BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Marchman: Derek Jeter: 4,000 Hits? Try 9,000 Outs

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Marchman: Derek Jeter: 4,000 Hits? Try 9,000 Outs

The Marchman Act: Enables Yankee family members to obtain help for a SS who is unwilling to seek ~~substance~~ wayout outlier abuse services voluntarily.

Many of those outs will come by strikeout, which is good, because Jeter strikes out skillfully. (My favorites are the failed uppercut, where he braces his own back with his bat, and the called third strike on the inside corner, which inevitably ends with Jeter arching backwards as if the pitch nearly hit him, but he has as many strikeout moves as Michael Jordan had jumpers.) He also strikes out a lot. At his current rate, three years should be enough to reach 2,000 Ks, which only five men have done. Sadly, he likely has no shot at Reggie Jackson’s career record of 2,597, but he’ll at least be able to cheer on teammate Alex Rodriguez, who very much does.

Many of his outs will also involve double plays. Going into Friday’s game, Jeter had grounded into one just 87 fewer times than Cal Ripken Jr., the all-time champion. Since he grounds into about 20 per year, this is one mark at which he has a very real shot, assuming he wants to play long enough. The Yankees could help by moving him into the second spot in the lineup; Jeter can also help himself by not running down the line as hard as possible, though he likely won’t.

Finally, it should be noted that every time he takes the field, Jeter extends a remarkable record that he already holds—at least, depending on whom you ask. According to Michael Humphreys, the sabermetrician who wrote “Wizardry,” an excellent book on how to evaluate defense, Jeter is, if not the worst fielder of all time, “far and away the worst in career impact relative to his position.” Humphreys’ math shows his bad fielding as being equivalent to about 50 points of batting average.

If Jeter cares about any of this, it’s hard to tell. When I asked him this week what he thought about coming up on the leaderboards for double plays and outs, he just said, “I’ll let you have fun with that,” which is fair enough. Hopefully, though, one day years from now, he’ll sit polishing his rings and Gold Gloves and reflect with satisfaction on the full scope of his accomplishments. Kobe Bryant will almost certainly retire as the career leader in missed shots; Brett Favre was sacked and picked off more than any quarterback ever; Jeter, given his health, will set their futility marks to shame. It takes a hell of a player to make 9,000 outs.

Repoz Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:36 AM | 57 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: 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. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4217821)

It's so strange how Chien-Ming Wang, one of the most extreme ground ball pitchers I've ever seen, had two excellent seasons before getting injured with "one of the worst defenders of all time" playing shortstop behind him. Jeter is definitely below average. But I find it hard to believe he's one of the 'worst ever.' As a counter-point to my observation about Wang, Kevin Brown's career pretty much burst into flames after the first half of '04 while collaborating with Jeter, but he was also old and fragile. Just might have been finished.

2. BDC

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4217834)

Wow, Reggie still holds the career strikeout record. I suppose I knew it hadn't been broken, but it's not one of those things you think about continually. Adam Dunn is fixing to obliterate it, given that 2011 looks like an anomaly in his career march; Dunn is between three four years away, and easily playing well enough to play that long. But it seems odd that none of the other recent mega-TTO guys broke Reggie's record. Jim Thome has come very close but looks to still fall short.

3. Tim McCarver's Orange Marmalade Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:41 AM (#4217837)

He also strikes out a lot

He's made the top ten in strikeouts once in 18 years, when he was 23.

Since he grounds into about 20 per year...

He's reached 20 GDP's 3 times in his career. His average is about 15 a year, not 20.

As for outs made, one reason he's so high on the list is because he's also so high up on list for plate appearances (2nd active, 22nd career).

4. Chris Fluit Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4217845)

That Humphrey quote is important when considering Jeter's defense. There are a lot of players who are worse shortstops than Jeter. However, most of those players are quickly moved from shortstop to other positions or, if they can't hit, out of the league. Because of other considerations, Jeter has managed to stay at short long after most other players would have been moved. That's allowed him to accumulate more negative value as a defender than anybody else.

5. MikeTorrez Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4217851)

Anyone else think there is a malicious tone to this article? The fact that Jeter is threatening to break these marks is a testament to his staying power. He must be doing something right.

