A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[Elktonnick]

There really is something to be said for players who consistently make the plays that they should make. Too many people fall in love with the athleticism of the guy who can get to every ball and on occasion can make the great great play. if you had to choose, I would take the consistency every day without question.

 

You are correct. There is so many flaws with the idea of range over consistency. Jeter is a first round hall of famer. To label him the worst defensive shortstop of his day is nonsense. Btw the advent of defensive shifts tends to diminish the value of range re emphasizing consistency.

[Bellhorn04]

You are correct. There is so many flaws with the idea of range over consistency. Jeter is a first round hall of famer. To label him the worst defensive shortstop of his day is nonsense. Btw the advent of defensive shifts tends to diminish the value of range re emphasizing consistency.

 

Jeter was as sure-handed as they come. But his range declined to the point that he covered very little ground out there.

[Bellhorn04]

The Red Sox have reached deals with six of their minor league free agents: righthanded relievers Austin Maddox, Domingo Tapia, and Andrew Schwaab, lefthanded starter Daniel McGrath, catcher Jhon Nunez, and infielder Jantzen Witte.

 

Glad to see Maddox there, he showed nice potential in 2017 before getting injured.

[Elktonnick]

Jeter was as sure-handed as they come. But his range declined to the point that he covered very little ground out there.

 

The point was he was never the worst shortstop playing in his era. One can not defend the indefensible.

[notin]

The point was he was never the worst shortstop playing in his era. One can not defend the indefensible.

 

 

I actually would say he was closer to being the worst than the best - although some minimum innings criteria is needed. Consistency is nice, but it puts you in the pack; it doesn’t desperate you from it. That range is negated by current strategies (which isn’t true at all) is irrelevant here since those strategies were not employed during Jeter’s career.

 

But really, when trying to disprove who or what was the worst or best or really, any extreme, it’s not readily disproved by describing what makes it ordinary. Now one better method would be to say who was worse. FWIW, I wouldn’t say Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop of his era, either. But I might say he was the worst one not named “Hanley” or “Yuniesky”....

[Elktonnick]

I actually would say he was closer to being the worst than the best - although some minimum innings criteria is needed. Consistency is nice, but it puts you in the pack; it doesn’t desperate you from it. That range is negated by current strategies (which isn’t true at all) is irrelevant here since those strategies were not employed during Jeter’s career.

 

But really, when trying to disprove who or what was the worst or best or really, any extreme, it’s not readily disproved by describing what makes it ordinary. Now one better method would be to say who was worse. FWIW, I wouldn’t say Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop of his era, either. But I might say he was the worst one not named “Hanley” or “Yuniesky”....

 

First of all I never said that shifts negate the value of range but merely that it diminishes it. I find it amusing and cavalier that the amateurs who post here totally devalue the judgment of the professionals he voted Jeter 5 gold gloves. At least you weren't so off base (pardon the pun) as to call Jeter the worst defensive SS of his era.

[Bellhorn04]

First of all I never said that shifts negate the value of range but merely that it diminishes it. I find it amusing and cavalier that the amateurs who post here totally devalue the judgment of the professionals he voted Jeter 5 gold gloves. At least you weren't so off base (pardon the pun) as to call Jeter the worst defensive SS of his era.

 

Well, here's an article that sheds some light on the topic.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=31&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiEoPD29N_lAhVknuAKHSyoA1gQFjAeegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrantland.com%2Ffeatures%2Fthe-tragedy-derek-jeter-defense%2F&usg=AOvVaw20m4XHKrodGvUAQocXnsIp

 

Key line:

 

According to two historical play-by-play-based systems, Baseball Prospectus’s Fielding Runs Above Average and Baseball-Reference’s Total Zone, Jeter has cost his team more in the field than any other player in history, with both methods assessing the damage at 230 to 260 runs.

[notin]

First of all I never said that shifts negate the value of range but merely that it diminishes it. I find it amusing and cavalier that the amateurs who post here totally devalue the judgment of the professionals he voted Jeter 5 gold gloves. At least you weren't so off base (pardon the pun) as to call Jeter the worst defensive SS of his era.

 

Gold Gloves have always been the most questionable award, highlighted by the awarding of one to Rafael Palmeiro in a season where he was almost exclusively a DH. But I guess when players and coaches vote, that’s what happens.

 

He really wasn’t the worst, but a big part of the reason are the two players I mentioned. Jeter has dozens of counterparts capable of doing everything he did on the field. And in many cases, more than he did. Were than any other worse shortstops I forgot?

