Talk:Derek Jeter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or 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] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Portal	Derek Jeter is maintained by 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.
Article Grading: The 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.
WikiProject Baseball To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Baseball: The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive article is New York Yankees. Requests: Keith Bucktrot, Rip Radcliff, Sandwich Pick, Trey Hillman Attention: 1873 New York Mutuals, 1947 Little League World Series, Bobby Cox, China national baseball team, National Association as a major league Expand: 2007 Major League Baseball season, Kansai Big Six Baseball League, Players League Stubs: 2005 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, Batboy, Catch (baseball), Check-swing, International Baseball Federation, Korean Baseball Organization, Korean Series Images: Appeal play, Charging the mound, Corked bat, Error, Wild pitch Quality watch: 8 FA-Class Baseball articles - 6 GA-Class Baseball articles.

Archives
1

Contents 1 Shortstop 2 why NPOV? 3 The Flip quote 4 Was this whole thing written by a Yankees' fan? 5 The Dive 6 2005 Player of the Year? 7 Unnecessary

[edit] Shortstop

Sorry, don't know how to do this, but someone needs to change "shorstop" to "shortstop" in the trivia page, thank you. - Carlisle

Fixed it. Thanks. Michael Greiner 21:23, 10 December 2006

[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)

[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

[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)

[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)

Derek Owns All