One issue here might be how well offensive vs. defensive skills age. Polanco turned 36 this month. I have no idea if this is really true or not, but my impression is that middle infielders tend to lose a lot of defensive effectiveness in their mid to late 30s. There are some notable exceptions like Omar Vizquel (who still seems excellent), but isn't Jeter likely to remain a valuable player longer than Polanco? Again, I don't know this to be the case, just wondering.

Count the (tree) rings

Polanco just turned 31. Or are you suggesting that he just hasn't been caught by age gate yet?

His career progression has him improving substantially from when he came up at 22, peaking at 27-29, and dropping off a bit at 30 this year. No idea how he'll due in the future, but it seems to be a fairly normal development at his listed age. I see no reason to doubt it.

Thanks for reminding me of yet another guy who should be playing 3rd for the Phillies. What a great day this is...

but isn't Jeter likely to remain a valuable player longer than Polanco?

On this site, pocket lint is more valuable than Derek Jeter on a baseball team.

Is Jeter really only 2 wins better with the bat? Certainly this year, the gap was much much bigger.

Polanco just turned 31. Or are you suggesting that he just hasn't been caught by age gate yet?

Actually I'm suggesting that I can't add. I saw 1975 and thought, wow, that dude's old! (I was born before that, so I should know...)

At this point, I could try to rescue my earlier post by noting that Polanco is already in his decline and so maybe his defensive value will decline in his EARLY 30s, but that would just seem kind of lame. All hail Placido Polanco, MVP!

I'd quibble with the accuracy of defensive vs. offensive metrics. I'm much more comfortable with my estimate of Jeter's offensive value
than I am with my estimate of his defensive value. Hence given that, I'd (holding nose) go with Jeter...

Meant to add: even though our defensive metrics are much better than they were 20 years ago, there is still more uncertainty there
(i.e. they often don't agree with each other nearly as much as the various offensive ones agree with each other).

Polanco, because he's a winner!

"Is Jeter really only 2 wins better with the bat? Certainly this year, the gap was much much bigger."

Well, he was almost 60 runs better this year. And Polanco has played 140 games once in his career. But yeah, he's almost as good as Jeter. Sure.

Win shares, past three seasons: Jeter 85, Polanco 45. Last season, Jeter had 33 and Polanco had 13.

The difference between them offensively is far more than 2 wins.

Davenport's BRAA, per 150 games, the last four years:



So the two wins doesn't seem too off-base ... but Polanco is far less durable than The Jeter, and that matters, too.

Aw, Darryl Strawberry. Let's call the whole thing off.

Hard to believe that Polanco was a free agent coming into the 2005 season, and he signed a league-average (for a regular position player) salary.

This is sort of mis-stating the situation, though, isn't it?

Polanco was a free agent who was offered arbitration by the Phillies so that they could get compensation when he signed with someone else. But he didn't get offered the big dollars he was expecting, so he unexpectedly accepted arbitration, and then was signed to a compromise sum, before being traded to Detroit mid-season.

I think this is silly. Placido is officially my favorite player. He is lots cuter than Jeter, and maybe even a nicer guy.

But I'd take Jeter on the baseball field.

This site continues its movement towards proving Thomas Kuhn's arguments about the objectivity of science. What was once a critical movement has become virtually uncritical. In one thread, a site approved GM fires his manager (again) and the first batch of quotes doesn't even question it (whereas we get more of the Steinbrenner's an idiot crap b/c there's some mention he MAY fire Torre); here, again, we get the continued in-the-face-of-everything-we-see diminishment of Jeter as a baseball player. This is utter nonsense. I understand people envy Jeter, I understand Jeter gets fawning press and that's bothersome too. But, really, what GM wouldn't want a Jeter on his team? And yet, the "thinking fan" at this site either can't see how good this guy is, or holds his nose when he does.

On this site, pocket lint is more valuable than Derek Jeter on a baseball team.

What type of fabric?

[T]he "thinking fan" at this site either can't see how good this guy is, or holds his nose when he does.

