Talk:Derek Jeter/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Page Protected

This and every page requires a balanced and neutral point of view if it is to be encyclopedic. If there is to be a section on Derek Jeter's post season successes it is fair to point out occasions when his play has been less than brilliant. Deleting information that is relevant and factual makes the article less useful and more biased. If both positive and negative about a subject is included the readers can be left to come to their conclusions. For example the article on Barry Bonds would be incomplete if it mentioned only his playing record and not the Balco scandal. The Bill Buckner article details both his successes as a player and his famous error.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. The difference is crucial.

No Guru 19:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I blocked the anonymous Jeter fan for repeatedly blanking this talk page. 66.254.235.147, when your block expires, please use your words and describe why you believe negative information should be deleted from this article. If you continue to vandalize pages instead of engaging in rational discussion, you'll only be blocked for longer amounts of time. Rhobite 23:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


Jeter injured his back and shoulder in Game 5 of the Division Series vs. Oakland in 2001. That's why his average against Arizona wasn't high. Labelling that a "postseason failure" is both biased and innaccurate.

Including a few exceptions that go against the vast body of Jeter's postseason work is akin to saying an 80% free throw shooter "is not without his failures" since he misses 20% of the time, which is silly because we all know 80% is an excellent free throw shooter. You want to make it seem like he's something less than what he is (fact: he is generally regarded as a great clutch performer) just because he's not perfect. Such a view reveals your bias and violates the NPOV standard.


RESPONSE: Derek Jeter did not hit well in the 2 seven game series referenced in the "postseason failures" article. That is a fact that does not change depending on how one feels about it.

Furthermore, since the Yankees lost those series in 7 games, a reasonable person might conclude that Jeter's poor performances in those series heavily contributed to his teams' failure to win them.

Showing that Jeter is not always 100% perfect and clutch in the postseason presents a more accurate and complete picture of him as a player. Since the paragraph discussing his postseason play begins with "Throughout his career, Jeter has been known as one of the best postseason players in baseball history", one would think that such performances such as the two mentioned above would suffice to clarify that original statement.

Regarding the 80% free throw shooter analogy: if an 80% free throw shooter misses a crucial free throw at the end of a game that would give his team a win, it's valid to mention that failure to perform along with his successes. That's what's been done here with Jeter.Smiling Joe Hesketh 19:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best to save previous discussion after page blanking by 129.74.146.173 No Guru 19:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Refutation of the Jeter Bashers

As the other poster has pointed out, it's inappropriate for several reasons:

A. He was injured and played in the 2001 World Series against Arizona with a strained shoulder, sore back, and pulled hamstring, results of the diving catch he made in the last game of the Oakland series.

B. HE WON GAME FOUR OF THE SERIES WITH A WALK-OFF HOME RUN!

C. The previous poster's 80% free throw shooter analogy holds. Smiling Joe tries to say that "if an 80% free throw shooter misses a crucial free throw at the end of a game that would give his team a win, it's valid to mention that failure to perform along with his successes" and that this is what's being done here with Jeter. THIS IS SIMPLY INCORRECT. Jeter never "missed a game winning free throw" against Arizona: In the only opportunity he had to "make a game winning free throw," HE WON THE GAME WITH A HOME RUN!

D. Smiling Joe claims "a reasonable person might conclude that Jeter's poor performances in those series heavily contributed to his teams' failure to win them." Again, this is an untenable position for several reasons: (1) He won Game 4 on a walk-off HR; (2) The Yankees lost Game 1 by a score of 9-1, Game 2 by a score of 4-0, and Game 6 by a score of 15-2--it's impossible to sustain an argument that Jeter heavily contributed to those losses in light of the fact they lost because of horrible pitching; (3) They were three outs away from winning Game 7 and the Series before Mariano Rivera blew the save. In sum, you can't point to a single game where Jeter's performance at the plate "heavily contributed" to a loss, BUT YOU CAN POINT TO A GAME WHERE HIS HITTING WON IT...Quad erat demonstrandum

Thus, the previous user's argument that including statistics from two random series that go against the vast weight of Jeter's postseason record parallels stating that an 80% free throw shooter is not without his failures because he misses 20% of the time--which skews perspective because an 80% free throw shooter is considered to be excellent. Sticking in two aberrations is petty and irrelevant when weighed against the body of Jeter's work, and evinces a bias that cannot be reconciled with Wiki's neutral point of view requirements.--Brian Brockmeyer 00:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Brian. The section on Derek Jeter's postseason can stand the introduction of some balance. His lifetime postseason Batting Averge, OB% and Slugging Average are all worse than his regular season performances (this information is readily available at Baseball Reference.com.) This section of the article would be misleading if it did not point out some of his post season failures. I'm glad that you linked to the neutral point of view page on Wikipedia this tells me that you have read it. I quote from the introduction to this page below:"The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly.The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute,"The key here is that all views need to be represented fairly.Again, welcome to Wikipedia. Happy editing. No Guru 00:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again, you have misrepresented the facts. Jeter's career regular season BA, OB%, and Slugging % are .315, .385, and .463, respectively. His postseason BA, OB%, and Slugging % are .306, .380, and .456, respectively. The postseason numbers are nearly identical to the regular season numbers, but come against better competition. This section can do without your bias.--Brian Brockmeyer 01:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The facts speak for themselves I think, and this article will be of better service to the public if it is neutral and has balance. Baseball is a game of failure, it is said. Derek Jeter has had his share of success but to blindly ignore his post-season failings does not serve this article well.No Guru 01:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality is the goal, but unfortunately you stubbornly seek to inject your own bias and predilections into the article in order to present a warped and inaccurate view of Mr. Jeter. As such, I suggest you take the time to reacquaint yourself with both Wiki's neutral point of view standard and the game of baseball, so as to avoid such problems in the future.--Brian Brockmeyer 03:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My bias is towards balance and neutrality in all Wikipedia articles. While my view may differ from yours I'm hopeful that we have the same goal of providing a readable, accurate and neutral article. It is possible to discuss this article without reverting to insults and the Wikipedia:Wikiquette page is a good one to reference reagarding this. Cheers.No Guru 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Every player who has been in the postseason very much has had postseason failings: how much does one have to fail before it becomes notworthy? Obviously striking out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in game 7 of the world series (hypothetical) when your team is down by one is a failure, but is it worthy of note? NO. This list of most player's baseball failures is simply too long: just stick to noting the accomplishments of each player and only note failures if they are consistent failures or are somehow significant. As to the p

Two Cents

I am a lifelong Yankees fan and this article is way over the top. POV-flavored nonsense like "Jeter left the Wolverines behind to follow his dream" and "During his rookie season the young shortstop gained instant fame, as much for his matinee idol looks as for his on-the-field play" have no place in an encyclopedia article. Besides the silly biases, I think this article needs a lot of organization as most of Jeter's highlights are needlessly mentioned twice. --Feitclub 05:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

My sense is that this article is a little long and rambling. I agree about some of the sentences being a little over the top and need some NPOVing. Based on the discussion on this talk page however, I don't feel like I want to involve myself in a full rewrite. Maybe somebody can come in and do some touching up.No Guru 19:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: Why doesn't he have a birthday? ~Anonymous Answer: Because the page has been locked for almost a month and nobody can get in to edit.

Post Season History Redux

There was no reason to delete the relevant information. The info on the talk page does not support such a deletion.

