The Wharton Study proves one thing: fielding hardly matters at all. According to the study, Jeter's fielding "costs" the Yankees 13 runs over 162 games or about 20 runs compared to a solid defensive shortstop. Assuming 162, 9-inning games, Jeter only "costs" about one run per 112 or 72 innings. If Jeter really is the worst fielder in the game, it just goes to show how little bad fielding matters (particularly if the player is above average offensively). Indeed, if Jeter is one of the best at making plays on balls he reaches, then the lack of "range," in and of itself, probably has about as much effect on a game or season as chance, and infinitely less of an effect than bad pitching.

Baseball is ultimately not a defensive game (other than pitching), or at least not a game where "range" as a fielder matters much. The reality is that almost all fair balls are either hit (i) where everyone would get to them to make an out, or (ii) where no one would get to them to make an out. Good hitting and bad pitching are responsible for those outcomes.

Certainly it helps Jeter that he is solid at the balls he does get to. Errors can quickly take a guy with great range and turn him into a liability because they result in extra bases being given up. If Jeter can't get to a ball, then it's a single. (Not what you would have hoped for, but not the end of the world, either.) But when you throw one into the seats you've given up an extra base and a guy is in scoring position.

That's why it seems harsh for anyone to say he "sucks" at defense. I'd say a guy who can avoid errors will always be above the "sucks" standard, almost regardless of how poor his range is, simply because he avoids making the big mistakes.

It's true. Baseball is the ultimate 1 on 1 game. It is very difficult to actually quantify fielding. Over 162 games, it is hard to say how much of an impact one particular defensive player can have.

The only thing we know for certain about baseball defense is that bad defense isn't good for a team. Whether good defense really makes a difference will always be subject to debate.

Interesting point. If the figures are correct then replacing Jeter with a good fielding shortstop (I hear rumors that their third baseman might be able to step in) would benefit the Yankees about the same amount as upgrading just one of their starting pitchers to one with an ERA 0.975 runs lower. Either move would save them about one run per 8 games, assuming a 5-man rotation and an average of 6 innings pitched per game.

That's a modest upgrade, but nobody ever thought that fielding was as important as pitching. Certainly not the fielding of a single player -- even one playing the most important defensive position on the field.

Parana:

The Wharton Study proves one thing: fielding hardly matters at all. According to the study, Jeter's fielding "costs" the Yankees 13 runs over 162 games or about 20 runs compared to a solid defensive shortstop. Assuming 162, 9-inning games, Jeter only "costs" about one run per 112 or 72 innings. If Jeter really is the worst fielder in the game, it just goes to show how little bad fielding matters (particularly if the player is above average offensively). Indeed, if Jeter is one of the best at making plays on balls he reaches, then the lack of "range," in and of itself, probably has about as much effect on a game or season as chance, and infinitely less of an effect than bad pitching.

Baseball is ultimately not a defensive game (other than pitching), or at least not a game where "range" as a fielder matters much. The reality is that almost all fair balls are either hit (i) where everyone would get to them to make an out, or (ii) where no one would get to them to make an out. Good hitting and bad pitching are responsible for those outcomes.

I couldn't disagree more here. Granted, one player who is -20 for the season in fielding runs won't kill you, but if you have nine of them on the field you just cost yourself 1.1 runs per game, a significant amount. Go back through last years playoff teams and add 180 to their runs allowed and see how it compares to their runs scored.

But the real point isn't to say that Jeter's below-average defense is killing the team, just that the guy never deserved a gold glove, and it would be nice to hear a national announcer pause for a moment from fellating the captain to mention he could work on his reaction time.

Of course a whole team of bad fielders will hurt. I think the most important factors for shortshop fielding are (i) lack of errors on ground balls, particularly with runners on base, and (ii) the ability to do your job on a double-play ball, (iii) the ability to apply the tag on a steal, and (iv) the ability to catch the cutoff and throw accurately to the right spot. In other words, getting done the job that every shortstop ought should get done. I'd then add the ability to make ridiculously good plays that most everyone would not make (like Jeter's jump-throws, which are necessary and are plays many other shortstops would not make). Last is overall "range." Why last? Because balls on the far reaches of the shortstop position are statistically the (i) least likely to be hit in that area, and (ii) the least likely to be caught by anyone. Look at it this way: if your shortstop had typical positioning and kept booting the ball or throwing it over the head of the first baseman, he'd be terrible and cost your team countless runs. But if he pretty much made every play he was supposed to make and occasionally made a spectacular play, but had poor overall range, (in other words, Jeter) he'd cost your team only 1 run every 112 innings. "Range" simply isn't that important. I have no idea whether Jeter "deserved" the Gold Glove, but I also know that his "range" shouldn't be that important in the calculus.

20 runs over the course of a season isn't a killer but it's not negligible either. According to a formula for estimating win-loss percentage from total runs scored and total runs allowed that I learned from a book about 40 years ago (I think the author was Bill James - the first and only time I really delved into sabremetrics), those 20 runs should cost the Yankees 2-3 games per year. Could be the difference between making the playoffs and going home in October. However, at this point, I think Jeter's hitting is good enough, compared to the average shortstop, to win back those lost games.

I agree that Jeter's offensive production outweighs his defensive short-comings, but those defensive short-comings are real and should be acknowledged. Giving him a Gold Glove is ludicrous, and shows just how pointless most the MLB awards are, or it illustrates the fact that baseball writers are a bunch of sheep.

Word. Gold Gloves typically go disproportionately to high-profile
players, but this is one of the worst cases of it.

Here's the problem: you have people saying

Jeter's awesome! He's not only a great hitter but he's one of the best fielders in the game.

instead of

Jeter's awesome! He's such a great hitter that it makes up for whatever they lose in fielding.

Which is a misunderstanding of why he's a good player, and how good a player he is (not as good).

The other problem is that you get him to stay at the SS position longer than he probably should. Soriano was a terrible fielding, good hitting second baseman, but because he didn't have the reputation of Jeter, teams were able to move him to a spot where he cost them fewer runs; they get a better player that way.

Fielding obviously does matter, and not getting to a ball, thus creating a single, can make a big difference. I don't see how this is really deniable. Sure it's not as bad as muffing every play but few players do that in the majors; having bad range is one of the most common ways a player can hurt the team in the field.