 

Jhonny Peralta and his 0 Gold Gloves would be the epitome of the “no range but makes the routine plays consistently” shortstop...

[Elktonnick]

Well, here's an article that sheds some light on the topic.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=31&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiEoPD29N_lAhVknuAKHSyoA1gQFjAeegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrantland.com%2Ffeatures%2Fthe-tragedy-derek-jeter-defense%2F&usg=AOvVaw20m4XHKrodGvUAQocXnsIp

 

Key line:

 

According to two historical play-by-play-based systems, Baseball Prospectus’s Fielding Runs Above Average and Baseball-Reference’s Total Zone, Jeter has cost his team more in the field than any other player in history, with both methods assessing the damage at 230 to 260 runs.

 

Interesting article! I suggest everyone read the entire article especially the last few paragraphs which makes the point that the sabrmetric flaws from Jeter's defense were a result of poor positioning.

[moonslav59]

There really is something to be said for players who consistently make the plays that they should make. Too many people fall in love with the athleticism of the guy who can get to every ball and on occasion can make the great great play. if you had to choose, I would take the consistency every day without question.

 

Many do both. Those are the ones I like.

 

If it comes down to a guy who makes 100 more plays than the other (on exactly the same amount and difficulty plays) but makes 20 more errors, I'll take the guy with 20 more errors.

[moonslav59]

You are correct. There is so many flaws with the idea of range over consistency. Jeter is a first round hall of famer. To label him the worst defensive shortstop of his day is nonsense. Btw the advent of defensive shifts tends to diminish the value of range re emphasizing consistency.

 

So, no HOF'er can ever be a bad fielder.

 

Great logic.

 

Jeter sucked on D for over a decade.

[moonslav59]

The point was he was never the worst shortstop playing in his era. One can not defend the indefensible.

 

Would you agree to him being one of the worst 3 out of all the full time short stops of that decade?

 

That is clearly defensible.

 

I called him the worst, because not only was he horrible, he played 2-3,000 more innings that the other bad ones of that decade, so his weak D was magnified to the point of making him the worst.

 

BTW, his UZR was as bad as the next two worst ones combined. How is that not a "defense" or a position?

[Elktonnick]

Would you agree to him being one of the worst 3 out of all the full time short stops of that decade?

 

That is clearly defensible.

 

I called him the worst, because not only was he horrible, he played 2-3,000 more innings that the other bad ones of that decade, so his weak D was magnified to the point of making him the worst.

 

BTW, his UZR was as bad as the next two worst ones combined. How is that not a "defense" or a position?

First of most baseball sabrmetricians recognize the serious limitations of UZR. It's limitations are so severe that no serious statiscian would accept their reliability or validity if such a measure were used in anything other than baseball. Secondly your argument is that Jeter was the worst because his HOF manager Joe Torre played him 2-3000 innings more than anyone else. LMFAO!!!!!

[notin]

First of most baseball sabrmetricians recognize the serious limitations of UZR. It's limitations are so severe that no serious statiscian would accept their reliability or validity if such a measure were used in anything other than baseball. Secondly your argument is that Jeter was the worst because his HOF manager Joe Torre played him 2-3000 innings more than anyone else. LMFAO!!!!!

 

Well the man’s bat was certainly a factor in keeping him in the lineup

[notin]

Interesting article! I suggest everyone read the entire article especially the last few paragraphs which makes the point that the sabrmetric flaws from Jeter's defense were a result of poor positioning.

 

Yeah that’s not really what it says...

[Elktonnick]

Well the man’s bat was certainly a factor in keeping him in the lineup

Precisely Jeter has the 17th highest WAR in baseball history. Moreover his UZR numbers are artifically skewed against him. Players are disadvantaged in UZR calculations by not being positioned in the center of the UZR rating zone. This is just one of the many issues that make UZR virtually worthless from a purely scientific standpoint. The sabrmetricians counter saying "We know it's flawed but it is the best we got" It is for this reason I will take the opinion of those professionals who voted Jeter 5 gold gloves and Joe Torre over any one who posts on a baseball forum.

[moonslav59]

First of most baseball sabrmetricians recognize the serious limitations of UZR. It's limitations are so severe that no serious statiscian would accept their reliability or validity if such a measure were used in anything other than baseball. Secondly your argument is that Jeter was the worst because his HOF manager Joe Torre played him 2-3000 innings more than anyone else. LMFAO!!!!!

 

No. He was the worst or maybe 3rd worst for a decade. He was not the worst in his first 2-3 years.

 

It's not just about UZR/150.

