's controllable. The Red Sox of the last handful of years-- great chemistry and grit and that's why they win. Then a similar group of guys go to lockerroom fried chicken eating boozers and are the shame of the town. Then the next year they make a few changes (but have largely the same culture) and they win. And then this year they suck again.
If the reason those Yankee teams won with Jeter is because he brought great chemistry to the team, then why isn't he attributed for the terrible chemistry during the years when the Yankees kept shitting the bed, couldn't scrap together hits, and flamed out in many disappointing postseasons?
And if ARod were such a lockerroom cancer, or if he couldn't have enabled the earlier Yankee teams to win due to his personality, then how does 2009 happen where he is THE guy?
I agree 100% with your post about the history and integrity of the game and the legacies of players. That is why I said in an earlier post that discussions like this make some people look like bad guys. But, I think you have to refute wild claims like best of all time.
I do love the way FatMan articulated his view on respect for players. And to a large degree I agree with him. But, I don't think it is fair to let absurd claims go unchecked.
but over time, Jeter won't be looked at as the best player. He'll be looked at as a Great Yankee Captain. He'll probably also be looked at as a guy who kept some shred of integrity while the majority of his peers were cheats, so that's the face people want to cheer.
I'm fine with that.
I'll never tell my son that Jeter was the best Yankee ever, but I'll tell him he was the one i was most proud of watching. My Dad always said Mantle was the best Yankee in his day, but he enjoyed watching Whitey Ford a lot more.
At two different positions, no less. There's definitely an argument to be made for him. Jeter had the more consistent career, but Yount's best seasons were better than Jeter's best.
Jeters 1999 season was better than any season Robin Yount ever had
The only thing that annoys me though about Jeter's sendoff
about chemistry. Confirmation bias is definitely there. nd there are different types of teams that win. The Yanks Dynasty teams were clearly different than the Red Sox teams that won.
Jeter DOES get shit on for being the Captain of the team during the 00's during the title drought. He does get shit for his relationship with A-Rod. He gets plenty of shit for it.
I feel like NYC is just a different animal though because of the size of the media. I feel like Jeter and Torre both being able to handle the media took a load off the rest of the team. I don't see A-Rod being able to handle it nearly as well as Jeter did.
And Jeter was the most consistent player on that 2009 team. A-Rod was the guy in the post-season, but Jeter was the MVP of that team over the course of the year. But it was a team effort.
Hero worship? It only appears that way because of the hate around here. I haven't watched a game in years. If he sucks now, well the team sucks so he's not making them any worse.
As far as his fielding, I saw all the defensive metrics years ago and never saw it affect the W/L then, so why criticize now?
He wasnt everything you could have ever wanted as a player. He didnt hit 40 home runs, and he didnt play defense like Ozzie Smith. Why is it that people who think Jeter is a very deserving HOFer but not one of the handful of immortal MLBers are lumped in as haters and bashers? Why cant we have an honest assessment of his accomplishments and limitations.
Look, Jeter had an amazing career and I wish he had been on my Mets for those 20 years. Great player. But he was never really in the conversation as the best player in the game at any point in his career. Could/should have won one MVP but finished 3rd. I dont see how you can put a guy like that in the pantheon of the top 10 players.
What is the basis for saying his fielding did not affect W/L? Are you saying that if he was a plus-plus fielder (ie. if he was Ozzie Smith out there) that the Yankees would not have won more games?
BTW, when the Yankees were actually winning those titles, Bernie was the better player. So why don't people constantly kiss his ass like they do with Jeter? I don't know, maybe it's because Bernie never had Jeter's ego.
The key thing for Jeter is that he was a great hitter who could play SS credibly. He was usually one of the worst defenders at his position and also usually one of the best hitters at his position.
2) It's easy to dissect Jeter's career the way Olberman did. But, it is also just as easy to look at his career numbers in hits, runs, SB, etc.
3) Those who say he is the best SS in history are wrong. That discussion should begin and end with Wagner. After him, there are few players who can lineup for a shot at #2. Jeter is one of them, but may fall a little lower depending on who is judging and how.
4) Whoever said the 4 best players in history are the same as the 4 best Yankees is ignoring some all time greats that may be able to stake a claim for the #1 spot, let alone one of the next 4. This list includes Mays, Bonds, Aaron, Williams, and some others.
5) Did he actually compare Randolph to Jeter? I loved Willie, but let's be serious.
6) The worst part about this topic is that a lot of people end up appearing on the wrong side of the argument. If you disagree with Olberman, you are just a Jeter lover. If you agree with anything Olberman said, some of which is factual and/ior statistically proven, then you appear as a hater. The truth is, you can love and appreciate Jeter without slobbering all over him. But, this argument makes that difficult.
