I know this is gonna get me screamed at...but one of the issues with RF (ad there are many) when it comes to evaluating infielders is that there is going to be some significant variation on the number of pull hitters beating balls into the ground towards a specific player based on how many Lefties you employ in your rotation.
One of the figures that caught my eye in this fantastic article was the snippet at the end about Vizquel's stupendous RF in 2003. Now the initial gut reaction would be to blow that off as small sample size. And maybe that's it. Cuz why else would an ancient Vizquel all of a sudden create so many more POs/9inn? That late in his career? When it was patently obvious that his range was declining? Or maybe it was something else. You see, 2003 was a very rare year for Vizquel in Cleveland. Because they actually had lefties in their rotation (2! to be exact - Sabathia and Billy Traber). For the majority of the Tribe's run in the mid to late 90s, Southpaws were an endangered species. And if you don't have lefties, teams naturally employ more LH platoons against you and over the course of a season, the fewer grounders getting pulled and rolled over to you adds up.
Sometimes I feel like RF was a stat designed to highlight (the inarguable) magnificence of the Wizard. I'm not saying that he wasn't the best...he was. But the fact that he played his prime behind John Tudor and a rotation that was 3/5 (!) lefties from 1986-1988 probably helped a lot.
If you had Ozzie at shortstop, wouldn't you load up on lefties? The fact that he had many more chances in his prime is by design. It's like the old saying "the rich get richer" - the best shortstop was so good that the pitching rotation was designed to give him the most chances to create outs for his team and having the hightest RF is a byproduct of that.
I love seeing John Tudor mentioned. He was one of my favorites from that era but seems largely forgotten these days. He's also a great Immaculate Grid answer that I employ a lot to get a decent rarity score.
When Arod came to Yankees the smart play was to move Jeter to CF and let Arod handle SS. Bernie Williams was 34 and could move to a corner.
That would improve defense.
However Jeter wouldn’t move. He understood moving to CF would only put him in a line of greats - but never the greatest. Staying at SS insured he would go down as the undisputed greatest Yankee at that position.
"Past a diving Jeter" was a meme in the late-90s and into the 2000s, regarding how limited his range was despite him *looking* athletic and dynamic out there.
This being a Free Friday Blog and spurred on by an obscure fact discovered today, I have both a
Reader Challenge for Joe and a trivia question for everyone. First the Challenge. There are quite a few MLB players who played multiple sports in college and/or high school. Bo Jackson leaps immediately to mind as do recently Famous Players Kirk Gibson and Steve Garvey. Who would Joe have in his top 25 most accomplished dual sport MLB players? As for the trivia question, it is this. Who were the only two MLB players who also were on teams to reach the NCAA Final Four. I'll post the answer as a replay to this comment about 2:00 p.m. tomorrow along with some of their more interesting stats.
Some good guesses. Both players are graduates of Washington High School in East
Chicago, Indiana (not a typo, 24 miles mostly south of Chicago Illinois). They went there about 15 years apart. The older of the two as Tim Stoddard. Tim was a basketball reserve at NC State when they won the title. He later pitched for a number of MLB teams. He had a career WAR of 4.6. with a record of 41-35 with a 3.95 ERA. He was in the 1979 WS as a member of the Orioles. In game 4 the Pirates jumped on the starter for a big lead and Stoddard came on in long relief. The Orioles came back late and won the game, giving
Tim his only decision in a WS game. Tim wasn't much of a hitter in the regular season. His career slash line is 100/100/250 with an OPS of 350. In that one WS game he was 1-1, an RBI single that gave him a WS career slash line of 1000/1000/1000 for an OPS of 2000. The other play is the underrated Kenny Lofton. Kenny went to Arizona on a basketball scholarship. He only played in 5 baseball games at Arizona. He was the third guard on a Steve Kerr led team that made the Final Four. He did not score much but was a defensive wizard. In four years he played in 128 games and averaged 4.8 points and 2.6 assists per game. He left as the school all time steals leader at exactly 200 to go with over 300 assists and over 600 points. Kenny's MLB accomplishments were very impressive. Career line of 299/372/423 for a career OPS+ of 109. 130 HR, 781 RBI and 622 SB. Rookie of the Year, 6 All Star selections and 4 Gold Gloves. By the eye test I think he is HOF worthy but the raw numbers fall short.
