Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Team of the Decade - Outfield, DH

By Dave Fleming

August 27, 2009

So far we have:

C- Jorge Posada

1B – Albert Pujols

2B – Jeff Kent

3B – Alex Rodriguez

SS – Derek Jeter

With the second team being Mauer, Helton, Utley, Chipper Jones, and Tejada.

For the outfield, I decided I wanted a center fielder, right fielder, and left fielder. None of that ‘pick the three best outfielders’ silliness. Same holds for the designated hitter: if I were designing a team, I might want the decade’s fourth-best outfielder as my designated hitter, but for this exercise a player had to actually be a designated hitter to get consideration as DH of the Decade.

Leftfield

Let’s get this over with, huh?

	OPS+	G	HR	BA	OBP	SLG
Barry Bonds	221	986	317	.322	.517	.724
Manny Ramirez	160	1325	342	.318	.419	.602
Adam Dunn	133	1253	310	.251	.385	.524
Matt Holliday	133	818	145	.319	.388	.547
Jason Bay	130	886	176	.279	.376	.517

I went down to the top-five in OPS just to get Jason Bay some love. It’s really a two-horse race.

In The Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill observed that the further you go down the defensive spectrum, the more jerks you get. Certainly, the two contenders for best Left Fielder of the Decade have done little to dispel that notion.

Had Manny not gotten suspended for using steroids this year, this might be an interesting debate. But here’s the thing: if anything, Manny’s crime is worse than what Barry did. Barry admitted to using steroids when baseball had no rules against using steroids. But Manny tested positive when steroids were against the rules. Manny’s the bigger cheater.

And, obviously, Barry’s had a tremendous decade. That’s a .517 on-base percentage folks: Barry reached base more often than he got out, for an entire decade. Even with three fewer seasons than Manny, he’s ahead on Win Shares:

	Bonds	Manny
2000	32	27
2001	54	25
2002	49	29
2003	38	28
2004	48	25
2005	2	33
2006	25	27
2007	19	14
2008	-	31
2009	-	13
Total	267	252

In fact, Barry Bonds is probably the best argument against Pujols for Player of the Decade. Win Shares:

	Pujols	Bonds
2000	-	32
2001	29	54
2002	32	49
2003	41	38
2004	37	48
2005	34	2
2006	37	25
2007	32	19
2008	34	-
2009	30	-
Total	306	267

Pujols is ahead, but it’s close. It would be closer if any team had signed Barry in 2008 or 2009. Who would you take? Pujols for ten years, or Barry for seven, plus a replacement-level corner outfielder for three years? It’d be close.

Bill wrote a great article on this site speculating that Bonds was likely to enter a steep decline in 2008. And while I think Bill was certainly correct on that point, I’m curious why no team in baseball bothered to find out. Typically, some team always ends up taking a flier on aging 40-something Hall-of-Famer. So how come no one thought Bonds and his .480 on-base percentage weren’t worth the risk?

Anyway, Barry, with his four MVP Awards, is the Left Fielder of the Decade.

Centerfield

Who are you thinking? What names pops into your head?

Beltran, Williams, Griffey, Sizemore...I thought about all of those guys. I didn’t think about Jim Edmonds. Forgot all about him, to be honest:

	OPS+	G	HR	BA	OBP	SLG
Jim Edmonds	140	1216	261	.280	.389	.548
Carlos Beltran	122	1373	249	.282	.363	.503
Grady Sizemore	122	778	128	.275	.366	.484
Bernie Williams	119	980	136	.288	.372	.466
Ken Griffey, Jr.	118	1077	225	.265	.359	.500
Milton Bradley	116	919	112	.277	.371	.450
Curtis Granderson	116	633	95	.275	.347	.487
Andruw Jones	112	1404	308	.257	.339	.493
Mike Cameron	111	1353	215	.254	.344	.458
Torii Hunter	110	1319	221	.275	.331	.481

Perhaps the most interesting player on the list is Andruw Jones. Through 2006, Jones had 262 homeruns during the decade, and had won seven consecutive Gold Glove awards. Then he fell off a cliff. Over the last three years of the decade, Jones has posted a .208/.305/.397 line, with just 46 homeruns. He still leads all center fielders in homeruns over the decade.

This one comes down to Carlos Beltran and Jim Edmonds, two supremely underrated players. Edmonds has a slight edge in on-base percentage, while Beltran has a significant edge on the base paths: we rate Beltran as having notched +290 extra bases since 2002, while Jim Edmond clocks in at -12.

Who’s a better fielder?

John Dewan’s fielding stats only go back to 2004, so there is a strong biased towards Beltran. We get 487 games of Edmonds in centerfield, 802 games for Beltran.

	Beltran		Edmonds
	Enhanced +/-	Runs Saved	Enhanced +/-	Runs Saved
2004	+10	6	-25	-14
2005	+4	2	-6	-3
2006	+11	6	+2	1
2007	+24	13	-11	-6
2008	+25	14	-25	-14
2009	+7	4	-	-
Total	+81	+45	-65	-36

We get the tail end of Edmond’s career set against the peak of Beltran’s career, which isn’t quite fair to Jim Edmonds. That said, Edmonds did win a Gold Glove in 2004 and 2005, a two year stretch over which Beltran made 46 more plays and saved his team twenty more runs.

I don’t know if Beltran was a bettercenter fielder than Jim Edmonds, but I’m confident that he was a better fielder over this decade that Jim Edmonds was.

Edmonds has a slight edge as a hitter. But Beltran is the better defensive player, and a far better player on the bases. Is it enough?

Win Shares says it is:

	Beltran	Edmonds
2000	5	29
2001	27	30
2002	20	29
2003	28	21
2004	29	33
2005	21	25
2006	34	11
2007	25	9
2008	29	11
2009	12	-
Total	230	198

It’s a close call. Forced to choose, I’ll take the five-tool guy. Carlos Beltran is the Center Fielder of the decade, by a hair over Jim Edmonds.