Jordan
Tiger
Jeter
Peyton
Those are the 4 athletes who stand above all others when it comes to marketing/advertising in this country over the past 20 years. Jordan, Tiger, and Peyton are all on the GOAT shortlist in their respective sports. Jeter, not so much. Jeter was put on that pedestal because he was an integral part of a Dynasty, he was playing in NYC, and he was a handsome and likeable guy. He wasn't a once in a generation type of talent like Tiger/MJ/Peyton were.
So he was absolutely overhyped. He was the most popular player in the game for a 20 year span, yet he was probably never the best player in the game for any one of those seasons.
But guess what, he handled that "face of the game" responsibility about as well as any athlete ever could. He was an unbelievable face of the franchise for the Yanks. Some people will say Bernie, others will say Mo, but imo Derek Jeter was the MVP and Leader of the Yanks Dynasty. And in an era where seemingly all of the other major stars had their reputations tarnished due to PEDs allegations and off-the-field issues, Jeter never got in trouble and wrote the book on how to handle being a star in NYC.
Jose Canseco is the biggest money hungry rat in recent American sports history and he was outing everyone he could think of to gain attention, yet he went so far as to say that Jeter never used PEDs and Canseco played on the same team as him. Jeter is the biggest possible fish you could out and Canseco would make the most money from outing Jeter, yet he credited Jeter for being one of the "great, clean players in the sport". And Jeter is such a big name that if had been using PEDs, someone else could've outed him because of how much money that would be worth. That's why Derek Jeter is the least likely MLB player to have used PEDs in that past 20 years imo, because his popularity makes him the biggest target and if he had been using he'd have been caught by now.
Eric Chavez said that he wants to "thank" all the PEDs users like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and A-Rod. His argument was that despite those guys being cheaters, they made the rest of the players an incredible amount of money. I'm sure a ton of other players feel the same way. They got PAID because of those PEDs users. Well, Derek Jeter was the Face of the Sport and never got in trouble at all. So Jeter deserves the biggest fucking "thanks" of them all for all he did to maintain the image of the game and help get the rest of the players PAID. That's why I've had no problem at all with this Jeter tour. If there is any player from the past 20 years who deserves to get gifts from the rest of the League, it's Jeter who made more money for the sport than anyone else over that time.
And while I agree that Jeter is overhyped because of the marketing machine, he is still one of the best baseball players in ever.
According to Fangraphs' WAR among position players:
45th best of all-time (1871)
26th best since integration (1947)
16th best of the past 50 years (1965)
5th best of the past 20 years (1995)
5th best statistical player in the regular season of the past 20 years. Top 20 of the past 50 fucking years!
And that's the regular season we're talking about. No individual player has accumulated the career post-season statistics that Derek Jeter has. Most of that has to do with the wild-card era giving Jeter more post-season series to play in. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore the fact that Jeter has the greatest post-season career of any player ever in terms of sheer volume. Jeter's got an entire season's worth of post-season games (158) where he hit .308/.374/.465 compared to his .310/.377/.440 career regular season line. Whereas most players saw their averages dip in the post-season, Derek Jeter maintained his form and arguably even improved.
Top 20 regular season position player of the past 50 years. Greatest post-season resume ever. 5 rings. 3600+ career hits.
The man might not be on that Peyton/Tiger/MJ GOAT candidate level, but he was pretty fucking good...
And if there's ONE thing that the Sabermetric Revolution has taught us about the sport of baseball, it's that Individuals have a very limited impact and can't carry a team. This isn't the NBA where a superstar can make or break a franchise, this isn't the NFL where a great QB can cover up a ton of holes.
I stated earlier that Jeter has the 16th highest WAR of the past 50 years. A-Rod has the 2nd highest WAR of the past 50 years.
Fangraphs' WAR
D.Jeter: 73.7 career --- 4.4 per/162
A-Rod: 111.0 career --- 7.0 per/162
In terms of WAR, the difference between Jeter and A-Rod for their careers is 2.6 games per season.
