Tim Kurkjian and the greatest SS's

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I don't think it is fair at all to compare two players ONLY using home runs and strikeouts. I think everyone here will agree.

Besides, Ken Griffey Jr. struck out MORE that Derek Jeter did. Griffey struck out 1,779 times in 11,304 plate appearances; or 15.7% of the time. Jeter struck out 1,819 times in 12,435 plate appearances; or 14.6% of the time. The amount of 100+ strike out seasons is as relevant as the amount of 172 hit season. It isn't relevant at all.

Here is a comparison of the two players over their 162 game average:

Hits:
Derek Jeter: 205
Ken Griffey Jr.: 169

Runs:
Derek Jeter: 115
Ken Griffey Jr.: 101

Doubles:
Derek Jeter: 32
Ken Griffey Jr.: 32

Home Runs:
Derek Jeter: 15
Ken Griffey Jr.: 38

RBI:
Derek Jeter: 77
Ken Griffey Jr.: 111

Stolen Bases:
Derek Jeter: 21
Ken Griffey Jr.: 11

Strike Outs
Derek Jeter: 109
Ken Griffey Jr.: 108

Batting Average:
Derek Jeter: .311
Ken Griffey Jr.: .284

OPS:
Derek Jeter: .821
Ken Griffey Jr.: .907

The two are nearly identical except Griffey hit more home runs, Jeter hit more singles and stole more bases. It's a toss up as to which a coach would prefer. From purely a statistical standpoint, Derek Jeter wins out. He has a marginally higher Offensive WAR, but it's so close that it's almost negligible. Personally, I would take Jeter because he plays shortstop, but they would both help a team.

Griffey battled one injury after another in the second half of his career from diving all over the outfield, and over walls to rob home runs. The point is that Jeter shouldn't have struck out as much as he has. He's struck out more than every single member of the 3,000 hit club. That Jeter has struck out more than Griffey is absolutely funny.

You skipped OBP. Jeter's OBP is only 7 points higher than Griffey Jr's.

OBP:
Griffey: .370
Jeter: .379

OBP is a much better metric than batting average. While batting average will always be considered, and important, on base percentage is the best metric. And Jeter, who's got a much higher batting average, has almost the same on base percentage as Griffey. So, Griffey gets on base nearly as often as Jeter.

When it comes to power, though, there is no comparison:

SLG:
Griffey: .538
Jeter: .432

And again, his slugging dropped, as did most of his metrics, because of the injuries he fought through. At age 31, Griffey's SLG was .568.

Jeter is a singles hitter. Griffey, who has 370 more home runs, has nearly the identical number of doubles.

Doubles:
Jeter: 538
Griffey: 524

And one thing we haven't mentioned that puts Griffey way way ahead of Jeter-defense. Griffey Jr is defensively one of the best center fielders of all-time. Jeter is an average, maybe slightly above average defensive shortstop. Griffey, who is overall a better offensive force than Jeter, is a much better defensive contributor.

There is simply no contest. Griffey is the superior player. Again, Jeter is great, but Griffey Jr was a mega star.

Consider their best seasons by WAR. Remember a WAR of 5+ is All Star level. A WAR of 8+ is MVP level (these are per Baseball Reference)

Jeter's best WARs:
1999 8.0
1998 7.5
2009 6.5
2006 5.5
2001 5.2

Griffey Jr's best WARs:
1996 9.7
1997 9.1
1993 8.7
1991 7.1
1994 6.9
1998 6.6
1992 5.8
2000 5.5
1990 5.2

Jeter had 5 seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher. Jeter had one season (1999) that, per WAR, would be at an MVP level.

Griffey Jr had 9 seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher. Griffey Jr had three seasons (1996, 1997 and 1993) that, per WAR, would be at an MVP level.

So, to summarize:
Derek Jeter is an outstanding hitter with excellent speed. He won the 1996 American League Rookie of the Year. He is a lifetime .311 hitter. He has hit 259 home runs, and stolen 356 bases. His 3,432 hits is sixth all-time, and his 1,914 runs scored is 10th all-time. He is a 14 time All Star. He has won 5 Silver Slugger Awards and 5 Gold Gloves. He has never won an MVP, but has finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 3 times. He has led the American League in runs scored once, and in hits twice in his 20 year career. Derek Jeter has struck out more times than any other member of the 3,000 hit club. He has had 5 seasons with a WAR figure of 5.0 or higher (which is considered All Star level). He has had one WAR figure of 8.0 or higher (which is considered MVP level).

Ken Griffey Jr was a complete player with great power, speed and defensive ability. Griffey is a lifetime .284 hitter with 630 home runs and 1,836 RBI. His 630 home runs is sixth best all-time, and he is thirteenth in RBIs. Griffey is a 13 time All Star. He has won 7 Silver Slugger Awards and 10 Gold Gloves. He has led the American League in runs scored once, RBI once, Slugging once, and total bases twice. He has also won 4 home run titles. Ken Griffey Jr's 382 home runs were the most by an American Leaguer in the 1990s. Only Mark McGwire hit more in the decade (405). McGwire played in both leagues. Ken Griffey Jr was the 1997 American League MVP. He has finished in the top 5 in voting four other times. Griffey Jr has finished with a WAR figure of 8.0 or higher 3 times (which is considered MVP level). He has had six other seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher (which is considered All Star level). He also had a 4.9 WAR rating in 1999. Ken Griffey is a member of the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.


Jeter is a great player. But Griffey across the boards is just better. He has more Silver Slugger Awards, twice as many Gold Glove Awards (and Jeter's are questioned by many). Jeter has been selected to the All Star Game one more time. Griffey Jr has won an MVP while Jeter has not, though Jeter may have been a better choice in 2006 than Justin Morneau. Still, Griffey Jr has had more WAR 8+ (3 to 1) and WAR 5+ (9 to 5).

JAWS (Jaffe WAR Scoring System) has rated these players:
Derek Jeter 12th best shortstop behind Alan Trammell. Top 5: Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Cal Ripken Jr, George Davis, Robin Yount

Ken Griffey Jr 5th best center fielder (behind Mickey Mantle). Top 5: Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Ken Griffey Jr.

7 year peak WAR:
Derek Jeter 42.2
Ken Griffey Jr 53.9

Pretty much any way you slice it, Griffey is simply better.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course Jeter also is one of the best postseason players of all time. Worth mention.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course Jeter also is one of the best postseason players of all time. Worth mention.