I’m pretty sure one of the two is the only person to win a World Series and an NCAA basketball title. Someone else (who I don’t think is the other answer to your question) won a World Series and an NBA title.
As for the Joe list, I think he’d have to include a player drafted by the Royals a year before Bo who played in both a World Series and a Super Bowl, and an NL MVP and a two-time hoops All-American who was the first basketball player to have his number retired at Duke.
Lofton was on the unluckiest HOF ballot ever: 10 future HOFers; plus Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa: Lofton never stood a chance: So loaded and vote was so split that no one was elected:
Watching Ozzie Smith almost everyday was such a joy. He was so clean, so fluid, and slick. His reflexes were amazing. His throws were perfect. He picked screaming line drives and one-hoppers like nothing. He zipped and dove to get balls far outside the position. He was simply the best.
In 1987, I worked at Busch Stadium as an usher. I took a bag of brand new balls with me to every game. I got autographs for a baseball card shop. I made $5 a ball.
Ozzie Smith signed for me everyday. He signed for everyone. He spent far more time with fans than any other Cardinals player. He was a prince among men.
It's easy to understand why he was the favorite player of every kid during that time. He was just such a fun player to root for everyday. He made us scream with joy.
What I am saying - and let’s move the discussion away from Ozzie Smith, because that’s really not the focus of my point - is that turf, combined with larger stadiums, fundamentally changed the type of player that major league teams scouted and promoted.
The “five tool” evaluation was distorted with an extreme emphasis on speed above the other four tools. There was a conventional wisdom then that an athlete could be recruited and taught to hit. Believe me, minor league rosters were full of these guys, slapping ground balls and tearing towards first base.
More ground balls mean more infield plays; therefore, a different emphasis on middle infielders. Speedier runners necessitate better defensive catchers.
Would a Vince Coleman get 3,906 plate appearances in his first six seasons without turf? Let alone start as a corner outfielder every day? Does Omar Moreno ever get a major league at bat? Tim Foli? Larry Bowa?
The National League stolen base leader every year from 1977 to 1992 played for teams with turf basepaths and sliding pits.
That wave of bigger, power-hitting shortstops - Ripken, Garciaparra, Rodriguez, Tejada - all on grass fields. Do those guys have careers playing shortstop on franchises with turf fields?
It was a different game, with a substantial portion of players in everyday lineups that wouldn’t have had regular starting positions in the 1950s or mid-2000s.
I agree about the type of players who got at bats, but I want to dig into the logic of front offices for a second. Turf makes the ball bounce harder and faster, so it should get to the fielder quicker, which means it would be LESS likely for a speedy hitter to beat out a hit. High grass would slow down the ball, giving the runner an extra half second to reach first as the ball takes a little bit longer to reach the infielder.
Which means the proliferation of grass fields away from turf should have led to more Vince Coleman's, not less. But it didn't. Speed has been largely taken out of the game as turf has disappeared from stadiums.
But I want to see a team grow their infield grass real tall and let speedsters bunt for hits. Alas....
Seems that 'range factor' has very little to do with range. A guy who makes 5 routine plays will have a much better range factor than a guy who only has two balls hit anywhere near him, but make spectacular plays on both.
Over that large period of time though, those numbers kind of are what they are. Do you think that Jeter had that many less routine plays over 23,225.2 innings? Year after year? No. He just made plays that weren't spectacular look that way, because it would have been more routine for another SS, who might have been in front of the ball instead of diving.
Part of Jeter's career was after DRS, where they look at every play. He was -162 defensive runs saved over that time, or about -12 per 1000 innings.
What’s interesting is the lack of teammate comps, which would allow us to see how the pitching staff effects the range factor? Was Brosious, Cano, Knoblauch, A-Rod average or below as well? Shouldn’t the players be indexed to their teammates and not to the league?
