Is it just me, or is Gammons suddenly growing more Raccoon Lodge-ish in his old age?

I don't know. Is it just me or are bloggers suddenly become worse at reading comprehension? I don't see how Gammons statement segues into an argument exclusively about Jeter's defensive ability.

Ok, I get that most "anti" material focuses on that, but Fox's comments are not a rebuttal to Gammons simple one line mention.

He's attacking an ant hill with a bazooka and it appears to be the wrong ant hill at that.

And yes, I'm pretty sure I've either screwed up the ant hll/bazooka comparison or completely made up one that doesn't actually make sense. It's early!

Bloggers are now treating Gammons the writer like they are treating Jeter the shortstop.

IOW, the terrorists have won.

No one knows everything about baseball. Baron Von Awesome knows some stuff that philly doesn't know. Philly knows some stuff that levski doesn't know. And levski knows some stuff that Gammons doesn't know (he probably has a better contact number for Josh Byrnes than Gammo does.)

Is it just me, or is Gammons suddenly growing more Raccoon Lodge-ish in his old age?

I don't think so. Dan's quoting from a recent posting where Gammons mentioned how he routinely checks prospectus, THT, and us here at btf. Plus he read the THT Annual over his vacation.

He's made a series of comments (at Neyer in particular) over Jim Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy. And he's always mixed in some willingness to use sabermetrics with some shots at the community.

My approach has always been that Gammons sees statistical analysis as a tool for evaluation but gets sick of people who see it as the tool for evaluation. Thus he can talk about OPS in one article and disdain statheads in another one. Or, in this case, read THT's Annual and still believe Jeter is a shortstop.

Personally, it's never bothered me that much. I'm more annoyed when people are too hedgehog than too fox. I think he's wrong on Rice and Jeter but I ain't going to administer any sabermetric purity tests.

Yeah, I don't know. I find myself defending Jeter from time to time, because he was/is a very strong offensive force, but he isn't a shortstop and hasn't been for some time, if ever. I still suspect you'd get a substantially similar effect, offense/defense-wise, if you took, say, Carlos Beltran and put him at shortstop. Or, for that matter, Albert Pujols.

Well put, Dag.

What I find interesting about Gammons’ comment (and his take on Jeter is of course not a rare one and so I’m not just picking on Gammons) is the almost absolute faith in observation over other evidence when the evidence from every analytical tool available concurs as to the quality of Jeter’s defense. Perhaps people are simply wired differently with some inherently more skeptical of what they see (or think they see) and therefore more willing to let other kinds of input shape their opinions. I’ll admit it’s kind of a mystery to me.

You could easily make the opposite argument - some people have absolute faith in some statistical measure over other evidence (such as observation or other statistical measures), even though our ability to measure some qualities using statisitics is limited. I prefer some combination of statistical analysis and observation. The degree to which observation matters depends on our level of confidence of the statistical evidence. I'm confident in the statistical evidence that Jeter is not a good defensive shortstop, but there have been other comments around here stated with absolute certainty where I don't think its warranted.

but he isn't a shortstop and hasn't been for some time, if ever.

This is probably the kind of comment Gammons is responding to. Not only is it extreme in its phrasing, it isn't even supported by the sabermetric evidence it pretends to be based on. Things like this easily irritate people who know that Jeter is no gold glover but have enough sense to realize that in most injury free years of his career, Jeter's defense, while usually below average, is close enough to that bar to absolutely belong at SS. I mean, look at the blurb:

So over the course of six seasons Jeter is worth -47 runs by handling 64 fewer balls than would have been expected.

8 runs (btw, his two injury plagued years, 03 and 07 account for -35 runs according to the author's system) a year (ignoring the fact that Jeter gets at least a run or two back every year on popups/relay throws, facts that also have pbp supported evidence) is so bad that he shouldn't play SS?

