Tim Kurkjian and the greatest SS's

[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.

[pbspelly]

It's good to see that we all reached a consensus about Jeter

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

It's good to see that we all reached a consensus about Jeter

We have.

Yankee fans feel that all people who underrate Jeter do so because they have an "Anti-Yankee bias"

Non Yankee fans feel that all Yankee fans overrate Jeter because they have a "Yankee bias"

See.. We all agree!