33 Responses to “Can Derek Jeter Maintain His Offense & Play SS In 2011?”

1. Can Derek Jeter Maintain His Offense & Play SS In 2011? | WasWatching.com Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 9:46 am

   [...] he does, it will be a feat that baseball has not seen in a very long time. Filed under Stat Of The Day Blog ·  Print This Post ·  Email This [...]

2. Zachary Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

   Barry Larkin was good through age 34, average at 35, better at 36, and done at 37. Guess who is Jeter's most comparable player? Now, Jeter doesn't have Larkin's injury history, but he's not as good as Larkin was either. (That's no slight on Jeter - Larkin's the best full-time shortstop since Arky Vaughn.) I think Jeter's likely to be a good hitter for another three or four years, but good in the OPS+ 100-110 range rather than the 120-130 range.

   The X-factor in all this is his home park. He benefited _greatly_ from new Yankee Stadium's bandbox status, cracking 13 home runs at home compared to 5 on the road. Take away that big boost, his OPS+ comes down by 7-10 points. So the question becomes, how long can Yankee Stadium extend Jeter's career? I can't imagine him dropping off to a normal park level below 90, and if Yankee Stadium is good for a 7-10 boost every year, the Yanks could do far worse than Jeter.

3. Zachary Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

   (As an addendum, it's pretty clear to me that Jeter will either play shortstop or he won't play at all. The Yanks wouldn't move him to make way for a much, much better fielder in A-Rod, and they won't move him unless he starts racking up injuries.)

4. TheGoof Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 4:14 pm

   Nothing is a lock when a player gets to their late 30s (or anywhere in the 30s for a pitcher), but plenty of people didn't think after 2008 that Jeter would be anywhere close to 120 in 2009, let alone 132. I think his consistency should weigh quite a bit on forecasting, especially after a bounce-back year. If he had a year only slightly better than 2008, the Yanks would be forgiven for looking past him already. But like with Rivera, you think about the future while shrugging and saying, "hey, if he keeps going like this, why not stick with him?" Look how many guys got dumped due to age only to keep going, especially among pitchers--Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux. And imagine if the Braves dropped Hank Aaron after 36? Look what he did at 37! My favorite player, Dave Winfield, was dropped after 20 games following an injury year at 37. He had four solid years left. You have to fear being stuck with a guy at the end, but if he's consistent, I think it is better than shipping him off too early.

5. Bill Johnson Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

   I think what some people missed with Jeter is that after getting hit on the hand in 2008, his production suffered. He has moved significantly off the plate in 2009 and isn't getting hit nearly as much making one wonder why he took so long to change his stance.

6. MTD Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 5:36 pm

   Zachary, OPS+ is adjusted for the players park and league, so Jeter's 132 does relect and is adjusted for the new Yankee Stadium. (Of course, I could go off on how Yankee Stadium is actually still a pitchers' park more than a hitters' parkk, but that's for another post.)

   If healthy, the best predictor or a player's performance in any upcoming season is how he did the previous season. Jeter's "poorer" showing in 2008 was based on two separate hand injuries when he got hit by pitches. He probably would have served the team better if he went on the DL for a couple weeks. 2009 was just the opposite. He was as healthy as he's been in a couple of seasons. He'll probably have a few more bruises in the upcoming year, but outside anything major, the odds are good he'll post a 120+ season, joining Appling and Wagner as the third player on the list.

   Reminds me of last year when Tom Verducci noted at the start of 2009 that no team had ever won a World Series with a shortstop who was 35 or older. It was a nonsense stat since winning a World Series is a team effort, but Jeter did accomplish it. Becoming the third member on that above list should be easier for Jeter because it's an individual accomplishment, meaning something he has more control over and basically does every year when healthy. (I won't even get into the discussion that if Jeter was born all of six days later this would be his age 35 season, not 36.)

7. DavidRF Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 7:55 pm

   Wagner was a 35-year old shortstop when the Pirates won the 1909 World Series. He was about four months older than Jeter was in 2009.

8. Murph Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 9:47 pm

   Verducci never said no ss had won a world series. he said it hadn't been done since pee-wee reese in '55.

