All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Derek Jeter's Last Stand
3/3/2014 12:08 PM
Posted by 05nomar05 on 3/3/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2014 11:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by 05nomar05 on 3/3/2014 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2014 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by 05nomar05 on 3/3/2014 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by 05nomar05 on 3/2/2014 11:46:00 AM (view original):
3B free agents 2004
Beltre

SS 2004
Alex Gonzalez
Orlando Cabera
Omar Vizquel 

I'd say they could have done a lot better moving Jeters to LF.

Jeter goes to LF and Beltre signs.   What happens then?

At that time.  A-Roid was a stud SS.  He won the GG at SS the 2 previous years before he went to the Yanks (and they were legit ones).

It was clear as day that A-Rod was a far superior defensive SS than Jeter.  Only Yankee fans didn't see it.


But what happens if that move is made?   A-Rod to SS, Jeter to LF and Beltre plays 3B.

What happens?
They'd have 2 stud defensive players on the left side of the field.

Jeter would have been a upgrade of Matsui/Sheffield.  One of them would have DH'ed....and it would have improved their D.
And what happens?  They contend for a title?
Oh lord shut up.  Please.  You're just as bad as JT.
Because what you're proposing is stupid?

You're not moving one player now.   You're moving 4 or 5.   On a team that lost the WS in 2003.  Then, in 2 years, you get to do it again.    Don't get mad at me because you're a moron.
3/3/2014 12:09 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2014 11:30:00 AM (view original):
It's a dumb argument.  

You move him in 2004, A-Rod plays SS for 2 years then "outgrows" the position.   Matsui is playing 1B(or course he can play it!!!) and Giambi is the DH for those two years.   Then, in 2006, they have Beltre and A-Rod to play 3B and need a SS.   But I guess one of them can go play RF or 2B.  

Yet, with all this nonsense, the Yankees were making the playoffs without doing any of it.  Jeter at SS wasn't the reason they weren't winning the WS.
I guess one question that's not being asked or answered is: would ARod have "outgrown" the SS position had he stayed there?

Maybe he decided that now that he was a 3B, he could afford to bulk up a bit more physically than he would have had he stayed at SS.  After all, he was all about the HR.

It's all a game of "what if", but we can't just take what DID happen and assume that it would have been inevitable had the circumstances been different.
Agreed.
3/3/2014 12:10 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by 05nomar05 on 3/3/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2014 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2014 11:34:00 AM (view original):
That's even easier. Tony Clark and Ruben Sierra got 620 combined PA with a 95 and 94 OPS+ at the 1B and DH spots. Miguel Cairo got 400 PA at 2B. I'm sure the Yankees could have figured something out.

But again, no need to move Jeter in 2004.
Who plays 1st? 
I'm sure they could have figured something out. 1st is the easiest position to play on the diamond. I think Jeter could have handled it if he had to. Same with Sheffield, who used to play third.
So make Jeter play outfield, a position he's not comfortable playing, or 1st.  Or something.  Or someone else does - multiple people are learning to play different positions.  Or is Jeter a utility guy at this point? 500 atbats bouncing around in left, 1st, 2nd...

Jeter to 3rd and ARod at SS would have made more sense.  Of course, ARod got bigger and would have broken down quicker at SS and been hurt more often, and then you would have had to find a new SS.  But at the time, ARod was easily a better SS than Jeter was.
I'm sorry, but moving from SS to LF isn't hard.  It's on the same side of the field (seeing the game the same way), just in the outfield.   Sure, he'd have to adjust a bit, but that's what the offseason and spring training are for!


Playing shortstop and then playing left field are not "seeing the game the same way."  Not every infielder can play the outfield well.  

I'd argue that Matsui would move to RF and Sheffield would DH.  Which would then also mean that the Yankees can't use DH as their way of resting their 30+ y/o sluggers like they have historically, if you have a full time DH.
Who were the rotating old guys at DH then?  Matsui and Sheff?  Giambi?  Can't think of anyone else who would have played DH back then.
3/3/2014 12:12 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2014 11:30:00 AM (view original):
It's a dumb argument.  

You move him in 2004, A-Rod plays SS for 2 years then "outgrows" the position.   Matsui is playing 1B(or course he can play it!!!) and Giambi is the DH for those two years.   Then, in 2006, they have Beltre and A-Rod to play 3B and need a SS.   But I guess one of them can go play RF or 2B.  

