Episode 13: August 27, 2010

The Legend of Derek Jeter

Derek Jeter is often referred to as the second best shortstop ever. Is this accurate? Where does Jeter fit among the greats?

« previous episode • next episode »

(show episode script) (hide episode script)

Please note: this is not an exact transcription of the episode.

When people talk about Derek Jeter they often refer to him as "the second best shortstop ever." Sometimes they put Honus Wagner as #1. Sometimes it's Cal Ripken. It's always "someone, then Jeter." Why does Derek Jeter have to be the second best shortstop ever?

I'm Alex Reisner...

Here's the thing: Jeter is not a good fielder and he plays the most important infield position. And yet there's something about him that makes people feel like, well, he's probably not the best but he *must* be the second best. Well that's just not necessarily true. In baseball history there are a lot of great shortstops:

There are even two that are, without question, better than Jeter:

* Honus Wagner and Alex Rodriguez

Now I know Alex Rodriguez isn't a shortstop anymore but I'll get to that in a minute.

Wagner was prolific. He played for 21 years and rarely missed a game. His Wins Above Replacement was 10 or higher in four of those years which is ridiculous. That puts him in a club with fewer than 10 players: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, etc. He played 100 years ago so it's hard to compare his offensive stats with current players but if you look at all the numbers carefully it's pretty hard to argue that there's been a better career by any shortstop ever.

Alex Rodriguez, by the time he's done, could have that career. I know he plays third base now but it's pretty obvious he would still be playing shortstop on any team other than the Yankees. It's not like he was moved to 1B or DH or showed any signs of slowing down...I don't see how you can take him out of a great shortstop conversation just because the Yankees are stubborn about keeping Jeter at short. With that said, there's no comparison between A-Rod and Jeter. A-Rod's batting average is 10 points lower but his slugging percentage is over 100 points higher, he has 370 more home runs, and he creates 1.5 more runs per game. And he's also a better fielder.

So if you consider A-Rod a shortstop, which I think you should, Jeter is *at most* the third best shortstop ever. But it's not *that* simple either, because there are plenty of other great shortstops, like...Cal Ripken who played more consecutive games than anyone, including a guy who was called the Iron Horse and played first base. He also had more power than Jeter and was probably a better fielder. It's hard to compare his numbers to Jeter's because he played before the steroid era when batting averages were about 10 points lower on average, but I think he was probably not quite as good at getting on base. I think overall, in the end Jeter has a slight edge over Ripken but it's not that easy to prove. You can't just say Jeter was better without some pretty good reasons. I think Jeter vs. Ripken may be one of those arguments that never dies.

Then there's Ernie Banks. Now I know he moved to first base halfway through his career but he had his best offensive years at shortstop so you can't dismiss him that easily...alright, tough guy? In 8 full seasons at shortstop he hit almost 300 home runs, slugged over .550, won two MVP awards, and had 2 more Wins Above Replacement per year than Jeter during Jeter's best 8 year span. Basically, if you just look at the years Banks played shortstop, there's no comparison. There's no way you can slice Jeter's stats so they're even close. So I'm not going to get into what makes a legitimate shortstop, but think about *that* and take a look at the numbers if you're one of those people who say Ernie Banks wasn't a shortstop.

Also: remember it's pretty easy to argue that Jeter should have been moved to 3B a few years ago when A-Rod came to New York. Jeter is really a shortstop in name only.

There's also Robin Yount, whose batting average and on-base percentage are lower than Jeter's but that's partly because he played with Ripken in the pre-Steroid era. Yount also changed positions halfway through his career because of a shoulder problem, but he moved to centerfield which is, again, not like moving to 1B or DH, and he played 11 full years at SS you can't just dismiss him immediately either. Plus, if you've been to a Brewers game in the past couple of years you probably know about Robinade: old school lemonade. "Like the man, a natural classic." Some of the profits go to charity so if you're ever in Milwaukee you really should try a bottle. Now, can you imagine drinking cool glass of Jeterade? No, I don't think you can.