And this is where "intangibles" do make a difference. A-Rod was worth 2-3 games more than Jeter statistically for his teams. But if you replaced Jeter with A-Rod on the Dynasty Yanks, I think the Yanks would suffer because A-Rod would be a far worse leader and Face of the Franchise. Jeter's ability to handle being the star took so much pressure off of guys like Bernie and Tino and O'Neill. If A-Rod is that face of the franchise, the chemistry on those teams isn't nearly the same. For all the talk about Torre's ability to handle egos, he actually did an absolutely awful job when it came to handling players with big egos. He had no clue how to handle guys like Sheffield, A-Rod, or Matt Kemp. Torre's reputation for being able to handle stars is 100% due to Derek Jeter being the consummate teammate despite being a star. So while A-Rod would provide 2-3 more wins than Jeter in a vacuum, it wouldn't be in a vacuum and A-Rod as the face would create a worse dynamic in the locker room. How many wins does that decrease in Chemistry cost the team? Maybe 2-3. And in the post-season when Chemistry becomes infinitely more important, I'd far rather keep Jeter than have A-Rod in his place.
So A-Rod is a far better individual player than Jeter, yet I'd rather have Jeter as the leader and face of my franchise. A-Rod can carry teams to a greater degree, but I'd be far more wary of him leading my team because of how big of an immature douchebag he has proven himself to be. The NYC media and atmosphere would've torn him apart and there's a 0% chance that A-Rod handles the NYC spotlight as well as Jeter did. That doesn't show up in statistics but it absolutely matters. Intangibles exist and yes, Derek Jeter provides a ton of it.
Jeter is one of the greatest statistical players in the sport's history. Yet his legacy is a lot greater than statistics. He was a tremendous Face to a Dynasty and Face to a Sport. He handled the spotlight as well as anyone has ever handled it. He isn't Mickey Mantle, but he's the best Yankee since Mickey Mantle. The best Yankee of the past 50 years. He was never my favorite Yankee during the Dynasty years but the more time has gone on the more I realize that he was always the most important player on the team. I've grown to appreciate everything he has meant to the franchise and sport and I'm going to miss him.
As for Olbermann, he's a disagreeable asshole who makes a living pissing people off - not worth my time and not worth yours either.
it was also nonsense to call him the best player of the last 30 years.
Jeter might not be a Top 10 player of all-time, but you could argue that he was a Top 10 position player of the past 50 years. 50 years might not be All-Time, but it's still a long ass time.
2) As for the argument of athletes in their primes, and who you start a team with I have always leaned towards another guy I never saw play. I would start any team with Mays, who I think could be argued as the best of all time. I'd also "settle" for Ruth or Mantle.
3) the thing about DiMaggio is I think he is very slightly overrated by fans from his era, and underrated by fans who never saw him play but read now about how he was a prick and then use some BS metrics.
Excellent!
Robin Yount wasn't better than Jeter - not even close.
WAR is a compilation statistic and someone good enough and healthy enough to play for this long will eventually have a lot of WAR.
So Jeter is 5th in WAR since 1995. He also happens to rate #1 in games played and #1 in plate appearances (which is aided by playing for a dominant offense the majority of his career). And that #5 position is a monstrous dropoff in WAR from ARod at #1 (200 fewer games) and Bonds #2 (1000 fewer games!).
If you time shift the parameters, and do 1990-2009, Jeter falls to 10th in WAR. And if you change the parameters 5 years in the other direction, from 2000-2014, Jeter ranks 11th in WAR.
Obviously, Jeter is a fantastic player, a Hall of Famer, whose durability and longevity is very impressive in today's era. But when you have someone who played in 20 different seasons, and then use only those 20 seasons worth of stats, of course he is going to be at or near the top, compliation wise.
And as to the idea that the Yankees would be worse with Arod instead of Jeter in NY, I find it an absurd hypothetical. Arod was superior to Jeter in every way on the baseball field. He was a far super hitter, far superior fielder, and a more efficient base stealer. If he were lucky enough to be drafted by the team with the biggest competitive advantage in North American sports instead of Jeter, they would have dominated all the same.
Would they have won 4 rings and 6 pennants from 1996-2003? Perhaps not because the postseason is a crapshoot. Then again, if Jeter and those Yankee teams replayed those postseasons again, they might not repeat it either given the random nature of it all.
BTW, when the Yankees were actually winning those titles, Bernie was the better player. So why don't people constantly kiss his ass like they do with Jeter? I don't know, maybe it's because Bernie never had Jeter's ego.
Yes, the only difference between the perception and reception of a deserved first ballot HOFer with crossover appeal's career and a guy who isn't even a fringe HOF candidate that had almost none is the former's ego.
Jeter is tied for 5th all-time in gold glove awards for a short stop particularly because of his sure-handedness, "jump throw" and because of his hitting which influence voters. Also, many fans have considered Jeter as an excellent defensive short stop over the years.
So I do think that there are many who confuse Jeter's defense. He did handle everything he got to-- he just got to a whole lot less than others.
