I watched Jeter play, and I've watched a lot of SS's play over the past half century, and Jeter was not even vaguely close to being the worst defensive SS in the history of the game. He actually was a solid SS. The Yankees obviously saw that. Sometimes there is simply a disconnect between the advanced stats and the play. I can say, with confidence, that Gary Sheffield was a bad defensive OF.
In all the talk of Jeter, people overlook his incredible consistency over his career.
From his first full season in 1996 through 2012, only twice did he appear in fewer than 145 games. And only once did his average drop below .290… In 1996, his slash line was .314/.370/.430 – in 2012 (sixteen years later), it was .316/.362/.429. His post-season slash line? .308/.374/.465 over a total of 158 games (playoffs and World Series combined). That’s a great sign of being able to adjust to different players, different styles of play, and the effects of time. There aren’t many players who can stay that healthy for that long, never mind being able to produce at such a level over that span.
Just one question: does it all add up? In Win Shares, then yes, it does, automatically. But how about Fielding Runs, and WAR?
Take Jeter's worst fielding year, 2005, when he had minus 27 fielding runs. The Yankees as a whole had minus 112 fielding runs: that's 112 runs below average.
But the 2005 Yankees actually gave up 789 runs, that's only 31 below average. And their pitchers that year weren't particularly good at strikeouts, or preventing walks, or preventing home runs.
So...how did the pitchers turn that 112 runs into 31?
There are, of course, things pitchers do that don't involve defense - walks, strikeouts and homers, aka the three true outcomes. If the Yankees' pitchers were very good at not giving up walks, not giving up homers, and striking batters out, they might have "saved" 81 of the runs that their defense let in. (This is a slightly weird way to think about pitching.)
The numbers do not bear this out, however: the 2005 Yanks struck out 985 batters (league avg was 1021); they walked 463 (better than league average of 507); they allowed 164 HR (basically at the league average of 167). In sum, about average on the three outcomes. So your question still demands an answer.
The problem, in my opinion, is that the defensive metrics used in WAR value plays differently from each other. So a SS who makes a play on a hard hit grounder in the hole gets more points than fielding a medium speed grounder hit directly to him. This is despite the fact that both grounders will result in an out or in a single. I don't see any logical reason why the harder play give the SS more credit. If you extend it to an entire season, the above average SS's make more difficult plays than the average and below average SS's. Because difficult plays count for more points, their influence on "runs saved" is outsized. The difference between good and bad players, therefore, is exaggerated.
It is my belief this valuation of difficult and easy plays was entered into the equation because valuing the balls straight up resulted in a small difference between good and bad defenders. They had to goose the system to see a larger spread, and therefore allow the metric to definitively rank players. It's a very clever ranking method, but it has diverged from mimicking reality on the field.
Furthermore, for some reason defensive metrics take into consideration base-out situations. Hitting data does not. So a grand slam in WAR is the same as a solo HR. But a missed grounder with the bases loaded results in more points deducted than a missed grounder with nobody on. I have no problem with either way of measuring things, but I do have a problem that offense is calculated one way and defense another. *not to mention the fact that we've been told ad nauseum how RBIs (a base-out dependent stat) are meaningless.
Mark Daniel - I did not know that about WAR calculation. I agree with you it’s an out or a hit. The only thing that should matter is a throwing error that results in XB.
Don’t like using WAR as be all end all as the methodology is flawed.
Not a Yankee fan or a Jeter fan in particular but no way he is not going in first ballot.
Zero fielding runs means that you're average at your position - so bWAR isn't saying Jeter is the worst defensive player of all time. It has him at -9.4 dWAR for his career, in the company of Stan Musial, Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero, and Edgar Martinez (who was actually a good fielding 3B for the first third of his career - he didn't get moved because he was bad, he got moved because he couldn't stay healthy).
