Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, May 14, 2017

How Derek Jeter turned a simple number into an invincible brand | New York Post

Happy Derek Jeter Day!

Jim Furtado Posted: May 14, 2017 at 09:26 AM | 63 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: derek jeter, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: May 14, 2017 at 11:29 AM (#5455078)
Reading the article I was thinking "when is the writer going to mention the significance of single digit numbers for Yankee players", but then he wrote Mike Gallego wore number 2.
   2. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: May 14, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5455080)
I too will always associate a great number 2 with Jeter.
   3. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: May 14, 2017 at 11:54 AM (#5455085)
I can't believe they aren't having a series of ceremonies, one at each park. Where's the re2pect?
   4. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 14, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5455092)
Reading the article I was thinking "when is the writer going to mention the significance of single digit numbers for Yankee players", but then he wrote Mike Gallego wore number 2.

Retired Yankees single digit numbers, as of this evening:

#1 - Tuck Stainback

#2 - Mike Gallego

#3 - Cliff Mapes

#4 - Lou Gehrig

#5 - Nolen Richardson

#6 - Ben Chapman

#7 - Leo Durocher

#8 - Aaron Robinson

#9 - Bubbles Hargrave

And Roger Angell saw every one of them play. One of the many benefits of longevity.
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: May 14, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5455112)
Congrats to Derek Jeter and enjoy the ceremony, Yankees fans.
   6. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 02:04 PM (#5455114)
MLB.com/Sports on Earth has an article about if the Yankees would retire all their numbers, and there are some really good names on that list (Lefty Gomez at 11 was somewhat surprising it hadn't been retired)
   7. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 14, 2017 at 03:45 PM (#5455150)
Buster Olney, @Buster_ESPN

ELIAS: Derek Jeter's team finished 511 games above .500 mark in games he played––most over .500 for any position-player in MLB history.

Winner.
   8. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 04:08 PM (#5455157)
Good thing they said position players, I imagine that closers are probably pretty high up there.. Rivera is 785 games over .500 (950-165)
   9. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 04:20 PM (#5455167)
Not that I doubted Olney, but I had to check a few other names just to be sure, Gehrig was 501 games above .500, Ruth 485, Yogi 437 Mantle only 360, Chipper 400.(Yadier is only at 217)
   10. Jesus Frankenstein Posted: May 14, 2017 at 06:44 PM (#5455260)
Happy Derek Jeter Day!

The Mother of All Yankees
   11. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 14, 2017 at 07:01 PM (#5455264)
Yankees breaking out some fancy blazers for the returning players. Looks like everybody showed up.
   12. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 14, 2017 at 07:07 PM (#5455266)
Terrific ceremony, with Jeter arriving to the accompaniment of Sinatra's "My Way".
   13. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2017 at 08:06 PM (#5455284)
Priest at my church gig mentioned Jeter in his ####### sermon today.
   14. Random Transaction Generator Posted: May 14, 2017 at 08:12 PM (#5455290)
ELIAS: Derek Jeter's team finished 511 games above .500 mark in games he played––most over .500 for any position-player in MLB history.


That's more of a product of longevity than anything else.

Derek Jeter: .593 win % in games played
Babe Ruth: .597 win % in games played
Lou Gehrig: .617 win % in games played

And the greatest* of them all (minimum 162 games played):
Clay Bellinger: .626 win % in games played

* Not actually sure if that's the highest...
   15. Jesus Frankenstein Posted: May 14, 2017 at 08:16 PM (#5455296)
God's #2 son.
   16. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 14, 2017 at 08:51 PM (#5455309)
ELIAS: Derek Jeter's team finished 511 games above .500 mark in games he played––most over .500 for any position-player in MLB history.

That's more of a product of longevity than anything else.

Longevity is a factor in any record for the most games of any kind, but Jeter is only 27th on the Career Games Played list, and trails the leader by more than 800 games.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 09:12 PM (#5455320)

That's more of a product of longevity than anything else.