Alright, so there are some more shortstops worth mentioning from a time before athletes had their own beverages. Luke Appling, who played his whole career in the 30s and 40s for the White Sox, was, like Jeter, a terrible fielder. And his batting stats are similar too: .319 BA, .399 OBP, and Wins Above Replacement per year around 5. They're so similar you really can't talk about Jeter's place in history without knowing where Appling stands.

There's also Joe Cronin, who had a better Runs Created per Game and Wins Above Replacement per Year than Jeter as a player-manager. Now we know Jeter is The Captain but he's not the manager for crying out loud. Cronin also became the Red Sox general manager, and eventually was elected American League president. As a player he hit over 500 doubles and walked over 1000 times. Jeter hasn't hit either of those marks yet and he's already 1500 plate appearances ahead of Cronin. Cronin had a better OBP, a better SLG, struck out half as often...even despite the problems of comparing players across eras, it's pretty hard to argue that Jeter is as good as Joe Cronin.

And what about Arky Vaughan, Pittsburgh's shortstop in the 30s? Vaughan's Wins Above Replacement is even better than Cronin's. And so is his .406 OBP. He struck out less and rarely grounded into double plays, and in 1935 he had what might be the best season by any shortstop ever: a .385 BA, .491 OBP, and .607 SLG with 19 HRs and 97 walks and only 18 strikeouts. Vaughan's career wasn't as long as Jeter's but that's because of a little inconvenience called World War II, which came when Vaughan was 32 years old, which happens to be the age Jeter might have been at his best.

Also, remember that Jeter's career isn't over yet. It's easy to point to the decline of guys like Vaughan and Banks late in their careers, but Jeter's career batting average has dropped 2 points this year and he's not likely to get much better. So there are some "what-ifs" involved in comparing his rate stats to anyone else's, that don't work in his favor.

There are some more shortstops who were very good but I think not quite as good as Jeter. But maybe you can make a case for one of them:

* Barry Larkin
* Johnny Pesky
* Joe Sewell
* Lou Boudreau
* Alan Trammell

And to really consider the question of the best shortstops ever I think you have bring in the guys who were great fielders but not necessarily great hitters:

* Ozzie Smith
* Mark Belanger
* Luis Aparicio
* Joe Tinker
* probably Omar Vizquel

As we get better at quantifying defense we may realize that one of those guys was good enough in the field to make up for their mediocre hitting.

Now I should point out that I'm not saying any of this to bash Jeter. I always root against the Yankees, but I can't help but like Derek Jeter. There are just so many likeable things about him, but when people need him to be the second best shortstop ever it makes me cringe. Jeter is one of the best players of this generation. He's historically significant for a lot of reasons, and he will probably be remembered for a long time, kind of like Mickey Mantle, both for the things he did and for the things people *think* he did. That's how it is with great players--they become mythical. You can find dozens of stories about how Mickey Mantle hit home runs that went 565 feet, 620 feet, and even 734 feet, none of which are possible. People who saw him hit the facade in Yankee Stadium in 1963 claim that "the ball was still going up" when it hit the facade, which is impossible. Already people remember Derek Jeter diving head-first into the stands to catch a foul ball against the Red Sox in 2004. Not many people remember that he actually caught the ball in fair territory, not at the stands, and should have slid to avoid going into the seats and getting injured. I'm also pretty sure he will be remembered for having more clutch hits than he actually has. And also as a *much* better fielder thanks to the famous "flip" and the countless replays of him fielding balls in the hole, jumping, and throwing in the air to first.

These things are annoying. They can even be infuriating if you're not a Yankees fan, but what about the Yankees isn't infuriating outside of New York? And Jeter's reputation isn't his fault. It's not like he talks about what a great fielder he is. Twenty years from now the Yankees will still be annoying. The announcers will still talk about how great they are when they make routine plays. But we won't be subjected to all the Jeter propaganda, and I think we'll have a better appreciation of his *actual* greatness, which is significant. A lot of non-Yankee fans like Mickey Mantle now and I think in 20 years that may happen for Jeter too.

