Why is Jeter a "2" (great article on his defense)?

[bleacher_creature]

Here is a great article that discusses the debate on Jeter's glove capabilities:

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_weisman/02/03/defense.metrics/1.html[/url]

I would love to get a straight answer form Strat/Richman on why he is a "2". How do they justify it?

He seems to rank above average in "Range Factor", but other range related measurements seem to rate him quite low.

discuss...

[milezd]

gee, and why did ARod get a 2 at SS as well, hmm, do you see a pattern there?

a few years ago when the cards were coming out I found a picture of hal in his office (it was an article about strat opening day), what I got a kick out of was the wall behind him, it was floor to ceiling newspaper clippings all about the yankees :wink:

now you know

[Valen]

On the whole I thought the article shed no light on the subject.

[teepack]

I agree with Valen. I'm a former sportswriter, and I would have to say that that article really was much ado about nothing.

[1crazycanuk]

I would hope he doesn't put his personal biases into the game. We don't need a Yankees homer making the cards for a game. :evil:

[tersignf]

I also think the article was much ado about nothing--what was the theme? Jeter is overrated or the fielding stat holy grail?

Weisman is a Yankee hater who is from the west coast originally being a Dodger blue guy. I can understand the Dodgers hating the Yankees--they too spent boatloads of money but didn't win nearly as much--and that frustrates fans when management makes more bad moves than good ones. (although one notes with interest that the core of the Yankees the past decade was largely homegrown players or solid trades...)

Anyway, I've seen Jeter play live many times, and guess who he reminds me of? Cal Ripken. I agree his range is not Ozzie Smith or Pee Wee Reese, but he's a damn [i:f1b19ad4e4]smart[/i:f1b19ad4e4] player who gets results. His positioning and instinct makes up for a lot of flair, along with a strong arm that helps too. So what's the end result? I've seen folks like Vizquel go in the hole and come up sliding in one motion to throw--a great play--only to have the batter beat it out. Or maybe not being in good position to take a cutoff.

To me it's the Jim Edmonds syndrome. I really don't think we can individually make any determinations (i.e., is he always diving because he's out of position? Is he focusing on low or high percentage plays?)

Really it comes down to this: could the Yankees have had a successful run with a 4 at shortstop? I doubt it--his net effect has been positive--I can recall maybe an instance or two over the last 10 years where his field play has hurt his team. Hits are hits and outs are outs--and there's smart play every day, whether it's causing a runner at second to hesitate for a split second causing him not to score on a single, playing a run down, cutting off a throw...etc--anyone ever consider that these non-statistical intangibles should be part of any holy grail analysis? In fact that's why it's a holy grail--it will never be able to be represented by a statistic.

[tersignf]

OK--and to be fair--with all that said I think ARod is overvalued as a teammate. His intangibles and performance at key moments are memorable but for the wrong reason--because of their negative impact. He's an example of stats gone wild and there's a good reason his teammates have not seen success with him at the center of the team.

He's a great athlete but I think his 1 at 3B is even more a travesty than his 2 at SS. Again--in a couple years have seen him cost more games defensively than the other way around. Great athlete and all-around professional, but in a dispassionate way I have to say the Yankees were stronger without him--and would have been well-advised to spend that money in other ways--including reinvigorating their farm teams which have now been depleted in the Cashman era. Gene Michael built that infrastructure of vets and rooks in the early to mid 90s--and now it's an aged, declining organization that has no choice but to buy their way out of it versus buying a key piece or two when needed.

[1crazycanuk]

[quote:af09b50eee="teepack"]I agree with Valen. I'm a former sportswriter, and I would have to say that that article really was much ado about nothing.[/quote:af09b50eee]

That's awesome. Wish I could get a sports writer job or work in radio...but alas...there are next to no jobs available in either.

[teepack]

You have to be willing to work odd, and sometimes long, hours for not a lot of pay and put up with people who are frequently in a bad mood and blame you for their troubles. But otherwise, it's a good gig! You do get free seats, usually some of the best in the house, and they feed you!

I also was the play-by-play announcer for my college baseball team when I was a student, and I did it again a few years ago when they began broadcasting them again on a commercial station. That was a lot of fun.

[tersignf]

8)