In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

The problem with trying to recall a "lack of range" play in which Jeter caused his team some runs defensively is that these plays are ruled as "hits" by the scorer. Therefore, most people watching the game credit the batter with getting a good hit rather than blame Jeter for allowing runs to score. Most people don't even realize that that grounder would have been turned into an out by the majority of the other shortstops.

It is easy to remember when someone boots a grounder, especially when that booted ball results in runs. Most people are not going to make a mental note of a grounder that made it into the outfield, "past a diving Jeter", that resulted in runs.

In one study of data from 2003 to 2008, the SS with the highest rate of grounders kept in the infield was Adam Everett at 83.5%. Ramon Vazquez was worst at 76.5%. Jeter was 2nd to last at 77.3%.

The difference between the best and worst over a season is about 40 hits. So, Jeter has fewer errors than other shortstops, but he is giving up significantly more hits. Just because these plays cannot be easily seen or recalled doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Moon is spot on in his posts about Jeter's defense. The fact that he makes all the plays that he gets to is biased by the fact that he gets to so few. Even with his sure handedness, he is an overall terrible defensive SS.

In response to jasko2248's comment:

I'm still waiting for a quote of one coach badmouthing a current player's defense. There probably are a handful of quotes about players who know themselves to be poor fielders where a coach might say something like, "he's not a great fielder", but no coach would say anything bad about a HOF player's fzielding while he is still playing for the team.

Stats are not the only thing telling the whole story. Personal observations and those of the people at the fielding bible as well as other highly regarded baseball people have stated negative things about Jet's fielding. I have watched every inning of over 200 Jeter games. I guess somehow he must magically have better range in the games I don't watch.

He is horrible at SS right now. He has been horrible for at least 3-4 years and really bad for years before that. Overall, he has been the worst fielding SS over the past 5 years, and the numbers support the fact that he has been the worst over the last 10 years as well.

This post has been removed.

In response to garyhow's comment:

I'm talking comparatively here. I have seen over 200 games by Jeter in the past 10 years, how many games have you seen other SSs play, in order to determine Jeter is not the worst?

Nobody watches every inning of every MLB baseball game, and that is why the one of us that has clear evidence to support their position, which is me in this case, holds the stronger position. UZR/150 might be flawed, but it can't be that far off. At best he's the 25th worst fielding SS out of the top 30 SSs by innings played over the last 10 years combined.

I can't name one of these top innings SSs that was a worse fielder than Jeter from 2003-2012, but I'll grant that the numbers might be skewed to hurt Jeter, and maybe he is the 25th worst one... can you name 5 from this list (5000 innings min)?

Everett, Hardy, Vizquel, Andrus, A Ram, Izturus, Wilson, Rollins, Gonzo, Tulo, Uribe, O Cab, Y Escobar, Bartlett, Crosby, J Reyes, Aybar, Renteria, Lugo, Guzman, Peralta, Tejada, Clayton, Scutaro, Furcal, K Green, Eckstein, Drew,

Jeter is #29, then

Berroa is #30, Y Betancourt-31, HanRam-32, and M Young-33.

If we set the innings at , then we can get to exactly 30 SSs, and these guys come off the list: E Andrus, B Crosby, and R Clayton.

I wouldn't argue too hard with anyone saying HanRam and Michael Young have been worse than Jeter over the last 10 years combined, and maybe say he's about even with Betancourt, but I can't see how anyone can place him above #27 out of 30 in the field.

Here's the worst range SSs since 2003 (as based on fangraph's RngR factor):

33 out of 33: Jeter -92.5

32 Young  -67.8

31 Betancourt -43.6

30 S Drew  -35.1

29 Peralta  -34.8

28 HanRam -31.4

 

Jeter has had a negative RngR in 9 of the 10 past seasons. He was +3.1 in 2009. He has had 4 seasons worse than -11.8. 

 

 

In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

Great response, but I think your statement I underlined can be more like a 100-120 hits differential between best and worst.

In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

 

Over the last 9 years Jeter has played against the Sox approx. 162 games, a full season. Surely someone can remember a game when Jeter's fielding issues resulted in a run or more for the Sox that contributed to us winning a game.

