• Joel Sherman: Jeter’s A-Rod Reaction Cost MVP

    Posted by on November 21st, 2006 · Comments (12)

    From MSG

    How fascinating it is, therefore, that Jeter failed to win the AL MVP award on Tuesday not because of his statistics, but probably because of intangible qualities. How ironic that his distant relationship with the last Yankee to win the MVP, Alex Rodriguez, very possibly cost him this honor.

    I am not certain that outside influences can aid Rodriguez. It is most probable that he must work through these issues himself, gain a comfort zone in his skin and in New York by his own mechanisms. But I am sure of this, it does not help him in any way to have such a strained relationship with the player lined up beside him in the field.

    Jeter and Rodriguez will attempt to tell anyone who will listen that their rapport is fine. But that is just not reality. That is something said by guys who are always protecting their images, guys who are selling to Madison Avenue and hardly want to be viewed as brewing anything close to dissension. However, from within their clubhouse and within their entourages, plenty of folks will tell you that there is no real fraternity between the two and that what exists, at best, is indifferent co-existence.

    Jeter’s passion-less support could only be read for what it was: passive-aggressive hostility. It was read that way by his manager, his teammates and, most important, Rodriguez. Try as he might to project an edge of toughness, Rodriguez is soft, trapped in the strange conundrum of badly wanting his nemesis, Jeter, to like him. Heck, Rodriguez wants everyone to like him.

    “Like sands through the hourglass… so are the Days of Jeter & A-Rod.”

    Comments on Joel Sherman: Jeter’s A-Rod Reaction Cost MVP

    1. JeremyM
      November 21st, 2006 | 5:38 pm

      This is ridiculous.

    2. baileywalk
      November 21st, 2006 | 6:10 pm

      Only drama-monger buffoons like Sherman care about the A-Rod/Jeter relationship. There’s NO WAY anyone outside of New York wouldn’t vote for Jeter because of his “treatment” of A-Rod.

    3. JohnnyC
      November 21st, 2006 | 6:12 pm

      I used to respect Sherman but he’s gone the way of that other drama queen, Mike Lupica.

    4. brockdc
      November 21st, 2006 | 6:17 pm

      Stupid, stupid, stupid.

      Did I mention stupid?

    5. Paul
      November 21st, 2006 | 6:58 pm

      The circus continues.

      Joel Sherman

      Ken Davidoff of Newsday

      Phil Taylor of SI

      Yup, these “experts,” and who knows how many others whom are actually allowed to vote, discounted Jeter’s qualifications because of his relationship to ARod.

      They found that the guy who gave Jeter the 6th place vote did not really know anything about the 5 game sweep of Boston in Fenway and only went by stats. Joe Cowley, a Chicago beat writer voted Ortiz 2nd and ARod 5th ahead of Jeter.

      Has ARod been traded yet?

    6. brockdc
      November 21st, 2006 | 9:49 pm

      Please don’t blame A-Rod for the parade of assclowns who possess MVP votes. I’m convinced that any one of us could do a more credible job than these intelectually bankrupt sportswriters. What did Howard Cosell say – something to the effect of sportswriting being the toy department of journalism?

    7. tpxDMD
      November 22nd, 2006 | 12:17 am

      The three guys who put Frank Thomas second on their ballots all credit Frank Thomas’s clubhouse demeanor and his ability to mend all relationships, particularly with former managers, as the key reason for their votes.

      Huzzah for complete morons getting to be paid money to write pure and utter tripe.

    8. #15
      November 22nd, 2006 | 10:12 am

      A well known, and very successful, Wall Street investor once said, “The more you get to know financial advisors and stock brokers, the less likely you are to give them your money to play with.” Same holds true for the “expert” baseball writers. Dunderheads (I have to admit- assclown – is a better word and now officially in my lexicon), with an over-heightened sense of self-importance because they have been anointed with the privilege of trying to “interpret” this year’s definition of MVP. Now we find out that how you (publicly) coddle the star next door is a criterion. What will it be next year, how you perform in BP? The simple fact is that for a bunch of these nipplebrains, they will vote on a whim or prejudice or regional bias, and then try to justify it with how they, alone, have uncovered that there is an as yet not well understood nuance to what really makes an MVP. These guys act like federal judges, finding hidden new laws, rights, and entitlements between the actual words in the Constitution. Ought to be players and coaches doing the voting. They have the best chance of getting it right, or maybe less chance of getting it wrong.

    9. Raf
      November 22nd, 2006 | 10:43 am

      Ought to be players and coaches doing the voting. They have the best chance of getting it right, or maybe less chance of getting it wrong
      Maybe, maybe not, but you see things like this


      Can’t say it helps their case.

    10. #15
      November 22nd, 2006 | 4:03 pm

      Decent point on a hair-brained comment. But, that was clearly for public consumption. Flash was trying to pump up one of his guys. On balance, the writers are of bunch of guys that: 1) never played the game, 2) got their jobs through journalism school credentials and connects, and 3) collectively couldn’t field a decent beer league softball team. I’ve been around enough big leaguers to know that they rarely attend Mensa meetings, but even a guy like Mickey Rivers (who has real trouble expressing himself unless he’s at the horse track, and winning), has a much deeper understanding of what goes on in a baseball game.

    11. Raf
      November 22nd, 2006 | 5:17 pm

      Regardless, players are a bit too close to the situation, closer than the writers. I’m sure they’d think that “their guy” should win.

      Whether or not they “played the game” doesn’t matter. It’s not that hard to figure out how much a player contributes to their team. There are stats out the wazoo to show that. The problem begins when they use their personal biases to cloud their judgement. Or like you said before “‘interpreting’ this year’s definition of MVP.”

      Players would be no different.

    12. #15
      November 22nd, 2006 | 11:38 pm

      I think stat reading, rather than deep understanding of the game, is a big part of the problem. Here’s an example: Jeter is arguably the best cutoff man in the game right now. His alignment, quick release, and very strong accurate arm help the Venus de milo outfield tremendously. He can receive throws further out, and reduce the number of runners advancing because of his throwing. Similar comments can be made for cutting down runners advancing from second to third on infield grounders or tracking outfield pop-ups. These never show up in the stat columns. But if you’re the one getting cut down trying to advance or robbed of a flare base hit, you have to respect the guy that got you. One other thing… DJ stole 34 bases. In my mind that translates into 34 extra base hits or 73 doubles (39 doubles + 34 steals)(I’ll coin the term “DE” – Doubles equivalent) on the year!!!!!! Morneau had 3 SB, on top of 34 doubles meaning a “DE” of 37. Hell, Morneau has a career DE of only 81 after 4 years in the majors. No one really gives enough credit to the stolen base anymore. It’s not one of the stats that the baseball writers key on for the in-depth analysis they write about in 500 words.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.