I'm a huge fan of Robin Yount as I watched him all through the 70's and 80's. Great player who never really put it all together until the 80's. Jeter was a better fielder, base-runner, and hit for higher average. Yount was more of a home run hitter after he moved to the outfield.
As great as Yount was, he never quite lived up to his talent level, which I always thought was all-time.
And you should realize that individual stars have a limited statistical value on their teams in baseball. It's basically the #1 thing that the sabermetric revolution has taught us.
So yes, I believe that while A-Rod could add 3 wins over Jeter over the course of a regular season... 3 wins can easily be made up in other ways. Jeter took a ton of pressure off of his teammates by being able to handle the NYC media flawlessly. Bernie and Tino never had to answer stupid questions about Jeter. If A-Rod is the face of that team, you bet your ass that the ship doesn't sail as smoothly. So all things being the same A-Rod would add 3 more wins, but all things wouldn't be the same. Unless you think team chemistry has 0 impact on wins, which is ridiculous.
Here's what I know - Eli and Jeter are two players who have been lifetime members of teams I follow. Good citizens. Good ambassadors for the game. Solid characters. And winners.
That alone means they will get my respect and my cheers. In sports with a bunch of raving jackasses and attention whores abounding, these two guys go about their business unassuming and with integrity.
Frankly, I could care less if either guy is the 150th best Giant or Yankee - it shouldn't change the respect given for a farewell. I hate the Orioles, but respected Ripken. I never thought he was the best SS or even the best Oriole, but I still loved watching him get the attention for the consecutive games streak.
I'd much rather invest my attention and time towards guys like this than guys like T.O, Deion, Ortiz, A-rod, and others who put themselves above the sport and the team.
Chemistry is like clutch and grit. It's there, until it isn't. But mostly, it's just confirmation bias.
But I also love baseball as a sport and the history of the game and I did so before Jeter came along. So when people make ludicrous claims, it distorts the history of the game. And like trademarks and reputations, if you don't protect it, you eventually lose it.
It's a similar reason why I take MVP voting far more seriously than perhaps I should. Making terrible judgments eventually distort the history of the game because of how much MVP, All Star, etc. honors are then used to define players' legacies.
On the other hand, I think all sports have the intangibles that only true fans and students of the game can judge. there are a lot of people who spout all sorts of stats, including many of the newer metrics, who I believe don't truly know the game, or what to look for in a player.
It is in the latter that Jeter really does set himself apart from many of the stars of his era. Many have been mentioned here. Some poo-poo at terms like clutch, for example. But, take a look at the games brightest stars over history. how many of them replicate, let alone surpass, their career numbers in the post season? not many. Yet, Jeter did and he did it over a very large sample size.
GREAT POST! Statistics dominate sports analysis but intangibles bring championships. Jeter had the intangibles.
When a player has these attributes:
--20 years on one team
--Plays shortstop, a glamorous position
--Almost 3500 hits, 6th all time
--Over 1900 runs scored, 9th all time
--All-time postseason statistical leader in almost every offensive category
--Plays in New York
--One of the biggest contributors to five championships
--Never caught using PEDs when most of his contemporaries with better stats used PEDs
--20th all time in offensive WAR
He's going to get a lot of positive attention
If the reason those Yankee teams won with Jeter is because he brought great chemistry to the team, then why isn't he attributed for the terrible chemistry during the years when the Yankees kept shitting the bed, couldn't scrap together hits, and flamed out in many disappointing postseasons?
And if ARod were such a lockerroom cancer, or if he couldn't have enabled the earlier Yankee teams to win due to his personality, then how does 2009 happen where he is THE guy?
I do love the way FatMan articulated his view on respect for players. And to a large degree I agree with him. But, I don't think it is fair to let absurd claims go unchecked.
I'm fine with that.
I'll never tell my son that Jeter was the best Yankee ever, but I'll tell him he was the one i was most proud of watching. My Dad always said Mantle was the best Yankee in his day, but he enjoyed watching Whitey Ford a lot more.
Jeters 1999 season was better than any season Robin Yount ever had
Jeter DOES get shit on for being the Captain of the team during the 00's during the title drought. He does get shit for his relationship with A-Rod. He gets plenty of shit for it.
I feel like NYC is just a different animal though because of the size of the media. I feel like Jeter and Torre both being able to handle the media took a load off the rest of the team. I don't see A-Rod being able to handle it nearly as well as Jeter did.
And Jeter was the most consistent player on that 2009 team. A-Rod was the guy in the post-season, but Jeter was the MVP of that team over the course of the year. But it was a team effort.