I observe that Jeter doesn't get to as many ground balls as he should. Further observation of the performance of the regular shortstops on the other teams reinforces my opinion. But unless Girardi or someone he respects can make some sort of Yount argument to him, nothing's changing. It's not all bad news, he keeps somebody else from being the worst.

The problem is observation is based too much on the observer. I've watched a ton of yankee games and Jeter looks like a below average SS who makes an occassional great play. So if someone else watches him and says he is a great SS which person is correct? At that point you really have to go to a more unbiased system of valuation and that is where stats theoretically come in.

The problem is observation is based too much on the observer. I've watched a ton of yankee games and Jeter looks like a below average SS who makes an occassional great play. So if someone else watches him and says he is a great SS which person is correct? At that point you really have to go to a more unbiased system of valuation and that is where stats theoretically come in.

Its a good argument, but there are two counterarguments. First, similar to statistics, there is often a consensus on observation. If 99% of observers agree that a player is good defensively, there is some importace to that. Second, especially when it comes to defense, there is no one completely unbiased system - different statistical systems can disagree (although not in the case of Jeter).

Speaking as someone who watches around 100 Yankee games a year, my observations of Jeter match up pretty well with the statistical analysis. He's a lousy shortstop. I could see a casual viewer watching a game or two and thinking he's good... Jeter is fluid and graceful, with a strong throwing arm and reliable hands. But you can only watch so many routine ground balls hit 10 feet to the left of 2nd base go for singles before you start to wonder if maybe all those guys living in their mother's basement might have a point. Especially when the other team's shortstop seems to turn those into outs more often than not. Even some of my non-statistically savvy friends are starting to come on board.

I'm guessing that in days of yore Jeter was still bad, but just good enough to fool observers for the reasons I listed above, which may explain some of the stubbornness on the part of Gammons et al. I'm too lazy to check the numbers though.

Jeter can play shortstop as long as his managers continue to put him there, and Ryan Braun can likewise play third base for as long as his managers will put him there. Neither plays his position any better than two hundred other non-shortstops could with a little training. So when I say Jeter isn't really a shortstop, and you say that's wrong and I'm just being inflammatory... I think the statement stands.

Jeter can play shortstop as long as his managers continue to put him there, and Ryan Braun can likewise play third base for as long as his managers will put him there. Neither plays his position any better than two hundred other non-shortstops could with a little training. So when I say Jeter isn't really a shortstop, and you say that's wrong and I'm just being inflammatory... I think the statement stands.

I don't agree. I think Jeter is bad, but I don't think he's as bad as Braun is at third, and I don't think you could stick just about anyone else there and expect him to handle the position as well as Jeter. There is bad, and there is unable to handle the position. I'd put Jeter in the first category, and Braun into the second.

BVA, the point was that you said "isn't a shortstop and hasn't been for some time, if ever." That "if ever was" clearly over the top for anyone who has taken the time to look at Jeter's early UZR numbers and understands that Jeter's ability to turn line drives into outs isn't taken into account (or at least it wasn't, I don't know the current critieria).

I don't mean to start a flame war here, I just want to make an analogy.

Maybe some of you saw the Wall Street Journal op ed the other day titled "Liberal Hatemongers." Of course this is just part of the Journal's stock in trade and the same article (well, almost) runs about every couple of months. Anyway, my point is, I am always amazed that anybody can write about political hatemongering without ever mentioning Limbaugh, Coulter and O'Reilly. No, it's just Michael Moore.

OK. By analogy, it is just amazing to me that a Gammons (or maybe this is unfair to Gammons, but if so there surely are others) can suggest that SABR types are "closed-minded" or narrow, and never stop and look in the mirror.

But if there's anything that I've lived long enough to understand, it's that we see what we wanna see and we know what we wanna know. An open mind is just not the natural order of things.

Neither plays his position any better than two hundred other non-shortstops could with a little training.

That's so wrong it's stupid.

So when I say Jeter isn't really a shortstop, and you say that's wrong and I'm just being inflammatory... I think the statement stands.