The real fielding stinkers in the Hall of Fame are the usual suspects - Baines, McCovey, Stargell, Killebrew, Frank Thomas. Dead last is Dave Winfield, which I wouldn't have expected given that he was actually good as a Padre - he just played so much in the field as an old guy. If he'd moved to DH when he was 35 he wouldn't be at the bottom.
Last thought on this: as our defensive statistics have improved, the spread from best to worst also increases because we're more confident. Defensive ratings from box scores have to hedge their bets because they're such an imprecise measure; over half of the 32 players with at least 3 seasons of 15+ fielding runs played in the 90s or later. So it's possible that if we used the same methods for all of baseball history, one of Harvey Kuenn or Toby Harrah or Don Kessinger would rate worse than Jeter; we just don't know which one.
Joe - great article as always! I've always preferred Bill James Win Shares to WAR and Win Shares much more thoughtful approach to fielding doesn't have this same problem - Win Shares shows both Larkin and Jeter worth about 90 defensive Win Shares and Jeter is more than 60 Win Shares ahead of Larkin overall for their career.
I like Win shares as well. I don't think they are quite the analytical tool that WAR is, but they are great, though hard to find. I like to compare all time and yearly lists just for teams when I can, and I like the fact that they are positive (that utility guy might only get one win share, but he doesn't get negative) and not compared to the mythical replacement guy.
When you are comparing Jeter and Larkin though, you have to remember that it is a counting stat. Larkin had about 71% of the PAs and 75% of the innings of Jeter. I don't break it down by offense and defense that much, (I like to look at it - and WAR - as a whole, because that is kind of what they are meant for) but if they had the same amount of defensive win shares, it has Larkin getting about 33% more per inning, or per season's worth of innings. I don't know what their total offensive win shares are, but Jeter would have to have about 40% more than Larkin for him to be considered better offensively on average.
He had a very long career, and should have a lot of win shares because of that.
"is it possible that his charisma and leadership skills so blinded Gold Glove voters that they just kept giving Gold Gloves to the worst fielder in baseball?"
I mean, this is the general voting group that famously gave Rafael Palmeiro a Gold Glove for a season in which he only played 20-something games at first base and the rest as a designated hitter. And while that's just a funny tidbit, it's emblematic of a common criticism of Gold Glove voting--that voters favored famous players and, especially, top hitters. Both describe Jeter in spades. So, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they gave the worst shortstop in baseball five Gold Gloves if that player were as famous and offensively great as Jeter.
Hated Jeter mainly because of his uniform. Thoroughly over rated and if you rank the top SS of all time it would be difficult to rank him in the top 10 without saying "what about the rings!!!" Love him or hate him (I hate him) ARod should have played SS for they Yankees when they shelled out for him and Jeter should have moved to 3rd. All that being said, if he was a Twin all his life I'd probably own his jersey.
Watched a lot of Yankee games and Jeter's biggest issue defensively was going to his left. He was poor at that but was very good coming in on balls, had a plus and accurate arm, was solid on pop-ups, and no worse than average on plays in the hole. So on balance (at least in my opinion) he was an average to slightly below average SS for most of his career. As with most players, his defense faltered as he got older.
However, to Joe's point, the Yankees were a consistent playoff team with the following players, all with poor defensive reputations with many at key positions on the spectrum, in the field.
Posada, Giambi, Bernie, Knoblauch, Soriano, Sheffield, Justice, Damon, Melky, Abreu, Swisher. Some of these guys were brutal, both statistically and according to the eye test. But to believe that the Yankees were successful for such a lengthy period with poor defensive players at C, SS, CF, 2B, & RF for so long is a bit much. Can certainly buy into a theory that all of them were below average, but it becomes difficult to believe that Jeter is historically bad is a bit much.
