Jim Rice disses Jeter

[Allstarjim]

Jim...with all due respect, Cal Ripken kind of sucked. Well, sucked is kind of harsh, but he really only had one great season, 1991. I understand that he was one of the first power hitting shortstops and all, and by that I mean 25 homers a season, but he really wasnt that great, he just played a lot of games. Gamer? Yes Great player? hardly

 

 

You're wrong on this one, Hugh. I just want to point out that prior to this era of artificially inflated muscles, 25 homeruns in a season was considered very, very good. If you hit 40 in a season, you probably led the league, and there was only a couple of guys who could do that during that time, most were first basemen or corner outfielders. Do you even begin to comprehend how hard reaching 400 homeruns was if you played the bulk of your career before 1995? Ripken had 431 homeruns. And he was not just a gamer, he was the ultimate gamer. Defensively he was exceptional and would have won a ton more gold gloves than his two if not for Omar Vizquel. His 1695 RBI's are 23rd in baseball all-time... at any position, behind only legends of the game. His homerun total is 38th all time... and there are 9 KNOWN steroid abusers above him on that list... think about that one for a second.

 

Him "playing in a lot of games", that's what you do when you never take a game off for what, 17 years or so? Hurt or sick, doesn't matter, he was out there. You want to talk about leaders?

 

You're only dinging Ripken because he rarely hit .300... which is a over-hyped stat anyway. There's no two ways around it... Ripken was a great. I know you young cats only remember Ripken when he was past his prime, but I was a baseball fanatic growing up in the 80's and early 90's, and Ripken was one of the best players in the game, no doubt. If you're on your mid-20's, I can easily understand how you would compare today's artificial numbers with guys who did it mostly in the 80's and early 90's and think they aren't as special.

[Allstarjim]

We have no way of knowing how hard pitchers threw back in the 1800's. But right now, the pool of pitchers is made up from millions of athletes from many countries where there are extremely competitive systems developing pitchers and hitters and what......we have maybe 1 or 2 players who can throw a hundred mph fastball? Yet, I'm supposed to believe that when there were 99.99% less players to choose from and of those .001%, a handful of young men who were not conditioned athletes and who never travailed through extremely competitive systems, etc..... that most of them could throw harder and better than pitchers from today? I just can't buy that. It doesn't even make a little bit of sense.

 

My dad graduated from a high school in the 40's where there weren't enough boys to field an entire team. Yet he swears up and down that they had a pitcher that could throw over a hundred mph and could hit a ball 600 feet. I love my dad, but I also know that there's a lot of nostalgia playing it's hand here. Everything was done better, harder, faster, and more perfect in the past. Conditioning of athletes, working ones way through extreme competition from the age 6, being selected over tens of thousands of other extremely conditioned athletes, brings out the best of the best, and that's a phenomena that didn't start until the 50's and 60's and didn't get perfected until the 80's.

 

Now I really don't like mocking the "good old days", but when an old-time pitcher threw complete games (sometimes every other day), and threw double-headers, and pitched 40 games a season on average - you can't convince me they were substantially better than today's pitchers and that they were throwing harder than today's pitchers. It's insane to even think that's possible.

 

And I love the tales of Babe Ruth, but can you picture a man with a huge beer gut, small arms, pencil thin legs, who runs stiff-armed like kids in grade school, who smoked more than 2 packs a day, drank to drunkeness every night, and who never stretched out before games and never excercised would come into today's game and tear it apart like a man among boys. There had to be some pretty low level pitching for him to have hit the way he did. He certainly wasn't dealing with 96 MPH sliders, followed by a changeup, followed by some chin music at 98 MPH, followed by another slider or cutter.

 

Regardless.....this is an old argument. There are people who believe that football players back in the days when they wore leather caps for helmets were far, far better players than today's players and there are people who believe that it was normal for unconditioned pitchers from the 1800's to throw harder, with better stuff than today's pitchers. It's like arguing "who would win in a fight?", a Saber-toothed tiger or a Lion. It's all speculation.

 

Bleedin', you use generalities and flawed logic to try to make your point. Let me just tell you something... conditioning doesn't do much for a pitcher. These guys back then pitched a ton of innings, probably because they were country strong. They chopped wood and shit.

 

But I will tell you this... based on the dimensions of the baseball diamond, recorded history based on distance of homeruns, and the weight of Babe Ruth's bat, there have been physics' professors that have calculated that pitchers would have HAD to throw in the mid-90's to generate the power it was needed to hit the ball as far as Ruth did.

 

Read this (I know it's a long read):

 

1. There is no physiological reason to support the assumption that pitchers are throwing faster now than they were 20/50/100 years ago.

 

One that is pointed out is the increased physical stature in players over the last several generations. While it is true that, in general, pitchers (and players) have gotten increasingly taller with each generation, this means little since the model fireball pitcher over the past 100+ years and even today has been, with few exceptions, a rather mid-sized fellow—6’-6’4”: Cy Young (6’2”), Amos Rusie (6’1”), Rube Waddell (6’2”), Ed Walsh (6’1”), Walter Johnson (6’2”), Dazzy Vance (6’2”), Lefty Grove (6’3”), Dizzy Dean (6’2”), Bob Feller (6’), Johnny Vander Meer (6’1”), Sandy Koufax (6’2”), Bob Gibson (6’1”), Tom Seaver (6’1”), Steve Carlton (6’4”), Nolan Ryan (6’2”), Dwight Gooden (6’2”), Roger Clemens (6’4”), David Cone (6’1”), Mark Wohlers (6’4”), Eric Gagne (6’2”), etc. Of course, exceptions on the tall side exist—Don Drysdale (6’5”), Sam McDowell (6’5”), J.R. Richard (6’8”), Randy Johnson (6’10”), Kerry Wood (6’5”)—but then so do shorter examples—Kid Nichols (5’10”), Smoky Joe Wood (5’10”), Ron Guidry (5’11”), Pedro Martinez (5’9”), Billy Wagner (5’8”)—the most recent examples of which display a height well within the stature of even the smallest starting pitchers 100 years ago, and a dominance of today’s much taller ML product which puts paid to the idea that pitchers of more modest stature cannot challenge the gun achievements of their more generously-statured peers.

 

Another oft-cited rebuttal is the claim that today’s weight training programs have given today’s moundsmen pitching arms of a strength superior to their predecessors. The problem with this claim is that there exists no evidence whatsoever that weight training increases pitching velocity. While I’m sure than many, if not most, recognize the importance of weight training in helping their pitchers build endurance, there’s not a pitching coach in the majors today who believes that it can do anything to help their charges’ fastballs. Most weight training is designed to build your maximum strength—the maximum amount of weight that you can lift—not absolute strength—the maximum amount you can lift at the maximum amount of speed; a.k.a., explosive strength—or muscle elasticity, which are the type of strength components that go into pitching velocity. Leo Mazzone, perhaps MLB’s most respected pitching coach, has gone on record regarding building velocity by saying that there is “simply no replacement for picking up a ball and throwing it.” To reiterate, there has not been one iota of evidence produced which shows that weight training increases pitching velocity.

 

 

2. Simple physics and Babe Ruth

 

In Robert K. Adair’s famous tome, The Physics of Baseball, we learn that the faster the pitch coming in, the greater energy it contains. Therefore, the heavier the bat needed to “reverse” the power of the pitch and send in rocketing toward the outfield fence. Conversely, the slower the pitch (batting practice), the less energy it contains; and therefore, the lighter the bat needed to provide the extra energy needed to drive the ball for distance (look at fungo-hitting, for instance). This simple physics lesson provides us with a lot of insight into the batter-pitcher paradigm, and allows us to draw several conclusions which seem to be very much in line with those subscribed to by today’s batters. After all, they typically bring their lightest bat to batting-practice, and consequently hit their farthest drives during this pre-game exercise.

 

And yet, if one believes in-game fastballs of, say, 80 years ago were the equivalent of today’s batting-practice pitches, how does one account for Ruth? During his prime years of the 1920’s, Ruth used bats between 54-42 oz. in-game—far heavier than anything seen in today’s game, much less batting-practice. And yet, research of the most painstaking type by home run expert Bill Jenkinson has established that Ruth was the greatest (furthest and most consistent) distance hitter of all-time. In 1921, for instance, it is an established fact that Ruth hit at least one 500-ft. home run in each of the eight American League parks. During this season, Ruth was typically employing 50-54 oz. war clubs. If the simple physics lesson above teaches us anything, it is that no one should be able to hit the ball as far with much heavier bats as other similarly-powered sluggers do with conversely lighter bats against pitches of relatively equal, low velocity; for one cannot swing the heavy bat with as much velocity as the light bat. And yet, if one subscribes to the theory that in-game fastballs of 80 years ago were the equivalent of today’s batting-practice pitches, then one must accept that Ruth could literally defy physics. The rejoinder, “Imagine how far he might have hit him had he used the same weight of bat that today’s sluggers use!” would be missing the point; for, according to the physics model above, it should have already been impossible for Ruth to have hit them as far as he did with the hefty bats he used. According to the model above, he would have had to have already been using much lighter bats to have been able to remain such a prodigious and consistent distance hitter in this would-be era of batting-practice pitches.

 

Of course, a more logical conclusion to this seeming-conundrum would be that the in-game pitches Ruth was hitting were traveling much faster than batting-practice velocity. In fact, the faster one assumes the pitches were traveling, the more credible Ruth’s distance achievements become; as it would accord with the demonstrated physics model Adair outlines in The Physics of Baseball, and the one which experience has taught us. For instance, concluding that Ruth’s May 7, 1921, 500+-ft. blast off Walter Johnson, which sailed over Griffith Stadium’s 457-ft. centerfield wall high into the trees behind, was hit off of a 95+-mph. fastball makes immensely more logical sense according to the demonstrated physics models than believing Johnson’s victimized pitch was little more than ~80-mph. At this lower speed, Ruth would have had to have provided the lion’s share of the energy himself—something he just would not have been able to do swinging his 50+ oz. war club (unless, again, we are willing to accept that Ruth had far greater bat velocity than any hitter in history; a model I’m less willing to accept as logical). Indeed, as mentioned above, the faster we assume Johnson’s pitch was, the less “superhuman” Ruth becomes. As for me, I’m more willing to believe that Ruth’s distance hitting was the beneficiary of some realistically fast, “energy-loaded” pitching over the superstitious conclusion that Ruth was simply “superhuman” (amazing, yes; superhuman, no).

In conclusion, respect of the very science involved in these paradigms demands a conclusion in line with the one scientifically laid out; and, therefore, the common sensical one.

 

 

3. Evidence in the form of batter injuries suffered at the hands of yesteryear’s fireballers.

Experience helps us to recognize that pitches thrown at batting-practice speed, the pedigree of velocity often and recklessly attributed to pitchers decades ago, cannot cause serious bodily injury to the batter 60’6” away. Yet, positively legion are the instances of serious bodily injury, and even compound fracture, caused by errant(?) pitches thrown by yesteryear’s moundsmen. Amos Rusie caved in the skull of Orioles shortstop Hughie Jennings and left him in a brink-of-death coma for four days after connecting one of his legendary heaters with Jennings’ noggin in the year 1892. Though this particular injury was “achieved” with the pitcher’s throwing distance a little more than 50 feet away from the batter, the moving back of the pitcher’s proximity to the batter to 60’6” wasn’t enough to prevent the same thing from happening to a young major-leaguer named Artie Ball six years later, also a victim of a Rusie fastball to the skull. In Ball’s case, he never played another ML game. Perhaps just as frightening as a Rusie fast one inside was Walter Johnson’s “hisser,” as a rookie named Jack Martin could testify in 1912, when he narrowly missed certain death, taking a Johnson fastball to the jaw, shattering it in five places and losing several teeth. A year earlier, a Johnson fast one to the throwing arm of Chicago’s Lee Tannehill had ended the veteran third baseman’s career, shattering his wrist so badly that the injury permanently impaired his throwing ability. In a game in 1915, an errant Johnson pitch struck the Tigers’ Ossie Vitt in the forehead and knocked him cold for ten minutes. Impressive (and scary), until one finds out that the pitch happened to be a curveball, in which case it becomes positively amazing and terrifying (fortunately, Vitt was OK). On May 25, 1937, player-manager and future-HOFer Mickey Cochrane had his skull fractured in three places by an errant Bump Hadley heater. Cochrane was be in a coma for ten days, and would never play again. Though accounts of serious bodily injury occurring at the hands of yesterday’s fireballers are, as I said, legion, I believe the point has been made so I’ll leave it at that for now. Lest we forget, the only death that has yet occurred on a ML diamond was at the hands of submarine fireballer Carl Mays, who crushed Ray Chapman’s skull with a high and inside fastball on August 16, 1920. A pitch thrown at so-called batting practice speed could not have caused such damage, in the case of Mays/Chapman, as in the case of the other instances of serious injury caused by a pitched ball.

 

4. Evidence in the form of yesteryear’s throwing contests

Finally, we have hard evidence that players of as much as 140+ years ago were throwing with velocities very comparable to today’s, in the form of throwing distance contests which were held by major-league teams in days gone by. These were commonly one of the attractions of what were known as Field Days, during which the best of two meeting teams (sometimes “All-Star” teams) would compete for top prizes in several field events testing baseball athleticism. Typically, there would be three primary events: 100-yard dash (or base circuit); distance fungo; and distance throw. As with the other two, records of the throwing contestants provides us today with some extremely valuable information regarding the physical skills of players from many decades ago—perhaps even in comparison to today’s—something which would be impossible to determine otherwise.

 

For instance, I recall something the Anaheim Angels did about a month back at their home ballpark. It wasn’t an official Field Day, simply the feat of lining up Vladimir Guerrero behind the third base bag and having him throw it over the right field fence. An impressive throw, no doubt (~350 ft.). Yet the muscular Vlad’s heave doesn’t compare to a throw made by Honus Wagner in a Field Day event held in Pittsburgh between the Louisville and Steel City ballclubs, October 16, 1898. Because records were kept, we know that Honus Wagner made what was considered a record-breaking throw of 403 ft., 8 in. in his (successful) attempt at gaining the day’s top throwing prizes.

 

My research has led me to so far uncover below’s recorded instances of similar distance throws. A couple, like the alleged Tony Mullane throw, I have not yet accepted as “official” because of lack of evidence. Two more, Foxx’s and Feller’s heaves, I have included simply because of the ages at which these respective feats were achieved. (BTW, because of health concerns, pitchers were almost always excluded from these throwing events.)

 

Name Date Distance Place

John Hatfield ?/?/? 349 ft. ?

John Hatfield 7/9/1868 396 ft. Cincinnati

John Hatfield 10/15/1872 400 ft., 7½ in. Brooklyn

Tony Mullane ?/?/? 416 ft., 7¾ in. ?

Farmer Vaughn 6/23/1890 402 ft., 2½ in. ?

Honus Wagner 10/16/1898 403 ft., 8 in. Pittsburgh

Honus Wagner ?/?/1907 399 ft., 10¾ in.?

Larry LeJeune 10/3/1908 435 ft. Chicago

Larry LeJeune 10/12/1910 401 ft., 4½ in. Cincinnati

Larry LeJeune 10/12/1910 426 ft., 9½ in. Cincinnati

Joe Jackson 9/27/1917 396 ft., 8 in. Boston

Duffy Lewis 9/27/1917 384 ft., 6 in. Boston

Clarence Walker 9/27/1917 384 ft., 6 in. Boston

Al Nixon ?/?/? 400 ft. ?

Don Grate 9/7/1952 434 ft., 1 in. Chattanooga

Don Grate 8/23/1953 443 ft., 3½ in. ?

Glen Gorbous 8/1/1957 445 ft., 10 in. Omaha

Jimmie Foxx 5/21/1919 183 ft., 5 in. Maryland

Bob Feller ?/?/1928 275 ft. Van Meter, IW

 

The next step is to convert these throwing distances into velocity over 60’6”. This is done by consulting Chart 2.5 in Adair’s The Physics of Baseball, which gives us a “muzzle velocity” for each distance achieved between 200 and 500 ft.; factoring in the 8-mph. drop in velocity from the release point 55’ feet away to the plate; and accounting for an additional ~8-mph. gained by “crow-hopping” (as outfielders do before throwing). According to Chart 2.5, someone who can launch a ball ~404 ft. on the fly throws with a muzzle velocity of ~110 mph. Considering that fast pitchers lose ~8-mph. on their pitches from their release point to the plate, and subtracting the extra ~8-mph. Wagner probably gained from crow-hopping, we see that Wagner’s heave was the equivalent of a 94-mph. fastball. (Likewise, if we take John Hatfield’s 400 ft., 7½ in. throw made on October 15, 1872, we see that Hatfield could speed them in at ~92-mph.)

If we then follow the accepted model that the strongest arms in MLB have always been on the pitchers mound, we logically infer that the fastest pitchers in Wagner’s day were throwing over 95-mph—much the same as today.

 

 

 

In sum, it is for these four, and other reasons I have accumulated in my research that leads me to, I believe, logically conclude that pitchers were throwing with just as much velocity 20/50/100 years ago as they are today. I sincerely believe that intensive, open-minded research into matters such as these will turn up a lot of surprising things which may overturn some of the preconceived notions the baseball collective holds so jealously to today, and will benefit us in the long run. After all, if we don’t learn from history, we will be, as they say, condemned to repeat it.

 

LINK

[Virginia Giant]

Young is a good player to be sure. But in order to be called the "best", the numbers have to continue for 18 or more years. If Young keeps up his numbers for the next 9 or 10 years, then you are right.....he'll be up there in the order of "greatest". But he has a ways to go as he's only compiled 8 full seasons of ball.

Thats a valid point, but I wasn't calling Young one of the greatest, my point was Jeter isn't THE greatest ever. Also, Jeter has only played 5 more years then young.

[MakeMeSomeFoodHo]

Thats a valid point, but I wasn't calling Young one of the greatest, my point was Jeter isn't THE greatest ever. Also, Jeter has only played 5 more years then young.

Im not saying Jeter is the greatest SS ever, but he needs to be in the conversation. The fact is that Alex Rodiguez is the greatest SS to ever live...and really, it isnt even close.

 

 

Also is Jeter is a yankee and he is hated and for that reason he will never get the credit he deserves from many people. Im sure there are people who will tell you that Jose Reyes, Nomar Garciaparra and Miguel Tejada are better...which couldnt be further from the truth, but becuase he is Derek Jeter and he plays for the Yankees, he will always be "overrated" and far inferior players will be "better"

 

I can accept that...as dumb as it might be.

[BleedinBlue]

Ya know......at least this thread has been very interesting (which is a nice change for this board lately).

 

I've read the arguments about past players vs. present players and there are arguments on both sides. The whole "weight training" for pitchers is a bogus argument because that it is not included in today's pitcher's conditioning regiment. Stretching, icing, warming, tracking pitch counts with a computer to maximize effectiveness, etc., is the way conditioning is done today. Furthermore, computers are used to track fluctuations in pitchers' effectiveness. Example, some pitchers have an ERA of 7.00 in the first two innings, but have a 1.00 ERA from innings 3 through 7, and then a 3.50 ERA in innings 8 and 9. These type of pitchers are great to be used as starting pitchers. Then you have pitchers who have an ERA under 1.00 for the first inning, but gets steadily higher as the innings go on, and balloons out of sight by the 3rd. These guys make great closers. And of course, pitchers with low ERA's in the first 3 innings, but then start getting blown out big time by the 4th inning on make excellent setup men or late mid-relievers. Because of this phenomenon, managers can manipulate pitchers throughout a game to maximize the team pitching in the most effective manner. And hitters constantly being challenged by a greater variety of pitchers disallows them to have an edge on the pitcher by having seen the same guy so many times. Additionally, computers track hitters so well that today's pitchers know every weakness of every batter they are facing before the guy even comes to the plate.

 

You can't convince me that a pitcher who pitches 45 complete games a year and an occasional double-header, is consistently slapping the catcher's mitt in the mid-90's. It's just physically impossible. But that's what we are to believe if we believe that today's pitchers couldn't carry yesterday's pitchers jock strap.

 

And the hitters today have a completely different regiment than pitchers and are on programs to develop only certain muscles, while being coached by professionals who analyze swings with a slo-mo camera and break each movement down nano-second by nano-second. There are no chain smoking players in the dugouts while waiting for their turn to hit or significant beer bellies on hungover players.

 

Regardless....we will never agree on this and it's an unwinnable argument no matter which side one takes.

 

 

------------------

 

And VG - we'll keep an eye on Young and see how his career ends up. But I'd like to point out that Jeter has brought so much more to the Yankees then simply his stats. He ignites the whole team physically and mentally like no player I've ever seen in my lifetime. Some say that Jeter's numbers reflect playing on a good team, yet before Jeter became a Yankee, the team sucked even though they were the highest paid team in baseball and George bought the best players in the game. Since Jeter donned the pinstripes fourteen years ago, the Yankees have been in 6 World Series, won 4 World Series, were division champs 12 times, etc. Prior to 1995 when Jeter put on the stripes, the Yankees had only 1 division championship in the past 13 years and came in 2nd twice, 3rd twice, and dead last multiple times.

 

You can call it coincidence, but I can't buy that.

[fringe]

That's because baseball is a great game- game i watched last nite between giants and rockies- 15 innings so much drama- elation and tragedy, mistakes and brilliance- like a shakespeare play.

baseball is the greatest game ever invented.

[MakeMeSomeFoodHo]

Bleedin, are you trying to say that Will White wasnt the greatest pitcher of all time? Or at least had the greatest season a pitcher has ever had?

 

Look at his some of his 1879 numbers.....surely no pither will ever do what he did that year

 

W- 43

L- 31

ERA- 1.99

Games- 76

Games Starts- 75

Complete Games- 75

Innings- 678

HR- 10 (thats right, he only gave up 10 HR in 678 innings pitched)

SO- 232(he was a finesse pitcher, not a power strike out guy..but insanely effective nonetheless)

BB- 68

WHIP- 1.009

[Allstarjim]

Bleedin, are you trying to say that Will White wasnt the greatest pitcher of all time? Or at least had the greatest season a pitcher has ever had?

 

Look at his some of his 1879 numbers.....surely no pither will ever do what he did that year

 

W- 43

L- 31

ERA- 1.99

Games- 76

Games Starts- 75

Complete Games- 75

Innings- 678

HR- 10 (thats right, he only gave up 10 HR in 678 innings pitched)

SO- 232(he was a finesse pitcher, not a power strike out guy..but insanely effective nonetheless)

BB- 68

WHIP- 1.009

 

 

That's actually a fair amount of homeruns allowed during that time.

 

Another point for Bleedin'... Nolan Ryan used to pitch over 300 innings, AVERAGE 10 K's per game, and he was throwing 100 mph, and oh yeah, he threw 26 complete games, and pitched in 42 games... that being in 1974. Perhaps in the days before "supplements" people were actually better conditioned. They grew up on farms, back then... and anyone who knows about how hard working a farm is would know that they were probably as conditioned or better than most of today's athletes. And what Nolan Ryan did was all that guys like Walter Johnson were doing in the early part of the century. Bob Feller threw a baseball recorded by the US Army at 98.6 MPH. Personally I don't know why it's so hard to believe.

 

I'm not sure why you are hanging on to this whole beer-guzzling, chain-smoking idea, either, Bleedin'. Honus Wagner didn't smoke, and I've never heard the allegation that he drank during or heavily before a ball game. And I think it was Cobb who said that pure water should be good enough for any man. Wagner threatened to sue a tobacco company that included baseball cards with cigarettes if they created his card because he didn't believe smoking tobacco was right, and didn't want kids to think he was ok with it. These guys were physically fit, Bleedin'... I think you are picturing Babe Ruth and labeling all baseball players of that era to be just like him. Babe was a freak of nature, it didn't matter what he did, he could still go out and hit a baseball 500 ft.

 

When you have guys that couldn't even SEE the baseball go by, guys DYING from being hit by a pitch, or having a jaw completely shattered, then yes, it's fair to say they were throwing mid-90's. I'm not saying they were better than the best players of today.... but they were comparable, and yes, they could've played today and still have been great. Especially Honus Wagner. All this computer crap doesn't matter when it's batter vs. pitcher on the field.

[Ditto]

10) Derek Jeter (14 1/2 years) 317 Batting Average, 2701 hits, 222 Home Runs, 1059 RBI (and damn it, he boinked Jessica Alba! - that's as good (or better) than Dimaggio boinking Marilyn Monroe).

Nooooooo! Marilyn was the pin up to which all other pin ups are compared, past and present. Sort of like the Babe Ruth of pin ups. (Or the Derek Jeter of short stops )

[fringe]

Im not saying Jeter is the greatest SS ever, but he needs to be in the conversation. The fact is that Alex Rodiguez is the greatest SS to ever live...and really, it isnt even close.

we all agree on the first point and i agree on both.

 

Also is Jeter is a yankee and he is hated and for that reason he will never get the credit he deserves from many people. Im sure there are people who will tell you that Jose Reyes, Nomar Garciaparra and Miguel Tejada are better...which couldnt be further from the truth, but becuase he is Derek Jeter and he plays for the Yankees, he will always be "overrated" and far inferior players will be "better"

 

I can accept that...as dumb as it might be.

That's just ridiculous.

[MakeMeSomeFoodHo]

we all agree on the first point and i agree on both.

 

 

That's just ridiculous.

blu, Im not saying you pesoanlly, but you mean to honestly tell me that youve never heard people say that Migeul Tejada, Nomar and Reyes were/are better than Jeter?

[BleedinBlue]

Bleedin, are you trying to say that Will White wasnt the greatest pitcher of all time? Or at least had the greatest season a pitcher has ever had?

 

Look at his some of his 1879 numbers.....surely no pither will ever do what he did that year

 

W- 43

L- 31

ERA- 1.99

Games- 76

Games Starts- 75

Complete Games- 75

Innings- 678

HR- 10 (thats right, he only gave up 10 HR in 678 innings pitched)

SO- 232(he was a finesse pitcher, not a power strike out guy..but insanely effective nonetheless)

BB- 68

WHIP- 1.009

 

 

Can you imagine - wow. He pitched 74 games and averaged 9.2 innings per game. That means he had to pitch entire games (including extra innings) every other day and sometimes 2 days in a row. I just can't see how an arm could hold up to that kind of abuse. I've seen the super-slo mo videos of pitchers who throw over 90MPH, and everytime a pitch is released, the tendons stretch to their limit and the arm comes part way out of socket. In some cases, so does the elbow. Hence the reason to ice arms and properly warm them up before throwing and why pitch count is so important. No matter how tough a man is, his shoulder, rotator cuff, and tendons can only handle so much abuse.

[fringe]

blu, Im not saying you pesoanlly, but you mean to honestly tell me that youve never heard people say that Migeul Tejada, Nomar and Reyes were/are better than Jeter?

nomar, before he had the injury bug, would've been a close competitor and was the great red hope. reyes and tejeda- no, not seriously. i think there are many players- ESPECIALLY WEST COAST PLAYERS take adrian gonzalez for instance- who, if in a major market like derek is would be much more highly regarded. so i think the opposite of your statement is more true.

[Virginia Giant]

nomar, before he had the injury bug, would've been a close competitor and was the great red hope. reyes and tejeda- no, not seriously. i think there are many players- ESPECIALLY WEST COAST PLAYERS take adrian gonzalez for instance- who, if in a major market like derek is would be much more highly regarded. so i think the opposite of your statement is more true.

Which is one of the points I think i was attempting to make before I got all homer with the Michael Young stuff.

 

My final opinion, Jeter is among the greatest SS and players to play the game, but aside from his willingness to dive head first into the stands and the occasionaly (how the fuck did he manage that" moment, his defense is too average to label him the absolute best SS of all time. And I also agree on Arod. even though he's a prick. (see, i can be unbiased)

[BleedinBlue]

Which is one of the points I think i was attempting to make before I got all homer with the Michael Young stuff.

 

My final opinion, Jeter is among the greatest SS and players to play the game, but aside from his willingness to dive head first into the stands and the occasionaly (how the fuck did he manage that" moment, his defense is too average to label him the absolute best SS of all time. And I also agree on Arod. even though he's a prick. (see, i can be unbiased)

I've seen this kind of play from Jeter at least a hundred times and I've never seen another SS do the same thing on a regular basis

 

And this one:

 

Regardless, I hear all the time about how Jeter has "lost a step" or "isn't what he used to be", and then I watch the old man continue to fall away in the air while gunning a runner out - the physics of which do not seem possible. And I watch him bat .330 while throwing singles to the opposite field at will. And I watch him inspire the whole team around him. And my jaw drops when I hear people say, "he's just an average shortstop". Not only is he above average, he's one of the most humble players to ever play the game and is a throwback to the days when players gave it their all, no matter the score, because the fan's paid good money to watch the game and he knows they deserve nothing less than seeing him give everything he's got. I've watched Jeter play for years and one of things I try to keep track of is how many times he doesn't have dirt on his uniform by the end of the game - from diving for a play or diving back to base, or whatever. I can't even remember a single game where he didn't end up with a dirty uniform. He always ends up with dirt streaks across his jersey - usually by the second inning. I think he is ashamed to finish a game where he didn't get dirty from playing as hard as he could.

[Ditto]

 

 

And this one:

I don't remember seeing that play. Awesome!! It's no wonder I think I turn on the games to see what he's going to do next.

[BleedinBlue]

I don't remember seeing that play. Awesome!! It's no wonder I think I turn on the games to see what he's going to do next.

Okay......I fucked up and didn't even bother to watch the clip to see that it was from a game. I have gotten where I can only check this blog on short breaks so I do things too quickly without checking things out close enough.

 

He boinked Jessica Alba - I think a lot of guys on here are simply jealous of that so they are trying to call him "average" or demean his accomplishments.

[fringe]

yea that's it.

[RandolphScott]

Derek "people think I invented jumping in the air because I don't have a strong enough arm." Jeter.

[BIGBLUE01]

i would say A-Rod is best SS of all time. Never saw Honus Wagner play but he has the stats. I'd put Barry Larkin ahead of Jeter too.

 

IMO, Ozzie Smith is the best SS ever, followed by Jeter. Derek has what you cant measure with stats, leadership, heart and the abiltiy to win.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

I didn't stop to realize that Jim Rice was taking a shot at you, T.

 

Fuck him!!!!

 

 

What is so funny is that I feel his vibe...we are both born on March 8th....same as Oliver Wendell Holmes...we consider ourselves Great Dissenters...just to be contrary and ornery and what not...its in our natures... :lol: Cyd Charisse was also a March 8th and she had the best legs of all of us...hands down.

[Herc]

dude, Ripken was not that good..he was very mediocre..just played a lot of games. Ripken couldnt shine derek jeters shoes.

 

agreed, he had a few good seasons early in his career but that retardedly overrated streak of his is what got him over.

 

and blu's right, adrian god-zalez is the man. can't wait to trade him in a year or two

[BleedinBlue]

IMO, Ozzie Smith is the best SS ever, followed by Jeter. Derek has what you cant measure with stats, leadership, heart and the abiltiy to win.

Ozzie was fun to watch because he would do a cartwheel and back flip when he came off the field. Of course, Carl Edwards (Nascar driver) does a back flip out his car window after winning a race, but it doesn't make him the best racer. Not to mention that the small high school that I went to had a half dozen girls between the ages of 13 and 18 that also could do cartwheels and back flips. Regardless.....Ozzie's fame has an awful lot to do with the hundreds of times he did the backflip when coming off the field and that shouldn't be the criteria for measuring a shortstop.

 

But one cannot measure the worth of a shortstop by a single category (ie., fielding percentage). For one reason, shortstops with amazing range can get to balls that others wouldn't come close to, but they can't pull off the play and hence, get an error. Also, some shortstops get considerably more balls hit their way than shortstops on other teams making the possibility (and reality) of more errors.

 

If "fielding" is the only criteria, than Omar Vizquel wins with his career .984 fielding average followed by Jimmy Rollins .982. And for single season records you have Mike Bordick with .998 (who had more than 150 chances during the season)

 

Likewise, if "hitting" was the only criteria, A-Rod would win hands down. But I believe that shortstops being rated against other shortstops should be life-long shortstops. So many shortstops become third basemen because they've lost their slender youthful frame and hence, their agility and range disappear.

 

Regardless.....shortstops should be "life-long" shortstops and the combination of fielding, hitting (both starting rallies and hitting in the clutch), hitting for power, baserunning, leadership, turning double-plays, etc. So it becomes somewhat subjective as to who was "best".

 

Ozzie Smith, who played shortstop for 18 years had a .262 BA and 28 Home Runs. Those are not HOF numbers, but Ozzie gets in because of his glove and his flair.

[fringe]

Ozzie was fun to watch because he would do a cartwheel and back flip when he came off the field. Of course, Carl Edwards (Nascar driver) does a back flip out his car window after winning a race, but it doesn't make him the best racer. Not to mention that the small high school that I went to had a half dozen girls between the ages of 13 and 18 that also could do cartwheels and back flips. Regardless.....Ozzie's fame has an awful lot to do with the hundreds of times he did the backflip when coming off the field and that shouldn't be the criteria for measuring a shortstop.

 

only boinking jessica alba is criteria for greatness.

[BleedinBlue]

only boinking jessica alba is criteria for greatness.

Nah......that's just the friggin cherry on top of the banana split. It's a man thing. I wanna boink Alba.

 

 

 

Little clip of Jessica Alba in Costa Rica