I loved this column Joe, and I thank you for it. Before I make my comment, one caveat. I am a Blue Jay fan and while not a Yankee hater (thanks Dad) I am not in the thrall of the pinstripes. All of this to say, there was just something magical or other worldly about Jeter. He kept his head where others may have lost theirs (the play at the plate with Giambi) and he channelled Yogi Bera because he always seemed to make the big play (hitting or in the field) when it was needed. I also had the opportunity to speak with Jeter once. What a humble man. He made me believe that no one had ever told him that he was their son’s favourite player. Joe, as you know better than most, magic is all about the illusion. Call me naive or jaded by the cynical world we live in, but sometimes I am happy not to look behind the curtain. I love the stats, but as sport becomes increasingly scientific the magic fades which is a real loss. Take care and thanks again for this column.
More apparently frayed tempers than usual on today's subject. if Jeter won 5 GGs based on the votes of managers and coaches, it seems unlikely that he was a horrible defender unless you subscribe to some conspiracy or another (e.g. the Yankees paid off some voters, or the voters weren't actually watching the games, or Derek was just too lovable, or (my favorite) the. voters were hoping to be set up with girl friends of the many good looking women Derek dated. Worst shortstop ever? Absurd. Best shortstop ever? Equally absurd. Let's just leave it at that.
LOL. So true. My conspiracy theory imagination wonders if he somehow got pictures of a lot of managers and coaches having dalliance with women who were not their wives. He could have used that to influence the voting in his favor. There is no other plausible explanation.
While Jeter was surely a below average fielder, he may have made the greatest defensive play as a SS ever (the flip) and one of the most famous and wildly inspirational and amazing plays ever (the dive in the stands play).
Great play? Yes! But Jeter's flip saved a playoff series - context matters! Also, the dive in the stands play was in the regular season interestingly making it more amazing than if it were in the playoffs because he risked life and limb for a regular season win showing something super special.
Nowadays we never see shortstops who can repeat Jeter's signature play: a slow ground ball past the pitcher's right hand, Jeter eventually diving to his left, the ball rolls out to Bernie Williams who picks it up as it stops moving.
It seemed like it happened every couple of Yankees games, but I can't remember it from a modern shortstop.
Having said that, Jeter was a good hitter on a very strong roster.
Come on Joe, Derek made the plays a shortstop must make routinely and in the clutch. One out, bases loaded, ninth inning, tie score, crucial game, groundball to shortstop, you knew you could put in the books. The occasional great play in clutch moments, against Oakland, flying into the stands against the Red Sox. How many teams would give their right arms for a shortstop who makes all the routine plays at crucial moments.
And please, enough about some of those old shortstops- the game was very different and all white.
I love your blog Joe, but this essay from a Yankee hater touched a nerve.
Also that "he made routine plays look routine" is a compliment. Who are some everyday shortstops who you couldn't count on to handle a ground ball to short?
Good point about the overwhelming whiteness of the better shortstops he talks about, like Ozzie Smith, Andrelton Simmons, Luis Aparicio, Rafael Furcal... uh, wait a minute.
I was referring to Rabbit Maranville, Dick Bartell etc. Ozzie and those you mentioned are in the pantheon of shortstops.Add Jimmy Rollins to those who always made the clutch play even as his range declined.
If you want to say the game was all white to compare players' HOF credentials-- like Johnny Mize didn't have to face Satchel Paige & Co. -- fair enough.
But you don't want people to even talk and write about MLB players before 1947? Should we stop talking about Pop Lloyd and Turkey Stearns and other Negro League players because their competition was all Black?
I'm looking forward to the Rabbit Maranville post.
A question and a lament. The question: where does Alex Rodriguez rank by these measures as a shortstop? I remember being gobsmacked that the Yankees actually had A-Rod play third when he joined the Yankees, so Jeter didn't have to move. The lament: I was so hoping that this was player number 44 on Joe's list of the most "famous" players of the past 50 years, so we could get Jeter out of the way. What this means is that we will have to endure yet another essay about Derek Jeter in the not so distant future. Ugh.
I know this is gonna get me screamed at...but one of the issues with RF (ad there are many) when it comes to evaluating infielders is that there is going to be some significant variation on the number of pull hitters beating balls into the ground towards a specific player based on how many Lefties you employ in your rotation.
