Lemme get my stick out and head over to the horse carcass again...
Let's see what happens come September.
Jeter Haters
by Outta Leftfield » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:24 am
Cards on the table, here. My thoughts on Jeter, stated as objectively as I can state them.
1. I'm a Yankee fan who sometimes finds the adulation of Derek Jeter a little annoying.
2. He a great player over a long period of time. Even those who disparage his range at SS can't plausibly question this.
3. He's obviously contributed heavily to the Yankees long string of playoff bound teams, without by any means being the sole factor. In fact, with the exception of 1999, he's rarely if ever been the BEST player on any of the Yankee teams.
4. He's a top of the batting order SS with 1783 runs scored, which places him 19th on the all time list. With three decent years he could easily clear 2000 career runs, which would place him 8th on the all time list behind Wille Mays, who has 2062. He's scored 100 or more runs 13 times.
5. By midseason of 2011, I thought he was washed up, but after bouncing back from an injury last year, he's averaged over .350 and is currently hitting .411 with a 1.080 OPS. That's not sustainable, but there may be more life left in his career that many of us suspected.
6. Jeter makes a lot of money, plays on the most famous team in sports, and is a batchelor surrounded by beautiful girls. Who wouldn't be envious?
7. While much of the adulation Jeter receives is based on his performance, a fair bit is also based on what often seems, at least to me, like a carefully constructed persona. That aura of constructed perfection can seem like an irritating mask. But given the intense media scrutiny he's been under, living behind a mask may be his only viable option. Certainly he's survived the pressures of NY in a way that may have failed to do.
8. The more natural and spontaneous Mo Rivera has performed in the same arena on an equal or (I think) higher level than Jeter without engendering anything like the envy and emnity that Jeter sometimes excites. Even Yankee haters seem anxious to praise Mo. That's a personality thing, I think. Neither can completely help or control the image he projects.
9. But if you look at performance, Jeter has given his all on the field and produced at a very high level and served as on on-field leader for a very successful team, and for a very long time.
This complex mix of facts, creates, in my opinion, the current "great debate" about Derek Jeter.
1. I'm a Yankee fan who sometimes finds the adulation of Derek Jeter a little annoying.
2. He a great player over a long period of time. Even those who disparage his range at SS can't plausibly question this.
3. He's obviously contributed heavily to the Yankees long string of playoff bound teams, without by any means being the sole factor. In fact, with the exception of 1999, he's rarely if ever been the BEST player on any of the Yankee teams.
4. He's a top of the batting order SS with 1783 runs scored, which places him 19th on the all time list. With three decent years he could easily clear 2000 career runs, which would place him 8th on the all time list behind Wille Mays, who has 2062. He's scored 100 or more runs 13 times.
5. By midseason of 2011, I thought he was washed up, but after bouncing back from an injury last year, he's averaged over .350 and is currently hitting .411 with a 1.080 OPS. That's not sustainable, but there may be more life left in his career that many of us suspected.
6. Jeter makes a lot of money, plays on the most famous team in sports, and is a batchelor surrounded by beautiful girls. Who wouldn't be envious?
7. While much of the adulation Jeter receives is based on his performance, a fair bit is also based on what often seems, at least to me, like a carefully constructed persona. That aura of constructed perfection can seem like an irritating mask. But given the intense media scrutiny he's been under, living behind a mask may be his only viable option. Certainly he's survived the pressures of NY in a way that may have failed to do.
8. The more natural and spontaneous Mo Rivera has performed in the same arena on an equal or (I think) higher level than Jeter without engendering anything like the envy and emnity that Jeter sometimes excites. Even Yankee haters seem anxious to praise Mo. That's a personality thing, I think. Neither can completely help or control the image he projects.
9. But if you look at performance, Jeter has given his all on the field and produced at a very high level and served as on on-field leader for a very successful team, and for a very long time.
This complex mix of facts, creates, in my opinion, the current "great debate" about Derek Jeter.