Right Field

A lot of right fielders have had terrific decades. The top dozen of the decade, by the quick n’ dirty measure of OPS+:

	OPS+	G	HR	BA	OBP	SLG
Vladimir Guerrero	147	1395	311	.324	.393	.573
Sammy Sosa	142	945	273	.282	.372	.570
Larry Walker	139	690	121	.315	.421	.562
Brian Giles	136	1407	209	.289	.400	.494
Bobby Abreu	132	1537	212	.298	.403	.493
Magglio Ordonez	132	1315	227	.314	.377	.522
J.D. Drew	130	1196	189	.284	.394	.502
Shawn Green	121	1235	209	.281	.361	.489
Andre Ethier	120	542	69	.295	.366	.493
Nick Markakis	120	588	74	.301	.371	.478
Brad Hawpe	119	696	105	.286	.377	.500
Ichiro Suzuki	118	1395	81	.333	.378	.434

A couple quick comments:

-Larry Walker, like Todd Helton, has a huge home/road split during his career: .348/.431/.637 at home, .278/.370/.495 on the road. Putting that in context with historical right fielders, Larry Walker was Babe Ruth in Coors, Dwight Evans away from it.

It will be interesting to see how history judges Larry Walker. There are two strikes against him: one that he compiled his numbers in the best offensive environment in baseball history; and two, he did this during the so-called ‘steroid era.’ He was a heckuva player, though: a great outfielder and some kind of hitter. I always thought he was a Hall-of-Fame player.

-Brian Giles has had a quietly terrific decade. Sort of the antithesis of Larry Walker: Giles has spent the better part of the decade playing in a lousy park for hitters, and his numbers don’t do justice to how good of a hitter he he’s been. Of course, a few off-the-field lowlights make it tough to root for the guy.

-Bobby Abreu does very well on the list. He’s played more games than any other right fielder, and ranks fifth in OPS+. He’s second in stolen bases, second in on-base percentage, first in walks, first in runs, fifth in homeruns, and third in hits. That’s impressive: he might not be the best right fielder of the decade, but he’s been pretty good.

-J.D. Drew has been a fine, under-rated player, but it’ll be neck-and-neck as to whether or not he passes Shawn Green in games played this decade. Ethier, Markakis, and Hawpe are early candidates for the next decade.

Some great candidates, but the race for Right Fielder of the Decade comes down to Ichiro or Vlad, two of the most wonderfully unique and memorable players of the last ten years. I love Albert Pujols, but he isn’t anywhere near as fun to watch as Vlad and Ichiro.

Vlad and Ichiro have some similarities:

-They were both born in foreign countries.

-They are both right-handed throws, and both have terrific arms.

-Both have won MVP awards this decade.

-As of this writing, they have each played 1395 games this decade.

-They both have unique approaches to hitting, and

-They are both known by their first name.

They have differences, too. Obviously.

Vlad is a power-hitter, and one of those rare hitters (Berra, Clemente) who will hit anything a pitcher throws, and hit it hard. He walks maybe 55 times a year, and half of those walks are intentional. As a younger player, he tried to steal bases, but he got caught stealing a fair bit. He’s never won a Gold Glove, but he has 127 career assists from the outfield.

(Here’s a quick question: do you think, when the opposition decides to intentionally walk Vlad, that the catcher has to make it a point to tell Guerrero that they’re going outside? I mean, if I were a catcher, I’d mention it to him. “Hey Vlad, we’re giving up. We’re going way outside on the next four. Just thought I’d mention that.”)

Ichiro’s approach to hitting baseballs was something utterly unique in the game: when he swings, his front leg comes back almost over his back leg and then sweeps it out, and he drags his back leg forward as the bat comes over the plate. It’s a contact/speed swing: he makes solid contact and his body is already in motion towards first base when the bat makes contact.

Back in his first years in the Japanese league, Ichiro’s swing was, if you can believe it, far more exaggerated than it is now: there is a clip on youtube from 1995, where Ichiro swings his front leg back to where it is almost over his back kneecap, before he swings it forward again. It’s amazing to see.

As a base runner, Ichiro has been remarkable: since turning 30, he has stolen 218 bases in 259 attempts, an 84% success rate. He was 45-for-47 in stolen base attempts in 2006, and 43-for-47 in 2008. He is almost certainly the best base runner of the decade: according to our site, Ichiro is +297 bases as a base runner since 2002, netting his team an average of 37 extra bases a year. He’s a hair ahead of Carlos Beltran, who clocks in at +290 bases. As an outfielder, Ichiro has won a Gold Glove every year he has been in the major leagues.

	1B	2B+3B	HR	BB	SB	BA	OBP	SLG
Vlad	1053	348	311	561	147	.324	.393	.573
Ichiro	1617	290	81	404	339	.333	.378	.434

The difference is obvious: Ichiro gets more singles and stolen bases, but Vlad rates an edge in extra-base hits and walks.

Here are their singles, doubles, triples, and homeruns, translated as a percentage of their plate appearances:

	1B	2B+3B	HR	BB
Vlad	17%	5.4%	4.8%	8.7%
Ichiro	27%	4.9%	1.4%	6.8%

Ichiro hits a single in 10% more plate appearances than Ichiro. But Vlad gains a half-percentage point in doubles and triples, three and a half points in homeruns, and another two percentage points in walks.

As base runners, Ichiro is way ahead of Vlad: since 2002, Ichiro is +297 bases, Vlad is -89. That’s a difference of 386 bases in eight years, or almost 45 extra bases in favor of Ichiro.

Win Shares has it at an even draw. Dead-even.

	Vlad	Ichiro
2000	29	-
2001	23	36
2002	28	26
2003	18	23
2004	27	27
2005	27	22
2006	24	24
2007	29	33
2008	22	19
2009	5	22
Total	232	232

And that’s with Ichiro missing the 2000 season. During the nine seasons when they went head-to-head, Ichiro leads in four seasons, Vlad in three, with two draws.