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum already. The consensus is that its inclusion is inappropriate and purposely skews perception. Give it up. Brian Brockmeyer 07:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. However, I will edit this article no further. I would like to point out that there is never a need to delete information from an article that is relevant, accurate and factual. Cheers and happy editing. No Guru 08:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled about where this consensus came from. Please don't delete information from article simply because it portrays the subject negatively. Rhobite 02:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jeter Bashing and Boston

Not just Jeter bashing, but Yankee bashing is a cottage-industry, and I would say obsession in Boston. DigiBullet 17:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Met fans bash the Yankees too. And guess what! Yankee fans tend to bash the Red Sox and Mets as well! Primeoffense 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

Brian Brockmeyer, perhaps you can submit a reason for continually editing out the factoid regarding Derek Sanderson beyond that you don't want it there. As No Guru states accurately above, there is never a need to delete information from an article that is relevant, accurate and factual. Add, don't subtract. RGTraynor 19:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I will offer support for RGTraynor. I offered perfectly viable evidence from this link http://www.jockbio.com/Bios/Jeter/Jeter_bio.html, but for some reason Brian Brockmeyer| dismissed this. What exactly is the problem with offering background on Derek Jeter's name? Googie Man 18:46 EST October 12, 2005.

I don't know, because it's an interesting, relevant factoid. Now from everything I've seen across this discussion page and his own, Brian Brockmeyer seems to feel he personally owns the Derek Jeter article, but more's the pity, Wikipedia runs on consensus. I've sent some letters out; we'll see. RGTraynor 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's a blocked page now. As has been stated here and elsewhere, Brian Brockmeyer has been reverting this information for months now, has consistently declined to either discuss his reasons for doing so or present facts to the contrary, and has failed to seek any manner of consensus. From what I glean from his Talk page (including from the history, since a few such disputes have been subsequently deleted from it) this behavior has cropped up a number of times before. That Mr. Brockmeyer is a Jeter fanatic is apparent, but his motive for censoring this information is not. RGTraynor 05:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that he doesn't want an association of Jeter with Boston -- even the Boston Bruins. I've put (what I feel is) a nicely worded request for discussion on his page. Let's see if he gets back. --Nlu 06:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Besides the fact that (1) there's no mention of Jeter being named after Derek Sanderson in Jeter's own autobiography, (2) there's no mention in any type of official biographical statement, and (3) there are no statements from Jeter, his parents, or his family stating this to be the case, Jeter flatly denied the rumor when asked about his distinctive middle name on the Michael Kay show, responding that it's a family name. Despite what Mr. Traynor (who not so coincidentally just happens to be a hockey fanatic from Boston) may think, the world does not revolve around hockey and the Boston Bruins.--Brian Brockmeyer 08:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the most acrimonious sports rivalry in history is between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox, it's actually quite smart of Jeter not to mention that he was named after a sports hero of Boston. Furthermore, his family is more than likely offering support for Jeter's career considerations by not mentioning this fact. This fact of Jeter's name is known most likely by him telling some member of the press in one of his numerous interviews. Do you have a link, or any other type of evidence, confirming that Jeter "flatly denied" "the rumor" about his "distinctive" middle name? The fact that the name *is* distinctive (in fact so distinctive to make it a very unlikely coincidence) is the only fact you've written upon which most people can agree, or one that isn't conveyed in an either hostile or condescending tone, both of which are very much against the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Finally, I'm indifferent personally to Derek Jeter, nor am I particularly enthusiastic about any Boston sports team.

--Googie Man 13:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As it happens, I am a hockey fan from Boston, but since I neither particularly follow the Yankees nor Mr. Jeter's career, where I found out about this was on Wikipedia. I will put the letter I received from Jeter's official website (which is the letter to which I alluded above) confirming the rumor against your premise that Jeter and his family failing to trumpet the fact means it never happened. I wouldn't speculate on the reasons for his family's failure to make a big public deal about this fact, which in any event is their business. I am speculating on the degree of hostility and arrogance it takes to chase all over Wikipedia making related deletions (as from Derek Sanderson's page earlier today) when there's an ongoing dispute; perhaps, given the likelihood this is going to arbitration, you might consider acting with a measure of integrity here. RGTraynor 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Captain

