Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Dialed In > Discussion
Dialed In
— 

Friday, November 04, 2005

The 2005 No Glove, No Love Awards

The 2005 No Glove, No Love Awards

Many people don’t care much for the Gold Glove awards.  Dan Szymborski has been pointing out that fielders win multiple awards more often than they win the award once for nearly a decade.  It’s not the best voting system, but what the heck – it gives us something with which to pass the time during the off-season.

(Runs above average for player’s playing time)

These are nice selections.  Texeira had a good season.  Hudson has been a good second baseman.  Eric Chavez has been a great defender his whole career.  The whole AL outfield has great defensive reputations.

In the NL, the OF has the good reps. The infield is some kind of mish-mash of “I don’t have any idea who to vote for” feel to it.  Omar Vizquel was a great fielder a decade ago.  Derrek Lee is a very good fielder.  Castillo and Lowell?  Sounds like as good of a guess as anything else.  Of course Greg Maddux won.  I suspect he’ll win the year after he retires as well.

But were these picks really any good?  I mean, Derek Jeter?  I can hear Statheads’ brains sizzling over that.

With so much time on people’s hands these days, lots of people have taken to developing their own defensive evaluation systems.  I developed one about 8 years ago.  David Gassko (Primate: DSG) at The Hardball Times has one.  Most of us are familiar with MGL’s UZR system.  Even Primate “Chone” Smith (Primate: Rallymonkey) has worked one up.

Does it help to have multiple systems?  Most likely.  If two systems agree, it could be a coincidence.  If three agree, maybe you have something.  If four agree, I think there’s a good chance the fielding has been reasonably quantitated.

Sort of.

Of the listed systems, the MGL, Smith and Dial methods get their start from STATS ZR.  But MGL’s system changes direction immediately.  DSG’s system uses only traditional statistics to generate his data – this is a critical need to do any work pre-1990 or so.

You can read about DSG’s, MGL’s and “Chone’s” and see what you think.

The MLB Gold Glovers:



Position   American League	National League
1B	   Texeira (+6)	        Lee (+0)
2B	   Hudson (+2)	        L. Castillo (+4)
3B	   Chavez (+13)	        Lowell (-1)
SS	   Jeter (+1)           Vizquel (+11)
OF	   V. Wells (+6)	A. Jones (-0)
OF	   Hunter (-0)	        Edmonds (+4)
OF	   Suzuki (-2)	        Abreu (-6)
C	   Varitek (-4)	        Matheny (+11)
P	   Rogers	        Maddux

Here are mine:


Position	American League	   National League
1B	        Erstad (+9)	   Helton (+9)
2B	        Ellis (+11)	   Utley (+19)
3B	        Chavez (+13)	   Atkins (+6)
SS	        Uribe (+9)	   Jack Wilson (+16)
LF	        Crawford (+10)	   Floyd (+9)
CF	        Rowand (+13)	   Clark (+5)
RF	        Rios (+9)          Burnitz (+8)
C	        I. Rodriguez (+16) Y. Molina (+14)

Pitchers?  Um, Jim Kaat?  I’d actually agree with both MLB selections.  Both Rogers and Maddux are historically good fielders and their stats actually support their selections.

The question is why are the rest of these guys my selections, and why do I think the winners weren’t right?

We’ll go slot by slot:

1B: Texeira is a fine selection.  I think Erstad was a bit better, but it is a quibble, and Tex is a good fielder.  In the NL, Helton had a much better season than Lee defensively.  There’s no doubt Lee is a good fielder, as is Albert Pujols and Doug Mientkiewicz, but this season, Helton was the best.

2B: Plenty of AL fans praise Orlando Hudson’s defense, and I think it may be the turf.  I’m not saying he isn’t a good fielder, but Mark Ellis has been very good for several years, and I think he got utterly robbed.  But not as bad as Chase Utley.  Utley is a big guy, and hits lots of home runs, so he can’t possibly be a good fielder.  Well, he is, and he too got the shaft.  However, Mark Grudzielanek and Craig Counsell also had good seasons, so either of them would have been a pretty good choice.  But Luis Castillo?

