It doesn't matter if he faced 1 or 1,000 AL pitchers. The fact remains he allowed one grand slam to an AL pitcher this year. He did not allow more than one. I wasn't talking about team performance. I was talking about dumbasses and people with intelligence. I have zero to do with how well or poor the Mets and Yankees fare.
Yes, I'm sure you do find it irritating that when you aim your typical BS at me I call you on it and prove that you're full of crap (such as your infamous "you guys" attack - I have nothing to do with anyone else's posts, so bringing them up is just more BS). The only thing we agree on is that this should stop. You are so delusional that it is pointless to even try to have a conversation. Guess what, Einstein - posting more evidence that supports my position is not changing things up, it's providing more evidence. 30 points in BA, 50 points in OBP, and 40 points in SLG is not a slight dropoff, and everyone in the world knows it; it was only because you ridiculously tried to dispute that simple fact that I then followed up with lots more evidence to show it. That is "how much worse Jeter was" that I said, and it's just true, whether you like it or not. That you can even write "the facts are the facts and they support my argument as usual" after everything I have posted is a testament to how out of touch with reality you truly are (and of course the "as usual" reflects your pathological need to think that you are always right). The other two points I made are that he is more inconsistent in the second time period, and you've admitted that you can't even understand what that means, and that there are many reasons connected to his own play that account in large part for his scoring fewer runs in the second time period, and you've studiously ignored that. I've ignored nothing related to any of the points I've made (and, as always, you accusing someone else of ignoring something is hysterically funny). The splits for men on base can be found at http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/J/Pjeted001.htm; it wasn't exactly a challenge to find them. They don't have further splits there, and I'm certainly not going to go through the play-by-play for each game just because you've decided that doing that will somehow make your insupportable argument suddenly correct. If you think it matters and have a point to make, go ahead and get the data yourself and actually make it.
Let's put this to bed right now so you can stop being a jerk and acting like you know what you are talking about. A recap: NYJ2K08 posted this: So I responded w/ this: Then the genius has to chime in: You tried to add include the 2001 ALDS which was before he got hurt to help your point but the fair way to do it was '96-'00 and '01-'07 to which the difference isn't "remarkable". Even the #s you posted including the '01 ALDS is in the first half weren't "remarkably" different. And then for some reason you compare ARod using his Seattle #s as if that has any relevance, he's been awful as a Yankee. Who cares if he was good as a Mariner?(and by the way I think he only had 1 hits w/ RISP in his Seattle postseason career). The bottom line is the first half of his postseason carer isn't much different from the 2nd half, the biggest difference is the performance of players around him. We can keep going back and forth, you can keep trying to change the argument to make yourself look better but we know what the original argument was and rather than continue to act like an idiot you should move along now. You STILL haven't shown the situations around those runners on base. By the way, his average w. men on base(situations be damned) went from .248 from 1996-2000 to .244 from 2001-2007. AGAIN, not a huge difference. His average w/ RISP went UP .44 from .200 to .244. While he was better from 1996-2000 it wasn't a "remarkable" difference. Keep spouting off nonsese, please get back to me when you show me the situations w/ those runners on base.
Yes, if I refuse to make your argument for you that means my argument is not valid. Great logic there - you must have been captain for your high school debating team. You claim that a 30 point drop in BA, a 50 point drop in OBP, and a 40 point drop in SLG is no difference at all. You are wrong. You claim that consistency is no different when multiple scale statistics show that variability in the second time period is much higher, even though you admit that you don't have the slightest idea that scale statistics and variability are the only reasonable ways to evaluate consistency. You are wrong. You claim that having 5 fewer hits and 9 fewer walks in 3 more plate appearances, hitting into 4 more DPs, and stealing 6 fewer bases has nothing to do with scoring fewer runs. You are wrong. Deal with it.
This argument is done, move along. Even when you posted #s to try to change the argument you STILL couldn't get them right. You might be able to get away w/ stuff like that against others but w/ me. and I'm STILL waiting for you to post the situations regarding Jeter's averag w/ runners on base.
Actually, it's not done. It won't be done until you admit you were wrong, which will of course never happen.
Regurgitating the same vacuous nonsense over and over doesn't make it true or meaningful. You have not refuted a single point I actually made, and you can't, since they are based on simple indisputable statistics. That's the nice thing about baseball - all of the mindless incorrect opinions in the world can't stand up to a few simple facts, despite the desperation of some to hold onto those opinions no matter what. If you have a point to make regarding further splits in the data then you can go get them and make it. Expecting me to do it for you is merely another example of your complete lack of connection with reality. Of course, you probably don't really think that that's a rational expectation at all - you're just repeating it so that you can convince yourself that you're not wrong (at this point even you must realize that there's no chance that that will convince anyone else). You claim that a 30 point drop in BA, a 50 point drop in OBP, and a 40 point drop in SLG is no difference at all. You are wrong. You claim that consistency is no different when multiple scale statistics show that variability in the second time period is much higher, even though you admit that you don't have the slightest idea that scale statistics and variability are the only reasonable ways to evaluate consistency. You are wrong. You claim that having 5 fewer hits and 9 fewer walks in 3 more plate appearances, hitting into 4 more DPs, and stealing 6 fewer bases has nothing to do with scoring fewer runs. You are wrong. Deal with it.
I haven not refuted a single point EXCEPT for the entire point of the argument. Your argument was Jeter was alot worse the 2nd half of his postseason carer than his 1st half and I PROVED that while he was worse it wasn't that great of a difference. While trying to post meaningless stats to support your opinion you trotted out the Jeter w/ men on base stat and you posted incorrect info stating he went from .247 to .230 from '96-'00 to '01-'07. It went from .248 to .244 while his avg. w/ RISP went up by .44. Yes we know he hasn't been as good nor has the team been as good but to act like his 2nd half of his postseason career is ARod Game 5 2004 ALCS through 2007 ALD is incorrect. I don't need to make any more points. Part of your argument moved over to batting w/ runners on base as if that tells us something. In order to help your weak argument you should let us know the situations. I do not claim those #s are not a difference, I calim they are not that big of a difference and they aren't. In some areas his #s went down like BA and OBP, in other areas his #s went up like RBI, HRs, doubles, avg. w/ RISP. I did? when? You are all over the place.
This is the part you are wrong about. A 30 point drop in AVG is big. A 50 point drop in OBP is HUGE. A 40 point drop in SLG is big. The RBIs are a function of the hitters around him, and he had only one more HR and FEWER 2B. So I'm not sure how you are right in this. EDIT: YOU also completely changed the argument by putting the '01 season with the second group instead of the first. It was after that series that the dropoff began, so including it skews the data.
Yes, I had him at 18/78 (.230) instead of 19/78 (.244) with men on in the second time period. That one base hit difference completely invalidates the argument. He was 10/44 with RISP in the first time period (.227) and 10/42 with RISP (.238) in the second time period, exactly as I said. Of course, my entire point was that his performance with men on base or with RISP has pretty much stayed the same; it is his performance with bases empty that has dropped dramatically. If you think being able to focus in on exactly where his performance has dropped is a meaningless statistic, that's your problem, not mine. But how could you have ever not seen that that was what I was saying? After all, I was so obscure about it: This is what I actually said regarding Jeter's overall performance: At this point I was splitting at the 2001 ALCS, as I made clear; in further posts I split at the 2001 ALDS, since that is the split that you insisted on. Post http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=868866&postcount=104, which proves statistically beyond any doubt that Jeter has been much more inconsistent since 2001 than he was beforehand. (Again, this refers to the entire 2001-2007 time period.) Everything I posted regarding his level of performance is purely objective statistics, other than referring to a remarkable split, a very significant drop in production, noticeably worse, and not a slight dropoff. I stand by those characterizations, and since that was the only thing you can possibly argue with, all you had to do was say that you thought those characterizations were a little strong. Of course, that would have required you to argue in a civil fashion. As was blindingly obvious from my post, what I showed was that the place where Jeter's performance has dropped is when he was up with the bases empty. I made no value judgement on that fact; it is simply true. You then insisted that if I couldn't provide statistics for any possible split that you want, that invalidates the simple factual statement. That is utter nonsense. This is what statistics can do; they can summarize things overall. His extra base hits stayed exactly the same, so pointing to doubles and HRs while ignoring triples is nonsense. I explained why the larger RBI were in part an illusion; this is confirmed by a BA with RISP that is 11 points higher, an OBP that is the same, and a slugging percentage that is 9 points lower. As I said explicitly, I never said that his performance with men on base or RISP changed; I said it stayed the same, pretty poor. I also never claimed that his extra base hits changed; a poorer performance does not require poorer performance in every category. His singles and walks went down quite a bit, while his extra base hits stayed the same, and that is why the overall measures like BA, OBP, and SLG went down by 30, 50, and 40 points, respectively. More specifically, nothing much changed with men on base, but his OBP dropped 100 points with bases empty. I doubt that many baseball fans would characterize those drops as "not that big a difference." Here is everything you've said in this thread about why his runs have gone down: Please show me how any of that acknowledges that the fact that Jeter had 18 fewer times that he could have scored because of his own performance (5 fewer hits, 9 fewer walks, 4 more DPs) has plenty to do with why he scored 11 fewer runs. By the way, I notice that you've completely avoided any mention of consistency for a while (since admitting that you didn't understand what I posted about it). Does that mean that you now acknowledge that you were wrong here and here?
But it's clearly not split remarkably and this has been the point all along despite you going off in 50 different directions. 1996-2000: hit under .300 4 times in 13 series 2001-2007: hit under .300 5 times in 12 series 1996-2000: 79-244, .324, 10 doubles, 3 Triples, 8 HRs, 21 RBI, 48 runs 2001-2007: 74-251, .295, 12 doubles, 0 Triples, 9 HRs, 28 RBI, 37 runs Also add in his avg. w/ runners on changed by .04 and his avg. w/ RISP went UP .44 I'll give you this, this is a good argument. It's not the original point we were arguing over but it makes sense. I haven't avoided anything. He has been a consistent playoff performer his entire career. he has had a few bad series, only 9 of 25 has he hit under .300. 4 times in his first 13 series and 5 times in his last 12 series. That's pretty consistent. His #s from the first half to the 2nd half are similar, the differences aren't as great as you portray them to be. That was the original argument and it's not really debateable. Once again it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. We need to know the situations but you refuse to use them to defend your position. I don't care if down 8 runs to cleveland he didn't get a hit or a walk or if up 8 runs he didn't drive in a runner. I've watched the guy every postseason game of his career and he's been a good to great postseason performer his entire career w/ a few blips here and there.
It's just as well that this is petering out, but his average with RISP went up 11 points, not 44 (10/44 to 10/42). As I said, his performance with men on base hasn't really changed at all, but his performance with bases empty has dropped dramatically. There's no question here; it is simply true. Well, that's fine. I assume that you will no longer only blame his lower number of runs on the players around him, as you have been doing all along. You're right, it's not debateable, and you're wrong. Impressions are notoriously affected by personal preferences and biases, and cannot be trusted when objective figures are available. Appealing to crude measures like above or below .300 obscures what is going on, and is not much better than personal impressions. There is absolutely no question that his performance from 2001-2007 was more inconsistent than that from 1996-2000. I gave you a half-dozen statistics that prove this, and I could give you a half-dozen more. The differences are exactly as great as I portrayed them to be, since I only used objective statistics; it is you who are simply ignoring those statistics when they don't suit the story you want to tell. You acknowledged that you didn't understand what I was saying, and therefore refuse to accept it. I find that pretty egotistical, so I guess I need to be a little egotistical back. Do I really have to point out that analyzing variability using data is what I have been doing for the past 35 years? That I have a PhD in the subject? That I've published 4 books and over 80 articles about it? That since I have absolutely no axe to grind here (I couldn't care less about how Jeter's performance has changed or didn't change) all that I'm doing is bring a whole lot of experience with statistics to the table? That given all of that it is much more sensible to accept what I'm saying than blindly oppose it because of personal impressions, since you don't even understand it?
He still hit well over .300 w/ the bases empty and let's not forgte he was a leadoff hitter for 2 of those postseasons and it's no secret he's not a leadoff hitter, those were 2 of the worst seasons of his career and if we take out those '04 & '05 postseason #s then he's batting near .330 w/ the bases empty. Either way he has still been a good player in the postseason since 2001. This is where we are going off track, when did I say he wasn't more inconsistent from '01-'07? He clearly has been a lesser player, the point has been and continues to be his dropoff wasn't that big. He was still a good to very good postseason player in that span. They are greater in some areas than others. In some areas they improve, in others they go down. The bottom line is he has still been a good to very good player in postseason. He has not been ARod-like since Game 5 of the '04 ALCS. That's great but it has no use in this discussion, you are trying to use your expertise in your profession to get something over on me and it's not happening. It makes it sound like it's relevant but it's not. Again, there are situations involved that you do not take into account. Everything isn't black and white and w/o comparing variability to other players what use does it have here? That might be typical compared to most players as they get older? How do we know? That's great, I know you know what you are talking about when it comes to statistics BUT they aren't all applicable. Again, it's not just black and white.
IMO- The list wreaks of jealousy. Do you really believe Wright, A-rod, and Jeter all made the list and were all in the top 4 and are all playing in NY? Yet, Jeter was second, Rodriguez first, in the,"Whom would you pick to build a team around?" poll. Makes no sense but IT SELLS MAGAZINES. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
If scientists ever despair of inventing a perpetual motion machine to solve the globe's energy crisis, I propose having some stats nerd start an argument with nyjunc regarding Derek Jeter's post season clutchness. In other shocking news, over in the Jets forum, Br4dw4y5ux5 is rather down on the Jets front office.
Oh, okay - we're going to talk about his 2001-2007 performance, but we won't count 2001 because he was hurt, and we won't count 2004-2005 because he was batting leadoff. :rofl: I'm not going to go through all the numbers (since I couldn't care less), but in a quick glance I don't see much (if any) evidence that where he batted matters at all - he batted 2nd or 3rd in the 2001 ALCS, 2001 WS, 2003 ALCS, and 2007 ALDS and did poorly, and batted 1st in the 2004 ALDS and 2005 ALDS and did well. Oh, gee, I don't know - maybe here: or here: Look, I have no reason to say anything else, so I won't. You have acknowledged that his performance with bases empty has dropped by a lot (the various reasons you come up with have nothing to do with the fact that it happened). You have acknowledged that he has been more inconsistent. You have acknowledged that a big part of why he has scored fewer runs (what you called the biggest difference in the two time periods) is his own poorer performance in being on base or in scoring position so that he could get driven in. Since those are the only things I've actually claimed, you agree with everything I've actually said. Your need to parse words or phrases like "remarkable," "significant," "noticeable," and "not slight" (the only ones I actually used) to somehow show that all of the facts I've presented don't mean what they mean is your problem, not mine.