Once the edit protection is gone, does anyone think this would be useful in the "Captain" section? George Steinbrenner said, "I have always been very, very careful about giving such a responsibility (Captain of the New York Yankees) to one of my players, but I can not think of a single player that I have ever had who is more deserving of this honor than Derek Jeter. He is a young man of great character and has shown great leadership qualities. He believes, as I do, what General (Douglas) MacArthur said, that 'there is no substitute for victory.' To him, and to me, it's second only to breathing." AriGold 14:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Many of the things that Steinbrenner says is nonsense, and while this is not nonsense, it says something about Steinbrenner but not necessarily about Jeter. --Nlu 15:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Nlu has requested unprotection. I'd like input from the other editors here. We never like to protect articles, but I want to warn you all not to go right back to the same edit warring behavior that led to protection. So, unprotection? Dmcdevit·t 05:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Brian Brockmeyer has not only not wavered from his stance, he's spread the dispute to other pages. Googie Man and myself seem to be standing on our own evidence, which contradicts one of his points, and letters are pending to the Kay show, the only other one. That being said, I feel solidly that the information is pertinent and should be included in the affected pages. Now what? RGTraynor 09:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, RGTraynor felt compelled to revert to the same edit warring behavior that landed this page under protection in the first place. He's also yet to produce this "mystery" letter from Derek Jeter that he claims shows that Jeter was named after the hockey player. Until he does so, Mr. Traynor's fantasies should not be indulged.-Brian Brockmeyer 05:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
A charming attitude, and from what I've seen of the other wars you've provoked rather habitual ... and, after all, haven't you just run back and reverted everything on both sites yourself -- who's edit warring again here? As it happens, I learned of this fact from others, and wrote Jeter's and Kay's respective websites for their input in an attempt to winnow fact from rumor, not because I had any particular axe to grind. I'm certainly happy to cut and paste the letter here, for what it's worth, but if you've documentary evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it. RGTraynor 17:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected this anyway. If it should be a problem of one editor (not that I'm saying that it necessarily is) then that editor's behavior should be addressed. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

An outside perspective

Although I decry Brian Brockmeyer's methods, I think he's got a point. If all we have to go on for the "Derek Sanderson" story are websites like Jockbio.com, and nobody can for instance cite a paper biography of Jeter that confirms the story, then it probably doesn't belong in the article because we don't know with confidence that it is true. If Jeter himself has denied it, then this makes it something we don't want in Wikipedia. We do not put rumors, speculation, and good stories into Wikipedia.