This article was presumably linked to stimulate discussion, not to end it. And, in the 16 posts previous to yours, I count:

4 - Suggesting that even if what Tangotiger says is correct, Jeter is more valuable.
5 - saying that Tangotiger is way off base, and Jeter is much more valuable
7 - expressing no opinion either way

I think you're way off base criticising. Not only do people recognise Jeter's skills, but I think we're moving in the right direction. But, if you think people aren't sufficiently appreciative or whatever, feel free to make a substantive critique. After all, if people can't see how good Jeter is, then why don't you explain, rather then hitting them over the head for being blind?

Incidentally, although every (sane) GM would want a Jeter on his team, I don't think any (sane) GM would want his contract. And the two go together, which is, in part, Tangotiger's point.

here, again, we get the continued in-the-face-of-everything-we-see diminishment of Jeter as a baseball player. This is utter nonsense. I understand people envy Jeter, I understand Jeter gets fawning press and that's bothersome too. But, really, what GM wouldn't want a Jeter on his team? And yet, the "thinking fan" at this site either can't see how good this guy is, or holds his nose when he does.

This is silly. Tango is a very smart guy, and it's not like he wrote "OMG Jeter sux." He offered an analysis of why he believes that Polanco is as good a player as Jeter. And, as far as I can see, nobody else in this thread has said anything negative about Jeter, so are you really suggesting that Tom's analysis is influenced by him being envious of Jeter? I think that's extremely unfair. If you think his analysis is faulty, you should explain why. But saying, in essence, that "everybody who doesn't think Jeter is awesome is a fool" is as unconstructive as anything said by the people you wish to criticize--and, again, no blindly anti-Jeter rhetoric has appeared in this thread.

VORP:

Jeter 79.2
Polanco 8.4

yeah, 2 wins.

go thinking fans!!!

"He offered an analysis of why he believes that Polanco is as good a player as Jeter."

Yeah, but what I'd imagine JC's frustration stems from is why these shocking comparision(!) are aimed at Jeter. Why isn't Polanco better or as good as Edgar Renteria, or Jason Varitek, or Andruw Jones, or any other player who rates in that area. It wasn't just a Polanco is good thread. We've had those before, and you can do it without bringing up Derek Jeter. There's no reason he's the comparision here and as others in the thread have pointed out, that comparision is stretched. And it's happened enough times before that JC is probably bored and tired of it. This is the second time in 3 years that this comparision has come up. Compare him to someone else, maybe, someone who plays the same position as Polanco! Jeff Kent? Luis Castillo?

he certainly is not the many millions ahead of him.

Isn't this really the key? On net, I think Jeter's probably a more valuable player than Polanco but the extra $16M he's getting paid can buy you an awful lot.

VORP:

Jeter 79.2
Polanco 8.4

yeah, 2 wins.

go thinking fans!!!

And this was the second-best year of Jeter's career, his best since 1999, while it was probably the worst of Polanco's career. I'm not going to say Polanco's as good as Jeter, but, come on, you have to put more thought into it than just quoting this year's VORP.

Yeah, but what I'd imagine JC's frustration stems from is why these shocking comparision(!) are aimed at Jeter. Why isn't Polanco better or as good as Edgar Renteria, or Jason Varitek, or Andruw Jones, or any other player who rates in that area. It wasn't just a Polanco is good thread. We've had those before, and you can do it without bringing up Derek Jeter. There's no reason he's the comparision here and as others in the thread have pointed out, that comparision is stretched. And it's happened enough times before that JC is probably bored and tired of it. This is the second time in 3 years that this comparision has come up. Compare him to someone else, maybe, someone who plays the same position as Polanco! Jeff Kent? Luis Castillo?

If Tango had compared Polanco to Renteria or Castillo, no one would care. A Jeter comparison raises eyebrows, because Jeter is widely considered to be one of the best players in baseball, and is one of the most highly-paid, whereas Polanco was an unknown to most casual fans until last week. So, yes, the way Jeter is worshipped by the media is an unavoidable factor in why he's chosen for these kinds of comparisons. And perhaps you are right that it is done too frequently, and is tiresome. But it would have been more understandable if JC had said what you said instead of what he actually did, which comes pretty close to being a personal attack on Tango with nothing to back it up.