6. rr

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4217864)

Anyone else think there is a malicious tone to this article?

Sure.

7. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4217881)

Anyone else think there is a malicious tone to this article?

Sure.

But nobody hates on Jeter.

The all-time MLB leader in outs is Pete Rose. By more than a thousand. This is because he is also the all-time leader in plate appearances, by almost two thousand. You have to be damned good for a damned long time for anybody to let you make that many damned outs.

8. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4217886)

Anyone else think there is a malicious tone to this article?

Sure.

Well, when you combine Derek Jeter with our gatekeeper's undying love for all things Yankee, you're going to get what you get. You could pretty much make a drinking game out of the Jeter pinata posts alone.

9. rr

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4217906)

Where Marchman comes off as petty is the last paragraph, especially here:

If Jeter cares about any of this, it’s hard to tell.

Jeter has won 5 GGs, 5 WS rings, the Yankees have made the postseason every year of his career except 2008, and here they are comfortably in first place yet again. It is simply unrealistic to expect him, or even to suggest that you expect him, to focus on his weaknesses. What is he going to say? "Damn, these stat guys have my number! Forget the banners and the rings and the standings. Time to move off my butt off shortstop to a position that I can handle!"

It is certainly very legitimate to analyze Jeter's D in terms of the Yankees as a team, and in terms of placing him on any lists of all-time shortstops. But to ask him to his face about the all-time outs record nad then to use that to take a little shot at him is just stupid.

10. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4217908)

when did the writers in the regular media who seem to have a clue about stats decide to pick a fight that is not only impossible to win but bereft of any intellectual standing?

it's embarrassing.

11. The District Attorney Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4217914)

You have to be damned good for a damned long time for anybody to let you make that many damned outs.

Right, which is probably why the guy wrote:

It takes a hell of a player to make 9,000 outs.

12. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4217938)

Anyone else think there is a malicious tone to this article?

Yup.

13. Cooper Nielson Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4217944)

You have to be damned good for a damned long time for anybody to let you make that many damned outs.

Notably, the guys holding each of these negative records that Jeter is "threatening" to break are all Hall-of-Famers. (Well, Pete Rose isn't, but, well, you know...)

On the all-time outs list, Jeter is currently 22nd behind 17 Hall-of-Famers, two not yet eligible (Vizquel and Biggio), and two tainted players whose numbers would otherwise be Hall-of-Famer worthy (Rose and Palmeiro).

14. Stormy JE

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4217945)

Kobe Bryant will almost certainly retire as the career leader in missed shots; Brett Favre was sacked and picked off more than any quarterback ever; Jeter, given his health, will set their futility marks to shame. It takes a hell of a player to make 9,000 outs.

I agree with TDA; you guys are overreacting.

EDIT: For those who don't have WSJ.com access, the rest of the article seems pretty flattering.

15. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4217957)

4000 hits and 9000 outs is a .307 batting average.

16. rr

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4217958)

I agree with TDA; you guys are overreacting.

Nah. We're disagreeing with your read of the tone of the piece. There is a guy at ESPN named Henry Abbott who has a redass about Kobe Bryant; as a Lakers fan, he annoys me. He writes stuff a lot like this--passive-aggressive, subtle cheap shots, backhanded compliments, re-covering old ground. I am not a Yankees fan, but this style is quite familiar to me. People who dislike the players in question tend to defend stuff like Marchman wrote here. Marchman's piece is actually dumber than what Abbott does because Abbott has not as yet at least actually talked to Bryant about it.

Derek Jeter's defensive numbers are old, old news at this point, as are the facts that Kobe Bryant misses a lot of shots and Brett Favre threw a lot of picks, and the fact that some guys in the MSM overrate these guys in terms of pure, measurable on-field/court value due to their longevity/gravitas is old news, too. Tossing in the obligatory "But Jeter/Bryant/Favre has accomplished a lot" doesn't mean the the piece is "balanced." Marchman needs to take a hit off the objective pipe and realize that taking shots at Jeter says more about him than it does about Jeter.