Clutch hitting, again from our site, since 2002:

	BA	OBP	SLG
Vlad	341	441	655
Ichiro	311	388	407

Who you want? The big power hitter or the singles hitter with speed and defense?

One way to answer this question is to consider this All-Decade team as a team: which kind of player do you need more?

You have Posada, Pujols, Kent, A-Rod, Jeter, Bonds, and Beltran, and whoever ends up as the DH.

None of those players are obvious leadoff hitters: if you went with Vlad, you’d have to slot Jeter in the leadoff spot.

As a defensive team, you have strong positives at first and center, but only neutral players at third, and catcher. In left you have the bobble-headed version of a good left fielder, plus two huge liabilities at second and shortstop. This is a team that is going to be terrible at turning the double play. It might help to have a right fielder cutting down balls on the line.

Is it a fast team? Well, Beltran is a terrific runner, and Rodriguez and Jeter run a fair bit. But Bonds was slowing down, and Posada and Kent aren’t anyone’s idea of ‘fast.’ Pujols might be a good base runner, but he’s not a fast runner.

It’s tough to ignore the fact that Vlad has fifteen points in on-base average and one-hundred and forty points in slugging percentage. Were I drafting just one player, I’d stick with the big bopper. But for this team, I’ll take Ichiro.

Designated Hitter

	G	HR	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS+
Jim Thome	1345	368	272	400	565	148
Travis Hafner	798	160	282	388	531	140
Ellis Burks	450	91	299	376	536	139
Edgar Martinez	668	111	295	401	499	138
David Ortiz	1305	299	283	378	554	136
Frank Thomas	951	220	273	387	528	136
Jack Cust	459	83	240	376	458	125
Mike Sweeney	996	163	301	371	499	122

A little confession: Jim Thome should probably be listed among the first basemen. He played 728 games at first, 575 as a designated. By years end it will probably be 728 at first, 625 as a designated hitter. At decade’s end, Jim Thome will have been a DH for 46% of the decade, a first basemen for 54%. I should’ve listed him as a first basemen, where he’d rank behind Pujols and probably Helton, and neck-and-neck with Jason Giambi.

So why didn’t I?

A few reasons: first, I think of Thome as a designated hitter. It’s just what pops into my head. Second, I wanted some competition for David Ortiz. It’d be a boring section, otherwise. Third: I didn’t want anyone to gripe that I was showing any kind of Red Sox bias by leaving Thome out of the discussion, all because of four lousy percentage points.

With due respect to Thomas, Martinez, and Hafner, the debate is between Ortiz and Thome. By the metrics above, Thome is ahead: he has played more games, and he has a higher batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and adjusted OPS than Ortiz.

That said, Ortiz has a few advantages. Let’s go ahead through them:

-Better finishes in the MVP vote.The writers of this decade have routinely thought of David Ortiz as one of the most valuable players in the game. He finished in the top-five in the MVP vote for five consecutive seasons, finishing 5^th, 4^th, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th, between 2003 to 2007. Thome, too, has appeared on five MVP ballots, but he hasn’t done as well, finishing 4^th, 7^th, 7^th, 12^th, and 19^th.

-More appearances on the All-Star team. Ortiz had played in five All-Star games this decade, starting on three of those teams. Thome has played in two All-Star games, neither time as a starter.

-More Silver Slugger Awards.The Silver Slugger, voted on by managers and coaches, has been awarded to Ortiz four times this decade. Jim Thome won zero Silver Sluggers over the decade.

Those three are subjective measures. I mention them because it is telling, I think, that the fans, writers, managers, and coaches have routinely selected Ortiz as the better player this decade.

-More playoff experience, and better numbers in the playoffs.David Ortiz has played in 63 postseason games this decade, and has posted a .293/.401/.543 line in those games. His teams have played in thirteen postseason series and have won nine of those contests. He has played in two World Series, posting a .321/.444/.571 line, and his team won both of those contests.

Jim Thome has played in exactly two postseasons this decade, ALDS loses in 2001 and 2008. He hit .143 over those contests, with a correspondently low on-base and slugging percentage.

-Better clutch numbers in the regular season.Our clutch stats (going back to 2002) show that David Ortiz has been a far better hitter in clutch situations than Jim Thome:

	AB	HR	BA	OBP	SLG
Thome	419	26	.239	.386	.477
Ortiz	551	45	.299	.397	.624

Over their careers, Ortiz has been better than Thome in situations where there are 2-outs and runners in scoring positions, and in ‘late and close’ situations, which are situations when ‘the batting team is tied, ahead by one, or with the tying run at least on deck, in the 7^th inning or later’ (from baseball-reference.com):

2 outs, RISP	PA	HR	BA	OBP	SLG
Thome	935	59	.256	.435	.504
Ortiz	752	37	.282	.408	.550
Late & Close
Thome	1146	70	.253	.388	.491
Ortiz	834	44	.271	.376	.542

There is one final element that I am hesitant to mention, but I think it deserves some attention. Jim Thome, by all accounts, is a nice, well-liked guy.

But David Ortiz...his contributions to the Red Sox go beyond just thenumbers. I can’t really explain it, and conviction probably isn’t enough to sway this audience, but if any player can actually contribute positively to the spirit or psyche of a baseball team, then David Ortiz has done that for Boston.

I was watching the Sunday night game, Sox versus Yankees. Ortiz was on the bench. At one point in the ninth inning, Joe Morgan or Steve Phillips, whoever was filling the role of talking jackass for that minute of the broadcast, started griping that Ortiz should be pinch-hitting. As they said it, the camera panned over to the Sox dugout, where Ortiz was leaning over the railing.

You might have seen that and thought, “Isn’t that great, how Ortiz is watching the pitcher.” You might have thought he was stretching his legs, getting ready to come to bat if a few more runners got on.

Here’s the thing: that’s where Ortiz spends most games. Make it a point to watch it some time: he is almost always leaning on the railing or moving around in the dugout making small-talk with the other guys on the team.