9. Murph Says:
   February 14th, 2010 at 9:54 pm

   ...no 35 yr old ss...

10. Johnny Twisto Says:
    February 14th, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    Zachary, it's possible Jeter gained some advantage in homers from the Stadium last season -- I didn't bother to look up where his HR landed, but he hits a fair number to right-center, which is the spot that seemed to catch a lot of those "extra" HR last year. But I wouldn't read too much into one season. His "true" away HR ability is more than 5.

    Also, A-Rod may have been a better SS than Jeter when he came to New York. He isn't now. He's an average-at-best 3Bman who had major hip surgery less than a year ago.

    MTD, OPS+ adjusts for the park but that doesn't mean Jeter individually couldn't be gaining a bigger advantage from the park than he would elsewhere. (However, I doubt that he is.)

    It's rare for a team to win with an old SS because very few teams even play old SS.

11. Zachary Says:
    February 14th, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    My point about the shortstop position was that if they didn't move him once when they had a better option, they aren't going to move him now.

    I didn't realize that about OPS+, though. Whoopsie. Still, I'd expect him to regress at least a bit power wise.

12. lou Says:
    February 14th, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    Barry Larkin was a good shortstop, but he wasn't in the same Universe as Jeter.

    Jeter is by far the better and more consistent hitter, and better all-around player. Jeter is the best defensive shortstop I've ever seen going into the outfield with his back to the plate to catch popups -- the hardest play for an infielder. Jeter is also the best I've ever seen going to his right. Going to his left is where he's been average -- because he's so big at 6'3".

    ARod was not better than Jeter defensively. Jeter was better going to his right and into outfield; ARod was better going to his right.

    When you roll it all up, Jeter is the greatest shortstop of all time. Larkin is a near miss hall of famer. ARod was juiced to the gills; without the juice it's arguable how many homeruns he would've hit.

    As far as the question posed by this blog post -- A VERY GOOD QUESTION. 34 is 34 and it's always been 34; the year when almost every hitter in Major League history has his first fall-off year. Sans the steroid era.

    I'd like to think these guys aren't on HGH, but it would be very hard not to think that if they keep rolling with high batting averages past the age of 36.

    Jeter already has the most hits ever by a shortstop; would be nice to see him get 3,000 as a shortstop. But I'm thinking he moves to left one of these years. Two more years at short. Just to get 3,000, then move to left when the young Cuban kid comes over (after the Yanks sign him).

13. Pat Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 1:13 am

    "Barry Larkin was a good shortstop, but he wasn't in the same Universe as Jeter."

    Seems like a bit of an overstatement. Jeter is/was a far healthier player, but Larkin was certainly capable of putting up comparable offensive numbers. If you like WAR, it certainly likes Larkin much better than it does Jeter on the defensive side of the ball.

    "Jeter is also the best I've ever seen going to his right. Going to his left is where he's been average -- because he's so big at 6'3"."

    Huh, wha..., what? So being "big" doesn't effect a player going to his right, only to his left? OK.

14. lou Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 1:59 am

    Yes, going to his right -- Jeter was able to extend and get tremendous power behind his throws. Going to his left doesn't give him any advantage; a big man becomes clumsy. That's the best I could figure it from seeing Jeter all those years.

    Last time I looked, Jeter has a lifetime .317 batting average; Larkin had a lifetime .295 batting average. That's a huge difference. .317 lifetime batting average playing in a pitchers park is awesome. Mattingly didn't come close to that. Batting .295 is very good; not awesome.

    Larkin has Bernie Williams/Don Mattingly numbers as far as total hits. Larkin had a possible steroid jump in homers in 1996. Beyond that, he was a very good, not great hitter. Larkin's 2340 hits are Bernie Williams/Don Mattingly territory.

    But beyond all the numbers, you have to watch them play the game of baseball. Jeter JUMPED OUT as a player that transcended the game. Larkin was very, very good; great at times, but that's all.

    Let's not reinvent history and look at numbers and say Barry Larkin was better than he was. I watched him play. He was very, very good. Not great. Jeter transcended the game.