Tango just can't be serious. Either that or he just can't see the forest for the trees.

Polanco's a very nice player, BUT...

Jeter's counting stats overwhelm Polanco. Tango compares them on a per 700 plate appearances, but Polanco has never had 700 plate appearances in a season;Jeter has had 700 plate appearances in half his seasons and averages 642---more than Polanco's high of 610. One of my pet peeves about analysis on this board is that the analysis often assumes that rate stats will continue at the same level for postion players even as they get more playing time. That ain't always true. Weaknesses get exposed, platoon advantages disappear,durability matters, some players don't perform as well because they are dinged up but still play and some players just wear down.

But putting all that aside, even the most revered rate stat (OPS+) shows Jeter to be the far superior offensive player. Jeter's CAREER OPS+ is 123. Polanco's career OPS+ is 96. His high for a season 119 is *below * Jeter's career average.

That's a lot of defense to make up from a guy who has played only 122 games at short.

What methodology leads to the conclusion that Jeter is 2 wins above Polanco in offense? What stat is he using?

Sorry if it was mentioned and I missed it.

This site continues its movement towards proving Thomas Kuhn's arguments about the objectivity of science. What was once a critical movement has become virtually uncritical. In one thread, a site approved GM fires his manager (again) and the first batch of quotes doesn't even question it (whereas we get more of the Steinbrenner's an idiot crap b/c there's some mention he MAY fire Torre);

Couldn't it be because a lot more people have an opinion about Torre than about Macha and have nothing to do with the GM? Did you have an opinion on it? If you thought A's fans would question it, you clearly never visited an A's game chatter. And Macha wasn't fired last year.

go thinking fans!!!

Irony.

Yeah, but what I'd imagine JC's frustration stems from is why these shocking comparision(!) are aimed at Jeter.

Regardless, JC's post only serves to take the discussion even further away from the topic of the thread. Prior to his comment, people were discussing the findings (albeit maybe not at a highly sophisticated level). His post turns the thread away from the discussion. Tango hasn't even showed up to respond to criticism yet, and chances are he won't if the rest of the thread continues along this path.

Suggestion: after this post, comment about the substance of the article.

VORP:

Jeter 79.2
Polanco 8.4


As DCW3 pointed out, quoting one year means nothing.

I'm guessing Tango was using some linear weights-type of measure to compare their offense. As I illustrate above, Davenport's system sees them as average a two-win difference on offense over the last four years, once you prorate to 150 games.

But as I also pointed out, Jeter's established durability is a big factor. He usually plays more than 150 games, where Polanco has never played in that many. Tango does address this in the comment section.

One might argue that the best guess as to a player's true talent level is his projected performance. Granted, most projections we can find at this time of the year don't take this year's stats into account, but, what the hey...

PECOTA Weighted Mean projections for the 2006 season:

Player Avg OBP SLG MLVr VORP WARP EqA
Polanco .304 .352 .420 .056 29.1 4.9 .281
Jeter .298 .365 .431 .087 49.9 6.6 .291</pre>

Pretty close. I guess the question is, given a reasonable estimate of each player's value (assuming we agree that these projections are reasonable), is Polanco a significantly better investment? I think that without the "name" (and arguably the "intangibles" that may come with Jeter), there is objective support for choosing Polanco, especially when economics are involved.

It's interesting that beane has gone from being worshipped by some people on this site (3-4 years ago) to being blasted at every opportunity by others today. I would guess that, if pressed, JC will probably concede that he thinks Beane is a good GM, but I wonder if he really believes that. Beane's team won its division and swept the Twins in the first round, and yet he suggests that we should blast Beane for firing Macha. Doesn't Beane deserve the benefit of the doubt at some point? I'm not saying there shouldn't be any discussion or criticism of his decision, but to suggest that the posters on this site are mindless fanboys because they didn't immediately say "OMG BEANE'S AN IDIOT" makes no sense. These lame attempts to continue the Moneyball wars are pointless and boring.