Finally (and sorry to rant here) but Jeter's O-War (Baseball Reference) is 96.3 which is ahead of Schmidt, Brett, Junior, and Rose. His D-War is - 9.4 and his overall WAR is 71.3. Pete Rose's 0-WAR is 83.2, D-WAR is - 13.2 and overall WAR is 79.6. Understand this is not basic arithmetic and SS is a heavily weighted defensive position but seems a bit much. Can anyone help explain and, while you're at it, explain how Jeter is a better offensive player than Schmidt or Brett.
Offensive WAR seems to be a decent binary snapshot about player performance but don't see how anyone can accept it as an absolute measurement. Defensive WAR appears about as useful as GG awards. It seems fairly arbitrary and capricious to me.
I believe offensive WAR is also weighted by position. A SS who hits as well as Jeter will accumulate more offensive WAR than someone doing the same thing at 1B, for example.
OK....understand that do a degree but is it calculated on a annual basis so Jeter's peer group would be Nomar, ARod, Larkin etc or does it also include Ed Brinkman and Mark Belanger? Not trying to be difficult but it seems the more variables assigned, the more difficult it is to get an accurate assessment.
"Ted Simmons was elected 22 years after he retired."
My first thought was "has it already been 22 years since Simmons retired? Can't be, I remember his time in St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Atlanta too well for it to be that long ago."
My second thought was "gee, I'm really old. It has been 32 years."
Simmons was Mike Piazza lite. Very good hitter for the position with 20+ homers and more walks than strikeouts. Fielding wasn't good, but not as bad as the reputation would have you. Off the field, they were completely different with Piazza something of a meat head while Simmons was a fan of museums and art galleries. I'd love to read more about the feud between Simmons and Whitey Herzog that lead to his trade to Milwaukee.
Is he a easy, no doubt, first ballot HOFer? Yes. Is he the worst defensive SS of all time? In a sense, 100% BECAUSE these things are ABSOLUTELY related. He was such a good hitter that his bat more than made up for his glove. A lesser hitter would never have accumulated so many "bad" innings at SS, because he'd have been out of the game. His being an all-time bad SS reflects, weirdly, positively on him, in the way that Belanger's terrible bat (coupled with longevity) is a testament to his glove.
Yankees fan here. Never cared his defense sucked. He rarely made errors on the plays he got to. I'd much rather he dive and miss than throw the ball into the dirt 3x a game like Torres does.
Die Hard, Out-of-the-Womb Red Sox fan here. Absolutely Sports-Hated Derek Jeter for the entirety of his career. Nomar was SOOOO much better than him (well...he really was for a few years). He was SOOOOO Overrated.
Looking back, I appreciate his absolute greatness. He wasn't the perfect player, but man did he bring a lot to the table. He wasn't cocky. He wasn't arrogant. I think most of his teammates would say he was a great teammate and leader. When he and ARod were at odds, it was never something Jeter talked about.
Now that I don't have to worry about him coming up in the 9th, I actually miss watching him play. A bit jealous of Yankees fans who got to cheer for him for so long!
I don't know that the fielding runs number makes Jeter the worst defender of all time, since it's a counting stat and Jeter played for a long time without missing many games due to injury. He was consistently bad on defense, but a lot of things lined up that allowed him to be consistently bad for a long time - never off the field very long, never really had anyone who was a threat to his position coming up behind him, and the spots where other wealthy teams might shift him in order to put someone who prevented more runs at shortstop were always taken. The A-Rod trade was the thing most likely to stop him putting up sub-par defensive seasons at the position, and by then it would have required his buy-in, which he apparently did not provide.
I've got no idea to what extent Jeter never really getting hurt until almost the end was skill or luck or (if you are as cynical about him as this Red Sox fan) him being conscious of which plays look high effort but don't create much wear and tear and vice versa. But I tend to think Jeter was both quite good and quite fortunate, and it takes a fair amount of both to become a Hall of Famer.
I watched Jeter play, and I've watched a lot of SS's play over the past half century, and Jeter was not even vaguely close to being the worst defensive SS in the history of the game. He actually was a solid SS. The Yankees obviously saw that. Sometimes there is simply a disconnect between the advanced stats and the play. I can say, with confidence, that Gary Sheffield was a bad defensive OF.