Well it does, until you look at the evidence, which you don't seem to be interested in doing so there's no real point in talking about this with you anymore.

A wiser man than me said that people look for affirmatation instead of information. I think that this is the case in both camps. What percentage of the folks here crunch the numbers and what percentage just parrot Neyer or Sheehan instead of the local sports radio guy?

There's a weird disconnect between people who think Jeter's a good fielder and those who don't. I've seen Jeter play hundreds of games and that's why I think he's a bad fielder, not because of statistics. He has a slow reaction time and there lots of balls that go up the middle on his side that don't against good shortstops. That's not data or statistics. Data and statistics only back up what I observe. If the stats said he was good, I would disagree with them.

Is it just me, or is the original Gammons quote being taken way out of context?

“Bill James is trying to define clutch, what made George Brett so different, or sets David Ortiz, when healthy, apart in swagger and presence. You can present me with 4,765 pages of anti-Derek Jeter material; it won’t work, I watch him too much.”

That sounds like it's more of a "clutch" argument than a defense argument. Moreover, it's so vague that the "anti-" position or what "won't work" in Gammons' opinion could really be an extreme "Jeter sucks" argument, which isn't unreasonable to refute. Even as one of the worst defensive shortstops in the league, with his offense, Jeter is not without value, even as a starting shortstop.

Unless Gammons is specifically alluding to a bigger discussion he's had recently about Jeter (which I may have missed), it seems like the blog writer is needlessly going off the handle on him.

Q: if you mentioned Derek Jeter and Ron Paul in the same posting, would teh internets explode!?

That "if ever was" clearly over the top for anyone who has taken the time to look at Jeter's early UZR numbers

From 2003-2006, year by year UZR, -21, 3, -11, -15.

He has been a bad SS for some time.

#21 - Oscar Gamble:

No. However, Derek Jeter + Ron Paul + New York Mets = catastrophic internet failure.

There is reasonable debate about whether Jeter is merely a poor defensive shortstop, or a horrifically bad one. Many observers and some statistical metrics suggest that he is a poor one. Many observers and some statistical metrics (eg The Fielding Bible, Chris Dial, UZR) suggest that he is horrifically bad one.

There are no statistical metrics which suggest that he is a good one, and the observers who say that he is positively good are not watching the same games that I am. He is definitely a great hitter and he runs well, and I cannot help but think that these qualities influence the observation. Which I think correlates with Sunnyday's point...

From 2003-2006, year by year UZR, -21, 3, -11, -15.

He has been a bad SS for some time.

I'm not really sure why you would choose to quote me and then provide that response. Do you consider 2003 to be "early UZR numbers"? Secondly, the numbers you provide show that from 2004-2006 that Jeter was either below average to bad but not "isn't a shortstop" as the claim was made.

#25

2003 is the earliest UZR I can find. If you have earlier numbers, please provide them.

I did say that he is a bad SS. I got the implication from your post that you think that his struggles are recent. With the exception of 2004, he has been bad for some time. His 2003 UZR is pretty similar to his 2007 UZR.

Its a good argument, but there are two counterarguments. First, similar to statistics, there is often a consensus on observation. If 99% of observers agree that a player is good defensively, there is some importace to that.

Not necessarily. I think Jeter's defensive reputation is an indicator that many can't see beyond aesthetics. All things being equal, a guy with Strawberry's swing would hang around the league longer than a guy with Counsell's swing and their reputations would be very different.

Jeter's not the worst defensive shortstop of his era. He's just the worst defensive shortstop among players who are good enough all around to play for as long as he has.

Andy Sheets. Angels had to play him there in 1999 when Disarcina got hurt. He was so awful he made Jeter look like Phil Rizzuto. Couldn't hit either, so he didn't stick around to put up any kind of big negative fielding runs number.

Josh Wilson was pretty awful last year with the Devil Rays too.

