Talk:Derek Jeter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Portal	Baseball Portal Derek Jeter is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This page is part of the scope of WikiProject New York Yankees, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the New York Yankees. Please feel free to join us.

Archives
1

Home Runs he should have 196 Home-Runs not 195 - Carlisle

Fixed it. Thanks. Michael Greiner 21:23, 10 December

Contents 1 Jeter's nickname 2 Hits in 2000's 3 2006 AL MVP runner up?? 4 why NPOV? 5 The Flip quote 6 Was this whole thing written by a Yankees' fan? 7 The Dive 8 2005 Player of the Year? 9 Unnecessary 10 Average 11 "RBI's" 12 Jeffery Maier 13 Bias- in the other direction 14 Note in Trivia Section 15 Turn2 Foundation 16 Clutch Play 17 Inaccuracies 18 Separate 'Criticisms' Section Violates NPOV 19 criticisms section 20 The Dive 21 Facts

[edit] Jeter's nickname

I found out that Jeter has a nickname. His nickname is DJ. It's from his initials. It also said in the game MLB Power Pros. I would like someone to add his nickname in. Thanks!--RyRy5 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone call him DJ. Someone will add it if there are reliable sources for it. Also, for what it's worth, I have never heard Jeter be called DJ from MLB Power Pros. (I own it) --Michael Greiner 03:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In MLB Power Pros, if you look at baseball cards, and choose Derek Jeter, it will say DJ at the top. This is just for more evidence. If anyone has this game and checks this in MLB Power Pros, please add Jeter's nickname. Thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have checked and it is true, MLB Power Pros does say his nickname is DJ. This is more proof. Hope someone adds his nickname.--Chrisy5 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A video game, is not the most reliable source in the world. Still have never heard it by anyone in the media.--Michael Greiner 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hits in 2000's

I know of at least two hitters Michael Young and Ichiro Suzuki that have more hits than Derek in the 2000's, making him at most 3rd in hits in the 2000's - Jeff

Michael Young doesn't even have 1483 hits in his career. (Jschager 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 2006 AL MVP runner up??

Since when is that an award? Is there a wikipedia page for all the players who have gotten runner up in the MVP races every year? It's be no means encyclopedic and my vote is that it should be deleted from the Awards section. Hsox05 00:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why NPOV?

In response to Rafelito.

(UTC)

At this point, according to most defense metrics, it's virtually indisputable that on a day-to-day basis, he's a below-average defender, despite the fact that he has won 3 Gold Glove awards.

Michael Greiner 04:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to his page on baseballprospectus.com, he's been 22 runs above average on defense over the last two years. 209.6.159.100 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Peter Bard

At this point, according to most defense metrics, it's virtually indisputable that on a day-to-day basis, he's a below-average defender, despite the fact that he has won 3 Gold Glove awards.

Rafelito 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the defense metrics, but I can say that I watch Jeter play shortstop and there is one play that he undistuably performs well - he goes into the hole and instead of planting his back foot for the long throw to first; he jumps into the air to generate the power and will often get the runner. He performs this play very well. To a certain extent its similar to how Keith Hernandez performed the 'wheel' in a bunting situation; or Scott Brosius' ability to barehand bunts/week grounders.

69.151.204.52 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that was democratic. Nice work. (Dripping with sarcasm). Look at his Zone Rating. Number 1 in the league. dool325 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

False. --Rafelito 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should mention in the criticism section that Bill James, who calls Jeter the worst defensive player in any position from 2003-2005 has worked for the Red Sox since 2003.

Irrelevant. --Rafelito 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Sox fans are never bias to the Yankees, so this must be true.--Speedfreak69 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at some of Jeter's fielding stats on ESPN.com. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3246&context=fielding Now, I remember when Jeter was "exposed" as the worst fielding shortstop back in 2003. Taking a look at his range stats over his career (excluding limited stats in 1995 and 2007): 1996 range factor: 4.52 zone rating: .816 1997 range factor: 4.45 zone rating: .840 1998 range factor: 4.25 zone rating: .855 1999 range factor: 4.00 zone rating: .833 2000 range factor: 4.12 zone rating: .811 2001 range factor: 3.81 zone rating: .789 2002 range factor: 3.81 zone rating: .803 2003 range factor: 3.75 zone rating: .791 2004 range factor: 4.46 zone rating: .847 2005 range factor: 4.76 zone rating: .830 2006 range factor: 4.14 zone rating: .810 Jeter's awful RF was cited towards the end of 2003 by the emerging group of statisticians declaring the-emperor-has-no-clothes with regard to Jeter's fielding (sorry I can't cite a source for that yet, just some newspaper articles I recall). Looking at the numbers above, 2003 seems to have come at the bottom of a decline in Jeter's fielding ability. Nevertheless, Jeter's numbers spiked in 2004 and 2005, when he won his first 2 Gold Glove awards by combining increased range with an above-average fielding percentage. 2006 seemed to have been a down year, when Jeter may have won his third Gold Glove based more on reputation than performance. The MLB leader at SS tends to have an RF between 4.8 and 5.2, suggesting that Jeter's 4.76 from 2005 is in fact an excellent rating. Anyway, I'm having trouble finding the league averages for RF and ZR at shortstop over the last decade. Those numbers might help validate the idea that Jeter's 2004 and 2005 Gold Gloves may have been deserved, despite some clearly below-average years from 2001-2003. BeRose 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, some facts from 2005: Jeter's 2005 fielding percentage (.979) ranked 2nd in the AL to Orland Cabrera (.988). Jeter's 2005 range factor ranked (4.76) 2nd in the AL behing Julio Lugo (4.94). Jeter's zone rating (.830) ranked 5th in the AL. The stats for Cabrera and Lugo are not excellent across the board, as shown by Lugo's .968 fielding percentage and Cabrera's 4.18 range factor. There are many better defensive shortstops than Derek Jeter playing in the NL, but Gold Gloves are awarded by league. An objective look at the statistics seems to suggest that Derek Jeter could certainly have been considered the AL's best defensive SS. A case could be made for Juan Uribe deserving the award (statistically speaking) as well, but Jeter was anything but "ineffective" that year. BeRose 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line after everything I've said above... I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, but I think something should be said about the fact that most of this "worst shortstop in the majors" research came out in the years 2001-2003 (follow the links... only "The Fielding Bible" came out later, and who knows when exactly James wrote his contribution?), and is therefore based on numbers that are drastically different from Jeter's Gold Glove-winning years (2004, 2005, 2006). BeRose 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

