Tim Kurkjian and the greatest SS's

[darwinbulldog]

I rank Davis as the 11th best T206 player, including all the pitchers. He's terribly underrated, but so is Arky Vaughn -- well, except with us and Kurkjian. Wagner is 1. Vaughn is 2. Davis is a few spots down but still ahead of Jeter.

[the 'stache]

Some more metrics which only consider offensive contribution.

James explains in his book, The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, why he believes runs created is an essential thing to measure:

With regard to an offensive player, the first key question is how many runs have resulted from what he has done with the bat and on the basepaths. Willie McCovey hit .270 in his career, with 353 doubles, 46 triples, 521 home runs and 1,345 walks -- but his job was not to hit doubles, nor to hit singles, nor to hit triples, nor to draw walks or even hit home runs, but rather to put runs on the scoreboard. How many runs resulted from all of these things?[1]

Runs created
Griffey 1,994 (22nd)
Jeter 1,900 (27th)

Adjusted Batting Runs
Griffey 511 (42nd)
Jeter 276 (150)

Adjusted Batting Wins
Griffey 47.6 (50th)
Jeter 25.3 (180th)

Offensive Win %
Griffey .663 (161st)
Jeter .597 (42ns active)

WPA win probability added
Griffey 46.6 (42nd)
Jeter 31.4 (89th)

wOBA (career weighted on base average)
Griffey .384
Jeter .362

Fangraphs offense value (batting and base running combined above average)
Griffey 440.2
Jeter 360.1

RAR - runs above average (batting + fielding + base running + replacement + positional)
Griffey 778.8
Jeter 759.3

Batting value
Griffey 451.4
Jeter 317.2

These different metrics take into consideration the players positions, their production with their bats, and with their legs. Time after time, metric after metric, Ken Griffey Jr, even with one injury after another slowing him down for much of the second half of his career, is ahead of Jeter, in many instances way ahead. These are standard and Sabermetric analyses. Griffey creates more runs. He increases win probability better. He just does more.

Now you can say that these stats don't take into consideration what would happen if Jeter singled 300 times in a season, and stole 200 bases in 200 tries, with a chicken on his head. It doesn't matter. Ken Griffey Jr was the better player in pretty much every measurable available.

And again, when compared against the greats that have played the same positions: JAWS rankings
Ken Griffey Jr is ranked the 5th best center fielder
Derek Jeter is ranked the 12th best shortstop

I also wanted to bring up something you said earlier.

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Griffey hit more home runs granted, but he had almost 30 points less in his career batting average and half as many stolen bases as Jeter did. Everything else; doubles, triples, walks, strike outs are about the same. The only thing Griffey did that Jeter didn't was hit home runs, but Griffey never had a 200 hit season, he only hit above .310 once in his career while Jeter averaged above .310 throughout the entirety of his career. Really, it would just be a preference argument at this point. Offensive WAR gives the edge to Jeter, OPS+ gives it to Griffey. Do you like home runs or hits? Otherwise they were very similar.

Ted Williams never had 200 hits in a season, either. Is Derek Jeter a better hitter than him, too? Really, getting 200 hits in a season isn't a great accomplishment. In one of the seasons he got 200 hits, (202 to be precise), he only hit .309. He got 200 hits because he came up 654 times. He actually came to the plate 752 times.

Griffey had half as many stolen bases as Jeter did. Ok, but Griffey wasn't really a base stealer. And neither was Jeter. You keep bringing up his base stealing like it's something impressive. Stealing 354 bases, again, really isn't that impressive when you consider he's played 20 years. 61 people have stolen more bases than Jeter. And if I were able to run a report of players that averaged more than the 18 bases a season Jeter has stolen, the list would be a lot longer. If Jeter were a home run hitter, and I said he was 61st all-time on that list, would you be impressed? Know who is 61st on the all time home run list? Harold Baines. Was Harold Baines a great power hitter?

But back to the "Ken Griffey never had a 200 hit season". Again, so what? Ted Williams never did. I'd wager a lot of Hall of Famers never did. Robin Yount only had one 200 hit season. I bet that Griffey is sitting home tonight thinking to himself "if I'd only hit more bloop singles to right field!"

Know how many 200 hit seasons there have been in Major League history? 482. That's right. Jeter had 8 200 hit seasons. But some of that is a product of where he hits in the lineup. Jeter has 4,644 plate appearances where he was the leadoff hitter, and 6,591 plate appearances where he batted second. Griffey had 8,932 plate appearances batting third, and 984 batting cleanup. This netted Jeter an extra 67 at bats per 162 games. That's an extra 20 hits per season just because of where he hit in the lineup. Jeter was a table setter. It was his job to get on base for the run producers in the lineup.

But you know what is impressive? Hitting 50 home runs in a season. Unlike the dizzying number of 200 hit seasons that have been accomplished (if you want to call it an accomplishment), there have only been 43 50 home run seasons in the history of the Major Leagues. The dead ball era ended in 1919. So this is now 95 years since the dead ball era. Let's just break this down.

Major League Baseball was founded in 1869. So, that's what, 145 years of baseball? Well, the National League was founded in 1876, I believe, but we'll go with 145 seasons.

482 200-hit seasons / 145 seasons. That's an average of 3.32 200 hit seasons per year. That's probably low, as the rules were different then, but I'm feeling generous.
The deadball era ended in 1919. So, from 1920 until now, there have been 94 seasons.

43 50-home run seasons / 94 years. That's 0.4577 50 home run seasons per year. So, about one every other year.

482 200 hit seasons
43 50 home run seasons

Of those 43 50 home run seasons, Griffey Jr accounts for 2 of them.

Let's look at players that have had multiple seasons of 40 + home runs:
Ruth 11
Rodriguez 8
Bonds 8
Killebrew 8
Aaron 8
Griffey Jr 7

So in the history of the Major Leagues, only Babe Ruth, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Harmon Killebrew and Henry Aaron have had more 40 home run seasons than Ken Griffey Jr's 7.

What about 50 home run seasons?
Sosa, McGwire and Ruth 4 each
Rodriguez 3
Griffey Jr, Mantle, Mays, Kiner, Foxx 2 each

Originally Posted by jhs5120

You're right, if Griffey was healthy he would have had one of the best careers in the history of the sport! But he didn't remain healthy If Jeter wasn't injured in 2013 and didn't have the burden of playing an extra 158 post season games, maybe he would have had another couple 200 hit seasons. But he won't

Funny, even though Junior got hurt, a career line with a .284 AVG, 1,662 runs, 630 home runs, 1,836 RBI, 7 Silver Slugger Awards, 10 Gold Gloves and an MVP season...he still had one of the greatest careers in Major League history. If he hadn't gotten hurt, he might have broken all the records. But 6th in home runs, 15th in RBI, 13th in total bases...all while being one of the great center fielders in the game's history...I'd say he did have one of the great careers.

But I'm not sure how the number of post season games Jeter played affected the number of 200 hit seasons he had. Injuries might have cost him a shot at another. But the number of post season games played should have no impact whatsoever. Several months pass between the end of the World Series and spring training. So Jeter's playing in 150 or so post season games is not even worth mentioning as it impacts his career regular season stats.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that nothing I could show you will change your mind. Ken Griffey Jr was the better all around player. Jeter was outstanding, too. Both men will be first ballot Hall of Famers. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And the argument that he, who never received a single HOF vote until the 1998 veterans' committee, is better than Derek Jeter is???

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And the argument that he, who never received a single HOF vote until the 1998 veterans' committee, is better than Derek Jeter is???

I really don't know. Pretty good stats for a deadball guy.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_SS.shtml

Pretty interesting table. Not the end all or be all of the discussion, but certainly interesting.

These are not the full lists.

WAR
Wagner 131
Ripken 95.5
Davis 84.7
Yount 77
Vaughn 72.9
Jeter 72.2
Trammell 70.4

JAWS
Wagner 98.2
Ripken 75.8
Davis 64.5
Yount 62.1
Vaughn 61.8
Jeter 57.2
Trammell 57.5


OPS+
Wagner 151
Vaughn 136
Davis 121
Jeter 116
Yount 115
Ripken 112
Trammell 110

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I really don't know. Pretty good stats for a deadball guy.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_SS.shtml

Pretty interesting table. Not the end all or be all of the discussion, but certainly interesting.

These are not the full lists.

WAR
Wagner 131
Ripken 95.5
Davis 84.7
Yount 77
Vaughn 72.9
Jeter 72.2
Trammell 70.4

JAWS
Wagner 98.2
Ripken 75.8
Davis 64.5
Yount 62.1
Vaughn 61.8
Jeter 57.2
Trammell 57.5


OPS+
Wagner 151
Vaughn 136
Davis 121
Jeter 116
Yount 115
Ripken 112
Trammell 110

Looking at his career stats, it seems he had some big numbers in the 1890s but had a fairly mediocre second half of his career in the 1900s. Ended up only at .295 lifetime in an era where the top tier players obviously hit much higher than that. I am guessing most of those WAR numbers are coming from a few years in the 1890s which, for most people anyhow, would tend to omit him from discussions of all time greats.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Looking at his career stats, it seems he had some big numbers in the 1890s but had a fairly mediocre second half of his career in the 1900s. Ended up only at .295 lifetime in an era where the top tier players obviously hit much higher than that. I am guessing most of those WAR numbers are coming from a few years in the 1890s which, for most people anyhow, would tend to omit him from discussions of all time greats.

What appears to be a mediocre second half of his career is largely due to the very low offensive output in the league from about 1904 until near the end of his career. He wasn't as good a hitter as he had been in the 1890s but he was still good. FWIW, his WAR for ten seasons in the 1890s is 43.1 and for eight full seasons in the 1900s (not counting two seasons that he totaled 100 ABs) it's 41.8.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by howard38

What appears to be a mediocre second half of his career is largely due to the very low offensive output in the league from about 1904 until near the end of his career. He wasn't as good a hitter as he had been in the 1890s but he was still good. FWIW, his WAR for ten seasons in the 1890s is 43.1 and for eight full seasons in the 1900s (not counting two seasons that he totaled 100 ABs) it's 41.8.

Looks like I guessed wrong then.

[jhs5120]

Before I respond to anything below, I want to restate; I believe Ken Griffey Jr. was a better player than Derek Jeter, but marginally. I first said it in post 98 and again in 127. Purely from an offensive production standpoint, they are at a very similar level IMO (as I said in post 113) and deserve to be considered equally among the elites. I don't think Jeter is better, but I certainly do not believe Griffey is nearly as far ahead as Jeter as you've been insinuating. That's all I've been arguing.

Excluding the juicers, I think they are both top 5 players of the last 30 years.

No one will argue (especially me) that Griffey wasn't the better hitter, so when I dive into some of the stats below I am going to ignore the metrics that ignore base running (obviously).

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Some more metrics which only consider offensive contribution.

James explains in his book, The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, why he believes runs created is an essential thing to measure:

With regard to an offensive player, the first key question is how many runs have resulted from what he has done with the bat and on the basepaths. Willie McCovey hit .270 in his career, with 353 doubles, 46 triples, 521 home runs and 1,345 walks -- but his job was not to hit doubles, nor to hit singles, nor to hit triples, nor to draw walks or even hit home runs, but rather to put runs on the scoreboard. How many runs resulted from all of these things?[1]

Runs created
Griffey 1,994 (22nd)
Jeter 1,900 (27th)

I love Runs Created, and as you can see above, they were both very close.

Jeter leads all shortstops (even Wagner) in Runs Created. The only other leadoff hitters in front of Jeter are Ty Cobb, Rickey Henderson and Pete Rose - which is pretty impressive since Runs Created is a stat that weighs home runs pretty heavily, so to see Jeter rank so high with less than 300 home runs speaks volumes at the level of dominance in other offensive aspects. The only other player with less than 300 and not previously mentioned was Tris Speaker, who I think batted second?


Offensive Win %
Griffey .663 (161st)
Jeter .597 (42nd active)

Offensive Win % isn't really a metric. Basically, if there were 9 Derek Jeter's in your lineup, how ofter would you win? Well, Jeter was a lead off hitter, so it would be kind of pointless to have 9 lead off hitters on your team. This is basically a metric to determine who has the "optimal" combination of power and speed. Griffey had more speed than Jeter had power, but this doesn't really mean one is worse/better than the other. For comparison; of all players in the league right now, guess who leads in OW%? Cabrera? Pujols? Nope, Joey Votto.

RAR - runs above average (batting + fielding + base running + replacement + positional)
Griffey 778.8
Jeter 759.3

Griffey gets a marginal bump because of fielding, but otherwise, they are near identical. Less the fielding, Jeter might actually be ahead.

Offensive WAR
Jeter 95.7
Griffey 83.8

I added this in just to drive home how similar the two players are. There are three very real and relevant metrics for calculating offensive production above; Runs Created, RAR and Offensive WAR. In all of them it paints the picture that the two players had an almost identical value to their respective teams. That's all I tried to argue in post 98 and that's what my work and your work has pointed to.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

These different metrics take into consideration the players positions, their production with their bats, and with their legs. Time after time, metric after metric, Ken Griffey Jr, even with one injury after another slowing him down for much of the second half of his career, is ahead of Jeter, in many instances way ahead. These are standard and Sabermetric analyses. Griffey creates more runs. He increases win probability better. He just does more.

Half of the metrics you provided do not take into account stolen bases and some include fielding. When you take those out of the equation, it paints a different picture. See above.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Funny, even though Junior got hurt, a career line with a .284 AVG, 1,662 runs, 630 home runs, 1,836 RBI, 7 Silver Slugger Awards, 10 Gold Gloves and an MVP season...he still had one of the greatest careers in Major League history. If he hadn't gotten hurt, he might have broken all the records. But 6th in home runs, 15th in RBI, 13th in total bases...all while being one of the great center fielders in the game's history...I'd say he did have one of the great careers.

Getting hurt doesn't make you a better player.

Would you take Ken Griffey Jr. in 2003 when he played 53 games and hit .247, or would you take some mid level replacement player? The middle level player. Why? Because the middle level player was better in 2003 than Ken Griffey Jr. Just because an injury made a great hitter bad doesn't mean his bad season was great. Who knows, maybe he was injured because of the level he played at? Maybe Griffey would have had a healthy career if he was a .250 hitter. No one knows so it's pointless to speculate.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that nothing I could show you will change your mind. Ken Griffey Jr was the better all around player. Jeter was outstanding, too. Both men will be first ballot Hall of Famers. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

What are you trying to change? I've said at least three times in this thread Griffey is the better player. So congrats. I just think it's very very very close, and everything you've pointed out above goes with that.

Also, I got rid of your rant about the 200 hits. How did that even come up? I agree 200 hits is an arbitrary number (like 50 home runs, or 147 walks), but it was meant to be paired with the batting average statistic I used in the same sentence (that you left out).


Edited to add:

Here is the original list that started this whole Griffey vs. Jeter thing. As I said, I think it's close.

My list for the past 30 years would be:

1. Rickey Henderson
2. Tony Gwynn
3. Ken Griffey Jr.
4. Derek Jeter (very close)
5. Albert Pujols

[howard38]

Jeter has had far more plate appearances batting second than he has leading off.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by howard38

Jeter has had far more plate appearances batting second than he has leading off.

I know he batted second most games when Damon played and second for Knoblauch., but I would still consider him a leadoff hitter. Regardless, there is now difference statistically between a leadoff hitter and hitting second.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Runs created
Griffey 1,994 (22nd)
Jeter 1,900 (27th)

I love Runs Created, and as you can see above, they were both very close. [/qb]

Jeter had 10% more PAs than Griffey did and still came up 5% short in runs created. The total is relatively close but the accumulation rate is not. Jeter = 1 run per 6.54 PAs, Griffey = 1 per 5.66 PAs. In other words, Griffey created runs 17% faster than Jeter. That's a HUGE difference.

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Offensive WAR
Jeter 95.7
Griffey 83.8

Really all this does is show that Jeter was a lot better than other shortstops offensively - no argument there. Griffey's offensive competition at CF is a lot better than Jeter's offensive competition at SS. And that's even accounting for the positional adjustment included in OWAR.

Offensive players have a number of jobs they're supposed to do but their top two are as follows: get on base and do damage in the process of getting on base. Jeter and Griffey get on base at about the same rate (.379 vs .370) but Griffey does a LOT more damage in getting on (SLG = .538 vs .442). That makes him a significantly better offensive player than Jeter.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Offensive players have a number of jobs they're supposed to do but their top two are as follows: get on base and do damage in the process of getting on base. Jeter and Griffey get on base at about the same rate (.379 vs .370) but Griffey does a LOT more damage in getting on (SLG = .538 vs .442). That makes him a significantly better offensive player than Jeter.

Exactly.