Derek Jeter is overrated

Offense: Con's definition of 'consistent' is to be above average offensively year after year, and "performing among the elite offensive players every season (well above average)." However, I don't think many would deny that consistency is marked by having very little statistical variation. As I stated in the previous round, Jeter preceded one of his best offensive seasons(2009 with a wOBA of .390) with his worst offensive season(2008 with a wOBA of .343). That isn't consistent. Compare this to Hanley Ramirez, who in 2009 had a .410 wOBA and a .405 wOBA in 2008. And even .411 in 2008. This is consistent. Three years with a wOBA within 6 points of each other[1]. While it is true that he will probably improve upon his current .346 wOBA, don't try to act like the season "JUST STARTED". We are 59 games in and already Jeter is playing worse than expected. He has a 6.0 BB%, which is walks divided by plate appearances. This is down from his 8.9 career BB%. He has an O-Swing% of 30.1%. This is up from last years 22.2% and his 19.9 career percentage. O-Swing% is the percentage of pitches a batter swings at outside the strike zone. So he's swinging at more bad pitches. His Line Drive Percentage (LD%) is also down to 16.7 percent, down from last seasons 20.3 percent[2]. As far as Con's point that "Jeter ranks 2nd in team history with games played; 1st in at-barts; 4th in runs scored; FIRST IN HITS; 3rd in doubles, 10th in HRs and RBIs", what did you expect? Runs, hits, doubles, HRs and RBIs are COUNTING statistics. Con even pointed out that Jeter is 2nd in games player and 1st in at bats. He's been on the team for 15 years, it isn't surprising that his counting stats like hits has become the best in franchise history. By the way, he plays on the Yankees, he scores a lot of runs because other good players, like Arod, drive him in. Sure, he gets on base, but just because he has a lot of runs scored does not mean he has some innate ability to score runs. It just means the hitters behind him in the lineup are good at driving in runners. Clutch: I fail to see how my statement that clutch situations occur during the season is irrelevant. It's more relevant than just post season numbers because of the lack of post season at bats most players have. The link, number two, was Derek Jeter's career splits, how he performs by month, by home and away, etc. In the 'Advanced' section, wOBA is listed. At the bottom of that section, there are his splits by leverage index, low, medium, and high. High leverage situations are regarded as 'clutch'. Clutch is no longer referred to so arbitrarily, it has a definitive meaning. This is what high leverage is. What I am trying to explain, and have already explained, is that if Jeter was really more clutch than other players, he would have a wOBA in clutch situations much higher than his overall, career, wOBA. As it stands, his clutch wOBA is .378 while his career wOBA is .374. No major difference at all. It's right where it's supposed to be. You would be surprised at how much research and stats have been put into determining clutch ability. I believe I've provided all the evidence I need. I've already used "Clutch", and how poorly it correlates from year to year, and I've compared his clutch wOBA to his normal wOBA. What else is there to argue? I'd like to point out that Con has not yet tried to argue that Jeter is clutch, yet they are trying to defend against my evidence that proves he is not clutch. I'd also like to point out that this is the Major Leagues. The biggest stage in the world. Every player must feel comfortable, or else they wouldn't be able to perform at all in front of 40,000 fans, even during the unclutchest of situations. The paragraph about my sources and that quote: That article was written on May 1st of this year. With less than one month of baseball played. Whatever statistics that were available at that time were unreliable due to small sample sizes. This had nothing to do with being 'clutch' and is irrelevant. The only reason I've kept bringing up the Arod vs Jeter debate is because Con brought up how much better Jeter has done in the post season and how bad Arod has done. Con used this to determine Jeter was more clutch than Arod. I, however, refuted this argument with my "high leverage" evidence. "Even if the stats and numbers turn out to be the same as Pro implies, it doesn't matter because Derek Jeter is still one of those people you'd trust in that kind of tough situation which is exactly why players consider him consistent and Captain Clutch." Well, I don't know what to say other than what I have been saying throughout this entire debate, a concept that Con is yet to grasp. Jeter has not done significantly better in 'clutch situations' that he would need to in order to be labeled as clutch. He's performed right where his career numbers indicated he would perform. The same goes for Arod. Defense: Actually, Jeter has GAINED a step as he's aged, it wasn't until 2009 that he had a very well above average fielding season. If Con payed any attention to Fielding numbers at all, they would have noticed that his numbers were all negative except for 1998, 2002, and 2009. He has improved, but that does not negate the fact that he had twelve seasons with below average fielding numbers. I'd like to see evidence of him being 40 points above the leagues other shortstops. "How can Pro say he continues to fall short year after year when he's actually considered among the best?" As I've just noted, you cannot say he is a good fielder because of one season. One season does not change the fact that he cost his team 100 runs over his career with his glove, a fact that I can't help but notice Con has ignored. Possibly because they cant refute it? "Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees has been one of the consistently worst defensive shortstops playing today [3]." How is my speculation that Jeter didn't deserve his Gold Gloves irrelevant? I'm trying to prove he is overrated. The fact that he is a bad fielder and that he still won three gold glove awards is completely relevant. Giving him gold gloves makes him look like a good fielder. Which he is not, thus overrating him. Conclusion: The difference about my speculation and cons is that their's is based on something that in no way can be measured. Mine is based on mathamatical models that mathamaticians and sabermetricans have spent much time on researching to derive. I'm pretty sure mine can be taken with a little more weight. I said that Arod would have been a better Yankee SS because he was a BETTER SS than Jeter was. It's so clearly obvious. The last point may be true, or may not, you can't prove it, the fact of the matter is this: He is not offensively consistent, he is not clutch, he is not a good fielder, or even average, and he does not care about winning as much as many people believe he does due to his high salary and unwillingness to change positions for the good of the team. All of this contribute to why he is overrated, which I have supported with tons of fact and evidence. I would like to point out to any potential voters how I have continually backed my claims with numbers and statistics that have been created by credible members of the Sabermetric community. My opponent has done everything but this. There is no overwhelming evidence to support their position. At most they have relied on statistics will little credibility (batting average, fielding percentage, RBIs) or on intangibles that cannot be measured. Finally, I believe I have more accurately supported my position by proving all there is to be proven in regards to this debate. [1] http://www.fangraphs.com... [2] http://www.fangraphs.com... [3] http://www.scienceline.org...