3B: Eric Chavez is a good fielder.  He looks like a good fielder and his stats say he is a good fielder.  He has been one of the tops in the AL for most of his career.  No controversy to be had here, even when Chavez is injured, he’s still very good.  There was some disappointment in the selection of Torii Hunter because he missed a bunch of games.  I would like to award the NL 3B NGNL to Scott Rolen.  Bottom line is, Scott was the best fielder going into the season, and even though he only started 55 games, he was the best defensive third baseman in the NL this season.  However, he simply didn’t play enough innings.  It’s not strong year at the hot corner with Rolen out, so I’ll award the NGNL to a Met – David Wright.  Not really.  In a coin toss, I vote for Garrett Atkins of the Colorado Rockies.  In my heart, I want to vote for Rolen.

SS: Plenty of concern in the AL for the NGNL.  Derek Jeter wasn’t the worst player ever, but he wasn’t anywhere near the best.  Juan Uribe looked like one of the best in the World Series and his fans were saying he should win the award, and my ratings support that assertion.  In the NL, Omar Vizquel was pretty good, but Jack Wilson was significantly better.  Adam Everett was very good as well.  I am entertained that two of the top shortstops were in the World Series.

LF: The AL had two runaway left fielders for this award.  The other guy got the nod in other systems, but here, Carl Crawford gets the nod based on more innings and more chances.  Crawford and Coco Crisp were nearly a dead heat.  Cliff Floyd has looked terrible in LF in the past, hobbling around on sore legs.  Floyd was healthy this year and showed off a much more youthful energy in the field.  He also led the NL in assists.  Sometimes less than stellar fielders have good years with the gloves, just like they have good years with the bat.

CF: They say you have to be strong up the middle.  The Chicago White Sox were just that.  Aaron Rowand was the top centerfielder.  To be fair, it was very close with Jeremy Reed of the Mariners, but Rowand played 200 more innings.  Rowand should have been recognized for this award before.  He’s been one of the best since his first day in the league.  The NL was a mish-mash of average performers.  Jim Edmonds is a fine choice from the coaches, but I am giving the nod to Brady Clark, who just edges Edmonds and Corey Patterson out.

RF: The AL RF award is going to be tough to wrestle away from Ichiro Suzuki, but he’s not, and hasn’t been at any point in his career, the best right fielder in the American League.  He’s a fine outfielder, but he’s not the best at all.  For this past season, Alexis Rios prevented the most runs defensively and picks up the hardware.  In the NL, again there were no clear standouts.  Austin Kearns had another great year, and given the chance, could be one of the best defensive right fielders in the game.  However, Kearns didn’t play enough innings to outweigh the performance of Jeromy Burnitz.  Burnitz doesn’t generally give off the appearance of a good fielder, but he had a good season.

C: Ivan Rodriguez.  It’s a stunner.  Pudge is truly a great catcher.  I suspect he’ll make the Hall of Fame.  I am surprised voters would give it to anyone else, much less a mediocrity like Varitek.  Yadier Molina slips past Mike Matheny for the NL crown.  Matheny is a defensible choice – he is a good catcher and was second in runs prevented.

The St. Louis Cardinals had some outstanding defense: Edmonds, Grudzielanek, Rolen, Molina all could have won the No Glove, No Love Award.

In case some of you were curious, Eckstein was slightly below average (-4).

It’s clear to me that the biggest robbery was Chase Utley not getting any love for his great season.  If the Phillies get over the top next year, Utley will be the reason.  From what I have seen, he is the total package, offense and defense.

Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 07:09 AM | 58 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: November 04, 2005 at 07:57 AM (#1718605)
Whoa, Garret Atkins. To my untrained eye he didn't seem to have great range, but geez, there is at the top of the NL in ZR (among espn's qualifiers).