James wrote his contribution after the 2005 season; his comparison with Adam Everett specifically uses 2005 stats, so the above comment is not relevant. Range Factor itself is so heavily influenced by a pitching staff that it is almost meaningless for an infielder; the Zone Ratings cited above are more meaningful, and show Jeter to not be the best defensive shortstop in the AL (though, at 5th, he's surely not the worst). You can make a case that Jeter is in fact an average shortstop, but that's the best case, and the Gold Glove is supposed to go to the best shortstop, not an average shortstop. Carolus 03:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, The Fielding Bible ratings for 2005-2007 (http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/charts/leaders1-0507.gif) have Jeter at -90, worst of all shortstops for the period by -26. Carolus 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Flip quote

Come on. "Downstais, down the rightfield line!?" Change it to "That is fair!"

Clarification needed: Derek Jeter was born in Pequannock, but that's NJ, not NY like submitted in the article.72.74.130.224 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Andrew

Yeah, the whole page was vandalized repeatedly and was not caught by other users. I have now reverted to a version I think is proper, though. Nishkid64 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was this whole thing written by a Yankees' fan?

I don't know how to do it, but I would nominate this page for having a distorted point of view just by looking at it. There is no reason to have individual sections devoted to individual plays of his career. Condensing everyything into a career highlights section would be vastly more acceptable. Dividing plays up into individuals parts is a poor way of doing things. If we tried doing this for every Major League player who has made more than one noteworthy play in his career, things would get out of control. Way, way too much pro-Jeter bias on the page. Is that why it's locked right now? President David Palmer

It was locked mainly because people were saying he sucked or is a homosexual. (Read the edit history) Michael Greiner 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the few patrolling this article, so I will semi-protect the page on occasion when I feel the level of vandalism gets out of hand. I usually unprotect within a week, though. I also noticed that the article has some biased material, and I am in the process of trying to fix it up. Nishkid64 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about. I edited the article to move the section about "the dive" to be a smaller part of his career highlights, noting that it was the 2004 play of the year. It was immediately reverted back by an self-proclaimed Jeter and Yankees fans. Also, adjectives like "respectable" to describe statistics have no place in encyclopedic language. This is a site to inform, not espouse personal opinion through subtle languages. I'm sorry, but in the broad scheme of things, Jeter's over-exposed "dive" in 2004 was a rather small career highlight perpetuated by an obsessive sports journalism market. In 5 years, it will be another play that happened in the history of baseball that few, if any remember, especially since the play itself was not terribly remarkable, other than it being honored as the play of the year by a mundane award distributor. I have nothing against Jeter in the least, but in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, or at least in trying to establish it, dedicating an entire subsection of an article, complete with a referential quick link, to one single play that had no bearing on the outcome of a game, season, career, or anything else, is ridiculous. It's not a career highlight, and its certainly nothing that non-Yankee fans would ever regard as more than another catch. Making a long, 2 sentence mention of it at the end of his 2004 highlights section is enough. If we wrote every professional athlete's entry (or merely every star athlete's entry) the way that this one was written, Wikipedia would look absurd. "The Flip" should, and does, stay. I didn't touch it because it defined the playoffs that year and saved their season when they were starring at elimination. It wasn't an overexposed mid-season catch. I get that Yankee fans love the guy, but this article is losing control. President David Palmer

