Talk:Derek Jeter/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Home runs

Home Runs he should have 196 Home-Runs not 191 - Carlisle

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

Jeter's nickname

I found out that Jeter has a nickname. His nickname is DJ. It's from his initials. It also said in the game MLB Power Pros. I would like someone to add his nickname in. Thanks!--RyRy5 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone call him DJ. Someone will add it if there are reliable sources for it. Also, for what it's worth, I have never heard Jeter be called DJ from MLB Power Pros. (I own it) --Michael Greiner 03:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In MLB Power Pros, if you look at baseball cards, and choose Derek Jeter, it will say DJ at the top. This is just for more evidence. If anyone has this game and checks this in MLB Power Pros, please add Jeter's nickname. Thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have checked and it is true, MLB Power Pros does say his nickname is DJ. This is more proof. Hope someone adds his nickname.--Chrisy5 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A video game, is not the most reliable source in the world. Still have never heard it by anyone in the media.--Michael Greiner 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hits in 2000's

I know of at least two hitters Michael Young and Ichiro Suzuki that have more hits than Derek in the 2000's, making him at most 3rd in hits in the 2000's - Jeff

Michael Young doesn't even have 1483 hits in his career. (Jschager 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

2006 AL MVP runner up??

Since when is that an award? Is there a wikipedia page for all the players who have gotten runner up in the MVP races every year? It's be no means encyclopedic and my vote is that it should be deleted from the Awards section. Hsox05 00:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Red Sox fans are never bias to the Yankees, so this must be true.--Speedfreak69 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I was just looking at some of Jeter's fielding stats on ESPN.com. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3246&context=fielding Now, I remember when Jeter was "exposed" as the worst fielding shortstop back in 2003. Taking a look at his range stats over his career (excluding limited stats in 1995 and 2007): 1996 range factor: 4.52 zone rating: .816 1997 range factor: 4.45 zone rating: .840 1998 range factor: 4.25 zone rating: .855 1999 range factor: 4.00 zone rating: .833 2000 range factor: 4.12 zone rating: .811 2001 range factor: 3.81 zone rating: .789 2002 range factor: 3.81 zone rating: .803 2003 range factor: 3.75 zone rating: .791 2004 range factor: 4.46 zone rating: .847 2005 range factor: 4.76 zone rating: .830 2006 range factor: 4.14 zone rating: .810 Jeter's awful RF was cited towards the end of 2003 by the emerging group of statisticians declaring the-emperor-has-no-clothes with regard to Jeter's fielding (sorry I can't cite a source for that yet, just some newspaper articles I recall). Looking at the numbers above, 2003 seems to have come at the bottom of a decline in Jeter's fielding ability. Nevertheless, Jeter's numbers spiked in 2004 and 2005, when he won his first 2 Gold Glove awards by combining increased range with an above-average fielding percentage. 2006 seemed to have been a down year, when Jeter may have won his third Gold Glove based more on reputation than performance. The MLB leader at SS tends to have an RF between 4.8 and 5.2, suggesting that Jeter's 4.76 from 2005 is in fact an excellent rating. Anyway, I'm having trouble finding the league averages for RF and ZR at shortstop over the last decade. Those numbers might help validate the idea that Jeter's 2004 and 2005 Gold Gloves may have been deserved, despite some clearly below-average years from 2001-2003. BeRose 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, some facts from 2005: Jeter's 2005 fielding percentage (.979) ranked 2nd in the AL to Orland Cabrera (.988). Jeter's 2005 range factor ranked (4.76) 2nd in the AL behing Julio Lugo (4.94). Jeter's zone rating (.830) ranked 5th in the AL. The stats for Cabrera and Lugo are not excellent across the board, as shown by Lugo's .968 fielding percentage and Cabrera's 4.18 range factor. There are many better defensive shortstops than Derek Jeter playing in the NL, but Gold Gloves are awarded by league. An objective look at the statistics seems to suggest that Derek Jeter could certainly have been considered the AL's best defensive SS. A case could be made for Juan Uribe deserving the award (statistically speaking) as well, but Jeter was anything but "ineffective" that year. BeRose 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line after everything I've said above... I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, but I think something should be said about the fact that most of this "worst shortstop in the majors" research came out in the years 2001-2003 (follow the links... only "The Fielding Bible" came out later, and who knows when exactly James wrote his contribution?), and is therefore based on numbers that are drastically different from Jeter's Gold Glove-winning years (2004, 2005, 2006). BeRose 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

James wrote his contribution after the 2005 season; his comparison with Adam Everett specifically uses 2005 stats, so the above comment is not relevant. Range Factor itself is so heavily influenced by a pitching staff that it is almost meaningless for an infielder; the Zone Ratings cited above are more meaningful, and show Jeter to not be the best defensive shortstop in the AL (though, at 5th, he's surely not the worst). You can make a case that Jeter is in fact an average shortstop, but that's the best case, and the Gold Glove is supposed to go to the best shortstop, not an average shortstop. Carolus 03:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, The Fielding Bible ratings for 2005-2007 (http://www.billjamesonline.net/fieldingbible/charts/leaders1-0507.gif) have Jeter at -90, worst of all shortstops for the period by -26. Carolus 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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
I have no interest in the Yankees, or Red Sox, or Mets. Any of the rivals. I was visiting Jeter's page because I wanted to see how many hits he had for his career up to this point. When I saw this flowery language I was very much taken by surprise. It is incredibly obvious that a Yankee fan wrote this article and the stubs about the individual plays need to be removed. Where he ranks in certain stats and the like are perfectly acceptable as long as they are written with neutral langauge (not saying 'his stats are still respectable...'). The individual plays are not written well and don't have a place in this article anyway.

The ironic this is this is comming from a Mets fan so he really should not be talking about being bias--Speedfreak69 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One, that's Wholly irrelevant. A bias being reported by an individual who may or may not be biased, does not change the fact that there is some form of biased being used. So toss that out the window. Two, and more importantly, I'm not a Mets fan. I see where you got it from, and I just changed it back. My friend is in an editing war with my account and profile and added the tag to my profile for whatever reason. I have changed my password accordingly. Look at my editing history if you'd prefer, and you can find out my real team pretty easily. It happens to be a team that beats up on the Yanks pretty regularly. No bias necessary. But thank you very much, Speedfreak, for completely diverting a legitimate debate away from a 100% legitimate point, and showing once again that if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. No one has yet brought up a single reason to keep it aside from "THIS GUY IS BIASED AGAINST JETER" (untrue, and baseless), or just "I'M A YANKEES FANS, KEEP!". The only people who have voted against keeping it have given reasons. That sounds like grounds for an editing to me.President David Palmer 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


holy crap 'president david palmer' how can you not realize that derek jeter isn't just a baseball player?! the man made over 30 million in endorsements in the last 6 years! he's captain of the yankees! and any play of the year that lands you in the hospital is worthy of some space on wikipedia. also how hypocritical of you to attack the usage of the word respectable and write this: "by a mundane award distributor." ha (Jschager 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

And what else would you like it to be called? "play of the year" as voted on by mlb.com fans? Certainly not "MVP" or "Rookie of the Year" or "Cy Young", now is it? It IS a terribly mundane award. 99.99999999% of baseball fans couldn't tell you who won the award, or for what play, for the last 5 years. I'm sure they could tell you the other awards, though. In the scheme of baseball, you'd be INSANE to argue that the award is any sort of true distinction. And please, for the love of God, consider your own biases when you talk here. Your true colors bleed through so strongly that it damages your argument. President David Palmer 23:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Annnnnnnnd the "Mr. November" SUBSECTION seals the deal. This is officially a Yankees fan wikipedia. A nickname is not a subsection. Good night and good luck. And godspeed.President David Palmer 03:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

hey, palmer. clearly you've never watched sports center. to have an entry on jeter and not mention the clutchness he is either attributed or denied by every sports journalist would be highly uninformative. Imagine non-sports fan just reading an article on jeter then entering a sports conversation without even knowing about the 'clutch' debate. go clean up bias in the michael jordan entry (Jschager 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

OK, yeah. Start MORE personal attacks because you can't defend this. And use strawman arguments while you're at it. I never said not to talk about his "clutchness". I said that making a fucking SUBSECTION devoted to a play that has probably already been made somewhere around 2 dozen times this year alone is a DEFINITE P.O.V. bias. He already has subsections on how clutch he is perceived to be, but there is no reason to act as though one moderately good catch is somehow grounds for subsections that are usually reserved for defining moments of a life-time within someone's biography. And judging by your rampant bias in writing that he's "more than a baseball player" and "endorsements", blah blah, it's becoming clear that this debate cannot be carried out on any level-headed playing field on the internet, because I'll just get sucker punched by Yankee fans. If you love him so much, devote a blog to him. Don't fuck up Wikipedia over it. A non-baseball fan reading this entry would be subjected to a biased view that the "catch" amounted to a much larger occurence than it actually was, or somehow be led into believing that his catch was incredibly rare, and therefore career-definingly-noteworthy. It is NONE of those. To say otherwise is to assume YOU have never watched Sportscenter when Angel Berroa, Jose Reyes, Orlando Cabrera, or Omar Vizquel made the same play 30 times last year. President David Palmer 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The section should stay. It begins by appropriately calling the play "highly touted." We can discuss whether or not the play was great, but "highly touted" is pretty indisputable. Whether or not the play was that spectacular in an objective sense, the image of Jeter standing up bloodied and bruised after the catch is an iconic image for Yankee fans (there is a poster of that picture hanging just a few feet from me right now!) and part of our definition of who Derek Jeter is. You can debate whether or not the play took any really took great skill or courage, but it is part of Jeter's legend, like it or not. In baseball lore, the legends are just as important as the cold, hard facts. BeRose 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like the section or not, it is NOT arguable that Neutral POV is in place with this section. The mere fact that it is listed as part of a subsection called "clutch play" is entirely unsubstantiated. The man made a catch of a pop fly foul ball. No matter how many times it is played on ESPN or how many posters you have of it hanging up in your room, there is absolutely NO room for the play to be part of a subcategory reflecting a level of "clutch play". That's an INSANT reflection of bias to keep it there. Again, he caught a POP-UP FOUL (or, debatably fair, in which case the fact that he ended up in the stands is even MORE absurd)...to call this out in a subsection as a reflection of "clutch play" is biased. Plain and simple. Not up for debate, just a statement of absolute, 100% fact. It's a personal bias.President David Palmer 11:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing here that is a reflection of bias is your unnecessarily strong language and belittling attitude. Honestly, you'll get more support from people if you can stop the abusive language and the implication that everyone here is stupid or unethical. However, you do make a good point that the word "clutch" is a loaded word. As a point of comparison, I just checked the article on Kirby Puckett (who has a similar "clutch" reputation), and the word "clutch" does not appear in the article, though it does call him "an excellent ballplayer who always came through for the Twins when they needed it the most." If you can think of a way to keep the stories in while removing the word clutch, then fine. Maybe the word "clutch" is simply more in vogue these days than in 1991, and so gets thrown around more with Jeter than Puckett. (If you want to see someone throw it around: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/baseball/mlb/specials/all_star/2004/07/07/jeter.clutch/index.html) There are good arguments as to why Jeter is no more clutch than the average human. Nevertheless, the word "clutch" always seems to be on the lips of anyone talking about Jeter. To leave the "clutch" reputation out of his description would be irresponsible... whether or not Jeter is actually clutch. The reputation is there, and that's indisputable. I'm going to add a couple sentences to the "criticisms" section which might provide some balance by arguing that the "clutch" reputation is specious. I think this is a more realistic solution than trying to pretend that no one thinks Jeter is clutch. By the way, I removed from that section the comparison between Jeter's gold gloves and Ralfael Palmeiro's gold glove in his season of only 28 defensive games. The Palmeiro story might belong on Palmeiro's article, or an aricle on the Gold Glove, but is absolutely irrelevant to Jeter who played a full season of SS in all his award-winning years. BeRose 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole debate. I'm lashing out because I've been lashed out against. I've been accused of being a biased Red Sox fan (um...nope. I kinda hate the Red Sox, actually), and someone who just hates Jeter (also not true). I'm a Wikipedia editing baseball fan who is tired of going from article to article (see: Carlos Zambrano discussion page for example) and reading what is tantamount to a lifelong fan of a player coming in and writing his personal love story about the guy. The word clutch is indeed a loaded word. I have no issue with it being used for the most part becauase he is an exceptionally good player (although the fact that his career postseason batting average is actually .002 points *below* his career average seems to call into questions of how much of an amazing postseason player here is). I do not hate Jeter in the least. I hate ridiculous bias, and this article stinks of it. It is not disputable that Derek Jeter made "the dive" catch in question, or that ESPN or MLB chose it as a play of the year (albeit, it was voted for by fans, whom are both biased, and in large numbers in the New York market). The play may have been huge among Yankees fans. But there are dozens of those plays EVERY year by dozens of different players. To create a subsection for Jeter and not every other player who made one is just plain biased. To go even a step further and categorize the catching of a pop-up foul (or fair?) as a CLUTCH play is just plain not true. And let's face it, I'll admit to not being a Yankees fan (not a hater either, rather indifferent to be honest), but it doesn't help that most people lashing out at me for a completely fair argument are self-admitted Yankees fans, or incredibly biased themselves. The majority of arguments thus far against it are simply "Yes it should stay" or "What's the big deal, it's not hurting anyone being there?" Again, this is the rule of thumb for all of Wikipedia: if I can read an article, and come to a sentence or paragraph and say to myself "I don't agree with this" while NOT actually being wrong, that means it doesn't belong there...it means someone is using an opinion, regardless of how mild or inoffensive it may be. Try it for yourself with this article.

post-edit: the additions to the criticism section are a good improvement. It's a reasonable, and solid contribution to the article.President David Palmer 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

President David Palmer being a Yankee fan I agree that history will favor Arod over Jeter, but the facts are Jeter is the World Series hero, he has the rings. Arod had one good post-season series with the Yanks and he sucked horribly. They are two completely different players. Jeter is the 200 hits clutch man, while Arod is the 40 homers 100 RBIs mistake hitter. It is not very fair to compare them.