I think part of the reason people need to build him up is that Jeter's stats are just not that exciting. He hits home runs but he doesn't have a ton of power. He steals bases but doesn't steal a *lot* of bases. He doesn't run out a lot of infield hits like Ichiro... What he is is consistent. He always gets around 200 hits, 30 doubles, 15 home runs, 20 steals, strikes out 100 times, and ends up with around 300 total bases. He's rarely missed a game in 15 seasons... His numbers are never outrageous, but they're very good and they're remarkably consistent. They're the kind of numbers that, if you put them up while playing shortstop for a great team, you get into the Hall of Fame as soon as you're eligible, regardless of your defense. And Jeter *deserves* to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He's been the face of a great team for 15 years, and he's one of the top 10 players of his generation.

Just, please, don't try to tell me he's the second-best shortstop of all-time.

I'm Alex Reisner...

Comments

subscribe to site comments

Dan on September 03, 2010 06:13

Derek Jeter is the Best SS in history learn the facts and stop what the what if's...He's actually a very good fielder on his way to his 5th gold glove this year. Honus Wagner never even came close to playing his whole career as a shortstop, and A-rod used steriods...

Alex Reisner on September 05, 2010 19:15

If you judge fielding by Gold Gloves, lack of errors, and a few slick-looking plays then you will end up believing that Jeter is a good fielder. But just about any meaningful defensive stat will show you that Jeter is among the worst in the league, year after year. Look at Range Factor, UZR, or Dewan +/- and you'll see how awful he is. You can't get an error if you don't get to the ball and NO REGULAR SHORTSTOP in the past 15 years HAS FIELDED FEWER BALLS per 9 innings than Jeter.

Frank on September 06, 2010 04:25

Horace Clarke tied Charlie Gheringer's all time records for assists and double plays, and he just was rotten.
How was he able to do this? 4 pitch to contact starting pitchers that's how.
If all of your pitchers are fly ball pitchers like the Yanks were from 2004 till 2008 and most of those were rookies or vets on the downside who had trouble hitting home plate let alone spots.
And if your first baseman was a statue named Giambi who caused your second baseman to shift towards first leaving most of the middle of the infield to the shortstop to cover....I could go on.
The bottom line is, the game is played ON THE FIELD, not in a statisticians book. look how politicians play with the numbers from the CBO.

Alex Reisner on September 08, 2010 02:57

The game happens on the field, but we need numbers if we want to have a realistic understanding of it. For example, I've seen Ike Davis hit a home run in more than half of the Mets games I've watched this year. Should I assume he'll hit over 80 home runs by the time the season is over? Similarly, I've seen Jason Kubel make more sliding and diving catches this year than any other outfielder. Should I assume that Kubel is the best outfielder in the Majors?

Obviously the answer to both questions is: no. We need to use numbers if we want to determine players' values objectively. We all have vivid memories from various personal experiences, but memory is a vastly inferior tool for evaluating baseball players. There are too many events in a week, let alone a season or a career, for one to remember them accurately (even assuming you could see them all).

That being said, of course you don't want to be led astray by devious statistical arguments (by politicians or baseball fans). I talked about this a little in Episode 12 ("Speed") in regard to Juan Pierre. If you just look at his raw H and SB totals you might incorrectly conclude that he's a great player. You have to look at all the relevant stats before coming to a conclusion (or believing someone else's conclusion). In baseball this is much easier to do than it is in politics. I *love* that you've attempted to explain *why* the numbers are what they are, but your argument is still a statistical one, as it should be.

As for your argument: unfortunately, even if the Yankees had all fly ball pitchers from 2004-2008, that's the period when Jeter fielded the most balls per inning, so it can't explain his low career numbers. Personally, I believe part of the reason Jeter fields so few balls is that he sets up in the same place for every pitch to every batter. People have told me he's gotten better at moving around before each pitch in the past year or so, and maybe that's the source of his recent improvement. But he's still well below league average.

I'm not saying Jeter isn't a slick fielder. I'm not saying he isn't a great athlete. I'm not saying he doesn't occasionally make great plays. I am saying that over the course of a season, the number of balls he doesn't get to makes him a poor defensive shorstop. I've looked at a lot of numbers and I haven't yet seen any convincing evidence to the contrary.

kenny oneal on September 13, 2010 20:20

Granted Jeter good, but I still put Ripken ahead of them all. He could field, his fielding pct. was in the 900's and he could hit, 400 plus I believe 3000 hits plus and he showed up everyday. Now this is coming from a guy who seen Ozzie Smith play.

ty on November 24, 2010 18:29

You say you've "looked at a lot of numbers" to determine that Jeter is a "poor" fielder, yet you also say he is a "slick" fielder and you seem to say he is a "great athlete." It seems to me you are confused and so you turn for comfort and certainty to your beloved stats.