Look, I'm trying to make this thing as clear as possible of any and all bias, but people REALLY need to stop rushing in and reverting edits back to whatever version they feel like without reading a single word in here. I don't want to get into editing wars, because it's a waste of everyone's time. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry on Derek Jeter. It is NOT a personal soapbox for individuals to slip in subtle references to their personal biases. If you are going to revert edits, justify/explain them, then do so. It's arrogant and stubborn to do otherwise. President David Palmer

If you really wanted to have no bias you should ask for a consensus before reverting just like you argue against. I am going to revert to page before all of this happened and ask for consensus below. If you revert this you will be in violation of the Three-Revert Rule (WP:3RR). I am also going to ask for you too look over your personal bias, if you have any (I saw that you edited a few Red Sox related pages). Also, post as an IP or using your account but your IP as your account (per Wikipedia's policy)Michael Greiner 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Mike, the IP thing is a little messed up because I change computers and locations fairly frequently, so I apologize about that. I didn't even know I had edited any Red Sox pages (not sure who without looking). I'm a general baseball fan, and, in fact, loathe the Red Sox. It may surprise you even more to know that I live in the immediate New York area and don't have any feelings one way or the other towards the Yankees. I won't revert the edits again obviously, but the only reason I kept moving them back is because it seems obvious that reverting to the (less) biased version is more favorable as the default.President David Palmer

David Palmer, if you're referring to me, then I just want to let you know that I was only removing the personal bias from the page. I even mentioned that in my edit summaries. Ugh...I'm protecting the article again. At least, this will give us some time to clean up. Nishkid64 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Nish, I wasn't referring to you specifically. Another point was that I removed the word respectable before ".292 average" in his '04 stats section. Yes, a .292 average is not horrible (albeit, 25 points below his career average), but it's not an encyclopedia's place to make that assertion, it is the reader's. I know it seems to be a petty squabbling, but it's more the principle than it is the word itself.President David Palmer

I have no interest in the Yankees, or Red Sox, or Mets. Any of the rivals. I was visiting Jeter's page because I wanted to see how many hits he had for his career up to this point. When I saw this flowery language I was very much taken by surprise. It is incredibly obvious that a Yankee fan wrote this article and the stubs about the individual plays need to be removed. Where he ranks in certain stats and the like are perfectly acceptable as long as they are written with neutral langauge (not saying 'his stats are still respectable...'). The individual plays are not written well and don't have a place in this article anyway.

The ironic this is this is comming from a Mets fan so he really should not be talking about being bias--Speedfreak69 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One, that's Wholly irrelevant. A bias being reported by an individual who may or may not be biased, does not change the fact that there is some form of biased being used. So toss that out the window. Two, and more importantly, I'm not a Mets fan. I see where you got it from, and I just changed it back. My friend is in an editing war with my account and profile and added the tag to my profile for whatever reason. I have changed my password accordingly. Look at my editing history if you'd prefer, and you can find out my real team pretty easily. It happens to be a team that beats up on the Yanks pretty regularly. No bias necessary. But thank you very much, Speedfreak, for completely diverting a legitimate debate away from a 100% legitimate point, and showing once again that if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. No one has yet brought up a single reason to keep it aside from "THIS GUY IS BIASED AGAINST JETER" (untrue, and baseless), or just "I'M A YANKEES FANS, KEEP!". The only people who have voted against keeping it have given reasons. That sounds like grounds for an editing to me.President David Palmer 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

holy crap 'president david palmer' how can you not realize that derek jeter isn't just a baseball player?! the man made over 30 million in endorsements in the last 6 years! he's captain of the yankees! and any play of the year that lands you in the hospital is worthy of some space on wikipedia. also how hypocritical of you to attack the usage of the word respectable and write this: "by a mundane award distributor." ha (Jschager 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

And what else would you like it to be called? "play of the year" as voted on by mlb.com fans? Certainly not "MVP" or "Rookie of the Year" or "Cy Young", now is it? It IS a terribly mundane award. 99.99999999% of baseball fans couldn't tell you who won the award, or for what play, for the last 5 years. I'm sure they could tell you the other awards, though. In the scheme of baseball, you'd be INSANE to argue that the award is any sort of true distinction. And please, for the love of God, consider your own biases when you talk here. Your true colors bleed through so strongly that it damages your argument. President David Palmer 23:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Annnnnnnnd the "Mr. November" SUBSECTION seals the deal. This is officially a Yankees fan wikipedia. A nickname is not a subsection. Good night and good luck. And godspeed.President David Palmer 03:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dive

Should the sub-section, "The Dive" be removed from the article. My vote is No. Michael Greiner 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot of reworking, but I'm still unsure about whether or not the section should be kept. It seems too specific and makes the article look biased, but in the same respect, it also is justified, since it is used in support of the statement that he is a clutch player. Nishkid64 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Dive" in itself is a ridiculously common play. Far be it for me to call Jeter anything but a clutch future hall of famer, but the play was wholly unremarkable, save its massive media coverage. Better plays were made over the course of the year, and most likely that day in other games. Rather than go into a long winded retort about the media coverage's effect on our views on Jeter's level of play (especially keeping in mind his career defense is, at best, league average), I'd just like to point out that the play itself shows very, very little about his clutchness. The phrase "the dive" isn't even a very frequent one outside the realm of Wikpedia. It does very little to encapsulate his career or clutchness other than to showcase what a Yankees fan thinks of the man, rather than what he actually is. A mention of the play itself is probably more than a midseason catch that any number of shortstops have made (and crashing into the stands is a once-a-game occurence, catching balls in fair territory on the run is even more common) deserves. Giving it that much (for noting that it was voted the play of the year in a popularity driven award) notice is enough. Creating a sub-section implies that it was a defining achievement in a career, or an aspect of his life that is one of 5 or 6 that should be pulled aside and turned into a sub-section that marks the man's life. What exactly, outside of the media infatuation with the play, honestly makes it THAT worthy of note above all else that a man of his stature has done? If I have a vote in it, I would have to vote Yes, remove the section. And to be fair, is this really the best method for doing this? The article is clearly heavily monitored by Yankees fans who would be all in favor of keeping the change, thus promoting a biased agenda that doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. To serve both sides, perhaps it would be best to find another example of his prowess (2001 W.S. game 4 homer comes to mind as being more worthy of an expanded subsection) that doesn't set precedent for ridiculous standards in the entries for all other athletes. I can promise you I have no other agenda other than to clear out all bias in baseball related Wikipedia articles. If you can let me know how to join that Wiki project, I'd appreciate it.President David Palmer

Does this catch deserve a full section of this article ? Not in my opinion as there are simialr catches made on a regular basis in the Major leagues. If it had occured as the final out of a World Series (or playoff game) then maybe it might merit a sentence or two. As it stands no it the section is a little too fanboyish for an encyclopedia in my opinion. -- No Guru 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The catch was made in the late innings of a tied Yankees vs. Red Sox game in the middle of a pennant run. It's not like that happens every month or even every year. dool325 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the word here? The only people who have said anything so far don't want it there, and the only person who does is a self-proclaimed Yankees fan who won't explain why it SHOULD be listed in the subsection. Again, I don't have any reason to hate Jeter, but this article doesn't have a "B" rating right now for its POV integrity. Can someone please make the proper adjustments?President David Palmer 11:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

DragoonWraith 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC): This may have no bearing on an encyclopedia entry, but having been watching that game at the time, I would feel that the article was quite lacking without specific mention of that play. Dives may be common, but not to fifth row of the stands. Whether or not it made a difference in the game means little to me; I just feel that it was the most spectacular and impressive play I've seen in a baseball game (I'll admit that I don't watch much baseball, and I haven't even seen "the flip" in the previous section). To me a lot of what makes Jeter a great player (and if you think he's ove or whatever, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I just don't have enough common ground to stand on with you to actually talk about it intelligently) is how hard he plays and how dedicated he is. How many players do you would be willing to make that dive? In any situation, to win the World Series even? I haven't seen that kind of a move from any other player. *shrug* I guess this means little; I've admitted that I'm not a huge baseball fan, and I've made it clear that I'm a big Jeter fan. But I felt it should be said. Keep.

I'll tell you right now. How many people have made dives into a fifth row of the stands in a game before? I dunno, somewhere in the hundreds, maybe? Turn on any night of sportscenter during a season and you're bound to see any number of players fall into the stands, down the steps of dugouts, or at full speed into a wall. Since you don't watch much baseball, I can't fault you for not knowing it, but there was absolutely nothing about the play that isn't immensely frequent in the world of sports. Most importantly, however, he didn't dive into the stands to make the catch. He caught the ball nearly in fair territory. The fall into the stands was well after that, due to momentum. To have an encyclopedic entry that creates an entire sub-section devoted to a play that can be seen nightly, and to give it it's own 'nickname' STINKS of New York P.O.V. bias beyond belief. It also says something, with all due respect, that the only two people to defend the play so far, are self-proclaimed Jeter or Yankee fans, one of whom immediately FALSELY accused me of having my own Red Sox bias, despite the fact that I hate them, and to my knowledge have never edited a Red Sox player's page. This isn't a fan page for the man. It's a biographical and historical representation of a human being and his accomplishments. The fact that he did something that hundreds, if not thousands, of other players have done before is not something to be highlighted. Should I go to Orlando Cabrera's player page and add in a sub-section discussing his head-first dive into the stands last year, or when Angel Berroa did the same for the Royals? No. The only thing that seperates those plays from this is the player who did it and the number of times it was looped on Sportscenter because it happened to Mr. New York. I'm not being biased. I want P.O.V. bias removed from all articles, not just this one. If someone did this for any other player and I saw it, I'd assail it, too. If you want a fanpage for Jeter, make one. Otherwise, take your love affairs for the man somewhere besides an encyclopedia. Mention in his bio that he won play of the year for some play, and say what it was. A sub-section is absurd. That's impossible to deny without using Yankee bias. Be objective here, people.President David Palmer 06:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with President David Palmer and No Guru. -- Rafelito 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WHY are you guys making such a big deal of it? How will it affect you to have a subsection devoted to a play that he made. It may not have been that great and you may completely be against Derek jeter and the Yankees and whatever, but why do you even care?? Why come to his wikipedia page if you are going to gripe about him having a section devoted to the play of the year that he made? God people grow up!! if you don't like it why do you come visit his page? my vote is just keep it. --Joooeeeelllll 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't affect me in the same way it doesn't affect you to have it deleted. The point of Wikipedia isn't just "it's already written, so just keep it, because it doesn't hurt you!". It's to provide objective, concise, accurate information unreflective of any potential bias. If it wasn't Derek Jeter's page, it would be someone else's page. I'm not "against" Derek Jeter. I'm against biased reporting of fact through something trying to establish itself as a reputable encyclopedia, and this is damaging to that. You're argument has absolutely no relevance whatsoever, since it pretty much goes against what Wikipedia's policy is. By your logic, why don't we just create subsections in the article for every base hit he's ever had, too since it "doesn't affect anyone"? I'm probably just annoying the shit out of people by carrying this on further, but I guess I'm the only one trying to carry out the principles of the encyclopedia instead of playing out the "Oh, it's just a small detail!" card. Principles prevail every time over the level or nature of the 'offense'. Oh, and google barely even registers "the dive" as any kind of historical reference point outside of Wikipedia. Can someone please acutually rationalize its existence as a subsection instead of making it a play passively mentioned in his bio? C'mon now.President David Palmer 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

hey, palmer. clearly you've never watched sports center. to have an entry on jeter and not mention the clutchness he is either attributed or denied by every sports journalist would be highly uninformative. Imagine non-sports fan just reading an article on jeter then entering a sports conversation without even knowing about the 'clutch' debate. go clean up bias in the michael jordan entry (Jschager 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

OK, yeah. Start MORE personal attacks because you can't defend this. And use strawman arguments while you're at it. I never said not to talk about his "clutchness". I said that making a fucking SUBSECTION devoted to a play that has probably already been made somewhere around 2 dozen times this year alone is a DEFINITE P.O.V. bias. He already has subsections on how clutch he is perceived to be, but there is no reason to act as though one moderately good catch is somehow grounds for subsections that are usually reserved for defining moments of a life-time within someone's biography. And judging by your rampant bias in writing that he's "more than a baseball player" and "endorsements", blah blah, it's becoming clear that this debate cannot be carried out on any level-headed playing field on the internet, because I'll just get sucker punched by Yankee fans. If you love him so much, devote a blog to him. Don't fuck up Wikipedia over it. A non-baseball fan reading this entry would be subjected to a biased view that the "catch" amounted to a much larger occurence than it actually was, or somehow be led into believing that his catch was incredibly rare, and therefore career-definingly-noteworthy. It is NONE of those. To say otherwise is to assume YOU have never watched Sportscenter when Angel Berroa, Jose Reyes, Orlando Cabrera, or Omar Vizquel made the same play 30 times last year. President David Palmer 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The section should stay. It begins by appropriately calling the play "highly touted." We can discuss whether or not the play was great, but "highly touted" is pretty indisputable. Whether or not the play was that spectacular in an objective sense, the image of Jeter standing up bloodied and bruised after the catch is an iconic image for Yankee fans (there is a poster of that picture hanging just a few feet from me right now!) and part of our definition of who Derek Jeter is. You can debate whether or not the play took any really took great skill or courage, but it is part of Jeter's legend, like it or not. In baseball lore, the legends are just as important as the cold, hard facts. BeRose 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like the section or not, it is NOT arguable that Neutral POV is in place with this section. The mere fact that it is listed as part of a subsection called "clutch play" is entirely unsubstantiated. The man made a catch of a pop fly foul ball. No matter how many times it is played on ESPN or how many posters you have of it hanging up in your room, there is absolutely NO room for the play to be part of a subcategory reflecting a level of "clutch play". That's an INSANT reflection of bias to keep it there. Again, he caught a POP-UP FOUL (or, debatably fair, in which case the fact that he ended up in the stands is even MORE absurd)...to call this out in a subsection as a reflection of "clutch play" is biased. Plain and simple. Not up for debate, just a statement of absolute, 100% fact. It's a personal bias.President David Palmer 11:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing here that is a reflection of bias is your unnecessarily strong language and belittling attitude. Honestly, you'll get more support from people if you can stop the abusive language and the implication that everyone here is stupid or unethical. However, you do make a good point that the word "clutch" is a loaded word. As a point of comparison, I just checked the article on Kirby Puckett (who has a similar "clutch" reputation), and the word "clutch" does not appear in the article, though it does call him "an excellent ballplayer who always came through for the Twins when they needed it the most." If you can think of a way to keep the stories in while removing the word clutch, then fine. Maybe the word "clutch" is simply more in vogue these days than in 1991, and so gets thrown around more with Jeter than Puckett. (If you want to see someone throw it around: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/baseball/mlb/specials/all_star/2004/07/07/jeter.clutch/index.html) There are good arguments as to why Jeter is no more clutch than the average human. Nevertheless, the word "clutch" always seems to be on the lips of anyone talking about Jeter. To leave the "clutch" reputation out of his description would be irresponsible... whether or not Jeter is actually clutch. The reputation is there, and that's indisputable. I'm going to add a couple sentences to the "criticisms" section which might provide some balance by arguing that the "clutch" reputation is specious. I think this is a more realistic solution than trying to pretend that no one thinks Jeter is clutch. By the way, I removed from that section the comparison between Jeter's gold gloves and Ralfael Palmeiro's gold glove in his season of only 28 defensive games. The Palmeiro story might belong on Palmeiro's article, or an aricle on the Gold Glove, but is absolutely irrelevant to Jeter who played a full season of SS in all his award-winning years. BeRose 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole debate. I'm lashing out because I've been lashed out against. I've been accused of being a biased Red Sox fan (um...nope. I kinda hate the Red Sox, actually), and someone who just hates Jeter (also not true). I'm a Wikipedia editing baseball fan who is tired of going from article to article (see: Carlos Zambrano discussion page for example) and reading what is tantamount to a lifelong fan of a player coming in and writing his personal love story about the guy. The word clutch is indeed a loaded word. I have no issue with it being used for the most part becauase he is an exceptionally good player (although the fact that his career postseason batting average is actually .002 points *below* his career average seems to call into questions of how much of an amazing postseason player here is). I do not hate Jeter in the least. I hate ridiculous bias, and this article stinks of it. It is not disputable that Derek Jeter made "the dive" catch in question, or that ESPN or MLB chose it as a play of the year (albeit, it was voted for by fans, whom are both biased, and in large numbers in the New York market). The play may have been huge among Yankees fans. But there are dozens of those plays EVERY year by dozens of different players. To create a subsection for Jeter and not every other player who made one is just plain biased. To go even a step further and categorize the catching of a pop-up foul (or fair?) as a CLUTCH play is just plain not true. And let's face it, I'll admit to not being a Yankees fan (not a hater either, rather indifferent to be honest), but it doesn't help that most people lashing out at me for a completely fair argument are self-admitted Yankees fans, or incredibly biased themselves. The majority of arguments thus far against it are simply "Yes it should stay" or "What's the big deal, it's not hurting anyone being there?" Again, this is the rule of thumb for all of Wikipedia: if I can read an article, and come to a sentence or paragraph and say to myself "I don't agree with this" while NOT actually being wrong, that means it doesn't belong there...it means someone is using an opinion, regardless of how mild or inoffensive it may be. Try it for yourself with this article.