 

The problem with trying to recall a "lack of range" play in which Jeter caused his team some runs defensively is that these plays are ruled as "hits" by the scorer. Therefore, most people watching the game credit the batter with getting a good hit rather than blame Jeter for allowing runs to score. Most people don't even realize that that grounder would have been turned into an out by the majority of the other shortstops.

 

It is easy to remember when someone boots a grounder, especially when that booted ball results in runs. Most people are not going to make a mental note of a grounder that made it into the outfield, "past a diving Jeter", that resulted in runs.

In one study of data from 2003 to 2008, the SS with the highest rate of grounders kept in the infield was Adam Everett at 83.5%. Ramon Vazquez was worst at 76.5%. Jeter was 2nd to last at 77.3%.

The difference between the best and worst over a season is about 40 hits. So, Jeter has fewer errors than other shortstops, but he is giving up significantly more hits. Just because these plays cannot be easily seen or recalled doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Moon is spot on in his posts about Jeter's defense. The fact that he makes all the plays that he gets to is biased by the fact that he gets to so few. Even with his sure handedness, he is an overall terrible defensive SS.

 

And yet, the SS parade at Fenway continues. while Jeter is an immortal, admittedly one with limited range, especially to his left. (This yr is bound to be scary worse.) There is more to SS than that, and I'm not talking about the bat.

 The Torre book went into this in detail, which included his limitations.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

You mean you wouldn't have liked to have him the past 18 yrs?

The short-stop situation is a joke. Iggy should have been handed the job right out of the gate. As a few have said nationally the Sox will not make or miss the play-offs based on Iggys offense.

In response to EnchiladaT's comment:

Iggy shouldn't be handed anything. make him earn his spot.

In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

 

In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

 

Over the last 9 years Jeter has played against the Sox approx. 162 games, a full season. Surely someone can remember a game when Jeter's fielding issues resulted in a run or more for the Sox that contributed to us winning a game.

 

The problem with trying to recall a "lack of range" play in which Jeter caused his team some runs defensively is that these plays are ruled as "hits" by the scorer. Therefore, most people watching the game credit the batter with getting a good hit rather than blame Jeter for allowing runs to score. Most people don't even realize that that grounder would have been turned into an out by the majority of the other shortstops.

It is easy to remember when someone boots a grounder, especially when that booted ball results in runs. Most people are not going to make a mental note of a grounder that made it into the outfield, "past a diving Jeter", that resulted in runs.

In one study of data from 2003 to 2008, the SS with the highest rate of grounders kept in the infield was Adam Everett at 83.5%. Ramon Vazquez was worst at 76.5%. Jeter was 2nd to last at 77.3%.

The difference between the best and worst over a season is about 40 hits. So, Jeter has fewer errors than other shortstops, but he is giving up significantly more hits. Just because these plays cannot be easily seen or recalled doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Moon is spot on in his posts about Jeter's defense. The fact that he makes all the plays that he gets to is biased by the fact that he gets to so few. Even with his sure handedness, he is an overall terrible defensive SS.

 

But Kimmi, moon is the guy who has trotted out the 'just watch the games, it's easy to see' line a few times in this thread.  Here are a few of his statements:

 

It's not about the numbers. Just watch the game. It is easy to see plays made every game by great-ranged SSs that other SSs can't even make in their dreams. For years I have watched the opponent's SSs make play after play against us that our SSs never make. It may not be easily quantifiable, but it doesn't make it any less real.

It's about the hundreds of plays he doesn't make that you must not notice.

It's not a miscvonception: Jeter is the worst fielding SS over the last decade. Nobody else with a large enough sample size is even close. There is ample evidence to back this up, and I have seen him play over 200 games.

So maybe 'most people' can't see these plays, but moon claims that he does.  So I think it was a fair question to him.

 

 

And yet, the SS parade at Fenway continues. while Jeter is an immortal, admittedly one with limited range, especially to his left.

I have been highly critical of Sox fielding at SS over the years as well. This is not about me not liking the Yankees. It is about only Jeter's overall fielding being very bad as a result of him being the worst ranged SS in MLB over the past decade. Range is a huge protion of a SSs defense. His sure-handedness and great arm from the cut-off position helps him from being the worst fielding SS with significant games played, in the history of MLB.

