In Defense of Ian O'Connor's Derek Jeter Book

Yes, I'm going there. After many months of criticizing ESPN New York columnist Ian O'Connor for his writing a half-dozen fawning articles about Derek Jeter this winter without disclosing that he was writing a book that promised "unique access" to the Yankee captain, I actually feel compelled to defend O'Connor on a couple of things that I think he's being unfairly criticized for.

First off, there's the curious case of Jeter going up to New York Post writer George King the morning after the Post published a front-page story about the book. That article discussed how The Captain: The Journey of Derek Jeter revealed how Jeter's dislike of teammate Alex Rodriguez put A-Rod in the Yankee "snubhouse" (The Post's term, not O'Connor's!)

In a followup piece by King entitled "Jeter: It's not my book," Jeter didn't confirm or deny any of the tidbits. But he told King:

"Make sure everyone knows it's not mine," Jeter said. "I had nothing to do with that book."

Well, nobody had suggested that Jeter had actually authored the tome himself. But if he really had "nothing to do with that book," a book that has been promoted of giving "unique access" to Jeter, then why is he quoted talking to O'Connor in the book, according to an ESPN New York article about the tome? And why would Newsday columnist Ken Davidoff, who witnessed the King-Jeter conversation, write that "Jeter was aware [the book] was being written and agreed to be interviewed for it"?

Not to mention the fact that O'Connor did over 200 interviews for the book, many of whom were people in the Jeter camp. Did Jeter have control over everything written in O'Connor's book? Doubtful. But he did agree to be interviewed for it, and many of the people close to him were also interviewed for it. To say that he had "nothing to do with" the book is pretty disingenuous.

The second thing I will defend O'Connor on, albeit in a backhanded way, is the notion that he was somehow out to get Jeter. I've even heard him compared to Selena Roberts. Really? Roberts wrote nasty column after nasty column about A-Rod before writing an entire bile-filled book on him. O'Connor is just the opposite. In a town where burnishing the Jeter legend is par for the course with New York columnists, O'Connor is in a class by himself. Remember these moments, all written without any mention of the upcoming book?

* October 24, 2010:  In an article entitled, "Expect Yankees to splash cash on Jeter," O' Connor said, "I believe a fair deal would be for four years at $23 million per."

* October 28, 2010:  O'Connor writes a bizarre column tying in Joe Girardi's job fortune to Jeter's, saying that Girardi should get a warning with his next contract saying, "Change, or we'll hire someone else to bench The Captain."

*November 21, 2010: O'Connor interviews Jeter's personal trainer Jason Riley for a column. Ian managed to keep a straight face when Riley said "I think it's very realistic" for Jeter to play through 2017, and when Riley said, "The desire to be the greatest can never be turned down by Father Time."

O'Connor also uncritically ran this other Riley comment (basically, most of the article is an infomercial for Jeter and his trainer): "You can't put an age on the heart of an athlete, and Derek's got one of the purest hearts in sports," Riley said. "He's not going to allow himself to have another down year, if he even considers 2010 a down year. His internal drive separates him from others. I've worked with very few people who go after the game like he does." The piece ends with O'Connor saying, "If the trainer is right, this next contract Jeter signs won't be his last." Oy.

* December 5, 2010: Regarding the Yankees coming to terms with Jeter on a new contract, O'Connor wrote, "The Yankees could have offered Jeter minimum wage, free parking and cab fare to and from the ballpark, and he would have found a way to accept it."

* March 26, 2011:  "For now, Jeter is still Jeter, a future Hall of Famer who just needed some extra face time with the hitting coach, Kevin Long. With the contract done and the footwork adjusted, the smart money says the captain will make something of a comeback this year."


There's also O'Connor writing for the Bergen Record in spring 2009 that the Yankees would be a better team without A-Rod, and that the team should just release him. So it's not like O'Connor is a Team A-Rod writer.


I haven't gotten to read O'Connor's book yet, but I just find it hard to believe that O'Connor did a hatchet job on the captain. Go to Houghton Mifflin's web site and read the book description, and an excerpt from Chapter One, and see what I mean. Heck, the book starts with this line, "Like all good stories about a prince, this one starts in a castle." Does that sound like an author with an agenda to get Jeter? I don't think so. Just because O'Connor has written that Jeter isn't always perfect doesn't make this a smear.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Media, ESPN start to go after Derek Jeter this year

A few weeks ago, my high school classmate Steve asked me what I thought of Derek Jeter's season, and wondered if it meant anything that he was selling his NYC apartment. I don't think Jeter is retiring, or planning on leaving town, or anything like that. But I have noticed something different this year. For maybe the first time ever, he is getting a little criticism from the media. It started with the Bob Sheppard funeral debacle, continued when Jeter slumped for the second half of the season, and built up steam when he pretended to get hit by a pitch versus Tampa Bay.

Granted, there is still stuff like when Michael Kay practically had a coronary when Derek Jeter got a hit in the ninth inning of the season finale. Kay pointed out that the hit would put him at a season average of .270, as opposed to .269.Whoopee. Do you think Jeter's wiping his brow with relief over that? Come on now.

Anyhow, I noticed that in preparation for the playoffs, ESPN New York had a whole slew of articles this week about the captain, with varying degrees of criticism. ESPN is known for its Yankee-bashing, but they generally treat Derek with kid gloves. Not this time.

ESPN Insider columnist Matt Meyers posited the provocative theory that A-Rod is a better clutch player than Jeter. Wally Matthews slammed Jeter for not working with hitting coach Kevin Long until September 11, months into his slump. Andrew Marchand found a former GM who said Jeter was only really worth "twelve million dollars over two years."

But "Derek Jeter needs to put his ego aside," Johnette Howard's article on him, was the most harsh, even from the perspective of a Squawker who frequently notes that the shortstop's name is Jeter, not Jesus. She writes:

Jeter has done a terrific job of hiding his ego throughout his career with his aw-shucks, team-first mantra. But the disassembling of the 36-year-old Jeter's ability and sacred-cow status already has started. And we're about to get a peek behind the curtain and see just how big his ego really is.

Wait a minute here. For fifteen years, the media has lionized Jeter as nothing short of a baseball saint. Now, they tell us that he's an image-conscious phony with a big ego? Which one is it?

I'm not exactly shocked to hear of an athlete having a big ego. That pretty much comes with the territory, and it really doesn't bother me. You have to have an ego to complete at that level. But it was the media who told us for all these years that Jeter was somehow above such things.They built up the very pedestal that they're now starting to chip away at.

Howard continues:

As Jeter reminded people during one of his longer hitting slumps this season, "I've never really had a problem with confidence." But Jeter has shown a growing sensitivity to criticism in the past year.


If you ask Jeter a question about moving to a position other than shortstop someday -- something even iron man Cal Ripken Jr. had to do -- you're likely to get a long pause and perhaps a slightly annoyed look.


People who are around the Yankees every day say Jeter was even unhappy about the outside rebukes he caught for failing to represent the players at the recent funeral of the team's iconic public address announcer, Bob Sheppard.

Uh-oh. Wonder if he got ticked off over my Squawker column about the issue!

Howard then unfavorably compares Jeter to Julius Erving and Tom Brady. But after that, she appears to lose her nerve, and goes on a mini-rant suggesting that Jeter should stay at shortstop forever, even though she argued just a few paragraphs earlier that even Cal Ripken Jr. had to switch positions:

Compared to agreeing on the money or length of his next contract, Jeter's stated desire to keep playing shortstop until 40 and beyond is the easiest problem to solve. He's not moving anywhere. Why should he?


Jeter's subpar defensive range drives the stats junkies nuts. But really, how is Jeter's presence at shortstop hurting the Yankees?....


Jeter doesn't have terrific defensive range, but he still caught 98.9 percent of 100 balls he got to his season and had only six errors -- both career bests...

There's even a Jeter-friendly sabermetric argument to be made for why moving Jeter to the outfield would be worse.

You can't start your column criticizing Jeter for him acting peeved when anybody suggests he move from shortstop, and end it saying that he should stay in that spot for the rest of his career. That doesn't even make any sense. What a mess.


What do you think? Tell us about it!

Review: "The House of Steinbrenner"

So I finally got around to watching Barbara Kopple's "The House of Steinbrenner" today. I had very low expectations for it, given that it was part of ESPN's "30 for 30" series. I figured that it would be very critical. It really isn't as harsh as I expected, but it is something nearly as bad -- it's pretty dull.

The documentary is extremely slow-paced and ramblng; it takes a good 20 minutes (out of a 60 minute episode!) to even get into discussing Steinbrenner himself. And if you're looking for a coherent narrative explaining even how many titles the Yankees won under Steinbrenner, forget it. It's not that kind of documentary.

Instead. "The House of Steinbrenner" wastes a lot of time with those annoying "fan on the street" type interviews that I hate, where fans whine about every little thing, like the who says the new stadium isn't for "real fans" because it has a sushi stand. Dude, if you don't like it, don't eat there. Nobody has taken away your ability to get a hot dog at the new ballpark.

Aside from the behind-the-scenes footage of the old Stadium being dismantled, and some shots of the ticker tape parade, the most interesting thing is hearing Hal Steinbrenner talk. He's a very likeable guy, albeit neither colorful nor bombastic. (If only Hank had agreed to appear in this documentary, it would have been much more fun.) Hal looks like a combination of George Steinbrenner and Tucker Carlson, but sounds like his father on Xanax.

One of the big surprises was that Hal is a pilot; I can't imagine given what happened to Thurman Munson and Cory Lidle, that The Boss was too thrilled with his son's hobby, though. And seeing Thurm's picture behind Hal when he's going on about his love of flying was too spooky for me.

It made me sad to see the old clips of Steinbrenner, back when he was the larger-than-life character. And to see the Warner Wolf interview in 2004. where you could see in retrospect that he was starting to decline, although we didn't know it at the time.


"The House of Steinbrenner" isn't a complete waste of time, but it's also not exactly must-see TV, either. I made sure to write this review right after watching, because I figured I would forget it in a day or two! It's that inconsequential.