post-edit: the additions to the criticism section are a good improvement. It's a reasonable, and solid contribution to the article.President David Palmer 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Player of the Year?

reference.com says Mariano Rivera was the Yankees' 2005 Player of the Year. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Mariano_Rivera dool325 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference.com is a wikipedia mirror. There'd need to be a source from something like mlb.com that says otherwise. --Borgarde 03:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary

"Jeter, Nomar Garciaparra, and Alex Rodriguez were considered the top three shortstops in the game during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Jeter is the only one of the three who is still playing shortstop and still remaining on his original team."

This is found right after the beginning of Major League Career. Is this really necessary?

Jma2133 05:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be there since you have to be good to stay on one team as long as he has. A lot of big names get sold and traded and yet he's still there on the same team. That's an honor especially under Sata--I mean Steinbrenner. --Joooeeeelllll 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex Rodriguez is better than Jeter, that's a fact of life. He's also played on 3 different teams, so to somehow use Jeter's existence on only one franchise as proof of his "excellence" is faulty at best. If one of the 3 guys he was compared to has shifted around that often, but is better, it certainly can't be used to prove Jeter is excellent. Let the stats do the talking, not some irrelevant piece of trivia.President David Palmer 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

President David Palmer being a Yankee fan I agree that history will favor Arod over Jeter, but the facts are Jeter is the World Series hero, he has the rings. Arod had one good post-season series with the Yanks and he sucked horribly. They are two completely different players. Jeter is the 200 hits clutch man, while Arod is the 40 homers 100 RBIs mistake hitter. It is not very fair to compare them.

I'm not trying to compare them, I'm just pointing out that simply staying on one team does nothing to prove that you 'must' be a better player than those who move around.President David Palmer 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Average

How can it be that Jeter's average through 2006 was .318, and through June 6 2007, it is .317, when Jeter's average has been above .325 for almost this whole season? Cj67 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "RBI's"

This is a very minor point, but shouldn't the label in the table be "RBI" rather than "RBI's," as "RBI" can stand for either "Run Batted In" or "Runs Batted In?" Even if the initialism is to be pluralized, my opinion is that it should be "RBIs" rather than "RBI's," as that is the more widely accepted manner of pluralizing initialisms and acronyms. Opinions?

[edit] Jeffery Maier

I've been on the case of this article for a long, long time now for its ridiculous bias, and this just further proves it. How does this entire article on Jeter manage to use such flowery language to describe him, and then not make even ONE mention of this kid? It's as relevant to his bio as anything else here, especially since it happened in the postseason and incorrectly and perhaps unfairly added to his legacy as a postseason contributor. If you're going to mention all of his postseason stats, this absolutely MUST be mentioned. And I'm sorry, but I just don't know enough about the whole circumstance in itself to know how to make a section for it. And seeing as random things like "The Dive" (which is a ridiiculous POV violation anyway) are given their entire own sub-section, then CERTAINLY something as infamous and major to the postseason of the last 20 years should have its own subsection here since it's a huge part of Derek Jeter lore. To not have it be a subsection in this article while simultaneously keeping "The Dive" calls the objectivity of this entire article into question. President David Palmer 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. There should be a mention of the "Maier home run." I have no idea why this has any relation to the "Dive" section. It's not like anyone is covering up Jeter criticism, unless you can cite a source claiming that Jeter asked the kid to cheat for him. 67.85.228.84 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is that leaving one thing out that would ever-so-slightly diminish Jeter's accomplishments, while adding in something that is of positive value to his career that could easily be argued *does not* belong here, seems to make the article highly suspect in regards to POV.President David Palmer 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Jeffrey Maier* (Jschager 14:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Bias- in the other direction

I'm sorry, but the criticism section does appear to be a bit... one-sided, shall we say. Saying he is "the worst defensive player at any posistion in the major leagues" is a bit cracked, and I would say not a very encyclopaedic statement. Especially considering his relatively few defensive errors. Anyone got a reason why that ought to stay?--Deridolus 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Errors are a poor indicator of fielding ability. And saying that a "criticisms" section is one-sided is a little...dumb. No offense, and nothing personal. But that's the POINT of a criticisms section: to point out what the player or person is criticized for. It wouldn't be called criticisms otherwise. The rest of the article is pretty much a place for Derek Jeter fans to sound off on how amazing a player he is (see entire SUBSECTIONS for him making a freakin' diving catch, or for a nickname, and the countless times I've had to edit out weasel words). The point of this section is to counter-balance. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. Balance and perspective and truth. There is nothing explicitly untrue to his criticisms section.President David Palmer 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note in Trivia Section

I think it would be interesting to note that "jeter" is the French word for "to throw", with Derek Jeter being a baseball player. Shroopliss 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that could be added during the introduction. For the record, I cleaned up the article by removing the Trivia section and creating more relevant sections.96.3.72.93 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turn2 Foundation

I added a reference to Mr. Jeter's boyhood hero, Dave Winfield, and how he inspired Jeter's creation of the Turn2 Foundation. Someone should add a section on Turn2 in the article, as it is very important to Mr. Jeter and should not be overlooked. Hotcop2 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is one. --Michael Greiner 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clutch Play

I hate to be the one constantly having to tear this page down, because I really don't hate Jeter at all. The only reason I watch this page like a hawk is because he's one of the people in baseball right now that so few people are capable of looking at objectively, and his article constantly reflects that accordingly. Here is the section I just deleted:

Despite the claims that baseball statisticians make that there is no such thing as clutch, Jeter is often considered to be one of the most clutch players ever to play in Major League Baseball, especially during the post-season.^[1][2][3]; Roger Clemens referred to Jeter as "the best clutch hitter in history."^[4] As of April 2007, he has a .314 career regular season batting average, but a .370 career American League Division Series batting average in 46 games, and 150 overall career postseason hits, along with 85 career postseason runs scored.

On October 3, 2006, Jeter became the 6th player in Major League history to have 5 hits in a playoff game, leading the Yankees to an 8-4 ALDS Game 1 victory over the Detroit Tigers. Jeter hit two doubles and a home run, scoring three runs.

The reason for doing so is many fold. First of all, any section that starts with "despite the claims that..." is heading for deep trouble. Especially if it is for the sake of ignoring what statisticians say, just so the author can LATER say it is okay to cite references from sports writers who have the OPINION that Jeter is clutch. You can't ignore the statisticians and blow off their insight, but then cite a sports writer who is very unlikely to be objective himself, and use that as evidence of being clutch. Furthermore, you can't cherry pick stats to build your section. Telling me what Jeter's career regular season batting average (which you got wrong anyway), and comparing that to ONLY his divisional series stats is total bunk. What about his .262 Championship series? You paint the full, unbiased, fair picture, or you don't paint it at all. And here's a fact for you: Jeter's postseason batting average is lower than his regular season batting average. A biased teammate's comments to the contrary don't make it so. Telling me the leader in postseason hits is a man who has never finished a season NOT playing in the postseason means even less. Don't get me wrong, he's a fantastic player. I don't dislike him in the least. But this page needs objective editors...not fans who can't separate fact from perception. Wikipedia is about the former. Not about weasel words and half-truths.President David Palmer 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the most intelligent piece of writing I've seen about baseball on Wikipedia, bar none. Thank you President David Palmer, I couldn't agree more. Googie man 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Finally someone with a neutral point of view on this guy. 75.30.115.205 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Something that everyone keeps missing: if a player has similar regular season and postseason numbers, it's actually strong evidence that that player DOES perform better in the postseason during the regular season, for the simple reason that postseason opposition is always stronger than regular season opposition in the cumulative. If someone bats .300 off of everyone from Tampa to San Fran during the regular season, then manages to bat .300 off of Santana/Beckett/etc in the postseason, it's obvious that they're not "merely" performing at the same level.

Given that this entire section is based on that false premise, I think it should be modified or removed. 160.39.212.68 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies

Since freedom of speech is denied here -- this article is locked off wikinazi-style (vandals, terrorists, communists, jews, its all much the same attitude in the end) -- someone needs to change the stated "fact" that Jeter lives in NY. This is technically incorrect. He officially lives in Florida, and has done for a number of years, although he does have an apartment in Trump Tower.

The reference to Jessica Biel is inane gossip. He dated her very briefly nearly two year ago now. It is not befitting a real encyclopedia -- although it's probably trivia worthy of Wikiality.

Wikinazis, don't forget to salute to the little green Nazi icon at the top of every article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.120.254 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is locked from editing by IP's, because if it wasn't locked, IP's would be all over this page with comments like this would be made on a daily basis. (And yes it has happened) As for your additions, someone would be be happy to change the article if you cite a source. And I don't most Wikipedians like to be referred to as Nazi's. --Michael Greiner 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Major League: Regular Season The reference to "Pedro Guerrero" presumably should be to Vladimir Guerrero (son of Pedro, the 1980s Dodger, and a contemporary of Jeter's).68.174.108.38 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate 'Criticisms' Section Violates NPOV

Aside from being poor writing, the separate "Criticism" section in this article violates NPOV. Per Wikipedia policy, criticisms are supposed to be integrated into the article itself rather than listed in a stand-alone "Criticism" section. The "Criticisms" section should be deleted and the information incorporated into the body of the article. I've tagged the section until someone with the time to fix the article can do so.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just making a point and saying that the page quoted (WP:Criticism) is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. --Michael Greiner 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] criticisms section

In the criticism section there are at least three popular omissions: 1) The Yankees haven't won a World Series since Mr. Jeter was named captain in 2003. 2) Mr. Jeter, by all accounts an inferior defensive player and an inferior hitter than teammate Alex Rodriguez, refused to switch positions when the Yankees acquired Mr. Rodriguez even though Mr. Jeter was/is captain of the Yankees and in that role should have been looking out for the best interests of the team. Instead he acted selfishly which may have caused a rift between the latin and younger players who support Mr. Rodriguez as opposed to the holdover members of the old championship teams of the 1990s who support Mr. Jeter. 3) Mr. Jeter holding a grudge about Mr. Rodriguez' comment in a 2001 issue of GQ magazine when he mentioned that Mr. Jeter was an inconsequential member of the Yankees' lineup since he is a #2 hitter (which I think means he doesn't hit very well or for much power) has been widely criticized as immature behavior. Jimsurge74 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Neither have they won a series since A Rod came to the team, or Bobby Abreu, or Johnny Damon - do we need to put that in their articles too? 2. I'd hardly say by all accounts. If the team *really* wanted Jeter to move from short, Torre or Steinbrenner would've made him do it, period. And a rift between Latin players and younger players? I'd say IF, there is a rift, and that's a big if, well it's the choice of the Latin and young players isn't it? 3. Well just because Jeter and Rodriguez arent' as close of friends as they used to be since the article, I don't think that Jeter is holding a grudge so much that he's endangering the team, or compromising his professionalism. IF he's holding a grudge at all. Remember, the press will create a pot to stir where one doesn't exist.Don't get me wrong - I'm no Jeter fan, as I just don't like the guy. But, I do recognize he's a great player and shows a maturity that if all players would emulate him, baseball would be a better sport. And, I think the guy is clean of the juice too. He's simply one of those players that it's hard to find anything really bad about him - so that's why we hear things about rifts in the Latin players, and such. Best, Googie man (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your rebuttals, I was just pointing out popular criticisms that seemed to be missing when I saw the page for the first time yesterday. I am by no means a hardcore baseball (or sports) fan and even so I have heard or read these criticisms. Mr. Jeter is the captain, and his team not winning since he was installed is on a different level than the squad members you mention Mr. Abreu or Mr. Damon. I recall Mr. Jeter categorically saying he would not switch positions if his team signed Mr. Rodriguez. I will check that for sourcing. Jimsurge74 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. During a 2004 interview by Michael Kay (as seen on the Derek Jeter DVD episode of the show "Centerstage", Jeter said that Rodriguez understood that he wouldn't be playing SS when coming as a Yankee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovely78 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dive

Shouldn't this be under Regular Season or Clutch Play? It definitely doesn't belong in teh postseason. LedRush (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just moved it into the Regular Season section. Thanks. --Michael Greiner 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Derek Jeter has been playing on the yankees since his major league debut. His first world series was on his first year! He wroked up to be an honorable captain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D'SilIA (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And your point is...? By the way, his debut was in May 1995, not in 1996. --Michael Greiner 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)