Now, about your "numbers:" is there any way that you can be certain that another SS on the same field would have made the plays Jeter missed? Please explain to me how I am wrong to insist that for the numbers to be given so much authority they would absolutely HAVE to show the above, and take into account several other variables.

For instance, I saw a lot of hits through the hole in the ACLS this year. We know A-Rod's range at third isn't what it used to be. Given the balls were roughly equidistant from both players, who missed the play? Is that factored into your stats?

Please, no lectures on sabermetrics, I've heard it. I want you to defend your reliance on stats because it takes some nerve to call Jeter a "terrible" fielder. My contention is that you are over-relying on stats in general, and this absurd comment is just the most extreme case of stat-based foolishness that you sportswriters are committing on a daily basis.

But I stand ready to stand corrected!

Alex Reisner on November 27, 2010 03:26

Ty, you make some very good points so let me address a few of them individually.

> is there any way that you can be certain that another SS
> on the same field would have made the plays Jeter missed?

One could ask the same question about batters. Mark Reynolds struck out 211 times last year. Can we be sure another batter on the same field would have hit those same pitches? Kevin Millwood gave up 30 home runs last year. Can we be certain another pitcher facing the same batters would have allowed fewer?

Clearly there is no way to really answer these questions. The best we can do is to count everything that happens during games and look at the numbers in an intelligent way, knowing that comparisons are not 100% fair, but that the more numbers we have the more fair they are.

In the case of Jeter, who's played 19,744 innings at shortstop, we have enough data to say with reasonable certainty that, for whatever reason, his fielding results are not good compared to other shortstops. The numbers don't tell us *why* players are good or bad and that can be confusing. Jeter *does* look like a good athlete to me. Being a Major League baseball player, of course he's a good athlete. But for some reason he's fielded fewer balls than most other starting shortstops during the past 15 years.

> I saw a lot of hits through the hole in the ACLS this year.
> We know A-Rod's range at third isn't what it used to be.
> Given the balls were roughly equidistant from both players,
> who missed the play?

Firstly, what makes you say A-Rod's range isn't what it used to be? (I was under the impression he's remained remarkably consistent.)

Second, even if we imagine that A-Rod has become a worthless fielder who can't get to anything more than two steps to his left, that would leave *more* balls for Jeter to field, not fewer, and yet his range factor (number of balls fielded) has declined over the past five years.

Third, I'm not blaming Jeter for missing any particular balls during any particular series. I'm blaming him for missing some large number of balls over the course of his career. I couldn't tell you which ones exactly, and I couldn't tell you which other shortstops would have fielded them, if any.

In short, statistical studies can't answer your questions. Statistical analysis is designed to ignore specific situations and instead provide insight based on large amounts of data that cannot be perceived by looking at individual events.

> I want you to defend your reliance on stats because it
> takes some nerve to call Jeter a "terrible" fielder.

Continuing the above train of thought: statistics and naked-eye observation are two tools that are used to evaluate baseball players. They provide very different types of insight, and each needs to be used to get the full picture.

I have long believed, and teams like the Athletics and Red Sox have recently demonstrated, that statistics are the more important of these two when evaluating players at the Major League level. It's easy to put too much stock in one's own powers of observation, but in fact there is too much information in any single game, let alone the course of a 162-game season, for the human brain to accurately assess player ability. We're prone to remembering certain players when they're on streaks or for a few great plays they made, and other players when they're in slumps or making errors. We don't see, or don't remember, the vast majority of their at-bats and defensive plays. If we evaluate shortstops based on how slick or smooth they look we'd miss really excellent shortstops like Jack Wilson.

You might want to read "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis, which is a really fun book and which shows how the late-90s Athletics built successful teams with very little money by relying on statistics to the near-complete exclusion of traditional scouting. The bottom line is that stats work, if you know how to use them.