The Death of the Jeter-A-Rod Debate

From the Windup is Matt Snyder's extended look at some aspect of America's pastime each Thursday. It has returned from a playoffs-induced hiatus.

Though I'll admit I was rooting for the Yankees to win the World Series last week, a part of me was sad that Alex Rodriguez would get a World Series ring. No, I don't hate A-Rod, nor do I wish anything bad on him. I'm not one of those "haters."

This was selfish. My friends and I had now lost a main component of a storied -- and heated, at times -- bar debate. If you were starting a major league team and had the choice between the two, would you rather have A-Rod or Derek Jeter?

You see, about five years ago, my friends and I spent countless hours on sports debates that centered around individual players. Unless there were personal biases, there were two squarely divided camps -- the stat camp and the "winner" camp. When this all started, the stat camp, of course, sided with Alex Rodriguez, while the "winner" camp loved Jeter.

The stat guys would argue that winning is the product of an entire team, not just one individual. Thus, you'd want to start your team with the best player. Look at the numbers Rodriguez was putting up. You'd be crazy to suggest Jeter would be a better centerpiece to a potential championship team.

Rodriguez has won three MVPs. He's hit 583 career home runs and sports a career .965 OPS. He won two gold gloves at shortstop before being forced to move to third base, where he's also a solid defensive player. He can steal bases, with 297 in his career. If not for Albert Pujols, we'd pretty universally accept A-Rod as the best player in baseball, right? So, obviously, you should choose A-Rod over Jeter.

Then, the opposition would break into all sorts of cliches, such as, "gimme the proven winner," or "stats don't win championships," or "Jeter does the little things that don't show up in the box score." You'd hear things like "just gets the job done when it matters," "clutch" and "intangibles." Playoff failures of Rodriguez would be brought up and never let go.

Remember, Captain Jeter has four World Series rings. A-Rod's arrival in New York coincided with the Yankees' ALCS loss to the Red Sox. Does anyone else make plays running across the diamond and flipping across his body? Does anyone else catch balls while diving into the crowd and bloodying his nose? And he elevates his game in the playoffs because he's a winner. That's just who he is.

This drives the stat guys crazy. How can you measure this crap? There's no such thing as clutch; it's simply a haphazard coincidence when guys come through in big spots, they'd say. Plus, everything is still dependent upon teammates. Was it A-Rod's fault his teams weren't near as good as the dynasty Yankees? You build your team around the best player, not the most fortunate player, and it's still a team.

A funny aside here is that we also had a heated NFL debate at the time: Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady. And it was parallel in that Brady was the Jeter-like winner with intangibles and rings, while Manning was the stat-hound who hadn't won the big one.

Then, a few circumstances crippled the argument. Manning's Colts won the 2006 season's Super Bowl. In the Colts' four playoff victories, three of the games were, dare I say, vintage Brady. Manning stayed out of the way and let his defense and running game win it. He had won the big one. No longer could we hold the "winner" argument against him.

Next season, Brady shattered several NFL records en route to an undefeated regular season. His team then lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl. It was, dare I say, vintage Manning (pre-2006, of course).

The proverbial wind had been taken out of the sails of a classic sports bar debate. Sure, you can still argue who you'd rather have, but it's not near as fun when both guys have resumes with so few holes. If you can't berate the friend with whom you are arguing, it's not even fun anymore.

At least we still have the Jeter-A-Rod debate.

Sigh.

This isn't just as simple as A-Rod having a ring now, though. It was a total 180. What did you always hear about Alex Rodriguez? He might have the numbers, but he doesn't come through when it matters. He's not clutch. He'll hit into a rally-killing double play in a big spot before he'll ever knock in a game-winner.

What did you always hear about Jeter? He may not have the numbers, but he gets it done when it matters. He never hurts his team. He's a winner.

The results of the postseason illustrate this seismic shift.

Jeter hit .407 with a .947 OPS in the World Series. He got some hits that mattered, of course, but the biggest plate appearance that stands out in my mind was his rally-killing double play in the ninth inning of Game 5. In a shutteringly ironic moment, most people watching that game will probably tell you they had this thought after Jeter's at-bat: "If they get to A-Rod, the Yankees will win." Um, what? If only 2004 could see A-Rod now. And Jeter was the one who hit into the double play. Jeter was, dare I say, vintage A-Rod.

A-Rod had a 1.500-plus OPS through the first two rounds, but hit just .250 in the World Series. Of course, he managed to drive home six runs and score five times in six games. He walked three times and got hit by pitch another three times. He also came through in a huge way in the most pivotal game of the series. With two outs in the top of the ninth and a 4-4 tie in Game 4, Rodriguez delivered a rocket to the left field wall. It was an eventual game-winning two-run double (Jeter had struck out earlier in the inning, by the way). A-Rod had entered the at-bat 0-for-3 on the game (sounds like he didn't have the numbers but came through when it mattered, no? That's what winners do!). A-Rod was, dare I say, vintage Jeter.

Remember, this was also a season in which A-Rod's return to the lineup did wonders for Mark Teixeira in terms of protection (intangibles?) and Jeter hit .334 at age 35 while breaking the Yankees' career hits record -- formerly held by Lou Gehrig (stats?). Jeter also sported the second-highest OPS+ of his career and completely reversed the trend of being a sabermetrically inferior defensive shortstop.

All things considered, this has been the unraveling of Brady vs. Manning all over again.

Sure, we can still argue, but it's no fun when the other side of the argument can say, "well, I agree with you on that, but ... " Obviously, both players are great (future Hall of Famers, in fact) and any team would be lucky to have either, but it's no fun to discuss sports without having arguments like this.

There's no room for agreement in a sports bar argument. None. I guess we'll have to find a new topic.

By the way, I was always squarely in the A-Rod (and Manning) camp. I'd just rather have the best players than having to count on some sort of "intangible" that can't really be quantified.

So, to my friends who disagreed: Told ya A-Rod would eventually win. I'm happy to be vindicated, but sad the once-heated debate has lost its luster.