15. Zachary Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Okay. I really only brought up the original Larkin comparison because of the similarity scores and because Larkin experienced similar seasons during his mid-30s. Still, I can't let that one slide. Larkin was a great player at a position short on greatness.

    Let's not judge Larkin by counting stats, or even by the useful but flawed batting average. Let's look at the whole package, and at what all the stats say. We have to look at him from a historical perspective. In Major League history, I can find record of only 14 shortstops (defined as playing short 75% of the time) with 6000 plate appearances who recorded an OPS+ of 100 or better. Larkin (116) and Jeter (121) are both on that list. But is it fair to compare Larkin's full career, including his decline, to Jeter's as yet unfinished career? No, I don't think so. Take away the last four years, and their OPS+ is identical. Larkin had more great years than Jeter's had, and Jeter's stayed heathy more consistently. If Jeter puts up another three or four good offensive campaigns, we can revisit the offensive comparison, but right now it seems like a wash. Whichever guy you have in the lineup, you're getting good, similar production. (For me personally, I've always liked Larkin's excellent strikeout rate. It's better than Jeter's by a significant amount, although Jeter's is still above league average.)

    But if you look at the total package, I think Larkin starts to separate himself. Larkin was an impressive baserunner, better than the good but not great Jeter. By the numbers, Larkin ranks as one of the top baserunners ever, as his steal success rate was solidly over 80% and he took the extra base more than half the time.

    As far as defense goes ... all the numbers say that Larkin was good and Jeter is bad. Whether you want to look at Runs Saved, or Range Factors, or whatever, Larkin was average-to-above-average, while Jeter has been bad-to-average even before his physical decline. I've watched them both, and I agree with the figures - Jeter's fine when he can reach the ball, but that isn't often. There's a joke I've heard, and it pretty much sums up my feelings on Jeter's defense:

    A kid and his dad are going to a Yankees game. 'I can't wait to see Pastadiving!' the kid proclaims. The dad looks at him and says, 'Who's that?' The kid says 'He's my favorite player!' The dad tries to think of who his son is referring to, but just can't do it. The kid notices that his dad is unsure and says, 'The announcers always talk about him. Whenever the ball is hit to the shortstop, the say 'It's Pastadiving Jeter!''

    Anyway ... it's a very dry position for offensive excellence, and Larkin was an excellent batter, even taking into account his injuries. You could even argue that he was a five-tool player. Jeter's stayed healthy, and that counts for a lot. He's a bona fide Hall of Famer, and while I think he's benefitted tremendously from being a Yankee, that doesn't change the fact he's a top-ten shortstop, with a good chance at top-five. But in my personal Hall of Fame, Larkin's a no-brainer top-five who resides on the plateau just beneath Wagner and Vaughn.

16. Dan in CT Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    You cannot be serious when you say that Barry Larkin had more Great Years than Jeter. To put Larkin Above Jeter on the List of Greatest Shortstops of all time is lunacy. Larkin could never stay healthy, his offensive numbers are second to Jeters in nearly every single category. I understand that you are probably from Cincinnati and are probably a Reds fan, but please have some objectivity here. Larkin was a good shortstop, that is not debatable. Larkin, I believe will be waiting to get into the hall of fame for a very long time, if he ever does. Jeter, however, will be a first ballot HOF'er.

17. Tomepp Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    I think you are the one reinventing history, Lou. Let's compare Larkin's prime (1988-2000) to an equivalent stretch of Jeter's (1997-2009) - 13 seasons each. Jeter certainly has the advantage in the cumulative stats:

    Jeter: 1966 G, 1465 R, 2552 H, 409 Do, 51 Tr, 214 HR, 983 RBI, 291 SB, 73 CS, 834 BB, 1353 K
    Larkin: 1643 G, 1043 R, 1865 H, 341 Do, 65 Tr, 164 HR, 772 RBI, 330 SB, 65 CS, 767 BB, 591 K

    But if we look at those per 162 GP, they look remarkably similar:

    Jeter: 121 R, 210 H, 34 Do, 5 Tr, 18 HR, 81 RBI, 24 SB, 6 CS, 69 BB, 111 K
    Larkin: 104 R, 184 H, 34 Do, 7 Tr, 17 HR, 77 RBI, 33 SB, 7 CS, 76 BB, 59 K

    The lower run and RBI totals can be attributed to the teams they played for - the Reds were not the Yankees in terms of supporting cast. While Jeter leads in hits (which translates to BA), Larkin makes up for in extra walks, stolen bases and far fewer strikeouts. Looking at their averages stats over those years:

    Jeter: .318 BA, .390 OBP, .461 SLG, .851 OPS, 123 OPS+
    Larkin: .305 BA, .383 OBP, .463 SLG, .846 OPS, 125 OPS+

    Very similar. Remember, too, that Jeter's comes in a higher offensive era that Larkin's; hence Larkin's slightly higher OPS+ despite a slightly lower raw OPS.

    So the numbers show that a healthy Larkin was comparable to Jeter offensively.

    As to the defense, I don't know whose rose-colored glasses you were looking through when watching Jeter play the field, but the fact is that for most of his career he has been a below-average Major League shortstop. While fielding numbers are harder to get a grasp on, here's a quick "overall" value to ponder: Rtot/yr. This is a measure of the total fielding of a player in terms of runs per season (1250 Inn) above or below the average fielder at that position. Over the years we're examining, Jeter's annual Rtot/yr ranged from +4.2 to -21.2. He was above average 3 times, but below average 10 times. The sum of his Rtot/yr values over that time was -94.4. (I realize that this calculation is not entirely correct, as it weighs each season equally despite the amount of playing time, but it gives the general sense that Jeter was a sub-par fielder during that sspan.) Larkin's Rtot/yr numbers, on the other hand, ranged from +16.2 to -5.6. He was bove average 8 years and below average only 5. The sum of his Rtot/yr values over that span was +44.5. Clearly, Jeter is not in Larkin's universe when it comes to fielding.

    Bottom line: there is merit in staying healthy and contributing consistently, and Jeter deserves the accolades for that. However, it is not unreasonable to say that Larkin, when healthy, was as good as Jeter offensively and much better defensively. Yes, Larkin is a borderline HoFer and Jeter will likely be a sure-fire HoFer -- it's great what health and consistency will do for you!

18. Zachary Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    No, I'm actually not a Reds fan. I don't have a horse in this race, except my interest in the truth. My ENTIRE opinion is founded in the numbers. I'm only bringing in my observations as supplemental material.

    Whatever your impressions might be, Larkin actually did have more great years than Jeter, if we're talking individually great rather than team championship great. He had five full seasons (and another two shortened ones) with an OPS+ over 130. Jeter has had three. It's worth noting that of those eight scores, Larkin's five are all in the top six. If you still don't appreciate Larkin's excellence, here's another interesting tidbit: he didn't qualify for the batting title without winning the Silver Slugger until age 38. That's positively astounding! He is, by the way, the career leader in SS Silver Slugger Awards, and for all positions, only Bonds and Piazza have won more. Clearly, this Larkin guy was dominant.

    (To put aside the Jeter argument - which I didn't honestly mean to start, as I just wanted to bring in a decent comparison - and address Larkin's Cooperstown candidacy, consider this: Ozzie Smith was elected to the Hall of Fame with 90+% of the vote, and I don't know anyone who'd complain about that. Now, I know Ozzie was a great fielder, but I think it's fair to say that Larkin's glove was closer to Ozzie's than Ozzie's bat was to Larkin's. If Smith is a 90+% Hall of Famer, how can Larkin not automatically be a 75+% Hall of Famer?)

    Part of why this might be hard to accept is that Larkin spent his career with (mostly) mediocre Reds teams, while Jeter has won multiple titles as the face of the most prestigious team in sports. I think this is a also case of "What have you done for me lately?" The last time Larkin had a good full season was 1998 (when he wasn't exactly the center of attention), while Jeter has been reliably good for a while now. He then lingered on, putting up occasionally good numbers, but mostly cementing the broken down image in fans' minds.

