SBN Baseball Awards: Cy Young
by Randy Booth on Nov 11, 2009 6:00 AM EST
in SBNation Awards
57 comments
Now we're getting to the big boy awards.
We've given away our Manager and Rookie of the Year awards, but today we reveal the winner of the Cy Youngs.
Maybe there will be a shocker. Maybe us bloggers found out that Zack Greinke doesn't believe in Santa Claus. Or maybe Tim Lincecum's pot bust made us all revert our votes and give him 3rd placers.
Maybe, but probably not.
American League
| Rk | Player | Team | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zack Greinke | Kansas City Royals | 28 | 1 | - | 143 |
| 2 | Felix Hernandez | Seattle Mariners | - | 17 | 6 | 57 |
| 3 | Justin Verlander | Detroit Tigers | - | 8 | 9 | 33 |
| 4 | Roy Halladay | Toronto Blue Jays | 1 | 2 | 11 | 22 |
| 5 | C.C. Sabathia | New York Yankees | - | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| 6 | Jon Lester | Boston Red Sox | - | - | 1 | 1 |
Did I vote for Lester? Perhaps. I honestly can't remember. But hey! He was in the hunt!
National League
| Rk | Player | Team | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tim Lincecum | San Francisco Giants | 18 | 13 | - | 129 |
| 2 | Chris Carpenter | St. Louis Cardinals | 9 | 4 | 7 | 64 |
| 3 | Adam Wainwright | St. Louis Cardinals | 4 | 4 | 10 | 42 |
| 4 | Javier Vazquez | Atlanta Braves | - | 5 | 7 | 22 |
| 5 | Dan Haren | Arizona Diamondbacks | - | 3 | 4 | 13 |
| 6 | Ubaldo Jimenez | Colorado Rockies | - | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 7 | Cliff Lee | Philadephia Phillies | - | - | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Jair Jurrjens | Atlanta Braves | - | - | 1 | 1 |
Marijuana does a body good, apparently.
0 recs |
57 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
These should both be runaway victories...
…but honestly, Roy Halladay with a first place vote?
by Justin_Bobo on Nov 11, 2009 8:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tally fail?
In the NL there’s 31 votes for 1st and 3rd place but only 30 for 2nd place. AL looks okay, with 29 votes for each.
by Black Yen Power G-Man Spy on Nov 11, 2009 9:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Voting was done by leagues
And each blog, iirc, had two representative voters. There are 14 AL teams and 16 NL teams, meaning there should be 28 SBNation voters for the AL and 32 for the NL. Which still, admittedly, doesn’t account for the vote totals.
So, in the absence of evidence* to the contrary, I’m going to blame Rev Halofan for any voting discrepancies.
*Because the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Nov 11, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A Cy Young winner
and gold medal Olympian swimmer….good thing we have the government to tell us how bad pot is for you.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 11, 2009 9:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
yea
But were u surprised Lincecum got caught with pot. Look at the dude, when i saw the headlines i did not even have to take a second glance
by cnubsbl16 on Nov 11, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
surprised?
No. Although, I was glad to see that there is yet another person who dabbles in smoking pot and is not the lazy, stupid, goofy stoner that main stream america would like to portray the typical pot smoker as….it’s unjust, that’s all. To each their own. At least he wasn’t trashed speeding down the high way.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 11, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I’ve realized as I’ve entered the “real (ish) world” after college, is that just about everybody has smoked weed and a ton of people continue to smoke into adulthood. It is the most harmless thing in the world and its absurd that it is illegal. At least us Massholes are leading the way to legalization.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 11, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you guys are?
I would say California’s fast track to bankruptcy is putting them ahead. They’re literally missing out on billions of dollars over there and all there would need to do is allow the medicinal kind. Foolish.