I'm not trying to compare them, I'm just pointing out that simply staying on one team does nothing to prove that you 'must' be a better player than those who move around.President David Palmer 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


== Average == JETER IS GAY

How can it be that Jeter's average through 2006 was .318, and through June 6 2007, it is .317, when Jeter's average has been above .325 for almost this whole season? Cj67 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"RBI's"

This is a very minor point, but shouldn't the label in the table be "RBI" rather than "RBI's," as "RBI" can stand for either "Run Batted In" or "Runs Batted In?" Even if the initialism is to be pluralized, my opinion is that it should be "RBIs" rather than "RBI's," as that is the more widely accepted manner of pluralizing initialisms and acronyms. Opinions?


Jeffery Maier

I've been on the case of this article for a long, long time now for its ridiculous bias, and this just further proves it. How does this entire article on Jeter manage to use such flowery language to describe him, and then not make even ONE mention of this kid? It's as relevant to his bio as anything else here, especially since it happened in the postseason and incorrectly and perhaps unfairly added to his legacy as a postseason contributor. If you're going to mention all of his postseason stats, this absolutely MUST be mentioned. And I'm sorry, but I just don't know enough about the whole circumstance in itself to know how to make a section for it. And seeing as random things like "The Dive" (which is a ridiiculous POV violation anyway) are given their entire own sub-section, then CERTAINLY something as infamous and major to the postseason of the last 20 years should have its own subsection here since it's a huge part of Derek Jeter lore. To not have it be a subsection in this article while simultaneously keeping "The Dive" calls the objectivity of this entire article into question. President David Palmer 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. There should be a mention of the "Maier home run." I have no idea why this has any relation to the "Dive" section. It's not like anyone is covering up Jeter criticism, unless you can cite a source claiming that Jeter asked the kid to cheat for him. 67.85.228.84 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is that leaving one thing out that would ever-so-slightly diminish Jeter's accomplishments, while adding in something that is of positive value to his career that could easily be argued *does not* belong here, seems to make the article highly suspect in regards to POV.President David Palmer 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeffrey Maier* (Jschager 14:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Bias- in the other direction

I'm sorry, but the criticism section does appear to be a bit... one-sided, shall we say. Saying he is "the worst defensive player at any posistion in the major leagues" is a bit cracked, and I would say not a very encyclopaedic statement. Especially considering his relatively few defensive errors. Anyone got a reason why that ought to stay?--Deridolus 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Errors are a poor indicator of fielding ability. And saying that a "criticisms" section is one-sided is a little...dumb. No offense, and nothing personal. But that's the POINT of a criticisms section: to point out what the player or person is criticized for. It wouldn't be called criticisms otherwise. The rest of the article is pretty much a place for Derek Jeter fans to sound off on how amazing a player he is (see entire SUBSECTIONS for him making a freakin' diving catch, or for a nickname, and the countless times I've had to edit out weasel words). The point of this section is to counter-balance. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. Balance and perspective and truth. There is nothing explicitly untrue to his criticisms section.President David Palmer 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Note in Trivia Section

I think it would be interesting to note that "jeter" is the French word for "to throw", with Derek Jeter being a baseball player. Shroopliss 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that could be added during the introduction. For the record, I cleaned up the article by removing the Trivia section and creating more relevant sections.96.3.72.93 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Turn2 Foundation

I added a reference to Mr. Jeter's boyhood hero, Dave Winfield, and how he inspired Jeter's creation of the Turn2 Foundation. Someone should add a section on Turn2 in the article, as it is very important to Mr. Jeter and should not be overlooked. Hotcop2 02:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is one. --Michael Greiner 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Clutch Play

I hate to be the one constantly having to tear this page down, because I really don't hate Jeter at all. The only reason I watch this page like a hawk is because he's one of the people in baseball right now that so few people are capable of looking at objectively, and his article constantly reflects that accordingly. Here is the section I just deleted:

Despite the claims that baseball statisticians make that there is no such thing as clutch, Jeter is often considered to be one of the most clutch players ever to play in Major League Baseball, especially during the post-season.[1][2][3]; Roger Clemens referred to Jeter as "the best clutch hitter in history."[4] As of April 2007, he has a .314 career regular season batting average, but a .370 career American League Division Series batting average in 46 games, and 150 overall career postseason hits, along with 85 career postseason runs scored.

On October 3, 2006, Jeter became the 6th player in Major League history to have 5 hits in a playoff game, leading the Yankees to an 8-4 ALDS Game 1 victory over the Detroit Tigers. Jeter hit two doubles and a home run, scoring three runs.

The reason for doing so is many fold. First of all, any section that starts with "despite the claims that..." is heading for deep trouble. Especially if it is for the sake of ignoring what statisticians say, just so the author can LATER say it is okay to cite references from sports writers who have the OPINION that Jeter is clutch. You can't ignore the statisticians and blow off their insight, but then cite a sports writer who is very unlikely to be objective himself, and use that as evidence of being clutch. Furthermore, you can't cherry pick stats to build your section. Telling me what Jeter's career regular season batting average (which you got wrong anyway), and comparing that to ONLY his divisional series stats is total bunk. What about his .262 Championship series? You paint the full, unbiased, fair picture, or you don't paint it at all. And here's a fact for you: Jeter's postseason batting average is lower than his regular season batting average. A biased teammate's comments to the contrary don't make it so. Telling me the leader in postseason hits is a man who has never finished a season NOT playing in the postseason means even less. Don't get me wrong, he's a fantastic player. I don't dislike him in the least. But this page needs objective editors...not fans who can't separate fact from perception. Wikipedia is about the former. Not about weasel words and half-truths.President David Palmer 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the most intelligent piece of writing I've seen about baseball on Wikipedia, bar none. Thank you President David Palmer, I couldn't agree more. Googie man 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Finally someone with a neutral point of view on this guy. 75.30.115.205 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Something that everyone keeps missing: if a player has similar regular season and postseason numbers, it's actually strong evidence that that player DOES perform better in the postseason during the regular season, for the simple reason that postseason opposition is always stronger than regular season opposition in the cumulative. If someone bats .300 off of everyone from Tampa to San Fran during the regular season, then manages to bat .300 off of Santana/Beckett/etc in the postseason, it's obvious that they're not "merely" performing at the same level.

Given that this entire section is based on that false premise, I think it should be modified or removed. 160.39.212.68 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Since freedom of speech is denied here -- this article is locked off wikinazi-style (vandals, terrorists, communists, jews, its all much the same attitude in the end) -- someone needs to change the stated "fact" that Jeter lives in NY. This is technically incorrect. He officially lives in Florida, and has done for a number of years, although he does have an apartment in Trump Tower.

The reference to Jessica Biel is inane gossip. He dated her very briefly nearly two year ago now. It is not befitting a real encyclopedia -- although it's probably trivia worthy of Wikiality.

Wikinazis, don't forget to salute to the little green Nazi icon at the top of every article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.120.254 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is locked from editing by IP's, because if it wasn't locked, IP's would be all over this page with comments like this would be made on a daily basis. (And yes it has happened) As for your additions, someone would be be happy to change the article if you cite a source. And I don't most Wikipedians like to be referred to as Nazi's. --Michael Greiner 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Major League: Regular Season The reference to "Pedro Guerrero" presumably should be to Vladimir Guerrero (son of Pedro, the 1980s Dodger, and a contemporary of Jeter's).68.174.108.38 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate 'Criticisms' Section Violates NPOV

Aside from being poor writing, the separate "Criticism" section in this article violates NPOV. Per Wikipedia policy, criticisms are supposed to be integrated into the article itself rather than listed in a stand-alone "Criticism" section. The "Criticisms" section should be deleted and the information incorporated into the body of the article. I've tagged the section until someone with the time to fix the article can do so.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just making a point and saying that the page quoted (WP:Criticism) is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. --Michael Greiner 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

criticisms section

In the criticism section there are at least three popular omissions: 1) The Yankees haven't won a World Series since Mr. Jeter was named captain in 2003. 2) Mr. Jeter, by all accounts an inferior defensive player and an inferior hitter than teammate Alex Rodriguez, refused to switch positions when the Yankees acquired Mr. Rodriguez even though Mr. Jeter was/is captain of the Yankees and in that role should have been looking out for the best interests of the team. Instead he acted selfishly which may have caused a rift between the latin and younger players who support Mr. Rodriguez as opposed to the holdover members of the old championship teams of the 1990s who support Mr. Jeter. 3) Mr. Jeter holding a grudge about Mr. Rodriguez' comment in a 2001 issue of GQ magazine when he mentioned that Mr. Jeter was an inconsequential member of the Yankees' lineup since he is a #2 hitter (which I think means he doesn't hit very well or for much power) has been widely criticized as immature behavior. Jimsurge74 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Neither have they won a series since A Rod came to the team, or Bobby Abreu, or Johnny Damon - do we need to put that in their articles too? 2. I'd hardly say by all accounts. If the team *really* wanted Jeter to move from short, Torre or Steinbrenner would've made him do it, period. And a rift between Latin players and younger players? I'd say IF, there is a rift, and that's a big if, well it's the choice of the Latin and young players isn't it? 3. Well just because Jeter and Rodriguez arent' as close of friends as they used to be since the article, I don't think that Jeter is holding a grudge so much that he's endangering the team, or compromising his professionalism. IF he's holding a grudge at all. Remember, the press will create a pot to stir where one doesn't exist.Don't get me wrong - I'm no Jeter fan, as I just don't like the guy. But, I do recognize he's a great player and shows a maturity that if all players would emulate him, baseball would be a better sport. And, I think the guy is clean of the juice too. He's simply one of those players that it's hard to find anything really bad about him - so that's why we hear things about rifts in the Latin players, and such. Best, Googie man (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your rebuttals, I was just pointing out popular criticisms that seemed to be missing when I saw the page for the first time yesterday. I am by no means a hardcore baseball (or sports) fan and even so I have heard or read these criticisms. Mr. Jeter is the captain, and his team not winning since he was installed is on a different level than the squad members you mention Mr. Abreu or Mr. Damon. I recall Mr. Jeter categorically saying he would not switch positions if his team signed Mr. Rodriguez. I will check that for sourcing. Jimsurge74 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. During a 2004 interview by Michael Kay (as seen on the Derek Jeter DVD episode of the show "Centerstage", Jeter said that Rodriguez understood that he wouldn't be playing SS when coming as a Yankee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovely78 (talkcontribs) 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dive

Shouldn't this be under Regular Season or Clutch Play? It definitely doesn't belong in teh postseason. LedRush (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just moved it into the Regular Season section. Thanks. --Michael Greiner 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts

Derek Jeter has been playing on the yankees since his major league debut. His first world series was on his first year! He wroked up to be an honorable captain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D'SilIA (talkcontribs) 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And your point is...? By the way, his debut was in May 1995, not in 1996. --Michael Greiner 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Derek Jeter has a profile, weekly Q & A blog, and uploads youth photos and video on weplay, a youth sports community that he has invested in along with athletes like Lebron James and Peyton Manning. NY Times Article first covered the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorsumner (talkcontribs) 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeter's farewell speech to Yankee Stadium

I think this should definitely be in there somewhere!

here it is:

"For all of us up here, it's a huge honor to put this uniform on every day and come out here and play. And every member of this organization, past and present, has been calling this place home for 85 years. There's a lot of tradition, a lot of history, and a lot of memories. Now the great thing about memories is you're able to pass it along from generation to generation. And although things are going to change next year, we're going to move across the street, there are a few things with the New York Yankees that never change -- it's pride, it's tradition, and most of all, we have the greatest fans in the world. We're relying on you to take the memories from this stadium and add them to the new memories that come to the new Yankee Stadium, and continue to pass them on from generation to generation. On behalf of this entire organization, we want to take this moment to salute you, the greatest fans in the world." - Derek Jeter

I would even add "(a true Yankee)" after his name since he is one =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanks4Life23519 (talkcontribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Derek Jeter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be doing the GA review of this article. Here are some initial suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead doesn't summarize the article adequately enough.
  • His high school stats need sourcing.
  • Watch the MoS violations. I saw some capitalization, dash, and reference placement errors.
  • In the major league career section, all the years have relatively small amounts of text. Combining some of the years would make it look more aesthetically pleasing. Done
  • "2008 was a sub-par offensive year for Jeter." - sentences like these should not be included. Let the facts speak for themselves.
  • Watch the peacock language: notable, iconic, spectacular, etc. Done
  • Couldn't The Dive be merged into 2004? The Flip and Mr. November into 2001? The Jeffrey Maier Incident into 1996? All of that would help with the aforementioned length problem in the major league section. Done
  • "He is in the 7th year of a 10-year contract and made $20.6 million for the 2007 season." - time dependent Done
  • "His contract, which has a total value of $189,000,000 is the 3rd largest contract in baseball history, behind two contracts of Alex Rodriguez." - source?
  • "Jeter's defense has been the subject of criticism from a number of sabermetricians, including Bill James[26], Rob Neyer[27],[28] and the publication, Baseball Prospectus[29].[30]" - the referencing surrounding the punctuation here is bad. Refs should go after punctuation. Done
  • The criticism section needs some support for the various people's claims. They say he is bad...but what are their reasonings?
  • Awards need sources.
  • The personal life section needs to be expanded. I'd imagine that a lot of people come to this page looking for information about all the famous women he has dated. He has very well known for it. How long did he date these women? Did he live with any of them? Was he ever engaged to any of them? Stuff like that.
  • IMO, endorsements and other appearances should be combined. Also, it should be in prose rather than bullets. The SNL quote needs a source. Done
  • A lot of the references need access dates.

That's it for now. The article will be on hold for a week for improvements. Nikki311 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The seven days are up, so I am failing the article for insufficient improvements. Please feel free to keep working to improve the article and consider renominating in the future. Happy editing. :) Nikki311 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


VORP????

The table is all wrong.

You don't add VORP from all of his seasons, you have to assess it for the whole career. Jeter is a great player, but I highly doubt that his VORP is "785.4". If that was the case he would have like 1,800 HRs and 9,000 hits.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.195.103 (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture problem

The picture "Derek Jeter Hit -2722.jpg" depicts someone else, not Jester. By the looks of it, he is African-American. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.156.244 (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. November

POSADA TOOK OUT IN HOME AT JEREMY GIAMBI NOT JASON GIAMBI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.67.196.68 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeter tagged out at the plate not jason giambi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.200.89 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) jeter did not tag out anyone he backed up a bad cutoff throw and flipped the ball to jorge posada at the plate who then tagged jeremy giambi who failed to slide into home plate.

Uh, is it just me, or is it obvious that the tag was missed? Whether he slid or not, he was safe. I think that should be in the article--"From no angle in the replay did it appear that the call was correct. Despite this glaring error, the play went down in history as one of the greatest ever." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.228.20 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag was made, you can't insert something like that without a source, and though I'm sure a blogger or two has posted this, the mainstream press does not share your sentiment. --Muboshgu (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In the section entitled "1999–2002," following the explanation of his (brief) nickname "Mr. November," Jeter is incorrectly identified as only the third athlete in New York City history to receive such a moniker. In fact, Dave Winfield was disparagingly annointed "Mr. May," by no less an authority as George Steinbrenner, following the former's poor performance in the 1981 postseason. So, technically, that makes Jeter no. 4.... Frankly this sort of tally should be left out of wikipedia, since we can't be certain that the author of the claim has done the research necessary to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.165.188 (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's sensible. I took that part out. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things

I think it's obvious that this page is overly long, and I'm trying to condense it.

There was an unnecessary paragraph about the Yankee players taking exception to his 2003 injury with Ken Huckaby, and about Huckaby and Jeter's run-in later on. I remember the play and the follow-up quite well. Put simply, the article makes it seem a bigger incident than it was, and the inclusion of a section about Yankee player reaction (with no proper context, or opposing player's remarks) tends to paint a biased picture that the play was dirty or noteworthy for being unnecessary. The catcher made a play to block Jeter off the bag, and he fell on the guy. There was nothing at the time about the play being particularly dirty in any legitimate media source, so giving a hint that it was is unfair...and in the framework of Jeter's long career, we don't need half of a subsection devoted to discussion how his teammates felt.

Also, some of these statistics are getting out of hand:

In 2006 Jeter led the major leagues in highest groundball/flyball ratio (3.23; 313/97) and batting average on balls in play (.394),[15] and tied for the American League lead in steals of third base (12).

First of all, we need context. Second of all, these stats are obscure and not necessarily reflective of him being an exceptional player. His career is not defined by them at all. Why not tell me he's the all-time leader in hits by men with 5-letter last names that begin with J, who were born in New Jersey, also? Statistically speaking, a player's batting average on balls in play (BABIP) is completely non-reflective of his abilities. Someone like Neifi Perez could very easily lead that category in a given season, and it would mean nothing. I imagine the person who posted this probably knew that. It has an extremely minor correlation to a player's ability, but in general some of the better players in the game (pitchers and hitters) can have poor BABIP in a given season based entirely on luck. It has no purpose. And telling me that Jeter was tied for most steals of third in a season? C'mon guys. This page needs much better context and foresight on the part of its editors. It needs responsible editing...not reckless, haphazard, non-contextualized stuff like this. In the scheme of the man's career, there needs to be some REAL condensing of this page. And if you're going to mention something, it needs to be put in proper framework.

Third, do we really need a table with his year-to-year salaries over the course of his career? The exact same table is provided at one of the links at the bottom of the page (baseball-reference), and it takes up an absurd amount of room which detracts from the flow of the page. It's not particularly pertinent to anything, and is hardly the standard amongst MLB player pages on Wikipedia.

Last thing: I'm no expert with this, but could someone please shrink the statbox toward the bottom? It's really tall and rather distracting...needs to be compressed more like the stat sheets on other pages? Maybe the font is too big? Not sure.

I would advise those of you editing this page who are not familiar with the Wikipedia baseball project to take a look at it, or at least look at other (current or otherwise) player pages to get an idea of what information generally fits into these pages. Thanks.President David Palmer (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of this. I shortened the bit on the 2003 injury. I took out the earnings and the stats table, which are not necessary for wikipedia and readers can learn about from external links. I want to get this article up to FA status, and I'll work on it some more. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Gold Gloves error

In the section about "Defensive criticisms," the paragraph incorrectly states that Jeter has won 2 Gold Glove awards when, in fact, he has won 3. - Jonohull (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

He is a tax cheat

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3231419

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311830,00.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/16/2007-11-16_taxman_derek_jeter_cheated_new_york_out_-1.html

He stole millions from the government; why on earth is this not mentioned? 72.47.38.205 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put it in, put it in. Or I (or someone else) will get to it at some point. But saying things like "tax cheat" and "stole millions from the government" violate WP:NPOV. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done It's now in the "Personal life" section. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony Fernandez

How come there's no mention of Tony Fernandez in this article? If Fernadez didn't get hurt Jeter wouldn't have been the opening day shortstop in 1996. --JohnnyDrama233 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't know that's the case, and it would have to be verifiable to be included. Jeter was an early first round choice for the Yankees, so he clearly didn't "luck" into the job. He did very well in Triple A in 1995. Second, if it were the case, it's merely coincidental and not encyclopedic. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I found a source from December 2005 saying that Torre was going with Jeter as his opening day starter, and Fernandez would play a utility role. That's now in the article. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Update Jeter's postseason average.

It states as of 2006. His post-season average is now .309. This is as of his last post-season appearance in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfudanyo (talkcontribs) 13:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done You were right, those stats were out of date. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In this context, I have reverted an undo of my using "good postseason performer" instead of "exceptional". Jeter's postseason record is good, arguably very good, and on a par with his career stats. But is is not "exceptional", unless someone can show that no one else has equalled his performances. Bear in mind, too, that many of the postseason records he holds are down to his longevity and years of consistency. And the use of "exceptional" arguably contravenes Wiki policy in a number of areas. Regards, bigpad (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reworded part of this section to keep it in line with the article's introduction, which cites his "reliable" postseason performances. If anyone disagrees with what's in the intro., please revise both areas and add a citation that his Oct-Nov. record is "exceptional". We can't have the text contradicting itself. bigpad (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm good with the changes. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

World Series Dates

Missing 1996.

Pardon? --Muboshgu (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

False information prohibited

False information should not be in the article if we know it is false. If we didn't know it, then it is an honest mistake.

Derek's parents met in West Germany. They were not East German defectors. That was the commonly used name. Back in those days, it was East Germany and West Germany. However, some stupid reporters, probably young folks, have written just "Germany" because the East/West cold war was 20+ years old, when those reporters were in diapers.

So we should make sure that we don't report wrong.

Another example would be if a report by USA Today made a mistake and said Jeter hit 815 home runs. We cannot then write "Jeter has hit 815 home runs. (source: USA Today, October 2, 2009, p. 1)."

If you are oppose to accuracy and insist that inaccurate and wrong facts be allowed as long as there is a source, then vote below. PresChicago (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources say "Germany", so we stick with "Germany". Adding "West Germany" with the qualifier that it is now Germany unnecessarily clutters an article currently in Featured Article candidacy. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not know it was a Featured Article candidate. If so, accuracy shows that it is not sloppy. If the parenthesis is objected to, then the name used at the time should be used by itself. That's ok with me. PresChicago (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Original research is what is objected to. It is not wrong to say "Germany" per the sources- it is how the country was frequently referred to unless a specific political point was being made. For example, the article on Elvis Presley accurately reflects what the sources (and everybody who talked about it at the time) said: he served in Germany. Your parenthetical commentary is OR. No one is opposed to accuracy - but note that Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not accuracy. Muboshgu is right - and you aren't getting the point. Tvoz/talk 05:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I may have encouraged his getting sidetracked by mentioning the FAC. Verifiability and the absence of OR are important for all articles, not just those being considered for promotion. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

examples of the correct way found in wikipedia

Tymoshenko is the daughter of Ludmila Nikolaevna Telegina and Vladimir Abramovich Grigean (her father left the family when Yulia was three years old). She was born in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PresChicago (talkcontribs) 03:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

He joined the then-Anaheim Angels in 2001 as a free agent, but played only a handful of games before establishing himself during the 2002 season as the Angels backup catcher for his brother, Bengie. (Wikipedia article of Jose Molina, great Yankee's catcher) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PresChicago (talkcontribs) 03:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

...

That has to be the longest list of related boxes ive ever seen :O ResMar 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If Derek Jeter didn't have so many accomplishments, he wouldn't have so many navboxes. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lucille ( nee Jeter) Hendrix. Jimi's Mother's name / Dr. Sanderson Charles Jeter. Derek's Father's name

Probably coincidence only if not entirely far fetched. Just like Derek's middle name being Sanderson for his Father not Derek Sanderson. It begs the Question of whether Hendrix Mom And Jeter's Dad have any relation what so ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.211.134 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's a coincidence. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He's getting married!!!!!!!!!!!!