I've said over and over i consider Beane a VERY good GM. The point was about the rut so much of this analysis has found itself in (thus the reference to Kuhn). As Cowboy mentions above, we get these comparisons to Jeter all the time and they're beyond counter-intuitive. When was the last time there was an analysis of what Jeter DOES, as opposed to what he's not? Why wouldn't there be some questioning of why Beane churns through managers, why Macha, who takes them farther than they've been, gets run out? Doesn't this count AGAINST Beane?

When was the last time there was an analysis of what Jeter DOES, as opposed to what he's not? Why wouldn't there be some questioning of why Beane churns through managers, why Macha, who takes them farther than they've been, gets run out? Doesn't this count AGAINST Beane?

No one's stopping you, JC. Feel free to let us know when you post an analysis of what Jeter does, or why Beane should be taken to task for firing Macha.

Actually, I don't think Beane's firing of Macha was necessarily a good thing, but considering some of the questionable moves (IMO) that Macha made, I can understand why he would do it.

But then again, I could also understand why the Boss was considering firing Torre, too.

I guess I just think most managers are fungible.

F

One might argue that the best guess as to a player's true talent level is his projected performance. Granted, most projections we can find at this time of the year don't take this year's stats into account, but, what the hey...

PECOTA Weighted Mean projections for the 2006 season:

Player Avg OBP SLG MLVr VORP WARP EqA
Polanco .304 .352 .420 .056 29.1 4.9 .281
Jeter .298 .365 .431 .087 49.9 6.6 .291



Pretty close. I guess the question is, given a reasonable estimate of each player's value (assuming we agree that these projections are reasonable), is Polanco a significantly better investment? I think that without the "name" (and arguably the "intangibles" that may come with Jeter), there is objective support for choosing Polanco, especially when economics are involved.

Problem.

These are rate stats. As several people have pointed out, durability counts for something when one player has never reached 150 games played while the other one does it year-in, year-out (barring collisions with AAAA catchers).

Another issue is how much you believe in these projection systems..... but that's a whole another issue.

F

One might argue that the best guess as to a player's true talent level is his projected performance.

Conversely, one might argue the opposite.

But, really, what GM wouldn't want a Jeter on his team?

Any and all GMs that bother to look at his contract.

When was the last time there was an analysis of what Jeter DOES, as opposed to what he's not?

There have been a ton of Jeter-for-MVP articles posted over the last few weeks, as well as posters saying they'd vote Jeter for MVP.

I do not disagree that there is a Jeter backlash at this site, but there is plenty of pro-Jeter commentary at this site also.

These are rate stats. As several people have pointed out, durability counts for something when one player has never reached 150 games played while the other one does it year-in, year-out (barring collisions with AAAA catchers).

Actually, PECOTA projects playing time. You can argue that they regress the playing time estimates too much, but it's flat incorrect to call these rate stats.

I guess I just think most managers are fungible.

I don't disagree with you too much, but this statement goes against what Beane did. He is on the hook for the two remaining years on Macha's contract ($3.5M); if they were really fungible, you'd never punt that much money on a manager.

One might argue that the best guess as to a player's true talent level is his projected performance.

Conversely, one might argue the opposite.

That it's the worst guess? Care to explain?

When was the last time there was an analysis of what Jeter DOES, as opposed to what he's not? Why wouldn't there be some questioning of why Beane churns through managers, why Macha, who takes them farther than they've been, gets run out? Doesn't this count AGAINST Beane?

What? Are you missing the articles saying he should be MVP? Are you bonkers?

And a LOT fewer people at this site care about Beane counters, Billy Beane and the A's then you apparently think. Have you never noticed there aren't many Beane/A's pieces? It's mostly Red Sox and Yanks and Mets.

The reason there isn't a bunch of criticism for the manager change is not many people care.

one year means nothing.