Anybody that has a real problem with it has never tried it or is just blindly following the media/govt when they say it’s more harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. Wrong on both accounts. All you need to do is regulate it the same way you do with those two and it’d be a win-win for lots of people.
weed rant over now.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 11, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
California will probably be first to legalize, but Massachusetts was the first to decriminalize. You get $100 citation if you’re caught with under a certain amount (an ounce, I think). It was passed by popular vote on the presidential ballot.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 11, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’d be nice if I wasn’t considered a criminal just because of how I choose to relax after my work day. Good for massachusetts though, I do remember hearing about that going through now that you mention.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 11, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haven't tried it, probably won't until there's a hell of a lot of studies done on it...
But I genuinely don’t care if other people do. It pisses off my parents that I have tons of friends who do it, and that I won’t rat out any of them, but they’ll learn after it’s legalized in a few years.
It’s actually kinda sad how horrible my parents are, now that I’m coming to realize it. They hate pretty much anyone who isn’t in the same intersection of a Venn diagram as them. :(
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 14, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s pretty clear at this point that the short-term damage of marijuana is less than that of alcohol. And the long-term damage seems to be that of cigarettes (though few pot-heads smoke as much as cigarette smokers).
Many people are very close-minded of the stuff because it is illegal. My parents are kinda liberatarians so they never trust the government with that kind of decision. They would have killed me for smoking cigarettes, but for weed, not so much.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 14, 2009 3:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much.
I have some twisted logic that I use to convince myself that the warm, fuzzy feelings are bad (see: abstinence, pointing out grading mistakes that helped me to teachers so that they correct them, etc.), so I’ll probably never use anything to get high.
And I don’t know if it’s my attempt at the stereotypical teenager rebellion, but I’ve pretty much become a libertarian while being raised by controlling parents. So there’s that.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 14, 2009 4:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you have a netflix account
without your parents finding out about it, I would suggest the watch now feature on this documentary called the Union It’s pretty good and goes into a lot of the studies. If you’re into documentaries about pot that is.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 14, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't have an account, but I can probably find a way to watch it.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 15, 2009 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So I'm not just remarking on the drugs...
I really just have this terrible feeling that CC is going to get the CY since we all know the voters don’t care about who actually deserves it. (Not talking about the SBN Cy) It’s going to be a big boner fest in NY after Jeters Gold Glove, CC’s Cy and Teixeira’s MVP…ugh
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 11, 2009 11:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If Tex gets the MVP over Mauer
I’ll join you in the barfing. I highly doubt that happens.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 11, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeter winning the Gold Glove is a barfomatic event
I have to say up front: I believe Jeter is a fine baseball player. Borderline between ‘very good’ and ‘great’.
But I get so sick of the mediots love affair with him and his premature appointment to the HoF.
He’s NEVER EVER been the best player in baseball in any season.
He’s NEVER EVER even been the best player at his position for any season – let alone for an extended set of years.
He’s NEVER EVER lead baseball in any meaningful statistic other than hit total (once – in a year that he had a zillion at bats). Not HRs, not doubles, not average, not slg%, not obp, nothing.
His defense ratings outside of fielding percentage suck – and high fielding percentage without a high range rating are the classic symptom of a SLOW FIELDER who simply DOESN"T GET TO ENOUGH BALLS to even record a fielding chance!
The only thing he perhaps deserves legitimate credit for is staying power. He’s at least played competetently – in fact ‘very well’ – for a long time in a tough market and held onto his job on the team with the highest payroll and expectations in baseball. That has given him tons of opportunities that other players have not had. And he hasn’t sucked.
But he’s not great. And he’s not a Hall of Famer by any measure.
My prediction: He’ll go in on the first vote. And I’ll probably spew for about an hour straight (Mr. Creosote-style).
by mmmmm on Nov 11, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate Jeter as much as the next guy.
But he is a great baseball player and should be in the HoF as soon as eligible.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 11, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
But he should be fined $175 every time he does his jump-spin-throw thing.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Nov 11, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But that is the most efficient way to field a grounder. You didn’t know that?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 11, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Canadian
I only know of hockey and curling.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Nov 11, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha. Canada.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 11, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I say double the fine if he is blowing a bubble with his chewing gum while he does it.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 11, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To tie this back to the above conversation...