 

(This yr is bound to be scary worse.) There is more to SS than that, and I'm not talking about the bat.

Yes, he is a great on the field leader and has a great cutoff arm, but that's not enough to leapfrog him over several  bad SSs.

 

 The Torre book went into this in detail, which included his limitations.

I didn't read it.

You mean you wouldn't have liked to have him the past 18 yrs?

I'd have loved Jeter on my team for the last 18 years... as my 3Bman or 2Bman.

His first 8-10 years might be justified as a SS, but to me, clearly he was a negative on defense. I'm not saying that negative outweighed all the other positives, but I am only talking fielding, and more specifically, limited range vs superior range, and how that makes a big difference over a full season.

Iggy shouldn't be handed anything. make him earn his spot.

Setting the bar for "earning it" based on hitting over some arbitrary number, is losing baseball. Sure, he can't hit .075 and be a plus (I guess I just did it myself), but the argument here seems to be over how much impact a great ranged SS can have vs an average or below average ranged SS, and how that compares to the offensive side of the equation.

I happen to think Iggy could "save" 50-100 hits over Drew this year. Drew will probably get 25-75 more hits that Iggy over 550 PAs, and several more will be for extra base hits. I see it as, at worst, being a toss-up. I don't see that Iggy spending another year in AAA will help his offense anymore than spending a full year in MLB- maybe we differ there too, but the balance tipper is the $9.5M. Even if you think Drew is slightly better than Iggy, the $9.5M could have helped us upgrade elsewhere and made us a better overall team.

Our pitching staff will need all the help it can get, and a great-ranged SS is the best place to start after the acquisition of D Ross at catcher. 50-100 hits saved shortens innings, helps starters go longer into games, boosts their confidence, improves team moral, and helps win games as much or more than getting an extra hit every 4-5 games.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Perhaps, but why discuss this as often as you do?  

But Kimmi, moon is the guy who has trotted out the 'just watch the games, it's easy to see' line a few times in this thread.  Here are a few of his statements:

 

It's not about the numbers. Just watch the game. It is easy to see plays made every game by great-ranged SSs that other SSs can't even make in their dreams. For years I have watched the opponent's SSs make play after play against us that our SSs never make. It may not be easily quantifiable, but it doesn't make it any less real.

It's about the hundreds of plays he doesn't make that you must not notice.

It's not a miscvonception: Jeter is the worst fielding SS over the last decade. Nobody else with a large enough sample size is even close. There is ample evidence to back this up, and I have seen him play over 200 games.

So maybe 'most people' can't see these plays, but moon claims that he does.  So I think it was a fair question to him.

 

Nobody remember specific plays that someone doesn't make, but I'd be happy to sit down with you and watch any 10 game sample and point out plays that could have been made by a superior defensive SS. I do it every year with Sox SSs. I actually started doing it last April, because I was sure that Aviles was an average to slightly  poor-ranged SS, and I wanted Iggy to play FT. I quickly realized I was wrong about Aviles. The numbers backed up my new found opinion: Mike was not a bad ranged SS at all, in fact, he had a good season in 2013, in terms of range. 

My observations of Jeter have not been casual. I have always watched the defensive SS position since I played the game many many years ago. I played 2B next to one of the best defensive SSs I have ever seen live. It was then I realized how much a great fielding SS can change the game... win games. I'm not saying I am a better observer than you, and I know you have watched Jeter much more than I. I could be wrong. The numbers could be wrong. The UZR/150 metric could be terribly off, but I will go to my grave believing that I have not seen a MLB with a ton of innings played have such poor range. The numbers overwhelmingly support my position, and that's enough for me to believe it as fact.

Where is one shred of evidence that shows Jeter had even average range over the last decade? Remember, saying average range is a comparative analysis, so you can't just say, "I watched thousands of Jeter games, so I know better than you", since you haven't watched thousands of games by any other specific MLb SS, let alone 29 other ones. This is one reason why, when comparing players, stats and metrics take on greater worth than personal observations. Other than Sox SSs, I have watched more games by Jter than any other SS. The Yanks are always on TV. They make the playoffs more than other teams. I try to make it to many Sox-yanks games, even ones in NY. I also watch the Yanks when they come to Houston or on TV vs Houston, and have seen them play in other cities as well-live. I've probably seen about 250 Jeter games over the last 10 years. Have you seen any other specific SS play 250 games over the past 10 years? You are criticizing me for basing my comparative judgement of Jeter on a smaller sample size than yours, but the same argument can be made vs your perceptions of other ML SSs.

 The Torre book went into this in detail, which included his limitations.

I didn't read it.

 

Perhaps, but why discuss this as often as you do?  

I state what I believe, and this is a hot topic for many posters. I have responded to responses and criticisms of my methodology and beliefs. 

yes, I have done this more often than I probably should have, but I enjoy talking baseball in my retirement.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

 

 The Torre book went into this in detail, which included his limitations.

I didn't read it.

 

Perhaps, but why discuss this as often as you do?  

I state what I believe, and this is a hot topic for many posters. I have responded to responses and criticisms of my methodology and beliefs. 

yes, I have done this more often than I probably should have, but I enjoy talking baseball in my retirement.

 

OK.

 

 

And while this is silly, did you know that Strat-O-Matic gave Jeter the highest possible fielding rating for roughly the 1st 10 yrs of his career? They are also very conservative about giving out this rating. Neither here nor there, of course. The only point is, there are two camps regardig him, and while I think the new metrics are flawed (See Roberto Alomar for a few yrs, Don Wert, John Vuckovich, John Kennedy, Wes Parker, Don Mattingly, Omar Vizquel, Bobby Richardson, Mark Belanger, and other supreme fielders); they cannot be ignored.

Hence my "postage stamp range" remark; it fits to a tee, Amazing they're not moving him out of that position this yr; it shows what a shambles they are.

In response to nhsteven's comment:

UZR/150 was not around in teh days of many of these players, including Jeter pre-2002. I have been very careful in only talking about Jeter since 2003.

I thought they should have kept ARod at SS, and moved jeter to 3B way back when, but ARod's D went bad as well.

They will not move jeter until he is ready to move himself... or retire. The same went for keeping Ripken playing everyday seeking the record, even when it clearly hurt the team. They are icons and untouchable.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

My position is pretty simple, I think.  I'm asking for examples of specific plays that Jeter didn't make, and I'm confining it to games against the Red Sox because we get to see most of those games. 

Nobody has any.  Not one.

That's what makes this debate just a little frustrating. 

Iggy shouldn't be handed anything. make him earn his spot.

Setting the bar for "earning it" based on hitting over some arbitrary number, is losing baseball. Sure, he can't hit .075 and be a plus (I guess I just did it myself), but the argument here seems to be over how much impact a great ranged SS can have vs an average or below average ranged SS, and how that compares to the offensive side of the equation.

I happen to think Iggy could "save" 50-100 hits over Drew this year. Drew will probably get 25-75 more hits that Iggy over 550 PAs, and several more will be for extra base hits. I see it as, at worst, being a toss-up. I don't see that Iggy spending another year in AAA will help his offense anymore than spending a full year in MLB- maybe we differ there too, but the balance tipper is the $9.5M. Even if you think Drew is slightly better than Iggy, the $9.5M could have helped us upgrade elsewhere and made us a better overall team.

Our pitching staff will need all the help it can get, and a great-ranged SS is the best place to start after the acquisition of D Ross at catcher. 50-100 hits saved shortens innings, helps starters go longer into games, boosts their confidence, improves team moral, and helps win games as much or more than getting an extra hit every 4-5 games.

Drew will likely have 50-100 more total bases than Iggy too so i think that makes up for the "hits saved" differential. Those extra bases will extend rallies, shorten opposing starters outings, tap into opposing BPs earlier, boost his confidence, improve team moral and help win games as much or more than saving a hit every few games.

Also, Drew wasn't signed until the pitching staff was rounded out.. and it's not like that 10Mil is holding them up at all. If they had a different pitcher in mind who would have cost us that 10 Mil they would have bit on it and not even looked at Drew. They know the pitching needs help moreso than our SS situation. They just felt Dempster was the best option for what we needed (reliable Vet on a short term deal). Once the pitching was rounded out they looked at the SS situation and felt Iggy still wasn't ready (understandable) so they went after Drew..

This post has been removed.

Drew will likely have 50-100 more total bases than Iggy too so i think that makes up for the "hits saved" differential. Those extra bases will extend rallies, shorten opposing starters outings, tap into opposing BPs earlier, boost his confidence, improve team moral and help win games as much or more than saving a hit every few games.

I agreed that at worst, they'd both probably even out, but that one costs $9.5M more and does not do much to help the staff.

Also, Drew wasn't signed until the pitching staff was rounded out.. and it's not like that 10Mil is holding them up at all. If they had a different pitcher in mind who would have cost us that 10 Mil they would have bit on it and not even looked at Drew. They know the pitching needs help moreso than our SS situation. They just felt Dempster was the best option for what we needed (reliable Vet on a short term deal). Once the pitching was rounded out they looked at the SS situation and felt Iggy still wasn't ready (understandable) so they went after Drew..

I certainly hope Ben made an overall plan before making any signings, but I realize unforeseen things happen. He could have decided he was going to go with Iggy, Ciriaco, and Holt (and maybe even Bogaerts at some point) and then he'd have known he'd have more money to spend on a better SP or LF'er, or RF'er, or Catcher, or even gotten another SP that would hav eallowed him to trade Doubront or a couple relief pitchers to upgrade elsewhere, including teh farm.

The fact is, Ben made SS for 2013 a pretty high priority at the expense of other more needy positions.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

BC probably saw what i saw this offseason... there were no SP worth investing into that weren't HUGE "??s" or compromised our long term goals. So instead of chancing it on marcum or mcCarthy or Haren, shelling out too many dollars and/or years on Sanchez (overrated IMO) or Grienke or Edwin, Losing a draft pick by signing Loshe etc... He went with Dempster, With all the injuries we've had in the recent years it will be nice to know we have at least 1 dependable starter who can give us around 200 innings and even mentor some of the younger guys.

Next years SP FAs on the other hand....... WHOOOOOOOOO! that's worth investing in (DOC!).

but i also get where BC is coming from not trusting the starting SS job to Iggy who only has 1 month of decent AAA hitting under his belt. While i think we overpaid for Drew i'm not too worried about our money spent this offseason.. With the expectation that we will have a bunch of prospects joining the team (at low low cost) in the next 2 years and also the big heap of cash coming off the books in the time period i really don't care how much we spent this offseason because we will not likely be in financial trouble in the long term.. Which is why i am not worried about the overpays. if we have to move a guy we won't hesitate to eat their contract because we are cost controlled in the upcoming years. If Iggy steps up and refines his offense it will be simple to ship Drew out and give Iggy his spot. So it is a win-win really. We hedged our bets at SS.. If Iggy pans out, no big deal, eat a couple Mil on Drews deal and say sayanara. If not, we won't be stuck with an abysmal offensive SS killing rallies with no clear upgrade (and yes, Drew is a clear upgrade). Same goes for Dempster, if one of our young pitchers excells and deserves to be in the MLB we can eat part of his deal and move him back to the NL OR ship doobie out (to the BP even). If we want to sign a marquee SP next offseason and our rotation is rounded out (our current 5) we can easily ship someone out and eat part of their contract without fear of hamstringing ourselves with payroll tied up in other teams. If that puts us over the luxury tax threshold in 2014 (or 2013 for that matter) no big deal all that money is freed up by 2015 anyway...... No matter how you slice it We have flexibility going forward and that is one of our biggest assets.

In response to mef429's comment:

Free agency was not the only way to get a quality SP, and I understand the innings thing with Dempster. I get what Ben was up to, but I disagree on one thing: he did nothing proactive for the future this winter. Keeping all the prospects and draft picks was nice, but it did not make us better. All of the FAs signed will be gone or past prime by 2014 and 2015. We can not count on all of the FAs on next years list to still be available. many players extend these days.

I just can't accept that with all the money spent, not one dime helps us in 2015 or beyond, except maybe a little from SV or what we might get by trading one of these guys. I see this as a missed opportunity in a plan that seeks to make us highly competitive by 2015.

This post has been removed.