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Tot(01-06) Avg
Jeter 73 64 52.1 47.9 59.7 66.3 79.2 369.2 61.53
Polanco 11.8 15.9 11.7 32 31.5 34.4 8.4 133.9 22.31
</pre>

One year in his career has Polanco been within 2 wins on offense. He averages close to a 4 win deficit. I didn't include 2000 in the total or averages, since Polanco was a part timer.

the preview is a misrepresentation of reality.

Well, that's position adjusted offense--not raw offense. I'm not sure which Tango was referring to, but they're much closer when you just look at offense (as post 13 shows).

Post 13 shows a magical unicorn fairy land where Jeter and Polanco play the same number of games.

Use gross BRAA and you'll see a different result.

Using another BP.com stat:

UEqR
Unadjusted Equivalent Runs; (2 * REQA/LgREQA - 1) * PA * LgR/LgPA. Analogous to runs created


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Tot(01-06) Avg
Jeter 115 109 105 82 106 113 123 638 106.33
Polanco 43 70 56 76 71 79 50 402 67
</pre>

Also discarding 2000 in the averages.

I love magical unicorn fairy lands!

There have been a ton of Jeter-for-MVP articles posted over the last few weeks, as well as posters saying they'd vote Jeter for MVP.

Heck, Jeter actually is more likely to win the Internet MVP than he is the Baseball Writers' MVP.

Actually, PECOTA projects playing time. You can argue that they regress the playing time estimates too much, but it's flat incorrect to call these rate stats.

Good point, I forgot that they do "project" playing time. As if we really know how to do that. That's one ugly looking projection related to what they actually did. As you can probably tell, I'm not a big fan of BPro. But you're right, their VORP and WARPs are not rate stats.

I don't disagree with you too much, but this statement goes against what Beane did. He is on the hook for the two remaining years on Macha's contract ($3.5M); if they were really fungible, you'd never punt that much money on a manager.

And I never said I completely agreed with what Beane did. The money was a main part of why I can understand why people would question Beane's action (and why I was interested in JC's response to that).

F

Another issue is how much you believe in these projection systems..... but that's a whole another issue.

It's not a question of believing the projection systems, it's a question of believing any error bars that are associated with the predictions.

Jeter vs. Polanco is like comparing two stocks, one that is projected to return 15% on the year vs. 14% over the next year. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but then I tell you that I'm 95% certain that the Jeter-stock will return between 12 and 18% and I'm 95% certain the Polanco-stock will return between 6% and 22% over the next year, that's where the difference lies.

The biggest advantage that guys with tons of plate appearances should have quantitatively (disregarding playing time as proxy for durability) is in reduction of the error bars (which we almost never get to see).

I don't know how much it takes Dan to produce his pessimistic/optimistic projections, but I think two columns (pessimistic OPS/optimistic OPS) would very much bring people's conclusions in line with their cognitive processes (at least as much as possible).

Jeter vs. Polanco is like comparing two stocks, one that is projected to return 15% on the year vs. 14% over the next year. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but then I tell you that I'm 95% certain that the Jeter-stock will return between 12 and 18% and I'm 95% certain the Polanco-stock will return between 6% and 22% over the next year, that's where the difference lies.

Jeter has had more value than Polanco virtually every year - to say that you expect the returns to be the same tells you more about weaknesses in the projection system than about the real value of Jeter or Polanco.

The analogy to stocks is a good one, except that I'd put it this way: I'm 95% certain that Jeter will return between 12% and 18% and I'm 95% certain that Polanco will return between 2% and 18% next year. Polanco has a shot to be as valuable as Jeter, but its clearly not 50/50. If one stock bring a higher return on investment than another every single year, by varying amounts, what would you say about someone who predicted an equal rate of return in the next year.

And playing time matters in value.

Well, that's position adjusted offense--not raw offense. I'm not sure which Tango was referring to, but they're much closer when you just look at offense (as post 13 shows).

How would it make sense to ignore position on offense then conclude Polanco is at least 5-30 runs better on defense when Jeter plays the more demanding position?

How would it make sense to ignore position on offense then conclude Polanco is at least 5-30 runs better on defense when Jeter plays the more demanding position?

It doesn't make much sense. Same as considering BRAA/150 games as "raw offense".