- Outta Leftfield
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by george barnard » Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:20 pm
To Outta Leftfield:
[img:98a60e41a6]http://msnsmileys.net/p/smileys/Penguin/Clapping.gif[/img:98a60e41a6]
[img:98a60e41a6]http://msnsmileys.net/p/smileys/Penguin/Clapping.gif[/img:98a60e41a6]
- george barnard
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by PotKettleBlack » Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:41 pm
[quote="tsnstars"][quote:b252cf230f="andycummings65"][b:b252cf230f]Career WAR (Wins Above Replacement) for Shortstops[/b:b252cf230f]
Top 10 Shortstop Ranks
6. Honus Wagner 134.5
18. Alex Rodriguez 104.6
26. Cal Ripken 89.9
40. Robin Yount 76.9
42. Bill Dahlen 75.9
44. Arky Vaughan 75.6
[b:b252cf230f]54. Derek Jeter 70.4[/b:b252cf230f]
59. Luke Appling 69.3
61. Barry Larkin 68.4
71. Alan Trammell 66.9
[/quote:b252cf230f]
Bad list as A-Rod, Ripken, Yount, Vaughan all moved off shortstop before they were done. A-Rod WAY before. Granted, Yount's bat played in CF as well, so there's an argument there. ARod's WAR (from Baseball Reference) by team:
NYY: 43.6 (third)
SEA: 37.1 (short)
TEX: 23.9 (short)
But there's something else here. Replacement level. I would bet that replacement level for Jeter's career at Short has been a lot higher than pretty much everyone else (even recognizing that ARod's time at short was coincident with Jeter's). Trammell, Yount, Ripken, and part of Larkin's career were played in an era of a few star shortstops and a lot of glove guys (especially Larkin's early career). So replacement was lower at the position as the expectation is lower.
Ignore the "winning" thing. He's a career shortstop with at least one year left as a productive player, probably two. He's already the 7th highest WAR (3rd or 4th among full time shortstops) in MLB history. He has been, by and large, a positive influence on the game, not getting into trouble, not having serious steroid allegations, having a consistently positive approach to the fans, the media, and the game. Even without the rings, you'd have to put him in the HOF, as everyone else (except Trammell) on that list is. And I think we can agree that Jeter > Trammell.
Top 10 Shortstop Ranks
6. Honus Wagner 134.5
18. Alex Rodriguez 104.6
26. Cal Ripken 89.9
40. Robin Yount 76.9
42. Bill Dahlen 75.9
44. Arky Vaughan 75.6
[b:b252cf230f]54. Derek Jeter 70.4[/b:b252cf230f]
59. Luke Appling 69.3
61. Barry Larkin 68.4
71. Alan Trammell 66.9
[/quote:b252cf230f]
Bad list as A-Rod, Ripken, Yount, Vaughan all moved off shortstop before they were done. A-Rod WAY before. Granted, Yount's bat played in CF as well, so there's an argument there. ARod's WAR (from Baseball Reference) by team:
NYY: 43.6 (third)
SEA: 37.1 (short)
TEX: 23.9 (short)
But there's something else here. Replacement level. I would bet that replacement level for Jeter's career at Short has been a lot higher than pretty much everyone else (even recognizing that ARod's time at short was coincident with Jeter's). Trammell, Yount, Ripken, and part of Larkin's career were played in an era of a few star shortstops and a lot of glove guys (especially Larkin's early career). So replacement was lower at the position as the expectation is lower.
Ignore the "winning" thing. He's a career shortstop with at least one year left as a productive player, probably two. He's already the 7th highest WAR (3rd or 4th among full time shortstops) in MLB history. He has been, by and large, a positive influence on the game, not getting into trouble, not having serious steroid allegations, having a consistently positive approach to the fans, the media, and the game. Even without the rings, you'd have to put him in the HOF, as everyone else (except Trammell) on that list is. And I think we can agree that Jeter > Trammell.
- PotKettleBlack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by ADRIANGABRIEL » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:39 pm
Hasn't Jeter been "grossly underpaid" for his career? If WAR is worth $5M on the open market, then he's "earned" $352M, but he's only been paid $220M. Even if he plays out his contract (+$41M) and generates 0 WAR, he's still been underpaid.
- ADRIANGABRIEL
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Outta Leftfield » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:46 pm
[quote:07349df04c="george barnard"]To Outta Leftfield:
[img:07349df04c]http://msnsmileys.net/p/smileys/Penguin/Clapping.gif[/img:07349df04c][/quote:07349df04c]
Hey, thanks! :D
[img:07349df04c]http://msnsmileys.net/p/smileys/Penguin/Clapping.gif[/img:07349df04c][/quote:07349df04c]
Hey, thanks! :D
- Outta Leftfield
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by ADRIANGABRIEL » Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:32 pm
[quote:e8035c26b8="socalchiro"]When a person (ANY person) lives in a 30,000 sq. ft. house and is selling an apartment for $18 million, does this sound grossly UNDER-paid?[/quote:e8035c26b8]
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
- ADRIANGABRIEL
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by rburgh » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:49 pm
In Jeter's 16 full seasons as a starting shortstop, the Yankees are 693 wins above replacement (54-108). That's an average of 43 WAR per year. Jeter has contributed 70 of those WAR, or an average of 4.4 per year. So he's carried a bit more than his share (presumably, the 9 regulars + the 5 starters + Mo should account for the cast majority of the team's WAR; he is contributing about 1.5x his share). That's an awfully good player.