Derek Jeter: .593 win % in games played
Babe Ruth: .597 win % in games played
Lou Gehrig: .617 win % in games played

And the greatest* of them all (minimum 162 games played):
Clay Bellinger: .626 win % in games played


As pointed out by Clapper, that is to be expected on these type of lists, but it's also something that is impressive because of the number of few bad teams he was on. I was able to find quite a few players 200 games over .500 with long careers(Brooks Robinson 380 is another one I didn't mention above) but finding over 400 is tough, that means a 20 year player's team averaged a 91-71 record.... to get to 500 you are looking at 93-69 over 21 years.... Jeter effectively played 18 seasons (he had one season of 15 games and another of 17) in his 20 year career, so the Yankees when Jeter was on the field averaged(roughly give or take a .1) a record of 96-66....

(Jeter was in two tied games for the record, so his 1628-1117 record adds up 2745, while he played in 2747 games just a piece of trivia)
   18. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 09:18 PM (#5455324)
Clay Bellinger: .626 win % in games played


Ichiro's first 162 games scoffs at that number.
   19. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 14, 2017 at 09:22 PM (#5455327)
ELIAS: Derek Jeter's team finished 511 games above .500 mark in games he played––most over .500 for any position-player in MLB history.


That's more of a product of longevity than anything else.

Derek Jeter: .593 win % in games played
Babe Ruth: .597 win % in games played
Lou Gehrig: .617 win % in games played


True, but those higher winning percentages are in turn primarily due to the much greater AL imbalance throughout most of Ruth's and Gehrig's careers. In the years spanning their careers, the Yankees played 19.3% of their games** (594 of 3080) against sub-.400 teams during Ruth's and Gehrig's career spans, whereas during Jeter's career they played sub-.400 opponents in only 7.6% of their games (246 out of 3240). That has to skew those percentages rather heavily in Ruth's and Gehrig's favor.

** Based on 154 and 162 game seasons and not allowing for rainouts against any of their other opponents. But it does include 15 interleague games against 5 different sub-.400 NL opponents.
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5455334)
True, but those higher winning percentages are in turn primarily due to the much greater AL imbalance throughout most of Ruth's and Gehrig's careers. In the years spanning their careers, the Yankees played 19.3% of their games** (594 of 3080) against sub-.400 teams during Ruth's and Gehrig's career spans, whereas during Jeter's career they played sub-.400 opponents in only 7.6% of their games (246 out of 3240). That has to skew those percentages rather heavily in Ruth's and Gehrig's favor.



Where did you get those numbers? I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I'm doubting anything you said, but the ability to get that information is important to me.
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 09:35 PM (#5455336)
As it stands, I'm picking players on bb-ref and then selecting "finders and advanced stats"---> game finder----> clicking "Find Players with Most Matching Games in Multiple Years (The most 10-TB games in the 1980's was 12 by Andre Dawson)" ---> selecting game result win and then submit (then repeating it with losses) to get the games over .500.... this type of data you posted would be nice if there is a fairly easy way to get it....


Team seasonal data over multiple seasons is tough to find... you can do splits, but then you are limited to the categories they have already created.
   22. Chicago Joe Posted: May 14, 2017 at 09:44 PM (#5455340)
Would have been more impressive if he'd managed to turn a complex number into an invincible brand.
   23. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 14, 2017 at 10:18 PM (#5455356)
True, but those higher winning percentages are in turn primarily due to the much greater AL imbalance throughout most of Ruth's and Gehrig's careers. In the years spanning their careers, the Yankees played 19.3% of their games** (594 of 3080) against sub-.400 teams during Ruth's and Gehrig's career spans, whereas during Jeter's career they played sub-.400 opponents in only 7.6% of their games (246 out of 3240). That has to skew those percentages rather heavily in Ruth's and Gehrig's favor.

Where did you get those numbers? I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I'm doubting anything you said, but the ability to get that information is important to me.


Kind of an Old School way. First I looked up the AL standings for the years in question, then for the Ruth and Gehrig years, I simply multiplied the number of sub-.400 teams the Yankees played (27 of them) by 22 games. Since I'm sure there were a few rainouts along the way, it probably wasn't an exact number, but IMO it's close enough, and if I'd wanted to I could have made it exact.

For the Jeter years, I found the sub-.400 teams and then went to the BB-Ref. Splits to find out how many games the Yanks had actually played against them, including those 15 interleague games. That number should be 100% accurate.

No way I could have done this any other (and easier) way. As I've noted several times in the past, I'm about as pure a technopeasant as you'll ever find, and I've never quite figured out how to draw up those neat tables that you and others post here all the time.

EDIT: Of course the major fly in my ointment is that I didn't remove the games that Ruth, Gehrig or Jeter didn't play in during those years in question, but I don't really think that doing so would've made all that great a difference.
   24. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 10:26 PM (#5455360)
Kind of an Old School way. First I looked up the AL standings for the years in question, then for the Ruth and Gehrig years, I simply multiplied the number of sub-.400 teams the Yankees played (27 of them) by 22 games. Since I'm sure there were a few rainouts along the way, it probably wasn't an exact number, but IMO it's close enough, and if I'd wanted to I could have made it exact.


Damnit, I was hoping for an easier way to do multiple level of data collecting. I'm going to end up having to scrape the data myself which is something that takes me a day or so to figure out the tools... Pffft.. I was hoping that this was something on bb-ref that I missed or maybe even fangraphs which I don't use often (although I'm going to start using for era-)


No way I could have done this any other (and easier) way. As I've noted several times in the past, I'm about as pure a technopeasant as you'll ever find, and I've never quite figured out how to draw up those neat tables that you and others post here all the time.


You can, but it requires sql or access to do it easy enough.... the Lahman database is very useful for that, but it takes a decision to spend an hour or two using it to get the data you want (until you are comfortable, after that, it becomes a lot easier.... I no longer have access on my computer.... and SQL is just a bit more annoying for me to use for a hobby like baseball) I've got three projects I'm telling myself that I want to post an article on by the end of June, after that, the data you put up, is another tangent I want to look into.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: May 14, 2017 at 10:27 PM (#5455361)

EDIT: Of course the major fly in my ointment is that I didn't remove the games that Ruth, Gehrig or Jeter didn't play in during those years in question, but I don't really think that doing so would've made all that great a difference.


I assumed that was the case when you gave me your methodology. And I agree, it probably doesn't make a difference in regards to the argument you are presenting.
   26. Random Transaction Generator Posted: May 14, 2017 at 10:29 PM (#5455362)
greater AL imbalance throughout most of Ruth's and Gehrig's careers. In the years spanning their careers, the Yankees played 19.3% of their games** (594 of 3080) against sub-.400 teams during Ruth's and Gehrig's career spans, whereas during Jeter's career they played sub-.400 opponents in only 7.6% of their games (246 out of 3240).


I'm curious about those games against sub.400 teams. Are they sub.400 not including the games against the Yankees, or does playing the Yankees MAKE them sub.400 (for either generation of Yankees)?
Because there were fewer teams in the Ruth/Gehrig era, a mediocre team (against the rest of the league) could become a sub.400 team because they played the Yankees 22 times.

Example:

The 1935 Philadelphia Athletics finished the season 58-91 (.389). So they would be listed as a "sub.400" team in your stats.
They went 6-14 against the Yankees, so they were actually 52-77 (.403) against the rest of the league, and might not really count as a "sub.400" team.

Ichiro's first 162 games scoffs at that number.


It's a shame he played all those games afterwards...
   27. bobm Posted: May 14, 2017 at 11:51 PM (#5455373)
I always found it ironic that "jeter" means "to throw" in French.
   28. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 12:00 AM (#5455374)
greater AL imbalance throughout most of Ruth's and Gehrig's careers. In the years spanning their careers, the Yankees played 19.3% of their games** (594 of 3080) against sub-.400 teams during Ruth's and Gehrig's career spans, whereas during Jeter's career they played sub-.400 opponents in only 7.6% of their games (246 out of 3240).

I'm curious about those games against sub.400 teams. Are they sub.400 not including the games against the Yankees, or does playing the Yankees MAKE them sub.400 (for either generation of Yankees)?
Because there were fewer teams in the Ruth/Gehrig era, a mediocre team (against the rest of the league) could become a sub.400 team because they played the Yankees 22 times.


Good point, but I'm assuming that teams that were sub-.400 overall were going to be the bottom of the barrel whether or not you took out the games against the Yankees. The more general point is that either way, the Yankees of the Ruth / Gehrig era played a much higher percentage of their games against truly awful teams than the Yankees teams of the Jeter years. As we all know, given the lack of a draft and the degree to which a few top teams could then monopolize most of the good minor league talent, the leagues back then were far more rigidly divided into the haves and have-nots** than they have been in recent years, and given the resources of the Yankees, they were able to take advantage of that gap more than any other team.

** The St. Louis Browns, for example, barely drew 1,000,000 fans for the entire 1930's, with 3 seasons where they drew between 81,000 and 93,000, i.e. well under 2000 fans a game even if you consider the great number of doubleheaders. In a two team city that was one of the smallest in the Majors, and with a radio contract consisting of chicken feed, how on Earth could they ever hope to be competitive?
   29. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 15, 2017 at 01:08 AM (#5455379)
An alternate Monument Park plaque for Derek Sanderson Jeter, offered up by Twitter's "Dumb Bozo."
   30. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: May 15, 2017 at 01:09 AM (#5455380)
The AL teams during the Ruth/Gehring era were .500, just as they were for every season before 1996. The number of sub-.400 teams is simply a product of league balance, but tells us nothing about league quality.
   31. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: May 15, 2017 at 01:21 AM (#5455382)
An alternate Monument Park plaque for Derek Sanderson Jeter

That's a decent first draft, but it needs at least a mention of Ken Huckaby and a "Yeah, Jeets" somewhere.
   32. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 15, 2017 at 07:26 AM (#5455398)

Derek Jeter: .593 win % in games played
Babe Ruth: .597 win % in games played
Lou Gehrig: .617 win % in games played

And the greatest* of them all (minimum 162 games played):
Clay Bellinger: .626 win % in games played


Joe DiMaggio, .636 win % in games played, 481 games over .500.
   33. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 08:19 AM (#5455405)
The AL teams during the Ruth/Gehring era were .500, just as they were for every season before 1996. The number of sub-.400 teams is simply a product of league balance, but tells us nothing about league quality.

But it does tell you something about the relative haplessness of the level of those early sub-.400 teams, not that we didn't know that already for many other reasons. Put today's Devil Rays under the financial constrictions of the old St. Louis Browns, with no draft and little money for scouting, and you'd see something similar these days. We still have the occasional horrific team, but generally those are now cases of deliberate crashing as a prelude to rebuilding (think of the 2003 Tigers or the recent Astros teams). You never saw anything like that in the Ruth/Gehrig era, because it simply wasn't possible.
   34. Shaggy Posted: May 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5455461)
An alternate Monument Park plaque for Derek Sanderson Jeter, offered up by Twitter's "Dumb Bozo."

After a little brain salad surgery.
   35. Greg K Posted: May 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5455462)
I was watching a hockey game at the pub with a friend last night, and some highlights of Jeter's day appeared on a separate TV. He asked me how to pronounce Jeter's name, then mentioned that he had read about him, but had never actually seen what he looked like before.

It made my week, if not year.

EDIT: To know that there are still people out there free from His awful grip. Makes one optimistic about humanity.
   36. SoSH U at work Posted: May 15, 2017 at 11:29 AM (#5455509)
But it does tell you something about the relative haplessness of the level of those early sub-.400 teams,


Only as they relate to the rest of the league. It can't tell us anything about how they relate to the teams in the National League, for instance. Those other factors, sure, they can tell us something. WP in a closed league does not give any indication of the overall strength of the teams within. It's not possible.
   37. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 15, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5455512)
I was watching a hockey game at the pub with a friend last night, and some highlights of Jeter's day appeared on a separate TV. He asked me how to pronounce Jeter's name, then mentioned that he had read about him, but had never actually seen what he looked like before.

Be sure to tune in next week for more Stories That Could Only Happen in Canada!
   38. AROM Posted: May 15, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5455527)
The Yankees are partially responsible for there being a lot of sub .400 teams in their league. It's only an 8 team league, so if the Yankees are 66 games over .500 (like in 1927) then the average not-Yankee team is nearly 10 games under .500.

Boston was terrible that year against everyone, and went 4-18 against the Yankees. Yankees were an incredible 21-1 against the Browns. Against anyone not Yankees, the Browns were a .443 team.