Here is a piece on Jeter's defense from the way back Primer of 2003. Although the actual early UZR numbers aren't listed, check out tango's comment in #6. He writes

"Check out how Jeter did in your first version of UZR (look at your inaugural sLWTS article). He was actually a plus in the beginning!

Your updated version of UZR cut his numbers down big time..."

UZR has changed over time, and there have been different ratings provided for the same years for the same players as the number has changed.

rfloh, the only way that you can think that I implied that is by doing so with your own baggage. We can play the good ole internet semantics game here, but saying someone isn't a shortstop seems to be that they are so bad that they shouldn't even be playing the position. In some of the years that you quoted, I don't know how that can be argued.

Aaron Miles may be worse too. I'd describe him as Jeter without the strong arm. Of course being in attendance for a three error inning will do that an observer.

Many observers and some statistical metrics (eg The Fielding Bible, Chris Dial, UZR) suggest that he is horrifically bad one.

Actually, Dial has him as a horrific this year. He rates at about average (+5, 0, -5 IIRC) from 04-06. Jeter had a better defensive projection coming into 07 than A-rod did using Dials ZR.

If you have earlier numbers, please provide them.

I don't have them on this computer, but UZR rates Jeter as average from 97-99. Of course, maybe if you don't have access to the numbers, you shouldn't be making arguments based on them. ZR, which has a strong correlation to UZR, is available to everyone who can view espn.com. You can check those out, and compare them to other SS to see how Jeter's defense has varied over his career and how he compares to other SSs. Needless to say, "is not a SS and hasn't been for sometime" is hardly the impression you get from those #s.

rfloh, the only way that you can think that I implied that is by doing so with your own baggage. We can play the good ole internet semantics game here, but saying someone isn't a shortstop seems to be that they are so bad that they shouldn't even be playing the position. In some of the years that you quoted, I don't know how that can be argued.

I said that he is bad SS, bad, but still a SS, for some time, since 2003. Do you agree?

Actually, Dial has him as a horrific this year. He rates at about average (+5, 0, -5 IIRC) from 04-06. Jeter had a better defensive projection coming into 07 than A-rod did using Dials ZR.

And the fielding bible had him as horrifically bad during that period; UZR in total had him at -23 in total.

Quoting myself: "Secondly, the numbers you provide show that from 2004-2006 that Jeter was either below average to bad but not "isn't a shortstop" as the claim was made."

Quoting rfloh

I said that he is bad SS, bad, but still a SS, for some time, since 2003. Do you agree?

No, I don't agree that he has been a bad SS since 2003. Do you? Do you consider a UZR of 3 to be bad?

I said that he is bad SS, bad, but still a SS, for some time, since 2003. Do you agree?

Depends, I don't agree that he was a bad SS in 04-05. I do agree that his total defensive contribution from 2003-2007 (or 00-07 if you like) is way below average, and that overall, he was bad defensively.

And the fielding bible had him as horrifically bad during that period; UZR in total had him at -23 in total.

My post was in response to Mike Green's post that Dial's metric consistently has Jeter as a horrific defender when it doesn't. That of course is important because the larger point that people try to make about Jeter's defense (every metric rates him as awful) is not true throughout his career, or even the second half of his career.

In response to the other numbers, the Fielding Bible consistently underrates all Yankee defenders relative to other PBP defensive metrics. Maybe it's something in the Yankee pitchers or the Yankee defensive alignment or the Fielding Bible's information gatherers at Yankee stadium, but I take all Yankee data from the Fielding Bible with a huge grain of salt. The UZR is something I am more inclined to accept, but it is dramatically different than ZR in regards to Jeter's defense during the 04-06 time period. I definately do not believe that Jeter was 11 runs worse than average in 05 and I have a little trouble accepting that total UZR number as a result.