So who is the best (non AROD) post integration SS of all time ?
Cal Ripken Jr.
In all the talk of Jeter, people overlook his incredible consistency over his career.
From his first full season in 1996 through 2012, only twice did he appear in fewer than 145 games. And only once did his average drop below .290… In 1996, his slash line was .314/.370/.430 – in 2012 (sixteen years later), it was .316/.362/.429. His post-season slash line? .308/.374/.465 over a total of 158 games (playoffs and World Series combined). That’s a great sign of being able to adjust to different players, different styles of play, and the effects of time. There aren’t many players who can stay that healthy for that long, never mind being able to produce at such a level over that span.
It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of WAR...
Oh.
Just one question: does it all add up? In Win Shares, then yes, it does, automatically. But how about Fielding Runs, and WAR?
Take Jeter's worst fielding year, 2005, when he had minus 27 fielding runs. The Yankees as a whole had minus 112 fielding runs: that's 112 runs below average.
But the 2005 Yankees actually gave up 789 runs, that's only 31 below average. And their pitchers that year weren't particularly good at strikeouts, or preventing walks, or preventing home runs.
So...how did the pitchers turn that 112 runs into 31?
There are, of course, things pitchers do that don't involve defense - walks, strikeouts and homers, aka the three true outcomes. If the Yankees' pitchers were very good at not giving up walks, not giving up homers, and striking batters out, they might have "saved" 81 of the runs that their defense let in. (This is a slightly weird way to think about pitching.)
The numbers do not bear this out, however: the 2005 Yanks struck out 985 batters (league avg was 1021); they walked 463 (better than league average of 507); they allowed 164 HR (basically at the league average of 167). In sum, about average on the three outcomes. So your question still demands an answer.
The problem, in my opinion, is that the defensive metrics used in WAR value plays differently from each other. So a SS who makes a play on a hard hit grounder in the hole gets more points than fielding a medium speed grounder hit directly to him. This is despite the fact that both grounders will result in an out or in a single. I don't see any logical reason why the harder play give the SS more credit. If you extend it to an entire season, the above average SS's make more difficult plays than the average and below average SS's. Because difficult plays count for more points, their influence on "runs saved" is outsized. The difference between good and bad players, therefore, is exaggerated.
It is my belief this valuation of difficult and easy plays was entered into the equation because valuing the balls straight up resulted in a small difference between good and bad defenders. They had to goose the system to see a larger spread, and therefore allow the metric to definitively rank players. It's a very clever ranking method, but it has diverged from mimicking reality on the field.
Furthermore, for some reason defensive metrics take into consideration base-out situations. Hitting data does not. So a grand slam in WAR is the same as a solo HR. But a missed grounder with the bases loaded results in more points deducted than a missed grounder with nobody on. I have no problem with either way of measuring things, but I do have a problem that offense is calculated one way and defense another. *not to mention the fact that we've been told ad nauseum how RBIs (a base-out dependent stat) are meaningless.
Mark Daniel - I did not know that about WAR calculation. I agree with you it’s an out or a hit. The only thing that should matter is a throwing error that results in XB.
Don’t like using WAR as be all end all as the methodology is flawed.
Not a Yankee fan or a Jeter fan in particular but no way he is not going in first ballot.
Zero fielding runs means that you're average at your position - so bWAR isn't saying Jeter is the worst defensive player of all time. It has him at -9.4 dWAR for his career, in the company of Stan Musial, Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero, and Edgar Martinez (who was actually a good fielding 3B for the first third of his career - he didn't get moved because he was bad, he got moved because he couldn't stay healthy).
