PDA

View Full Version : Jeter vs. Larkin



538280
02-15-2006, 05:36 AM
If he does achieve those career totals you give, and he doesn't improve his peak, I don't see how on earth he goes ahead of Barry Larkin IMO. All he would have is pure longevity. People don't realize the true greatness of Barry Larkin over his career. Look at this handy little chart:


OPS SS OPS DIFF*
Barry Larkin .815 .678 20.2%
Derek Jeter .848 .737 15.1%

RCAP
Honus Wagner 1060
Arky Vaughan 598
Alex Rodriguez 506
BARRY LARKIN 488
George Davis 452
Joe Cronin 431
Cal Ripken 408
Robin Yount 408
Luke Appling 375
Alan Trammell 365

That shows runs created in his career above the average SS during his time. Larkin is 4th all time, behind the three players pretty much conceded as the best offensive SSs ever. In relative OPS versus the league average shortstop, he is I believe 4th or 5th all time.

Over his career Larkin had an OPS 21% better than SSs of his time (just player OPS divided by league average, not OPS+). Jeter so far is 15% better than the other SSs. That is also bound to go down. Barry Larkin is the better offensive player.

Some may say that there have been more great offensive shortstops in Jeter's time. There have, but I think that makes Jeter less valuable and Larkin more. Hitting from SS is more valualble when it's harder to find.

I do think, however, that the fact there were more other great hitting 1B and CF during their eras does make their hitting slightly less valuable. I think the fact it was easier to get a great hitting CFer in Ashburn's time than in most others does make Ashburn's hitting less valuable. As I said before, when there are less great hitters at a position in the league it makes those great hitters there are at that position more valuable. The fact that it was harder to get a great hitting SS in Larkin's era does make Larkin's hitting more valuable IMO.

Anyway, I think we're all missing the point here. Despite what the performance of the average shorstop in their era is, Larkin will still almost certainly end up the better hitter, unless Jeter has a way better second half of his career which is very rare for a shortstop.

As of right now, Larkin's peak is also better. Larkin had one year (1996) which was about the same in quality as Jeter's great 1998 year. Other than that Larkin has five other seasons above 130 OPS+, Jeter doesn't have one other year above 130.

His peak isn't as good, his rates would be worse, and his fielding, oh his fielding.

Derek Jeter can't hold Barry Larkin's jockstrap in fielding. Barry Larkin was a tremendous defensive shortstop in his peak, he was trmendous over his career. All around greatness. Jeter is, well, horrible out there. I have no other way of phrasing it. He'd probably make top 10 given those numbers, but he's not moving ahead of Larkin.

Larkin's OPS+ right now is only 5 points lower than Jeter, and Larkin has already retired and been through his entire decline phase while Jeter is still in his prime. It is clear that by the time Jeter's playing days are over his OPS+ will be about the same or even lower.

Also, Larkin has had way more impressive seasons. Jeter did have one truly great hitting year in 1999, when he had a 161 OPS+, a .325 EqA, and drove in 102 runs. Barry Larkin has a truly great offensive season to match that in 1996, when he had a 154 OPS+, a .326 EqA, and hit 33 home runs.

Outside of his great 1999, Jeter's offensive prowess really isn't as great. His career high in OPS+ outside of that was 127 in 2003. Larkin has had two seasons over 140 OPS+, and six seasons above 130. Much more great offensive seasons.

Jeter's main advantages I suppose most people would claim is that 1.He is considered to be greater and is more famous, 2.He is a great clutch player, adn 3.He has been money in the postseason. I'll address each of those.

1.He is considered to be greater and is more famous

He definitely is more famous, but that doesn't make him a better ballplayer. If Jeter had played his whole career in Cincinnati instead of New York he wouldn't be any more celebrated than Larkin is.

Is he considered to be greater? Maybe, but evidence doesn't necessarily support it. Larkin won an MVP award in 1995, Jeter has never won one. We all know MVP awards tend to come from players on great teams, and despite the fact Jeter has played on tremendous teams his whole career he has never won the award.

Jeter has been an All Star six times, or 60% of his 10 full seasons (full season defined as playing 100+ games). Larkin has been an All Star 12 times, or 80% of his full seasons (I counted 1997 as a full season because he did make the All Star Game).

Those are the normal methods used to determine how a player was thought of in his time. Seem to favor Larkin rather than Jeter.

2.Jeter is a great clutch player

Jeter over his career has batted .324 with men on base and .304 with no men on. But, he has hit for less power with men on base with a .470 SLG% with no one on and a a .446 SLG with men on. He has hit one HR per 29 ABs with the bases empty, one HR per 45 ABs with men on base. He has hit slightly worse (.313) with runners in scoring position than overall (.315).

Overall, it is hard to see how Jeter has been a particularly great clutch player.

Larkin over his career has hit 27 points higher with men on base than with them empty. He has also hit for more power with men on base, with a SLG 28 points higher. He has hit 4 points worse with RISP, but his OBP is higher.

It's hard to see how Jeter has been a better clutch player than Larkin

3.Jeter has been money in the postseason

Jeter has obviously had more postseason games played than Larkin, so it is unfair to compare their raw totals.

Larkin has batted .338/.397/.465 in the postseason. His BA is 43 points high than in the regular season, his OBP is 26 points higher, and his SLG is 21 points higher. He has been significantly better in the postseason than in the regular season.

Jeter has batted .307/.379/.463 in the postseason. His BA and OBP are 7 points worse than they are in the regular season, and his SLG is two points higher. Hard to see how he has hit any better there than in the regular season.

But here's some revealing information for you:

In his entire post-season career, a total of 99 games spread over eight seasons, Derek Jeter is a .210/.355/.306 hitter with runners in scoring position and a .245/.345/.329 hitter with men on base. He is a .176/.263/.323 hitter in "close and late" situations. Jeter has actually been incredibly "un-clutch" in the postseason.

Why Larkin has never gotten respect for what he is (an all time great) is beyond me. The fact Jeter has been considered better is an all out crime.

Dasperp
02-15-2006, 06:20 AM
Despite what the performance of the average shorstop in their era is, Larkin will still almost certainly end up the better hitter, unless Jeter has a way better second half of his career which is very rare for a shortstop

You may be right when talking about peak value and rate stats, but Jeter will have much more career value than Larkin by the time he retires. Larkin currently has 2073 more PA's than jeter, so Jeter will equal his playing time in about 4 years at an equal or slightly lower level. He'll probably have at least 3more productive years after that, which should put him ahead in terms of offensive value. Jeter also hasn't been nearly as injury prone, and playing full seasons as opposed to many partial seasons adds value.

Even if Jeter doesn't accumulate more playing time than Larkin, he still has an argument as the better hitter. He leads Larkin in Black Ink 6-0, and in Gray Ink 95-66. He has that advantage in OPS+, 121 to 116, but he has a more significant advantage in OBP compared to league, and OBP is easily the more important component of OPS. Jeter has a career .386 OBP compared to .338 for the league, while Larkin has a .371 compared to .339 for the league. Additionally, the .19 advantage in average is not insignificant, especially since there is no difference in the league average during their careers.

Chris, when you compare SS lg OPS, are you doing the whole MLB, or dividing it into AL and NL? If you are doing it that way than it is penalizing Jeter for being in the same league as A-Rod and Nomar, even though Larkin's peak was during the same period (1996-1999).

Overall, i think Jeter will end up as the better overall hitter, and they'll be about equal as overall players, with maybe a slight edge going to Larkin because of defense. The main thing you seem to be ignoring is Larkin's durability. He only played 150 games 4 times in his career, while Jeter has done that 7 times already. Being able to put yourself out there for a full season has a lot of value. An OPS+ of 125 put up in 450 games over three years has more value than an OPS+ of 130 in the same number of games over 4 years.

baseballPAP
02-15-2006, 06:23 AM
Very nice post! I couldn't agree more, and although Jeter got started earlier and has more seasons under his belt at age thirty than Larkin did, I would think Derek is at his peak or maybe even at the start of a long decline phase. His speed is already fading a bit IMO. He would be well-suited to let ARod have SS back and slide over to 2B or maybe pull a Yount and take a spot in the OF....but does he hit enough to be a corner OF? He isn't going to supplant Caveman out there I wouldn't think...or Matsui...or Sheffield. Hmmmm DH? He's better than a DH defensively, but I'm not sure by how much. If the guy didn't have some great baseball instincts, I don't know if he would be. Larkin on the other hand was as good as any SS in the league his first 10 years, and yes, I know Ozzie was still there for most of that. His last few years the arm was going, but he still got to balls up the middle that Jeter doesn't get on his best day when he was 39!

As I said in another thread, Larkin is probably the most underrated top 7 player at any position.

iPod
02-15-2006, 06:37 AM
Yeah, Larkin's probably a little better for now. We'll check back in a few years down the road though.

DoubleX
02-15-2006, 07:46 AM
Since the thread opened by talking about the hypothetical numbers I used in the other thread, if Jeter reaches 3400 hits as a SS, he will be ahead of Larkin IMO. But that's way down the line at this point. As it stands, I have Larkin 6th all-time at SS, and Jeter around 13th, and I think it will be slow-going for Jeter moving up the list since pretty much everyone ahead of him has great career value.

Also, I like like several others apparently, am still not buying this whole argument of Larkin is the better player because he was better compared to his SS peers. Their respective competitions are vastly skewed, and while that might make Larkin more valuable within the context of his league and prime, it does not necessarily at all prove that he is the better player. For example, Johnny Evers was quite possibly the best 2Bman in baseball during his prime, and his OPS was probably better relative to the average 2Bman of his league than say Frankie Frisch was to his league. Now I'm making this up, so I don't know if it's actually true, but if it were, based on your argument for Larkin against Jeter, Evers would be a better player than Frisch. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who'd agree with that.

Tigerfan1974
02-15-2006, 08:17 AM
I would take Larkin over Jeter any day.
I think Larkin may be a future HoFer. Maybe not a first ballot, but someday.

digglahhh
02-15-2006, 08:51 AM
Jeter could retire from the game today, and be in the Hall before Larkin- not saying that's fair- but them's the breaks.

Add my name to the list of those who don't buy the SS peer argument. How would Larkin's numbers look if he had to compare them to Nomar, A-Rod, Tejeda... How many NL shortstops even had an above league average OPS over a substantial period of time during Larkin's tenure, you could probably count them on one hand. Larkin was a fine player- no doubt- and vastly underrated, but his biggest competitor built his reputation of DEFENSE. Larkin was an all star all those years on his merits, but also would have been, basically by default.

Having the luxury of competing against a weak crop of competitors doesn't really make you any better. Relative value is one thing, true legendary status is another. The former is earned by competing against your peers, the latter by competing against history.

The durability issue weighs heavily against Larkin, IMO, too. His 130 OPS+, has to be weighted against Jeff Branson's, or Mariano Duncan's or whoever his replacement was in those 30 games he missed on a regualr basis.

When everything is said and done, I think I'll probably go with Jeter.

mordeci
02-15-2006, 09:21 AM
Larkin was almost a yankee in '94. Marge was pissed at Larkin for being too vocal during the strike and tried to trade him to the yankees for their AAA shortstop (Jeter). The yankees agreed to the trade (according to Marge) but Jim Bowden talked her out of it.

KCGHOST
02-15-2006, 09:46 AM
A minor point is that RCAP has been pretty much discredited as a stat tool. In comparing RCAA Jeter has a slight lead on Larkin and this will continue to grow over the remainder of his career. Jeter has a higher EqA (.301 to .289) which might be hard to keep as he declines. Jeter has a slightly higher WARP3 value through age 31, but will have to continue to play well to match Larkins career value.

DoubleX
02-15-2006, 10:11 AM
The durability issue weighs heavily against Larkin, IMO, too. His 130 OPS+, has to be weighted against Jeff Branson's, or Mariano Duncan's or whoever his replacement was in those 30 games he missed on a regualr basis.

I think this is a an important point to this conversation. Over 18 seasons, Larkin missed approximately 1/3 of his teams' games. That means that 1/3 of the time the Reds had to trot out there vastly inferior players such as Duncan and Branson and whomever. So we're comparing a player that contributes to his team well over 90% of the time to one that contributed about 67% of the time. So who would you rather have on your team? Jeter for 160 games or Larkin for 110 and some at-best averarge player for 50 games? I'd rather have the guy I know will be there for most every game, then the guy I'm going to have to worry about replacing for 50 games a year. So like digglahhh said, Larkin's value has to be incorporate the fact that he wasn't helping his team for a 1/3 of his career and that a much lesser player had to fill in for those games.

Also, in 18 years, only 4 times Larkin played more than 150 games, and only 7 times more than 140. 8 times he missed more then 5 games and 12 times missed more than 30 games. So, IMO, the fact that the Reds so often had to rely on a replacement player really diminishes Larkin's value, especially in this conversation (where he is being compared to a player that has only once in 10 seasons played less than 148 games).

538280
02-15-2006, 02:14 PM
I have added a poll. Just to avoid confusion, what the poll really means is who will rate higher when both of their careers have ended.

XX, you do make some good points. But, Larkin wasn't playing 1/3 of his team's games. He was playing more like 3/4. When caluculating this I left out 1986, when I assume Larkin either wasn't with the major league club all year or was a backup. Taking out '86 Larkin has played in 2139 games in his career, and the Reds have played 2850 1987-2004. That comes out to exactly 75% of the team's games played.

DoubleX
02-15-2006, 02:30 PM
I have added a poll. Just to avoid confusion, what the poll really means is who will rate higher when both of their careers have ended.

XX, you do make some good points. But, Larkin wasn't playing 1/3 of his team's games. He was playing more like 3/4. When caluculating this I left out 1986, when I assume Larkin either wasn't with the major league club all year or was a backup. Taking out '86 Larkin has played in 2139 games in his career, and the Reds have played 2850 1987-2004. That comes out to exactly 75% of the team's games played.

That's still a very substantial number of games missed. The fact that Larkin more often played less than 140 games (and substantially less) than actually played 140 games, should be held against his value. 8 seasons out of 18 with missing at least 50 games and 11 seasons out of 18 with missing at least 30 games, that's not good, that seriously diminshes value, IMO.

I think this might be one of those instances when I come to realize something new about a player that causes me to reevaluate them. The fact that Larkin missed so much time on the field, meaning that the Reds had to rely on subpar replacements for major stretches during his career, has diminished Larkin's value IMO, to the point where I think I'm going to have to reconsider his no. 6 ranking.

SABR Matt
02-15-2006, 07:16 PM
It is simply embarrassing how much greater Larkin is compared to Jeter even if you extrapolate. Those of you voting Jeter are either high...or don't have a full appreciation for the importance of defense and the fact that Jeter is one of the worst defensive shortstops of all time.

DoubleX
02-15-2006, 07:29 PM
It is simply embarrassing how much greater Larkin is compared to Jeter even if you extrapolate. Those of you voting Jeter are either high...or don't have a full appreciation for the importance of defense and the fact that Jeter is one of the worst defensive shortstops of all time.

What a polite and friendly post.

Sometimes I really think that defensive sabrmetics measures should be retitled "New Ways to Invent Stats the Bring Jeter Down." Seriously, that seems like the goal nowadays of all these newfangled defensive measurements - how many different stats can a person invent that shows how bad Jeter is defensively.

I haven't voted in this poll because I have no idea how Jeter's career will finish, but in 2005, at least, Jeter finished 2nd in the AL among SS in Putouts, Assists, Fielding Percentage, Range Factor, and Fewest Errors. Certainly sounds like "one of the worst defensive shortstops of all time" to me.

Also, just in case you feel compelled to respond with some glut of metrics and stats to prove how bad Jeter is, please don't. I've seen them, I know what they're trying to get at. Sometimes I wonder if the people who come up with and rely on these statistics ever even watch a game of baseball. Like seriously, if they ever just sit back and enjoy the game. Somehow I doubt it (the thought process is more like, "what new convoluted measurement can I conjure to show how bad Jeter is defensively?"). At some point, delving too far into these statistics causes people to lose sight the game itself, and I think that's what happening nowadays with all these new measurements. It's seriously getting out of control. It's like in the movie White Men Can't Jump: You may listen to Jimi, but you can't hear Jimi - that's what all these increasingly convoluted stats are doing to the game and to those who overly rely on them.

Sultan_1895-1948
02-15-2006, 07:30 PM
Matt,

I'd probably go Larkin too, all things considered. He was more of a leader than most give him credit for, and unbelievably consistent.

Do you have any way to account for the artificial turf, and how it aided his fielding and hitting?

SABR Matt
02-15-2006, 07:36 PM
Not at present Sultan, no...I'm not sure the case has been fully made that turf has a net positive impact on fielding...logically it makes some sense that it would at least reduce errors...but faster hops would also result in a lot more singles getting through than do on grass...so...I'm not convinced adjusting needs to occur...but we can certainly take a look and see if there's a consistant pattern of fielders performing markedly better on turf than grass...I just haven't been able to focus on microsabermetrics yet because I'm still working on the macrosabermetric side of things.

In response to this ridiculous notion that we sit around trtying to invent ways to insult/impugne Jeter's defense...all I can do is laugh at that. We're not just making these things up out of thin air guys. When you put it together...aside from 2004 and 2005, Jeter's defense has been, without question HORRIFIC...he's shown the least range of any SS in the post-modern era and is among the bottom dozen or so all time (out of SSs who've played more than 800 games at the position).

I know he looks pretty, but you have GOT to get past what your eye sees when you're judging fielding...you simply HAVE to look beyond that, because often the fielders making the sensational plays more often are WORSE defensively than the ones you don't notice...because the sensational ones are HAVING TO MAKE GREAT EFFORT to reach balls that quietly brilliant players get to and make look routine.

leecemark
02-15-2006, 07:41 PM
--I have always had a hard time believing Jeter is quite as bad as most metrics make him out to be. He was good enough to win and hold the starting SS job for the most successfull team of his generation.
--He probably has only held it the last two years because he is Derek Jeter, team captain and Yankee legend, but that wasn't true early in his career. If the Yankees weren't satisfied with his defensive play early in his career (or even in the minors) they would have moved him before he became entrenched.
--I'm not saying he is an especially good defensive SS. Larkin is definately ahead with the glove. I just don't think he can possibly be as bad as the "advanced" numbers make him look.
--If he is just average - or maybe even just not terrible - on defense then his total package is going to make him a top 10 all time SS. Larkin is a slightly better hitter and baserunner, but Jeter's in-season durability at least evens the score there. If his career durability leads to the kind of numbers projected to open this thread he will definately rank ahead of Larkin and could be top 5 all time.

DoubleX
02-15-2006, 07:50 PM
I know he looks pretty, but you have GOT to get past what your eye sees when you're judging fielding...you simply HAVE to look beyond that, because often the fielders making the sensational plays more often are WORSE defensively than the ones you don't notice...because the sensational ones are HAVING TO MAKE GREAT EFFORT to reach balls that quietly brilliant players get to and make look routine.

I believe there is a middle ground and that not every aspect of the game is meant to be quantified, this is especially true for defense because there are so many more variables than there are for offense. I believe people who try to quantify ever aspect of baseball are missing out and not really seeing the game.

Do I think Jeter is a good defensive SS? No. Do I think Larkin was better with the glove. Yes. But as Mark was kind of talking about, the sabermetrics just go too far for me with defense. Defense is too difficult to precisely quantify, and if you're going to judge defense solely on the convoluted statistics, then like I said, you might be listening to Jimi, but you sure don't hear him.

Sultan_1895-1948
02-15-2006, 07:54 PM
Not at present Sultan, no...I'm not sure the case has been fully made that turf has a net positive impact on fielding...logically it makes some sense that it would at least reduce errors...but faster hops would also result in a lot more singles getting through than do on grass...so...I'm not convinced adjusting needs to occur...but we can certainly take a look and see if there's a consistant pattern of fielders performing markedly better on turf than grass...I just haven't been able to focus on microsabermetrics yet because I'm still working on the macrosabermetric side of things.


micro macro tomato tomaato :lookitup

From a SS perspective, the artificial turf allows you to play back a little more, which allows you to take better angles on balls for optimal fielding/throwing positions. The hops are true and stay consistent. Thing is Matt, you can't do a true study now, because today's "turf" isn't the same as the "thin carpet over concrete" turf that Larkin played on. Oh well.

SABR Matt
02-15-2006, 09:42 PM
I can look back at the numbers during Larkin's time and try to find information.

True hops are fine, and yes the SS can play back more (he has to in order to cut off the faster ball speeds) and still get balls weakly hit...but I think the turf takes away range on the fringes of defensive play. Those high hopes deep into the hole are more likely to be hits...as are the screaming one-hoppers.

Sultan_1895-1948
02-15-2006, 09:45 PM
I can look back at the numbers during Larkin's time and try to find information.

True hops are fine, and yes the SS can play back more (he has to in order to cut off the faster ball speeds) and still get balls weakly hit...but I think the turf takes away range on the fringes of defensive play. Those high hopes deep into the hole are more likely to be hits...as are the screaming one-hoppers.

Thats why judging a shortstop on that turf is so interesting. Because so much of their value is defensive, but at the same time, it helps their offense as well. Maybe in the end it just evens out and everyone sleeps well.

BigStellyPADRES4LIFE
02-15-2006, 11:39 PM
Let me say man... that is probably one of the best posts ive ever seen here to open a thread.... you were fair, took practically everything into account that is of importance. And there is NO objective reason to give Jeter an edge if he plays at current value, only New Yorker bias, which apparently can have alot of weight sometimes.

538280
02-16-2006, 05:29 AM
Let me say man... that is probably one of the best posts ive ever seen here to open a thread.... you were fair, took practically everything into account that is of importance. And there is NO objective reason to give Jeter an edge if he plays at current value, only New Yorker bias, which apparently can have alot of weight sometimes.

Well thank you for the compliments.

I don't have much time now, but later in the day I'm gong to try to do a comparison of Jeter playing 150 games a year and Larkin playing like 120, since that is about their average games per season. I think by most metrics Larkin will still have more value despite playing 30 less games. That there just gives you an idea how much better he really is while playing.

DoubleX
02-16-2006, 07:40 AM
Well thank you for the compliments.

I don't have much time now, but later in the day I'm gong to try to do a comparison of Jeter playing 150 games a year and Larkin playing like 120, since that is about their average games per season. I think by most metrics Larkin will still have more value despite playing 30 less games. That there just gives you an idea how much better he really is while playing.

Somehow I seriously doubt that since on the surface, Jeter has a slight edge in offensive value anyway. Missing 40 games a year is a lot of ground for Larkin to make up, and I just don't think he can. Just remember, while Jeter is playing those 30 extra games, someone who is of replacement level is playing those games for the Reds, and that makes a huge difference. Nevertheless, I'm very interested to see how you do this.

DoubleX
02-16-2006, 07:44 AM
Let me say man... that is probably one of the best posts ive ever seen here to open a thread.... you were fair, took practically everything into account that is of importance. And there is NO objective reason to give Jeter an edge if he plays at current value, only New Yorker bias, which apparently can have alot of weight sometimes.

Since this thread also deals with the hypothetical numbers from the other thread, 3400+ hits (6th all time), and a good track record of actually playing most of his team's games, would be pretty darn good objective reasons to put Jeter ahead, IMO.

538280
02-16-2006, 04:00 PM
All right, I'm back with that study I said I'd do earlier. Barry Larkin retired in 2004 with 346 Win Shares. He played 2180 games. That's good for 25.7 WS/162 games. It was determined earlier Larkin played about 75% of his team's games in his career. 75% of 25.7 is 19.3.

Jeter has through 2004 (can't find 2005 data) averaged 26 WS/162. Through the same way I did for Larkin, I have determined Jeter played 93% of his team's games. 93% of 26 is 24.2.

I'll do the same for WARP3. Larkin has averaged 8.78 WARP3/162 in his career. 75% of that is 6.59. Jeter has averaged 8.17 WARP3/162. 93% of that is 7.6 (I think somehow because it is lower numbers the percentage is having a MUCH larger impact than it should).

That is a significant advantage, but you have to realize the decline factor. Before his decline Larkin was averaging about 28.12 WS/162. It isn't unrealistic that by the end of his career Jeter may end up with a WS/162 a good three of four WS lower.

digglahhh
02-16-2006, 04:55 PM
(I think somehow because it is lower numbers the percentage is having a MUCH larger impact than it should).


This is that argument that a flat tax is really a regressive tax, as the same percentage of a smaller amount means a lot more to the owner of the small amount. For example, a sales tax of 8% is much more of a financial burden to somebody who makes 25K than to somebody who makes 100K, because when its all said and done the guy making 100K still has a lot left. Who says baseball, economics and politics are unrelated...:D

DoubleX
02-16-2006, 05:19 PM
All right, I'm back with that study I said I'd do earlier. Barry Larkin retired in 2004 with 346 Win Shares. He played 2180 games. That's good for 25.7 WS/162 games. It was determined earlier Larkin played about 75% of his team's games in his career. 75% of 25.7 is 19.3.