The problem with "clutch" arguments is that some of the most pressured filled moments a baseball player faces in his career happen somewhere other than the major leagues. What kind of pressure do you think exists in those Dominican Academies? To me determining whether your family eats or not is a situation packed with infinitely more pressure than whether Mike Lupica thinks you're "clutch" in the postseason.

"Q: if you mentioned Derek Jeter and Ron Paul in the same posting, would teh internets explode!?"

Maybe Jeter gave Ron Paul herpes.

Hey, it's no crazier than Chris Dodd's bout with the crabs.

"Check out how Jeter did in your first version of UZR (look at your inaugural sLWTS article). He was actually a plus in the beginning!"

Everyone knows Jeter's D was good in the beginning, but then he went too far.

I didn't say that Dial consistently rated him as horrific. Dial has him at +1, -6, -21 over 2005-07. If you take a reasonable weighted average, that would be -10 or so. That's a lotta pasta...

Everyone knows Jeter's D was good in the beginning, but then he went too far.

WINNER!!

Dial has him at +1, -6, -21 over 2005-07. If you take a reasonable weighted average, that would be -10 or so. That's a lotta pasta...

I don't know what the pasta thing means. Jeter had a serious knee injury in 07. Whether the effects of that injury will be chronic is unknown, but I think it's fair to conclude that his defense was much worse this year (a 15 run drop defensive drop, a visible loss of acceleration and speed during the season, and worse offensive speed numbers than the recent past) because of the injury, not because he no longer belongs at SS. It may prove to be true in the future that he is done as even a below average defender and is now historically awful, but one awful, injury plagued year is not enough to convince me that he needs to be moved.

OK. By analogy, it is just amazing to me that a Gammons (or maybe this is unfair to Gammons, but if so there surely are others) can suggest that SABR types are "closed-minded" or narrow, and never stop and look in the mirror.

I think that's very unfair to Gammons. He likes using statistical and non-statistical information. He's done more to popularize OPS to mainstream fan-dom than anyone else. At a certain level, analysis can get too number-heavy for him and he checks out, but that's true of a lot of regular people here.

What percentage of the folks here crunch the numbers and what percentage just parrot Neyer or Sheehan instead of the local sports radio guy?

I'd agree with this. Thus I don't parrot Neyer or Sheehan .. . . instead I parrot Jon Daly. eeeewwwwwww! (kidding, Jon! kidding! sorta)

I don't know what the pasta thing means.

FYI, its a reference to the phrase, "pasta-diving Jeter", as in "past a diving Jeter." I don't exactly know when that phrase was created or how it was popularized, but that's where it's from.

You're just standing on the shoulders of a giant, Dag ;).

I didn't say that Dial consistently rated him as horrific. Dial has him at +1, -6, -21 over 2005-07. If you take a reasonable weighted average, that would be -10 or so. That's a lotta pasta...

That's ridiculous. Why would you average it? Is Dial's data no good or misleading over a full season and thus has to be averaged over multiple years? His numbers show an average year, a below average year, and a horrible year. Mark McGwire averaged fewer than 10 HR per year from 2001-2003. That doesn't mean he wasn't a legit power threat in 2001.

I don't think the McGwire example is really a fair comparison considering McGwire didn't play in 2002 or 2003...

I don't think the McGwire example is really a fair comparison considering McGwire didn't play in 2002 or 2003...

Sure it is. What Mac did or didn't do in 2003 shouldn't affect the perception of him in 2001. Same with Jeter. Seasons are discreet measurements. Come the end of October, that season is in the bank. If a player is good one year, horrible the next, it is fair to say his overall contribution to his team's success is below average, but it is not fair to say that he is a below average player those two years.

True.

Is Dial's data no good or misleading over a full season and thus has to be averaged over multiple years?

Yes. All statistics are misleading to a degree and need to be regressed. Fielding statistics need to be regressed quite a bit more than hitting stats...considering multiple years together reduces how much you need to regress.

I think the rule of thumb is that you need at least two years of fielding stats to be meaningful.