Can the money go to the drug rehab organizations he supports? They’d lose a lot if certain drugs are legalized.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 14, 2009 1:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't hate Jeter.
I just reject the notion that he is in any way one of baseball’s ‘all time greats’ and that his play makes him deserving of being in the HoF.
Jeter has been a very good player and most team’s would be lucky to have had him on their team.
He’s just not a ‘great’ player. There is a difference.
by mmmmm on Nov 12, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeets actually had a fielding Renassance this year mmmm.
His past GG’s weren’t really warranted, but this one you can make a case for. He gets hyped like a motherfucker but it is for a reason. As the others said, he’s first ballot easy. Arguably one of the best hitting SS of all time.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 11, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Arguably one of the best hitting SS of all time."
Uhh???
During his own tenure as a SS in MLB – how often could you say he was the best hitting SS in baseball? Which years? Even one year?
For the early years of his career, clearly both Alex Rodriguez and Nomar Garciapara were light-years ahead of him at the plate.
Jeter’s absolute BEST year was 1999 when he actually lead the league in meaningful category (219 Hits) for the only time in his career. He posted a .989 OPS – his best ever- and hit 24 HR, 37 doubles, scored 134 runs and drove in 102. He led the majors with 739 plate appearances. His BA/OBP/SLG that year were .349/438/.552.
In NO OTHER YEAR has Jeter cracked above .900 OPS. He’s had four years below .800 OPS (only counting years with 400+ PAs). He’s been consistent and avoided any real stinker years. But that does not count as ‘great’.
For comparison, during the years from 1996 – 2004 (when Garciaparra left the AL and A-Rod converted to 3rd base in order to keep Jeter from being marginalized) Garciaparra posted 3 notable seasons of .946, 1.022 and 1.033 OPS. The 1.022 was alson in 1999 when Nomar hit 27 HRs, 42 doubles, scored 103 Runs, drove in 104 and lead the league in hitting at .357. His OBP was .418 and his SLG was .603 that year. He also lead the league in hitting the following year at .372!
Also during that time, A-Rod posted SEVEN seasons inwhich his OPS was .919 or better, including 4 above 1.000 (and one at .995). I’d post more details of A-Rod’s numbers during that span, but clearly, during that span, only Nomar was even close to A-Rod as a hitting SS. A-Rod posted league-leading stats in significant categories in mulitiple seasons during this time, including Total Bases, Batting Average, Doubles, Hits, HRs, RBIs, SLG, etc.
So clearly, there is no way you could say Jeter was even remotely close to being the best hitting SS of even those, his BEST years, let alone “of all time”.
After 2004, things look different. Nomar and A-Rod both left the picture so surely, finally, Jeter could be considered the best hitting SS of at least the years since, right? Nope.
Since 2004, Jeter’s best season was 2006 when he posted a .900 OPS, hit 14 HRs, 39 doubles, scored 118 runs, drove in 97 RBI, and posted BA/OPS/SLG of .343/.417/.483.
That MIGHT have been the best hitting by any SS that one year, but one could argue that Carlos Guillen had a slightly better season at .920 OPS, 19 HR, 41 doubles, 100 runs, 85 RBI, and .320/.400/.519. Notably he only had 622 PAs compared to 715 for Jeter.
Other shortstops who have arguably been better hitters than Jeter since 2004 include Miguel Tejada & Michael Young and if we include the NL, then we have to mention guys like Hanly Ramirez adn Troy Tulowitzki.
So that just defeats the idea that Jeter has even been the ‘best hitting SS’ of his own era. If you want to talk ‘of all time’ then you have to throw in Ernie Banks ( Five full seasons with OPS at .904 or better and 512 career HRs), Cal Ripken, Hans Wagner, etc.
Jeter has been a consistently very good hitter who has stayed healthy and thus gotten a ton of plate appearances. Nothing more.
Defensively? You think he’s had a “fielding Renassance” this year? Is that why his Range Factor (putouts + assists) per nine innings is a below-league-average 3.9 (for comparison, the league average is 4.36 and also for comparison Eric Aybar, who probably SHOULD have gotten this years GG, posted a Range factor of 4.68!). So his ‘Renaasance’ performance was to be below average? Yes, Jeter had a slightly above average Fielding Percentage (.986 versus league average .972) but Aybar was right there at .983. Aybar was just as good with his hands and arm and very simply was way better at getting to more balls than Jeter. Jeter would have probably had a lower fielding percentage if he had the speed to actually record a chance at more balls.
He’s never really been “the best” at anything in baseball or even at his position for any extended period of time.
How do you put someone in the Hall of Fame when they’ve never been the best in something significant?
Oh – right. He’s famous. Therefore he will go in the Hall of Fame. First ballot.
Puke.
by mmmmm on Nov 12, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod is obviously a much better hitter than Derek Jeter, no one would dispute that. And Nomar used to be a better hitter, but not anymore. There is something to be said for longevity and consistency. The guy has played at a very high level for a long, long time. You had to compare him to 3 different generations of SS’s. As each generation has had to move off the position, Jeter has remained. This has been very valuable for the Yankees. Over the last 8 years, he has averaged right around 5 WAR, with few down years. I would put him as top 10 hitting SS’s ever.
Being the best at one thing does not necessarily make someone a better baseball player than someone who is an all-around good player. ITs just not a good measuring stick of a player.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 12, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Perspective:
The Red Sox have had a frustrating revolving door of sub-par shortstops for the past 5 or 6 years, yet the Yankees have had Jeter, who has remained incredibly reliable even if his range is diminished.
I don’t like him. He is enemy. Yes, he gets too much credit sometimes.
But anyone who would argue against him being in the Hall of Fame is delusional.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Nov 12, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys are missing the point.
This has nothing to do with the revolving door at Red Sox SS.
This has nothing to do with Jeter being ‘the enemy’.
This has nothing to do with saying Jeter is ‘bad’ or even that he isn’t a very good SS (overall).
But the threshold for getting into the HoF should be high. And normally it is. If you look at the typical profile of a HoF member, there are certain consistent characteristics such as how many times they lead the league in any significant statistic, or how many times they were in the top ten in any significant statistic. While Jeter isn’t doing too bad in the latter, he’s way below the average HoFer in the former.
The typical HoF member (position player) will have lead his league in at least one significant batting statistic multiple times or multiple significant batting statistics at least once. I by ‘multiple’ i mean more than two or three. Basically, several really great years or (rarely) one or two really monster years.
The HoF should NOT be for guys who happened to play very well (not great) for a long time. Do you get medals just for showing up to work? For avoiding injury?
Yes, there is something to be said for consistency. But for that, we should be looking for something really exceptional in that consistency. Like posting up a string of seven-or-eight 200 hit seasons in a row or eight 20 HR seasons in a row or eight .300 BA seasons in a row. Something.
For Jeter to get credit for such, you have to lower the bar to something like, seven 180 hit seasons, or similar mediocre standard.
I just disagree with watering down the HoF that much.
And Jeter’s range hasn’t diminished. It was never that good. He has posted a below-league-average Range Factor in every year of his career except 2005 – when he popped a very good 4.76 – but oddly that wasn’t that much higher than league average that year (4.60).
by mmmmm on Nov 12, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What you are missing is positional adjustments. How many shortstops in the history of baseball have consistently led their league’s in the categories you are using? Cal Ripken led the league in runs scored once, total bases once, hits once and doubles once. About the same as Derek Jeter. Ernie Banks was a great player, leading the league in HR’s twice. But he was switched to 1B at his age 30 season, greatly lowering his value. Jeter, in the “Gray Ink” test, which adds up all the times a player is in the top 10 of certain categories, scores a 129, with the average Hall of Famer at 144 and Cal Ripken at 95. This puts him right in the mix. Using Bill James’s Hall of Fame Monitor test, Jeter scores a 274, with a likely HoF’er at 100.
Also, I’m not convinced that leading the league in certain categories or repeatedly reaching an arbitrary benchmark in consecutive seasons is at all the right way to judge players’ HoF eligibility. I mean, a player who gets 200 hits every year could very easily be a much worse baseball player than someone who gets 170 hits every year. I hope I do not have to explain why that is true. We should look at how much a player helps his team win. Basically WAR. By this standard, Jeter does very, very well.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 12, 2009 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The arguments around Ripken’s career are similar to those around Jeters – both arguably had limited range for a SS that they may or may not have made up for with fielding ‘smarts’. Both were durable and consistent, with longevity being a signature for both.
However, Ripken had several things going over Jeter. First he had way more power at the plate, posting 10 straight years of 20+ HRs. Second he of course had The Streak™ – which is something exceptional in itself. Third, he was voted league MVP twice – recognizing his relative dominance at his position in HIS era. He hit over 400 HRs. Without question you can easily say Cal Ripken, JR was by far the best hitting SS for an extended period of seasons. You could never say that about Jeter.
[Aside – if Robin Yount had stayed at SS, then Ripken probably would have had more competition at that position.]
And i’m sorry but there is no way you can say Ripken was ‘about the same as Jeter’ in stat wins when the ONLY stats that Jeter has ever lead in were PAs and Hits and only once. And of those two, only Hits should be considered a real ‘significant’ stat. As you yourself said, Ripken lead in all of Runs, Hits & Doubles in one monster year and also had another season where he lead in Total Bases. That’s leading the league in four significant stats to one. And beyond that, of course, Ripken dominated his positional peers most seasons during his prime.
Ernie Banks is in the Hall because he was far and away the most dominant hitting SS during his eight years at SS, during which he had FIVE seasons of 40+ HRs!!!! That was unheard of at that position.
His value did decrease after age 30 not simply because he was then playing 1B (and thus less impressive relative to other 1Bs) but also because his career numbers simply tailed off with age. He never hit more than 37 HRs after age 30 and only hit above 30 twice.
If Banks had retired at age 31, he still would have been deserving of the Hall based on those eight unbelievable years at SS.
James’ Hall of Fame Monitor test is a measure of likelyhood of getting into the HoF. It is a predictor. It says nothing about merit. And actually I totally agree with what it says about Jeter. He almost certainly will, imho, get voted into the HoF. But that will because he is famous, not through his on-field merits.
The test of merit in my opinion is that the player should have been exceptional at something of significance for some period of time. He should have shown ability beyond his peers – and that doesn’t necessarily mean against the whole league. Just demonstrate ability beyond your peers at your position. Just the fact that you hung around while better players at your position attritioned out of competion with you doesn’t make you ‘great’. Especially since other players then showed up who were still better than you.
Think of it this way. If it were Wimbledon, Jeter finished third (semifinals) or worse for 6-ish years. Then the guys he was losing to left. Then for the next few years he finished third or worse to OTHER guys except for one year when it could be argued he barely nudged out that year’s competition. And NO ONE that Jeter was coming in behind in those last few years looks at all like a Hall of Famer so its not as if he was losing to great competition.
Do we put people in the Tennis Hall of Fame for just reaching the semifinals or worse again and again for a long time?
Yes, kudos for longevity and consistency. Yes he will probably get in the Hall on the first vote. But no, he is not at all “arguably one of the best hitting SS of all time” as CasanovaWong said up above. And no, he has not really shown a ‘renasance’ with the glove – he’s still got poor range compared to his peers. And no he does not deserve to be in the Hall based on on-field merit.
by mmmmm on Nov 13, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My point was that being really good at many things is often times more valuable than being the best at one thing. Jeter has done that. He has a career OPS+ of 121, compare that to Ripken at 112 and Jeter has had a better career as hitter. Baseball is not like Tennis. It is not a series of competitions where winning once is much more valuable than getting second. In baseball you must look at their overall game. A player that is second best at OBP and SLG is probably the best hitter in the league, even though he did not lead the league in anything. Your method of judgement is flawed. You probably are one of the people that think Carlos Beltran is not very good. He is one of the best players in the league.
The point is that Derek Jeter has won many, many games for his team (I mean very high WAR). By your standards there are probably only 5 SS’s in the history of baseball that ought to be in the HoF, and it would not include Cal Ripken.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 13, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Admiral defense BT
OnceIi read that this person doesn’t think Jeets is even Hall worthy I gave up. No amount of reasoned dialogue is going to change his mind or even make him think differently.
To each his own.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 14, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some folks just have to rage against the ones that everyone else likes.
The whole world thinks someone is one of the greats? Well the whole world is WRONG!
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Nov 16, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
compare peers against peers
Ripken’s OPS has to be compared to the OPS of shortstops in his era – guys like Trammel, Larkin, Smith. Jeter’s OPS has to be compared to guys like A-Rod, Nomar, Tejada, etc.
Ripken stood out as a power hitting SS during his peak era (82-92). No other SS matched his consistent power over that time. From 1981-1996 – his whole tenure at SS, of the top HR seasons by ALL major league ShortStops, he had 5 of the top 10 individual HR seasons and 10 of the top 20!
Jeter has not demonstrated that dominance over his peers in any significant stat. He has 6 of the 20 best SS seasons of batting average by SS during his tenure and 6 of the 20 best hit totals. That’s very, very good. But not dominance.
Babe Ruth lead the league in HRs with just 11 in 1918. He then blew up the planet with 29 in 1919. Compare him to his peers, not to some joe shmoe hitting 34 in the age of steroids.
So its not very useful to note that Jeter had a career OPS+ that was better than Ripkens or even that he may have been a better overall hitter. Jeter has to be compared to his contemporaries. Otherwise we have to go back and remove players from the hall who played in the various pitching-dominated eras.
by mmmmm on Nov 16, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought OPS+ was a comparison to the yearly average OPS.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 20, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it is a 'park adjusted' stat
so in theory is comparable for players across parks & leagues.
by mmmmm on Nov 23, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Best SS's ever:
I would say they are (in no order): A-Rod, Ernire Banks, Honus Wagner, Cal Ripken, Derek Jeter, Ozzie Smith. Who else ought to be in there over Jeter?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 13, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ordering them makes no sense
You can’t compare Hans Wagner to A-Rod. They played in different eras.
All you can say is whether they were the greatest of their era.
Of the names you put up there, A-Rod, Wagner, Banks & Ripken all were clearly the best offensive shortstops of their eras. Smith was an OK hitter, but had a career Range Factor of 5.22, including some truly stellar seasons with the glove (81-83 were all above 5.8!).
Jeter has been around for a long time on some truly fantastic Yankee teams. He’s been a pretty good player.
by mmmmm on Nov 16, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So you named 5 SS better than him in the ENTIRE HISTORY of mlb
And he’s only “pretty good”. I know you’re not going to admit it but your personal feelings towards the guy are obviously clouding your judgment.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 16, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
don't misquote me
I just right above said that you shouldn’t compare across eras so I most certainly DID NOT “name 5 SS bettern than him in the ENTIRE HISTORY of mlb”.
My point was (and always has been) that Jeter simply was NOT anywhere near the dominant SS OF HIS OWN TIME. All I have to do is point out that during his own era, there have always been other SS who were better. And I did that, multiple times. During Jet’ers own time, during his BEST YEARS, A-Rod and Nomar were both clearly, dramatically better for extended periods. And after them, in Jeter’s less impressive years, Tejada, Young, Guillen and others have been better.
Please go back and read. And before you suggest that I am injecting personal feelings into my argument please note that I have used hard numbers that back up my statements. What have you provided? Nothing.
by mmmmm on Nov 17, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard numbers.
What have you provided? Nothing.
You are the only person on the planet who doesn’t think Jeter should go to the Hall of Fame. I don’t care how long a comment you type and how many numbers and acronyms you throw out, here’s the only stat that matters:
Number of people who don’t think that Derek Jeter should go to the Hall of Fame: 1
During Jet’ers own time, during his BEST YEARS, A-Rod and Nomar were both clearly, dramatically better for extended periods.
A-Rod, steroid scandal permitting, is Hall bound. Nomar likely would have been had he remained healthy. Which Young do you have as a better SS? The only Young listed on the MLB website as a SS is Del Young and he played in 1940, which is just before Jeter’s era. Michael Young? He plays 3rd base now, and so while he may have been better than Jeter during his SS year, the fact is Jeter was a SS before and after Young’s tenure. Ozzie Guillen hit no higher than .264 while Jeter was in the league, and the only other Guillens listed as current players are outfielders.
I ain’t a stats guy, so all that stuff is lost on me so don’t bother. None of us like the verbal handjobs Derek Jeter gets, but he’s a great player.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Nov 17, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1) First off, I have said repeatedly that Jeter will probably go into the HoF. He will go based on his fame. In the sense that he is famous, he by definition ‘deserves’ to be in the Hall of Fame. I am most certainly NOT the only person on the planet who doesn’t think he deserves it based on his accomplishments on the field of play.
2) When you say:
I ain’t a stats guy, so all that stuff is lost on me so don’t bother.
You effectively and clearly explained your position.
3) I want to repeat that I think Jeter has been a very good player and a huge benefit to his team. He also seems like a class act and I would have been glad to have him on the teams I root for.
But he doesn’t deserve to go to the HoF based on his on-field play.
To me, an analagous player would be Tedy Bruschi of the Patriots. A very, very good player for a long time on great teams who was most always at least among the top 10 LBs overall in the league, including a couple years probably up in the top 5. But never really in that top 3 at the position (where guys like Lewis, Urlenbacher, etc. have been). Definitely deserves to be in the Patriot’s Team Hall of Fame. But Canton? Probably not.
by mmmmm on Nov 18, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My position...
…is probably not what you think it is. I don’t hate stats, but you can “prove” or “disprove” most anything by using a whole whack of stats.
The fact of the matter is, longevity is a stat, too, and he’s been playing at an excellent level for a great many years. I will take the opinions of his peers who think he is one of the greats over someone who says that his tFIP wasn’t in the Top 3 in 4 of the 6 years A-Rod was at short. I will think back to the number of times Derek Jeter has @#$%ing burned the Sox as a judge of his skill.
And, also, I will take into consideration that 90% of the rest of the folks that frequent this site are stats-geeks, and yet you seem to be on your own with this.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Nov 19, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
his peers
voted him as most overated in 2008.
Those other stats geeks who disagree are welcome to post counter arguments.
by mmmmm on Nov 19, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because he's treated like Michael Jordan.
He’s not the best player ever, but he’s still a very good player that’s been playing for a long time.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 20, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bloggy, FIP is a pitching stat. tRA is also a pitching stat.
And if you use “the number of times Derek Jeter has @#$%ing burned the Sox as a judge of his skill”, you’re basically using a statistic of your own, combined with a little bias. Some people just a like a more imperialistic system that can be relied on to tell you what you missed.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 20, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Range factor = DO NOT WANT
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 20, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure I voted for Lester
Randy, these electronic voting machines we’re using really need to produce paper records. If there were ever, heavens forfend, a dispute, SBNation would be in real trouble…
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Nov 11, 2009 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Timmy Lincecum for High Young
Neither the poster nor the blog is proud of this comment.
by Ben Buchanan on Nov 11, 2009 1:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i think it's hilarious
+1
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Nov 11, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Greinke wins Cy Young
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091115&content_id=7669424&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
by Bloggy on Nov 17, 2009 3:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
