Derek Jeter: 3,000 Hits and beyond

[White Knight]

BigBadWolf is that you? LOL

What facts do you have that I don't that show Jeter is the best leadoff hitter in baseball? Especially when some kid in LA named Trout is in the running to become just the 3rd ROY and MVP in the same season??

He probably meant best first inning leadoff hitter, and that would be correct I believe. Trout also should not be MVP. No rookie should ever be a GG or MVP.

[GiambiJuice]

No rookie should ever be a GG or MVP.

Okay, now you've gone off the deep end :-) I'm eagerly awaiting and explaination for this one...

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I would say Trout is very deserving. Without him I doubt the Angels are playoff contenders. He really picked that team up. I would pick him for MVP if the season ended today. Tough to pick him over Hamilton though.

[NJYankeeFan]

Sure, but then you could say 5 years is even more meaningful. He did hit .308 the first half of this year, not bad for his age. He also hit close to .330 the second half of last year. He's very streaky. What do you want a 38 year old to do? I think .308 is fine. You can't move him up, he's hitting almost .400 in the 1st inning as you pointed out.

Five years includes some prime years.

No longer the case.

Jeter is still great against lefties. Unreal actually. But they need to limit his at bats against righties.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[White Knight]

Okay, now you've gone off the deep end :-) I'm eagerly awaiting and explaination for this one...

I said this when Elvis Andrus was a rookie and how he should not win the GG. I think rookies should prove themselves. Making them a GG or (gasp) an MVP is always wrong. Apparently, the writers agree with me too.

Note: I did not consider Icharo a true rookie when he started playing in the states, as he proved himself before.

[White Knight]

Five years includes some prime years.

No longer the case.

Jeter is still great against lefties. Unreal actually. But they need to limit his at bats against righties.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Understandable that 5 years is too long. So I'm going with one year. In 146 games, he's hitting .316/.366 with 10 home runs, 26 doubles, and 16 stolen bases. You think that sucks for a 38 year old SS?

[VIBaseball]

(double post edited)

[VIBaseball]

I said this when Elvis Andrus was a rookie and how he should not win the GG. I think rookies should prove themselves. Making them a GG or (gasp) an MVP is always wrong. Apparently, the writers agree with me too.

Note: I did not consider Icharo a true rookie when he started playing in the states, as he proved himself before.

Besides Ichiro, the other Rookie of the Year to win MVP was Fred Lynn in 1975. His selection that year is widely regarded as a good one. The vote was not close that year and it hasn't really been questioned in retrospect. He also deserved his Gold Glove (I was a kid but remember watching him).

To say *always* is too strong a statement.

[VIBaseball]

Nine rookies have won the Gold Glove. Besides Lynn and Ichiro, they were:

Frank Malzone (1957); Won it the following two years, not that multiple wins necessarily indicate merit. Brooks Robinson began his stranglehold on the award after that. Malzone was very good, though -- strong arm, good hands.

Ken Hubbs (1962); This was the Bill Mazeroski era. Tony Taylor was also quite good then.

Tommie Agee (1966): Like Malzone, still technically a rookie when he won. Mets fans will remember how good Agee was in the field.

Johnny Bench (1968): A great catcher, both offensively and defensively.

Carlton Fisk (1972): I don't remember him as a great defensive catcher. Thurman Munson and Jim Sundberg were the big AL GG winners at catcher during the 1970s.

Sandy Alomar Jr. (1990): He too only won once. I-Rod had a lock on the award in the '90s.

Charles Johnson (1995): Won it in each of his first four years. Had a gun when he first arrived.

Most if not all of these choices were deserving, and I think it's fair to say that other rookies probably would have been too -- Andrus among them.

Back to you, White Knight...

[GiambiJuice]

I said this when Elvis Andrus was a rookie and how he should not win the GG. I think rookies should prove themselves. Making them a GG or (gasp) an MVP is always wrong. Apparently, the writers agree with me too.

Note: I did not consider Icharo a true rookie when he started playing in the states, as he proved himself before.

Wow, where do I begin?...

"I said this when Elvis Andrus was a rookie and how he should not win the GG. I think rookies should prove themselves."
With the GG logic you provided, What if a guy is no longer a rookie...he's been in the league for a few years and has been a mediocre or indifferent defender...he works really hard one offseason on improving his defense...works with coaches, does extra drills, shows up to spring training in better shape and with better range and skills. He improves drastically and this year he is the best defender at his position in the league. Would you say that he shouldn't be eligible for the GG either, since he still needs to prove himself for another year?

"Making them a GG or (gasp) an MVP is always wrong. Apparently, the writers agree with me too."
a)If the writers agreed with you, that wouldn't prove that you are right. Writers have a long history of being clueless. There have been too many terrible GG (Rafael Palmeiro anyone?) and MVP decisions to count.

b) That being said...The fact that rookies rarely win MVP is not because the writers agree with you, it's because it is incredibly rare for a true rookie to play well enough to be worthy of winning the MVP award. Most players reach their prime around age 26-27, after they've had a few years of experience in the big leagues. The fact that it's even happened twice (Lynn and Ichiro) is pretty remarkable.

[VIBaseball]

It's also worth noting the inertia that is so prevalent with the GG. Guys win it once and tend to keep on winning it, which means rookies are bucking the tide.

[White Knight]

Sandy Alomar Jr. (1990): He too only won once. I-Rod had a lock on the award in the '90s.

Charles Johnson (1995): Won it in each of his first four years. Had a gun when he first arrived.

Most if not all of these choices were deserving, and I think it's fair to say that other rookies probably would have been too -- Andrus among them.

Back to you, White Knight...

That's twice in my lifetime of 39 years. Not sure what you're saying.

[GiambiJuice]

Most if not all of these choices were deserving, and I think it's fair to say that other rookies probably would have been too -- Andrus among them.

Back to you, White Knight...

For starters, Troy Tulowitzki was so clearly the best NL Short Stop 2007, it's not even funny. But Jimmy Rollins hit well and won the MVP (also undeserved), so they gave him the GG too while they were at it. Stupid lazy writers...

[White Knight]

Wow, where do I begin?...

"I said this when Elvis Andrus was a rookie and how he should not win the GG. I think rookies should prove themselves."
With the GG logic you provided, What if a guy is no longer a rookie...he's been in the league for a few years and has been a mediocre or indifferent defender...he works really hard one offseason on improving his defense...works with coaches, does extra drills, shows up to spring training in better shape and with better range and skills. He improves drastically and this year he is the best defender at his position in the league. Would you say that he shouldn't be eligible for the GG either, since he still needs to prove himself for another year?

"Making them a GG or (gasp) an MVP is always wrong. Apparently, the writers agree with me too."
a)If the writers agreed with you, that wouldn't prove that you are right. Writers have a long history of being clueless. There have been too many terrible GG (Rafael Palmeiro anyone?) and MVP decisions to count.

b) That being said...The fact that rookies rarely win MVP is not because the writers agree with you, it's because it is incredibly rare for a true rookie to play well enough to be worthy of winning the MVP award. Most players reach their prime around age 26-27, after they've had a few years of experience in the big leagues. The fact that it's even happened twice (Lynn and Ichiro) is pretty remarkable.

Rookies are like freshmen in high school. No matter how good they are, let's see it again. No respect until sophomore year. Prove to me it wasn't a fluke. Like I said, Icharo is different. He wasn't a true rookie IMO. He played top of the line professional baseball elsewhere.

[White Knight]

Don't mean to be controversial guys. Just my view on rookies. It's not like I said "Welcome to the big leagues" and threw at Bryce Harper.

[GiambiJuice]

Rookies are like freshmen in high school. No matter how good they are, let's see it again. No respect until sophomore year. Prove to me it wasn't a fluke. Like I said, Icharo is different. He wasn't a true rookie IMO. He played top of the line professional baseball elsewhere.

You're right, Ichiro is different. So we are left with Fred Lynn as the only true rookie to win the MVP award. This proves nothing...except that it is extremely rare for a young rookie to be good enough to win an MVP award.

Would you name some rookies who should have won the award but were frozen out by the writers because they were rookies? Can you name a voter who has gone on record saying that he wouldn't vote for a rookie for GG or MVP? Plenty of writers have said they wouldn't vote for a pitcher for MVP, so it's not like they're shy about sharing their opinions on who they would or would not vote for...

[VIBaseball]

That's twice in my lifetime of 39 years. Not sure what you're saying.

To recap: "always" is too strong a statement, plus inertia and the reasons GiambiJuice cited are headwinds for rookies. Then too, maybe a fair number of the writers share your viewpoint. I personally don't. If a rookie is brilliant, then his play should be rewarded. Base awards on merit.

Another example that comes to mind is Rey Ordóñez, who was dazzling as a rookie in 1996, but the award went to Barry Larkin for the third straight time. I would cite inertia.

Was Ken Griffey any less marvelous as a centerfielder as a rookie at age 19 than he was at 20, when he won the first of 10 straight GG's? Probably not, but Gary Pettis, Devon White and Kirby Puckett were already established.

Was Pettis any better in his second season, when he won the first of five GG's, than he was as a rookie? Probably not, but Dwayne Murphy was established.

[NJYankeeFan]

Understandable that 5 years is too long. So I'm going with one year. In 146 games, he's hitting .316/.366 with 10 home runs, 26 doubles, and 16 stolen bases. You think that sucks for a 38 year old SS?

No but you are not going with one year. You are selectively choosing dates.

And you are ignoring the enormous splits anyway. Jeter should Dh against lefties. And ride the bench against righties. Problem is we would need another shortstop or maybe a lefty shortstop.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[BIGTIMEYANKEE]

No but you are not going with one year. You are selectively choosing dates.

And you are ignoring the enormous splits anyway. Jeter should Dh against lefties. And ride the bench against righties. Problem is we would need another shortstop or maybe a lefty shortstop.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

No way on this Gods earth should Jeter not be playing every day against anyone.

[TonyStarks]

He probably meant best first inning leadoff hitter, and that would be correct I believe. Trout also should not be MVP. No rookie should ever be a GG or MVP.

That makes absolutely no sense to me. If a guy is having a monster season and he carries his team, then it should matter not if he's a rookie. He proved his mettle and worth during the season.

You really gonna sit there and tell me that Albert Pujols didn't deserve the ROY and MVP in 2001? The man was a wrecking machine who helped carry his team into the playoffs, out of nowhere, after the Cards lost McGwire. Pujols didn't just hit, he also played all over the field: 1B, 3B, LF, RF. He was the true definition of a MVP during his rookie campaign.

[GiambiJuice]

That makes absolutely no sense to me. If a guy is having a monster season and he carries his team, then it should matter not if he's a rookie. He proved his mettle and worth during the season.

You really gonna sit there and tell me that Albert Pujols didn't deserve the ROY and MVP in 2001? The man was a wrecking machine who helped carry his team into the playoffs, out of nowhere, after the Cards lost McGwire. Pujols didn't just hit, he also played all over the field: 1B, 3B, LF, RF. He was the true definition of a MVP during his rookie campaign.

Pujols most definitely did not deserve the MVP in 2001. Some guy named Bonds hit 73 homers that year. Sosa and Luis Gonzalez were also much better. I thought he had a good case in 2003, though.

[PVNICK]

Can a rookie be named batting champion?

[NJYankeeFan]

No way on this Gods earth should Jeter not be playing every day against anyone.

Take a look at his splits and type that again with a straight face.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[GiambiJuice]

Can a rookie be named batting champion?

Nope. He has to do it again to prove it wasn't a fluke.

[TonyStarks]

Pujols most definitely did not deserve the MVP in 2001. Some guy named Bonds hit 73 homers that year. Sosa and Luis Gonzalez were also much better. I thought he had a good case in 2003, though.

Yeah ok. I'm not even going down that path of that 40 YEAR OLD Juicer who suddenly breaks out and almost doubles his career highs in HRs. I love Sosa and what he did, but that dude was juicing as well. Gonzalez? You gonna sit there and also say with a straight face that his Brady Anderson impression didn't raise eyebrows?

I liked Pujols for the MVP because he burst on the scene and stayed hot all year long. He also played many positions to fill holes where needed. Pujols should have also been the MVP in 2003.

Can a rookie be named batting champion?

Why not??