The real fielding stinkers in the Hall of Fame are the usual suspects - Baines, McCovey, Stargell, Killebrew, Frank Thomas. Dead last is Dave Winfield, which I wouldn't have expected given that he was actually good as a Padre - he just played so much in the field as an old guy. If he'd moved to DH when he was 35 he wouldn't be at the bottom.
Last thought on this: as our defensive statistics have improved, the spread from best to worst also increases because we're more confident. Defensive ratings from box scores have to hedge their bets because they're such an imprecise measure; over half of the 32 players with at least 3 seasons of 15+ fielding runs played in the 90s or later. So it's possible that if we used the same methods for all of baseball history, one of Harvey Kuenn or Toby Harrah or Don Kessinger would rate worse than Jeter; we just don't know which one.
Joe - great article as always! I've always preferred Bill James Win Shares to WAR and Win Shares much more thoughtful approach to fielding doesn't have this same problem - Win Shares shows both Larkin and Jeter worth about 90 defensive Win Shares and Jeter is more than 60 Win Shares ahead of Larkin overall for their career.
I like Win shares as well. I don't think they are quite the analytical tool that WAR is, but they are great, though hard to find. I like to compare all time and yearly lists just for teams when I can, and I like the fact that they are positive (that utility guy might only get one win share, but he doesn't get negative) and not compared to the mythical replacement guy.
When you are comparing Jeter and Larkin though, you have to remember that it is a counting stat. Larkin had about 71% of the PAs and 75% of the innings of Jeter. I don't break it down by offense and defense that much, (I like to look at it - and WAR - as a whole, because that is kind of what they are meant for) but if they had the same amount of defensive win shares, it has Larkin getting about 33% more per inning, or per season's worth of innings. I don't know what their total offensive win shares are, but Jeter would have to have about 40% more than Larkin for him to be considered better offensively on average.
He had a very long career, and should have a lot of win shares because of that.
"is it possible that his charisma and leadership skills so blinded Gold Glove voters that they just kept giving Gold Gloves to the worst fielder in baseball?"
I mean, this is the general voting group that famously gave Rafael Palmeiro a Gold Glove for a season in which he only played 20-something games at first base and the rest as a designated hitter. And while that's just a funny tidbit, it's emblematic of a common criticism of Gold Glove voting--that voters favored famous players and, especially, top hitters. Both describe Jeter in spades. So, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they gave the worst shortstop in baseball five Gold Gloves if that player were as famous and offensively great as Jeter.
Hated Jeter mainly because of his uniform. Thoroughly over rated and if you rank the top SS of all time it would be difficult to rank him in the top 10 without saying "what about the rings!!!" Love him or hate him (I hate him) ARod should have played SS for they Yankees when they shelled out for him and Jeter should have moved to 3rd. All that being said, if he was a Twin all his life I'd probably own his jersey.
Watched a lot of Yankee games and Jeter's biggest issue defensively was going to his left. He was poor at that but was very good coming in on balls, had a plus and accurate arm, was solid on pop-ups, and no worse than average on plays in the hole. So on balance (at least in my opinion) he was an average to slightly below average SS for most of his career. As with most players, his defense faltered as he got older.
However, to Joe's point, the Yankees were a consistent playoff team with the following players, all with poor defensive reputations with many at key positions on the spectrum, in the field.
Posada, Giambi, Bernie, Knoblauch, Soriano, Sheffield, Justice, Damon, Melky, Abreu, Swisher. Some of these guys were brutal, both statistically and according to the eye test. But to believe that the Yankees were successful for such a lengthy period with poor defensive players at C, SS, CF, 2B, & RF for so long is a bit much. Can certainly buy into a theory that all of them were below average, but it becomes difficult to believe that Jeter is historically bad is a bit much.
Finally (and sorry to rant here) but Jeter's O-War (Baseball Reference) is 96.3 which is ahead of Schmidt, Brett, Junior, and Rose. His D-War is - 9.4 and his overall WAR is 71.3. Pete Rose's 0-WAR is 83.2, D-WAR is - 13.2 and overall WAR is 79.6. Understand this is not basic arithmetic and SS is a heavily weighted defensive position but seems a bit much. Can anyone help explain and, while you're at it, explain how Jeter is a better offensive player than Schmidt or Brett.