Moreover this is an incredibly trivial bit of information. Even if it can be confirmed to be true, why include it at all? Jeter is famous for his extraordinary achievements on the field, not for the story of his middle name. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with Tony, but I wouldn't say I decry Brian -- although I do agree that Brian should handle this more diplomatically and should have tried to engage in a discussion long before protection became necessary. (But I think I disagree that Jeter had extraordinary achievements -- yes, very good player, but really has only had a very, very good career, not a great one as the Yankee fans tend to portray.) --Nlu 06:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Well not decry Brian, but rather the edit warring. And yes I was unfair not to say that other people have been edit warring too. It was an awkward sentence and I apologise for appearing to single him out. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
By that token, there's a great deal about Jeter here (or in any other biographical article) that would interest very few fans. Do the names of his parents edify anyone, or does anyone outside of Kalamazoo really care that a large portion of his childhood took place there? How is the name, age or rooting interest of the fan who interfered with the home run ball in 1996 pertinent? And so on. Now as it happens, bio articles on Wikipedia are studded with info about the prominent people after whom citees are named, and perhaps I want better refutation of a statement from Jeter's own website than the unsupported word of an edit warrior with a definite axe to grind. RGTraynor 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunatly Brian has a long history of taking relevant info that he does not like out of articles. The St. louis post-Dispatch certainly believes that Jeter was named after derek Sanderson as can be seen in this cached article from Google[1]No Guru 18:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree about this being an "incredibly trivial bit of information", and I also disagree with the perception of Brian Brockmeyer's behavior. There are a plethora of websites with information about Major League baseball players with much better information than Wikipedia, and it's simply impossible to equal their standard. There is no way that Wikipedia can have pictures of any player's most recent game, or have up minute statistics. The way Wikipedia can distinguish itself on its content is through depth of biographical information, and that's exactly what this factoid about Jeter's name represents. From this fact you can understand that Jeter was immersed in sports, and this more than likely had a direct impact on his becoming a professional athlete. As a baseball fan (who doesn't really like Derek Jeter), I find this fact very interesting. Furthermore, I find the fact of his growing up in Kalamazoo, Michigan interesting and relevant as well, because it helps you understand the player. Derek Jeter's competitiveness comes from a different source than say David Wells or Sammy Sosa, both of whom grew up in poverty.
Now, as for Mr. Brockmeyer's behavior, he's been nothing short of a minor league vandal, and should be perceived and treated as such. No, he's not insisting that Derek Jeter is some kind of sexual deviant, but instead he's removing information for reasons that he refuses to explain, despite respectful attempts to engage him. One can only conclude that Mr. Brockmeyer is removing the information for because he just doesn't like it. I don't like the fact that Mickey_Mantle was an alcoholic, but I'm not going to remove that information from the article. Furthermore if I did insist on removing it with no explanation, or I was rude to those who did ask, I'd expect to be blocked from the site. Mr. Brockmeyer gives no sources for Jeter's denial of the origins of his name, yet he continues to remove this information, despite another source showing the origins of Jeter's name. Even if you do believe this information is trivial, the disregard for the rule and spirit of Wikipedia that Mr. Brockmeyer continually demonstrates is not trivial, and it's been tolerated for way too long. Googie Man 20:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, in the Mickey_Mantle article, the fact he was named in honor of a Hall of Fame catcher from the Detroit Tigers. Will we allow someone who say doesn't like the Detroit Tigers take this out of the article at their caprice? Googie Man 20:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC).

For Interest's Sake Only

Despite my reservations about doing so, I'm going to post this though I know most of you probably will not believe it. I say this in a most understanding way, as I really have nothing but heresay as evidence, in a different position I probably would not believe it either. Anyways, as both a die-hard Yankee and Jeter fan and as the nephew of Derek Sanderson, I can tell you that Derek Jeter was in fact named after my uncle. I have not however, recieved an explanation as to why it is denied by the Jeter family publicly. Again, I am not coming on here to really say anything about the matter, I simply figured some of the people interested enough in the discussion would also be interested in my bit of information, unproven as it may be. Thanks.

A Red Sox Speaks:

No mention of the phantom tag or the unsportsmanlike slap? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why would those be mentioned on the Jeter page? Neither were made by Jeter. The "phantom tag" was by Knoblauch (and in any case, it was the umpire who blew that one- Knoblauch didn't do anything unsportsmanlike or wrong) and A-Rod did the "slap."Sh76us 21:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the phantom tag, I think you're refering to, was made by Chuck Knoblock.

And the "slap" a brilliant move by A-Rod, if it had worked.

The New quotes Section

Damn, that's a lot of quotes. Could we squeeze a few more in there. Let's make this the longest article on Wikipedia. No Guru 07:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

CBDunkerson's compromise addition

I think the wording is good, but not the location. Before, the article transitioned nicely from being drafted by the Yankees to his pro-baseball debut. Now it's kind of fractured by this information which doesn't really fit there. How about a "trivia" section or something near the bottom of the article? —Cleared as filed. 21:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I wasn't particularly happy about the placement either, but there wasn't an existing trivia section or other applicable spot and I didn't want to go changing the article structure. Please feel free to alter and/or move it wherever seems appropriate. --CBDunkerson 21:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I moved it down to a new Trivia section, but ugh, I don't really like it. Hopefully someone can come up with a better place to put it, or more trivia; it looks kind of dumb hanging down there by itself, but at least it's no longer interrupting the article narrative. Also, I think we're going to have to do something with all these quotes that were added, like interwiki to Wikiquotes? They're a pretty big mess. —Cleared as filed. 21:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
This works well and is a more than appropriate way to deal with this. We just need to expand the trivia section.-Brian Brockmeyer 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
There is an extensive section of Jeter trivia here -> [2]. However, we should probably winnow that down to a few significant items... after confirming accuracy. Also, I moved the quotes section to wikiquote per above. Consider this an experiment (since I removed ALOT of material) and feel free to change back. --CBDunkerson 21:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, with Brian's expansion of the trivia section I think it works much better than where I'd originally put it. Thanks. --CBDunkerson 23:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the wording on the Sanderson thing here. I have been mediating this case, and RGTraynor has an email from a Jeter fan site, so I believe we can't get it anymore NPOV than what we have now. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 20:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem with a letter is that while it may be conclusive (depending on who it is from) it isn't verifiable. This is a textbook case of that policy... "Verifiability, not truth". RGTraynor has a letter saying he's named after the hockey player. Brian Brockmeyer heard Jeter say he wasn't on a radio show. Both would seem conclusive... but neither is verifiable. --CBDunkerson 20:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Traynor and Googie Man have several websites stating he is named after Sanderson, this is verifiability. Brockmeyer has his word. I've dropped the mediation because Brockmeyer has been totally unreasonable. Googie Man and RGTraynor were willing to compromise, Brockmeyer just wants it all, and I must say I'm annoyed by his unhelpful edit summaries too. I think an RFC or an RfAr is next. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that if all we had was the letter I received from Jeter's webmaster, that wouldn't be enough. But we also have the linked article from the St Louis Post-Dispatch above and the statement from Sanderson's nephew above. On Brockmeyer's side, we have zilch; although he agreed to mediation, he provided no documentary evidence whatsoever, nor has he seemingly sought any verifiable confirmation from Kay's show (as I did in writing Jeter's official website in the first place). It is probably impolite to speculate just why he neither has any such evidence nor has sought any, but is there any place in this debate for his naked, unsupported conjecture? At this point, it should be put up or shut up: if Brockmeyer can't (or won't) back his case up, he should give it a rest. RGTraynor 02:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, he has pointed to the lack of any mention of this in Jeter's biography. The St Louis Post-Dispatch article you note is already linked on the page and stated as the reported situation. What do you suggest? That we include JUST 'he was named after the hockey player' with no caveat that there are no verifiable instances of this claim coming from Jeter or his family themselves? --CBD T C @ 02:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Leaving aside that failure to mention something is not prima facie proof of its non-existence, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else, the phrase "Some sources state that Jeter was named after 70s-Boston Bruins' hockey player Derek Sanderson" was suggested in mediation and agreed upon by a majority of the parties. It's an accurate phrase that passes POV muster without stating it as incontrovertible fact. RGTraynor 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Charity work

Is this page only to reference Jeter's Baseball career? Derek has a very successful charity organization called the Turn Two foundation, which surprisingly has no mention here. If it has no other mention in Wikipedia, I'll add a section on it. BambinoPrime 05:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a bio page. If there is something significant that the subject has done, it should be included. What you described sounds significant to me. Thanks. --rogerd 11:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

IMDB as a source...LOL

I see that User:No Guru insists on including incorrect information in the article because it comes from the IMDB. Unfortunately, as we all know, IMDB is the product of nothing more than user submissions. It's also worth noting the numerous inaccuracies within this particular IMDB article, such as listing Jeter's first MLB home run as coming on May 2, 1996. Everyone who knows anything about baseball knows his first home run came on opening day 1996 to left field off of Dennis Martinez.-DSJ2 04:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's let some other editors mull this one over. But IMDB is not the only source for this. The St. Louis Post dispatch ran an article in 2005 that stated the same thing. Maybe somebody else could chime in on this one to try and reach consensus. No Guru 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That's the only credible source, and for all we know, the author of the Dispatch article could have been relying on the Wikipedia article or IMDB. I'd like to see something concrete/official before making the claim. I also think it's telling that when the Fleet Center was going to be renamed the 'Jeter Center' for a day (after a charity auction), there was no mention at all made in Boston about Jeter being named after the hockey player. If he was, it would've been all over the Boston papers.-DSJ2 07:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The St. Louis Post dispatch would most certainly be considered a reliable source. The information is verifiable and relevant and does not defame Mr. Jeter in any way, so I'm going to re-include it. No Guru 19:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The post-dispatch cached article has diapeared into the ether, and I'm hesitant to re-post the trivia with IMDB as the sole source so I reverted it. -- No Guru 20:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If we want to re-add that information, the eminently reliable Retrosheet (http://retrosheet.org)'s database of baseball boxscores shows that Jeter's first career HR came on April 2, not May 2, of 1996. As the Jeter fanboi above said, it came off Dennis Martinez on opening day -- verify it for yourself http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Pjeted001.htm. Woodshed 09:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

I removed the promotional picture from the article and replaced it with the image that was already there, which was released under the GFDL, and deleted the promotional image under WP:CSD I1. GFDL images are always preferable to those released under fair use. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dive

Added "The Dive" to the page, since it's as much an iconic part of Jeter's career as "The Flip". JAF1970 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be there. However, you should watch the tape again, or just look at the accompanying picture. The ball would not have landed in fair territory if Jeter had not caught it. He caught the ball just at the edge of the third-base seats, just to the left of the camera well by the dugout, about twenty-five feet beyond the third-base foul line. Look at any aerial view of the park. When Jeter caught the ball he was far, far out of fair territory; if he had missed it, it would have been a foul ball. (In fact, I believe the whole reason this was such a celebrated play was that Jeter went to such a great effort to catch a ball that would have done no harm if he'd let it go.) Fumblebruschi 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That's simply not the case. The ball was down the line, where there is very little foul ground. It's not 100% clear whether the ball would have landed fair or foul has Jeter missed it entirely. But there's no question that once he lunged for it and touched it, it would have been fair had it landed, as Jeter was clearly in fair territory when he took the last step before catching it. In any case, your assertion that he was "he was far, far out of fair territory" is patently false. Sh76us 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You must not watch baseball 76, if you watch the play it was obviously foul, and you never let a ball drop... even in foul territory, if you can make the play, but you don't you are obviously, Manny Ramirez.

Watch the replay, dude. the ball probably would have landed in FAIR territory had Jeter not caught it. Look for it around, maybe it's on youtube or something. And after you watch the replay you can come back and apologize to me. Oh, and sign your name to your posts please; there's nothing slimier than an anonymous criticism. Sh76us 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It was CLEARLY IN FAIR TERRITORY. Trust me, here in NYC we see that replay ALL THE TIME on YES. JAF1970 18:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Clutch

While User:164.55.254.106's edits were over-zealous, the Mr. Clutch section does present some POV and weasely wording. Are there some reliable sources we can cite describing DJ as "one of the best clutch postseason players in baseball history"? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are. It's called the statistics section of mlb.com.

Holy Trinity of shortstops

I'm a yankee fan, own a jeter shirt and what not, but I have to say, I've never heard of a "Holy Trinity of Shortstops," and that should probably be removed from the beginning of the article. Any other opinions?

Jma2133 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That phrase used to link to the article, since deleted. Good riddance. Woodshed 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is this still here? It's so East Coast... AlanzoB 00:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also done some clean-up; the trivia regarding when Jeter was picked in the amateur draft was incorporated into the early life section, and i think that the sports illustrated poll marking him as the most overrated player should be removed. He got 9% of the vote, when one goes to the link, two points ahead of Carlos Beltran who got 7% and a plethora of other players who received vote percentages in the single digits. Also, the very same website shows he was voted top shortstop in a players poll on year earlier. the poll has dubious results - but I won't just remove that trivia - does anyone else agree?

Jma2133 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added the info about Jeter being voted overrated. If it was a fan poll, I never would have added it, but the fact that it is a poll of fellow players makes it notable, even if the motivation for them voting that way was jelousy or something else. If you want to link that to the top shortstop poll, you should do it. But I don't think that you should remove the overrated poll. Also, the Holy Trinity thing is really dated - I haven't heard that term since 1999 at least and it wasn't really used that often then, either. --ColForbin 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Miguel Tejada should be on the list as well... Many people (myself included) thought he was one of the best since hes been playing.

I agree that Tejada is as good as Jeter, or better. But he was not as good as Jeter during the late 90s, when people discussed the "holy trinity" of him, Nomar and A-Rod. Look at the numbers, Tejada only became a great player after the turn of the decade. Sh76us 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Derek Jeter Clutch

A lot of people don't like Derek Jeter, but to continue the idea of open-sourcing we must try to be as unbias as possible otherwise we violate the whole meaning of what wikipedia means and all what we do. We just must discuss and come to a conlusion trying to be as unbias as possible regardless if you dont like him or any other person. If we just stick to the facts and tell it from an objective point of view. Even though it might annoy a lot of fans that Jeter was voted overrated, its a fact that people voted and that should be put in the article to keep the bias out. He batted .087 in the 2001 world series before he hit the game winning home run over the right field wall. Its a fact. But people have called Jeter clutch and some people think he isn't, its to speculative so keep it that way in the article or just take it off. He lifetime batting avg. in the postseason is .307 and he is the all time leader in hits in the postseason (mlb.com). Through ten seasons he has more hits than Pete Rose did at that time. Four 200 hit seasons, every year he gets votes for mvp. The point is he is one of the greatest players to play the game, and that is an unbias because any one and I mean anyone who watches and follows baseball knows this regardless of what you think of the man.


Please revert the change made by 66.192.84.194 More specifically, the xchange from:

"During a July 1, 2004 extra-inning game versus the Boston Red Sox, Jeter leapt head first into the Yankee Stadium stands while chasing a pop-up hit near the foul line by Trot Nixon. His forward momentum forced him to keep running and jump into the stands, rather than potentially injuring his knees by stopping short of the two foot high fence on the left field line. He bruised his cheek and required stitches in his chin, but managed to hold onto the ball, ending a 12th inning threat by the Red Sox. The Yankees went on to win the game and Jeter played the next day against the New York Mets."

to

"During a July 1, 2004 extra-inning game versus the Boston Red Sox, Jeter leapt head first into the Yankee Stadium stands after catching a pop-up hit near the foul line by Trot Nixon. He bruised his cheek and required stitches in his chin, but managed to hold onto the ball, ending a 12th inning threat by the Red Sox. The Yankees went on to win the game and Jeter played the next day against the New York Mets."

Saying: "Jeter leapt head first into the Yankee Stadium stands after catching a pop-up hit near the foul line by Trot Nixon."

makes no sense. It implies he leapt into the stands AFTER catching the ball.

I-baLL 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He did leap into the stands after catching the ball. He caught the ball on the field, but his momentum carried him into the crowd. Or so the popular limn goes. Woodshed 12:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


On October 3, 2006, Jeter became the 6th player in Major Leagues history to go 5 for 5 in a playoff game leading the Yankees to an 8-4 Game 1 victory over the Detroit Tigers. Hitting two doubles and a homerun, scoring three.


Hall of Fame

Is Derek Jeter a first ballot HOF?

I don't think so because, although he is a solid player and clutch, he doesn't have the stats to get him in first ballot. If he finishes with a .315 BA and 3,000 hits on the other hand, it could be a different story. Still thinks he needs a batting title or league MVP. One WS MVP won't do it.

he has 2000 + hits already and 4 WS rings, hes in there today if he retires

no hall yet, maybe later, but if he was on the royals all his life, nobody would know much about him, just another David DeJesus. He's a lucky guy to have his career turn out this great

If he retires or gets hurt today, he's probably not in. But, barring injury or an extremely unlikely collapes, he'll finish with at least 3,500 hits and he'll be a lock first ballot HOFer. Oh, and to compare the guy with the most hits in baseball over the last 10 years to David DeJesus is so biased to as not warrant extensive comment. Sh76us 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)