One of the figures that caught my eye in this fantastic article was the snippet at the end about Vizquel's stupendous RF in 2003. Now the initial gut reaction would be to blow that off as small sample size. And maybe that's it. Cuz why else would an ancient Vizquel all of a sudden create so many more POs/9inn? That late in his career? When it was patently obvious that his range was declining? Or maybe it was something else. You see, 2003 was a very rare year for Vizquel in Cleveland. Because they actually had lefties in their rotation (2! to be exact - Sabathia and Billy Traber). For the majority of the Tribe's run in the mid to late 90s, Southpaws were an endangered species. And if you don't have lefties, teams naturally employ more LH platoons against you and over the course of a season, the fewer grounders getting pulled and rolled over to you adds up.
Sometimes I feel like RF was a stat designed to highlight (the inarguable) magnificence of the Wizard. I'm not saying that he wasn't the best...he was. But the fact that he played his prime behind John Tudor and a rotation that was 3/5 (!) lefties from 1986-1988 probably helped a lot.
If you had Ozzie at shortstop, wouldn't you load up on lefties? The fact that he had many more chances in his prime is by design. It's like the old saying "the rich get richer" - the best shortstop was so good that the pitching rotation was designed to give him the most chances to create outs for his team and having the hightest RF is a byproduct of that.
I love seeing John Tudor mentioned. He was one of my favorites from that era but seems largely forgotten these days. He's also a great Immaculate Grid answer that I employ a lot to get a decent rarity score.
When Arod came to Yankees the smart play was to move Jeter to CF and let Arod handle SS. Bernie Williams was 34 and could move to a corner.
That would improve defense.
However Jeter wouldn’t move. He understood moving to CF would only put him in a line of greats - but never the greatest. Staying at SS insured he would go down as the undisputed greatest Yankee at that position.
He was great at catching anything in the air
Great shortstop article. All hail the Wizard of Oz.
"Past a diving Jeter" was a meme in the late-90s and into the 2000s, regarding how limited his range was despite him *looking* athletic and dynamic out there.
This being a Free Friday Blog and spurred on by an obscure fact discovered today, I have both a
Reader Challenge for Joe and a trivia question for everyone. First the Challenge. There are quite a few MLB players who played multiple sports in college and/or high school. Bo Jackson leaps immediately to mind as do recently Famous Players Kirk Gibson and Steve Garvey. Who would Joe have in his top 25 most accomplished dual sport MLB players? As for the trivia question, it is this. Who were the only two MLB players who also were on teams to reach the NCAA Final Four. I'll post the answer as a replay to this comment about 2:00 p.m. tomorrow along with some of their more interesting stats.
Some good guesses. Both players are graduates of Washington High School in East
Chicago, Indiana (not a typo, 24 miles mostly south of Chicago Illinois). They went there about 15 years apart. The older of the two as Tim Stoddard. Tim was a basketball reserve at NC State when they won the title. He later pitched for a number of MLB teams. He had a career WAR of 4.6. with a record of 41-35 with a 3.95 ERA. He was in the 1979 WS as a member of the Orioles. In game 4 the Pirates jumped on the starter for a big lead and Stoddard came on in long relief. The Orioles came back late and won the game, giving
Tim his only decision in a WS game. Tim wasn't much of a hitter in the regular season. His career slash line is 100/100/250 with an OPS of 350. In that one WS game he was 1-1, an RBI single that gave him a WS career slash line of 1000/1000/1000 for an OPS of 2000. The other play is the underrated Kenny Lofton. Kenny went to Arizona on a basketball scholarship. He only played in 5 baseball games at Arizona. He was the third guard on a Steve Kerr led team that made the Final Four. He did not score much but was a defensive wizard. In four years he played in 128 games and averaged 4.8 points and 2.6 assists per game. He left as the school all time steals leader at exactly 200 to go with over 300 assists and over 600 points. Kenny's MLB accomplishments were very impressive. Career line of 299/372/423 for a career OPS+ of 109. 130 HR, 781 RBI and 622 SB. Rookie of the Year, 6 All Star selections and 4 Gold Gloves. By the eye test I think he is HOF worthy but the raw numbers fall short.
I’m pretty sure one of the two is the only person to win a World Series and an NCAA basketball title. Someone else (who I don’t think is the other answer to your question) won a World Series and an NBA title.