    So let me sum up all I'm trying to say: Larkin is one of the best shortstops of all-time and he should be a no-brainer Hall of Fame guy. He was a great offensive shortstop who fielded pretty well and ran the bases even better. He was a complete player, and that's a tough trick to turn in baseball. Jeter is also a no-doubt Hall of Famer, and he may or may not be better than Larkin. He is arguably better offensively, but inarguably a step behind defensively and on the base-paths. You give Jeter bonus points for staying healthy and playing on good teams, and it comes out that they're fairly similar. That's my personal judgement, yes, but it's also confirmed by the Similarity Scores. When we look at this debate 10 years from now, I would bet Jeter tops Larkin. Heck, Jeter may even top Vaughn. But right now? It's definitely arguable.

19. Dan in CT Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    Zachary, Great reply. I appreciated reading that. I believe from a fans perspective, outside of Ohio, and the NL, view Barry Larkin as a good shortstop who was injured a lot. Larkin over his career averaged 118 games a season, I excluded his rookie year. Larkin, even with his injuries and missing a great deal of games through out his career, was a very good player. That cannot be doubted, but, injuries, will also be attributed to Larkins career. It might be something that denies his entry into the HOF.

    We will see though.

20. Johnny Twisto Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    I think Larkin and Jeter are very similar players. Larkin's durability must be held against him; Jeter's defensive deficiencies must be held against him. Both were good average, moderate power, good baserunning players. Anyone who thinks Larkin isn't isn't the same "universe" as Jeter is ignorant or has no memory.

    It's a shame so much attention is paid to the voting percentages. Larkin will likely be elected to the HOF within a couple years, and our kids will see him as a top-10 SS. No one will remember it took him a few tries to be inducted.

21. Zachary Says:
    February 15th, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    That's what I bet happens, too, Johnny. (Or at least, what I hope happens!) Good points, Dan, and thanks for considering my viewpoint.

22. YankeesVine » Blog Archive » Around the Yankees Galaxy 2/15/10 Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 4:03 am

    [...] Reference has an interesting point about Derek Jeter and the uncharted territory he may be about to enter, and this will certainly be the major point of next year’s contract [...]

23. Pat Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 5:24 am

    "Last time I looked, Jeter has a lifetime .317 batting average; Larkin had a lifetime .295 batting average. That's a huge difference. .317 lifetime batting average playing in a pitchers park is awesome. Mattingly didn't come close to that. Batting .295 is very good; not awesome."

    Again, saying they are not in the same universe as players is overstating it, and rather hyperbolically overstating it. It's clear Jeter has a huge advantage in terms of health; however, Larkin was definitely capable of being just as productive offensively. One can look at OPS+ and see how good Larkin could be. He had a hard time staying on the field, but seasons of 154, 143, 134, 133, and 132 show how good he was when healthy, and he was a very good base stealer, too. Jeter's OPS+ is not as high in his prime, but it's not much lower and he was on the field much more. No problem saying Jeter is better/more valuable, but it's clear Larkin is right in the neighborhood; forget about him being "not in the same universe."

    Defensively WAR likes his defense much better than it does Jeter's. Larkin's best seasons in the field are +12, 11 and 10 runs and 5 other seasons where he was at positive. Jeter's only positive seasons are 5, 4 and 2 runs. Every other season in his career he cost the team runs defensively.

    Looking at the total package by WAR their 5 best seasons are 7.4, 6.2, 5.9, 5.9, and 5.8 for Larkin, 8.0, 7.8, 6.5, 6.3, and 5.6 for Jeter. Career 68.8 for larkin, 68.7 for Jeter. Definitely better prime for Jeter, but definietly same universe; I'd say same block.

    Again, no problem saying Jeter was better/more valuable. His health has been exceptional, while Larkin's was poor, but Larkin was defintely comparable in his prime and when healthy.

    "Let's not reinvent history and look at numbers and say Barry Larkin was better than he was. I watched him play. He was very, very good. Not great."

    No need to reinvent history to know Barry Larkin was great, not very, very good.

24. LouV Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    HUGE ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF HEALTH?????

    IS that why Jeter has a lifetime .317 batting average and Larkin is only .295????