17. Stormy JE

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4217978)

At the plate, though, his hips and hands seem just as fast as ever. He can still pull a four-seamer coming in at 92 miles per hour into the seats on a clean line, which a lot of decent hitters half his age can't do. The record for hits by a 38-year-old shortstop is Honus Wagner's 181 in 1912. Jeter is on pace for 221.

With nearly every hit now, Jeter passes some famous player in something or other, so you might mistake Yankees broadcasts for encyclopedia recitation contests while he's at bat. Monday, he passed Nap Lajoie—who played so long ago that his team was named after him—for career hits. Tuesday, he passed Eddie Murray. The hit was his 252nd career home run, which put him in a tie with his former manager, Joe Torre, for 199th place on the all-time list. This was briefly a story, for some reason.

"I told him I should've been hitting fourth all those years," Jeter said.

YMMV, but I don't detect anything in the piece more harsh than the Sheehan thread comments from AROM or BDC.

Now if Marchman had asked Jeter about switching positions with Prince Fielder, I might have reacted differently.

18. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4218066)

Poor Marchman, asks Jeter if he can be an ####### and Jeter says, sure, have fun. How insulting; the elephant didn't notice the gnat.

19. cardsfanboy

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4218080)

Anyone else think there is a malicious tone to this article? The fact that Jeter is threatening to break these marks is a testament to his staying power. He must be doing something right.

Didn't read the article or even the excerpt yet, just the headline alone made me think it's a malicious article and I was coming here to badmouth the article without reading anything from it yet. I'm as big of a Jeter basher as there is, (Ok, I'm not CP but still I'm up there) and think it's ridiculous for anyone to focus on the negative achievements as a counter to the positives. He's a worthy hof shortstop, who probably should have moved to third a decade ago, and would still have made the hof if he did. The fact is he's been a hof level player for a good portion of his career and has been a good player in the years he isn't putting up hof numbers. He's shown amazing durability for the position and because of his Jeterness, has never had to worry about playing for his job, which helps get him a ton of plate appearances which is going to lead to both good and bad career counting stats. He's going to retire top 20 all time in a lot of different stats.

20. cardsfanboy

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4218083)

After reading the article, it really doesn't seem to be that malicious, one of those fun with number type of articles that is there to remind people that all these positive hitting accomplishments come with negative hitting accomplishments too. And that ultimately the career numbers aren't nearly as important as the career.

21. Fat Al Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4218096)

I don't know. Marchman's kind of snarky here, but not in a malicious way to my eyes. And given that every single name he mentions in the articles for the "bad" records is a certifiable fantastic ballplayer, this doesn't read as much of a dig to me.

22. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4218098)

I understand it doesn't really mean anything, but I saw him make a play from the box seats at U.S. Cellular last week that was a beautiful stop and throw from deep in the hole to get the runner*. It was a thing of beauty.

*The runner was Paul Konerko, but still ... the "worst fielder of all-time" doesn't make plays like that.

23. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4218107)

the "worst fielder of all-time" doesn't make plays like that

But the worst defensive SS in MLB makes plays like that all the time. That's just one more reason why MLB is so freaking awesome.

24. Repoz

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4218109)

"worst fielder of all-time"

It has gotten to the point where Jeter no longer even makes attempts at balls he knows he can't get to. It's pretty funny when you get the long range camera angle behind/over home plate and a grounder goes up the middle/or in the hole...and Jetes makes a head turn to watch it.

Humorous to me...not so much to the pitchers by their subtle reactions (another reason AJ Burnette was shipped out).

25. Srul Itza Posted: August 25, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4218125)

Derek Jeter:

April
.389/.433/.579/1.012

May/June
.263/.317/.333/.650

July/August
.365/.392/.527/.919

[So now we know when he gets his booster shots]

26. Tim Marchman Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4218164)

I didn't mean anything as a shot at Jeter. I asked his opinion because I was curious. "Have fun with that" is fair enough, just as "Well that's what happens when you play for long enough" or any number of other things would have been. I included it because it tells you something about his mindset. He doesn't care about criticism. That's part of why he's so great.

As to defense, I just mentioned it briefly because while relevant, the horse is pleading for mercy. That said, I think that Humphreys' math is probably right--we're basically talking about a single per week--and that even so it's easy to underestimate the value of being able to pencil a player that smart in at shortstop for 16 years. He makes a lot of high leverage plays others wouldn't, and I think playing next to Jeter has done a lot of tangible good for Cano. There isn't an either/or here.

27. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4218169)

tim

thanks for posting

as you may notice in another thread a fair number of folks are on the 'jeter worst shortstop who will be in the hof and ain't that some kind of something' and your article likely touched on that current nerve

not a yankee fan. just appreciating the guy whatever his limitations and thinking folks grousing about said limitations make this community look kind of petty and more than a bit stupid

but that's just me

28. Tim Marchman Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4218176)

Well sure, and also there are a lot of writers who get off just knocking ballplayers, so if you write something tongue in cheek critical you run the risk of being taken as more mean spirited than you are. Since I get to work in my house and watch ballgames for free when I'm not at home the risk is worth taking.

29. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4218180)

the horse is pleading for mercy

Dead horses tell not tales. Or something.

but that's just me

No it's not.

30. RMc's Unenviable Situation Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4218198)

Anyone else think there is a malicious tone to this article?

Yup.

Guess somebody didn't get a gift basket...

31. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4218199)

This discussion has me thinking: a team made up of the worst defensive Hall of Famers at each position would still be a fun team to watch.
Guesses / estimates -

C: Lombardi
1b: McCovey
2b: Hornsby or Carew
3b: Killebrew
SS: Jeter (pending) or Yount
LF: Brock, Hafey, Kiner, Stargell?
CF: Hack Wilson
RF: Klein? Slaughter? Heilmann?
P: Nolan Ryan

32. GGC Posted: August 25, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4218241)

I'm as big of a Jeter basher as there is, (Ok, I'm not CP but still I'm up there) and think it's ridiculous for anyone to focus on the negative achievements as a counter to the positives.

I thought Cowboy Popup used to be known as Jeter's #1 Fan.

33. cardsfanboy

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4218263)

I thought Cowboy Popup used to be known as Jeter's #1 Fan.

I might have the wrong guy. Yankee Redneck? I'm horrible with names and remembering who believes in what. The guy who keeps claiming that Jeter isn't even a hofer because the defensive metrics regress to the mean to much and that his defense is even worse than war and all the other stats say it is.

34. rr

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4218264)

YMMV, but I don't detect anything in the piece more harsh than the Sheehan thread comments from AROM or BDC.

Didn't know we were comparing this to BTF posts. Also, JE picked the only really complimentary paragraph in the piece to put up in #17, skipping the part where Marchman details the "skillful" ways that Jeter strikes out, for example. There is a tongue-in-cheek style in it, as its author notes, but it still has its share of snark.

35. GGC Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:28 PM (#4218267)

I might have the wrong guy. Yankee Redneck? I'm horrible with names and remembering who believes in what. The guy who keeps claiming that Jeter isn't even a hofer because the defensive metrics regress to the mean to much and that his defense is even worse than war and all the other stats say it is.

It might be Yankee Redneck, but my dossier on him mainly notes that he likes combat sports and calls Selig Bolshevik Bud. Yes, I keep dossiers. Yours mentions your distaste for FireJoeMorgan.

36. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4218272)

The guy who keeps claiming that Jeter isn't even a hofer because the defensive metrics regress to the mean to much and that his defense is even worse than war and all the other stats say it is.

That might be "Guy M.", who has suggested that a "better" defensive metric might be developed that would show Jeter to not be a HoFer. He doesn't seem to post much on any topic other than Jeter's defense - probably too busy working on his new & improved defensive metric.

37. cardsfanboy

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4218283)

That might be "Guy M.", who has suggested that a "better" defensive metric might be developed that would show Jeter to not be a HoFer. He doesn't seem to post much on any topic other than Jeter's defense - probably too busy working on his new & improved defensive metric.

Yep, that's him. Yankee Redneck is the guy obsessed with revenue sharing.

It might be Yankee Redneck, but my dossier on him mainly notes that he likes combat sports and calls Selig Bolshevik Bud. Yes, I keep dossiers. Yours mentions your distaste for FireJoeMorgan.

Interesting choice for my dossier. (and I don't distaste FireJoeMorgan, just thought it jumped the shark long before it finally closed down, and a little to mean spirited.)

38. GGC Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4218284)

That might be "Guy M.", who has suggested that a "better" defensive metric might be developed that would show Jeter to not be a HoFer. He doesn't seem to post much on any topic other than Jeter's defense - probably too busy working on his new & improved defensive metric.

I think he used to comment back when I had the time to keep up with The Book Blog. Not sure if he still comments there.

39. Stormy JE

Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4218287)

Didn't know we were comparing this to BTF posts.

Why shoud that matter, RR?

Also, JE picked the only really complimentary paragraph in the piece to put up in #17, skipping the part where Marchman details the "skillful" ways that Jeter strikes out, for example. There is a tongue-in-cheek style in it, as its author notes, but it still has its share of snark.

That's true, but had I added that paragraph, the only thing missing from the article would have been the lede and I seem to recall some folks here get rather testy at those who reveal all of the contents from a paywall-protected piece.

Also, I don't think "snark" is synonymous with "malicious."

40. SoSH U at work Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4218289)

I seem to recall some folks here get rather testy about those who reveal all of the contents from a paywall-protected piece.

Actually, some folks get testy about those who reveal all of the contents of any piece, not just those behind paywalls. And for good reason.

I think he used to comment back when I had the time to keep up with The Book Blog. Not sure if he still comments there.

He posts here on subjects other than Jeter. He's kind of the conduit to the Book Blog, now that MGL and Tango have abandoned us.

41. GGC Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4218291)

Still smokelessless, SoSH?

42. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:07 PM (#4218294)

I might have the wrong guy.

Wow, no kidding. I don't think GuyM would be thrilled that you mistook me for him.

43. SoSH U at work Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:12 PM (#4218299)

Still smokelessless, SoSH?

Yup, just passed 15 months. Upon my one-year anniversary, I deleted one of the Harmon Killebrew threads I had bookmarked for any additional motivation. Thanks Killer.

44. GGC Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:15 PM (#4218301)

It will be six years for me on 9/11. I haven't even had a cigar in months. I still have an occasional drink, but I haven't been drunk in ages. Now if I could only cut out fats and sweets.

45. jyjjy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4218342)

He's a worthy hof shortstop, who probably should have moved to third a decade ago

You should have said the outfield IMO. I doubt he would be/have been much better at third but his skill set seems a perfect fit to make him a rather good outfielder, possibly even in center. He is pretty fast, strong arm and was always great with pop-ups. I always thought they should have tried him in center(is Younted him the right word?) after Williams became non-viable at the position which could have led to A-Rod staying at SS as well.

46. Don Malcolm

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:02 AM (#4218369)

Neither malicious nor snarky, and you guys know who's an expert on that, nicht war? Just the tartness of phrases turned as smoothly as a double play (though many of you won't want to admit that DJ can actually do that)--maybe a tad too tilted toward MSM style for someone with Tim's gifts, but a fun read.

No other player has had a verb coined to lampoon the so-called "unwarranted adulation" that seems to put so many into a knicker-twist; the irony is that the man who coined that phrase may well wind up with his own disparaging "personal verb." As "Mr. Mungo" (Spalding Gray in Steven Soderbergh's criminally overlooked King of the Hill (1993) said--before he slit his wrists: "...a lesson for us all."

47. rr

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:24 AM (#4218376)

Why shoud that matter, RR?

Marchman is fairly well-known, and he is writing under a byline, for the WSJ. Guys here are giving opinions, mostly anonymously, among scores of other guys doing the same thing, on a blog. Not the same thing at all.

Also, I don't think "snark" is synonymous with "malicious."

Perhaps not, but on the net, they often go together like peanut butter and jelly.

As far as the paywall issue, I clicked on it and read it and didn't see anything that indicated the piece is behind a paywall, but perhaps it is.

Just the tartness of phrases turned as smoothly as a double play

48. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 26, 2012 at 01:50 AM (#4218406)

Also, I don't think "snark" is synonymous with "malicious."

you can be snide without malice? I'd like to meet your dictionary.

49. The District Attorney Posted: August 26, 2012 at 01:53 AM (#4218407)

you can be snide without malice?

Hopefully you just proved it.

50. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 26, 2012 at 02:03 AM (#4218409)

I'm not sure I did.

51. All In The Guetterman, Looking Up At The Stargell Posted: August 26, 2012 at 02:44 AM (#4218416)

Since I get to work in my house and watch ballgames for free when I'm not at home the risk is worth taking.

Talk about malicious snark. Was that not the mot juste!? Malcolm's already called the pot calling the kettle black. I just want to say "I see what you did there" with the quote above; it's half the reason why 99% percent of the users here hate people like you (the other half being that they believe people like you "abuse" the job they want so badly, by your doing dumb #### like "writing" with stupid things like "words" when you should instead be pasting alphabet soup stats and spreadsheets). The Chinese believe it's a sin to purposely inspire envy others. I don't. Cheers to you, Mr Marchman!

52. BDC

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4218451)

I, for one, am happy to have my BBTF posts used as a benchmark for evaluating fine writing :)

53. Don Malcolm

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4218500)

Not seeing it, and that is just an assertion in any case. It is IMO smooth, professional snark as opposed to knucklehead snark--but snark nonetheless. Maybe Marchman didn't intend it that way, but that is how I think it comes off.

Well, backatcha, Robin--we are both "asserting." Given what's out there, in both the blogosphere and in the MSM, this is pretty darned mild. For Crissakes, we've got Skip Bayless spreading HGH rumors. It's certainly not Tim's most striking prose, but he's kept things reasonably light. Perhaps someday there will be a way to quantify tonal usage and rhetoric and produce a "snark index." Every article will come pre-numbered.

What's wacky in the piece is the notion that Jeter giving away a single a week adds up to 50 points of BA over a year. That math looks to be rather strained, possibly due to some distortions in how Humphreys arrives at those fielding run values. Even assuming that Jeter really is giving away 14 runs per 162 games in the field, it looks more like a 35-point BA adjustment. That works out to a career "loss" of about 365 hits (all singles). But the figure at bbref is a lot lower than this estimate--it's only -8 per year. So the BA adjustment, assuming that it really makes sense to do it that way (a big ass-umption...), is quite probably more like 20 points. This is the place in the article where Jeter is "reverse Jeterated"--but not directly by Tim, who takes some pains not to give "advanced fielding metrics" a free pass in the essay (despite his apparent endorsement of that math further up in this thread).

54. GGC Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4218684)

Jeterated? I heard Jeterian before (Thanks to John Sterling) but that is a new one on me.

55. GuyM Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4218739)

What's wacky in the piece is the notion that Jeter giving away a single a week adds up to 50 points of BA over a year. That math looks to be rather strained

The math seems straightforward. IIRC, Humphreys rates Jeter's fielding at about -19 runs/season. That's about -27 singles. Take away 27 hits from a hitter with 540 AB and he loses .050 on BA. If you assume Jeter is a 610 AB player, then it's 44 points. But that seems like a pretty small quibble....

56. nick swisher hygiene Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4218853)

45--one reason Jeter was never moved, I think (and this is just Yankee-fan-of-a-certain-age speculation) is, well, look at the list of names who played ss for the Yanks in the years before him.

if you became a Yankee fan in the 70s or 80s, and then, finally, Jeter comes along--well, the fact that his defense may be pretty mediocre is not in itself gonna seem like a problem.

57. Don Malcolm

Posted: August 26, 2012 at 11:42 PM (#4218875)

IIRC, Humphreys rates Jeter's fielding at about -19 runs/season. That's about -27 singles. Take away 27 hits from a hitter with 540 AB and he loses .050 on BA. If you assume Jeter is a 610 AB player, then it's 44 points. But that seems like a pretty small quibble....

Actually, that -19 is the math that seems strained, which was what I meant to say, and upon rereading it seems likely that what I wrote was unclear. No one else has Jeter being that bad. The figures at bbref and FanGraphs are roughly half what Humphreys is estimating. As fot the concept of adjusting BA this way, that's a whole ball of wax that begs for a knockdown-dragout that I don't have time for at present.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Marchman: Derek Jeter: 4,000 Hits? Try 9,000 Outs

Reader Comments and Retorts

News

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics