All that says is that Jeter had better teammates than Ichiro. How does postseason appearances determine who is the better individual player?
You completely missed the point. The point isn't about appearances, it's about accomplishments during the postseason. Sure, Jeter was fortunate to play on some LOADED teams throughout his career but he wasn't just "along for the ride". He's one of the best players in postseason history: all-time leader in hits/runs scored while carrying a .314 batting average. Those are all individual accomplishments that have nothing to do with overall appearances alone. The point with Ichiro is that we'll never know how good of a postseason hitter he is or could have been given that he's only made the playoffs once. Is it his fault that his teams were never as good as Jeter's? No, but does that mean Jeter's accomplishments should be discredited simply because his teammates were better? Absolutely not. Jeter stepped up when it counted the most and collected the hardware. Using your logic we should seemingly hold that against him.
I admit that I did miss your point, and for that I apologize for misrepresenting your argument. But I disagree with your point that Jeter stepped it up when it counted the most. His career regular-season OPS is .846. His career post-season OPS? .846. There certainly is an argument to be made that post-season numbers should be held to a different standard since you're playing against the best players in the league every single game. That said, the fact that Jeter is Superman and carries his team on his back come fall is another one of those overblown baseball myths (see Jim Rice, 'The Most Feared Player in Baseball').
Hypothetically, if the Astros made the playoffs and you could choose to add Jeter or Ichiro to the team, who do you add?
Well, this is baseball we're talking about here. Rarely can a single, individual player "carry" a team so I don't want you to think that i'm trying to argue that Jeter won those four championships by himself or anything. All I am saying, and I think you would argue, is that there's a thin line between postseason performers and chokers. Jeter was always clutch and reliable. Put it this way: Who would you rather face in a clutch scenario: Manny or A-Rod? What about Pujols or the Barroid? Just a couple examples of what I am getting at. Jeter was a guy that nobody wanted to see in October.
Oh geez. I'm not an Astros fan and I don't follow them as closely as any of you guys, but I suppose Ichiro in this scenario due to him being more of an upgrade over Pence than Jeter over Tejada.
I disagree completely. I think clutch is greatly overrated. I firmly believe that a baseball player will perform similarly in pretty much any given situation. The natural enemy of clutch is sample size and players like Jeter & Pettitte are excellent reference points, each of which have almost an entire regular-season worth of post-season experience. If you asked the average baseball fan about Jeter & Pettitte, I'm certain most would believe that they are 2 of the most clutch post-season performers of all-time. It's simply not true - as I noted before, Jeter's regular-season OPS is identical to his post-season OPS. Pettitte's career regular-season ERA/WHIP is 3.90/1.36, while his post-season comps are 3.96/1.35. The more opportunities a player has in any given situation, the more they'll settle in at their talent level, regardless of the situation. Of course, YMMV.
Respectfully, you're losing me here. I thought your stance was this: So how can you acknowledge the importance and magnitude of postseason play in one post but fire back that you feel clutch play is overrated and that your belief is that players perform the same regardless of situation? It sounds to me like you're trying to argue both sides here. On the latter, I couldn't disagree more. Not just for baseball, but for any sport. Intangibles, clutch play and that extra little edge is what has always separated the elite players from just the very good players. The Kobe Bryant's from the Vince Carter's. The Tom Brady's from the Carson Palmer's. The Albert Pujols's from the A-Rod's. So on and so forth. I firmly believe that there's a certain underlying variable there that you just can't quantify. It helps explain the importance of players that can perform in clutch scenarios versus players that can't. As for your continued stressing of Jeter's OPS, I think you have to take that with a grain of salt. Half of OPS is accounting for a player's ability to hit for power -- something a top-of-the-order player like Jeter is not really asked to do. His strong postseason average and records of all-time leaders in hits and runs scored still speak for themselves.
A Rod > Jeter. Better presence in the lineup. Yankees are a far far better team without Jeter then without A Rod.
.600 against the Indians, which is obviously quite impressive. But .222 in the ALCS? See, this is what I am getting at. How I wish we had a bigger sample size than one season to see if there's a pattern involved in any of this.
I simply said that argument could be made. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument, but one that has some modicum of validity. Baseball is very different than any other sport. You can't isolate football or basketball into a series of discrete individual interactions like you can baseball. The numbers in baseball point to a minimal to insignificant impact of 'clutch ability', and the data I provided above underscores that. But I can't argue with your gut, so at some point, it becomes a futile discussion. I disagree with your assessment entirely, but in a broader perspective this doesn't make any sense at all. I wasn't comparing Jeter to other players, I was comparing him to himself. His own playoff stats are almost identical to his regular-season numbers. Even if you don't believe in OPS as an evaluation metric, comparing him to himself should make it a reasonable tool.
Didn't mean to make the question Astros specific, so I will rephrase. Suppose you control a team with a league average SS (in defense and offense) and a league average RF (in defense and offense). You'd rather take Jeter than Ichiro?
Jeter is wayy over-rated. If anything Ichiro is under-rated because he plays on the Mariners (less exposure). If you bat #1 or #2 in the Yankees lineup your destined for 200+ hits every season. Imagine Ichiro in the Yankees lineup who would be a better fit at leadoff?
Hammer, Again, I respect your opinion but I really don't understand how one can overlook postseason and/or clutch play in any major sport. Especially with baseball, since you seem to be pretty well-versed. I am a firm believer that postseason play should be held on a higher standard in sports. Better players, more pressure....I mean, this is how legacies are defined. I've listed plenty of examples of players that crumble in such scenarios and players that tend to shine. The patterns involved are pretty evident. I understand your point that you basically feel everything evens itself out in the end regardless of the situation. Again, I don't agree with that but I can respect it. But this should help explain why I am so dismissive of your "Jeter versus himself" argument. If postseason play is held on a higher level than regular season play, a player like Jeter that maintains his already-stellar numbers throughout the postseason is in-effect raising his game by not letting the pressure and other outside variables get to him or reduce his level of performance dramatically such as the case with others (Barroid, A-Rod, etc). Durvasa, If all things were equal and I had a playoff team, yeah...probably. Like I said, i'm big on intangibles, history and patterns. Ichiro is a great player but we'll never know how great of a postseason player he could have been while the reality is Jeter, whether by luck or reality, is the guy that won on the highest level.