Years ago, I was gifted a few seats directly behind the Red Sox dugout. Front row seats, just astonishing seats. It was a game against Texas, and Ortiz was benched because there was a lefty, and he had some nagging injury. It was a meaningless summer game, a make-up of a rain-out against a crummy club, and Ortiz, who wasn’t in the lineup, spent the better part of the last six innings leaning on the railing, or popping in and out of the dugout.

I watched him, in part because how do you not watch David Ortiz, especially when he’s ten feet away; a great, disembodied head peeking over the concrete dugout. He looked like he was having the goddamned time of his life, like the most he wanted in the world was to be sitting there chatting it up with whoever was waiting to go out to hit. When the game got close, he got serious, acted like the fate of the season rested on Wily Mo Pena’s ability to get a crucial hit. And when Pena delivered that hit, Ortiz cheered as loud as the rest of us.

When people talk about Derek Jeter being a leader, I sort of shut it out. If he was such a leader, I wonder why the hell he didn’t he shift over to third when the Yankees acquired a better shortstop? Isn’t that a ‘leadership’ thing, sacrificing your ego for the good of the team?

And sometimes it seems that all it takes to be a leader in New York is to keep your mouth shut most of the time and stay off the back pages. DiMaggio was the same way; people rave about Joe DiMaggio being some mythic ‘quiet leader,’ but the guy sounded like hell to be around. I’d rather have Mantle.

David Ortiz, I don’t know if he is a ‘leader.’ But he is, I think, a man whose personality is so expansive that it fosters a sense of unity on a team. It’s something that can’t be measured, but if I had to guess, I’d guess that David Ortiz has added more to the Red Sox than just his statistics suggest.

Am I going to take Ortiz over Thome? I am. Jim Thome is a great player. But this has been some decade for Big Papi. I’ll take Ortiz as my designated hitter.

Dave Fleming is a writer living in Iowa City, IA. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com.

COMMENTS (24 Comments, most recent shown first)

hankgillette
Re: Jeter - I guess the question to me is, why didn't Jeter move to second when ARod came to the Yankees? It seems to be the obvious place to put someone who is the second-best shortstop on the team and whose arm isn't strong enough for third.
2:04 AM Nov 27th

jollydodger
Rational, valid thoughts all the way through the article....until the end. You held a man-crush Big Papi love-fest out of nowhere. Bizarre. Why trust the numbers position-by-position until you get to DH?
10:34 PM Nov 4th

ha5012ar
At the conclusion of the 2009 season Ichiro had 28.5 win shares to Vlad's 7.34, which puts Ichiro ahead for the decade. Another edge Ichiro has over Vlad is that Ichiro has grounded into 43 double plays during the decade to Vlad's 191 (about 5 per season for Ichiro to Vlad's 19), and reached base on errors 88 times to Vlad's 60. Vlad's OBP at the end of the 2009 season was .386, but Ichiro's OBP understates his real value (he accounts for fewer outs than the stat in isolation suggests).
1:38 AM Oct 13th

mikeclaw
Kev -
I understand that you're saying the competition in the postseason is better and therefore the performances are more impressive. Of course, the sample sizes are also smaller in the postseason.
At any rate, I give some credence to your point. But at the same time, I took about 45 seconds to find several other players who did the exact same thing ... matched their regular season production during postseason play ... but who never were granted Jeter's reputation for greatness in the postseason and in the clutch. It's just not that rare for a player, great or otherwise, to duplicated his regular-season numbers in the postseason.

Again, I say, Jeter has been a great player in the postseason. We should expect this, since he is - after all - a great player. But because he's Derek Jeter, his performance in the postseason is constantly remarked upon and held us as further proof of his greatness. Again, to use the first comparison that leapt to my mind ... Bernie Williams was just as good a player as Derek Jeter, but no one ever thought of him that way. And like Jeter, he duplicated his great regular season numbers in the postseason. But no one ever called him Mr. October or talked about his ability to lift his game to another level in the postseason. Because he doesn't have that magical aura about him that Jeter has.
12:42 PM Sep 4th

Kev
Well, Mike , you worked hard, as did I, but we've found little to agree on, and much to disagree on. Thanks for the attempt at Rtot.
Can't leave w/o one last comment: The reason Jeter's and anyone else's same or higher level in postseason is praiseworthy is: if you hit against P.U.Tech and went 8 for 10 in the regular season, and then played your opposing league's champion and went 8 for 10 again, doesn't that performance against a much higher opponent raise your stature?
Yanks vs 11 so-so to awful teams: excellent numbers. Then,
Yanks vs NL chamion: same excellent numbers
Don't you see the difference? Upgrade in competition, your numbers constant(or better).
12:03 PM Sep 4th

mikeclaw
Kev -
The math involved in developing statistics like RTOT is, I confess, over my head. I've read the stories that introduced them, explained their derivation and how they were tested, and I understood enough to be convinced of their accuracy, but I did not understand it enough to explain it myself. But what it comes down to is this ... a statistic like range factor measures how many plays a guy makes, which is a good thing to know, but it is also heavily influenced by factors like how many lefty pitchers are on his staff, how many fly-ball or ground-ball pitchers are on his staff, how big the foul territory is in his home park, etc. To use two obvious examples, the historical analysis of the fielding stats of Lajoie and Ashburn has shown the dangers of judging a player's defensive range based solely on range factor. Stats like RTOT take in a wide variety of factors to put defensive stats in their context. The stats aren't perfect, but they are much more accurate than a simple count of how many plays someone made.