But the important fact, to me, is that the Yankees, at $5 million per WAR, have effectively had a payroll that averages $215 million in value per season. This is pretty much in line with their recent payrolls. So they are getting more or less what they pay for. Obviously some guys overachieve and some disappoint every year.
The 30's, 40's, and 50's Yankees had even more bloated payrolls, by the standards of the time, than the current ones do. Those Yankees didn't sign free agents, they bought them - principally from the KC A's and other sad-sack franchises.
And it seems to be worthy of mention that Jason Bartlett last year, in over 600 PA, earned precisely 0.1 WAR. Sixteen years of Jason Bartlett clones at SS would have landed the Yankees 623 WAR, or an average record of 93-69 (39 WAR). Not too shabby. Attributing all of the Yankees' success to the Captain is as infantile as trying to say they have succeeded in spite of him. But this does reinforce the fact that the Yankees are able to buy so much talent that it's almost impossible for them to be bad any more.
But the important fact, to me, is that the Yankees, at $5 million per WAR, have effectively had a payroll that averages $215 million in value per season. This is pretty much in line with their recent payrolls. So they are getting more or less what they pay for. Obviously some guys overachieve and some disappoint every year.
The 30's, 40's, and 50's Yankees had even more bloated payrolls, by the standards of the time, than the current ones do. Those Yankees didn't sign free agents, they bought them - principally from the KC A's and other sad-sack franchises.
And it seems to be worthy of mention that Jason Bartlett last year, in over 600 PA, earned precisely 0.1 WAR. Sixteen years of Jason Bartlett clones at SS would have landed the Yankees 623 WAR, or an average record of 93-69 (39 WAR). Not too shabby. Attributing all of the Yankees' success to the Captain is as infantile as trying to say they have succeeded in spite of him. But this does reinforce the fact that the Yankees are able to buy so much talent that it's almost impossible for them to be bad any more.
- rburgh
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by ROBERTLATORRE » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:20 pm
[quote:1622ab6e53="agabriel"][quote:1622ab6e53="socalchiro"]When a person (ANY person) lives in a 30,000 sq. ft. house and is selling an apartment for $18 million, does this sound grossly UNDER-paid?[/quote:1622ab6e53]
Irrelevant.[/quote:1622ab6e53]
Yup, completely irrelevant.
He is leveraging the market, like we all do. Does ANYONE agree to a lesser salary than they can negotiate when they start a new job or agree to a new contract? OF COURSE NOT!
His salary is excessive because he is in a market where resources are paid MILLIONS AND MILLIONS per year, and he is maximizing what he can get, as he should. If salary was based on value to society, then teachers, social workers, police, firemen, soldiers, nurses, hospice workers, etc, would all be paid much more than they are now, and athletes would be paid much less.
He is doing what all of us do. Have you ever declined a salary increase because you are making a "comfortable" living? No, you try to earn as much as you can, and get increases as frequently as you can.
If you've had a tough year and your boss calls you in and tells you that your yearly increase is 4% because you've been a valued employee over the years, tell him that you'll be happy with 1% instead since you had a less productive year because of family or personal issues and you know you can perform better! Never happen, would it... you're appreciative that your work in previous years is recognized and your increase is reflective of your body of work.
You're complaining that he is selling an apartment for $18mil? Ok, so he should put his money in a passbook savings account and make 1%. Why SHOULDN'T he be allowed to invest his money. He could have just as easily LOST money on the apartment since the real estate market has crashed. Let him put as much of that salary back into the economy as possible for goodness sakes.
Irrelevant.[/quote:1622ab6e53]
Yup, completely irrelevant.
He is leveraging the market, like we all do. Does ANYONE agree to a lesser salary than they can negotiate when they start a new job or agree to a new contract? OF COURSE NOT!
His salary is excessive because he is in a market where resources are paid MILLIONS AND MILLIONS per year, and he is maximizing what he can get, as he should. If salary was based on value to society, then teachers, social workers, police, firemen, soldiers, nurses, hospice workers, etc, would all be paid much more than they are now, and athletes would be paid much less.
He is doing what all of us do. Have you ever declined a salary increase because you are making a "comfortable" living? No, you try to earn as much as you can, and get increases as frequently as you can.
If you've had a tough year and your boss calls you in and tells you that your yearly increase is 4% because you've been a valued employee over the years, tell him that you'll be happy with 1% instead since you had a less productive year because of family or personal issues and you know you can perform better! Never happen, would it... you're appreciative that your work in previous years is recognized and your increase is reflective of your body of work.
You're complaining that he is selling an apartment for $18mil? Ok, so he should put his money in a passbook savings account and make 1%. Why SHOULDN'T he be allowed to invest his money. He could have just as easily LOST money on the apartment since the real estate market has crashed. Let him put as much of that salary back into the economy as possible for goodness sakes.
- ROBERTLATORRE
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest