Buster Olney doesn’t think Vizquel, Tejada, Nomar were shortstops

49 Comments

Let the record show that I gave fair warning: I thought Buster Olney might adjust his lists from Monday’s ESPN Insider column after being presented with the glaring omissions. Alas, I was ignored.

The bulk of Olney’s column today was designed to point out how totally not overrated Derek Jeter is. He dives into the numbers to do this or, rather, had someone else dive into the numbers for him. That someone was Justin Havens of ESPN Stats & Information. And what we’re left with was these two lists, which are being presented as data for shortstops from 1995-2013.

Defensive WAR

1. Jack Wilson (20.7)
2. Rafael Furcal (14.3)
3. Jimmy Rollins (12.9)
4. Mike Bordick (12.8)
5. J.J. Hardy (12.5)
6. Troy Tulowitzki (11.9)
7. Royce Clayton (11.6)
8. Alex Gonzalez (10.4)
9. Rey Ordonez (10.1)

Derek Jeter — dead last at minus-9.2.

But when you weigh how good he was offensively … well, the scales are tipped pretty heavily in his direction in the 19 years he has played:

WAR among shortstops with at least 3,000 plate appearances in that time

1. Derek Jeter 71.5
2. Jimmy Rollins 42.0
3. Rafael Furcal 39.1
4. Jose Reyes 33.2
5. Troy Tulowitzki 32.3

Notice anyone missing? If you’re like me, you noticed several. Obviously, Alex Rodriguez isn’t there, even though he’s still played more games at shortstop than at third base. But that’s understandable; considering his time at DH, he’s now made just a tad less than 50 percent of his career appearances at shortstop.

But Omar Vizquel? Miguel Tejada? Nomar Garciaparra? All three of those guys should be on the bottom list. They would be there even if you just counted their time at shortstop and left out their appearances elsewhere. Of course, so would Rodriguez, using that standard (he totaled 63.7 WAR from 1995-2003 alone). But Olney’s list here isn’t using that standard; Jeter’s mark of 71.5 WAR above includes his time at DH.

(I love the plate appearances disclaimer, too, because if the Mike Trout of shortstops had managed to amass 40 WAR in 2,500 plate appearance, well, that’d just be a fluke, right?)

And the defense list? Vizquel accumulated 17.3 WAR on defense on defense after 1995 (28.4 in his career). Adam Everett was at 15.7. Clint Barmes 16.0 (WAR totals are from Baseball-reference, since that’s obviously the list Olney was using even if it wasn’t credited in the column). All kinds of guys are missing from that list. Apparently, those appearances they made at second base or third disqualified them.

Still, there are no disclaimers here from Olney. Nothing at all that explains why Vizquel, Tejada and Garciaparra weren’t included when no one would argue that they weren’t shortstops. And the whole point was to compare Jeter to other shortstops, even though I don’t see anyone actively trying to make a case for any of those guys over Jeter. Olney goes on to write this:

Jeter has almost 1,000 more hits in this timeframe than any other shortstop (Edgar Renteria, who began his career at just about the same time as Jeter, finished with 2,327 hits). Jeter has more than 600 more runs than any other shortstop in his era (Rollins is second, with 1,247). Alex Rodriguez has the most home runs for shortstops in this time, with 344; Jeter is second, with 256, and Jeter has 57 more homers than the rest of the field (Rollins, 199).

Now, this is just flat-out wrong. And it’s amazing that Olney, even though he was willing to blindly publish Havens’ lists, could write this paragraph without even thinking of Tejada et al. Tejada, not Jeter, has the second most homers of any shortstop during this era (291 of his 307 homers came as a shortstop). Olney is also cheating on his numbers. It makes only a small difference, but notice how he merely counts A-Rod’s homers as a shortstop here yet doesn’t subtract Jeter’s home runs (five) and runs scored (40) from his 58 games as a DH from his totals.

I’m sure most of this was just sloppiness and that Olney didn’t intentionally leave these guys out with the idea of improving Jeter’s case. But since he apparently isn’t interested in fixing it, I’d say he deserves to take a little heat.

The umps have dropped their Ian Kinsler protest

Getty Images
4 Comments

Over the weekend the World Umpires Association — the umpire’s union —  launched a protest in response to what it feels is Major League Baseball’s failure to adequately address the “escalating attacks” on the men in blue. They were specifically upset that Ian Kinsler didn’t get suspended for his remarks in which he said that Angel Hernandez should get out of the umpiring business because he’s terrible. Apparently to umpires truth is no defense. In any event, they wore white wristbands Saturday night as a sign of solidarity or whatever.

Now that’s over, it seems. At least for the time being. The Association released this statement yesterday afternoon:

“Today, WUA members agreed to the Commissioner’s proposal to meet with the Union’s Governing Board to discuss the concerns on which our white wristband protest is based. We appreciate the Commissioner’s willingness to engage seriously on verbal attacks and other important issues that must be addressed. To demonstrate our good faith, MLB Umpires will remove the protest white wristbands pending the requested meeting.”

As many noted over the weekend — most notably Emma Span of Sports Illustrated — this protest was, at best, tone deaf. While officials are, obviously, due proper respect, a player jawing at an umpire is neither unprecedented nor very serious compared to, well, almost anything that goes on in the game or in society. At a time when people are literally taking to the streets to protest white supremacy, Neo-Nazis and the KKK, asking folks to spare thoughts for some people who sometimes have to take guff over ball and strike calls is not exactly a cause that is going to draw a ton of sympathy. And that’s before you address the fact that the umpires are not innocent when it comes to stoking the animosity between themselves and the players.

I wouldn’t expect to hear too much more out of this other than, perhaps, a relatively non-committal statement from Major League Baseball and a relatively detail-free declaration of victory by the umpires after their meeting.

 

Minor league teams prepare for a “total eclipse of the park”

Salem Volcanoes
2 Comments

The Salem-Keizer Volcanoes are a class-A affiliate of the San Francisco Giants. Today, the path of totality of the big solar eclipse we’re not supposed to look at will pass right through the ballpark in which they play. What’s better: the Volcanoes are playing a game against the Hillsboro Hops as it happens.

This was by design: the team’s owner requested this home game when the schedule was made up two years ago specifically to market the heck out of the eclipse. They’re starting the game at 9:30 this morning, Pacific time, in order to maximize the fun. Spectators will receive commemorative eclipse safety glasses to wear. The game will be delayed when the eclipse hits and a NASA scientist named Noah Petro, who is from the area, will talk to the crowd about what is going on.

Salem-Keizer isn’t the only minor league game affected, by the way. There are six games in all which will feature a “total eclipse of the park.” Turn around, bright eyes.

There are no home MLB games going on in the path of totality, but MLB has put together a helpful guide in order to maximize your baseball and eclipse pleasure. If you line up some good beer with that you’l have your very own national pastime syzygy.