Supposedly he's getting married to Minka Kelly. She's a beautiful girl congrats to Jetes. Add it. Here's a source. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/report-derek-jeter-to-get-married-to-minka-kelly-011010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DA Fernandez (talkcontribs) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The reporting on this is flimsy even for the New York Post, and all the wire reports are merely citing the Post's story. It actually makes more sense for this to be a wedding for Jeter's sister because she is engaged to someone and because weddings are often listed under the bride's name. Fishyfred (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I know the Post is an iffy source, but I hadn't thought about it being Jeter's sister. I was leaning towards letting it stay in the article with an emphasis on the fact that it's unconfirmed, but you're right in that it shouldn't be included. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in his Awards Chart

There is a minor error in the chart that lists Derek Jeter's awards. Under Silver Sluggers, Jeter is listed as having won 3; yet, there are four years listed directly to the right of this. In order to complete the update, the chart should say that he has won 4 Silver Sluggers. Gmanzi (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)gmanzi

Other Notable Awards

Derek Jeter has won the Joe Dimaggio "Toast of the Town" Award in 1999 and 2009, respectively. This award is on par with the Babe Ruth Award, which is already listed, insofar as both the Joe Dimaggio Award and Babe Ruth Award are presented annually by the New York chapter of the BBWAA. For confirmation that Jeter was the 1999 award recipient, see http://www.new-york-yankees-baseball.com/new-york-yankees-derek-jeter.htm For confirmation that Jeter was the 2009 award recipient, see http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/yankees/award_touches_rod_MwWghGY6cMA5i68eE43dwJ Gmanzi (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)gmanzi

Alt text

I don't have time to fix it... the "alt" text for the captions here is pretty bad. "A man in a jersey". It's Derek Jeter!. It should say "Jeter does blah" or whatever. Otherwise those captions are just horrible. — Timneu22 · talk 17:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We discussed the alt text in the featured article review. Alt text isn't supposed to use proper names, as it's designed for the blind, and telling them its Derek Jeter doesn't mean much when you have no idea what he looks like. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Completely disagree. Describe Jeter somewhere else, or describe what he is wearing. Jeter, in a gray uniform with black spikes.... Just saying "a man" is pointless. Which man? I believe that was a horrible decision. — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't my ruling or idea. It's apparently Wikipedia standards. We the sighted really have no use for alt text. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I just started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:ALT; just saying "a man" is pointless. What if an article has a picture of the subject, then of something related to the subject? (You know, like one of Jeter, and one of Arod.) This is the stupidest WP idea I've ever encountered!! — Timneu22 · talk 18:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Derek Jeter's Favorite Foods

Derek Jeter loves to eat pancakes and waffles. He said that when he soaks it in Coca Cola, it makes him relaxed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackd2222 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.193.70.195, 23 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Derek Jeter does not have 3000 hits as is claimed in his achievements. As of June, 22, before their late game, he has 2830, you can check espn.com or baseball reference.com http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/H_career.shtml

Everyone who watches baseball knows that you do not add the postseason stats on to career hits in order to get total hits

68.193.70.195 (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done ESPN agrees, and the article now reflects that. Avicennasis @ 03:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

English?

Where did the information that Derek Jeter is English and was born in Manchester, England come from? Every source I have seen says he was born in New Jersey. This includes the ESPN piece cited by this article that states "Jeter was born on June 26, 1974 in Pequannock, N.J." Even if he really was born in England, both of his parents are Americans who were overseas while serving in the U.S. Army. That would not make him English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckygoon (talkcontribs) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Best man at Posda's wedding

Citation needed? How's this:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0910/derek.jeter.off.the.field/content.12.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.162.83 (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.76.13.77, 3 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Derek Jeter was born in Chilton Memorial Hospital - Pequannock, NJ

204.76.13.77 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shearonink (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Other Appearances

He had a cameo in the film Anger Management, as did Roger Clemens. The page for Clemens contains this information; please add it to Jeter's as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.120.223 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done You're right, and conveniently enough the source on The Other Guys also mentions his cameo in Anger Management. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sections

We don't need a section for every season; some of those sections are only one sentence. His career should be split into sections for his debut (1995), the dynasty (1996-2001), and his captaincy (2003-present) in some manner. I'm still thinking about some of the details. His career seems very constant, so not conducive to natural section breaks. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hospital of birth

The article states "Jeter was born at Central Manchester Hospital, Pequannock, New Jersey in 1974." There has never been a hospital called Central Manchester Hospital in Pequannock Township, NJ. There is only one hospital in the area. It is named Chilton Memorial Hospital and is in the Pompton Plains section of Pequannock Township. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.112.42 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation of this? --Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
While it was still uncited then, it was changed in a vandal edit in mid-July. [1] Clean up afterwords missed the hospital name. I know it means nothing, but as a Morris County resident I can verify that there is no Central Manchester Hospital and Chilton Memorial Hospital exists. --Michael Greiner 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I took it out entirely. Not because I don't believe you (I do), but because there's no source for the hospital of birth in the first place, and I don't think it's notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Offence"

It's offense. If he were an Englishman, playing an English game, then offence might be acceptable. There should be no instance of "colour", "aluminium", or any other alternate spellings when dealing with an American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.198.84 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't know why that was there at all so I just removed the header. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.116.41.232, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 2926 hits - 1135 rbi's as of end of 2010 regular season


98.116.41.232 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it's  Done. The page lists reliable sources that convey that data. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"all-time hits leader among shortstops"

The page said Jeter is the all-time hits leader among shortstops. He's not:

  1. Honus Wagner - 3420
  2. Cal Ripkin - 3184
  3. Derek Jeter - 2926

Don't revert it back to that when you know it's wrong (you know who you are). If you have something accurate to say, post it and cite it. Don't forget the cite! guanxi (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeter passed Luis Aparicio (not Ripken or Wagner, who played other positions) for most hits as a shortstop in August 2009. Whoever put that in didn't cite it, but I found the citation.[2]. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Honus Wagner and Cal Ripkin, Jr. aren't shortstops? C'mon, you know the statement in the article is misleading at best; you said yourself it was unclear. Why persist? guanxi (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't shortstops, I said they also played other positions. Jeter has more hits as a shortstop than anyone else. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I see now, it's cited in the "Milestones" section but wasn't cited in the lede. That can happen from time to time. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Other apperances

I just wanted to mention that Jeter also appeared in the commercials for the 2010 season of the television show rescue me, the commercials ran on fx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.105.198 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

He did. It needs a citation to be included though. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to step back (WP:OWN)

I understand some editors are enthusiastic about a subject and often they contribute most of the content; that's great. All that effort can make them feel a sense of Ownership, which is understandable, but in the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, it doesn't work so well. At this point, one editor is reverting others and getting final say on the article. While I understand the spirit, it may be time to step back and let go, and let others determine the content and direction of the article. guanxi (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Free Agent??

Derek Jeter shouldn't be considered a free agent at the moment, because free agent filing doesn't begin until 11/7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyynym25 (talkcontribs) 05:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And why doesn't it say anything about him being (or going to be) released by the Yankees? It is very relevant. I can't find it anywhere, at least not where it presumably should be. I could fix it but I don't know much about baseball, let alone Jeter. Aediasse (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He is a free agent... thus he is not currently employed by the Yankees....so saying he was "released" would be inaccurate. Spanneraol (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There's not much for us to add at this point. The back-and-forth in the media about the contract negotiations isn't appropriate at this time, and I'm glad that nobody has tried to add it. A brief postmortem about it will be added after he signs a new contract. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 gold glove`

the artilce must be updated regardign the joke that Jeter won the gold glove. it is widely known that he has one of worst ranges of all shortstops. thank you, --Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that he won the award... and it should be reported as such. "worst ranges of all shortstops" is your opinion and opinion doesnt belong. Spanneraol (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
see this http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2010/11/10/2010-11-10_derek_jeters_selection_as_american_league_gold_glover_at_shortstop_exposes_flaws.html. its my opinion, but also the opinion of reliable sources. if everyone would quit yelling at me and do a little research, Wikipedia might not be such a big joke.--Dontlikeitinthetuchis (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The section Player profile already addresses the information you mention. Please be aware that Wikipedia's civility rules are important. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Information added for his defense specific to 2010. Its getting a lot of press and needs to be balanced if GG is going to go somewhere other than "Profile" section. Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to add that information about this award. To a lay reader a discussion of "advanced defensive matrixs" is meaningless.. the article should stick to the facts... he won the gold glove... and avoid subjective statistical analysis. Spanneraol (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm undecided. Things like UZR could use more context, if this remains. Certainly the edit that was made, which I made a slight copy edit to, is more productive than calling the award "a joke". --Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Can replace with "sabermetrics", or do a "See also" to sabermetrics. I dont believe a reader has to understand how its measured. They only need to know that there is a group that doesnt believe Gold Glove is synonymous with Jeter being the "best" defensive AL shortstop in 2010, and its getting coverage in reliable sources. Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've resolved my ambivalence. It didn't belong in the "baseball career" section, so I moved it to the "player profile" section, with the other talk of Jeter's defensive shortcomings. It has a few rough edges that could be smoothed out, but otherwise I'm okay with it staying in that section. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
"Player profile" seems to be 1) reciting some postseason statistics that could arguably be either be put in lead section or represented in tabular form, and 2) citations regarding opinions/analysis of his defense. Unless there is more substance added (and not just reciting a stat sheet) to this section (e.g baserunning, batting, leadership, "clutch", etc), I'm thinking the section should be renamed "Defense". For now, I'll add subsections as "Postseason Performance" and "Defense" Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Luis Aparacio retired with 2,528 games in the field, all of them at shortstop. That's fairly noteworthy, in that most players with long careers eventually move to less-demanding positions, so it's unusual to still be the best glove on the team right to the end. I find that Jeter has played only shortstop on defense, over 2,274 games in the field, and could beat Looie's number in two more years, provided that they don't move him. WHPratt (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, and it might be worthy of inclusion here, but only if it's properly backed up by sources. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
What, the games played numbers? They're as well-established as any fact, and would be confirmed by ANY of the sources quoted on this page (baseballreference, retrosheet, Sporting News, N Y Times ...). I'm sure that most people here would agree with that. WHPratt (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(If you're looking for an "asterisk" here, I would admit that Jeter has some games as a dh. That means that there were times that he was in a game and someone else was playing shortstop, something that never happened to Aparicio, who never played an inning anywhere else. WHPratt (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC))
I mean that how many games he has played at SS isn't necessarily relevant to his ability to field the position. That may seem counterintuitive, but consider that the Yankees don't have an open position to move Jeter. The fact that he's still at short is about more than his fielding ability. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly I'm thinking about this in terms of his defensive reputation. It can be included if there's no connotation about what it means regarding his defensive skills (or lack thereof, as some feel). --Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course. I just tossed that in as something that I found interesting. It's not a 100% positive statistic. An athlete who has "lost a step" and can't play shortstop adequately might contribute to the team at a less-demanding defensive position provided his offense is still good enough. (Examples: Harvey Kuenn, Ernie Banks, Cal Ripken.) But nobody was going to move someone like Mark Belanger to keep his bat in the lineup. Aparicio found himself ideally situated between these two extremes: his hitting was good enough for a great shortstop, but not enough for a very good shortstop, and not enough to keep him around as a thirdbaseman or left fielder, although he would have been a great gloveman elsewhere. If anybody wants to argue where Jeter fits along that spectrum, they can use it as a point, pro or con. WHPratt (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ginzo66, 11 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} someone changed team history info

Ginzo66 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. elektrikSHOOS 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe this is referring to the fact that someone changed the infobox to say he was on the Red Sox. I've reverted that vandalism. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Consistent postseason performances

Jeter is noted for his very consistent postseason performances

Using a citation to a career stat page to back up this claim in Derek Jeter#Player_profile is not sufficient. The reader can subjectively interpret it either way looking at the year by year numbers due to small sample of games each postseason. And this applies to an avid or a passing baseball fan. Need to find statements from people that back this up and say who said it. Relying on the stat sheet alone is WP:OR at best Bagumba (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not too difficult. The Yankees beat writers write about that every week or so. I'll look for a good example later. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dad's Name

I just wanted to point out that under the "Early Life" section in his article, his Dad's name is incorrectly reported. His name is Sanderson Charles Jeter (http://www.mlb.com/players/jeter_derek/news/article.jsp?story=07102006_news)

Q: Who were you named after? If you were you named after the hockey player Derek Sanderson, who was the hockey fan in your family? -- Tony V., Deer Park, N.Y.

Derek: Actually, I was named after my father, Sanderson Charles Jeter.

As of now the article reads "His father, Dr. Anderson Charles Jeter..."

This is a really easy thing to fix, but this is the first time I've commented on an error, and I don't know what to do to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMart (talkcontribs) 04:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. I know it was correct when I got this article to good article status, but somebody messed with it at some point. I've corrected it. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New Contract

Jeter has signed a new three year, $51 million contract with the Yankees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.218.120 (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he has agreed to a new three year deal. We wait until all aspects of the deal have been finalized and the deal is officially announced. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Derek Jeter batting stance allison.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Derek Jeter batting stance allison.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 2, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-04-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Derek Jeter
Derek Jeter is an American baseball player for the New York Yankees. He plays shortstop and has been the team captain since 2003. Jeter debuted in the Major Leagues in 1995, and the following year he won the Rookie of the Year Award. In 2000, Jeter became the only player in history to win both the All-Star Game MVP Award and the World Series MVP Award in the same year. In addition, he is a multiple winner of the Silver Slugger and Gold Glove awards, and is the all-time hit leader for the Yankees.Photo: Keith Allison
Sweet. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ian O'Connor Book: "THE CAPTAIN: The Journey of Derek Jeter"

Where should this be mentioned in the article? Maybe the legacy or achievement section? Arnabdas (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Add whatever you can wherever you can, with attribution. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Moboshgu, I know how to edit wikipedia. I was just trying to get input from editors on where they think adding the book mention would be a good place. Arnabdas (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
So then you should know to add details where they're appropriate. Do you have a copy? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Slease42, 7 May 2011

derek jeter now has 2954 hits


Slease42 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done reliable source? CTJF83 22:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a good reliable source. MLB.com. It's usually updated daily. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeter hits

Jeter now has 2968 hits. He also has 1147 RBI's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeeman120 (talkcontribs) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a point that we should be doing more frequent stat updates on this page as he approaches the 3000 hit milestone (see everybody, I'm not just anti-stat updates). I'll get on that, make those fixes I've been meaning to make, and have this up for a FA review by the time he reaches 3000. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ian O'Connor's, "The Captain: The Journey of Derek Jeter."

Does anyone have a copy of this? Willing to help work on adding some key excerpts to help strengthen this page? It's one of the last things I want to add before I nominate for featured article status. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Important?

What is the purpose of mentioning the race of Jeter's parents? Would this be mentioned if both parents were black or if both were white? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talkcontribs) 00:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Statistics Error: On-Base Percentage listed as On-base Plus Slugging

Jeter's career OPS is obviously not .383--that is his On-Base Percentage. The MLB site lists his OPS as .832. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpucino (talkcontribs) 18:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done You're right. An OPS of .383 is pretty bad, and not very Jeterian. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from T3hrasterbator, 9 July 2011

I am requesting an edit to Derek Jeter's career statistics for the 2011 MLB season to update them as of July 9th, 2011 and to include the 3000th hit today, July 9th, 2011 at 2:03 PM. This hit was a home run as well.

T3hrasterbator (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. This is a big day for Jeter so it should be updated post haste. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=116539 The first video I saw on this site was the 3000th hit/3rd HR of Jeter's career/season, respectively

We'll see about adding the link to the video. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

3,000 Hits

Derek Jeter became the 28th member of the elite 3,000 hit club on Saturday July 9th, 2011. The milestone hit was a solo home run, it came in the bottom of the third inning off Tampa Bay Rays pitcher, David Price, on a full count. Previously the only other player to homer for his 3,000th hit was former teammate Wade Boggs who accomplished the feat in 1999 for the then Tampa Bay Devil Rays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.133.237 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And? This is reflected in Derek Jeter and 3,000 hit club already. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't when he first viewed the page. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

'96 World series games incorrect in note 25

Note 25 is incorrect regarding 1996 World Series States that yanks won '96 world series against the Braves 4-1 when it was actually 4 games to 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.119.226 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment for FAC which appears to have been prematurely closed

Comment I have added a little context to the section on the controversy over Jeter's fielding. If it were up to me it would be expanded further but that is probably because I am a stat head who needs to get a life. However, there is a conflict between this section and the lead. The lead says: "Jeter's clubhouse presence, on-field leadership, hitting ability, defensive prowess and baserunning have made him a central figure of the franchise during the Yankees' success of the 1990s and 2000s." However, as the section on his defense indicates many experts believe that Jeter contributed to the Yankees success in spite of his defensive limitations, rather than because of his defensive prowess. I realize you are following the source you cite, but given the long running controversy over Jeter's fielding range I think you have to at least add a qualifier following that sentence to reflect the fact that other sources disagree about his defensive contribution. This might not be a bad thing, since the debate over his defense has become prominent enough to merit a mention in the lead anyway, and that would also serve to make the tone of the lead a little less hagiographic, which is currently a bit of a problem. Incidentally, I agree this closure was ridiculously premature. This article is not that far away from FAC quality.

I made the above comment on the FAC comment page, but I had an edit conflict with someone closing the FAC. I am reproducing the comment here to avoid it being lost. I am really annoyed about the FAC being closed when it was. I think it was premature. It wouldn't take that much more work to get this article through. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The good news is that even if the FAC is indeed prematurely closed, the comments will be archived there. Furthermore, if it is closed, I fully intend to open a new FA candidacy to continue the work I've been doing throughout July. As you say, we can get this to FA status with some work on prose. However, I think it's best to simply leave defense out of the lead itself, rather than to introduce the criticisms there, since that's too wordy for an article lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Gardnerjetergrandyman.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Gardnerjetergrandyman.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My continued drive to feature this article

I've nominated this article for FA status three times so far. The first time was premature. The second time, I thought it closed prematurely, and the third time, I thought I was close but ran out of steam. Now that I've taken a break from this article and have had a chance to glance at the prose, I can see it's further away from FA than I thought.

I've printed this article and will copy edit old school, by pen and paper during my work commute. I've already noticed that the very first sentence is clunky and there's an ISO date format I missed, which I'll fix now. In the meantime, I'll make a whole bunch of copy edits to fix the prose in the next month or so. If anyone sees any changes that can be made in the meantime, by all means suggest them here or make them yourself. By the powers of Wikipeida, I will get this article to FA status. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

I went ahead and took a look over the article, and here's some issues I noted:

  • "With the second through fifth picks, the Cleveland Indians selected Paul Shuey, the Montreal Expos selected B. J. Wallace, the Baltimore Orioles selected Jeffrey Hammonds, and the Cincinnati Reds selected Chad Mottola." While interesting, I wonder if noting the second through fifth picks is too tangential for this article.
  • "who chose to turn professional, signing" writing it as "who chose to turn professional and signed.." makes the prose slightly stronger.
  • "Jeter earned $750,000 for the 1998 season" This seems an odd way to me to start a paragraph. Not sure if a better introductory sentence could be added or if things could be moved around in that paragraph.
  • "In the playoffs, Jeter hit only .176 in the ALDS and ALCS, but he excelled in the World Series, batting .353," I'd stick with just noting the stats rather than adding excelled.
  • "An arbiter awarded Jeter a $5 million salary for the 1999 season,[49]" Was this meant to be a period rather than a comma? I'd reword perhaps to note that he and the Yankees went to arbitration, with that being the end outcome.
  • "Jeter slumped at plate;" at the plate.
  • "Jeter returned to bat .324, finishing third in batting average to Bill Mueller, who batted .326" do you mean finishing second, or is the third person just not mentioned?
  • "The true count of captains in Yankees history has been disputed.[68] " Again, feels a bit tangential. Maybe just note instead that he was the first captain since Don Mattingly and leave it at that.
  • "In June, Jeter broke out of his slump; he hit nearly .400 for the month and collected 9 home runs, a personal best for any single month." nine home runs, and I'd prefer a cite for this due to the personal best part.
  • "In dramatic fashion, he launched himself " unless the cite adds the in dramatic fashion part, I'd remove it. Prose getting a bit on the flowery side there.

This is up to the 2009-present section. That gives enough for now, I can review the second half of the article once it's at FAC. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright. For that to be all of your comments up until 2009 suggests to me this article is in pretty good shape. I'll make those changes and nominate it in the next few days. Thanks for your input. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Random quotes in article

I see no need for the quotes placed randomly throughout the article. They seem to be irrelevant and somewhat of an advertisement that Jeter is a great ball player (which he is, but I don't think the article needs the quotes). For example, "He might go down, when it's all over, as the all-time Yankee" is a great quote, but it has nothing to do with the section. It's very appropriate for Wikiquote, but I don't feel it belongs here along with the others. Any thoughts? Thechased (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the quotes from Jeter, but I feel strongly about keeping the Zimmer and Schilling quotes in the article. That said, I'm not against moving the Zimmer quote to another section, if it's more appropriate somewhere else. It's located where it is due to the date of the quote (2009). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Placement of images

Does anyone else have a concern about the placement of iamges in two early sections of the chronology, of events that actually took place later, outside those periods, especially since the captions don't date the photos? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no photos of him from earlier in his career that are freely available. I spaced out pictures in a way that I thought was visually pleasing. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand the desire to lay it out like that, but i'm not sure it's a great idea. At a minimum you must indicate the year in the photo caption. Otherwise readers will always assume that images placed in chronological sections of a biography date to that period of the biography. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's better to have pictures spread out than to have long stretches of text with no image. I agree with your point though, and added the years the photos were taken to the captions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Arod relationship

Text on his relationship with ARod was recently removed as it was deemed "unremarkable". Per sources removed, it's prevalence in news articles, and its presence in his biography (here's an excerpt), due weight needs to be given to this area. If the previous text seemed "unremarkable", the solution is to improve it as opposed to removing it.—Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it until now. You should bring it up with the editor who removed it, he's one of the FA reviewers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've left a notice on the editor's talk page as well.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This article tends to contain too much detail to be an FA at the encyclopedia, though it may well be fantastic for a baseball fan. The fact that something is mentioned in sources, including his biography, doesn't mean it should necessarily be included here. Not everything that is printed in reliable sources needs to end up in a wikipedia entry. It really was never clear in the article why his relationship with Rodriguez was important to the lay reader who wanted to understand those things that are of significance about Jeter. They are two men at the top of their sport, so professional competitiveness and rivalry is in itself an unremarkable phenomenon. Unless it can be shown how this particular relationship had concrete consequences for Jeter's play etc, it is something of interest to enthusiasts but not, I would suggest, to this article. The main para that i removed had another problem: it bordered on incomprehensible. I could not understand the meaning of the quotes that were drawn from the players. On a separate issue, Sarastro1 has also queried the density of the statistics and the nature of the prose. Have you looked at some other sport biographies at FA for some comparisons? Try Donald Bradman or Arthur Morris (though my own thought is that even the latter is a bit dense on figures) for some examples from a different sport. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Two players of the same position, the same age and both all-stars being good friends is unusual in baseball. That they would end of playing on the same team, and therefore an all-star at his position would need to move to a different position is quite notable. I can't think of another instance where two hall of famers of about the same age and at the same position played together, with one needing to change positions for the other. Because of all this, their relationship was seen as extremely important by reliable sources, and we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't cover it well.LedRush (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Tips in the guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable would help this article, as the sport of baseball uses technical terminology a layperson would not be familiar with. While the article should use non-technical terminology where possible, the article should not be oversimplified or have content removed to make it accessible. You would likely not be happy with the amount of statistics in other FAs like Mariano Rivera or Tim Duncan. Without getting into an "other stuff" argument that has examples on both sides, I will say that I usually find that sports article based on more recent athletes tend to be more detailed, likely due to accessibility of online sources and familiarity of the subject with editors. The readable prose on Jeter's article is currently 38K, which is not considered too large based on size alone. I dont doubt that you had some difficulties with the prose, but mention of the relationship is notable based on its ongoing coverage in sources. One of the few criticisms of Jeter, not having to deal with pressure, was from Rodriguez. It led to a much discussed fallout between the friends. I'm not a big fan of gossip, but the reality is that it receives coverage both at a player level and at a personal level. It wouldn't be my place to make a moral judgement on the value of the subject and ignore its coverage. IMO, improving the text to provide proper context is a surmountable problem.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, then can someone have a go at writing a passage that sets out the significance of this. I find the issue mentioned above, that two players of such skill ended up on the same team, forcing the team to move one from their 'natural' position, to be an interesting one. I take Bagumba's point that the way to do this can be to improve the text rather than delete it, but it needs to make way more sense than the original version did. :-) Look forward to seeing an attempted revision. I would make that kind of issue the focus, rather than their "friendship". hamiltonstone (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Gonna use this talk space to edit, and hopefully other editors can help me. The removed passages are below. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree those last two are redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll work this source into the article to show the origin of the friendship. The detail on the sleepovers, in or out? [3] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I intend to put this paragraph in 1993, as that's the chronology... – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, good to see progress. I say drop the sleepover thing. But the critical sentence from that reference, which I would consider quoting verbatim, is this: "Rarely have two higher-profile opponents been as close." This is what gives an outsider like me the background to start to grasp the significance of later stuff. So, suggest something like:

And don't get into much (anything?) about cooling of the friendship for a period. Instead, draw the link between friendship and the problem of who got which position when both ended up in the team later on. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I like it. That, with Rodriguez's 2001 comments, and the 2004 trade for Rodriguez, but no reconciliation? We'll see. I'll try some stuff. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, but as I've flagged, i didn't like the 2001 stuff - it didn't make much sense and didn't seem to relate to any actual career outcomes or on-the-field stuff for the players. I'd want to see how that was going to be made both relevant and clear. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The 2001 stuff is important, and hopefully more clearly relates now that the article first mentions ARod as a fellow top shortstop prospect and friend. Is it? Also, I was thinking about what to add to the 2004 bit with the trade and ARod's change of position. Is it good as it is, or does it need more? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Some mention of the feud is needed for neutrality and due weight of a significant period of their relationship. It also helps frame the different career paths of Arod vs Jeter, and the difficulty with comparing the two shortstops. On a slightly related topic, are there sources that discuss Jeter's standing among the all-time great shortstops? Arods criticism could be part of that discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I can look. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
[4][5][6][7] How would you see this being integrated? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It might best be dealt with in a hybrid of the career section and the player profile section. The career section can mention the Esquire comments and Arod agreeing to move to third and defer to Jeter, while the profile section can discuss Jeter's standing among SS's and belief by some that Arod was better until he moved to 3rd. The profile section can also add minor criticism of his handling of the relationship and how they eventually patched things up. O'Connor's book also discusses Jeter being less rigid.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I was just coming back to my computer to suggest basically the same thing. The "friendship" source about ARod moving off shortstop calls him the best shortstop in baseball (as of 2004) and suggested he could've been the best of all time. Then the profile section can say there's a debate about where Jeter ranks, with some saying really high and others saying "well if he was a Met and didn't have the rings, we wouldn't be having this discussion". – Muboshgu (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV on defense

Text was removed about Jeter's defense which compared traditional stats in 2006 like errors and fielding % to those of Álex González.

WP:DUE weight is needed that criticism of Jeter's defense is not limited to sabermetricians. This text was originally added as part of feature article approval: "I added more details on other shortstops who may have been more deserving of GG awards, like Cabrera in 2005 and Gonzalez in 2006"

There are many sources that support the contention that Jeter got his Gold Gloves based on reputation, especially when his traditional defensive stats were weaker than others. From the FA review:

  • Here's one source that his offensive reputation and highlight-reel plays helped him win GG.[8] It also points to non-sabermetric stats like putouts and assists. Jeter won GG in 2006 despite Álex González having fewer errors and higher fielding pct[9] Other sources on impact of reputation[10][11][12][13] Here is another on his highlight reel plays[14]
  • ESPN on lack of range skewing Jeter's fielding percentage and his lower chances relative to other SS[15]

This does not seem undue based on the number of sources. Thought the article is FA, Derek_Jeter#Defense can still be improved to make it clear that criticism of his defense is not limited to sabermetricians.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have significant criticism of his 2006 award to merit mention of any criticism of his 2006 award.The 2010 criticism can go under that award. Otherwise, this is WP:UNDUE, not to mention it reads in a very jarring manner (6 words on winning the award and a sentence about criticism of it.)LedRush (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you prefer it be combined into the dedicated section on his defense? However, I'm not sure if mentioning his gold gloves chronologically and then relegating all criticism to a single section is a neutral approach either.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a touchy issue. Clearly the criticism of his GG awards needs to be mentioned in some way. I think the Alex Gonzalez comparison is fair, since the RS's cited Gonzalez's stats compared to Jeter's in the wake of the announcement in 2006. I'm open to different ways to present the info though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind criticism with regards to each award that received significant criticism. I just don't see the sources to support that for the first couple of awards. You have shown for the last two that there was significant criticism.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's my earlier FA comment, which never got fully resolved: "His defense could be dealt chronologically with with the rest of his career, or at least mention and provide a link earlier that there is a section on his defense. It is jarring to read all the Gold Gloves and only see toward the end there is a different perspective." I also think that 2006—whatever is decided—should be handled consistently with 2004 and 2005, which also have a balanced view on his defense.—Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be consistent to only mention the criticism if there was significant coverage of it? If there was significant criticsm of the last two awards, but not the first three, it seems odd to put criticism on all of them.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we want to go down that alley. There is enough criticism of Jeter's defense thoughout his career that makea criticism in individual years notable. Likewise, Jeter is noted for his work ethic, so his mom telling him not to use the word can't is notable in his childhood even if we dont find five sources mentioning it (just an example, I didnt go looking for them).—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see your point. If Jeter's defense declined as he got older (as most people's do) and he received much criticism for winning the awards in 09-10, why would we retroactively apply criticism to the 2004 award if there wasn't much? That is textbook WP:UNDUE, IMO.LedRush (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
By that logic, more sources on the significance of discipline in Jeter's childhood should also be demonstrated to justify its inclusion. It seems to be a double standard IMO. I think they should be included in both cases based on the significance of both themes in his biography.—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The situations and information concerned seem obviously different. In one case, we have uncontested information about Jeter's childhood. In the other, we have tons and tons of reliable sources saying that Jeter won an award, and very few examples of people criticising Jeter actually getting the award (at least for the years we're now discussion).LedRush (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that the source for the 2004 criticism does not mention anyone criticising the fact that he won the award, but merely that there have been criticisms from some people saying Jeter's defense was not as good as his numbers seem (or as most people believe).LedRush (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The criticism is of his defense. Winning the Gold Glove is one indicator of excellent defense, though definitely the longest standing one. The Gold Glove article has criticism of that award consistent with the criticism that Jeter has received.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If the criticism is of his defense, and that criticism relates specifically to the year in which he won his gold glove, and the criticism is significant for that year, we should mention it in that context, not as currently done. If there was not prominent criticism of Jeter winning the award, why would we shoe-horn it in there? It just doesn't make sense to me.LedRush (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, the text that was removed really didn't seem to fit in that section of the article. Really since there is already a section on his defense that talks about the controversy, surely any comparison to other shortstops should go into that section also.Spanneraol (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, as long as it's mentioned somewhere. A search yields more sources for 2006: Boston Globe,Daily News.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
One of those was the one in the article (and it mentions no criticism of Jeter winning the award), and the other doesn't seem to criticize Jeter winning the award either - it merely compared his year to Gonzalez. It is interesting to note that even that article was written more fairly than ours on WP, as it notes that Gonzalez played only 2/3 of the year and that may have also been a factor in voting. I don't see how we can manufacture criticism of an award where it doesn't exist, merely because people either compare numbers (which is done every time anyone wins any of these awards) or generalized claims of being overrated.LedRush (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The goal is to fairly present Jeter's defense. To "criticize Jeter winning the award" is a point only you are arguing when that is not the intent of the WP article or of the sources. Also, the existing source in the WP article is from The New York Times and is not a duplicate of the two newer sources identified.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If the goal is fairly present his defense, you should focus on that, not criticising him for winning an award when there aren't reliable sources to support the language. When we say "Jeter won the award in 2006 even though this other guy had these better cherry picked stats, we are criticizing receiving the award, not his defense.LedRush (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you originally objected to its inclusion, what wording would you recommend that is neutral and encompasses the spirit of all the sources. Note that these stats were not "cherry picked" by WP editors from a stats site; they were taken from reliable sources that mentioned them.—Bagumba (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That RS did not criticize Jeter's selection as a GG winner, as we did. Also, that RS included other stats which favored Jeter winning the award. Hence, cherry picked. Until we get sources that say what we are using them for, I don't see how the current structure works. Unfortunate (or, perhaps fortunately) I am leaving the country for the next 2 weeks and will have limited access to the internet, so I won't reply for a while.LedRush (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose to restore the content in the interim, as it is consistent with balancing perspective on defense as it is similiarly presented for 2004 and 2005. No objection if someone wants to reorganize it into the specific section on defense at some point. In the meantime, I see no value in singling out 2006 text only and giving the impression that there was no criticism that year, unlike the previous years.—Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You really should just include it in the defense section. Spanneraol (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
In the interim, I'm not sure why we need to remember to reintegrate the 2006 text here that has been censored and relegated to the talk pages. I'm reading O'Connor's The Captain now, which has more support for defensive criticism that can be integrated later as well.—Bagumba (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So has anyone found any sources that criticize him winning the award for the first 3 years he won it?LedRush (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The criticism is on his defense, which may or may not be a direct criticism of the GG award. Feel free to reword if any text unduly criticizes the award itself, but criticism of Jeter's defense should be maintained.—Bagumba (talk)|
Sure, in his defense section. But not after the award as it is done now.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2012

Jeter has had a negative public image during later seasons and that there was a Phillies fan who threw an apple pie at Jeter in his face during the 2009 World Series. Lara8710 (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a specific request, provide reliable sources. A fan throwing a pie isn't going to be included in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ankle

Can we reword "missed the playoffs" to "will miss the playoffs" as they are currently still happening? Thanks! --Percival2436 (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2012

Right. Someone got ahead of themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

~~ runs, hits, batting average, and at bats should include 2012 for top ten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.229.217 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=MLB Advanced Media for references to MLB.com, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). I'll also remove redundant 'location' parameters (e.g. work=New York Times|location=New York), as suggested by the template's usage guidelines. Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

How soon until the rumors of retirement become worthy?

Jeter held a press conference today April 25, 2013 and said he plans to return to play after he recovers from the ankle injury. That is the lastest news 96.236.4.198 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not worth adding here per WP:NOTNEWS. He's under contract through next year, so of course he's going to play, until he announces he won't. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

place of birth

Milton, New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.99.100 (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

My edits are being reverted with no reason given

Can someone please explain to me why Editorzz keeps reverting my legitimate changes to Derek Jeter's career statistics with no reason given? I'm simply updating Jeter's career statistics to what they are. Anyone can lookup Jeter's statistics and see that my changes are correct. What recourse do I have? According to his talk page he was just recently given his last warning and he may be blocked from editing. Thank you in advance for any advice. Alanfeld (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why. Perhaps he should be taken to WP:ARV for disruptive editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Muboshgu, and for issuing a warning to him on his talk page. That was very much appreciated. Alanfeld (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2013

I'd like to contribute my first edit on Derek Jeter may I? Melonlover200 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I really want my first edit to be Derek Jeter please.

  • Not done for now: No change suggested. You can't just ask to edit a page, you have to have a specific edit in mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the section on Defense

Please change: "Jeter has won five Gold Glove Awards, more than all shortstops with the exception of Smith, Aparicio, Omar Vizquel, and Mark Belanger.[174] " Change to: "Jeter has won five Gold Glove Awards, more than all shortstops with the exception of Smith, Concepcion, Aparicio, Omar Vizquel, and Mark Belanger.[174] "

Dave Concepcion also won five GGs, so the correct statement, if deemed necessary to keep -- I don't think the last part of the sentence makes sense to keep, but if so, it should read: "Jeter has won five Gold Glove Awards, more than all shortstops with the exception of Smith, Concepcion, Aparicio, Omar Vizquel, and Mark Belanger.[174] "

My reference for this information is: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/conceda01.shtml

Jwhelpton (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Jim Whelpton

Done BryanG (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the cited source is correct, the sentence should read: "Jeter has won five Gold Glove Awards, ranking him sixth among shortstops, behind Smith, Concepcion, Aparacio, Omar Vizquel, and Mark Belanger."

It makes no sense to say he was won "more than all shortstops" if there are FIVE exceptions.

User: tpilot11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpilot11 (talkcontribs) 22:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Derek Jeter

Dear Wikipedia, As I was reading Derek Jeter's page, I noticed that in the paragraph taken from his page, I think it should read "across the three level."

Coming off his strong 1993 season, Baseball America rated Jeter as the 16th-best prospect in baseball.[21] Jeter played for the Tampa Yankees of the Class A-Advanced Florida State League (FSL), the Albany-Colonie Yankees of the Class AA Eastern League, and the Columbus Clippers of the Class AAA International League during the 1994 season,[24] combining to hit .344 with five home runs, 68 RBI, and steal 50 bases across the two levels. He was honored with the Minor League Player of the Year Award by Baseball America, The Sporting News, USA Today, and Topps/NAPBL.[9][12] He was also named the most valuable player of the FSL.[9]

Thank you, Chasedad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasedad (talkcontribs) 15:45, February 21, 2014‎

Yes, you're right. Thank you for pointing that out. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Extraneous text

"Jeter played four seasons in minor league baseball, then known as the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues (NAPBL).”

It’s not wrong, but I have no idea how the official name of Minor League Baseball is at all relevant to that sentence. It really seems like someone just trying to show off their knowledge. 2601:9:8080:1140:1D79:C25A:8E42:75BA (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014

In the introduction section, Paragraph 1, last sentence mentions "Jeter is the all-time MLB leader in hits by a shortstop, and the 28th player to reach 3,000 hits.". This is incorrect. In the all time hits list, No.6 is Honus Wagner who played Shortstop. Even though Jeter is 5 hits away from overtaking Wagner in the list, this is a mistake which needs to be corrected till it actually happens. [12] [13] Siriusrooney (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: - I don't have time to investigate this right now, but Muboshgu, who wrote most of the article, may. Pinging him. Go Phightins! 11:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Honus Wagner played roughly 2/3 of his games at shortstop, but played the remainder at other positions. Jeter has only ever played shortstop (and a handful of games at DH). As a shortstop, Jeter has long surpassed Wagner in hits. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Most hits for MLB shortstop

Based on response to above request, I think it should be cited with explanation on Wagner's hits at other positions (which I guess will be moot once Jeter passes him outright.)—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation #110 in the article (Feinsand, Mark (August 16, 2009). "Derek Jeter becomes all-time hit leader among shortstops as Yankees routed by Mariners". New York Daily News. Retrieved October 7, 2010.) states that Jeter had just passed Luis Aparicio for the most hits as a shortstop. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I could have swore there was something somewhere. Maybe it would helpful to have some explanatory note similar to what is there for footnote d, if we can find a breakdown of how many of Wagner's hits were as SS.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2014

In the 2014 section of, it is stated that "On August 9th, Jeter tied Honus Wagner for sixth on the all-time hits in MLB history." Derek Jeter actually passed Wagner on August 9th, so if someone who could edit this would do that, it would be appreciated.

2000srg (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

statistics

his statistics need updating — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtudBmao (talkcontribs) 00:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"and has a .351 batting average in the World Series" should be changed to .321

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jeterde01.shtml?redir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.178.33 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

Jeter's .351 World Series batting average is stated twice in the article. It should be changed to .321

Here are two sources: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jeterde01.shtml?redir http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/playerpost.php?p=jeterde01&ps=ws

12wikiuser (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBagumba (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Postseason heroics

I have no idea what this supposedly means. It sounds like some kind of sportswriting hyperbole/cliche, but I really dont know what it means. Please clarify in what these heroics consist. Preferably with an explanation of why they only occur postseason.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. I am sorry for my terse edit summaries; it looked like drive-by tagging to me because I missed this message at the bottom of the talk page. Forgive me. Anyway, postseason heroics essentially mean outstanding play in the postseason, which is what I changed it to ... since the postseason occurs in November, he's been called Mr. November. That's all. Go Phightins! 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

|finaldate=September 28 |finalyear=2014 |finalteam=New York Yankees ~Kyle (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember! Wikipedia will be here next year, and the next, and the next, and the next . . .

The article starts off with the sentence

"Derek Sanderson Jeter (/ˈdʒiːtər/) (born June 26, 1974) is an American baseball shortstop who is playing in his 20th and final season in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the New York Yankees."

If you must use the present tense, then at least include which year you are talking about. Otherwise your sentence will be immediately out of date next year and someone will have to fix it.Daqu (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning on updating that sentence on September 29, when the season is over. No need to worry, this article has many eyes and many keyboards to attend to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear it will be updated. But :I am worried, because there should never be a statement referring to "now" as a specific time. Articles should always list events by when they occurred.Daqu (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2014

Under Early life, add this ref to his ancestry: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/profiles/derek-jeter/ Born Champions: Derek Jeter, PBS, Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates, Jr., September 39, 2914 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: unsure what this adds to his early life section. Nothing in that section is tagged for needing sources and this source, reliable as it seems, doesn't actually say much about his early life. Cannolis (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Derek Jeter : Criticism & Response to Criticism

Criticism

In the midst of Derek Jeter's farewell tour in 2014, ESPN analyst Keith Olbermann drew headlines during his show on ESPN2 by criticizing the shortstops career. Olbermann began the program by stating "Derek Jeter is not the greatest person in human history. He did not invent baseball. He did not discover electricity.He is not the greatest shortstop who ever lived."[14] Prior to Olbermann, there have been few respected sports analysts that have chosen to comment on the New York Yankees captain's career from a negative perspective. Much of Olbermann's criticism was blaming the New York Yankees success over the last 20 years for covering up the blemishes on Derek Jeter's career. Confused with the special treatment Jeter had received throughout the course of the season, Olbermann reviewed specific statistics to support his argument against Jeter which included:Wins Above Replacement(WAR),career On-Base Plus Slugging(OPS) and Defensive Runs Saved(DRS). After showing below average percentages in each of these categories, Olbermann compared Jeter's current vs. his career in three main offensive statistical categories [[Batting Average, On-Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage. Jeter has been significantly lower in all three categories prompting Olbermann to claim "if Jeter benched himself or hit 8th or 9th, the Yankees might actually be in the wildcard race not just mathematically barely alive"[15] , referring to the Yankees positioning in the 2014 MLB American League standings.

Much of Derek Jeter's criticism was created by Keith Olbermann, but also shared with Sports Illustrated contributor Allen St.John and SportsNet New York analyst Chris Carlin. St.John who created an article tited Icon or Overrated The Two Stats That Measure Derek Jeter's Greatness, or Lack Thereof discussed both sides of Derek Jeter's career. He would being by explaining Jeter's Hall of Fam Monitor (HOFM) which is a predictive statistic. Jeter's HOFM sits at 337 points which is 207 points above what a player is required to enter Cooperstown. St.John would then counter his pro-Jeter discussion and further support Olbermann's statistical rant. Similar to Olbermann's criticism on Jeter's Wins Above Replacement (WAR) stating "The bottom line: Jeter's JAWS total is 57.0 which ranks him only 12th among shortstops behind Bill Dahlen and Alan Trammell, who aren't in the Hall of Fame."[16] St.John would continue the disapproval of Jeter's on-field career by attacking his defensive play. He would explain that "Only three times in his 20-year career did Jeter post a positive defensive WAR, which means that for most of the two decades the Yankees would have gotten better defense from a shortstop they found in AAA."[17] St.John and Olbermann caused awareness of Jeters decline in offensive statistics due to the attention gained by his "farewell tour" throughout the 2014 MLB season. Both men concluded their criticism by mentioning the successful history of the Yankees and players from different generations such as Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson and Joe DiMaggio and comparing their statistics with Jeter's. This was an attempt promote their belief of Jeters mediocrity.

Chris Carlin continued the criticism on SportsNet New York. Contrary to Obbermann and St.John, Carline avoided statistical information to support his criticism. His focus was on Derek Jeter's attitude and behaviour regarding his personal celebration. He began by calling the Yankee captain "a fraud"[18] and then followed that up by saying "you (fans) are all suckers"[19] referring to the fans embracing of Jeter. He then said that he was "shocked he (Jeter) is not hurting from patting himself on the back all year."[20] Carlin would proceed to attack Jeter's farewell Gatorade commercial calling it a "pure fantasy and commercials rarely honestly portray the product or the personality featured in them."[21] continuing to expose what he believed was fraudulent behavior.

Response to criticism

The criticism surrounding Jeter would have little effect on the 14-time all-star as he declined any comments regarding Olbermann. However, on September, 26 2014 the New York Yankees faced the [[Baltimore Orioles" in Jeter's final game at Yankee Stadium. A mere three days removed from Keith Olbermann's controversial comments, Jeter would answer the criticism with a memorable performance. In the 7th inning, Jeter would come through with a base hit single to give the Yankees a 5-2 lead over the American League East champion Orioles. Baltimore would post 3 runs in the top of the ninth to eventually tie the game 5-5. After Jose Pirela led off with a single and Brett Gardner sacrificed, the stage would be set for Derek Jeter. The Yankee shortstop came through in the clutch with a walk off single to win the game for the Yankees. Afterward Jeter would comment on the magical performance by simply saying "To be honest with you, I don't know how I played this game"[22] referring to his emotional state prior to the beginning of the game. Yankees manager Joe Girardi added "I don't think there's a more fitting way to an end"[23] after being asked about Jeter's on-field performance. No negative questions or comments similar to the ones made by Olbermann, St.John and Carlin's were asked to Jeter during the post-game press conference. There have been no further comments to date from Olbermann, St.John and Carline regarding Derek Jeter.

Further responses to the original comments by Olbermann have circled. Forbes magazine contributor David Lariviere had a strong opinion regarding Olbermann's comments stating "ESPN should be ashamed by Keith Olbermann's rant about Derek Jeter."[24] He followed up the original statement by ignoring the negative statistical information provided originally by Olbermann and replaced it with statistics that support Jeter. Lariviere noted that "In 16 postseasons, the captain had 200 hits, including 20 home runs and 61 RBIs, for a .308 batting average. He batted .321 in seven World Series."[25] Several other respected media personalities followed Lariviere such as Tony Kornheiser Show producer Mark Sterne and ESPN employee Colin Cowherd. Both Marc Sterne and Colin Cowherd would expose the positive side of Derek Jeter's career. Sterne would start by describing Jeter as "more than just numbers. Jeter is a guy who plays the game the way it should be played."[26] Cowherd chose to responed to criticism against Jeter by taking the average Yankees fan's standpoint stating "Jeter was not about statistics, but for the the hardworking fan"[27] Cowherd followed with other examples of the average Yankee fan to support his stance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DCorvari (talkcontribs) 13:55, 14 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. From what I can tell, Olbermann's point is that their are greater all-time Yankees, not that Jeter is not a fine player. Criticism of his defense already exists in the article, as are some details of his offensive struggles late in his career. Are there specific points in the current article that you feel are inaccurate, or need expansion? Bear in mind that neutrality is an accepted standard on Wikipedia. Per WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tom Robinson (2001-10-05). "Yanks' Jeter shows again he's the real Mr. October". The Virginian-Pilot.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Nick Acocella. "The Hunt for Mr. October". MSNBC. 
  3. ^ Ronald Blum (2001-10-04). "October is Jeter's time". Associated press.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Jimmy Gollen (2007-9-17). "Jeter's homer breaks 8th-inning tie, Yankees beat Schilling and Red Sox 4-3". Yahoo! Sports.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b c Olney, Buster (March 3, 2001-03-03). "Baseball; No Need for a Foe if A-Rod Is a Friend". The New York Times. Nytimes.com. Retrieved July 13, 2012.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ a b "A-Rod: friendship with Jeter has cooled". NBC Sports. Associated Press. February 20, 2007. Retrieved May 30, 2010. 
  7. ^ "Buddy system: Jeter, A-Rod iron things out over Esquire flap". Sports Illustrated. AOL Time Warner. Associated Press. March 3, 2001. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 
  8. ^ Kernan, Kevin (March 9, 2010). "A-Rod close again with old pal Jeter". New York Post. Retrieved February 28, 2011. 
  9. ^ O'Connor, Ian (May 19, 2011). "Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez friendship took time to develop". ESPN New York. ESPN Internet Ventures. Retrieved July 13, 2012. 
  10. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/16/sports/baseball-friendship-of-2-stars-is-safe-after-they-were-on-the-outs.html
  11. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/16/sports/baseball-friendship-of-2-stars-is-safe-after-they-were-on-the-outs.html
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honus_Wagner
  13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3,000_hit_club
  14. ^ Olbermann, Keith. "Keith Olbermann rips Derek Jeter in 7 minute rant". NBC New York. Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  15. ^ Olbermann, Keith. "Keith Olbermann rips Derek Jeter in 7 min rant". NBC New York. Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  16. ^ St.Jon, Allen. "Icon or Overrated? The Two Stats That Measure Derek Jeter's Greatness, Or Lack Thereof". Forbes. Retrieved 12 October 2014. 
  17. ^ St.John, Allen. "Icon or Overrated? The Two Stats That Measure Derek Jeter's Greatness, Or Lack Thereof". Forbes. Retrieved 12 October 2014. 
  18. ^ Axisa, Mike. "TV shock jock on Jeter: 'This clown's a fraud and you are all suckers'". CBS Sports. Retrieved 10 October 2014. 
  19. ^ Berg, Ted. "TV analyst on Derek Jeter: 'This clown's a fraud and you are all suckers'". USA Today Sports. Retrieved 13 October 2014. 
  20. ^ Raissman, Bob. "Pundits stirring up controversy about Yankees' Derek Jeter are self-serving". Daily News. Retrieved 13 October 2014. 
  21. ^ Raissman, Bob. "Pundits stirring up controversy about Yankees' Derek Jeter are self-serving". Daily News. Retrieved 13 October 2014. 
  22. ^ Press, Associated. "Derek Jeter thanks New York after emotional farewell game in the Bronx". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 October 2014. 
  23. ^ Fitzpatrick, Mike. "Derek Jeter ends Yankee Stadium farewell with game-winning hit". CTV News. Retrieved 11 October 2014. 
  24. ^ Lariviere, David. "ESPN Should Be Ashamed By Keith Olbermann's Rant About Derek Jeter". Forbes. Retrieved 14 October 2014. 
  25. ^ Lariviere, David. "ESPN Should Be Ashamed By Keith Olbermann's Rant About Derek Jeter". Forbes. Retrieved 14 October 2014. 
  26. ^ Sterne, Marc. "Why Keith Olbermann is Wrong About Derek Jeter". The Daily Caller. Retrieved 14 October 2014. 
  27. ^ DiPietro, Elizabeth. "A Yankee Fan’s Response to Keith Olbermann’s Comments About Derek Jeter". Double G Sports. Retrieved 14 October 2014. 

I'm going to cut down the introduction of this page

I would suggest that there are a few issues with the introduction of this page, so I'm going to make a few edits so: there's less mention of how many World Series he has won (not an individual achievement), there are fewer counting stat numbers in the first paragraph, there's less listing of his individual awards in the text (as you can see these easily in the infobox). At the moment there's a lot of stuff presented that could be included elsewhere in the text, and not that many citations.

Also the tone is a little hagiographical at times: "Jeter is regarded as a central figure of the Yankees' success of the late 1990s and early 2000s for his hitting, baserunning, fielding, and leadership … Throughout his career, Jeter contributed reliably to the Yankees' franchise successes … Jeter has earned the nicknames of "Captain Clutch" and "Mr. November" due to his outstanding play in the postseason … Teammates and opponents alike regard Jeter as a consummate professional and one of the best players of his generation." I'm going to try and change these to something more neutral. RWyn (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering this is a featured article, you should be careful with making drastic changes. Spanneraol (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Good point, I will make sure I tread lightly. Do you agree with the points I raised above? RWyn (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that I do, but I'll keep an open mind. I took this page to GA and then FA status, and you can see the reviews and all of the discussion linked at the top of the page. This was also approved for WP:TFA in September, with nobody raising any quality objections. I suggest that if you can think of ways to improve the intro, let's discuss them here first. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll post any ideas here for discussion before editing. One suggestion I would have is that all these career accolades may not deserve to be included in the lead section of the article:
  1. five-time World Series champion - I would contend it's not a personal accolade
  2. Yankees' all-time career leader in hits (3,465), doubles (544), games played (2,747), stolen bases (358), times on base (4,716), plate appearances (12,602) and at bats (11,195) - I feel like the intro isn't really the place to say how many times Jeter has reached base for the Yankees. Something like "Jeter is the Yankees all-time leader in hits, doubles, stolen bases and plate appearances" with appropriate citations for each would be a better level of detail for the intro
  3. 14 All-Star selections - No complaints about this one
  4. five Gold Glove Awards - I feel like this shouldn't be mentioned in the intro in the form of a list, since it's available close by in the infobox. However, it would be useful to work into a profile of his characteristics as a player.
  5. five Silver Slugger Awards - Exactly the same as above
  6. two Hank Aaron Awards - Exactly the same as above
  7. and a Roberto Clemente Award - I would suggest that this isn't relevant enough to him as a baseball player to deserve including in the intro.
  8. 3000 hit club - Big milestone, but maybe you could leave this in the infobox and include him being sixth in all-time hits.
  9. career sixth all-time in career hits - Very important stat that means a lot to a lot of people.
  10. all-time MLB leader in hits by a shortstop - Good stat for illustrating that he was one of the best offensive shortstops ever.
What do you guys think? RWyn (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll let Mubo speak to most of this since this is kindof his baby... but I disagree with you on much of this... the lead is supposed to summarize his career and the awards hes won are part of that.. and I especially object to removing the world series championships from the lead as that is part of his legacy. Spanneraol (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@RWyn: WP:LEAD says a lead "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview ... The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." I don't think we should necessarily expect a reader will look at the infobox, so repeating information in the lead should not be a problem. Also, the infobox itself is a summary of the subject's key highlights, so it would be expected most (if not all) of it would be repeated from the lead. I do agree that the actual numbers of the Yankees' stats are probably not needed in the lead. Also, citations are generally not needed in the lead per WP:LEADCITE.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Herpes

There have been many articles about Jeter passing HPV to numerous stars

http://www.brobible.com/sports/article/derek-jeter-herpes-tree/

http://thestir.cafemom.com/celebrities/168293/14_women_derek_jeter_dated/113340/jessica_alba/7

http://jezebel.com/292440/did-derek-jeter-gave-poor-jessica-alba-herpes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.11.152 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with these rumors. I've heard them before. But that's all they are: rumors. It's not encyclopedic and can't be added as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Typo that needs fixing: "middling"?

Shouldn't "middling reliever" read "middle reliever"? As far as I know "middling" means "average", often pejoratively "mediocre". Based on the surrounding context, it seems unlikely that is what Jeter intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czetie (talkcontribs) 19:49, June 6, 2015‎

Not sure whether "middling" or "middle" was intended. I deleted the entire sentence, since it seems irrelevant to an encylcopedic entry. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Updated Picture

As Jeter went along with his career, there always has to be a time to move on. Didi Gregorius was waiting a long time for a position, since jeter retired he deserved it. Jeter planned to retire on the end of 2014 season.

Facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.236.217 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Derek Jeter needs an updated picture, as the one from 2008 is six years outdated. Joey Gallo (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried updating it once, but it got reverted...--Stemoc 15:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to change it. There isn't anything about it that's outdated. Further, the photo is a Featured Picture, meaning it has been recognized as one of the best photos on Wiki. So why replace it with one that isn't? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Because even though its a FP, its nearly 7 years old and the athlete has retired, picture like that is appropriate within the article but not apt for the infobox...no one outside of USA knows who Jeter is (or cares) so its actually best to use an image of him which is "recognisable" so anyone that comes across the article and has no knowledge of who Jeter is atleast can see what he looks like.. --Stemoc 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
2007
2014
I think a portrait would be preferred for an infobox. In some cases, there aren't any suitable ones. For Jeter, though, these twoseem like good candidates. As he hasn't changed that much, I'm not as concerned about getting the most recent shot.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I should've replied to this at the time. Those are both good portraits, but I still prefer the FP in the infobox. If anything, the fact that he looked the same in 2007 as he did in 2014 shows that the infobox photo of 2008 isn't outdated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Update to Business Interests

This should go under the “Business Interests” section of Derek’s page, following the paragraph about The Players’ Tribune.

In 2013, Jeter became a partner of Luvo, a food company focused on developing and marketing nutritious frozen food products. Jeter is also Luvo’s Brand Development officer, involved in new product development and strategic partnerships.

[1]

DexterJulesjr (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we can add something similar to that. I'd prefer to use this news source over the Luvo website. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Derek Sanderson

Was Derek Sanderson Jeter named after the Boston Bruins' hockey player Derek Sanderson? Sanderson was a big name in the early 1970s, and Jeter was born in 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.197.18 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to suggest it's anything more than a coincidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2015

I would like to edit this article because there is some misinformation in this article.Dja2golfer (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Dja2golfer

Dja2golfer (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.. This article is protected from editing by unconfirmed users due to frequent vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Engagement to Hannah Davis

It was made public today that Jeter became engaged to Hannah Davis last weekend.

http://my.xfinity.com/articles/entertainment-eonline/20151028/b710863/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:402:4300:57FF:B15D:8CB6:5E9F:F7CF (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/derek-jeter-set-marry-hannah-davis-article-1.2413797 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:402:4300:57FF:B15D:8CB6:5E9F:F7CF (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, Jeter himself was asked about it today and was quoted as saying:

“In my career, I’ve always felt as though your private life is private,” Jeter, 41, said Wednesday at a luncheon for the Long Island Association held at the Crest Hollow Country Club in Woodbury.

“I don’t talk about it because I think some things you have to keep close to yourself. Some things are sacred. So, I’ve never addressed anything in my private life.”

When asked “All that notwithstanding, is it true?”

“No comment” Jeter replied.

"http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/derek-jeter-dodges-question-engagement-hannah-davis-article-1.2414946

In Jeter's article about his new dog, he casually referred to Davis as his "fiance". That's about as close as we're gonna get to "official" confirmation, so I've added it to the article, along with a mention of the cute dog. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Derek Jeter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Derek Jeter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

AL rookie of the year

In the article it says "Receiving all 28 first-place votes in the AL Rookie of the Year balloting, Jeter was the fifth unanimous choice for the award in its 50-year history."

Which is true, but key wording should be added to eliminate confusion because at the time he was the fifth, but since then there have been eight in the AL to get unanimous voting,

So I think it would be better if worded like this:

"Jeter received all 28 first-place votes in the AL Rookie of the Year balloting, at the time Jeter was the fifth unanimous choice for the award in it's 50 year history. Since then the total is now up to eight players, including Jeter, who have won the AL Rookie of the Year Award by unanimous decision.

Here's my source:

http://bbwaa.com/12-al-roy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke.Demma (talkcontribs) 01:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

It says, " is an American former professional baseball shortstop who " should be "is a former American professional baseball shortstop who"

2601:5C5:200:6E82:4535:CCD4:BB55:AABE (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done he is a "former professional baseball shortstop" not a "former American" - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

• Please expand under Business interests: Jeter Publishing is a multifaceted, co-publishing partnership between Simon & Schuster and Derek Jeter that includes adult non-fiction titles, children’s picture books, and middle grade fiction. Adult titles are published in conjunction with the Gallery Books imprint. [1] A main goal of the imprint is to publish books that share remarkable stories, interesting personalities, and valuable lessons under Jeter’s editorial guidance. As Derek stated, “I’ve always been interested in content. I’ve always been interested in people’s stories…How do they get from point A to point B. I think a lot of times people automatically assume someone’s successful overnight, but I’m interested in learning how they got there, the bumps in the road and how they turned that into success...books on leadership, inspiration, overcoming obstacles, books of courage, motivation. These are all books and stories that I am interested in publishing." On October 1, 2014, Jeter launched, The Player’s Tribune, a new media platform that provides an unbiased and unfiltered voice for professional athletes. The Player’s Tribune offers a daily medium for first-person stories directly from athletes.[2] Content ranges from direct written reflections, thoughts, and experiences to videos, podcasts, and player polls, bringing fans closer to the games and stars they love.[3] ExcelSportsManagement (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I can look into expanding the business interests section sometime this week. It won't be the text you propose, but it can capture the extent of what The Player's Tribune and Jeter Publishing has done. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: Muboshgu appears to be working on this sometime this week. -- Dane2007 talk 05:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

References