Yet, with all this nonsense, the Yankees were making the playoffs without doing any of it.  Jeter at SS wasn't the reason they weren't winning the WS.
I guess one question that's not being asked or answered is: would ARod have "outgrown" the SS position had he stayed there?

Maybe he decided that now that he was a 3B, he could afford to bulk up a bit more physically than he would have had he stayed at SS.  After all, he was all about the HR.

It's all a game of "what if", but we can't just take what DID happen and assume that it would have been inevitable had the circumstances been different.
I think Jeter wasn't asked to move because the 'roid issue was a dirty little secret at the time.    Don't ask, don't tell so to speak.    A-Rod starting juicing in Texas.   He was getting bigger before he became a Yankee.    And, quite frankly, he had the "Ripken" frame.    And he had to move off short in his 30s.   So the Yanks didn't just look at 2004.   They were looking 3-5 seasons down the road.    And A-Rod would not have been a SS.
3/3/2014 12:18 PM
One could argue that Jeter "had to move off short in his 30s."  And there he is.  Although A-Rod would probably be injured more often - hip issues, etc.

Sheffield, Giambi, Bernie, Damon, Matsui, lots of guys in the mid 2000s. They've been doing it for a while now.  It's what they do with the DH spot. Helps to keep guys fresh and their bats in the lineup at the same time.
3/3/2014 12:19 PM
The only reason you'd really need to move Jeter in 2004/2005 is if you're signing another star infielder (in addition to Arod), like Beltre. Otherwise, they would have been better off finding another starting pitcher and better outfielders/first basemen.

Which they did, sort of, when they got Randy Johnson and Johnny Damon.

But, damn, 1B was a hole until 2009.
3/3/2014 12:21 PM

Giambi wasn't expected to be a hole.   The dude was crushing the ball in Oakland.

3/3/2014 12:23 PM
In my fantasy baseball league in 2004, late in the 1st round I drafted Giambi.  Ugh.
3/3/2014 2:30 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2014 4:58:00 AM (view original):
For several pages now you seem to be trying to make the argument that changing positions is a smaller deal than sitting out a couple of games a year...  That's possibly the stupidest argument in this entire thread...  You should be taking advantage of the fact that nobody has responded to it, but you keep belligerently pointing out the stupidest thing anyone has said in this whole thread of stupid things...
Clearly you're stupid if that's your interpretation.

I never said switching positions was easy. But selfless players do it for the betterment of the team (Ripken, Cabrera, etc., etc., etc.). Jeter never did.

No player is going to remove themselves from the lineup completely because they feel an 0-fer coming on. It's not even remotely the same comparison, and if you think it is. then you're as dumb as Mike and tec. And I have a few things I'd like to sell you.

And I'll say it again, since people like you clearly can't read - Ripken's DEFENSE was never a liability to the team. So even if he didn't get a hit in a game, he was always adding to the team substantially on defense. Jeter isn't. If he doesn't get a hit, he adds zilch to the Yankee lineup. So tec's argument that Ripken was hurting his team if his bat was slumping is by far the most absurd thing in this thread so far.
3/3/2014 2:35 PM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2014 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2014 11:30:00 AM (view original):
It's a dumb argument.  

You move him in 2004, A-Rod plays SS for 2 years then "outgrows" the position.   Matsui is playing 1B(or course he can play it!!!) and Giambi is the DH for those two years.   Then, in 2006, they have Beltre and A-Rod to play 3B and need a SS.   But I guess one of them can go play RF or 2B.  

Yet, with all this nonsense, the Yankees were making the playoffs without doing any of it.  Jeter at SS wasn't the reason they weren't winning the WS.
I guess one question that's not being asked or answered is: would ARod have "outgrown" the SS position had he stayed there?

Maybe he decided that now that he was a 3B, he could afford to bulk up a bit more physically than he would have had he stayed at SS.  After all, he was all about the HR.

It's all a game of "what if", but we can't just take what DID happen and assume that it would have been inevitable had the circumstances been different.
I think Jeter wasn't asked to move because the 'roid issue was a dirty little secret at the time.    Don't ask, don't tell so to speak.    A-Rod starting juicing in Texas.   He was getting bigger before he became a Yankee.    And, quite frankly, he had the "Ripken" frame.    And he had to move off short in his 30s.   So the Yanks didn't just look at 2004.   They were looking 3-5 seasons down the road.    And A-Rod would not have been a SS.
Ripken moved off SS at 36. ARod joined the Yankees at 28 - so if Ripken was the measuring stick for the Yankees, then that would mean ARod had 8 years left at SS.

Another brilliantly thought out argument by Mikey.
3/3/2014 2:40 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/3/2014 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2014 4:58:00 AM (view original):
For several pages now you seem to be trying to make the argument that changing positions is a smaller deal than sitting out a couple of games a year...  That's possibly the stupidest argument in this entire thread...  You should be taking advantage of the fact that nobody has responded to it, but you keep belligerently pointing out the stupidest thing anyone has said in this whole thread of stupid things...
Clearly you're stupid if that's your interpretation.

I never said switching positions was easy. But selfless players do it for the betterment of the team (Ripken, Cabrera, etc., etc., etc.). Jeter never did.

No player is going to remove themselves from the lineup completely because they feel an 0-fer coming on. It's not even remotely the same comparison, and if you think it is. then you're as dumb as Mike and tec. And I have a few things I'd like to sell you.

And I'll say it again, since people like you clearly can't read - Ripken's DEFENSE was never a liability to the team. So even if he didn't get a hit in a game, he was always adding to the team substantially on defense. Jeter isn't. If he doesn't get a hit, he adds zilch to the Yankee lineup. So tec's argument that Ripken was hurting his team if his bat was slumping is by far the most absurd thing in this thread so far.
Clearly you're stupid if that's your interpretation.

Why do older players occasionally get days off here and there throughout the course of a 162 game season?

3/3/2014 2:49 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2014 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/3/2014 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2014 4:58:00 AM (view original):
For several pages now you seem to be trying to make the argument that changing positions is a smaller deal than sitting out a couple of games a year...  That's possibly the stupidest argument in this entire thread...  You should be taking advantage of the fact that nobody has responded to it, but you keep belligerently pointing out the stupidest thing anyone has said in this whole thread of stupid things...
Clearly you're stupid if that's your interpretation.

I never said switching positions was easy. But selfless players do it for the betterment of the team (Ripken, Cabrera, etc., etc., etc.). Jeter never did.

No player is going to remove themselves from the lineup completely because they feel an 0-fer coming on. It's not even remotely the same comparison, and if you think it is. then you're as dumb as Mike and tec. And I have a few things I'd like to sell you.

And I'll say it again, since people like you clearly can't read - Ripken's DEFENSE was never a liability to the team. So even if he didn't get a hit in a game, he was always adding to the team substantially on defense. Jeter isn't. If he doesn't get a hit, he adds zilch to the Yankee lineup. So tec's argument that Ripken was hurting his team if his bat was slumping is by far the most absurd thing in this thread so far.
Clearly you're stupid if that's your interpretation.

Why do older players occasionally get days off here and there throughout the course of a 162 game season?

Because they're not gamers like Ripken.
3/3/2014 2:51 PM
OH!!!  Can I answer?    Because teams play 162 games in about 185 days.   Essentially 3-4 off days per month.   And many of those off days are spent traveling.   It's a long season and it wears on everyone.  Older players don't recover as well from the daily grind as the younger guys.  An extra day off here and there could help keep them fresh.
3/3/2014 4:34 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2014 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 3/3/2014 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2014 4:58:00 AM (view original):
For several pages now you seem to be trying to make the argument that changing positions is a smaller deal than sitting out a couple of games a year...  That's possibly the stupidest argument in this entire thread...  You should be taking advantage of the fact that nobody has responded to it, but you keep belligerently pointing out the stupidest thing anyone has said in this whole thread of stupid things...
Clearly you're stupid if that's your interpretation.

I never said switching positions was easy. But selfless players do it for the betterment of the team (Ripken, Cabrera, etc., etc., etc.). Jeter never did.

No player is going to remove themselves from the lineup completely because they feel an 0-fer coming on. It's not even remotely the same comparison, and if you think it is. then you're as dumb as Mike and tec. And I have a few things I'd like to sell you.

And I'll say it again, since people like you clearly can't read - Ripken's DEFENSE was never a liability to the team. So even if he didn't get a hit in a game, he was always adding to the team substantially on defense. Jeter isn't. If he doesn't get a hit, he adds zilch to the Yankee lineup. So tec's argument that Ripken was hurting his team if his bat was slumping is by far the most absurd thing in this thread so far.
Clearly you're stupid if that's your interpretation.

Why do older players occasionally get days off here and there throughout the course of a 162 game season?

Why do players of all ages occasionally get days off here and there?

Because those players need occasional days off.
3/3/2014 4:40 PM
And that somehow didn't apply to Ripken?
of 94
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Derek Jeter's Last Stand

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.