That's a bit of a stretch, I think. He's a career .308 hitter with a .465 slugging % in the playoffs. Those are fine numbers, to be sure. But they pale next to Carlos Beltran (.333 & .683), Ruth, Gehrig, and (I'm sure) many others I'm forgetting. Jeter has very impressive totals - all-time leader in PAs, hits, doubles, triples, 3rd in homers, etc - but those are all the result of his having played a full season's worth of games in the postseason, not because he was particularly great in the postseason. In fact, in all the numbers that measure a player's RATE at doing something (average, OBP, slugging, etc), Jeter isn't in the top 10 in anything.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/po..._batting.shtml

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Tabe

That's a bit of a stretch, I think. He's a career .308 hitter with a .465 slugging % in the playoffs. Those are fine numbers, to be sure. But they pale next to Carlos Beltran (.333 & .683), Ruth, Gehrig, and (I'm sure) many others I'm forgetting. Jeter has very impressive totals - all-time leader in PAs, hits, doubles, triples, 3rd in homers, etc - but those are all the result of his having played a full season's worth of games in the postseason, not because he was particularly great in the postseason. In fact, in all the numbers that measure a player's RATE at doing something (average, OBP, slugging, etc), Jeter isn't in the top 10 in anything.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/po..._batting.shtml

I would definitely include Jeter as one of the all time greats in post season history. Unfortunately, he won't rank in the top 10 in any postseason metric because there are so many players with smaller sample sizes than Jeter has had.

An example! Do you know who leads all players in post season OPS? The great Willie Aikens does! He has played in 12 post season games, but man did he shine

Derek Jeter has played virtually one full season (158 games) and has put together numbers that are better than his 162 game averages! That's pretty damn impressive!


Hits
Regular Season 162 Game Average: 205
Playoff 158 Game Total: 200

Runs
Regular Season 162 Game Average: 115
Playoff 158 Game Total: 111

Doubles
Regular Season 162 Game Average: 32
Playoff 158 Game Total: 32

Home Runs
Regular Season 162 Game Average: 15
Playoff 158 Game Total: 20

RBI
Regular Season 162 Game Average: 77
Playoff 158 Game Total: 61

Stolen Bases
Regular Season 162 Game Average: 21
Playoff 158 Game Total: 18

Walks
Regular Season 162 Game Average: 64
Playoff 158 Game Total: 66

Batting Average
Regular Season 162 Game Average: .311
Playoff 158 Game Total: .308

On Base Percentage
Regular Season 162 Game Average: .379
Playoff 158 Game Total: .374

Slugging Percentage
Regular Season 162 Game Average: .442
Playoff 158 Game Total: .465

OPS
Regular Season 162 Game Average: .821
Playoff 158 Game Total: .838

The fact that Jeter was able to play at such a constant level (and even slightly higher level) than he normally played during his career with such a huge sample size speaks volumes! When you even consider the stronger pitching matchups in the playoffs and the level of pressure, it's absolutely astonishing!

I'm not saying he was the best postseason player all time, but he is certainly up there.

[Peter_Spaeth]

An interesting exercise would be to take the players with enough plate appearances to be a truly meaningful sample -- I assume such a list would include Ortiz, Ramirez, Chipper, possibly Alomar and Justice, other Yankees like Williams and Posada and maybe O'Neill -- and see how they stack up.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

An interesting exercise would be to take the players with enough plate appearances to be a truly meaningful sample -- I assume such a list would include Ortiz, Ramirez, Chipper, possibly Alomar and Justice, other Yankees like Williams and Posada and maybe O'Neill -- and see how they stack up.

Well, without getting too deep into it...

There are 8 players with over 300 career post season at bats and their career post season OPS compared to their regular season OPS is ranked below:

(Postseason OPS / Regular Season OPS)

Manny Ramirez: .937 / .996
Chipper Jones: .864 / .930
Bernie Williams: .850 / .858
Derek Jeter: .838 / .821
Jorge Posada: .745 / .848
David Justice: .717 / .878
Tino Martinez: .672 / .815
Kenny Lofton: .667 / .794

Jeter is ranked fourth, but is surrounded by some impressive company. Also, it looks like Jeter was the only player above to play at a higher rate during the post season vs. regular season. If that's not clutch, I don't know what is.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Well, without getting too deep into it...

There are 8 players with over 300 career post season at bats and their career post season OPS compared to their regular season OPS is ranked below:

(Postseason OPS / Regular Season OPS)

Manny Ramirez: .937 / .996
Chipper Jones: .864 / .930
Bernie Williams: .850 / .858
Derek Jeter: .838 / .821
Jorge Posada: .745 / .848
David Justice: .717 / .878
Tino Martinez: .672 / .815
Kenny Lofton: .667 / .794

Jeter is ranked fourth, but is surrounded by some impressive company. Also, it looks like Jeter was the only player above to play at a higher rate during the post season vs. regular season. If that's not clutch, I don't know what is.

Seriously? Having a post season OPS that is .017 higher than your career regular season OPS is "clutch"?

"Congratulations, Derek Jeter, for having a post season OPS that is marginally higher than your regular season OPS. That is the very definition of clutch."

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Griffey battled one injury after another in the second half of his career from diving all over the outfield, and over walls to rob home runs. The point is that Jeter shouldn't have struck out as much as he has. He's struck out more than every single member of the 3,000 hit club. That Jeter has struck out more than Griffey is absolutely funny.

You skipped OBP. Jeter's OBP is only 7 points higher than Griffey Jr's.

OBP:
Griffey: .370
Jeter: .379

OBP is a much better metric than batting average. While batting average will always be considered, and important, on base percentage is the best metric. And Jeter, who's got a much higher batting average, has almost the same on base percentage as Griffey. So, Griffey gets on base nearly as often as Jeter.

When it comes to power, though, there is no comparison:

SLG:
Griffey: .538
Jeter: .432

And again, his slugging dropped, as did most of his metrics, because of the injuries he fought through. At age 31, Griffey's SLG was .568.

Jeter is a singles hitter. Griffey, who has 370 more home runs, has nearly the identical number of doubles.

Doubles:
Jeter: 538
Griffey: 524

And one thing we haven't mentioned that puts Griffey way way ahead of Jeter-defense. Griffey Jr is defensively one of the best center fielders of all-time. Jeter is an average, maybe slightly above average defensive shortstop. Griffey, who is overall a better offensive force than Jeter, is a much better defensive contributor.

There is simply no contest. Griffey is the superior player. Again, Jeter is great, but Griffey Jr was a mega star.

Consider their best seasons by WAR. Remember a WAR of 5+ is All Star level. A WAR of 8+ is MVP level (these are per Baseball Reference)

Jeter's best WARs:
1999 8.0
1998 7.5
2009 6.5
2006 5.5
2001 5.2

Griffey Jr's best WARs:
1996 9.7
1997 9.1
1993 8.7
1991 7.1
1994 6.9
1998 6.6
1992 5.8
2000 5.5
1990 5.2


Jeter had 5 seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher. Jeter had one season (1999) that, per WAR, would be at an MVP level.

Griffey Jr had 9 seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher. Griffey Jr had three seasons (1996, 1997 and 1993) that, per WAR, would be at an MVP level.

