more hyperbole from a selected sample of people to make the entire fanbase look stupid.

more hyperbole from a selected sample of people to make the entire fanbase look stupid.

that's true--they should have axed the Yankee announcers what they thought of the study; then they'd get some intelligent responses

I was wondering if this reporter either couldn't find a Yankee fan who could actually talk about numbers regarding Jeter, or if the author was simply taking glee in writing this article knowing every quote would be "No way, he's the Captain, Mr. Clutch!"

I was wondering if this reporter either couldn't find a Yankee fan who could actually talk about numbers regarding Jeter

Forget "numbers" ... none of the quoted fans even said a word about his defense.

"I don't know what they're smoking down at Penn," said Yankees fan Mike

Yeah, so much for those pesky "facts".

Birch, 32. "That's preposterous. I completely disagree. Jeter's a clutch player."

Pardon my ignorance, but how many drinks is the above statement worth?

Only the NY Post would expose themselves in such a foolish and embarrassing manner by actually using "junk science" in an article. The phrase "junk science" was coined by Republicans in the 1990s in order to attack the congressional office of technology assessment and denigrate evolution, ecology, pollution standards, the EPA in general and the nascent science of global warming.

You'd think that a newspaper would know the history of that particular phrase. You'd think a newspaper would know that by using that phrase they're torpedoing their own analysis and, with it, their respectability. But apparently, the NY Post has no such standards.

I'd like to say that when science and rhetoric clash, science wins. However, anyone who remembers the 1990s or who isn't brain dead today knows differently. And for the post to use that rhetoric to attack a statistical study on baseball fielding is despicable. The NY Post isn't fit for a hobo's toilet paper.

You'd think that a newspaper would know the history of that particular phrase.

well, they do, and if you read you're first paragraph, Murdoch agrees wholeheartedly with the GOP

that quote from Mr. Jay Ricker has to be worth, like, fifty stupid points.

I can't believe no one mentioned his calm eyes.

Forget "numbers" ... none of the quoted fans even said a word about his defense.

Defensive numbers as evidenced in the study was my point, but your comment is spot on.

These fans are certain Jeter has never made a mistake. He's their Chuck Norris.

Jeter does make all the plays...off the field.

Stupid statheads, always herpeing about Jeter's faults.

As a huge Yankee fan, I am continually perplexed by my fellow fans inability to judge Jeter's D.

I was commenting on his range before I even knew about advanced defensive statistics.

I don't see why it's sacrilege to say he's a great hitter, poor defender, and overall still one of the best SS's in baseball.

Another thing about Jeter's defense is that because he gets a slow jump on the ball even to his right, which is his stronger side, he has to make that jump throw to compensate for the time he has lost in getting to the ball. That causes some fans to think that he is making a spectacular play when in fact he has transformed an ordinary play into a difficult one.

That causes some fans to think that he is making a spectacular play when in fact he has transformed an ordinary play into a difficult one.

I think I first realized the Yankees defense, esp. Jeter, was bad when I kept seeing balls that I thought were Yankee hits turned into routine outs by opposing fielders.

"Character has a lot to do with it. He's out there for his teammates, not just himself. He does it for the good of the team. That's the kind of guy you want on the field."

Is that why they had to move A-Rod? Because Jeter is such a team player that he wouldn't move off of SS even though it would have made the team better?

I don't see why it's sacrilege to say he's a great hitter, poor defender, and overall still one of the best SS's in baseball.

Because when many Yankee fans think of Jeter's defense, they remember the great plays --- the Giambi play in the 01 ALCS or the dive into the stands --- and not the 25-hop singles up the middle that he can't get a glove on.

Character has a lot to do with it. He's out there for his teammates, not just himself.

Like the time he came to A-rods defense a couple of years ago...yep, all class.

What a huge wank of an article this is.

Look, we all know that defensive metrics aren't perfect. However when you are making less plays every year then then the rest of your counterparts and converting less of those plays that come your way...well then you aren't as efficient as the other blokes at converting outs, simple as that.

The bloke can hit though, that's for darn sure.

Because Jeter is such a team player that he wouldn't move off of SS even though it would have made the team better?

Why should he move when the Yankees never asked him to? I'm sure he thinks he's a very good defender, and it should have been up to the front office to let him know they're a better team with A-Rod at SS.

I'm sure he thinks he's a very good defender

Yeah, those three Gold Gloves probably give him all the evidence he thinks he needs to prove that.

Junk science?
There was junk headlining on the front page of the edition here in Massachusetts. It read "Jeter MLB's Worst Player?" on the left side of the page. WTF?! The report doesn't say a thing about his hitting or baserunning which are excellent. He's just a lousy fielder.

And, actually, #7, the first uses of the term "junk science" that I remember were references to extremely questionable testimony in various class action lawsuits. Hell, I think I've got a book with that title, on that subject, lying around here somewhere.

Why the hell are there so many pop ups and why the hell is my pop up blocker not blocking them? God damn Post.

"...Jeter does a good job," said Pam Lips, 28.

I'm sure he does Ms. Lips, I'm sure he does.

Sounds like you guys don't get enough #####.

Only the NY Post would expose themselves in such a foolish and embarrassing manner by actually using "junk science" in an article. The phrase "junk science" was coined by Republicans in the 1990s in order to attack the congressional office of technology assessment and denigrate evolution, ecology, pollution standards, the EPA in general and the nascent science of global warming.

You'd think that a newspaper would know the history of that particular phrase.

You'd <strike>think</strike>hope that someone who was going to attack someone else for historical ignorance would know history himself first. The phrase was in use in the 1980s, and came from discussions related to tort reform. It had nothing to do with global warming; back in the 1980s, trial lawyers weren't quite audacious enough to try to turn global warming into a tort.


And putting that aside, what difference would it make where it was first used?

I thought this was going to be about Rob Picciolo.

Why the hell are there so many pop ups and why the hell is my pop up blocker not blocking them? God damn Post.

Dealing with pop-ups is Jeter's best defensive skill. Maybe it's an homage.

The phrase "junk science" was coined by Republicans in the 1990s in order to attack the congressional office of technology assessment and denigrate evolution, ecology, pollution standards, the EPA in general and the nascent science of global warming.

What's global warming?

You'd thinkhope that someone who was going to attack someone else for historical ignorance would know history himself first. The phrase was in use in the 1980s, and came from discussions related to tort reform. It had nothing to do with global warming; back in the 1980s, trial lawyers weren't quite audacious enough to try to turn global warming into a tort.

From the website junkscience.com: Since April 1, 1996, JunkScience.com has had a discernible impact in the fight against junk science and garnered numerous awards, including being named: a "Top Resource" and one of the "Most Popular" health news web sites by Yahoo!
"One of the 50 Best Web Sites" by Popular Science
a "Hot Pick" by Science.
A "leading debunker" of global warming by Rolling Stone magazine.

From wikipedia:

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.

Ok, so the term existed before the 1990's - but it seems its current usage is more in line with what Vicinity was referring to.

LOL for #29