Ramirez? As in, Aramis Ramirez?

"I wouldn't have been disappointed if someone like...Ramirez had won it" is not a sentence anyone expects in a 3B gold glove thread.

Ramirez? As in, Aramis Ramirez?

UZR ranked him 3rd with +6. Feliz had +28 and Rolen had +24. mgl never posted what Wright or Jones had.

Larry Bowa used to complain about Dave Concepcion winning the Gold Glove, using this exact argument. Bowa made very few errors.

Aramis Ramirez had a surprisingly good season with the glove.

But after being told to give Feliz another look I realized that he was indeed a fine fielder. I had formed my initial impression on a bad series which was foolish on my part.

Chipper had an MVP type season and I doubt he garners many votes.

I wouldn't have been disappointed if someone like...Ramirez had won it" is not a sentence anyone expects in a 3B gold glove thread.

If they had a gold glove for the best fielding Ramirez, Aramis might well have won it.

Almost as surprising as Jones' failure to win the Gold Glove is his failure to win the Iron Man Award.

mgl never posted what Wright or Jones had.

At one of the mid-season updates, Wright was +12 and Chipper was -19.

Wright probably shouldn't have won, but at least the award went to someone who is good.

Occasionally an award, whether MVP or Gold Glove or Oscar, honors the most deserving person, but that's the rare exception.

Awards confirm consensus perception. They're not about excellence.

If they had a gold glove for the best fielding Ramirez, Aramis might well have won it.

DYK... There are 10 active Ramirezez in MLB and 8 inactive ones. I wonder if 18 is the highest number for a name that has a majority of its instances currently active in baseball.

Larry Bowa used to complain about Dave Concepcion winning the Gold Glove, using this exact argument. Bowa made very few errors.

As did Ken Reitz, vs. Mike Schmidt...

Been a year of almost for Chipper. Had an awesome year, but his team misses the playoff. Just misses the Batting Title. Is wrongfully denied the Silver Slugger.
Was hoping that in a down year for 3B in the NL, he might get the GG thrown his way as a consolation. Sadly, that hope was busted. Man is allowed to be bitter. The GG would have removed any and all doubt about first ballot HoF candidacy!

Here's hoping he goes in soon after he's eligible, or he's going to be a bitter old man before he's 50.

Is wrongfully denied the Silver Slugger.

In a pig's eye. Counting stats count. David Wright gave the Mets 111 extra PA of great hitting beyond what Chipper gave the Braves. Even if Chipper may have been a better hitter for the 134 games he was there, he sure as hell wasn't for the extra 25 games Willie Randolph was able to write David Wright's name into the line-up and Bobby Cox didn't have his best hitter available.

Silver sluggers aren't made out of tin foil.

Wright didn't deserve the Gold Glove but neither did Jones. Wright is a better fielder than Jones.

Counting stats count.

They sure do. Chipper had a grand total of one less HR and five less RBIs despite the 100+ difference in PA.

Look, I thought it was a toss-up between Wright and Jones and that both were deserving. It could've gone either way. But the fact that Met fans are completely discounting Chipper's chances simply because he played in less games is utterly absurd.

In a pig's eye. Counting stats count. David Wright gave the Mets 111 extra PA of great hitting beyond what Chipper gave the Braves. Even if Chipper may have been a better hitter for the 134 games he was there, he sure as hell wasn't for the extra 25 games Willie Randolph was able to write David Wright's name into the line-up and Bobby Cox didn't have his best hitter available.

Silver sluggers aren't made out of tin foil.

Its best hitter at the position, not who gave you most value. Sure, durability would be an issue if Chipper had played 110-120 games, but 135 to 160 isn't that big a difference.

Wright
325/416/546 , 150 ops+, 330 TB, 30 HR, 42 2B, 1 3B

Chipper
337/425/604 , 166 ops+, 310 TB, 29 HR, 42 2B, 4 3B

Chipper basically matched Wright's counting stats in 25 less games ( or 100 less PAs ), obviously has superior rate stats. I don't see how Wright deserves it over him. By your definition, Pierre and Andruw should be in the discussion for the CF Silver Slugger

But the fact that Met fans are completely discounting Chipper's chances simply because he played in less games is utterly absurd.

I think the absurdity's on the other foot here, Corny. It was a Braves' fan who made the categorical statement that Chipper was "wrongfully denied" the Silver Slugger. I simply said that was wrong, and you seem to agree since you say it was a toss-up and it could have gone either way.

And as for counting stats counting: David Wright got on base 296 times in his 711 PAs. Chipper got on base 255 times in his 600. 44 extra times on base is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm willing to bet the guys the Braves put in the line-up in those 26 games weren't getting on base at anything like that rate. His absence counts.

Its best hitter at the position, not who gave you most value.

Well, it seems to me that the best way to judge who is the best hitter at the position is who gave his team the most offensive value. I don't see why taking playing time into account is suddenly valid if it's 110 games but not if it's 130. It counts for however much it counts -- it hurts more if the guy misses 60 games, less if he misses 30 games. But either way, it hurts compared to a guy who plays virtually every day.

By your definition, Pierre and Andruw should be in teh discussion for the CF Silver Slugger

Your argument is valid. This statement isn't. Sam isn't arguing that plate appearances are the most important thing when discussing awarding the silver slugger even when the performance is abysmal. He's just saying more playing time should be the deciding factor when the differences in rate production is small.

Seriously though, what a fantastic season by Chipper. I knew it was excellent but hadn't really looked at his season ending numbers.

It counts for however much it counts -- it hurts more if the guy misses 60 games, less if he misses 30 games. But either way, it hurts compared to a guy who plays virtually every day.

The point being, this is not an award for the person who gave most value to the team at that position, but who the best hitter at that position is. PT counts, and IMO, if you don't have the min number of PAs to qualify for the batting title, the player shouldn't be in the discussion. But when a player has missed some 25 less games, yet matched the counting stats of his competitor because of his superior rate stats, there is no doubt in my mind who the best hitter at that position was in that year. And no, it isn't the more durable player.

He's just saying more playing time should be the deciding factor when the differences in rate production is small.

I don't disagree. But the point stands that Chipper nearly matched Wright's counting stats despite the big difference in PA.

Sam,

Fair enough. I thought I smelled a bit of condescending "Chipper Jones? ##### please" in your post. Like I said, I thought it could've gone either way. I'm fine with Wright winning, and I actually defended his win over at Braves Journal, so I'm not completely biased here.

I don't disagree. But the point stands that Chipper nearly matched Wright's counting stats despite the big difference in PA.

Not exactly. Chipper matched Wright's counting stats in the power departments but got on base ~40 less times as Wright got 25 more hits and walked 12 more times as well as getting hit by 6 more pitches. Those are relatively big differences. Like you said, it was a toss-up that could have gone either way.

So David got into more games and got on base more often, so how many runs does that translate into? Well, according to BP Wright has a 6 BRAR advantage on Chipper.

David Wright got on base 296 times in his 711 PAs. Chipper got on base 255 times in his 600. 44 extra times on base is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm willing to bet the guys the Braves put in the line-up in those 26 games weren't getting on base at anything like that rate. His absence counts.

You meant 41, of course. 41/111 is a .370 clip. The Braves largely used Yunel Escobar to fill in when Chipper Jones was injured. Look him up; it'd be good for you.

Wright also had 29 more steals and 7 less DPs.

I'm no mgl, but I have my own fielding system built with THT BIS stats. Wright had fantastic range, even though he was sloppy in his zone and made a few errors. After a few mathematical adjustments and calculations to fix the raw data provided, I got that Wright saved +33 runs over the course of the season as opposed to what the average Major League fielder would have done in his place while playing for his team. As you may guess my baseline is different from UZR's, because for every fielder I figure out what their performance was in terms of run saving/costing as opposed to what the average fielder would have done in their place. My leaderboard is:
Wright +33
Feliz +28
Zimmerman +23
Glaus +17
C. Jones +14

Wright really had a fantastic season because of his range. I don't know if THT stats are flawed, but even his raw totals just look outstanding outside his zone.

Feliz has been a ridiculously good defender. Here are the above guys, it total runs saved, not per 150, as I agree any award should be based on total and not "rate" performance (of course).

Feliz +24 138 def. games
Glaus -5, 111
Jones +7, 103
Wright +3, 159
Zimmerman +6, 164

Tulo +21, 179
Ramirez +4, 133

Not that UZR tells you how good a player was on defense. It gives you a darn good idea, but is not perfect by any means. Plus, it is context-neutral, like any context-neutral offensive stat (like EQA, OPS, lwts, RC, etc.), but with defense, most people do tend to look at context-neutral performance in terms of handing out awards. IOW, they are not necessarily looking for good defensive plays that save a game or save several runs or ignoring good or bad defense in blowouts, etc. And they usually don't much care about how the team ends up when handing out Gold Gloves. It is to the "most valuable defender" award.

That being said, we ALL know that the GG voting is not an accurate thing for many reasons. So let's just all agree to that and move on.

Given that Feliz is a "proven" monster defender which means that his 07 performance is least likely to be a fluke among all the leaders in UZR, he clearly "deserves" the award this year. Tulo would be fine as well, especially since most scouts think he was fantastic as well (so that his UZR is also not likely to have been a fluke). Wright is not even close to being deserving, according to UZR. I'm sure there are many other winners that don't "deserve" the award this year either.

Keep in mind that UZR includes errors and range so knowing a fielder's FP adds nothing to his UZR. It is already a combination. For example, all of Wright's +4 was in range. For Feliz, he had 19 in range and 5 in errors. Jones was 5 and 2. If anything, players with more runs in range should get the edge (everything else being equal) as errors tend to be more "luck related" for various reasons.

As you may guess my baseline is different from UZR's, because for every fielder I figure out what their performance was in terms of run saving/costing as opposed to what the average fielder would have done in their place.

That is EXACTLY what UZR does. The only difference now as opposed to last year (and I updated all years) is that I use several years (5 or 6 or more) as the baseline. I used to zero out each position for each year. I decided that I don't like that. The samples are too small. Because of that (small samples at each position), it is entirely possible that in any given year there could be an entire crop of good or bad fielders at any one position, and I wanted to reflect that in the UZR numbers. Before, even if all 3B were particularly bad this year (as compared to the last 5 years), I would set the average UZR for all 3rd basemen to zero, so you would not know that they were all bad collectively unless you looked at the pre-adjusted numbers. Now, I don't adjust every position to zero, which I think is better. This year seems to be a bad year for defense in general, other than at CF, and especially for 2B and SS. I am not sure why. Last year 3B was good and all the rest were bad. In 05, defense was great other than at 2B and RF, and they were only marginally bad. Interesting. 04 was around neutral. Maybe PED's jack up defense a lot.

mgl, is that Hanley Ramirez as +4 or Aramis Ramirez?

EDIT: Also, have you or are you planning on putting out full 2007 UZR numbers?

No not planning on puting out 07 UZR's. Hanley is a SS of course. All those above are 3B. Plus Hanley is part of the terrible defensive trio in the FLO IF. Hanley was -23 in 144 games, Cabrera was -28 in 151 games, and Uggla was -21! That is probably one reason why some of their pitchers did so poorly this year. That is one awful IF defense! (Jacobs was -4 at first base to round out the worst, by far, defensive IF in baseball). Actually, TB was -55 in the IF. TB was by far the worst overall defense in baseball. Bad like I've never seen before. -102 total runs in UZR!

All those above are 3B.

Well, except for that Tulowitzki fella.

post 29, I think I understand the 179 (includes postseason?), but I don't understand the 164.

Pedro Feliz is an amazing defender and can help a team when he is not the main power threat.

Well, except for that Tulowitzki fella.

Yeah, that's why I was confused since Ramirez was grouped with him.

Thanks for the response mgl. If it's not too much of a pain could you post the UZR for A-Rod, Beltre, and Andruw?

Hey, Larry, don't bother us with your whining. Go cry on Shea's shoulder.

So David got into more games and got on base more often, so how many runs does that translate into? Well, according to BP Wright has a 6 BRAR advantage on Chipper.

And according to B-Ref Chipper has an advantage of 4 BtRuns over Wright. The same goes for MLV.

BaseRuns: Wright 130, Jones 117

he only difference now as opposed to last year (and I updated all years) is that I use several years (5 or 6 or more) as the baseline. I used to zero out each position for each year. I decided that I don't like that. The samples are too small. Because of that (small samples at each position), it is entirely possible that in any given year there could be an entire crop of good or bad fielders at any one position, and I wanted to reflect that in the UZR numbers.

Good. I still think there should be a raw measurement, not just a relative measure, so players can be compared historically, and strong/weak eras at a position won't throw things off, but this is an improvement.