 

DRS has him even worse.

 

MY observations of the 17-18 games we played them every year backed up the data. The guy was a statue. He sucked.

 

Plenty of baseball people regard UZR/150 and DRS with respect- flawed or not.

 

You are basing your opinion on what Flg%? LMAO! On GG votes? OMG!

 

Yes, the final straw for me was that because he played so much his poor defense made his total defensive output dead worst in MLB for that decade (his last 10 years in MLB).

 

You can laugh all you want about my position, but I've seen nothing to support your point, except GG votes- the same voters who voted a DH the GG at 1B one year.

 

Let's go by dWAR (fangraphs) from 2004-2014 (30 SSs with 3500+ PAs in that period):

 

25. Jeter

26. HRam

27. A Cabrera

28. F Lopez

29. Y Betancourt

30. M Young

 

You probably don't respect WAR either, so what's the use?

 

dWAR: 5th worst

UZR/150: 3rd worst

UZR: worst by far

DRS: worst (the same as the next two worst combined!!!!)

 

No evidence? Sketchy evidence?

 

PLEASE!

 

They guy sucked on D. It's possible to be great on O, great in the clubhouse, suck on D and be a legitimate HOF'er. Jeter is that guy. Period.

 

His range was one to two step to both sides- maybe three to four on a slow grounder. Whoop-dee-freakin-doo! He made all those plays hit right to him.

 

I saved my best argument for last. jacko has never said a bad word about any Yankee star, so when he says this- read between the lines- even he knows he sucked on D:

 

All in all, he probably should have been the 3b when we got Arod, but he was too proud for that. I watched at least 70% of the games he played in his career, and I am aware of the DRS and UZR deficiencies. He wasn't a good defender, but he wasn't the butcher early on that he became later, especially after the ankle injury...

 

(And, I agreed, he wasn't "the butcher" early in his career.)

[notin]

Precisely Jeter has the 17th highest WAR in baseball history. Moreover his UZR numbers are artifically skewed against him. Players are disadvantaged in UZR calculations by not being positioned in the center of the UZR rating zone. This is just one of the many issues that make UZR virtually worthless from a purely scientific standpoint. The sabrmetricians counter saying "We know it's flawed but it is the best we got" It is for this reason I will take the opinion of those professionals who voted Jeter 5 gold gloves and Joe Torre over any one who posts on a baseball forum.

 

So you prefer the old flawed system over the new flawed system?

 

Don’t forget, UZR does compare to league averages. It’s not like Jeter was the only shortstop ever to position himself outside the center of range.

 

Worth pointing out that article focuses on DRS, and Cashman clearly had some faith in the numbers...

[moonslav59]

Precisely Jeter has the 17th highest WAR in baseball history. Moreover his UZR numbers are artifically skewed against him. Players are disadvantaged in UZR calculations by not being positioned in the center of the UZR rating zone. This is just one of the many issues that make UZR virtually worthless from a purely scientific standpoint. The sabrmetricians counter saying "We know it's flawed but it is the best we got" It is for this reason I will take the opinion of those professionals who voted Jeter 5 gold gloves and Joe Torre over any one who posts on a baseball forum.

 

You are clueless on how UZR/150 works, so no wonder you don't respect it.

[moonslav59]

Well the man’s bat was certainly a factor in keeping him in the lineup

 

Exactly. My point was about being in the field so much his defense made him the worst. Longevity counts when it's a plus (like with Porcello), but it shouldn't when it's a minus?

 

Look, I'm fine with blaming the manager for not moving him to 3B, but the fact is, he played SS, when maybe he shouldn't have been playing that position.

 

Pride, glory, reputation, whatever the reason, when he played, and he played often, he sucked on D the last 10-11 years of his career.

 

It reminds me of Cal Ripken being played too much just to get the record- damn what's best for the team.

 

Ripken was a beast and a big plus to his team, but playing everyday hurt the team.

 

Jeter's D hurt the team, but his offense and leadership more than made up for it. He belongs in the HOF- no doubt, but not for his defense.

[Elktonnick]

You are clueless on how UZR/150 works, so no wonder you don't respect it.

 

I suggest you read the various articles on UZR and you will find most sabrmetricians have the same issues I have. Here is an excerpt from Michael Lichtman's article on UZR which he created,

Conclusions

So, what are the lessons here? One, use as much data as possible before drawing any conclusions about a player’s likely defensive ability, talent or value. But, because true talent can change from year to year, try and weight recent data more heavily than past data. Two, consistency from year to year means almost nothing. Ignore it, combine the data (hopefully with some weighting), and go on your merry way. Three, a player’s UZR, be it one year, one month or 5 years, is not necessarily what happened on the field and is not necessarily that player’s true talent level over that period of time either. That is why we regress, regress, and regress! A player can have a plus UZR and have played terrible defense, because the data we are using is far from perfect. It is exactly the same with offense and pitching. Do not for a second think that that is a unique problem with defensive metrics. It is not! The more data we have, however, the less likely the gap between UZR and what actually happened, and the smaller the gap between UZR and that player’s true defensive talent. And once we regress the sample numbers appropriately, we essentially shrink those gaps to zero, although there is still uncertainty with regard to the regressed number itself. So, even after regression, there is no guarantee that our UZR number reflects what the player actually did or his true defensive talent over that time period. But, it is the best we can do (not knowing anything else about that player)!

 

I read and saved the above article a couple of years ago. The last sentence is telling since it means as purely scientific standard UZR and UZR/150 is neither reliable nor valid Statistically speaking UZR fails as a scientific measure. And that's not me saying it but UZR's creator, Michael Lichtman.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Elktonnick

[notin]

Moreover his UZR numbers are artifically skewed against him. Players are disadvantaged in UZR calculations by not being positioned in the center of the UZR rating zone. This is just one of the many issues that make UZR virtually worthless from a purely scientific standpoint. The sabrmetricians counter saying "We know it's flawed but it is the best we got" It is for this reason I will take the opinion of those professionals who voted Jeter 5 gold gloves and Joe Torre over any one who posts on a baseball forum.

 

I’d like to know what makes Gold Gloves ballots valid from a scientific standpoint. Or do you allow the criteria to waiver in favor of the methods you like better?

 

Also, shouldn’t it be “Joe Torre and Gold Gloves vs. UZR”? I think we can all agree, baseball forum input is the least reliable method of the three, but the preference for JT and GG over, say, me isn’t even close to a condemnation of the statistical analysis done for UZR (and DRS, which was in the article)...

[notin]

I suggest you read the various articles on UZR and you will find most sabrmetricians have the same issues I have. Here is an excerpt from Michael Lichtman's article on UZR which he created,

Conclusions

So, what are the lessons here? One, use as much data as possible before drawing any conclusions about a player’s likely defensive ability, talent or value. But, because true talent can change from year to year, try and weight recent data more heavily than past data. Two, consistency from year to year means almost nothing. Ignore it, combine the data (hopefully with some weighting), and go on your merry way. Three, a player’s UZR, be it one year, one month or 5 years, is not necessarily what happened on the field and is not necessarily that player’s true talent level over that period of time either. That is why we regress, regress, and regress! A player can have a plus UZR and have played terrible defense, because the data we are using is far from perfect. It is exactly the same with offense and pitching. Do not for a second think that that is a unique problem with defensive metrics. It is not! The more data we have, however, the less likely the gap between UZR and what actually happened, and the smaller the gap between UZR and that player’s true defensive talent. And once we regress the sample numbers appropriately, we essentially shrink those gaps to zero, although there is still uncertainty with regard to the regressed number itself. So, even after regression, there is no guarantee that our UZR number reflects what the player actually did or his true defensive talent over that time period. But, it is the best we can do (not knowing anything else about that player)!

 

I read and saved the above article a couple of years ago. The last sentence is telling since it means as purely scientific standard UZR and UZR/150 is neither reliable nor valid Statistically speaking UZR fails as a scientific measure. And that's not me saying it but UZR's creator, Michael Lichtman.

 

 

Again, please explain the scientific validity behind Gold Glove balloting?

 

No one ever said UZR was perfect, but nothing he says there cannot be said about batting average. Shall we disregard that stat in favor of the “more scientific” Silver Slugger balloting?

[S5Dewey]

I fail to see all the indecision about who's the worst defensive SS during Jeter's time. Simply take the dWAR of SS's during Jeter's tenure, and Ta-Da!!!

 

As to UZR not being Range Factor, they may not be the same but they're siblings. If you want to favor UZR over Range Factor's portion of dWAR ... where does that leave you with other player's dWAR which uses RF in determining dWAR for these players?? Doesn't that make dWAR suspect for every player?

[moonslav59]

I suggest you read the various articles on UZR and you will find most sabrmetricians have the same issues I have. Here is an excerpt from Michael Lichtman's article on UZR which he created,

Conclusions

So, what are the lessons here? One, use as much data as possible before drawing any conclusions about a player’s likely defensive ability, talent or value. But, because true talent can change from year to year, try and weight recent data more heavily than past data. Two, consistency from year to year means almost nothing. Ignore it, combine the data (hopefully with some weighting), and go on your merry way. Three, a player’s UZR, be it one year, one month or 5 years, is not necessarily what happened on the field and is not necessarily that player’s true talent level over that period of time either. That is why we regress, regress, and regress! A player can have a plus UZR and have played terrible defense, because the data we are using is far from perfect. It is exactly the same with offense and pitching. Do not for a second think that that is a unique problem with defensive metrics. It is not! The more data we have, however, the less likely the gap between UZR and what actually happened, and the smaller the gap between UZR and that player’s true defensive talent. And once we regress the sample numbers appropriately, we essentially shrink those gaps to zero, although there is still uncertainty with regard to the regressed number itself. So, even after regression, there is no guarantee that our UZR number reflects what the player actually did or his true defensive talent over that time period. But, it is the best we can do (not knowing anything else about that player)!

 

I read and saved the above article a couple of years ago. The last sentence is telling since it means as purely scientific standard UZR and UZR/150 is neither reliable nor valid Statistically speaking UZR fails as a scientific measure. And that's not me saying it but UZR's creator, Michael Lichtman.

 

I've read all this and more.

 

Jeter sucked on D, and not just because the stats backed up by observations.

[notin]

I've read all this and more.

 

Jeter sucked on D, and not just because the stats backed up by observations.

 

... and backed up by a Yankee fan on this forum who views the entire world through pinstriped glasses...

Edited November 10, 2019 by notin

[moonslav59]

Again, please explain the scientific validity behind Gold Glove balloting?

 

No one ever said UZR was perfect, but nothing he says there cannot be said about batting average. Shall we disregard that stat in favor of the “more scientific” Silver Slugger balloting?

 

Crickets is the reply, because there is no valid response.

 

The example of them choosing a DH as their GG 1Bman is but one of the many jokes they've chosen- Jeter being a fine example.

 

One can argue he was not the worst. One can even argue he was not the worst 3 or 5, but to argue he was even a plus defender after year 3-4 is a total clown joke. Winning multiple GGs isone of the biggest scams of all time, in terms of awards. The guy was never top 15, let alone #1.

 

[moonslav59]

... and backed up by a Yankee fan on this forum who views the entire world through pinstripes glasses...

 

I know plenty of Yankee fans and all admit Jeter was at best below average his last 10-11 years of his career.

 

I find it fascinating that we have Sox fans defending his horrendous defense.

 

They watched the same games I did, and whoop-dee-freakin-doo, he hardly made any errors. This whole "few errors" argument is so old and tired and short-sighted I'm tired of even debating the issue anymore.

[moonslav59]

The worst part about the Jeter Gold Glove Awards is that all were after he had declined!

 

Take his 2009 award,perhaps the biggest scam of all, he couldn't even finish in the top 17 on The Fielding Bible. (Same with 2006- 18th place .) He must have fooled one or two voters on that committee, so I guess some Sox fans are not alone, but since he never got more than 1-3 points, none of the members could ever have ranked him higher than #7. (He got one vote as the 10th best in 2008, and he got no votes in 2010- yet we're supposed to believe he was the best in 2009.)

 

He got one point in 2008 (22nd out of 22 who got votes.)

He got no votes for top 10 in 2010 (22 others did.)

No votes in 2011 (16 got 1+ votes)

None in 2012 (16 did.)

None in 2013 (19 did.)

None in 2014 (24 did.)

 

 

 

 

[notin]

The worst part about the Jeter Gold Glove Awards is that all were after he had declined!

 

Take his 2009 award,perhaps the biggest scam of all, he couldn't even finish in the top 17 on The Fielding Bible. (Same with 2006- 18th place .) He must have fooled one or two voters on that committee, so I guess some Sox fans are not alone, but since he never got more than 1-3 points, none of the members could ever have ranked him higher than #7. (He got one vote as the 10th best in 2008, and he got no votes in 2010- yet we're supposed to believe he was the best in 2009.)

 

He got one point in 2008 (22nd out of 22 who got votes.)

He got no votes for top 10 in 2010 (22 others did.)

No votes in 2011 (16 got 1+ votes)

None in 2012 (16 did.)

None in 2013 (19 did.)

None in 2014 (24 did.)

 

 

 

 

 

The Gold Glove is like the Oscar. Sometimes it just goes to someone with a distinguished career and doesn’t take into account its own actual criteria...