Actually, he gave up one grand slam to an AL pitcher. He did not give up multiple grand slams to AL pitchers. Just another case of a Mets fan schooling a silly Yankees fan.
Using the difference in rates of hitting over or under .300 in a series is a ridiculously crude way to measure variability. I already gave summaries showing clearly that his variability was higher in the later time period than in the earlier one, but I guess I really have to hit you over the head with it to get a reaction. Here are summary statistics of measures of variability of batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage at the individual game level for his games from 1996-2000 and from 2001-2007, respectively: Time period StDev Minimum Maximum Range IQR BA 1996-2000 0.1944 0.0000 0.8000 0.8000 0.2750 -- 2001-2007 0.2604 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3929 OBP 1996-2000 0.1902 0.0000 0.8000 0.8000 0.3000 --- 2001-2007 0.2547 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3000 SLG 1996-2000 0.3854 0.0000 1.4000 1.4000 0.4583 --- 2001-2007 0.5075 0.0000 2.5000 2.5000 0.5625 The standard deviation of all three measures is higher in the later period. The range of all three measures is higher in the later period. The interquartile range of two of the three measures is higher in the later period, and is tied in the third. For all three measures, the standard deviation in the later time period is statistically significantly larger than that in the earlier time period, with tail probabilities less than .035. Here are summary statistics of the three measures at the series level: Time period StDev Minimum Maximum Range IQR BA 1996-2000 0.1009 0.1110 0.4550 0.3440 0.1800 -- 2001-2007 0.1366 0.1180 0.5000 0.3820 0.2583 OBP 1996-2000 0.0794 0.2590 0.5380 0.2790 0.1035 --- 2001-2007 0.1377 0.1760 0.5560 0.3800 0.2933 SLG 1996-2000 0.2215 0.1110 0.8640 0.7530 0.3610 --- 2001-2007 0.2618 0.1180 0.9380 0.8200 0.3975 The standard deviation of all three measures is higher in the later period. The range of all three measures is higher in the later period. The interquartile range of all three measures is higher in the later period. The sample sizes are smaller here so it's harder to get statistical significance, but the difference in standard deviations in OBP is, in fact, statistically significant at a .055 level here. So yeah, when you actually look at the numbers sensibly, the difference in variability in the two time periods is actually a big difference, reflecting that he was much more consistent the first 5 years than he has been the last 7. That you refuse to acknowledge being mistaken about a simple fact is of course unsurprising, but as usual is good for a few laughs. Those are measures of the level of performance, so they say nothing about the point of the post, which was consistency of performance, as discussed above. Still, here are the full splits, which show that his level of performance has gone down in the last seven years, at the same time the inconsistency of that performance has gone up: G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF GDP SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS 61 280 244 48 79 10 3 8 21 30 0 55 2 4 0 3 11 2 .324 .402 .488 .890 62 283 251 37 74 12 0 9 28 21 1 41 3 4 4 7 5 2 .295 .351 .450 .801 His batting average is almost 30 points lower in the later time period, his on-base percentage is more than 50 points lower in the later period, and his slugging percentage is almost 40 points lower in the later time period. If you think that those aren't important differences, you're beyond hope.
im sorry, but jeter is an outlier on this list. explain what he has done to deserve to be on the same shit list as 1/3.
His BA is almost 30 points lower BUT he had more doubles, more HRs, more RBI. Again, the biggest difference is runs scored and that's a product of the players hitting behind him. It's not that great of a difference from the first half of his postseason career to the 2nd half. He has dipped in some categories and climbed in others but especially in the last 3 years insetad of having guys behind him that could drive him in he' s been stuck w/ guys like ARod, Sheffield, Matsui and Giambi behind him in place of guys like O'Neill, Chili, Bernie and others. I have no idea what you are talking about in the first part of your post.
As I said, always good for a few laughs. For those following along, here is a translation from junc-ism to English: "Yes, it is obvious that by every objective measure Jeter's overall level of postseason performance is noticeably worse from 2001-2007 than from 1996-2000, but if I highlight a couple of small differences the other way maybe people will ignore the bigger differences that account for the big drops in overall measures of performance. I'll also be sure to highlight a measure in his favor in the later time period that actually depends on the good things other people in the lineup did, while ignoring the fact that a big part of the reason he scored fewer runs in the later time period is because he was on base (and in scoring position) less as a result of having fewer hits, fewer walks, hitting into more than twice as many double plays, and stealing less than half as many bases." Translation: "The original post talked about something I don't actually understand (consistency of performance), but it seemed critical of Jeter, so I had to respond. I now have to admit that I didn't have the slightest idea that consistency is easily measured using statistical measures of variability, and that according to all of those different measures of variability Jeter's performance is much more inconsistent from 2001-2007 than it was from 1996-2000. This would seem to mean that I would have to acknowledge being mistaken about this, but instead I will somehow try to imply that all of the evidence against my position is too obscure for anyone to understand, and therefore not valid, thereby keeping my streak alive of avoiding ever having to admit that I was wrong about something."
How is his performance noticeably worse from '01-'07 when he has more HRs and RBI? His BA went down a bit and his Triples but doubles, HR and RBI went up. Please explain that to me.
Ok Sherlock, How did he Dominate last year when he was 1 game over .500 and last in HR's against. See jerk off Domination would be leading in all categories not being last in one of the most important and 17-16. You want to see Domination, look in Ovechkin's trophy case.
OK, he is 7-6, so far he is not earning his contract, he is slowing down and I feel he would be worse in the AL. That is all I said, am I wrong? Oh and I did not think being 1 game over .500 and last in HR's against was total domination last season.
Again, you're a moron. Win/loss record is the WORST measure of a pitcher, so the "one game over .500" crap is irrelevant. And home runs allowed is pretty pointless too, especially when you give up the fewest baserunners per inning in all of baseball like Santana did last year. And do you have any idea how hard it is to lead the league in EVERY category? When that happens, it's an all time great year, like Pedro in 2000 or Santana in 2006. Santana WAS dominant last year, and he's been slightly above average this year, based on the numbers.
I've explained it over and over. (1) He had 5 fewer hits, 9 fewer walks, and the same number of extra base hits in 3 more plate appearances and 7 more at bats. All of that translates into large drops in BA, OBP, and SLG. (2) The RBI increase is also to a large extent an illusion, and trying to make any argument that Jeter ever did well with men on base in the postseason is barking up the wrong tree anyway. Jeter's postseason BA with men on base dropped from .247 to .230 from 1996-2000 to 2001-2007, his OBP dropped from .333 to .305, and his SLG dropped from .356 to .284. His BA with RISP increased from .227 to .238, his OBP stayed the same at .333, and his SLG dropped from .295 to .286. That is at best a wash, so we can say that his batting performance with opportunities to drive in runs might not have dropped - it simply stayed pretty poor. The reason he had more RBI in the later time period is that it just so happened that when he came up with men on base, they were more likely to be in scoring position (44% of his at bats with men on base had men in scoring position from 1996-2000, but 57% of his at bats with men on base had men in scoring position from 2001-2007). This is why RBI is such a poor way of evaluating a player - it's much too dependent on the play of the people who came before in the lineup. You spend a lot of time criticizing the guys behind him in the lineup for not driving him in lately (too much time, as I showed before and again below), but never seem to congratulate the people in front of him for getting into scoring position so that he has more opportunities for RBI. (3) He hit into 4 more double plays. He stole 6 fewer bases. Combine that with a 50 point drop in OBP and that accounts for a large drop in runs scored. His performance with the bases empty dropped precipitously in the two time periods, with his OBP going from .444 to .349. Think that could have anything to do with him scoring fewer runs? Just stop it already - you're embarrassing yourself more and more with every post.
Holy crap. Most stupid people realize when they're getting embarrassed and walk away. Not you, apparently.
Why do you always have to get personal? The only embarrssment on here is you trying to tell everyone how much worse Jeter has been since 2001 when the facts tell us his #s are very similar. Has his play gone down a bit? sure but you are acting like he's been ARod like since 2001. You can try and change the argument to try to make yourself look better but anyone who has been reading this knows the point. Where are you getting his averages w/ runners on base? and what were the situations? RISP w/ less than 2 out? runner on 1st w/ 2 out? Those are important factors and someone w/ all your knowledge should know this, right?
Jeter is a great player. He is 34 now, and yes, he is probably on the decline. For players who don't juice, that is about the age where they start to decline. He is a HOFer and deserves credit. He spent a lot of his career underrated IMO. He may be overrated now.
Obviously he hasn't played well this year but it's a little too early to say he's done. That happened a few years ago when he was batting under .200 at the end of May. many said he was done at that point and he rebounded to hit .292 that year and hit over .300 the next 3 years including the 2nd highest average of his career just 2 years later. Right now he's at .278, I'm sure he'll be fine and over .300 and all the other stats wil go up along w/ the BA by the end of the year.
You're absolutely right, and the fact that you don't get what that means is what is so funny. You say that I am changing the argument, which is of course nonsense; you are the one contradicting yourself in three sentences: "when the facts tell us his #s are very similar. Has his play gone down a bit? sure". I have said two things all along: his level of play is poorer in the second time period, and his consistency of play is poorer in the second time period. Those two facts are indisputable, yet you keep coming back trying to say that I am being misleading in the ways that I keep showing it. As always, you try to deflect the facts by suddenly bringing in nonsense that you don't even know supports your supposed argument. To act like the numbers will somehow be different for 2 outs compared to 0 outs or 1 out without any data to back it up is idiotic, for example, and ultimately has nothing to do with the point, but you continue to throw this crap around, hoping it will somehow stick. I don't let you get away with it, and that is why it eventually gets personal when you repeatedly do it. You know that, of course, since eventually it always gets personal whenever anyone points out when you're wrong, since you'll do pretty much anything to avoid admitting that. Good job ignoring all of the objective reasons I gave for why his runs went down in the second time period also, by the way, since they would force you to acknowledge that it might not all be the other players' faults (and one player in particular, of course). All of these stats are from baseball-reference and retrosheet, so feel free to go check them out to try find something that actually supports your position.
Please stop. You are really irritating. You guys originally talked about how much worse Jeter was since '01 and I proved that wasn't the case, his play had a slight dropoff. Not a big deal and in those '01-'07 #s are 2 series where he was hurt and his #s were signifcantly affected by the injury. You can keep changing things up and try to post new #s but the facts are the facts and they support my argument as usual. I don't blame that 1 player as bad as that 1 player was, our offesne as a whole has been awful in October the last few years. It has been led by that player, maybe if he's play in october like he does during the reg season he could lift up the O. Hopefully that happens soon. I alread supported my opinion. I use those sites, where does it give you #s w/ runners on base? and again what were the situations? How many guys on base? what base/bases were they on? how many out? What were the situations? Please do not ignore this part again.