So, to summarize:
Derek Jeter is an outstanding hitter with excellent speed. He won the 1996 American League Rookie of the Year. He is a lifetime .311 hitter. He has hit 259 home runs, and stolen 356 bases. His 3,432 hits is sixth all-time, and his 1,914 runs scored is 10th all-time. He is a 14 time All Star. He has won 5 Silver Slugger Awards and 5 Gold Gloves. He has never won an MVP, but has finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 3 times. He has led the American League in runs scored once, and in hits twice in his 20 year career. Derek Jeter has struck out more times than any other member of the 3,000 hit club. He has had 5 seasons with a WAR figure of 5.0 or higher (which is considered All Star level). He has had one WAR figure of 8.0 or higher (which is considered MVP level).

Ken Griffey Jr was a complete player with great power, speed and defensive ability. Griffey is a lifetime .284 hitter with 630 home runs and 1,836 RBI. His 630 home runs is sixth best all-time, and he is thirteenth in RBIs. Griffey is a 13 time All Star. He has won 7 Silver Slugger Awards and 10 Gold Gloves. He has led the American League in runs scored once, RBI once, Slugging once, and total bases twice. He has also won 4 home run titles. Ken Griffey Jr's 382 home runs were the most by an American Leaguer in the 1990s. Only Mark McGwire hit more in the decade (405). McGwire played in both leagues. Ken Griffey Jr was the 1997 American League MVP. He has finished in the top 5 in voting four other times. Griffey Jr has finished with a WAR figure of 8.0 or higher 3 times (which is considered MVP level). He has had six other seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher (which is considered All Star level). He also had a 4.9 WAR rating in 1999. Ken Griffey is a member of the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.


Jeter is a great player. But Griffey across the boards is just better. He has more Silver Slugger Awards, twice as many Gold Glove Awards (and Jeter's are questioned by many). Jeter has been selected to the All Star Game one more time. Griffey Jr has won an MVP while Jeter has not, though Jeter may have been a better choice in 2006 than Justin Morneau. Still, Griffey Jr has had more WAR 8+ (3 to 1) and WAR 5+ (9 to 5).

JAWS (Jaffe WAR Scoring System) has rated these players:
Derek Jeter 12th best shortstop behind Alan Trammell. Top 5: Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Cal Ripken Jr, George Davis, Robin Yount

Ken Griffey Jr 5th best center fielder (behind Mickey Mantle). Top 5: Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Ken Griffey Jr.

7 year peak WAR:
Derek Jeter 42.2
Ken Griffey Jr 53.9

Pretty much any way you slice it, Griffey is simply better.

To be completely honest with you; all of this is very well done, but I have a few points to add.

Derek Jeter's defense is considered well below average from a WAR point of view and he has a career defensive WAR of -9.5. I believe it has to do with his range. I have no idea how defensive WAR is calculated, but from what Bill James has explained, basically Jeter's range blows and when it is compared to other shortstops (who are among the best fielders), it hurts Jeter's WAR.

Since the only stats either of us are throwing out are offensive, let's look at offensive WAR:

Jeter's oWAR: 95.8 (20th all time)
Griffey's oWAR: 83.8 (27th all time)

Jeter's Seven Peak Years:
1999: 9.0
1998: 7.3
2006: 7.1
2001: 6.7
2000: 6.6
2005: 6.5
2007: 6.2
Total: 49.4

Ken Griffey Jr's Seven Peak Years:
1993: 8.1
1997: 7.6
1998: 6.9
1996: 6.6
1991: 6.4
1992: 6.2
1999: 6.2
Total: 48

So if you compare their best years:
(Jeter : Griffey)

9.0 : 8.1
7.3 : 7.6
7.1 : 6.9
6.7 : 6.6
6.6 : 6.4
6.5 : 6.2
6.2 : 6.2

There oRAR (offensive runs above replacement level) show the same story too. Here are there seven year peaks:

Jeter: 520
Griffey: 498

Basically, Jeter's was a (marginally) more productive offensive player, both throughout his career and when you compare their peak years. One hit home runs and one hit a crap ton of singles and stole bases. In the end, their offensive production equaled out to be virtually the same!

Jeter led the league in oWAR twice, and was top 5 seven times.
Griffey led the league in oWAR twice, and was top 5 five times.

When you factor in defense, it'll show Griffey to be a better player because he was a better defensive outfielder than Jeter was a defensive shortstop, but everything points to Jeter as the better offensive player.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

but everything points to Jeter as the better offensive player.

Griffey career OPS+: 136
Jeter career OPS+: 116

Jeter highest OPS+: 153 (only season higher than 132)
Griffey highest OPS+: 171 (had 11 full seasons higher than 132)

Griffey was a better offensive player than Jeter. A LOT better.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Griffey career OPS+: 136
Jeter career OPS+: 116

Jeter highest OPS+: 153 (only season higher than 132)
Griffey highest OPS+: 171 (had 11 full seasons higher than 132)

Griffey was a better offensive player than Jeter. A LOT better.

OPS+ is a great stat for comparing a power hitter with a power hitter, or a slap hitter with a slap hitter, but not a slap hitter with a power hitter.

A great example, in 2004 when Ichiro broke the single season hit record and led the entire league with a WAR of 9.1 his OPS+ was only 130 or right about Ken Griffey Jr.'s 13th best season. Would I take Ichiro's 262 hits, 36 stolen bases, .372 batting average and only 63 strikeouts over Ken Griffey Jr.'s 22 home runs, 72 stirkeouts and .286 batting average? You bet I would.

Power hitters naturally have higher slugging percentages and are walked more skewing their OPS higher than a slap hitter. Offensive WAR takes into account OBP, SLG, stolen bases and positional adjustments.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

To be completely honest with you; all of this is very well done, but I have a few points to add.

Derek Jeter's defense is considered well below average from a WAR point of view and he has a career defensive WAR of -9.5. I believe it has to do with his range. I have no idea how defensive WAR is calculated, but from what Bill James has explained, basically Jeter's range blows and when it is compared to other shortstops (who are among the best fielders), it hurts Jeter's WAR.

Since the only stats either of us are throwing out are offensive, let's look at offensive WAR:

Jeter's oWAR: 95.8 (20th all time)
Griffey's oWAR: 83.8 (27th all time)

Jeter's Seven Peak Years:
1999: 9.0
1998: 7.3
2006: 7.1
2001: 6.7
2000: 6.6
2005: 6.5
2007: 6.2
Total: 49.4

Ken Griffey Jr's Seven Peak Years:
1993: 8.1
1997: 7.6
1998: 6.9
1996: 6.6
1991: 6.4
1992: 6.2
1999: 6.2
Total: 48

So if you compare their best years:
(Jeter : Griffey)

9.0 : 8.1
7.3 : 7.6
7.1 : 6.9
6.7 : 6.6
6.6 : 6.4
6.5 : 6.2
6.2 : 6.2

There oRAR (offensive runs above replacement level) show the same story too. Here are there seven year peaks:

Jeter: 520
Griffey: 498

Basically, Jeter's was a (marginally) more productive offensive player, both throughout his career and when you compare their peak years. One hit home runs and one hit a crap ton of singles and stole bases. In the end, their offensive production equaled out to be virtually the same!

Jeter led the league in oWAR twice, and was top 5 seven times.
Griffey led the league in oWAR twice, and was top 5 five times.