    I've got news for you -- Jeter, more than any player of his era -- constantly played THROUGH injuries. Because he stands so close to the plate, Jeter is CONSTANTLY getting hit on the hands. ALmost every year, there comes a time when Jeter is really hitting lights out; his average at .340 or something, and then bam -- hit on the hand. And every year, he PLAYS THROUGH IT. And his average drops. And a month and a half later he's at .270 but still playing; still helping to win games.

    If Jeter had sat out whenever he was injured, then he'd have a .340 lifetime average!!!!!

    Maybe Larkin's injuries were due to steroids?

    Ballplayers rate themselves on how the play through injury. Jeter is held highly. Larkin, maybe not so highly.

    Dan was on the money above. Jeter: first time hall of famer. Larkin: borderline. Personally I'd put him in. But I'd put Graig Nettles in too. (Not Mattingly nor Bernie Williams.)

    PS: Tomepp and Pat -- you defeat yourself with your own statistics; if you've got to dig that much and bring up acronymns like WAR to make your case, you've lost. Barry Larkin hit xxx on Tuesdays after a groin injury, and he fielded 22 more balls to his left when an offspeed pitcher was pitching on a Saturday night with a full moon.

    Larkin was very, very good. Jeter transcended the game and is arguably the best shortstop of all time. Will get 3,000 hits. Great defense. 4 gold gloves -- voted by the MANAGERS. .317 lifetime average.

    Jeter envy. Who of you is Joel Sherman? Fess up.

    All in fun guys; all in fun.

    But I'm right. And Dan from Connecticut.

25. Johnny Twisto Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    How could he be helping to win games if his average drops from .340 to .270 over a month and a half?

26. Andy Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    There are lots of good points in the comments here, but also highlighted is why I think it's so hard to answer questions like "who is the greatest XXX of all time?"

    In baseball I think such debates are all pretty much unable to be settled except maybe who was the best major-league power hitter from before 1950, which is clearly Babe Ruth. But you can't even say all time because I don't know how Ruth would hit against today's pitchers (although I tend to think he'd probably be the greatest power hitter even of he played today.)

    Let me take the case of Jeter vs Larkin specifically. I don't think that anybody would argue against the facts that both players had immense talent and both played very hard.

    But there are so many factors that affect the final numbers of these players, the vast majority of which were out of their control. Here are some examples:

    - Per 162 games played, Larkin had 673 PAs and Jeter currently has 743. It's way easier to get to 3000 hits when you have 60 more plate appearances per season. Why does Jeter have so many more PAs? Because his career is entirely within a higher-scoring era plus he has played on most excellent teams with above-average run production. (Also because he batted higher in the lineup.) So Jeter gets more PAs and can get more hits with the same batting average. Note I'm not saying he's a better or worse hitter than Larkin--my observation is merely a fact that favors Jeter.
    - Jeter has had 2431 PAs (our of 9809) with runners in scoring position, which is 24.8% of his career PAs. For Larkin, the numbers were 2335/9057, or 25.8%. Historically across baseball, batting averages are higher with RISP than without, so this number favors Larkin. (Incidentally, I think Jeter actually bats with runners on far more often if one ignores his PAs leading off the first inning, when of course there is never anybody on base.)
    - Each guy came up with a totally different set of coaches--people who had significant influences on the players. I recall that Jeter committed a ton of errors as a shortstop in the minors but the Yankees refused to change his position, forcing him to battle through until he improved. Maybe this had a tremendous positive influence on Jeter. Did Larkin have a similar experience? What if Jeter came up with a different team and made a ton of errors? Maybe they would have moved him to 3B in the minors and he never would have been forced to work through a tough problem.

    My point with these few examples is that if you switch a guy's circumstance (meaning move his career by a few years or to a different team) I think the variables change so dramatically that it's very tough to compare two similar guys directly. Sure, we can look at their final numbers objectively, ignore all the underlying circumstances, and make a purely statistical analysis. But in my opinion, such an analysis is almost worthless. In the case of both Larkin and Jeter, they were fantastic players who excelled within their own eras for their own teams. Which guy was better? I don't know---but I can tell you that I have loved watching both of them play.

