Jeter Worst SS According To Penn Study

[TheKilo]

Originally Posted by Gom

Damn, that was good. I guess pigs can fly now. Manny sucks in the field, so does Ortiz, and Jeter isn't that great at short. His range blows, but he's as good as I've seen at pop ups. His jump and throw at short is a normal stop and throw by a good defensive shortstop. I never said Jeter is a great fielder, but overall, offense/defense/running, etc., I'd take him over most shortstops of the game. Can we end this silly discussion yet?

By the way, Yankee fans who don't realize that he's a poor defensive player are clueless.

Agree.

[26 to 6]

Originally Posted by TheKilo

A+

F

Off the wood Tarzan

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

It is not universally accepted by the majority of Yankee fans and the mainstream baseball media that Jeter isn't good in the field, and he is touted (see the GGs et al mentioned above) as an excellent fielder.

Who said he was an excellent fielder? I refuse to call him a bad shortstop, but I sure as hell would never say he is an excellent fielder. I believe serviceable is the word I used

[MDF3530]

Originally Posted by 26 to 6

Who said he was an excellent fielder? I refuse to call him a bad shortstop, but I sure as hell would never say he is an excellent fielder. I believe serviceable is the word I used

He's as good defensively as half the SSs in the league. And half the SSs in the league are serviceable.

Like I've said before, most of the guys my age grew up watching Ozzie Smith, so he's our gold standard at SS defensively.

[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by 26 to 6

Who said he was an excellent fielder? I refuse to call him a bad shortstop, but I sure as hell would never say he is an excellent fielder. I believe serviceable is the word I used

Plenty do. You may not be one of them, but plenty do, and I include you in that group if you refuse to call him a bad SS. He ranks near the bottom in pretty much all modern defensive measures relative to the other starting SS. Relative to the typical starting SS, he is bad. This doesn't mean he's no good, and I'd take him on the Sox without hesitation. He's one of the best offensive SS playing, and his offensive ability far outweighs his defensive liability. It's just that, the offense and defense are two separate components and should be evaluated as such.

[26 to 6]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

Plenty do. You may not be one of them, but plenty do, and I include you in that group if you refuse to call him a bad SS. He ranks near the bottom in pretty much all modern defensive measures relative to the other starting SS. Relative to the typical starting SS, he is bad. This doesn't mean he's no good, and I'd take him on the Sox without hesitation. He's one of the best offensive SS playing, and his offensive ability far outweighs his defensive liability. It's just that, the offense and defense are two separate components and should be evaluated as such.

Did you really just say that since I refuse to call him a bad shortstop that it means I consider him an excellent shortstop? There is no middle ground? There is no in-between? Is this some sort of sick joke!?

[26 to 6]

Originally Posted by MDF3530

He's as good defensively as half the SSs in the league. And half the SSs in the league are serviceable.

Like I've said before, most of the guys my age grew up watching Ozzie Smith, so he's our gold standard at SS defensively.

Absolutely and rightfully so. Ozzie is a player I happen to personally admire a lot. When I was first REALLLLY getting into baseball he was winding down his career, but nonetheless he is as brilliant a defensive player as there ever was. But shooting a player's abilities down because he doesnt match up to Ozzie Smith is just flat out unfair. Not too many people can play shortstop like the Wizard.

[Gom]

His range is poor. He has a decent arm, and is phenomenal at balls in the air. The reason why Yankee fans have such a difficult time saying he is a poor fielder is because he is an excellent athlete. It doesn't seem to click in their eyes, and no one remembers the errors. Everyone remembers the flip in Oakland, or the diving in the stands against Boston [I was there, what a catch].

This is silly and stupid. It makes little difference, in one person's eyes, he's terrible, in another, he's average, etc. He's still on of the best shortstops in the game overall. This was like us saying that Nomar in his prime wasn't good. He was outright phenomenal, and for a short time, was better than Jeter. Case closed.

[jacksonianmarch]

It could be worse, we could have Julio Lugo.

[26 to 6]

Very true.

[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by 26 to 6

Did you really just say that since I refuse to call him a bad shortstop that it means I consider him an excellent shortstop? There is no middle ground? There is no in-between? Is this some sort of sick joke!?

No, it doesn't mean there is no middle ground. My point is that you won't change your opinion of him despite statistical measure to the contrary. Thus, you find yourself in the same group in my eyes.

[schillingouttheks]

Originally Posted by jacksonianmarch

It could be worse, we could have Julio Lugo.

Annnnnnnnnnnd here comes the irrelevant smartass comment? I think so.

[BudLight]

anyone, regardless of their team affiliation, cannot argue the fact that statistically, Jeter is a middle of the road shortstop, defensively. However, offensively is where he makes the difference. You can't argue with his offensive numbers throughout his career. If he were a second baseman this discussion would never take place. What amazes me the most is throughout all of these postings I have not seen the word "intangibles".

[schillingouttheks]

That's probably because most of us don't buy into "intangibles."

Depends on how you define it though.

[26 to 6]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

No, it doesn't mean there is no middle ground. My point is that you won't change your opinion of him despite statistical measure to the contrary. Thus, you find yourself in the same group in my eyes.

Very well then. In years past the numbers have swayed me from believing he was an exceptional shortstop to my current stance on him. But regardless whatever numbers you throw out there you won't get me to say he's a bad shortstop, because he simply is not. Nor is he a great shortstop. He is certainly on the lower end of the scale, but not to the point where I will label him terribly detrimental. He will play a serviceable shortstop, that's all I'm saying. I still however refuse to say he's bad, because there are far worse.

Originally Posted by BudLight

anyone, regardless of their team affiliation, cannot argue the fact that statistically, Jeter is a middle of the road shortstop, defensively. However, offensively is where he makes the difference. You can't argue with his offensive numbers throughout his career. If he were a second baseman this discussion would never take place. What amazes me the most is throughout all of these postings I have not seen the word "intangibles".

Absolutely. And with all of that being said; middle of the road shortstop, offensive success, intangibles, etc., that is a fair portrayal. However being a "middle of the road shortstop," which I will certainly acknowledge, doesn't mean he is a BAD shortstop. He very simply is not. Nor is he very good.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by BudLight

anyone, regardless of their team affiliation, cannot argue the fact that statistically, Jeter is a middle of the road shortstop, defensively.

I'll take that argument. Jeter isn't "middle of the road." Jeter sucks at defense.