Chris (and Chone): thanks for these articles. It's nice to see this type of article again.
   2. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 04, 2005 at 07:57 AM (#1718606)
I like a system that has Rowand as the best in CF.
   3. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 04, 2005 at 08:02 AM (#1718608)
Supernintendo Furtado, Dial broke Primer.
   4. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 04, 2005 at 08:13 AM (#1718612)
Can we get the Pre Tag Police to give Dial a lesson?

Any chance of getting a more complete listing of your ratings, Chris?
   5. Buford J. Sharkley Posted: November 04, 2005 at 08:17 AM (#1718617)
Are there any defensive metrics for pitchers?

...I want something to show that Buehrle has deserved the Glove for the last two or three years. 'Cause he has.
   6. Guapo Posted: November 04, 2005 at 08:27 AM (#1718619)
Does it help to have multiple systems? Most likely. If two systems agree, it could be a coincidence. If three agree, maybe you have something. If four agree, I think there’s a good chance the fielding has been reasonably quantitated.

Sort of.

Of the listed systems, the MGL, Smith and Dial methods get their start from STATS ZR. But MGL’s system changes direction immediately. DSG’s system uses only traditional statistics to generate his data – this is a critical need to do any work pre-1990 or so.


If any of you sabremagicians is looking for a topic for an article, an explanation of why the various statistical methods of evaluating defense don't always identify the same players as being elite would be appreciated.
   7. Hal Chase Headley Lamarr Hoyt Wilhelm (ACE1242) Posted: November 04, 2005 at 01:02 PM (#1718655)
...I want something to show that Buehrle has deserved the Glove for the last two or three years. 'Cause he has.

So you've already chosen your conclusion and are now simply asking for evidence to justify it?
   8. Dr Love Posted: November 04, 2005 at 01:23 PM (#1718659)
In all the games I have seen Chase Utley play, I have never once thought "this guy is an average fielder" let alone excellent one.
   9. mgl Posted: November 04, 2005 at 01:41 PM (#1718666)
I posted my UZR GG awards (and lead glove awards which I like a lot better) on the NL and AL GG threads. I ditto most of Chris' numbers as far as UZR is concerned. The biggest "jokes" as far as the real GG's ar concerned, according to most metrics, including UZR, were Jetere and Varitek. I can see how they picked Jeter, but Varitek? Where did that come from? As Chris said, Pudge had an amazing season behind the plate (in terms of SB/CS, errors, pickoffs, PB, and WP). Several other catchers in the AL had good seasons. Varitek was not one of them. Jeter actually had a good season for him last year, UZR-wise (zero runs). This year, he was back to his old tricks, being among the worst SS in baseball (-16), as he has been for the last 6 or 7 years, other than last year (the typical variation in UZR by chance alone - one standard deviation - for full-time SS, is around plus or minus 8 runs, so an occasional zero for a true -10 or -15 SS is well withing reason)...
   10. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 01:46 PM (#1718669)
I have another article nearing completion that compares all the data available from DSG's method, Chone's, MGL's and mine.

There will be proffered explanations. Correlations will abound.

Please read the discussion after my D-## article for possible difference explanations.

LABHW - the pre tags don't appear to work in the preview. I'm an idiot.
   11. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 04, 2005 at 02:32 PM (#1718686)
Mostly fixed.
   12. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 02:40 PM (#1718691)
Thanks, Dan.
   13. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 04, 2005 at 02:58 PM (#1718696)
Question: Do all these defensive metrics measure the actual runs-saved by a fielder,
or instead,
the number of runs this fielder WOULD save behind an average pitching staff (in every regard:quality, handedness, style) in an average field facing an average distribution of hitters?
   14. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 03:08 PM (#1718706)
Screw you,
some of both. I do not adjust for those variables. I think a BIP tends to be a BIP, but part of that is access to generate a proper PF or other factor. MGL does "Park, etc" adjust. It is not dissimilar to a hitting PF.

DSG and Chone use assists, so they generate data that is completely from pouts made by the fielder.

