Is Derek Jeter Overrated?

Before I start this rant I would like to say that even though I hate the New York Yankees with passion, I do love to watch Derek Jeter. Jeter is tough, he plays every game like it is a World Series contest and he has been consistently great since debuting in 1995. It's just that I don't think he is one of the best shortstops in baseball history. Hell, he's not even the best shortstop on the Yankees. On this past Friday night I was talking baseball with some friends. Innocent stuff. Some trivia was tossed around and everyone was chipping in their two cents. Good times. It was around the time someone asked who the 1995 NL MVP was -- the same year our Mo Vaughn took home the AL MVP -- that I got to thinking about Jeter and how much his association with the Yankees helps his place in history. When Barry Larkin was announced as the '95 NL MVP, one guy in the group said he didn't deserve the award. I shot back that he did and that Larkin was one of the most underappreciated stars of his era, mainly because he was stuck in Cincinnati for his 19-year career. I added in that if Larkin was a Yankee from 1996-2007 (like Jeter) that he would have been valued much higher by baseball fans. The ensuing argument led me to do some research. Take a quick look at the following (career) statistics and guess which player is Derek Jeter and which player is Barry Larkin. Player One: .295 BA, 198 HR, 960 RBI, 939 BB, 817 K, 379 SB, .371 OBP, .444 SLG, .815 OPS Player Two: .318 BA, 188 HR, 904 RBI, 740 BB, 1238 K, 256 SB, .389 OBP, .463 SLG, .852 OPS Player One is Larkin and Player Two is Jeter. Jeter does have a higher batting average, OBP, SLG and OPS and will soon have more homeruns and RBI but take into account two things. 1. Larkin played the bulk of his career before the 1993 and 1998 expansion (which diluted pitching) and before the ballpark boom at the turn of the century that produced parks much more friendly to offense. Larkin played in the cavernous Riverside Stadium. 2. Larkin played the majority of his career hitting in lineups that featured Eric Davis, Chris Sabo, the young Paul O'Neill, Hal Morris, Billy Hatcher, the young Bret Boone and Sean Casey among others. Not bad players but certainly not the likes of Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, the older Paul O'Neill, Jorge Posada, Tino Martinez, Hideki Matsui, Jason Giambi, David Justice and Alfonso Soriano, all of who Jeter played with. I am positive that if Larkin's career started in 1996 and he was playing with the rich and powerful Yankees instead of the cash strapped Reds, his numbers would be more impressive. It is not fair to fault Jeter for having the opportunity to play where he does but is it fair to call him an all-time great because his opportunity is better than most others? Going further into the Larkin/Jeter debate, allow me to examine the accolades both players accumulated. Larkin was a 12-time All-Star, 3-time Gold Glove winner, 9-time Silver Slugger winner and the 1995 MVP. His team won the only World Series he played in, sweeping the A's in 1990 and the Reds made only one other playoff appearance in his tenure, losing to the Braves in the 1995 NLCS. Jeter is a 7-time All-Star, 3-time Gold Glove winner, a 1-time Silver Slugger winner and although he doesn't have an MVP, he has finished in the Top 10 6-times since 1998. He has been apart of four World Series champions (1996, 1998-2000), two other American League champions (2001, 2003) and has been to the playoffs every season since 1996. So, does a comparison between Derek Jeter and Barry Larkin prove that Jeter is overrated? Of course not. It does show that Jeter is a very good player -- who will be a first ballot Hall of Famer -- but that there are also many other good players who played his position. Jeter is a very good player who plays in a great situation, one that fits his competitive nature perfectly. Some players can't make it in New York. Jeter thrives in the Big Apple. I just hate hearing that Jeter is the top player at his position. Like I said earlier, he's not the best shortstop on his team (A-Rod is a superior shortstop, he should be playing there and Jeter should be at third base). In my opinion, he's not as good as a handful of shortstops currently playing -- including Jose Reyes of the Mets and Jimmy Rollins of the Phillies. And please don't make the argument that because he wins he is the best player. He won those four World Series on teams that could have replaced him with the 2007 version of Julio Lugo and still won. The Yankees of 1996-2000 were some of the greatest in baseball history. Certainly Jeter was an important part of those teams but I don't think he couldn't be replaced. Since winning the 2000 World Series -- and Jeter inheriting the role of Yankee captain -- the Yankees have lost in the World Series twice, the ALCS once and the ALDS three times. My point is that Jeter should be considered a very good, if not great, player but nothing more. He is fun to watch and if I ever have a son who plays the game the way Jeter does, I will be a happy father. However, his association with the Yankees and the city of New York add something extra to his status in the game which is unfair to other shortstops and other stars of his generation.