Offensive WAR seems to be a decent binary snapshot about player performance but don't see how anyone can accept it as an absolute measurement. Defensive WAR appears about as useful as GG awards. It seems fairly arbitrary and capricious to me.
I believe offensive WAR is also weighted by position. A SS who hits as well as Jeter will accumulate more offensive WAR than someone doing the same thing at 1B, for example.
OK....understand that do a degree but is it calculated on a annual basis so Jeter's peer group would be Nomar, ARod, Larkin etc or does it also include Ed Brinkman and Mark Belanger? Not trying to be difficult but it seems the more variables assigned, the more difficult it is to get an accurate assessment.
Thanks for the explanation.
"Ted Simmons was elected 22 years after he retired."
My first thought was "has it already been 22 years since Simmons retired? Can't be, I remember his time in St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Atlanta too well for it to be that long ago."
My second thought was "gee, I'm really old. It has been 32 years."
Simmons was Mike Piazza lite. Very good hitter for the position with 20+ homers and more walks than strikeouts. Fielding wasn't good, but not as bad as the reputation would have you. Off the field, they were completely different with Piazza something of a meat head while Simmons was a fan of museums and art galleries. I'd love to read more about the feud between Simmons and Whitey Herzog that lead to his trade to Milwaukee.
I'm calling Simmons "Carlton Fisk without that home run".
Is he a easy, no doubt, first ballot HOFer? Yes. Is he the worst defensive SS of all time? In a sense, 100% BECAUSE these things are ABSOLUTELY related. He was such a good hitter that his bat more than made up for his glove. A lesser hitter would never have accumulated so many "bad" innings at SS, because he'd have been out of the game. His being an all-time bad SS reflects, weirdly, positively on him, in the way that Belanger's terrible bat (coupled with longevity) is a testament to his glove.
Yankees fan here. Never cared his defense sucked. He rarely made errors on the plays he got to. I'd much rather he dive and miss than throw the ball into the dirt 3x a game like Torres does.
Die Hard, Out-of-the-Womb Red Sox fan here. Absolutely Sports-Hated Derek Jeter for the entirety of his career. Nomar was SOOOO much better than him (well...he really was for a few years). He was SOOOOO Overrated.
Looking back, I appreciate his absolute greatness. He wasn't the perfect player, but man did he bring a lot to the table. He wasn't cocky. He wasn't arrogant. I think most of his teammates would say he was a great teammate and leader. When he and ARod were at odds, it was never something Jeter talked about.
Now that I don't have to worry about him coming up in the 9th, I actually miss watching him play. A bit jealous of Yankees fans who got to cheer for him for so long!
Great post Joe!
Of course, he's known in certain circles of the internet as "Pasta Diver," from the oft-repeated announcer's call "ground ball...past a diving Jeter."
I don't know that the fielding runs number makes Jeter the worst defender of all time, since it's a counting stat and Jeter played for a long time without missing many games due to injury. He was consistently bad on defense, but a lot of things lined up that allowed him to be consistently bad for a long time - never off the field very long, never really had anyone who was a threat to his position coming up behind him, and the spots where other wealthy teams might shift him in order to put someone who prevented more runs at shortstop were always taken. The A-Rod trade was the thing most likely to stop him putting up sub-par defensive seasons at the position, and by then it would have required his buy-in, which he apparently did not provide.
I've got no idea to what extent Jeter never really getting hurt until almost the end was skill or luck or (if you are as cynical about him as this Red Sox fan) him being conscious of which plays look high effort but don't create much wear and tear and vice versa. But I tend to think Jeter was both quite good and quite fortunate, and it takes a fair amount of both to become a Hall of Famer.