hankgillette
In the 2000s vs. 1980s comparison, you give the edge to the 2000s Bonds over Henderson, but then you place Henderson on the second team for the last three decades, and the 2000s Bonds on the third team. It seems that one of these ratings must not be what you intended.
1:32 AM Nov 27th

sroney
Perhaps a nit-pick, but people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. Citizens, so referring to it as a "foreign country" is perhpas marginal.
7:39 PM Sep 1st

Richie
Robin Yount was a good defensive shortstop. He moved to the outfield due to an arm injury.

And as a centerfielder, he wouldn't have lost much defensive value vis-a-vis a shortstop. Nothing like Ernie Banks moving over to 1st base, for instance. I've no doubt that as a decent centerfielder, Yount had more defensive value than Jeter, who is indeed a bad defensive shortstop. Anyone who judges defense with more than their eyes ('gosh, Carney Lansford sure is great at diving for ground balls!') agrees Jeter has been defensively lousy through the years.

Man, if they'd had SportsCenter WebGems in the 80s, Lansford would've been on nightly. "Another diving stop!"
1:30 PM Sep 1st

evanecurb
With 11 more hits, Ichiro becomes the fourth player to garner 2,000 hits in a calendar decade, and (obviously) the first to do it in nine seasons. The other three were: (answer in next post)
11:00 AM Sep 1st

evanecurb
Dave:

When I was a young, passionate fan in the 1970s, there were a handful of players that the national media just LOVED. They included Johnny Bench, Steve Garvey, Reggie Jackson, and Pete Rose. I (and many other passionate fans) developed an extreme dislike for all of these players. Think about that for a minute, particularly as it relates to Garvey and Bench, and the pre-gambling Rose. There was nothing remotely unlikeable about Bench. Garvey was overrated but so what? Rose was a self promoter, but I think Reggie Reggie Reggie was the only one of the four who was truly polarizing if based solely on his behavior.

To me, Jeter is the successor to Bench, Garvey, and Rose: a guy who plays the game right, plays it very well, but is definitely overexposed and even overrated through no fault of his own. (Posnanski recently wrote a nice column challenging that last assertion)


10:22 PM Aug 31st

DaveFleming
Ichiro had the most hits of the decade, with 1989.
8:57 PM Aug 31st

jdrb
Like Kev, I believe you're ridiculously harsh on Jeter, and I'm not a Yankee fan. I'll try to base my objection differently.

Jeter, Larkin, Yount, Ripkin.
Yount was such a good defensive SS he moved to CF in mid-career. Ripkin eventually moved to 3b. The issue with Jeter's defense is not highlight reel plays (he makes plenty), and he's steady enough, the issue is range. Unless you can go back in time, I'm not willing off visual memory to credit Yount and Ripkin with vastly better range. Every inning of Jeter's career (except for a few at dh) have been at SS. He was not moved to CF when Williams declined. He wasnt moved to 3B when Rodriguez arrived. You mention in another article that you discount Jeter's leadership because he didnt move when the superior SS arrived--I've never heard that the team tried to move him, never heard that either Jeter or the Yankees agreed Rodriguez was the superior SS. They may be nuts but he has always been rated better defensively by scouts and players than by defensive stats.

But his range is awful, you say. Sometimes it is. In the 2002 playoffs against the Angels, for ex, he seemed completely unable to move. But this interests me-- this year, at 35, he's +1 in runs saved, in 2005, he was -28, his worst year by this metric, though oddly James' Win Shares doesnt show it as a horrible year defensively (though James does show him usually in the lower third of the league's SS defensively). My point is that he seems to have unusually large variance in his runs saved stats.

This brings me to Larkin, who I'd agree was a better fielder, at least the range stats indicate this. But here's something interesting about Larkin and I think it's pertinent. In the 90's, Larkin had 5 seasons over which he averaged 107 games a year; for the decade, he averaged 129 games a year. Jeter's had one year this decade with less than 140 games a year; he's averaged 148. Like Ripkin, Jeter plays; he plays when he cannot move and the stats reflect it. Is it a good team decision? Maybe, maybe not, but probably his offensive value make it reasonable when the alternative is Luis Sojo or someone. There's another interesting thread on this site on the same theme-- 130 games of Larkin plus 32 of some sub or 150 games of Jeter.

I havent even gone into WS-- Jeter has more this decade than Larkin last decade or Yount/Ripkin in the 80's. It does seem you have a bias here.


6:09 PM Aug 31st

Kev
Dave,

To term Jeter an "awful" shortstop is, well, awful. It just comfirms what I said in reply to a Bill James pirce. I think it's another example of claiming the totality of a player or an event as subject to data to the exclusion of other factors. (Wwhen 1/3-IP with bases empty is equal to a 3-IP in which the saver walked into a bases-loaded, no-out situation) is preposterous. Yet we calculate Saves in that manner. And it's become trendy to devaluate intangibles, but as I've claimed, intangibles (like leadership) beget tangibles in the performance of teammates. Nobody could point to Ripken as a great leader as he put chasing the record ahead of the team. Ripken was a much better hitter than 10 sub-par seasons indicate, and surely would have proven to have been such had he not absorbed such wear and tear. And would you rather face Jeter or Ozzie (no slouch himself) at "game time"?
Bill J. finally agreed that he's been so harsh on Jeter because the hero-worship of Yankee broadcasters got him so pissed because such sycophancy has caused Jeter to be overrated. Very true. But what has Jeter to do with all that? He juat does his job, and now, I fear many people (including outstanding thinkers such as you and Bill) are loathe to give him his due, which extends beyond the limitations of mere numbers.
3:13 PM Aug 31st

rgregory1956
I was re-reading James' Historical Abstract this morning, just before I saw this column. James' 1990s team had Piazza, Thomas, Biggio, Ventura, Larkin, Bonds, Griffey and Belle (and no DH). That's a lot of disagreement. The 1980s team had Carter, Murray, Sandberg, Schmidt, Ripken, Henderson, Yount and Murphy (and again, no DH). Same team as yours, except replacing Evans with Ripken. Whether you're choosing McGwire, Thomas or Bagwell, Alomar or Biggio, you're choosing between HOFers. For a lark here are James' 1970s and 1960s teams as well: Bench, Carew, Morgan, Schmidt, Concepcion, Bonds, Murcer, Jackson and Rose (as Utility); Freehan, McCovey, Rose, Santo, Wills, Robinson, Mays, Aaron and Clemente (spare Outfielder). Comparing all five decades points out how weak a decade the 2000s have been.
7:50 AM Aug 31st

chuck
I think Kent does compare to Whitaker, Randolph and Sandberg. I have his overall offensive win-loss record as 235-124 (.655).
Whitaker: 230-138 (.626)
Randolph: 214-136 (.612)
Sandberg: 209-142 (.596).
The latter three have the defensive edge over Kent, and with that, one could move Whitaker over him. But the other two likely come out about even when all W-L shares are tallied.
In the 80's I have Sandberg 119-86 (.580) offensively.
Whitaker 135-92 (.597)
Randolph 131-78 (.627)
Biggio in the 90's: 186-55 (.771)
Alomar in the 90's: 160-68 (.702)
Kent in the 00's: 142-57 (.715)

Grich had a better off. win loss than all these guys over his career- 213-89 (.713), though neither of his decades was better than Biggio's 90's. In the 80's he had a better pct (.666) than Whitaker, Randolph or Ryno but not nearly so many win shares.
I don't think I'd change the team rankings at 2nd base= 90's over 80's over 00's- but might change a couple of the names. Biggio-Randolph-Kent. Kent third, but a close third.



3:28 PM Aug 30th