27. DoubleDiamond Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    As a Yankees non-fan who was an Orioles fan for many years, I want to continue thinking that Cal Ripken, Jr., was a greater player than Jeter. I guess I'd better go stick my head in the sand.

28. Pat Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 2:16 am

    "HUGE ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF HEALTH?????

    IS that why Jeter has a lifetime .317 batting average and Larkin is only .295????"

    Oops. I thought I was having a rational discussion with an intelligent baseball fan. My mistake.

29. Pat Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 2:26 am

    "There are lots of good points in the comments here, but also highlighted is why I think it's so hard to answer questions like "who is the greatest XXX of all time?""

    Except no one is trying to answer that question. The only thing people have tried to point out, myself included, is Larkin is pretty close to Jeter in terms of performance, and more specifically in terms of peak/prime performance. I don't think people are even trying to say Larkin was better than Jeter, except defensively, which he clearly was. Definitely no one, other than Lou, is saying either one of them is the greatest ever.

30. Pat Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 2:51 am

    "I don't think people are even trying to say Larkin was better than Jeter, except defensively, which he clearly was."

    I didn't look back far enough when I said this. Looks like Zachary is trying to make the argument Larkin is better than Jeter. It's not an argument I believe can be supported. Larkin's superiority in some rate stats is offset by Jeter's greater playing time. Sure Larkin may have a higher OPS+ in some seasons, but it's a slight advantage and not enough to offset the higher PA's Jeter had.

    For example, their five best seasons by OPS+ with PA's for the season look like this, with Larkin first and Jeter second:

    154 - 627
    143 - 527
    138 - 276
    134 - 626
    133 - 567

    153 - 739
    132 - 716
    132 - 715
    128 - 679
    127 - 694

    Now Jeter does get some extra PA's thanks to the Yankees generally being a great offensive team and to batting higher in the order (I think Larkin batted 3rd more often than leadoff though I could be wrong), but it's clear that does not explain the difference in PA's and that 3 of Larkin's best 5 seasons were injury shortened. Looking at their second best seasons, a 143 OPS+ in 200 fewer PA's than Jeter's 132 is not really a better season, IMO.

    I think it's clear Larkin could be as good offensively and that he was better defensively and on the basepaths, but Jeter makes up for these by being on the field and thus providing more value. It's clear when you look at WAR. Jeter's best seasons are better than Larkin's even with his defensive shortcomings.

31. Andy Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Pat, my comments were meant to be more general than just the specific debate in this thread. I just don't see a lot of value in 'ranking' sort if comparisons, such as naming the top 5 shortstops of all time, because they are so hard to compare directly due to so many variables.

32. LouV Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    Johnny Twisto - I totally agree with you; I wish the guy would sit down when he's playing with the injured hand every year. But every year you read in the newspaper that his teamates are so happy he's playing even when injured; his defense in the field; his leadership; whatever it is. Makes the team feel good to have him out there. I'd think if the guy's average plummets for a month and a half, you should sit him.

    Pat no need for personal insults. It's just baseball you know..

    Here's another thing to keep in mind -- Larkin played most of his career on the artificial turf of Riverfront Stadium. That by itself raises a guys average substantially -- all Yankee fans remember how Chuck Knoublach went from being a .330 hitter on the turf in Minnesota to a .280 hitter on the grass at Yankee Stadium. A ground ball up the middle often becomes a double.

    Subtract that from Larkin's lifetime .295 average and what do you have? Really, what do you have?

    A very, very good player. An all-star. A borderline hall of famer. But not a shortstop that transcended the game or ranked with Jeter. And that's what Larkin was regarded as during his playing days. There was a reason for that.

33. H. Guide Says:
    February 18th, 2010 at 5:25 am

    If healthy, the best predictor or a player's performance in any upcoming season is how he did the previous season. Jeter's "poorer" showing in 2008 was based on two separate hand injuries when he got hit by pitches. He probably would have served the team better if he went on the DL for a couple weeks. 2009 was just the opposite. He was as healthy as he's been in a couple of seasons.