Jeter has through 2004 (can't find 2005 data) averaged 26 WS/162. Through the same way I did for Larkin, I have determined Jeter played 93% of his team's games. 93% of 26 is 24.2.

I'll do the same for WARP3. Larkin has averaged 8.78 WARP3/162 in his career. 75% of that is 6.59. Jeter has averaged 8.17 WARP3/162. 93% of that is 7.6 (I think somehow because it is lower numbers the percentage is having a MUCH larger impact than it should).

That is a significant advantage, but you have to realize the decline factor. Before his decline Larkin was averaging about 28.12 WS/162. It isn't unrealistic that by the end of his career Jeter may end up with a WS/162 a good three of four WS lower.

Of course Jeter will decline at some point, but he could A) First go up some more, and B) He could play a lot more than the 2180 games that Larkin played, so that should be considered as well.

ElHalo
02-16-2006, 08:00 PM
Of course Jeter will decline at some point, but he could A) First go up some more, and B) He could play a lot more than the 2180 games that Larkin played, so that should be considered as well.

It's conceivable that Jeter will go up. I really think that what will push Jeter over the top, though, is the way the hits and runs just keep pouring in like a metronome; other than his injury season (which was, thankfully, a fluke thing that doesn't appear to have affected his career path in any way), he's finished no lower than 7th in either category since his rookie year. He's got, in my view, a better than even shot of ending up in the top 10 all time in both categories (would require playing till he's 40 and averaging 153 hits and 81 runs; since he's usually around 190 hits and 115 runs in an average year, that seems more than likely even with a fairly steep decline phase, assuming health).

538280
02-16-2006, 08:08 PM
Larkin did miss too many games. That is a legitimate knock on him. But, I think we're missing the point here. Larkin was a much better player while he was actually playing. He did miss a few too many games, but he was a better player. Longevity is an important part when evaluating the merit of a player's career. But, Larkin was far better. He just got hurt a real lot. I'm not suggesting we give him injury credit, I'm just suggesting we realize the fact that Larkin really was a much better player. Looking at the stats that is fairly obvious. On offense, they may be just about equal but Larkin has had more great years. Like I said, both have an outstanding offensive season, for Jeter it is 1999, for Larkin it is 1996. But, Larkin had six full seasons (and they really were full) of OPS+ over 130, Jeter has never had one outside of the great 1999.

In the field it is no contest. Larkin may be an all time great with the glove, and even if you don't think he's quite that good he's still at least top 25 all time as a fielding shortstop. Jeter is just flat out awful out there. About as bad as you can possibly be and still hold a job.

ElHalo
02-16-2006, 08:18 PM
In the field it is no contest. Larkin may be an all time great with the glove, and even if you don't think he's quite that good he's still at least top 25 all time as a fielding shortstop. Jeter is just flat out awful out there. About as bad as you can possibly be and still hold a job.

I really do dispute this. He's done SIGNIFICANTLY better statistically the last two years, but hasn't really seemed any more impressive watching him. I think a significant chunk of the statistical analysis of Jeter comes from the fact that his greatest strength is to his right, and he was playing next to some fantastic defensive 3Bmen (Charlie Hayes, Scotty Brosies, Robin Ventura) before the atrocity that is ARod moved into the picture. I really think that has an effect.

leecemark
02-16-2006, 08:18 PM
--A guy with a 120 OPS+ in 150 games is a more valuable hitter than one with a 135 in 120 games. In fact, I say he was better as well as more valuable. Career longevity measures value moreso than actual quality. Inseason durability is a quality issue though and is a factor in saying who was "better".

ElHalo
02-16-2006, 08:21 PM
--A guy with a 120 OPS+ in 150 games is a more valuable hitter than one with a 135 in 120 games. In fact, I say he was better as well as more valuable. Career longevity measures value moreso than actual quality. Inseason durability is a quality issue though and is a factor in saying who was "better".

This I do completely and wholeheartedly agree with. With the exception of closers (just because the changing nature of the position, it's hard to get a good read on where to compare modern closers to 70's-80's guys), it's absolutely a quality issue as to whether they can manage to stay healthy or not. Jeter has an amazing propensity to break bones in his hands on an almost weekly basis, but he never seems any the worse for wear for it, and always misses only a few games over it. Other than the stupid shoulder dislocation, he's been steady as a rock. Guys that are always suffering from nagging injuries just don't have as much value.

538280
02-16-2006, 08:25 PM
--A guy with a 120 OPS+ in 150 games is a more valuable hitter than one with a 135 in 120 games. In fact, I say he was better as well as more valuable. Career longevity measures value moreso than actual quality. Inseason durability is a quality issue though and is a factor in saying who was "better".

It's a factor in saying who's more valuable. I think value is the best way to measure players, but really, who was the better player? Larkin was better. He just doesn't have as much value because he missed many games. When they were both on the field it was no contest. Larkin still to this point has a much better peak than Jeter in Win Shares and slightly in WARP3.

ElHalo
02-16-2006, 08:30 PM
It's a factor in saying who's more valuable. I think value is the best way to measure players, but really, who was the better player? Larkin was better. He just doesn't have as much value because he missed many games. When they were both on the field it was no contest. Larkin still to this point has a much better peak than Jeter in Win Shares and slightly in WARP3.

I don't really know that Larkin was that much better. Even just looking at Larkin through Jeter's age, they were roughly comparable in plate discipline and power, Jeter has a sizable advantage in contact hitting, and they were roughly comparable as baserunners. Larkin wasn't that much better of a defender (I know you'll completely, and totally, disagree on that... there are valid arguments to be made, you're right. I just don't really know what to do with a guy who is so phenomenally good at certain aspects of defense, and spectacularly bad at others).

DoubleX
02-16-2006, 08:46 PM
It's conceivable that Jeter will go up. I really think that what will push Jeter over the top, though, is the way the hits and runs just keep pouring in like a metronome; other than his injury season (which was, thankfully, a fluke thing that doesn't appear to have affected his career path in any way), he's finished no lower than 7th in either category since his rookie year. He's got, in my view, a better than even shot of ending up in the top 10 all time in both categories (would require playing till he's 40 and averaging 153 hits and 81 runs; since he's usually around 190 hits and 115 runs in an average year, that seems more than likely even with a fairly steep decline phase, assuming health).

That's exactly what I was thinking when I came up with those hypothetical numbers. Sure they're only hypotheticals, but they are certainly reasonable and show that it's very well possible that Jeter could finish well within the Top 10 all-time in both hits and runs. A player with that on his resume, in addition to a good number of stolen bases and a .300+ batting aveage has to be considered well within the Top 10 All-Time at SS.

DoubleX
02-16-2006, 08:53 PM
It's a factor in saying who's more valuable. I think value is the best way to measure players, but really, who was the better player? Larkin was better. He just doesn't have as much value because he missed many games. When they were both on the field it was no contest.

What good is being the better player when you're not going to be on the field? When judging Larkin's whole package, we must consider in addition to the statistics the fact that he couldn't stay on the field and that his team's had to rely on much lesser players for substantial periods. Knowing this, when making a team, I think most people would take Jeter because of the serious durability questions surrounding Larkin. Any advantage Larkin has over Jeter is more than offset by the fact that Jeter will be on the field and helping substantially more often, whereas Larkin's team will have to rely on mediocre replacements all too often.

BigStellyPADRES4LIFE
02-16-2006, 11:13 PM
The only edge Jeter has is the pinstripe uniform he wears... and every Yankee fan will deny this, ok ill humor your little durability argument.... even if replaced by a mediocre replacement... ill take Larkin for 125 games over Jeter for 150.

BigStellyPADRES4LIFE
02-16-2006, 11:15 PM
Larkin also played his games in the NL where pitchers are more effective... Jeter plays in the AL in New York where he is surrounded by greats. Larkin rarely had this luxury... funny how this never enters the equation when it hurts a Yankee.

DoubleX
02-17-2006, 08:28 AM
Larkin also played his games in the NL where pitchers are more effective... Jeter plays in the AL in New York where he is surrounded by greats. Larkin rarely had this luxury... funny how this never enters the equation when it hurts a Yankee.

NL pitchers are more effective because they don't have to face a DH. Moreover, in the last 25 years, almost all of the good-hitting middle infielders were in the AL (Larkin and Kent being an exceptions), thus making AL lineups even more deeper on the whole than NL lineups. AL pitchers not only had to face an extra hitter in the DH, but also had to face better hitting middle infielders, whereas those players typically rounded out the bottom of an NL lineup.

Anyway, I think you have sufficiently illustrated how polarizing Jeter is how and how people vastly underrate Jeter in anti-New York bias to overcompensate for other people who overrate Jeter because of a New York bias. At least 538280 provides tons of support for his arguments, you just say something like "there is no objective reason to support Jeter" and then say nothing that does not make you look bias (and not-objective) against Jeter.

BigStellyPADRES4LIFE
02-17-2006, 10:59 AM
NL pitchers are more effective because they don't have to face a DH. Moreover, in the last 25 years, almost all of the good-hitting middle infielders were in the AL (Larkin and Kent being an exceptions), thus making AL lineups even more deeper on the whole than NL lineups. AL pitchers not only had to face an extra hitter in the DH, but also had to face better hitting middle infielders, whereas those players typically rounded out the bottom of an NL lineup.

Anyway, I think you have sufficiently illustrated how polarizing Jeter is how and how people vastly underrate Jeter in anti-New York bias to overcompensate for other people who overrate Jeter because of a New York bias. At least 538280 provides tons of support for his arguments, you just say something like "there is no objective reason to support Jeter" and then say nothing that does not make you look bias (and not-objective) against Jeter.

WHy should i repeat all the reasons 538280 said, OK Look at the AL vs NL thing, the ERA is vastly higher because of the DH partially, but on the whole most great pitchers play in the NL for at least part of their career, there is a broader picture here.
A pitcher will not be anywhere near as effective in the AL as in the NL because he doesnt have that one easy out in the lineup(95% of the time) and therefore doesnt get a break or whatever you wanna call it. This wears the pitcher down more quickly, and hence when a player faces an American league pitcher later in the game or as the season wears on he isnt as fresh as before. Its slight but there is a edge in the AL as far as offensive stats are concerened, and while it has to do with the DH everyone in a lineup with a DH is able to hit better.
Im not giving stats right now because I dont feel like looking up all these things but ive seen them on ESPN before. But when a great player is in the lineup it brings the play up from other people, and by the same token if you have a pitcher who cant hit the burden falls on 8 guys to produce, the pitcher has a bit less to worry about when the pitcher comes up.
Jeter has also played more years in an offensive ERA... Larkin started his career in the mid 80s when pitching was the dominant force, Jeter started in 95, right after the season home runs shot through the roof. Shoot you even pointed out a reason to admit Larkin at this point in his career would be better, he was doing things in the NL that few others at his poistion where, in Jeter's situation it was a more common acheivement.
Again the New York bias shows its head.... relative stats are only used when it benefits a New Yorker..... not when it hurts them.

DoubleX
02-17-2006, 11:08 AM
WHy should i repeat all the reasons 538280 said, OK Look at the AL vs NL thing, the ERA is vastly higher because of the DH partially, but on the whole most great pitchers play in the NL for at least part of their career, there is a broader picture here.
A pitcher will not be anywhere near as effective in the AL as in the NL because he doesnt have that one easy out in the lineup(95% of the time) and therefore doesnt get a break or whatever you wanna call it. This wears the pitcher down more quickly, and hence when a player faces an American league pitcher later in the game or as the season wears on he isnt as fresh as before. Its slight but there is a edge in the AL as far as offensive stats are concerened, and while it has to do with the DH everyone in a lineup with a DH is able to hit better.
Im not giving stats right now because I dont feel like looking up all these things but ive seen them on ESPN before. But when a great player is in the lineup it brings the play up from other people, and by the same token if you have a pitcher who cant hit the burden falls on 8 guys to produce, the pitcher has a bit less to worry about when the pitcher comes up.
Jeter has also played more years in an offensive ERA... Larkin started his career in the mid 80s when pitching was the dominant force, Jeter started in 95, right after the season home runs shot through the roof. Shoot you even pointed out a reason to admit Larkin at this point in his career would be better, he was doing things in the NL that few others at his poistion where, in Jeter's situation it was a more common acheivement.
Again the New York bias shows its head.... relative stats are only used when it benefits a New Yorker..... not when it hurts them.

What are you talking about? I'm convinced you haven't been reading my posts in this thread. I don't think I have ever said anything on the subject of who is better at this point in Jeter's career. This is all about a hypothetical ending to Jeter's career. You seem to have completely missed that.

Also when you say, "but on the whole most great pitchers play in the NL for at least part of their career," doesn't that also mean that on the whole most great pitcher also play in the AL for at least part of their career? I mean where else are they going to be playing when they're not in the NL? Most of the best pitchers from the past 15-20 years, not named Maddux or Glavine or Smoltz, have spent more time in the AL and had their best years in the AL (guys like Clemens, Martinez, Johnson, Mussina, Brown).

digglahhh
02-17-2006, 12:15 PM
Just to be a pain, and to be technical in relation to this thread. Jeter actually never really had to face many of those guys too much at all.

Jeter's first full season was '96.

Clemens came to the Yanks in '99.

Mussina in '01.

Randy was hurt in '96 and then shipped to the NL midway through '98

Brown was in the NL all of Jeter's career, til he joined the Yanks, actually Jeter lost out by not hitting against him.:laugh

Basically that really only leaves Pedro.

leecemark
02-17-2006, 12:28 PM
--Well it does include 2 years of Clemens and the best years of Mussina. Some other pretty good younger pitchers, such Harden, Zito, Mulder, Santana, Halliday, Colon, etc. Hard to see an NL advantage in pitching.

digglahhh
02-17-2006, 02:02 PM
Notably, none of those other guys except the perpetually hurt Halladay are are in his division.

I was just making an observation- I'm a Jeter guy here.

I'm actually confused though, are we talking about pitching in the AL vs. NL or pitchers Jeter faced vs. pitchers Larkin faced.

Either way, isn't that generally accounted for in the league averages. I highlight generally because of the differences the lop sided divisional play and strength of your own staff can make in a specific comparison, (see Giambi and A-Rod '01).

csh19792001
02-17-2006, 02:35 PM
Larkin did miss too many games. That is a legitimate knock on him. But, I think we're missing the point here. It's a factor in saying who's more valuable. I think value is the best way to measure players, but really, who was the better player? Larkin was better. He just doesn't have as much value because he missed many games.

Mark is correct, and you know it.

You yourself have said over and over "The best player is the guy who helps his team win the most". The one who has the most value.

And you're seriously going to sit there and make completely self-contradictory posts like this? Complete convolution.

csh19792001
02-17-2006, 02:45 PM
Basically that really only leaves Pedro.

But boy, has he ever had Pedro.

I went back and looked at not only the regular season but included all of the postseason matchups between these two (it's the best regular matchup I got to see, from start to finish). Jeter ended up going something like 25 for 107 against him in the 9 year span they've faced each other. That's an incredible amount for this "wild card" divisional day in age.

Ironically enough, in Pedro's entire spectacular career, with the hundreds of guys he's had to face, Jeter has had to do battle with him more than anyone else.

DoubleX
02-17-2006, 02:56 PM
Notably, none of those other guys except the perpetually hurt Halladay are are in his division.

I was just making an observation- I'm a Jeter guy here.

I'm actually confused though, are we talking about pitching in the AL vs. NL or pitchers Jeter faced vs. pitchers Larkin faced.

Either way, isn't that generally accounted for in the league averages. I highlight generally because of the differences the lop sided divisional play and strength of your own staff can make in a specific comparison, (see Giambi and A-Rod '01).

Well we should be talking about the pitchers faced (but that could be too micro-analyzing), but I think this discussion formed from Bigstelly's statement that the NL has better pitchers.

Imapotato
02-17-2006, 03:11 PM
According to stats

Peyton Manning is a better QB then Tom Brady

(see where I am going with this, its my calling card)

Yet Brady led his team in the exact way he should have in order to win

Sometimes players do the right thing at the right time...on a constant basis moreso the other players

If that was not the case, baseball would be played using mathamatical algothorims on a CPU with no humans

Derek Jeter has done so many things at so many different occasions, it is very hard to continually bash him as an overhyped media darling

So I cvan't not sit here after seeing Larkin and Jeter play throughout their whole careers and seeing what both did and say Larkin is better...he just isn't, no matter what your given stat says

I can't sit here and look at stas and say Pedro Martinez is better then Roger Clemens (who may be one of the top 3 P of all time)

538280
02-17-2006, 03:20 PM
According to stats

Peyton Manning is a better QB then Tom Brady

(see where I am going with this, its my calling card)

Yet Brady led his team in the exact way he should have in order to win

Sometimes players do the right thing at the right time...on a constant basis moreso the other players

If that was not the case, baseball would be played using mathamatical algothorims on a CPU with no humans

Derek Jeter has done so many things at so many different occasions, it is very hard to continually bash him as an overhyped media darling

So I cvan't not sit here after seeing Larkin and Jeter play throughout their whole careers and seeing what both did and say Larkin is better...he just isn't, no matter what your given stat says

I can't sit here and look at stas and say Pedro Martinez is better then Roger Clemens (who may be one of the top 3 P of all time)

Translation of this post-Jeter is better because his teammates are better. Larkin would be the media darling just like Jeter if he played in NYC his whole career in the same spot Jeter has been in.

I illustrated earlie how Larkin has been just as good in the clutch as Jeter. Want special accomplishments? How about when Larkin's Reds, huge underdogs against the A's in the 1990 World Series, stormed into the Series, and swept them in four straight behind great performances by almost all their players, including Larkin. Have Jeter's Yankees ever had an upset of that magnitude?

Imapotato
02-17-2006, 03:32 PM
Did you not read what I said?

I did not say WS rings make Jeter better

I said Jeter led his team in the way he should in order to win, like Brady versus Manning, most of the time that comes at the expense of stats...how about using a game to illustrate the point?

Say Socom 3...you have a team of individuals who can shoot someone with their eyes closed versus a team that explemfies teamwork and roles. 9 times out of 10 that teamwork team will win. It's a trecth of an analogy but it's true

How about saying the last few years, his teammates were the reason he did not win?

How about the reason the Reds won, was their pitching especially in the pen was alot better?

I have seen Larkin play...I have seen Jeter play

If Jeter played to his Talent, then he would be the worst player on the Yankees...but he studies, he moves to the spot that his scouting report says, he hits it to 2nd to move a guy to 3rd, he'll walk if that is the best option or he'll reach to hopefully hit it into the gaps

That is what breaks Jeter out from just his talent

and Larkin was a very good player, but he relied on his talent alot, he missed alot of games...and some were because he just relied on his given ability

I mean heck to use an extreme, the most talented ballplayer I have seen the last 20 years is Albert Belle...no one is polishing his plaque at Cooperstown

Sometimes hard work and the personality is greater then athletic ability

I still can't recall anything from Larkin to say he was better then Jeter

DoubleX
02-17-2006, 05:06 PM
Translation of this post-Jeter is better because his teammates are better. Larkin would be the media darling just like Jeter if he played in NYC his whole career in the same spot Jeter has been in.

I illustrated earlie how Larkin has been just as good in the clutch as Jeter. Want special accomplishments? How about when Larkin's Reds, huge underdogs against the A's in the 1990 World Series, stormed into the Series, and swept them in four straight behind great performances by almost all their players, including Larkin. Have Jeter's Yankees ever had an upset of that magnitude?

That's not true at all. Players in New York are not automatically media darlings just because they are in New York. They have to have a certain presence about them and conduct themselves in a certain way. For example, A-Rod's stature has not gone up at all due to some New York bias. In fact, the New York tabloids bring him down whenever they get a chance. Bernie Williams is another good example. In his prime he was better than Jeter, but he's not a national media darling or overhyped (if anything, Bernie was underhyped during his prime). It's very rare that here in New York a player gets a free pass for everything, Jeter is that rareity. If Larkin was here, he'd probably be ripped in the tabloids just like most New York athletes when something goes wrong. I'm sure the papers here would have a field day with Larkin and his yearly injury woes. It would grow tired to people here and people would rip him for it. So in essence, being in New York might actually backfire on Larkin as it would bring more attention to his injury struggles. At best, I see Larkin as being like Bernie Williams. Basically, it's more than just the New York hype, it has something to do with Jeter as well.

Myankee4life
02-17-2006, 05:59 PM
I illustrated earlie how Larkin has been just as good in the clutch as Jeter. Want special accomplishments? How about when Larkin's Reds, huge underdogs against the A's in the 1990 World Series, stormed into the Series, and swept them in four straight behind great performances by almost all their players, including Larkin. Have Jeter's Yankees ever had an upset of that magnitude?

Ever hear of the 1996 WS. The Yankees were up against the defending WS who had just set the record for 5 straight divisional titles. The Braves vaunted pitching staff set major league marks for K's 1245, fewest walks 451 and the '96 Braves set franchise marks for most home wins 56, BA with .270 and where 3rd all time in team HR's with 197. The Yankees were getting their taste of the postseason, losing the year before in the first round. In Game 1 the Yankees lost 12-1 at home. In Game 2 the Yankees were shutout 4-0. So now imagine down 2-0 heading to Brave's home park were they just set the record for wins and up against the defending champions. The Yankees won 4 straight to capture the title.

The Braves outhit the Yankees .254 to .216
And outpitched the Yankees 2.33 to 3.93

Now when have Larkin's Reds have ever had a upset of that magnitude?

538280
02-17-2006, 07:48 PM
Now when have Larkin's Reds have ever had a upset of that magnitude?

The 1990 World Series. The A's were one of the best teams ever in the regular season, the Reds were a run of the mill division champion who happened to have a very good bullpen. The A's won 103 games, the Reds won 91. The '96 Yankees won 92 games, the '96 Braves won 96. The Reds didn't only beat the A's, they swept them. It was a four game sweep, and the Reds had a lot of real memorable performances, like Eris Davis' home run in the first inning of the series, Jose Rijo's unbelieveable pitching, Billy Hatcher's record setting performance. The Yankees did beat the Braves, it was a great win for them, but the Reds just came out of nowhere and demolished a team that was thought of as one of the best in a long time.

And Jeter himself really didn't have much of a series, batting .250/.400/.250 in 20 ABs. Larkin had an outstading series in 1990, .353/.421/.529.

DoubleX
02-17-2006, 09:00 PM
The 1990 World Series. The A's were one of the best teams ever in the regular season, the Reds were a run of the mill division champion who happened to have a very good bullpen. The A's won 103 games, the Reds won 91. The '96 Yankees won 92 games, the '96 Braves won 96. The Reds didn't only beat the A's, they swept them. It was a four game sweep, and the Reds had a lot of real memorable performances, like Eris Davis' home run in the first inning of the series, Jose Rijo's unbelieveable pitching, Billy Hatcher's record setting performance. The Yankees did beat the Braves, it was a great win for them, but the Reds just came out of nowhere and demolished a team that was thought of as one of the best in a long time.

And Jeter himself really didn't have much of a series, batting .250/.400/.250 in 20 ABs. Larkin had an outstading series in 1990, .353/.421/.529.

Can't argue with you there. I remember what a big upset that was. Looking back on that period, those A's teams really should have accomplished more. I'd say they'd be the most disappointing team of the last 25 years or so, but the Mets of the mid/late 80s pissed away their chance for a dynasty.

Though the last part of your post, comparing the two World Series performances, remember that Jeter was a rookie in that series, whereas Larkin was already a 3-time All-Star by 1990. In Jeter's subsequent World Series apperanances he batted:

1998: .353, .450, .353, in 17 AB
1999: .353, .389, .414, in 17 AB
2000: .409, .480, .864, in 22 AB
2001: .148, .179, .259, in 27 AB - UGH TERRIBLE!
2003: .346, .393, .462, in 26 AB

So with the exception of 2001 when he was dreadful, Jeter has been money in the World Series. I know it's unfair to compare Larkin here because his sample is so much smaller, but Jeter has been been pretty darn good in the World Series.

Cowtipper
02-08-2013, 04:05 PM
I think Jeter will rank worlds higher than Larkin. In fact, I'd probably rank him higher than Larkin right now.

chicagowhitesox1173
02-08-2013, 04:18 PM
I think Jeter will rank worlds higher than Larkin. In fact, I'd probably rank him higher than Larkin right now.

I probably would have gone with Larkin in 2006. Now I would take Jeter.

PVNICK
02-11-2013, 04:55 AM
I go with Jeter on longevity and in season durability. Larkin is around the same offensively or a tick better and better with the glove but 110-140 games v. 155 for Jeter.

Jsquared83
02-11-2013, 12:51 PM
Jeter's 2006 would have swung the pendulum on this discussion. If that wasn't enough, 2009 as well.