When you factor in defense, it'll show Griffey to be a better player because he was a better defensive outfielder than Jeter was a defensive shortstop, but everything points to Jeter as the better offensive player.

You will never convince me that a guy that hits a bunch of singles is better than one of the best home run hitters in baseball history. Why? Again, and I have to keep mentioning this. Griffey Jr was hurt for almost the entire second half of his career. That is why the numbers are close. I give Jeter credit for staying healthy, especially playing shortstop, but at his best, Ken Griffey Jr blows Jeter out of the water.

OPS is the be all, end all of offensive metrics, if you ask me. The game of baseball is about scoring runs. To score runs, and win, people need to get on base, and there needs to be power to score runs. OPS is power + on base percentage. OPS + is a combination of those two things adjusted for the parks the player played in.

The very highest OPS + Jeter has ever had was a 153 in 1999. He was tremendous. He hit .349 with 24 home run (career high), 219 hits, 37 doubles, 9 triples, 19 stolen bases. He scored 134 runs, and for the only time in his career, eclipsed 100 RBI (102).

Ken Griffey's best OPS + was in 1993, 171. He matched that again in 1994. If you look at his highest OPS + seasons, he has 5 seasons above 153. Jeter's second best OPS + is 132 in 2006, the season everybody seems all hot and bothered about him getting cheated out of the MVP. Ken Griffey Jr had 12 seasons that were better than Derek Jeter's second best season.

You looked at 162 game averages. Well, on a 162 game basis, Jeter's average OPS + is 116. Griffey Jr's is 136.

I ran a report on Baseball Reference for career OPS +. The only parameter I included was careers with over 7,500 at bats. 182 batters between the years 1901-2014 had 7,500 at bats. Ken Griffey Jr's 136 OPS + was 34th highest of all-time. That is his composite, the healthy years and the years with injuries all rolled into one. Derek Jeter's 116 OPS + is 100th on this list. And that seems about right for Jeter. Barry Larkin, who was a comparable player, has the same 116 OPS +. Robin Yount is at 115. Ken Griffey Jr is sandwiched between George Brett, Reggie Jackson, Gary Sheffield, Vlad Guerrero, Al Kaline and Fred McGriff. Steve Garvey, Lou Whitaker, Adrian Beltre, Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg surround Jeter.

Just for giggles, I reran the test again, lowering the at bats requirement to 5,000, and had the list run for the first ten seasons of a player's career. In other words, when Griffey was actually healthy. Of course, Jeter was also in his first ten seasons. Ten years in, Jeter was a .315 hitter with an .848 OPS, and a 120 OPS +. So, his numbers are a little higher, but not remarkably so.

But look at Griffey Jr. When he is healthy, there is no comparison between him and Jeter. None. On a list of 173 hitters who had at least 5,000 at bats in their first ten seasons, Jeter is 68th. Certainly an improvement. But Griffey Jr jumps all the way up to 13th. The only hitters who had a higher OPS + in the first ten years of their career: Ted Williams, Albert Pujols, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Johnny Mize, Jeff Bagwell, Henry Aaron, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, Ed Matthews and Miguel Cabrera. Griffey is ahead of Frank Robinson, Ralph Kiner, Chuck Klein, and Al Simmons.

Before the injuries set in and slowed Griffey down, there was absolutely no comparison offensively between Ken Griffey Jr and Derek Jeter. Griffey Jr's 150 OPS + is superstar level.

To put this another way...Derek Jeter's best ever single season OPS + is 153, again in 1999. For the first ten seasons of his career, Griffey's OPS + was 150. For a decade, Griffey Jr's play was at the same level of Jeter's best ever season.

One last thing. 356 stolen bases in 20 years, and 2,707 games hardly qualifies as a crap ton. When you are 170th on the all-time stolen base list, you haven't stolen a crap ton of bases.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You will never convince me that a guy that hits a bunch of singles is better than one of the best home run hitters in baseball history. Why? Again, and I have to keep mentioning this. Griffey Jr was hurt for almost the entire second half of his career. That is why the numbers are close. I give Jeter credit for staying healthy, especially playing shortstop, but at his best, Ken Griffey Jr blows Jeter out of the water.

OPS is the be all, end all of offensive metrics, if you ask me. The game of baseball is about scoring runs. To score runs, and win, people need to get on base, and there needs to be power to score runs. OPS is power + on base percentage. OPS + is a combination of those two things adjusted for the parks the player played in.

The very highest OPS + Jeter has ever had was a 153 in 1999. He was tremendous. He hit .349 with 24 home run (career high), 219 hits, 37 doubles, 9 triples, 19 stolen bases. He scored 134 runs, and for the only time in his career, eclipsed 100 RBI (102).

Ken Griffey's best OPS + was in 1993, 171. He matched that again in 1994. If you look at his highest OPS + seasons, he has 5 seasons above 153. Jeter's second best OPS + is 132 in 2006, the season everybody seems all hot and bothered about him getting cheated out of the MVP. Ken Griffey Jr had 12 seasons that were better than Derek Jeter's second best season.

Now, here's something interesting, and it shows why the numbers are closer than one would think. Look at both players for their lowest OPS + seasons. Jeter had 4 seasons below 100.

You looked at 162 game averages. Well, on a 162 game basis, Jeter's average OPS + is 116. Griffey Jr's is 136.

I ran a report on Baseball Reference for career OPS +. The only parameter I included was careers with over 7,500 at bats. 182 batters between the years 1901-2014 had 7,500 at bats. Ken Griffey Jr's 136 OPS + was 34th highest of all-time. That is his composite, the healthy years and the years with injuries all rolled into one. Derek Jeter's 116 OPS + is 100th on this list. And that seems about right for Jeter. Barry Larkin, who was a comparable player, has the same 116 OPS +. Robin Yount is at 115. Ken Griffey Jr is sandwiched between George Brett, Reggie Jackson, Gary Sheffield, Vlad Guerrero, Al Kaline and Fred McGriff. Steve Garvey, Lou Whitaker, Adrian Beltre, Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg surround Jeter.

Just for giggles, I reran the test again, lowering the at bats requirement to 5,000, and had the list ran for the first ten seasons of a player's career. n other words, when Griffey was actually healthy. Of course, Jeter was also in his first ten seasons. Ten years in, Jeter was a .315 hitter with an .848 OPS, and a 120 OPS +. So, his numbers are a little higher, but not remarkably so.

But look at Griffey Jr. When he is healthy, there is no comparison between him and Jeter. None. On a list of 173 hitters who had at least 5,000 at bats in their first ten seasons, Jeter is 68th. Certainly an improvement. But Griffey Jr jumps all the way up to 13th. The only hitters who had a higher OPS + in the first ten years of their career: Ted Williams, Albert Pujols, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Johnny Mize, Jeff Bagwell, Henry Aaron, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, Ed Matthews and Miguel Cabrera. Griffey is ahead of Frank Robinson, Ralph Kiner, Chuck Klein, and Al Simmons.

Before the injuries set in and slowed Griffey down, there was absolutely no comparison offensively between Ken Griffey Jr and Derek Jeter. Griffey Jr's 150 OPS + is superstar level.

To put this another way...Derek Jeter's best ever single season OPS + is 153, again in 1999. For the first ten seasons of his career, Griffey's OPS + was 150. For a decade, Griffey Jr's play was at the same level of Jeter's best ever season.

One last thing. 356 stolen bases in 20 years, and 2,707 games hardly qualifies as a crap ton. When you are 170th on the all-time stolen base list, you haven't stolen a crap ton of bases.

I explained above why OPS+ is not an appropriate metric when comparing a slap hitter with a power hitter. Power hitters usually have higher slugging percentages and will generally have higher on base percentages, so their OPS+ will always be higher. If you want to compare Griffey with Bonds, use OPS+. If you want to compare Jeter with Rose, use OPS+. But if you want to compare Griffey with Jeter, OPS+ isn't appropriate.

Proof: If Player A hits 200 singles and then steals second, third and home every time he would probably be considered the greatest player in baseball history, but his OPS+ would be worse than Dan Uggla hitting 30 home runs and batting .230.

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

Offensive WAR takes into account everything OPS+ takes into account PLUS stolen bases and the position you play. Jeter's best years were marginally better than Griffey's best. Jeter's career numbers were marginally better than Griffey's. They are near identical! I'm not even saying Jeter was the better player (I ranked Jeter lower than Griffey previously in thread!) I'm just saying they are damn near close.

More proof OPS+ is useless!

In 2001 Ichiro won the MVP, ROY and took the country by storm, posting one of the best seasons we have ever seen! He had 242 Hits, 56 Stolen Bases, ONLY 53 Strikeouts, 127 Runs Scored and a .350 Batting Average! Ichiro's OPS+ was 126

In 2008 Dan Uggla had a year that Dan Uggla always has. He had 138 hits, 5 stolen bases, 32 home runs, 171 STRIKEOUTS (HOLY $HIT!) and a .260 batting average Dan Uggla's OPS+ was 126

If you think those two seasons should be compared in any way then this discussion is pointless.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I explained above why OPS+ is not an appropriate metric when comparing a slap hitter with a power hitter. Power hitters usually have higher slugging percentages and will generally have higher on base percentages, so their OPS+ will always be higher.

Lemme let you in on a dirty little secret. Come up close, don't wanna say it too loud:

Power hitters are a LOT more valuable than slap hitters

The job of slap hitters is to get on base. OBP measures that yet you discount it for sluggers because they "walk more often". So what? Isn't that kind of the job? Get on base? And home runs are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more valuable than singles. That's just a fact.

OPS+ is absolutely a fair comparison between guys, regardless of whether they are slap hitters or power hitters.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Lemme let you in on a dirty little secret. Come up close, don't wanna say it too loud:

Power hitters are a LOT more valuable than slap hitters

The job of slap hitters is to get on base. OBP measures that yet you discount it for sluggers because they "walk more often". So what? Isn't that kind of the job? Get on base? And home runs are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more valuable than singles. That's just a fact.

OPS+ is absolutely a fair comparison between guys, regardless of whether they are slap hitters or power hitters.

Ugh. This is painful.

While we're in close and whispering, let me share a little known secret with you.

A hitters job is to help win games.....

If your job is to get a great OPS+, Griffey is a stud.
If your job is to help win games, Jeter is a tad bit better.

It's great that OPS+ measures a players park adjusted OPS (yay?), but I would think a stat that measures overall offensive production would be a bit more relevant.

I provided several examples PROVING OPS+ is a terrible metric! But here's another one!

Player A: Gets 200 singles and no walks in 600 at bats (a.333 batting average, .333 OBP, .333 Slugging%). Player A steals 2nd base, 3rd base and home every single time (so 600 stolen bases that year). Player A is widely considered the greatest baseball player to ever live, because if you can bat .333 and steal 600 bases, you ARE the greatest player who ever lived. Player A should have an OPS+ well below 100 (probably in the 70 to 80 range).

Player B: An average power hitter (I always use Dan Uggla as an example). He has a around 20-25 home runs, a .240 batting average, maybe a .300 OBP and a .450 slugging percentage. He doesn't garner even an all-star selection at how mediocre his year is. His OPS+ would be around 110.

HONESTLY, which player would you take? OPS+ is absolutely useless.

If a metric cannot tell the difference between what would be the greatest baseball player in the history of the sport and some mediocre power hitter, then how useful could it possibly be?

Edited to add: OPS+ is useless comparing two fundamentally different players, but can be a good guide in comparing very similar hitters (such as Jeter vs. Ichiro, or Bonds vs. Griffey).

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Player A: Gets 200 singles and no walks in 600 at bats (a.333 batting average, .333 OBP, .333 Slugging%). Player A steals 2nd base, 3rd base and home every single time (so 600 stolen bases that year). Player A is widely considered the greatest baseball player to ever live, because if you can bat .333 and steal 600 bases, you ARE the greatest player who ever lived. Player A should have an OPS+ well below 100 (probably in the 70 to 80 range).

Player B: An average power hitter (I always use Dan Uggla as an example). He has a around 20-25 home runs, a .240 batting average, maybe a .300 OBP and a .450 slugging percentage. He doesn't garner even an all-star selection at how mediocre his year is. His OPS+ would be around 110.

HONESTLY, which player would you take? OPS+ is absolutely useless.

Honestly, if your counterpoint to a metric is a dumb example like this one (600 stolen bases in a year??!), it kinda invalidates your counterpoint.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

More proof OPS+ is useless!

In 2001 Ichiro won the MVP, ROY and took the country by storm, posting one of the best seasons we have ever seen! He had 242 Hits, 56 Stolen Bases, ONLY 53 Strikeouts, 127 Runs Scored and a .350 Batting Average! Ichiro's OPS+ was 126

In 2008 Dan Uggla had a year that Dan Uggla always has. He had 138 hits, 5 stolen bases, 32 home runs, 171 STRIKEOUTS (HOLY $HIT!) and a .260 batting average Dan Uggla's OPS+ was 126

If you think those two seasons should be compared in any way then this discussion is pointless.

First of all, why was Ichiro's season "one of the best seasons we have ever seen"?

The only two statistics that were exceptional were his 242 hits, and his 56 stolen bases. 127 runs scored is a nice total, but it's nowhere near the best all-time. In fact, since just 2000, there have been 27 seasons where a player scored 127 or more runs scored.

He had 242 hits. That's a really great figure. But he had a whopping 738 plate appearances. Only 24 players in the last 113 seasons have had more plate appearances in a season. So while he was very good, hitting .350, his hits total wasn't anything Earth shattering, either. It was part the product of a great season, and an even bigger part an incredible number of plate appearances.

So while the number of hits he had was certainly great, again, it's nothing mind blowing. And his 56 stolen bases? He had 70 stolen base attempts. That's a fine total, and it's certainly something we don't see as often as we used to. But again, 56 stolen bases is nowhere near the best individual total ever. In 114 games this season, Dee Gordon has 54 stolen bases. And he's only had 503 plate appearances.

So you'll excuse me if I question your claim that Ichiro had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history. No, he really didn't. For the first 50 games the game was played, there were players that were hitting for averages much higher than .350, scoring much more than 127 runs, and stealing more than 56 bases.

The rest of his numbers are actually quite pedestrian. He only walked 30 times. So while he had a lot of hits, he got on base a total of 280 times, which was good for the 11th best total in 2001. Barry Bonds in 2001 got on base 342 times. He had 156 hits, 177 walks, he was hit by 9 pitches. Jason Giambi got on base 320 times. Luis Gonzalez got on base 312 times. Sammy Sosa got on 311 times, and Todd Helton 300. Lance Berkman, Alex Rodriguez, Chipper Jones, Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado all got on base more times than Ichiro, too. And even terrible old Dan Uggla got on base 223 times. He only had 138 hits, but he also had 77 walks, and got hit by 8 pitches.

So, what about the rest of Ichiro's offensive production? 34 doubles, 8 triples, 8 home runs. 69 RBI.He slashed .381/.457/.838.

Dan Uggla scored 97 runs, he had 37 doubles, a triple and 32 home runs. As far as how many times he struck out, 171, so what? An out is an out is an out. One of Ichiro's outs counts the same as one of Uggla's outs. Ichiro made 458 outs in 2001. Uggla only made 396 outs.

So, while Ichiro was having "one of the greatest seasons in MLB history!", he only scored 30 more runs than Uggla. And he drove in 23 fewer runs. That is reflected in runs created:

Runs created (source Baseball America, under more stats)
Ichiro 2001 127
Uggla 2008 100

Runs created per game

Ichiro 7.2
Uggla 6.5

Ichiro, for having one of the greatest seasons ever, wasn't that much more productive than Uggla. Look at the runs created per game. When you consider that Ichiro had 119 more plate appearances than Uggla did, they'd be even closer if with the same number of opportunities.

And one more thing. Dan Uggla is a second baseman. You took a player from what is typically the least productive offensive position in baseball for your comparison.

In summary, not only is Ichiro's 2001 season not one of the greatest of all time, your comparison of Ichiro and Uggla did nothing to show that OPS is a meaningless stat. It is not all encompassing, as it does not take into consideration stolen bases, and there are metrics that do. But OPS is an outstanding metric to determine a player's contributions with the bat. The reason Dan Uggla's OPS 2008 OPS is higher than Ichiro's 2001 OPS is because Uggla thrived in both getting on base, and generating power. Both are vital to team success. Ichiro got on base slightly more often, but his power numbers compared to Uggla's were nowhere close.

You see to get stuck on batting averages, Jason. Batting average is still a good metric. It shows how well a hitter is able to get on base with his bat. But if a player's job is to get on base ahead of the power hitters, which pretty much matches Ichiro's job description, he's only marginally better at that then Uggla. Ichiro hit .350 in 2001, and Uggla hit only .260 in 2008. But Ichiro's OBP of .381 is not a lot better than Uggla's .360. Why? Because Uggla walks a lot. When he's not hitting home runs, he provides value to his team by getting on base. Ichiro's OBP was only 31 points higher than his batting average because he only walked 30 times in 738 trips to the plate. That's actually pretty bad for a leadoff hitter. It wasn't enough to keep him out of the lineup because he was obviously a great hitter at that time. But again, Uggla in 2008 had a higher OPS than Ichiro did in 2001 because he provided more value to his team. Instead of this example your provided showing why OPS is meaningless, it has had the opposite effect. It has done a great job of showing exactly why it is such an accurate metric. You looked at things like batting average and strikeouts while completely ignoring walks. Uggla in 2008 got on base nearly as much as Ichiro, and he provided much more power. So, upon further review, Ichiro's season wasn't as spectacular as you made it out to be, and Uggla's 2008 season wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.

Ichiro's WAR was only 7.7. That's a very good figure, but hardly indicative of a monumental season.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

First of all, why was Ichiro's season "one of the best seasons we have ever seen"?

The only two statistics that were exceptional were his 242 hits, and his 56 stolen bases. 127 runs scored is a nice total, but it's nowhere near the best all-time. In fact, since just 2000, there have been 27 seasons where a player scored 127 or more runs scored.

He had 242 hits. That's a really great figure. But he had a whopping 738 plate appearances. Only 24 players in the last 113 seasons have had more plate appearances in a season. So while he was very good, hitting .350, his hits total wasn't anything Earth shattering, either. It was part the product of a great season, and an even bigger part an incredible number of plate appearances.

So while the number of hits he had was certainly great, again, it's nothing mind blowing. And his 56 stolen bases? He had 70 stolen base attempts. That's a fine total, and it's certainly something we don't see as often as we used to. But again, 56 stolen bases is nowhere near the best individual total ever. In 114 games this season, Dee Gordon has 54 stolen bases. And he's only had 503 plate appearances.

So you'll excuse me if I question your claim that Ichiro had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history. No, he really didn't. For the first 50 games the game was played, there were players that were hitting for averages much higher than .350, scoring much more than 127 runs, and stealing more than 56 bases.

The rest of his numbers are actually quite pedestrian. He only walked 30 times. So while he had a lot of hits, he got on base a total of 280 times, which was good for the 11th best total in 2001. Barry Bonds in 2001 got on base 342 times. He had 156 hits, 177 walks, he was hit by 9 pitches. Jason Giambi got on base 320 times. Luis Gonzalez got on base 312 times. Sammy Sosa got on 311 times, and Todd Helton 300. Lance Berkman, Alex Rodriguez, Chipper Jones, Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado all got on base more times than Ichiro, too. And even terrible old Dan Uggla got on base 223 times. He only had 138 hits, but he also had 77 walks, and got hit by 8 pitches.

So, what about the rest of Ichiro's offensive production? 34 doubles, 8 triples, 8 home runs. 69 RBI.He slashed .381/.457/.838.

Dan Uggla scored 97 runs, he had 37 doubles, a triple and 32 home runs. As far as how many times he struck out, 171, so what? An out is an out is an out. One of Ichiro's outs counts the same as one of Uggla's outs. Ichiro made 458 outs in 2001. Uggla only made 396 outs.

So, while Ichiro was having "one of the greatest seasons in MLB history!", he only scored 30 more runs than Uggla. And he drove in 23 fewer runs. That is reflected in runs created:

Runs created (source Baseball America, under more stats)
Ichiro 2001 127
Uggla 2008 100

Runs created per game

Ichiro 7.2
Uggla 6.5

Ichiro, for having one of the greatest seasons ever, wasn't that much more productive than Uggla. Look at the runs created per game. When you consider that Ichiro had 119 more plate appearances than Uggla did, they'd be even closer if with the same number of opportunities.

And one more thing. Dan Uggla is a second baseman. You took a player from what is typically the least productive offensive position in baseball for your comparison.

In summary, not only is Ichiro's 2001 season not one of the greatest of all time, your comparison of Ichiro and Uggla did nothing to show that OPS is a meaningless stat. It is not all encompassing, as it does not take into consideration stolen bases, and there are metrics that do. But OPS is an outstanding metric to determine a player's contributions with the bat. The reason Dan Uggla's OPS 2008 OPS is higher than Ichiro's 2001 OPS is because Uggla thrived in both getting on base, and generating power. Both are vital to team success. Ichiro got on base slightly more often, but his power numbers compared to Uggla's were nowhere close.

You see to get stuck on batting averages, Jason. Batting average is still a good metric. It shows how well a hitter is able to get on base with his bat. But if a player's job is to get on base ahead of the power hitters, which pretty much matches Ichiro's job description, he's only marginally better at that then Uggla. Ichiro hit .350 in 2001, and Uggla hit only .260 in 2008. But Ichiro's OBP of .381 is not a lot better than Uggla's .360. Why? Because Uggla walks a lot. When he's not hitting home runs, he provides value to his team by getting on base. Ichiro's OBP was only 31 points higher than his batting average because he only walked 30 times in 738 trips to the plate. That's actually pretty bad for a leadoff hitter. It wasn't enough to keep him out of the lineup because he was obviously a great hitter at that time. But again, Uggla in 2008 had a higher OPS than Ichiro did in 2001 because he provided more value to his team. Instead of this example your provided showing why OPS is meaningless, it has had the opposite effect. It has done a great job of showing exactly why it is such an accurate metric. You looked at things like batting average and strikeouts while completely ignoring walks. Uggla in 2008 got on base nearly as much as Ichiro, and he provided much more power. So, upon further review, Ichiro's season wasn't as spectacular as you made it out to be, and Uggla's 2008 season wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.

Ichiro's WAR was only 7.7. That's a very good figure, but hardly indicative of a monumental season.

This has to be the most absurd thing I have ever read.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

This has to be the most absurd thing I have ever read.

Why, because Ichiro's season didn't end up being the monumental barn burner that you thought it was?

WAR has become a pretty accurate indicator of a player's performance for a season. Do you want to know where Ichiro's 2001 season fell among the greatest individual seasons in Major League history?

110th. There have been 109 individual seasons that were better than Ichiro's 2001 campaign.

Ichiro hit for a really good average. But it's nothing that Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs didn't do on a semi-consistent basis. Tony Gwynn hit better than .350 seven times. Wade Boggs hit better than .350 five times.

Nothing that Ichiro did in 2001 set a new bar. He hit for a high average, and he had a spectacular number of plate appearances. That is why he had so many hits. I'm not knocking him. That's a lot of hits. But of his 242 hits, 50 were for extra bases. He hit 192 singles.

His 127 runs scored, while quite good, is never going to be a legendary figure. It didn't even lead the league in 2001.

And then there's his 56 stolen bases. Good total, but hardly transcendent. There have been 155 seasons of more than 56 stolen bases.

So again, where did Ichiro have one of the greatest seasons of all time? He hit a crap ton of singles. He stole a good deal of bases. He scored a bunch of runs. He played great defense.

Is that better than Ted Williams 1941 season when he hit .406? What about Joe DiMaggio, same season, when he hit in 56 straight? Better than Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown last season?

Is anybody 50 years from now going to bring up Ichiro's 2001 season as one of the greatest seasons of all-time? Maybe. Probably not.

So if my post is that absurd to you, maybe you just need to rethink some of your notions about the history of baseball.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

First of all, why was Ichiro's season "one of the best seasons we have ever seen"?

The only two statistics that were exceptional were his 242 hits, and his 56 stolen bases. 127 runs scored is a nice total, but it's nowhere near the best all-time. In fact, since just 2000, there have been 27 seasons where a player scored 127 or more runs scored.

He had 242 hits. That's a really great figure. But he had a whopping 738 plate appearances. Only 24 players in the last 113 seasons have had more plate appearances in a season. So while he was very good, hitting .350, his hits total wasn't anything Earth shattering, either. It was part the product of a great season, and an even bigger part an incredible number of plate appearances.

So while the number of hits he had was certainly great, again, it's nothing mind blowing. And his 56 stolen bases? He had 70 stolen base attempts. That's a fine total, and it's certainly something we don't see as often as we used to. But again, 56 stolen bases is nowhere near the best individual total ever. In 114 games this season, Dee Gordon has 54 stolen bases. And he's only had 503 plate appearances.

So you'll excuse me if I question your claim that Ichiro had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history. No, he really didn't. For the first 50 games the game was played, there were players that were hitting for averages much higher than .350, scoring much more than 127 runs, and stealing more than 56 bases.

The rest of his numbers are actually quite pedestrian. He only walked 30 times. So while he had a lot of hits, he got on base a total of 280 times, which was good for the 11th best total in 2001. Barry Bonds in 2001 got on base 342 times. He had 156 hits, 177 walks, he was hit by 9 pitches. Jason Giambi got on base 320 times. Luis Gonzalez got on base 312 times. Sammy Sosa got on 311 times, and Todd Helton 300. Lance Berkman, Alex Rodriguez, Chipper Jones, Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado all got on base more times than Ichiro, too. And even terrible old Dan Uggla got on base 223 times. He only had 138 hits, but he also had 77 walks, and got hit by 8 pitches.

So, what about the rest of Ichiro's offensive production? 34 doubles, 8 triples, 8 home runs. 69 RBI.He slashed .381/.457/.838.

Dan Uggla scored 97 runs, he had 37 doubles, a triple and 32 home runs. As far as how many times he struck out, 171, so what? An out is an out is an out. One of Ichiro's outs counts the same as one of Uggla's outs. Ichiro made 458 outs in 2001. Uggla only made 396 outs.

So, while Ichiro was having "one of the greatest seasons in MLB history!", he only scored 30 more runs than Uggla. And he drove in 23 fewer runs. That is reflected in runs created:

Runs created (source Baseball America, under more stats)
Ichiro 2001 127
Uggla 2008 100

Runs created per game

Ichiro 7.2
Uggla 6.5

Ichiro, for having one of the greatest seasons ever, wasn't that much more productive than Uggla. Look at the runs created per game. When you consider that Ichiro had 119 more plate appearances than Uggla did, they'd be even closer if with the same number of opportunities.

And one more thing. Dan Uggla is a second baseman. You took a player from what is typically the least productive offensive position in baseball for your comparison.

In summary, not only is Ichiro's 2001 season not one of the greatest of all time, your comparison of Ichiro and Uggla did nothing to show that OPS is a meaningless stat. It is not all encompassing, as it does not take into consideration stolen bases, and there are metrics that do. But OPS is an outstanding metric to determine a player's contributions with the bat. The reason Dan Uggla's OPS 2008 OPS is higher than Ichiro's 2001 OPS is because Uggla thrived in both getting on base, and generating power. Both are vital to team success. Ichiro got on base slightly more often, but his power numbers compared to Uggla's were nowhere close.