As for the Joe list, I think he’d have to include a player drafted by the Royals a year before Bo who played in both a World Series and a Super Bowl, and an NL MVP and a two-time hoops All-American who was the first basketball player to have his number retired at Duke.
Is one of them a CF who should be in the Hall of Fame?
Yep, or at least in the Hall of Very Very Good. I'll add a full post in a couple of minutes.
Lofton was on the unluckiest HOF ballot ever: 10 future HOFers; plus Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa: Lofton never stood a chance: So loaded and vote was so split that no one was elected:
Yep. Full story coming in a couple of minutes
Watching Ozzie Smith almost everyday was such a joy. He was so clean, so fluid, and slick. His reflexes were amazing. His throws were perfect. He picked screaming line drives and one-hoppers like nothing. He zipped and dove to get balls far outside the position. He was simply the best.
In 1987, I worked at Busch Stadium as an usher. I took a bag of brand new balls with me to every game. I got autographs for a baseball card shop. I made $5 a ball.
Ozzie Smith signed for me everyday. He signed for everyone. He spent far more time with fans than any other Cardinals player. He was a prince among men.
It's easy to understand why he was the favorite player of every kid during that time. He was just such a fun player to root for everyday. He made us scream with joy.
Thank God the stats back that up.
What I am saying - and let’s move the discussion away from Ozzie Smith, because that’s really not the focus of my point - is that turf, combined with larger stadiums, fundamentally changed the type of player that major league teams scouted and promoted.
The “five tool” evaluation was distorted with an extreme emphasis on speed above the other four tools. There was a conventional wisdom then that an athlete could be recruited and taught to hit. Believe me, minor league rosters were full of these guys, slapping ground balls and tearing towards first base.
More ground balls mean more infield plays; therefore, a different emphasis on middle infielders. Speedier runners necessitate better defensive catchers.
Would a Vince Coleman get 3,906 plate appearances in his first six seasons without turf? Let alone start as a corner outfielder every day? Does Omar Moreno ever get a major league at bat? Tim Foli? Larry Bowa?
The National League stolen base leader every year from 1977 to 1992 played for teams with turf basepaths and sliding pits.
That wave of bigger, power-hitting shortstops - Ripken, Garciaparra, Rodriguez, Tejada - all on grass fields. Do those guys have careers playing shortstop on franchises with turf fields?
It was a different game, with a substantial portion of players in everyday lineups that wouldn’t have had regular starting positions in the 1950s or mid-2000s.
I agree about the type of players who got at bats, but I want to dig into the logic of front offices for a second. Turf makes the ball bounce harder and faster, so it should get to the fielder quicker, which means it would be LESS likely for a speedy hitter to beat out a hit. High grass would slow down the ball, giving the runner an extra half second to reach first as the ball takes a little bit longer to reach the infielder.
Which means the proliferation of grass fields away from turf should have led to more Vince Coleman's, not less. But it didn't. Speed has been largely taken out of the game as turf has disappeared from stadiums.
But I want to see a team grow their infield grass real tall and let speedsters bunt for hits. Alas....
Seems that 'range factor' has very little to do with range. A guy who makes 5 routine plays will have a much better range factor than a guy who only has two balls hit anywhere near him, but make spectacular plays on both.
Over that large period of time though, those numbers kind of are what they are. Do you think that Jeter had that many less routine plays over 23,225.2 innings? Year after year? No. He just made plays that weren't spectacular look that way, because it would have been more routine for another SS, who might have been in front of the ball instead of diving.
Part of Jeter's career was after DRS, where they look at every play. He was -162 defensive runs saved over that time, or about -12 per 1000 innings.
"Pasta Diving" Jeter.
What’s interesting is the lack of teammate comps, which would allow us to see how the pitching staff effects the range factor? Was Brosious, Cano, Knoblauch, A-Rod average or below as well? Shouldn’t the players be indexed to their teammates and not to the league?
Looking forward to following a Joe-rabbit-trail about Rabbit Maranville
I loved this column Joe, and I thank you for it. Before I make my comment, one caveat. I am a Blue Jay fan and while not a Yankee hater (thanks Dad) I am not in the thrall of the pinstripes. All of this to say, there was just something magical or other worldly about Jeter. He kept his head where others may have lost theirs (the play at the plate with Giambi) and he channelled Yogi Bera because he always seemed to make the big play (hitting or in the field) when it was needed. I also had the opportunity to speak with Jeter once. What a humble man. He made me believe that no one had ever told him that he was their son’s favourite player. Joe, as you know better than most, magic is all about the illusion. Call me naive or jaded by the cynical world we live in, but sometimes I am happy not to look behind the curtain. I love the stats, but as sport becomes increasingly scientific the magic fades which is a real loss. Take care and thanks again for this column.
More apparently frayed tempers than usual on today's subject. if Jeter won 5 GGs based on the votes of managers and coaches, it seems unlikely that he was a horrible defender unless you subscribe to some conspiracy or another (e.g. the Yankees paid off some voters, or the voters weren't actually watching the games, or Derek was just too lovable, or (my favorite) the. voters were hoping to be set up with girl friends of the many good looking women Derek dated. Worst shortstop ever? Absurd. Best shortstop ever? Equally absurd. Let's just leave it at that.
I hate to bring up that year when Palmeiro won the Gold Glove at first base despite only playing a few dozen games there, but…yeah.
LOL. So true. My conspiracy theory imagination wonders if he somehow got pictures of a lot of managers and coaches having dalliance with women who were not their wives. He could have used that to influence the voting in his favor. There is no other plausible explanation.
While Jeter was surely a below average fielder, he may have made the greatest defensive play as a SS ever (the flip) and one of the most famous and wildly inspirational and amazing plays ever (the dive in the stands play).
This is the greatest play a SS ever made. https://www.mlb.com/video/ozzie-smith-s-barehanded-play
Great play? Yes! But Jeter's flip saved a playoff series - context matters! Also, the dive in the stands play was in the regular season interestingly making it more amazing than if it were in the playoffs because he risked life and limb for a regular season win showing something super special.
Nowadays we never see shortstops who can repeat Jeter's signature play: a slow ground ball past the pitcher's right hand, Jeter eventually diving to his left, the ball rolls out to Bernie Williams who picks it up as it stops moving.
It seemed like it happened every couple of Yankees games, but I can't remember it from a modern shortstop.
Having said that, Jeter was a good hitter on a very strong roster.
Come on Joe, Derek made the plays a shortstop must make routinely and in the clutch. One out, bases loaded, ninth inning, tie score, crucial game, groundball to shortstop, you knew you could put in the books. The occasional great play in clutch moments, against Oakland, flying into the stands against the Red Sox. How many teams would give their right arms for a shortstop who makes all the routine plays at crucial moments.
And please, enough about some of those old shortstops- the game was very different and all white.
I love your blog Joe, but this essay from a Yankee hater touched a nerve.
I love people that call out two great plays in more than 2800 games and call it some sort of evidence.
Also that "he made routine plays look routine" is a compliment. Who are some everyday shortstops who you couldn't count on to handle a ground ball to short?
Why did he make so many fewer outs than other shortstops, though?
Flyball and strike out pitchers; don’t you know!
Good point about the overwhelming whiteness of the better shortstops he talks about, like Ozzie Smith, Andrelton Simmons, Luis Aparicio, Rafael Furcal... uh, wait a minute.
Hi Ben,
I was referring to Rabbit Maranville, Dick Bartell etc. Ozzie and those you mentioned are in the pantheon of shortstops.Add Jimmy Rollins to those who always made the clutch play even as his range declined.
If you want to say the game was all white to compare players' HOF credentials-- like Johnny Mize didn't have to face Satchel Paige & Co. -- fair enough.
But you don't want people to even talk and write about MLB players before 1947? Should we stop talking about Pop Lloyd and Turkey Stearns and other Negro League players because their competition was all Black?
I'm looking forward to the Rabbit Maranville post.
A question and a lament. The question: where does Alex Rodriguez rank by these measures as a shortstop? I remember being gobsmacked that the Yankees actually had A-Rod play third when he joined the Yankees, so Jeter didn't have to move. The lament: I was so hoping that this was player number 44 on Joe's list of the most "famous" players of the past 50 years, so we could get Jeter out of the way. What this means is that we will have to endure yet another essay about Derek Jeter in the not so distant future. Ugh.