I complete ruin the entire grouping by adjusting the quality of play (a ZR) and normalize all fielders to an equal set of chances, and how they would fair against that. I context-neutral the crap out of it.

Some of my older work went the other way (and I explain that in teh D-## article - I applied an average fielder to the player's chances. Now I apply the player's fielding to average chances. This si solely due to the availability of data, *BUT* my research indicates the difference in those two techniques is <5 runs *at the extremes*. For most fielders, there will be no difference or a difference of 1-2 runs.

If you keep asking such good questions, there will be less left for my next article.
   15. Pawapuro Posted: November 04, 2005 at 03:18 PM (#1718715)
Does anybody know what happend to the DRA(?) system that Michael Humphreys(?) posted here last year?
   16. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 03:28 PM (#1718731)
Pawa,
he wants to write a book and/or sell it to a MLB team.

Since zone data is widely available, I can't see why a team would purchse.
   17. Buford J. Sharkley Posted: November 04, 2005 at 03:34 PM (#1718739)
So you've already chosen your conclusion and are now simply asking for evidence to justify it?

Oh, it's bad practice. Downright reprehensible.

...But in this case, yes. There's no question about the Buehr-ster.
   18. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 03:36 PM (#1718742)
Sharkley,
have you compared him to the other pitchers at ESPN? Do that and make an argument.

TIA.
   19. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 04, 2005 at 03:51 PM (#1718764)
have you compared him to the other pitchers at ESPN? Do that and make an argument.

Well, not to speak for ol' Bufe, but Buehrle is definitely a better fielder than Rick Sutcliffe. 8-D
   20. SuperGrover Posted: November 04, 2005 at 04:55 PM (#1718883)
Speaking of pitcher's defense, does SB% against (including pickoffs) get factored into their ratings? I would think it would as that is a significant piece of a pitcher's contribution to preventing runs from scoring.
   21. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 04, 2005 at 04:59 PM (#1718893)
Hey Chris, aside from your irrational dislike for Andruw Jones, is there some reason he rated a "-0" whereas Derek Lee rated a "+0"? I mean, I'm no statistical whiz or anything, but outside of SQL queries, it seems to me nothing is nothing and I don't get the - or + tacked onto the zero.

Aside, of course, from your irrational dislike for Andruw Jones.
   22. JB H Posted: November 04, 2005 at 05:00 PM (#1718895)
I'm sure Varitek got the award because he has about the best reputation for pitch calling that I've ever seen.
   23. Spivey Posted: November 04, 2005 at 05:41 PM (#1718984)
I would imagine -0 was in between -0.5 and 0, while +0 was in between 0 and +0.5. Just a guess, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.
   24. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 04, 2005 at 06:35 PM (#1719071)
I think STATS may need to reassess its zone assignments at 3B, because my sense from watching NL games is that 3Bs are consistently playing further off the line than they have in the past. I've seen guys like Joe Randa making plays in the STATS F and G zones that they couldn't touch before. That's possibly why Atkins rates so high; because of the hitting environment in Coors, preventing extra bases could be more important to the Rox, so I'd guess he's playing closer to the line. He really does NOT have a lot of range. Need to watch some tape at some point.

-- MWE
   25. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: November 04, 2005 at 06:56 PM (#1719115)
In all the games I have seen Chase Utley play, I have never once thought "this guy is an average fielder" let alone excellent one.

Second that. With his bat if he really saved the most runs in baseball with his glove, well, you'd really have something. Sadly, no.
   26. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 04, 2005 at 07:25 PM (#1719176)
I haven't seen a lot of Buehrle, but I don't know about his GG qualifications. A .962 fielding percentage doesn't seem too hot for a pitcher (it might be the one position where fielding percentage might mean something). Well, the league average was actually .953 for pitchers, so maybe it is good ...

Career fielding percentages for some pitchers grabbed at random, and divided by the league average for a PCT+ figure ...
Player           PCT
Greg Maddux     1.013
Jim Abbott      1.013
Mark Buehrle    1.008
Bob Gibson       .996
Jim Kaat         .994
Mark Langston    .984
Mitch Williams   .880
Okay, so maybe that doesn't mean a damn thing. Gibson, Kaat, and Langston won 32 Gold Gloves between them, and I don't think anyone thinks they were awarded in error.

According to PMR, Buehrle was pretty good against grounders but pretty bad against bunts in 2004. FWIW.
   27. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 04, 2005 at 08:51 PM (#1719296)
In all the games I have seen Chase Utley play, I have never once thought "this guy is an average fielder" let alone excellent one.
I don't quite get the hate. :) Prior to seeing him play, I didn't have high expectations of Utley. He doesn't look like your typical 2B and has that funky throwing style. But my eyes tell me that he ranges left very well (lots of diving plays, so I might be overweighting them), is reasonably sure-handed, is okay to his right, feeds the DP ok, turns the DP nicely and has a good overall, if funky, arm for a 2B. Maybe he's not really a +19 in Dial points but I don't have a problem with him defensively at all.
   28. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 08:55 PM (#1719309)
I would imagine -0 was in between -0.5 and 0, while +0 was in between 0 and +0.5. Just a guess, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

This is correct. It's a rounding thing.

But I changed it from both plain "0" to spite Andruw.
   29. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 08:59 PM (#1719317)
I think STATS may need to reassess its zone assignments at 3B, because my sense from watching NL games is that 3Bs are consistently playing further off the line than they have in the past. I've seen guys like Joe Randa making plays in the STATS F and G zones that they couldn't touch before

I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. STATS defines the range by zones where >50% of plays are made. I made a slight miscue in my example regarding the difference between PS zones and STATS zones (or I didn't clarify). STATS 3B zone *does* include F. It didn't used to (your recollection is spot on), but it does now. STATS 3B zone is C-F (four zones), rather than a mirror of the 1B zones.

Next posting: "What is ZR?"
   30. Chris Dial Posted: November 04, 2005 at 09:01 PM (#1719321)
For pitcher fielding, usually POs and Assists and DPs (and errors) make for an excellent guideline for whether or not they are a good fielder.

I know - it doesn't cover chances, but pitchers effectively *create their own chances*, excepting bunts, which is the catcher's call mostly anyway.

A good fielding pitcher creates chances by snaring balls *most* pitchers miss.
   31. Buford J. Sharkley Posted: November 04, 2005 at 09:08 PM (#1719336)
It really comes down to--- the only defensive metric I trust is Win Shares. And Win Shares doesn't have values for pitchers.

...So, I just make assertions, with no way to ever back them up. Until Win Shares is changed, I guess.
   32. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 04, 2005 at 09:29 PM (#1719369)
I do know that maybe 3 or 4 of the 291 unearned runs Buehrle allowed in '05 were due to an error he made himself.
   33. VG Posted: November 04, 2005 at 09:36 PM (#1719377)
Buehrle made an error in Oakland that was particularly costly.

I don't care in the least about the GGs. I will say that Buehrle is an excellent fielder. He has a great move to first and he does handle a lot of comebackers that others miss, at least that's my impression. He generally makes good throws (although that error in Oakland was a throwing error).

As someone pointed out in a postseason Game Chatter (I would give credit if I could remember to whom it is due), White Sox pitchers this year seemed to generally be in good fielding position coming out of their deliveries. Only Neal Cotts seems to really fall off the mound, and even he's in decent fielding position -- he's not twisted around facing away from the plate like some pitchers end up -- but it's not ideal to fall toward third as much as he does.
   34. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: November 04, 2005 at 09:50 PM (#1719392)
Buehrle made an error in Oakland that was particularly costly.

I was at that game. That was a gut-punch. Ugh.
   35. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: November 04, 2005 at 09:59 PM (#1719407)
Surprisingly enough, the 17 unearned runs Buehrle gave up in 2005 weren't even a personal record - he gave up 18 in 2003 (a year in which he made no errors).

I'm pretty sure that he led the league in unearned runs, though - I think Westbrook was second with 16.
   36. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 04, 2005 at 10:02 PM (#1719416)
But I changed it from both plain "0" to spite Andruw.

You're so predictably petty sometimes. It's cute.
   37. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 04, 2005 at 10:24 PM (#1719440)
the only defensive metric I trust is Win Shares.

And that is absolutely the wrong one to trust. It is heavily based on Range Factor.

-- MWE
   38. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 04, 2005 at 10:27 PM (#1719444)
STATS defines the range by zones where >50% of plays are made.

I know. But what I don't know is when they make a determination that the zones need to be changed. If basic fielder positioning changes (as I think it has at 3B over the past couple of years), how long does it take for the zones to catch up?

-- MWE
   39. Walt Davis Posted: November 04, 2005 at 10:35 PM (#1719456)
If any of you sabremagicians is looking for a topic for an article, an explanation of why the various statistical methods of evaluating defense don't always identify the same players as being elite would be appreciated.

A couple years back, someone (Mike Emeigh? Dan Werr?) wrote a series of long articles (8 of them?) breaking down how each method worked and using Derek Jeter as an example. A few things have changed since, and I don't think it had DSG's system or DRA, but I think the major differences are still mainly the same.

I'd try to track it down, but the author pages don't seem to be working (heck, I had to google Mike just to find the link to BTF author pages).
   40. AROM Posted: November 04, 2005 at 11:06 PM (#1719484)
Do the zones used change from year to year?

If a zone on the edge has players make 51% of the plays one year, and 49% the next, do they change this year to year?

Or do they wait for a few seasons before making a switch?
   41. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 04, 2005 at 11:06 PM (#1719485)
It really comes down to--- the only defensive metric I trust is Win Shares.

Really? I wouldn't trust defensive Win Shares at all.
   42. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 04, 2005 at 11:11 PM (#1719491)
A couple years back, someone (Mike Emeigh? Dan Werr?) wrote a series of long articles (8 of them?) breaking down how each method worked and using Derek Jeter as an example.

It was Mike. I can't find jack in the archives, though ...
   43. pweber Posted: November 04, 2005 at 11:45 PM (#1719518)
Why don't they break zones down further--flyballs in this zone go to this position, grounders to position x, and line drives to position y? And why not have some sort of breakdown allocation in zones that two players can field balls in?
   44. Chris Dial Posted: November 05, 2005 at 12:08 AM (#1719535)
Or do they wait for a few seasons before making a switch?

I'll catch Mike's here as well.

They evaluate constantly. However, I bet you find the majority of GB singles are through zone G and zone U. As long as that's where hits go, it won't change.

They review regularly, but one fluke season on 51% (WHICH WON"T HAPPEN) because now they have a gaziullion plays.

basic fielder positioning changes (as I think it has at 3B over the past couple of years

I don't think it has...and I think you'll see that the vast majority of balls hit through G are singles.
   45. Chris Dial Posted: November 05, 2005 at 12:10 AM (#1719538)
Look at it this way, Mike - the edge of G *closest* to the line is *35* feet from the line. Third basemen aren't playing 20 feet from the line (I don't think).
   46. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 05, 2005 at 04:23 AM (#1719707)
Look at it this way, Mike - the edge of G *closest* to the line is *35* feet from the line. Third basemen aren't playing 20 feet from the line (I don't think).

If you see where the dot is on the STATS grid (which is their positioning assumption for 3B), it's in the middle of D, inside the cutout. Where I've been seeing 3Bs play is just on the "outside" of the cutout, just inside E. (The cutout, the curved portion of the infield between the dirt and grass at the corners, is on the D-E boundary).

-- MWE
   47. Chris Dial Posted: November 05, 2005 at 04:51 AM (#1719734)
Mike, fair question. Those grids are from 1993-4. STATS changed their zone assignments in 1997-98.
   48. PhillyBooster Posted: November 05, 2005 at 05:26 AM (#1719748)
I'd go as far as to say that Utley has risen to the level of "average", but definitely not any higher than that. Baseball Prospectus puts him at 1 Fielding Run Below Average, which meshes much better with my view of him.

I mean, in direct head-to-head competition, he had a lower range factor and turned DPs less often than Placido Polanco during their 2004-2005 time in Philadelphia, and they were standing in front of the same pitching staff.

Either Polanco is Ozzie Smith, or Utley's just not that good.
   49. pweber Posted: November 05, 2005 at 06:29 AM (#1719768)
To be fair, Polanco actually is a very good defensive player.
   50. AROM Posted: November 05, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1720025)
My brother lives in Philly and loves Chase Utley. I asked him about his defense a while ago, and he thought he was above average, though surprised that he would rate at the top in ZR.

The fans who filled out Tango's scouting report like Utley. He rated the 3rd best Philly defender behind Rollins and Polanco, with good marks in everything excpet arm strength and accuracy.

Second base is the 2nd best place on the diamond to hide a player with a weak arm. It hurts turning double plays, but the routine throw from 2B can be done by just about anyone.
   51. Paul M Hates Krispy Kreme Posted: November 05, 2005 at 11:48 PM (#1720201)
It hurts turning double plays, but the routine throw from 2B can be done by just about anyone.

Boy, what I wouldn't give for pre-registration Primer right about now....

As to the article, I'm sort of surprised to see Brady Clark in CF. I didn't watch all that many Brewer games, but I never heard any buzz about his D. He gets huge points around here for his scrappiness, but that's about it.
   52. Chris Dial Posted: November 06, 2005 at 12:11 AM (#1720226)
Well, as for Clark - he had a decent seasn - it wasn't great or anything. I mean 6 runs?
   53. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 06, 2005 at 10:34 AM (#1720549)
Aaron Rowand was bloody robbed...
Here's my "I could have lived with" list:

AL:
C: Pudge/Mauer
1B: Texiera/Galactic Emperor
2B: Hudson/Ellis
SS: Uribe/O-Cab
3B: Chavez/Crede
OF: Ichiro/Rowand/Crawford/Wells/Reed/Crisp

The biggest scrwejobs of the AL were to Rowand and the SS position.

NL:
C: Matheny/Molina/Schneider
1B: Helton/Lee/Pujols/Douggy Eyechart
2B: Counsell/Grudz
SS: Everett/Wilson/Furcal/Neifinator
3B: Wright/Bell
OF: Edmonds/Burnitz/Francoeur/Johnson
   54. sliver7 Posted: January 04, 2006 at 03:08 PM (#1805493)
And still, no love for Travis Lee.

How sad.

Yes, I know he didn't get quite a whole year in, and actually commited a whole four errors, but he's gotta get some recognition one of these days, right?
   55. Chris Dial Posted: January 04, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#1805515)
Lee had a decent season, but as you note he didn't get a whole season in.

Do you just want him mentioned - or would you prefer a listing of the starters and their performances?
   56. sunnyday2 Posted: January 04, 2006 at 05:07 PM (#1805652)
Somebody has probably already said this, but intuitively (or should I just say, visually, from watching the guys) it is hard to picture Floyd and Burnitz as being better than Edmonds, Andruw and Abreu. Some guys just look like good fielders or rather look like they ought to be good fielders, other guys just don't look the part.

(Signed)

Derek Jeter
   57. Chris Dial Posted: January 04, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#1805964)
Well, Edmonds and Jones compete against otehr CFs - last year's LFs were not good, and Floyd had a good season - even when we were watching it (and a bunch of assists)
   58. sliver7 Posted: January 06, 2006 at 05:29 PM (#1809162)
Do you just want him mentioned - or would you prefer a listing of the starters and their performances?


Just being mentioned would have been nice, I think. However, if you wanted to show the performances of all primary starters, I wouldn't object. ;-)

I just think it's a shame that a guy with a career .996 FPCT hasn't ever been serously considered for a GG.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6945 seconds
68 querie(s) executed