You see to get stuck on batting averages, Jason. Batting average is still a good metric. It shows how well a hitter is able to get on base with his bat. But if a player's job is to get on base ahead of the power hitters, which pretty much matches Ichiro's job description, he's only marginally better at that then Uggla. Ichiro hit .350 in 2001, and Uggla hit only .260 in 2008. But Ichiro's OBP of .381 is not a lot better than Uggla's .360. Why? Because Uggla walks a lot. When he's not hitting home runs, he provides value to his team by getting on base. Ichiro's OBP was only 31 points higher than his batting average because he only walked 30 times in 738 trips to the plate. That's actually pretty bad for a leadoff hitter. It wasn't enough to keep him out of the lineup because he was obviously a great hitter at that time. But again, Uggla in 2008 had a higher OPS than Ichiro did in 2001 because he provided more value to his team. Instead of this example your provided showing why OPS is meaningless, it has had the opposite effect. It has done a great job of showing exactly why it is such an accurate metric. You looked at things like batting average and strikeouts while completely ignoring walks. Uggla in 2008 got on base nearly as much as Ichiro, and he provided much more power. So, upon further review, Ichiro's season wasn't as spectacular as you made it out to be, and Uggla's 2008 season wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.

Ichiro's WAR was only 7.7. That's a very good figure, but hardly indicative of a monumental season.

I would add that Ichiro was not even the best player on his own team that year and that the tremendous hype surrounding him helped vault him to the MVP award. Bret Boone, IMO, was the best Mariner that year and should have been the MVP. He may have been using PEDs but that was not an issue to MVP voters in 2001.

[Peter_Spaeth]

ichiro hit .350 and had on OBP of .381. That has to be one of the lowest differentials ever. The same year, same team, Olerud and Martinez were higher, at .401 and .423.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Griffey battled one injury after another in the second half of his career from diving all over the outfield, and over walls to rob home runs. The point is that Jeter shouldn't have struck out as much as he has. He's struck out more than every single member of the 3,000 hit club. That Jeter has struck out more than Griffey is absolutely funny.

You skipped OBP. Jeter's OBP is only 7 points higher than Griffey Jr's.

OBP:
Griffey: .370
Jeter: .379

OBP is a much better metric than batting average. While batting average will always be considered, and important, on base percentage is the best metric. And Jeter, who's got a much higher batting average, has almost the same on base percentage as Griffey. So, Griffey gets on base nearly as often as Jeter.

When it comes to power, though, there is no comparison:

SLG:
Griffey: .538
Jeter: .432

And again, his slugging dropped, as did most of his metrics, because of the injuries he fought through. At age 31, Griffey's SLG was .568.

Jeter is a singles hitter. Griffey, who has 370 more home runs, has nearly the identical number of doubles.

Doubles:
Jeter: 538
Griffey: 524

And one thing we haven't mentioned that puts Griffey way way ahead of Jeter-defense. Griffey Jr is defensively one of the best center fielders of all-time. Jeter is an average, maybe slightly above average defensive shortstop. Griffey, who is overall a better offensive force than Jeter, is a much better defensive contributor.

There is simply no contest. Griffey is the superior player. Again, Jeter is great, but Griffey Jr was a mega star.

Consider their best seasons by WAR. Remember a WAR of 5+ is All Star level. A WAR of 8+ is MVP level (these are per Baseball Reference)

Jeter's best WARs:
1999 8.0
1998 7.5
2009 6.5
2006 5.5
2001 5.2

Griffey Jr's best WARs:
1996 9.7
1997 9.1
1993 8.7
1991 7.1
1994 6.9
1998 6.6
1992 5.8
2000 5.5
1990 5.2

Jeter had 5 seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher. Jeter had one season (1999) that, per WAR, would be at an MVP level.

Griffey Jr had 9 seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher. Griffey Jr had three seasons (1996, 1997 and 1993) that, per WAR, would be at an MVP level.

So, to summarize:
Derek Jeter is an outstanding hitter with excellent speed. He won the 1996 American League Rookie of the Year. He is a lifetime .311 hitter. He has hit 259 home runs, and stolen 356 bases. His 3,432 hits is sixth all-time, and his 1,914 runs scored is 10th all-time. He is a 14 time All Star. He has won 5 Silver Slugger Awards and 5 Gold Gloves. He has never won an MVP, but has finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 3 times. He has led the American League in runs scored once, and in hits twice in his 20 year career. Derek Jeter has struck out more times than any other member of the 3,000 hit club. He has had 5 seasons with a WAR figure of 5.0 or higher (which is considered All Star level). He has had one WAR figure of 8.0 or higher (which is considered MVP level).

Ken Griffey Jr was a complete player with great power, speed and defensive ability. Griffey is a lifetime .284 hitter with 630 home runs and 1,836 RBI. His 630 home runs is sixth best all-time, and he is thirteenth in RBIs. Griffey is a 13 time All Star. He has won 7 Silver Slugger Awards and 10 Gold Gloves. He has led the American League in runs scored once, RBI once, Slugging once, and total bases twice. He has also won 4 home run titles. Ken Griffey Jr's 382 home runs were the most by an American Leaguer in the 1990s. Only Mark McGwire hit more in the decade (405). McGwire played in both leagues. Ken Griffey Jr was the 1997 American League MVP. He has finished in the top 5 in voting four other times. Griffey Jr has finished with a WAR figure of 8.0 or higher 3 times (which is considered MVP level). He has had six other seasons with a WAR of 5.0 or higher (which is considered All Star level). He also had a 4.9 WAR rating in 1999. Ken Griffey is a member of the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.


Jeter is a great player. But Griffey across the boards is just better. He has more Silver Slugger Awards, twice as many Gold Glove Awards (and Jeter's are questioned by many). Jeter has been selected to the All Star Game one more time. Griffey Jr has won an MVP while Jeter has not, though Jeter may have been a better choice in 2006 than Justin Morneau. Still, Griffey Jr has had more WAR 8+ (3 to 1) and WAR 5+ (9 to 5).

JAWS (Jaffe WAR Scoring System) has rated these players:
Derek Jeter 12th best shortstop behind Alan Trammell. Top 5: Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Cal Ripken Jr, George Davis, Robin Yount

Ken Griffey Jr 5th best center fielder (behind Mickey Mantle). Top 5: Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Ken Griffey Jr.

7 year peak WAR:
Derek Jeter 42.2
Ken Griffey Jr 53.9

Pretty much any way you slice it, Griffey is simply better.

Isn't it amazing how long it took for George Davis to be recognized.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Isn't it amazing how long it took for George Davis to be recognized.

Since the first page anyway. But I agree it's pretty surprising that George Davis isn't getting more love from a forum of pre-war fans.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

Since the first page anyway. But I agree it's pretty surprising that George Davis isn't getting more love from a forum of pre-war fans.

I readily admit that I don't know a lot about George Davis, but I'm certainly going to learn about him.

[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???

[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