In modern baseball it's a lot less likely that a great team will greatly depress the win totals of their opponents. Even teams in the same division don't play each other as often as teams did in the pre-expansion era. The 2001 Mariners will distort the record of say, the 2001 Angels, but their effect on the 2001 Tigers is minimal.

   39. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5455556)
The Yankees are partially responsible for there being a lot of sub .400 teams in their league. It's only an 8 team league, so if the Yankees are 66 games over .500 (like in 1927) then the average not-Yankee team is nearly 10 games under .500.

Boston was terrible that year against everyone, and went 4-18 against the Yankees. Yankees were an incredible 21-1 against the Browns. Against anyone not Yankees, the Browns were a .443 team.


But again, by that standard there are never going to be any truly dreadful teams in a league with even the most lopsided standings. The overall point remains that the Yankees in the Ruth/Gehrig era were much more often playing teams that couldn't even win 4 out of 10 games in Major League competition, whereas the Yankees during Jeter's career were far less likely to have so many breathers in their schedule. I'm not sure how or why you get to throw away a team's games against the pennant winner while trying to figure out that woeful team's true quality. Surely that's part of the picture.

In the 1954 AL, the top 3 teams were the Indians, the Yankees, and the White Sox. Against the bottom 5 teams, the Indians were 89-21, the Yankees were 79-21, and the White Sox were 76-21. But the 51-103 Philadelphia A's were a respectable 38-50 against their other 4 opponents. Does that alone stop us from saying that the top 3 teams benefited mightily by getting to play 44 games each against the A's and the equally crudescent (54-100) Baltimore Orioles?


In modern baseball it's a lot less likely that a great team will greatly depress the win totals of their opponents. Even teams in the same division don't play each other as often as teams did in the pre-expansion era. The 2001 Mariners will distort the record of say, the 2001 Angels, but their effect on the 2001 Tigers is minimal.

I agree with you there, but I've already addressed that point.
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: May 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM (#5455583)
But again, by that standard there are never going to be any truly dreadful teams in a league with even the most lopsided standings.


No, there may very well be truly dreadful teams. We just can't tell that from the standings how dreadful they were compared to teams outside that league (either teams playing at some other point in time, or NL teams of the same time frame). There are other ways of determining that, but W/L is not one of them.

Does that alone stop us from saying that the top 3 teams benefited mightily by getting to play 44 games each against the A's and the equally crudescent (54-100) Baltimore Orioles?


It tells us there was a large gap in talent between the top three teams and the bottom feeders. But that was obvious.
   41. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 01:40 PM (#5455643)
But again, by that standard there are never going to be any truly dreadful teams in a league with even the most lopsided standings.

No, there may very well be truly dreadful teams. We just can't tell that from the standings how dreadful they were compared to teams outside that league (either teams playing at some other point in time, or NL teams of the same time frame).


Let's just say that it's one piece of the puzzle, even if we disagree on just how piece a piece it is.

There are other ways of determining that, but W/L is not one of them.

Well, I'm sure that you or someone can find some sabermetric formula that would settle the question once and for all, but in the absence of such a method, I think using sub-.400 winning percentages is a reasonably good benchmark for separating the truly godawful teams from the slightly better ones. You might refine it somewhat by lowering the standard to sub-.350, but that still wouldn't definitely settle the points you raise about league strength and time travel.

Does that alone stop us from saying that the top 3 teams benefited mightily by getting to play 44 games each against the A's and the equally crudescent (54-100) Baltimore Orioles?

It tells us there was a large gap in talent between the top three teams and the bottom feeders. But that was obvious.


Well, unless there's some previously undiscovered reason for suggesting that the AL was unusually strong that year, whereas in fact the opposite was more likely to be true,** I think it's not unreasonable to infer that if a team went 51-103 or 54-100 in that year's American League, it's pretty strong evidence that they were in fact pretty pathetic.

** Supplementary evidence: Spring training results (in head-to-head games, the Giants beat the Indians 13 to 8); World Series results (Giants 4, Indians, 0); number of A-level HoFers in the rough peak of their careers. You can argue small sample size, but there's little or no contrary evidence that would suggest that the AL was equal to the NL.
   42. TDF, situational idiot Posted: May 15, 2017 at 01:55 PM (#5455662)
Derek Jeter: .593 win % in games played
From '96-'14 (EDIT: Jeter also had a 15 game cup of coffee in '95), the Yankees were .592 overall, so there's that.
   43. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:18 PM (#5455688)
And to bring all this back to Earth, nobody here is seriously trying to compare Jeter to Ruth or Gehrig or Dimaggio or any other A-level HoFer. This thing about winning percentages in games played is little more than a fun factoid, since it can't account for all the other factors.
   44. SoSH U at work Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5455698)
Let's just say that it's one piece of the puzzle, even if we disagree on just how piece a piece it is.


Until you agree that it's zero, we're not going to be close.

If you have an eight-team league with one modestly above-average team, three mediocre ones and four godawful ones (historically speaking), you can see a distribution of WPs that look like the 1927 AL. Also, if you have a league with four mediocre teams and three really good ones and one historically great one, the WPs could just look the exact same.

WPs* give us an idea of the quality of a league's team compared with the rest of the teams in the league. It can't tell us anything about how a team compares in quality with a team from another league or one from a different point in time. The zero-sum nature of a closed system league prevents that.

There are ways to demonstrate whether the Yankees' AL competition from that era is uniquely inferior to other time periods. W-L is not among them.

* This situation isn't quite the same in the interleague era, as league WPs will almost never add to .500.
   45. eddieot Posted: May 15, 2017 at 02:56 PM (#5455722)
So I was at the ceremony and the game and the thing that struck me was there was no appearance by Brian Cashman. Stick Michael was introduced, the scout who signed Jeter was there, obscure Yankees like Gerald Williams were invited, they even gave shoutouts to the trainers. The ghost of Steinbrenner was acknowledged. How does Cashman not show up?

So, does Jeter hate Cashman? Does Cashman hate Jeter? Please, my conspiracy-loving brethren, project away...
   46. Jose is El Absurd Pollo Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5455727)
That is really odd. He's the current GM of the team as he was for the majority of Jeters career. My guess is that there is some mutual dislike. Jeter probably isn't a fan of Cashman because Cashman hardballed him in negotiations toward the end and Cashman probably feels Jeter acted entitled.

Still, I'd expect him to at least get a mention.
   47. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:04 PM (#5455730)
If it's such an invincible brand, how come "Derek Jeter's No. 2" cologne hasn't been selling well?
   48. jmurph Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:05 PM (#5455733)
"Derek Jeter needs to shut the #### up," Brian Cashman (probably).
   49. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:06 PM (#5455735)
So, does Jeter hate Cashman? Does Cashman hate Jeter? Please, my conspiracy-loving brethren, project away...

Just off the top of my head, a current GM taking part in an on-field ceremony seems pretty rare. Can't specifically recall it being done, at least by the Yankees. A snub in either direction wouldn't be my first guess here. Jeter & Cashman have got along pretty well over the years, despite the nature of their jobs having some potential for conflict. Not much reason for either of them to hold any grudges, they've both done more than OK.
   50. SoSH U at work Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:09 PM (#5455736)
Not much reason for either of them to hold any grudges, they've both done more than OK.


The only thing I can think of is if Cash made some remarks that irked Jeets during the GM's Objectivity Pipe Smoking phase.

   51. Jesus Frankenstein Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5455741)
nobody here is seriously trying to compare Jeter to Ruth or Gehrig or Dimaggio or any other A-level HoFer. This thing about winning percentages in games played is little more than a fun factoid, since it can't account for all the other factors.


If I could, I'd pin this comment up there under the quizzical monkey. "Serious comparison" between players is exactly what people are trying to do here with every post. While missing the obvious highlighted by one Derek Sanderson Jeter:

Baseball is a team sport.

The mockery of "Right Place, Right Time" is the Truth. Why do you think they brought out all of Jeter's "friends" before him, togther accounting for six of the sixteen retired numbers?

There's no name on the back of that uniform, folks.

   52. eddieot Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:21 PM (#5455748)
"Derek Jeter needs to shut the #### up," Brian Cashman (probably).

Forgot about that. A-Rod wasn't there either. Lesson learned. Turn on Jeter and you end up with a horse head in your bed.
   53. Jesus Frankenstein Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:26 PM (#5455752)
How did Brian Cashman survive all these years?

For all the credit due Rodriguez, any way you see it—suit versus player, 5' 7" balding nebbish versus towering alpha male, stoicism versus blather—the turnabout signals a clear victory for the 48-year-old Cashman. “The great part about watching Brian’s career,” says former Reds and Nationals GM Jim Bowden, “is that whether it be off-the-field personal issues or Yankees issues or George Steinbrenner issues, he was always able to rope-a-dope in the corner and figure out when to make the next punch, the next move. He knows when to lay low and when to step up, when you say something and when you don’t.”


Somebody joked George Costanza should have been anbounced on the field. Cashman IS Costanza.

If he had always done the opposite.
   54. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:35 PM (#5455765)
So I was at the ceremony and the game and the thing that struck me was there was no appearance by Brian Cashman. Stick Michael was introduced, the scout who signed Jeter was there, obscure Yankees like Gerald Williams were invited, they even gave shoutouts to the trainers. The ghost of Steinbrenner was acknowledged. How does Cashman not show up?

So, does Jeter hate Cashman? Does Cashman hate Jeter? Please, my conspiracy-loving brethren, project away...


And there was also Jeter's hissy fit at having to sit down with A-Rod for an interview on CNBC and the grudge he apparently still holds against A-Rod for a 15 year old magazine article. And the Ken Huckabee hissy fit.

Jeter simply isn't actually what his reputation makes him out to be. He's actually very vindictive, with a VERY long memory. And money-grubbing, as we saw in his sale of his retirement. From all objective indications, he's kind of a humorless #######.
   55. Jesus Frankenstein Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5455775)
From all objective indications, he's kind of a humorless #######.

Just like God.

   56. AROM Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5455783)
If it's a 2 team league and the Yankees go 110-44 against the Washington Generals, does that mean the Yankees only played against pathetic competition because the Generals were less than a .300 team?

The only thing we can conclude from this is that the Yankees were better than the Generals.

Add 6 more teams and the Generals have some teams they can beat. They won't be a .300 team anymore. Bring the league up to 15 teams with a balanced schedule and the Generals go from playing the Yankees 154 times a year to only 11 times per year.

If we assume the Yankees are still a 110 win team, then the rest of the added teams will have to be about the same talent level as the Generals. Then the Generals will go something like 3-8 against the Yankees and play .500 ball against their clones, and their overall record will not be pathetic.
   57. TDF, situational idiot Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:54 PM (#5455791)
A-Rod wasn't there either. Lesson learned. Turn on Jeter and you end up with a horse head in your bed.
Doesn't A-Rod have a horse head in his bed every morning?
   58. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 15, 2017 at 03:59 PM (#5455799)
Doesn't A-Rod have a horse head in his bed every morning?


I thought that would be only legs.
   59. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5455806)
Let's just say that it's one piece of the puzzle, even if we disagree on just how piece a piece it is.

Until you agree that it's zero, we're not going to be close....

There are ways to demonstrate whether the Yankees' AL competition from that era is uniquely inferior to other time periods. W-L is not among them.


Maybe you should just tell us what these other ways might be, and how the results you come up with differ radically from the ones with the sub-.400 W-L Pct. And don't forget that even if you come up with different teams that deserve the title of Truly Awful, they still played the Ruth/Gehrig Yankees 22 times a year. So unless your method reduces the number of Truly Awful teams considerably, that still wouldn't change the overall conclusion that Jeter's teams had it a lot harder than Ruth's and Gehrig's teams did.

And obviously I'm not trying to compare teams across eras, since the overall quality of the game has gone up dramatically since Ruth and Gehrig were in pinstripes, for reasons that don't need to be repeated for the millionth time in the thousandth thread.
   60. SoSH U at work Posted: May 15, 2017 at 04:15 PM (#5455822)
Maybe you should just tell us what these other ways might be, and how the results you come up with differ radically from the ones with the sub-.400 W-L Pct.


The performance of those players in subsequent seasons (were those teams populated with truly inferior players).

The performance of those players when they changed teams (or, notably, was that the only place they were good enough to play).

The performance of those players when they changed leagues (this is absolutely the best indicator we had at the time).

The wins and losses tell us how good the teams were relative to each other. They simply can not tell us about the overall quality of the league, which is crucial to understanding how much easier Babe and Iron Horse had it compared with Jeter and the Horse he Rode in On.






   61. Jesus Frankenstein Posted: May 15, 2017 at 05:00 PM (#5455886)
Jeter and the Horse he Rode in On.


AROD is so much cooler. He went for Madonna while Jeter married a swimsuit model.
   62. Khrushin it bro Posted: May 15, 2017 at 05:09 PM (#5455898)
Turn on Jeter and you end up with a horse head in your bed.


I thought you got a gift basket if you turned Jeter on.
   63. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 15, 2017 at 08:01 PM (#5456055)
Maybe you should just tell us what these other ways might be,

The performance of those players in subsequent seasons (were those teams populated with truly inferior players).


I'm not sure how conclusive that would be, since players often get better from one year to the next, especially if they're younger and don't blossom immediately. A team can have many potentially talented players who've yet to improve, but until they've actually improved, their talent is only latent.

The performance of those players when they changed teams (or, notably, was that the only place they were good enough to play).

I think that parenthetical point is a good one, but I'm not sure what the first one is supposed to prove, since the team being evaluated isn't some hypothetical team of the future, but the team in the here and now.

The performance of those players when they changed leagues (this is absolutely the best indicator we had at the time).

I'll agree with that, as long as they change leagues during their prime age span, and not when they're just starting out or are on the way down. Though with this caveat: If a player on the way down then resurrects his career upon changing leagues, that's a sign in favor of the league he left.

The wins and losses tell us how good the teams were relative to each other. They simply can not tell us about the overall quality of the league, which is crucial to understanding how much easier Babe and Iron Horse had it compared with Jeter and the Horse he Rode in On.

So maybe now you might respond to the second part of my question, to wit:

and how the results you come up with differ radically from the ones with the sub-.400 W-L Pct.

Using your methodology, which AL teams during the Ruth / Gehrig era would you classify as truly awful? And how do those teams differ from the 27 AL teams from that 20 year span that were sub-.400?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogScott Boras says Jake Arrieta still elite pitcher even though velocity has dropped
(19 - 3:10am, May 29)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogOTP 22 May 2017: George W. Bush photobombs a sports reporter
(1706 - 2:53am, May 29)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogFormer Senator, baseball Hall of Famer Jim Bunning has died
(71 - 2:22am, May 29)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogMike Trout sprains thumb in Angels’ loss to Marlins
(15 - 2:06am, May 29)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogYankees ticket sales plunge; New York has lost $166 million since 2009 | SI.com
(22 - 1:35am, May 29)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogHomer Simpson inducted into Baseball Hall of Fame
(30 - 1:25am, May 29)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogOT - March 2017 NBA thread
(4416 - 12:51am, May 29)
Last: maccoach57

NewsblogBrian Kenny on Twitter: "Regarding the Andrew McCutchen comeback: An absence of good news.
(21 - 10:50pm, May 28)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogTerry Collins deserves more time with Mets, but will he get it? - NY Daily News
(7 - 10:26pm, May 28)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogOT: March-April 2017 Soccer Thread
(557 - 9:50pm, May 28)
Last: Pirate Joe

NewsblogPhillies' Bowa, Hernandez form bond that crosses generational and cultural lines
(4 - 9:35pm, May 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogA lie told often enough becomes OMNICHATTER, for May 28, 2017
(54 - 8:49pm, May 28)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogA look at what all 30 teams can do with MLB's free agent mega-class of 2018-19
(66 - 4:59pm, May 28)
Last: cercopithecus aethiops

NewsblogWell said: Orioles are 'swinging at a lot of pitches we probably can’t do much with' - Baltimore Sun
(1 - 3:10pm, May 28)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogStephen Strasburg sets career high with 15 K's | MLB.com
(5 - 3:10pm, May 28)
Last: cercopithecus aethiops

Page rendered in 0.8788 seconds
47 querie(s) executed