Jeter ... I don't dislike him at all, and I believe he is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He'd have my vote. But you and I are in disagreement about a lot of things here. You're right, not everyone hustles as much as Jeter does. But the fact is, I would say the majority of players do. I would say the majority of players work hard and hustle, so I find it hard to give Jeter a huge amount of credit for doing what lots of other players do and what should be expected of them. Also, you say you haven't heard announcers (and others) talking about Jeter's amazing character when he make a good play. I don't know what to say. I think it's epidemic. When another player makes a big play in a clutch situation, it's a good play. When Jeter does the same thing, it's just more proof of his brilliance and his leadership and that fact that he has this ability to take his game to another level in the clutch. I don't buy it. I think it should be enough to just say he's a great player and not bestow upon his these mystical abilities to "take his game to another level" and "make everyone around him better" and stuff like that. You say you don't hear people saying that about Jeter. OK. I do. I hear it a lot.

The question isn't "Would the Yankees be better with Jeter at third?" The question is "Would the Yankees be better with A-Rod at short?" Shortstop is probably the most important defensive position in baseball. It is more important defensively than third base. Last time I checked, a strong arm was pretty damn important at shortstop too. But you seem to be arguing that the Yankees would be hurt by Jeter's weak throwing arm at third, so they had no choice but to keep his weak throwing arm at shortstop. That makes no sense. You say the Yankees wouldn't want to offend their fans by moving an icon off of shortstop -- again, isn't this a bad thing? That Jeter's iconic stature is more important than the team's chances for success? That keeping Jeter at shortstop, whatever the reason, is more important than winning ballgames?

So now when I point out to you that Jeter's postseason stats are identical to his regular season stats, you say that is itself a sign of postseason greatness. This is bizarre logic to me -- that if a guy hits the same in the postseason as he does in the regular season, it's actually a sign that he is playing better. Makes no sense to me, but it makes sense to you, so OK. I just looked for a handful of other players who had extensive postseason experience, a large enough sample size to have some relevance. Bernie Williams, who was every bit as great a player as Jeter, also duplicated his regular season stats in the postseason. Yogi Berra basically duplicated his regular season stats in the postseason. Lou Brock and Duke Snider, who were pretty darn great players during the regular season, actually hit far BETTER in the postseason. They must really be amazing. A-Rod's postseason OPS is .844, basically identical to Jeter's .846, though Jeter is considered a brilliant postseason player and A-Rod is considered a postseason choker. (Of course, you would say that even though they have identical OPS numbers in the postseason, Jeter's are actually far better because A-Rod's regular season stats are so much better.)

Look, I'm not knocking Jeter at all. I'm not. He is a great player, in the regular season and the postseason. He is a smart player, and I have no doubt he is a good leader and a fine teammate. But a cult has grown around him that demands that we ignore his shortcomings and exaggerate his personal greatness with broad claims that he hustles more, works harder, plays smarter, leads better and elevates his teammates more than anyone else. It should be enough to say he's a great player, but it isn't. Again, you say you haven't heard these things said about him. I don't know what to tell you. I have, a lot.

10:02 AM Sep 4th

Kev
Mike,

I concede the point on the degree of Jeter's poor fielding unconditionally to you. He's bad. And as you suggested, I looked deeper. Here are the Rtot figures for several active shortstops who have significant playing time. (Baseball Reference.com considers rtot to be the most comprehensive of a gaggle of defensive stats). I felt this was a good enough sample for our purposes:
Vizquel........127.7
Everett.........68.1
Rollins.........47
Furcal........ .36.9
O. Cabrera......23
A. Gonzalez.....18
J. Wilson........6.6
Bartlett.........1.6
Renteria........ -10.3
Tejada.......... -40.7
Jeter........... -122.6

An exhaustive run through SS of the past 10-15 yrs. probably wouldn't alter things much.

However, how does Tejada's -40.7 rtot square with his RF/9 of 4.65? If rtot is the most compehensive stat,(baseball reference.com) how can it absorb such a serious flaw as a conventional 4.65 RF/9? John Dewan injects his plus/minus system (Jeter rankes 31st) with no mention of rtot, and Bill James says Win Shares is not intended to compare players.
a) can you explain the derivation of rtot, and how it has earned such high regard from BR.com?
b) is it possible that so many systems working independently (like cancer research) muddy rather than clear the picture?
c) this is no longer about Jeter; I must say the degree of his low status across the board was lower than I had expected. But I do question the accuracy of these different metrics.

Comments on the balance of your note:
1. you are either naive or suffering from an anti-Jeter bias if you really believe all players play as hard as he. Many do, but not most. On the Yankees Damon does, but Cano could benefit from emulating Jeter (or Damon). And how many times have you said "if he had busted out of fhe box to start with, he could have made second"? Yes, most players play hard, but not all, and not as hard as they could. Say what you will about Rose...And Rowand and Torii come to mind.
2. You claim that when players other than Jeter make a great play, it's called a "great play", but when Jeter makes a similar play it's termed proof of his "character". Mike, that's simply preposterous, and your bias is getting
silly. I have NEVER heard such a stupid statement (and I'm not for a second attributing it to you.)
3. I'm not comparing A-Rod to Jeter.
4. If you don't believe the Yankees would be weaker with Jeter at 3rd, you had better start believing it. Jeter's arm absolutely precludes his playing 3rd. It
won't happen. A move to the OF may help, but the Yanks may not want to confront their fans by moving an icon (though they do have Yount to fall back on). But again, not Jeter's fault. It's either SS or nothing (and hope the decline is slow.)
5. Nothing special about extending great numbers into the postseason. No? Think a moment: a possible 21 games against the game's best teams and under the pressure of the World Series compared to at least 100 games against mediocre to seriously lousy teams. You can't equate them them. Jeter's postseason numbers should drop; it's to his credit that he maintains them.
Mike, I'm serious about asking for some definition or derivation of rtot. And once again, no offense was intended by any remarks above.
Kev

1:33 AM Sep 4th

mikeclaw
Kev-
You cite fielding average and range factor, both of which are fine but very limited. The more advanced fielding stats, like zone ratings and fielding runs above/below average, and like defensive win shares, show Jeter to be well below average. Not slightly below, but well below. Again, I didn't call him "awful." That might be too harsh. But I do think he is a poor defensive shortstop.

As you point out, he has a weak arm. That's a big problem for a shortstop. I think he makes it worse by trying to make too many "jump" throws instead of quickly planting his feet and firing to get more on the throw. Playing shallow narrows the "defensive cone" he can cover. It's a real problem. You're right that he has good hands and that he's a good judge of shallow pops that aren't easy plays. If you say he's good at making the toss on the 6-4-3, I'll believe you. But he doesn't have the arm to be an effective shortstop, and nothing that he's doing is making up for that.

I have no reason to believe that he was asked to move and refuse. I think it's more likely that the image of "Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter" is so firmly set that the idea of asking him to move never came up. That's a problem. I still reject your idea that the Yankees moved A-Rod to third because they truly believed it made their defense better. I don't believe that for a second. If they believe that, they are mistaken. They have a below-average shortstop and signed a much better one, but they chose to stick with the below-average one. It's a bad decision. I don't blame Jeter for it, but it's a bad decision. I would guess that it's costing them a few games a year, and considering how tight playoff races can be, a few games is a lot.

The things you point out about Jeter's character are largely true. You know what's wrong, though? They're true about most players. Basically, you say that he plays hard every day -- well, don't most players? It's very common for people to talk about how different Jeter is than A-Rod, but I don't see anything that makes me believe that Jeter plays any harder or prepares any better than A-Rod. Jeter is willing to crash into the stands to make plays? Great. How often does that come up? It's a couple of plays a year, and again, I think most players are willing to do that. When another player crashes into the stands to make a catch, the announcers say it was a great play. When Jeter does the same thing, they say it's proof of his character.

That's the problem, this isn't a few misguided twits doing this. It's a nation of broadcasters, talk show hosts and newspaper columnists. They carry a lot of influence, and the proof is that millions of people believe them.

You cite his postseason stats, which are very good. In fact, they are identical to his regular season stats. His postseason OPS is .846 and his career regular season OPS is .847. Can't get much closer than that. But his reputation is a guy who "takes it to another level in October." He's a great player who continues to play great in the postseason. There's a lot to be said for that. But if a guy hits exactly the same in the postseason as he does in the regular season, then why should we act like he's an amazing postseason player?

9:19 AM Sep 3rd

Kev
Mike,

I'm sorry my reply took so long, but the original I sent Tues. obviously never reached its destination since it hasn't shown up under yours. I'll try to summarize its content:
...you term Jeter an "awful shortstop", but offer no evidence.
In fact, Jeter's career stats:
Fielding Pct.: .976; League Fielding Pct. 972
Range Factor per 9 innings: 4.16; League RF per 9 innnings: 4.56, and
Range Factor per Game: 4.02; League RF per Game: 4.09
This tells me that far from being awful, Jeter is better than the League Avg. in an insignificant category, virtually even in a significant category, and well below average in a significant category. You offer "Awful" and "Gold Gloves" as if there is nothing in between, and claim Jeter is closer to awful. We know Gold Gloves are basically meaningless, as about as revelatory as the servile New York media in its worship of Jeter. Lets look at Tejada:
Fielding Pct.: .972; League: .944
RF per 9 innings: .465; League: .455
RF per Game: 4.51; League: 4.09
This tells me that Tejada is an excellent SS, and well above Jeter.

Let's look quickly at the flaws in Jeter which are ignored by his apologists:
...the most serious, to me, is playing shalllow (sometimes on the infield dirt, to compensate for a weak arm. This is a serious weakness, and explains his poor Range grade. He has quick hands, but slow feet. Also, you and Dave were the first to my knowledge to suggest (or rather wildly speculate) that Jeter either refused a request to move to 3rd, or wasn't asked, and as a leader, should have volunteered. Maybe he did--we don't know. What I've understood from sources is that those concerned, including Jeter, considered him more of a liability at 3b (because of the weak arm) and decided to use A-Rod, the superior fielder at both positions, at 3b and live with Jeter at ss. (They've lived fairly well so far). And honestly, kmowing the kind of character Jeter has always displayed, do you really think he would refuse a move that would benefit his team? Highly unlikely.
...Jeter's strengths include an unwavering determination to play hard every game, evwry year unless injured; the ability to refuse to allow batting slumps to affect his fielding, the willingness to crash the stands with no regard for physical safety, excellent tracking and judgement running down "tweeners" in short left field, almost always hitting Cano with a chest-high pass on 6-4-3 DP's, playing with smarts, and rarely being caught out of position. These are the trasemarks of a captain--setting a standard to which his teammates could aspire, and being the person they would attempt to emulate. Hitting aside, I think most managers would take Jeter as is in a heartbeat.
... What I can't understand is professional analysts as well as we who participate and enjoy their skills (speaking for myself), are hoodwinked by mercenary twits who are paid to promote. They claim Jeter is underrated, we have kittens. A true analyst should simply ignore these idiots. Actually, I think you look a bit silly barking at those who don't even know what you're talking about.
And as regards leadership, and since Jeter is the captain (leader), even though this isn't about fielding, I feel compelled ro offer this as leadership:
Career Postseason Batting for Jeter:
12 seasons, 25 series: .309/.377/.469/.846. Is this not worthy of a captain?
Finally I offer this on Jeter as ss: slightly below average, rock-solid. Take it or leave it.
...None of this was meant to offend you in any way. I consider us fortunate to have this site on which we may do battle, join forces, or both. I put this together piecemeal and in haste--the original didn't survive. Hope this does

2:57 AM Sep 3rd

mikeclaw
Kev - Not to answer for Fleming, 'cause he's perfectly capable, but I will offer my two cents' worth ...

1.) Jeter is not a good defensive shortstop. In fact, he's a pretty poor one. By any advanced statistical analysis, he's well below average. Whether it's appropriate to use the word "awful" ... well, that's a matter of debate ... but it's more appropriate to call him awful than it is to give him Gold Gloves. You are correct in stating that we don't know whether Torre asked Jeter to move off shortstop to accommodate A-Rod. But it would have clearly been the right move, so if Torre DIDN'T ask Jeter to move, it was because Jeter is considered so untouchable that he can't be asked to make any sort of change, even if it's for the good of the team, and if that's the case, then that is a negative intangible. Your suggestion that Jeter stayed at short because he wasn't quick enough to play third makes no sense. A-Rod was a good shortstop. Jeter was, and still is, a poor one. The decision to move A-Rod to third reflects either that Jeter refused to move, or that the Yankees were afraid to ask him. That's not a good thing.

2.) Of course intangibles count. No one in his right mind would suggest otherwise. The problem is that a lot of people use intangibles as, to use Bill James' phrase, "a bullshit dump." I'm not directing this at you. I'm talking about a lot of people in general. If you're arguing in favor of a particular player and the statistics don't back you up, then you cite "intangibles" and say that they explain his greatness. It doesn't work that way. If you want to cite "intangibles," then you have to say specifically what it is that he brings to the team (positive or negative) that can't be measured tangibly, and then explain how it helps (or hurts) the team. More often than not, people who cite "intangibles" are greatly exaggerating their value. Not that they don't have value -- but if you offer me a mediocre player with great intangibles, or a really good player with no intangibles, I'll take the good player every time. Using Jeter as an example ... he's a great player, a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But his defense is poor, and people who want to argue otherwise have no logical counter-argument to the statistical evidence, so they say his defensive intangibles are outstanding. I have no doubt he's a smart player and a good teammate and a leader. But, hell, it's not like he's Gandhi, and if it's true that the feud between Jeter and A-Rod has had a negative impact on the team's chemistry, doesn't Jeter deserve at least a third of the blame for that? He is considered to be this amazing Octobr player, but the truth is, he hits the same in the postseason as he does during the regular season, and if he truly has the ability to make those around him better, then why has he failed to lift a roster full of teammates who are ALREADY all-stars to a World Series title in the past eight years?

In short, yes, intangibles count, but not as much as people make them out. And, yes, Jeter is a truly great player - but people have the tendency to lay it on pretty thick.

11:19 AM Sep 1st

Kev
Dave,

This is Kev, whose reply to your article calling Jeter an "awful" shortstop you were kind enough to answer, and refer me to your Team of fhe Decade article where you discuss intangibles simce I put so much stock in them, and felt that you didn't. Don't take this personally, please, but:... You claim Jeter is an "awful" (fielding only) SS, but the "fielding only" part is obscured by the much more sexy "awful", and has stuck, unfairly,to Jeter. His leadership? You say that that too is mythic because he refused to move to 3B when a better SS arrived. Dave: 1) we don't know if he was asked, but knowing Jeter, if he were, do you honestly think he would have refused? You advance, with no evidence, that which fits your arguement. And 2) you offer an alignment option of A-Rod, the better SS, as SS, and, without a thought for the the ramifications, move the "awful" SS to 3B. Isn't the more logical move to install A-Rod, the superior FIELDER, at 3B, and disturb the infield as little as necessary? I think that was Jeter's view. Bad leadership? Piazza refusing a known request to move to 1B until he broke the HR record for catchsrs sets that standard, followed by Ripken's Ahab-like quest fot the record, no matter how many sub .260 years it took. If not for the record, should Rip even be in the HOF? How many players of his era could carry 9 or 10 sub-.260 seasons in with them? Ripken could have been a great, great SS if he put team and winning first. And I simply reject "awful" as applied to Jeter's fielding, and suspect you do too in calmer snd less frustrating moments. The high and mighty NY media considers itself just so very Now, and that all other voices are provincial, or "don't get it". And they fawn over Jeter. Send Luca Brasi to them; what has Jeter done to set you off? Jeter sets the standard for leadership and intangibles by playing SS every day he's able, every year, with grace, and plays hard on every play, whether he's hitting .220 or .320. And for those who reject intangibles, what justifies the vitriol heaped upon Belle and Allen? Certainly not their stats. Can't have it both ways. I doubt if there is a more respected player in the league than Jeter. Big Papi having some fun is good, love it. But it isn't leadership. A am a Yankee fan since they did it to the Sox on that weekend in 1949, saw Paige pitch in the (real) stadium in 1948, and was born in and love the city with all of its crap, served up in abundance daily, but not strong enough to outdo its (for me) transcendent greatness. And withal, I claim objectivity. Thanks.

. And for those who don't put stock in intangibles, then why the vitriol always aimed at Allen and Belle. Finally, as if imparting the ultimate imprimatur on a section on Jeter, you attach him to the NY media. Just like everyone else does. What took you so long, and what does Papi's good teammate example have to fo with Jeter? Does it imply that Jeter, in addition to being an "awful" SS, just might measure up to Big Papi as a leader. You can't be saying that, can you.?
3:05 AM Sep 1st

mikeclaw
I believe Bobby Abreu deserves more consideration in the right field discussion. That .400 on-base percentage looks pretty good from where I'm standing.
11:37 AM Aug 31st

evanecurb
Time for some criticism and disagreement:

If we are using the arbitrary cut off of the years 2000-2009, then those guys who didn't appear at all in seasons need to be discounted to a greater extent. Using this criteria, Vlad beats out Ichiro because of the 2000 season. Same for Thome over Ortiz, although I would have liked you to have thrown Giambi into the mix. If anyone ever fielded like a DH, it was Jason. And what about Manny vs. Barry? Bonds didn't play in 2008 or 2009, and he was injured for most of another year (was it '04 or '05? don't remember), then played about 2/3 of the time in '07. So we have six and a half years of Barry vs. ten of Manny. I'll take Manny.

I agree on Beltran, though I, like you, was surprised to see him rank so high.

Great series and keep 'em coming. Be careful with your selective use of criteria, though. You have read Bill's articles enought to know that it doesn't really matter whether or not you have a true leadoff hitter.

Most astounding data point in the entire series is that Vlad's OBP is higher then Ichiro's.
10:02 PM Aug 30th

chisox
For a couple of years now I've been saying it's time for the Hawk to retire.
9:09 PM Aug 28th

DaveFleming
Hawkisms....to be honest I sometimes have to hit the mute button to get through his broadcasts. He's the most 'homer' of any TV broadcaster I've seen: he constantly refers to the White Sox as 'good guys' and makes a lot of passively snide comments about the opposing players. I know most people who watch Hawk are White Sox fans, but for people like me, who just want to watch some baseball, the rabid homerism gets annoying very quickly.

(And I can't stand it whenever Hawk yells "He gone!" everytime a White Sox pitcher gets a strikeout. He gone! He gone! Ugh.)
6:42 PM Aug 28th

chisox
Dave,

You live in Iowa, get the White Sox on basic cable, and use "plum forgot." You've just got to give me a "Dadgummit!" to complete the cycle (that would be "Hawkisms for a thousand, Alex" in Baseball Jeopardy).

--Chisox

3:36 PM Aug 28th

DaveFleming
Thortiz....and Vladchiro in right: Ichiro in the field and in the leadoff spot, Vlad when the batting order gets all mixed up.
2:51 PM Aug 28th

chuck
The right fielders are a tough call. I'd probably go with Ichiro, too, but here are the offensive win-loss shares for some of the candidates over the decade:
Sheffield 155-37 (.808)
Giles 169-46 (.786)
Guerrero 171-47 (.784)
Ichiro 180-53 (.774)
Abreu 184-54 (.773)
Drew 127-40 (.758)
Ordonez 146-60 (.707)
Sheffield certainly deserves some consideration. Among those top five, Guerrero is the one who has elevated his game the most in the clutch (using the stats on the site here) since 2002. His ops in those situations has been 1.035 (2002-09 total: .953).
Ichiro's clutch ops has been .790 ('02-09 total: .807.)
Giles was not far behind Guerrero in how much his hitting rose in clutch situations.
But as you say, you need a leadoff man for the team, plus great baserunning and defense. Ichiro's the guy.

Thome vs Ortiz, offensive win-loss shares for the decade:
Thome: 163-32 (.835)
Ortiz: 146-53 (.733)

Clutch performance (since 2002):
Thome total: .269/.398/.562
Thome clutch: .240/.386/.477

Ortiz total: .287/.384/.572
Ortiz clutch: .300/.397/.629

They've got nearly the same ops in these years, but in these clutch situations, Thome's goes down to .863 while Ortiz' has risen to 1.025. Win-loss says Thome, but I think I'd stick with Ortiz. How about using Thome for the first two plate appearances and Ortiz late in the game...Thortiz?

2:45 PM Aug 28th

DaveFleming
Just an FYI, Chisox: I live in Iowa, where White Sox/Cubs games are part of the basic cable package. I've watched far more Jim Thome at-bats than David Ortiz at-bats over the last three years.

I should point out that Win Shares has Thome well ahead of Ortiz, 212-169 over the decade. I actually had that table all set to post in the article, and then I plum forgot to add it. It gives Thome an edge in Win Shares in seven of the ten seasons of the decade, which is pretty damned convincing. Add the fact that Thome is a better defensive player, and the argument for Ortiz looks pretty frail.

I'm sticking with Papi, though. Boston is the only team to win two championships this decade. Doesn't it seem reasonable that they get someone on the Decade Team?
11:52 AM Aug 28th

rgregory1956
Nitpicking perhaps, but the reason I always thought ARod took third to Jeter's shortstopping was because Jeter didn't have the reflexes to play third. Which if that is the case, Jeter (if in fact it was his choice) was correct to stay at short and have ARod move.
10:59 AM Aug 28th

sdbunting
Great articles -- very enjoyable to read. Thanks so much for putting them together.

I'm usually the first to roll her eyes at a mention of intangibles, but in the case of Ortiz, I think you have to include them in the discussion and I think they're quite real. I'm speaking as a Yankee fan, and one who has always the just-folks "Idiots culture" of the Red Sox twee and irritating. The whole Yanks/Sox narrative is kind of exhausting to me, actually, but the point is that, no matter how I felt about other guys on that team (shut up, Papelbon) or what the announcers were saying about slumps and whatnot, I was genuinely afraid for Yankee pitching anytime Ortiz came up with runners on in the later innings; I was usually correct to have felt that way; and I had enormous respect for that guy's ability to just KILL us with long bombs in the 8th. I'm a Yankee fan, but I'm a fan of the game first, and watching a beloved player hit like that is a pleasure, even if he's beating your team.

To the extent that it can be measured, sure, I'd like to measure it. But this is one of those cases where you can't take the length of the entire thing and I'm okay with it.

(For the record: I agree that Thome's underrated, generally. He's usually the cornerstone in my "the All-Star voting needs to be overhauled" argument.)
10:28 AM Aug 28th

chisox
But I have enjoyed the articles. It's been fun.
9:05 AM Aug 28th

chisox
Thome. You wouldn't be saying Ortiz if they ever showed anything but the Red Sox/Yankees on the Eastern Seaboard Programming Network. Thome's in the decline phase of his career and his stats are still better than Ortiz, who's in his (pharmaceutically enhanced) prime. Talk about team leadership--do you ever hear anything about anyone from the White Sox? By all accounts Thome is a leader in running a tight, no B-S team that just shuts up and plays. Not sure there'd be any talk about Manny being Manny if he played for the Pale Hose (although that might be too much even for Thome and the rest of the crew). There's more than one reason we call him Mr. Incredible around here.

9:05 AM Aug 28th

ventboys
Your research is spot on, and my own opinion is that you got the right guy in every case. As another poster said, it's hard to find much to say when there is nothing to argue about. I enjoyed the article, and I look forward to the pitchers.
12:37 AM Aug 28th

Team of the Decade - Outfield, DH

COMMENTS (24 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: