So, does this put him into the Hall of Fame?

Best Regards

John

BTW....Congrats to Bobby Abreu!

Best Regards

John

These are just silly. Way worse than the AL.

I suppose the Metheny, Castillo and Edmonds choices are decent enough. The Vizquel and Lee choices are marginal but adequate. There rest are goofy.

Personally, aside from Metheny, Castillo and Edmonds, I like Nick Johnson, David Bell, Adam Everett, Carlos Beltran and Juan Pierre.

Look, any time that a vote results in the decision that 49-year is the best fielder at his position then there is something wrong. Of course, this isn't new. Jim Kaat was winning gold gloves into the 1980s, when he was in his mid-40s, IIRC.

Since Rolen was injured they just threw the names into a hat for third base.

"Look, any time that a vote results in the decision that 49-year is the best fielder at his position then there is something wrong. Of course, this isn't new. Jim Kaat was winning gold gloves into the 1980s, when he was in his mid-40s, IIRC. "

I don't think age would matter all that much for pitchers since its more about reactions, smarts and accurate throws than athleticism.

Lowell is a good defensive, 3B, right?

I haven't seen him play much, but I've only heard good things.

Vizquel is a bad choice, especially as the NL has more than a couple of outstanding defensive shortstops. Choosing Vizquel is a legacy pick, and it's pretty lazy.

Edmonds and Jones have great reputations. I don't know what the heck they were thinking with Abreu, who's not bad, but not a standout, either.

I'll bet GG Allin never took a dump on a Gold Glove, either...

Juan Pierre? He looks awful whenever I see him. He has the worst throwing arm I've ever seen, for one thing.

I dunno about Abreu; he looks pretty bad to me. Hard to believe considering the number of steals he gets, but he is really awkward out there.

To some extent, most of the picks are "legacy" picks -- there isn't a wealth of chances to distinguish Maddux at p, for instance. There are obviously a few exceptions (Lowell, Abreu), but most GGs went to guys who had them before.

As far as the individual picks, Lowell is a decent choice. Rolen is probably the best, but missed too much of the year.

Vizquel isn't a great choice (Furcal, Neifi, and Jack Wilson were probably better), but he's not as ludicrous as Abreu, IMO. That one's a headscratcher.

Edmonds was probably the most solid pick.

lowell + hidden ball trick = gold glove

I'd like to see who would win the throwing contest among Juan Pierre, Scott Podsednik, and Bernie Williams.

The Abreu pick is just downright mind boggling.

Seriously, though, is Maddux such a bad choice? He certainly seems to care about fielding his position more than the vast majority of pitchers; he's one of the very few that finishes his delivery in fielding position. Heck, I can't even think anyone else who does. Everyone else seems to fall off, or still have one leg in the air by the time the batter is swinging at the ball.

Abreu's award surprised me, but most guys get their first GG 2-3 years after they first deserved it, and he fits that pattern (ok, maybe it's more like 4-6 years in his case) It's quite puzzling now, since his reputation is pretty negative.

Vizqual probably benefitted from Izturis' injury. This is one of those cases where having the full voting breakdown might really elucidate things; it's possible Izturis got a bunch of votes, a handful of other guys split the votes for those who didn't vote for Izturis' short season, and Vizquel ended up with a small but victorious plurality.

Beltran was robbed.

Jim Kaat won his eighth Gold Glove in a season in which he had 8 errors and 9 putouts to go with a sparkling .826 fielding average.

"Jim Kaat won his eighth Gold Glove in a season in which he had 8 errors and 9 putouts to go with a sparkling .826 fielding average."

Which gives me a chance to bring up UF side-armer Darren O'Day who, while an excellent reliever, made six errors in 27 chances for a cool .778 fielding percentage.

Wow the other pitchers must have been really bad.

I'd like to see who would win the throwing contest among Juan Pierre, Scott Podsednik, and Bernie Williams.

Let's throw in Johnny Damon and Jacque Jones just for fun.

Beltran was robbed.

I'm certain that is a joke.

For those too lazy to RTFA:

Pos.  Player  #  
P  Greg Maddux,
Chi. Cubs  15  
C  Mike Matheny,
San Francisco  4  
1B  Derrek Lee,
Chi. Cubs  2  
2B  Luis Castillo,
Florida  3  
SS  Omar Vizquel,
San Francisco  10  
3B  Mike Lowell,
Florida  1  
OF  Andruw Jones,
Atlanta  8  
OF  Jim Edmonds,
St. Louis  8  
OF  Bobby Abreu,
Philadelphia  1  

As I said in the AL GG thread, GG awards are the silliest of the post-season awards in terms of being representative of a player's defensive performance (obviously some of them are, and overall, they are above average defenders). Actually, the only really bad ones this year are Abreu (who used to be good when he was much younger), A Jones (ditto), and Lowell (who was never good).

Here are the UZR's for the GG fielders in actual runs saved or cost (not per 150 defensive games, like in the other thread). For catchers, my numbers are based on errors, SB/CS, PB, and WP.

I am also listing the best and worst in UZR.

For OF'ers, I am not including "arm runs."

C Mike Matheny,
San Francisco +8

Matheny/Molina +8
Closser -7

1B Derrek Lee,
Chi. Cubs +6

Ward +11
Laroche -14

2B Luis Castillo,
Florida +5

Counsell +26
Loretta -9

SS Omar Vizquel,
San Francisco +5

Everett +21
Jose Reyes -11

3B Mike Lowell,
Florida -3

D Bell +16
Glaus -25

OF Andruw Jones,
Atlanta -1

CF

Taveras +22
Griffey -44


OF Jim Edmonds,
St. Louis +13

LF

Holliday +14
Cabrera -12

OF Bobby Abreu,
Philadelphia -4

RF

Burnitz/Encarnacion +14
Lane -20 (might not be park-adjusted enough), Hawpe -16

Beltran actually had a nice UZR of +12 I think, right in line with prior seasons...

Nice pre tags....

I think it should have been Helton and Utley. Rolen really was the best fielder, and the most valuable fielder despite playinmg 1/3 of the games. Okay, his rate would likely have decreased.

Jack Wilson should have won at SS.

Utley has the most to complain about. The entire NL outfield couldn't generate a player with 10 RS above average. So, Edmonds is as good as anyone else.

Didn't realize how far Junior had fallen...-44 eiccshh...

Let's throw in Johnny Damon and Jacque Jones just for fun.

For the record, Jacque Jones has an extremely strong arm. Unfortunately, he also has a horrible time with his release point causing him to either six-hop balls to the infield or airmail throws 350 feet.

Nice job screwing Jack Wilson, voters.

Damn. I can't believe Reyes' UZR is that low. Subjectively, he looks to me like he has great range and a plus arm.

"Laroche -14"

Ouch babe. Well, at least he makes up for it with his titanic bat.

I'd like to see who would win the throwing contest among Juan Pierre, Scott Podsednik, and Bernie Williams.

Don Baylor

As in Daryle Ward??

Abreu is pretty mediocre in the field from what I've heard. I don't watch the Phillies much though, so I won't comment on my observations. Vizquel ahd a very high ZR this year, although not as high as Jack Wilson. Edmonds seems to get pretty poor jumps on the ball to not having a quick burst of speed, but I guess he made up for it .

Ward +11

Daryle Ward? wow.

I'd like to see who would win the throwing contest among Juan Pierre, Scott Podsednik, and Bernie Williams.

CFs in the 2003 Championship Series:

Lofton
Pierre
Williams
Damon

Try to find a worse collection of centerfield arms than that.

Rant about meaningless awards, Part II:

OMG! They did a poor job of deciding the Gold Gloves! I'm shocked! This has never happened before!

Some things simply aren't worth dignifying with criticism, and the Gold Glove awards are one of those things. Now, when they do something like give a DH a Gold Glove, it's worth noting, and it's worth all of the derision we can muster. But come on, the Gold Gloves have always been a joke.

Please don't take the following as a criticism of the good work that many of you do on defensive metrics; I'm glad you're doing it, and you've made a lot of progress. But I think the fact is that, even using the best metrics we have available, we aren't at the point where we can do a very good job of saying who is deserving of something we might call a Gold Glove. I'm sure you can do a better job than the managers and coaches, and I'm sure you're going to keep doing better and better, but I think we're still a long way off.

I always think it's funny when I hear that edmonds gets a poor jump on balls. Nobody in my experience gets a better jump on balls, other guys make up for poor jumps by just balls to the wall speed, but I can't think of one centerfielder in the national league that get as good of jump on a ball as edmonds. Mind you if he had any speed whatsoever he would be a truly great fielder instead of just a good fielder.

I can't believe Abreu got the glove, I mean it seems to me that everyone picks on his glove.

Maddux from what I understand was pretty good last year.

I can't believe Abreu got the glove, I mean it seems to me that everyone picks on his glove.

From what I've heard from others and seen myself, Abreu is a respectable fielder who has trouble with fly balls against the wall. Even considering GGs are given to big names, he probably didn't deserve the award. On the other hand, I can't think many other "big name" OFs with good defensive reputations who hit well this year (as that obviously factors in for some reason).

Hey, I'm just thrilled when Abreu gets any kind of recognition.

Ditto Miggy Cabrera.

Best Regards

John

Hey, I'm just thrilled when Abreu gets any kind of recognition.

That's a good point. Abreu is so underrated that whatever recognition he can get is a good thing, if he didn't actually deserve it -- he's missed so much that he did deserve already.

The 3 guys in the 20's listed above:

Counsell +26 - Seemed to be very, very good when I watched him this year. I shook my head when ARI signed him to a 2 year deal last winter, but given his fielding performance and reasonable leadoff performance this year it looks to be a good deal

Everett +21 - IMHO the best fielding SS in the NL...makes a amzing plays. Downside is the guy seems to screw up on the most routine of plays occasionally. His bat was pathetic this year though...easily the worst SS in baseball at the plate.

Taveras +22 - No doubt the guy has range and an arm, but he's not this good...YET. Taveras took at least half the year to adjust to the 3+ decks of MLB parks and often took poor routes to balls. He had several "errors" (i.e. balls dropped just out of his reach because of routes) that weren't documented as such. He has the potential to be the best CF in baseball...but I don't believe that number this year.

I read somewhere that Andruw have a low UZR because he play too shallow in CF.
Sorry, I still think he is amazing

WIP loves to bash Bobby for his defense and "hustle." Maybe 90-95% of that talk is grossly unfair; there's some there there (unlike Oakland, for you Gertrudians) but not much. I'd say he's a better outfielder than the corner guys I used to watch "play" for the Sox when I lived in Chicago. A solid arm, reasonably good reflexes, appropriate decision-making. Nothing special but nothing awful. Obviously not a Gold Glover but not a Captain Stonehands, either.

I would be quite amused, though, to watch him play center beside Ryan Howard in left, as is sometimes rumored. Wow! The mind boggles.

I’m not really fond of the reaction here. If we are analysts, as many people claim then we should be using every piece of data we have when coming to conclusions, not just data that agrees with our metrics, which have inherent flaws.

This award isn’t voted on by the “sports writers” but by the managers and coaches. They are people who have devoted there entire life to baseball, whose observational skills in this area are far greater than our own.

Does that mean they are without flaw? No. Does that mean there won’t be some curious choices? No. Does it not mean someone might win who doesn’t deserve it do to an anomalous voting pattern? Does it mean that some one should smugly say they are a “Joke”? Of course not, that person is just throwing away one piece of valuable information and his opinion is going to be less informed because of it.

If the metrics tells you a player is average and he wins a gold glove. I think it’s more likely the metric is off than the gold glove.

If I see one more person post a guys ZR or UZR or XYZ as proof that a guy is the best fielder I’ll scream. It’s not that I think a Gold Glove is proof that someone is the best fielder either; my third paragraph should make that abundantly clear. They are both useful pieces of information we should use to help us answer the question.

If I see one more person post a guys ZR or UZR or XYZ as proof that a guy is the best fielder I’ll scream. It’s not that I think a Gold Glove is proof that someone is the best fielder either; my third paragraph should make that abundantly clear. They are both useful pieces of information we should use to help us answer the question.

Which is why I really like Tango's Fan Scouting Project. The only problem is that the sample size isn't big enough.

The average primate is smarter than your average bear. And the incompetent GM.

The average primate is smarter than your average bear. And the incompetent GM.

See, I don't think Tango really cares how "smart" the people are who fill out his survey. If he had the choice between 1,000 primates who watch lots of games and know all about baseball and 100,000 average joes with average baseball knowledge and (most importantly) NO PRIOR CONCEPTIONS of fielding performance, I guarantee he'd take the latter every time.

If that sounds like it's straight out of Surowiecki's book, well, it is.

The average primate is smarter than your average bear. And the incompetent GM.

I agree with the bear part at least.

I'd like to see who would win the throwing contest among Juan Pierre, Scott Podsednik, and Bernie Williams.

I'd like to enter my cat into this contest, even with his disadvantage of not having opposable thumbs.

NO PRIOR CONCEPTIONS

If that's the stipulation I take that every time too.

I'm sure that I see each team play at least as often as the players and coaches who are voting on this award. In most cases, I see each team play a good deal more than the players and coaches. I don't really see why my opinion should be less vaulable than theirs. Further, I use other tools that help me evaluate their defense. Shouldn't that make my opinion better?

As for dumping UZRs and other metrics, are you also in favor of eliminating batting average to measure hitters? Do you favor banishing earned run average? After all, no one ever had a prettier swing than Michael Tucker. I guess we should consider him the greatest hitter ever.

NO PRIOR CONCEPTIONS

I almost forgot, that's how I like my women too.

Does that mean they are without flaw? No. Does that mean there won’t be some curious choices? No. Does it not mean someone might win who doesn’t deserve it do to an anomalous voting pattern? Does it mean that some one should smugly say they are a “Joke”?

Sorry, but the 1999 AL 1B Gold Glove award proved to me what had long been suspected: that the GG award is a joke. It will take a long, long time before that impression changes.

This is not to say that managers and coaches don't have observational abilities that are beyond what we have or that can be distilled in a statistic, although it makes intuitive sense to me that their observational abilities have some severe limits (a manager might see a particular player a couple of dozen times; the stats see everything). However, regardless of that, there is a lot more at play than observation. It's a legacy award as much as anything.

If the metrics tells you a player is average and he wins a gold glove. I think it’s more likely the metric is off than the gold glove.

I disagree with this too. I wouldn't have much confidence in the metric's evaluation, but I'd rate the Gold Glove as a nearly worthless piece of information.

As for dumping UZRs and other metrics, are you also in favor of eliminating batting average to measure hitters?

I don't think he's advocating dumping UZR, just dumping the concept of a "UZR Gold Glove" (i.e., claiming Player X is best because he had the best UZR, something mgl would never do). I don't think anyone uses BA as a proxy for "best hitter". Well, strike that, almost no one would, but you don't have to be a card-carrying saberist to reject that notion.

It could just be me, but I think Maddux won it on rep.

Seriously, though, is Maddux such a bad choice? He certainly seems to care about fielding his position more than the vast majority of pitchers; he's one of the very few that finishes his delivery in fielding position. Heck, I can't even think anyone else who does. Everyone else seems to fall off, or still have one leg in the air by the time the batter is swinging at the ball.

Rob Neyer opined that because holding runners on is a fielding tactic, and because Maddux is awful at that, he can't be considered an elite fielder.

As for dumping UZRs and other metrics, are you also in favor of eliminating batting average to measure hitters?

Tony Jack Who is in favor of this? Didn't the first line of my post include: "we should be using every piece of data we have when coming to conclusions"

the stats see everything

The stats don't see everything. The stats don't see ANYTHING. They are purely a record keeping summary of what happenend. They are very good at that, and that information is very useful, and can be manipulated in many ways that increase out understanding of baseball. It can also be misleading, and it happens to be MOST misleading defensivly because the available DATA isn't as robust as it needs to be. That doesn't mean its worthless it means it has limits and will naturally fail sometimes. We just don't know when, which is what makes things like gold glove voting, and Tangos fan voting useful, in pointing out situations where the data might be at its limits.

Sorry, but the 1999 AL 1B Gold Glove award proved to me what had long been suspected

To me it didn't prove that the award was a joke, it showed me that the voters aren't likely given a clear definition of they are voting on. Value Contributed versus Skill. It is possiable that the voters believed that despite the being forced to DH due to injuries he still had the skill to be the best defensive 1b in the league.

Even in a worst case scenerio their was an extremly split vote, and Palmero won with a small percentage of the total votes, and those votes were cast out of ignorance. It is still just 1 result. Your throwing out an entire system because of 1 bad result. Well throw out ZR, UZR and the rest because all of them have bad results.

NO PRIOR CONCEPTIONS

I almost forgot, that's how I like my women too.

Beggars can't be choosers, dude.

UZR had Willy Taveras leading the league at CF (+22)? Any metric that thinks Willy Taveras is a solid centerfielder, much less the best in the league, is highly suspect. Taveras may be fast, but his judgment and ability to read balls as they come off the bat is atrocious. I cannot tell you how many times he managed to not catch catchable balls merely because he got the wrong jump or was in the wrong place.

Adam Everett, however, did get robbed at shortstop. His range, hands, fielding, and throwing are all top shelf. Omar Vizquel like several of the other Gold Glove winners is living large of his well-deserved past reputation even though he is a shadow of his former self.

The stats don't see everything. The stats don't see ANYTHING. They are purely a record keeping summary of what happenend.

You didn't have to take my anthropomorphism literally, MHS. They are a record keeping of EVERYTHING that happened. Even if they had perfect recollection of everything they observed, the managers and coaches don't have that, and of course their recollection is biased. It's a huge handicap.

It can also be misleading, and it happens to be MOST misleading defensivly because the available DATA isn't as robust as it needs to be. That doesn't mean its worthless it means it has limits and will naturally fail sometimes. We just don't know when, which is what makes things like gold glove voting, and Tangos fan voting useful, in pointing out situations where the data might be at its limits.

I agree with all of this, but we apparently disagree about where these different shortcomings leave us.

To me it didn't prove that the award was a joke, it showed me that the voters aren't likely given a clear definition of they are voting on. Value Contributed versus Skill. It is possiable that the voters believed that despite the being forced to DH due to injuries he still had the skill to be the best defensive 1b in the league.

There are probably very many reasons the managers and coaches make bad choices, but what you're saying here doesn't lead me to conclude anything other than that the system is fundamentally flawed.

Even in a worst case scenerio their was an extremly split vote, and Palmero won with a small percentage of the total votes, and those votes were cast out of ignorance. It is still just 1 result. Your throwing out an entire system because of 1 bad result.

Sometimes one glaringly bad result reveals a fundamental flaw that calls everything into question. There is nothing to explain the Palmeiro GG except systematic dysfunction.

The mind boggles

My mind usually scrabbles.

It is possiable that the voters believed that despite the being forced to DH due to injuries he still had the skill to be the best defensive 1b in the league.

What's more likely is that a good number of voters weren't even aware that Palmeiro was a DH.

Unless you see a player an awful lot over the course of a season, it's really hard to make a sober judgment on the players' defensive abilities. If I'm making an MVP vote, I can look up the numbers to give me a starting point on a decision - I can't really do that for the Gold Glove.

Now, there are things the voters can do to make a more informed choice, like look up scouting reports, but the voters probably don't have the time or the inclination to put that much thought into their decision, as evidenced by the Palmeiro vote.

If the metrics tells you a player is average and he wins a gold glove. I think it’s more likely the metric is off than the gold glove.

Sure. An objective measure is usually messed up compared to a subjective measure. <snip even snarkier remark>

The problem here is, Mr. High, is that there are more multiple winners than single winners.

That isn't true of the MVP. What - how is that related? Both are about a seasonal peformance - not who the best player is. Correct? So if you have the same guy winning every year, you would have to believe he never has a bad season, or no one else ever has a better season.

That's so unlikely as to be absurd.

What - how is that related? Both are about a seasonal peformance - not who the best player is. Correct?

I would tend to think its not about who the best player is in a given year, but since I don't see the instructions that accompany a ballot I don't know.

Sure. An objective measure is usually messed up compared to a subjective measure. <snip even snarkier remark>

My remark wasn't ment to be snarky. I believe a trained observer can you tell you more about a players defense than a subjective number. This is more of a point in relation to the quality of the defensive metrics than the value of data.

What's more likely is that a good number of voters weren't even aware that Palmeiro was a DH.

I think this is highly unlikely, in fact I think its insulting actually. I know when I wake up in the morning the first thing I do over coffee is check out the box scores, and spend about 30-40 minutes with them between coffee and the train. Your telling me you don't think the majroity of PRO's don't look at the box scores for even 10 minutes most days.

I'd like to enter my cat into this contest, even with his disadvantage of not having opposable thumbs.

One of my cats has taken to rolling a baseball around the house, so the opposable thing can be overcome.

Taveras may be fast, but his judgment and ability to read balls as they come off the bat is atrocious.

He is fast and he played half his games on a field where that's probably very useful for a center fielder.

Your telling me you don't think the majroity of PRO's don't look at the box scores for even 10 minutes most days.

Why should they?

(Insert Rick Majerus/Temple story here.)

Your telling me you don't think the majroity of PRO's don't look at the box scores for even 10 minutes most days.

I'm saying, that in their minds at least, they've got better things to do.

I'm sure that Dave Duncan, for example, has a lot of film on Cardinal pitchers (and access to a ton of information, should he find it necessary), and he knows his own staff inside out, but he's not going to care whether or not Bobby Abreu is a better outfielder than Wily Taveras. That's not what he's getting paid for.

I know that we'd all like to think that the voters take this stuff as a holy sacrament, but in all likelihood, they probably spend all of about twenty minutes with their ballot, voting for guys based on reputation, with bonus points if they like the guy and want to see him get his award bonus.

Hey that Temple team was one of the best 6-12 teams in the country, baby!

My remark wasn't ment to be snarky. I believe a trained observer can you tell you more about a players defense than a subjective number. This is more of a point in relation to the quality of the defensive metrics than the value of data.

I don't think the prior movements in baseball reflect this. Before OPS and stuff, there were some GMs who had a better technique in place than OPS (which is a pretty bad metric), but obviously looking at personnel decisions, there were a lot who didn't.

I mean, there were enough folks who should be the best at player evaluation saying things like, "So-and-so is a .300 hitter".

I think at any time, there is a reasonable pool of coaches and managers who if they saw 162 games of a player could evaluate their defense better than stats. But those folks don't see every game of every team and they aren't all of the voters.

I think your Palmeiro response is suspect. Given even odds, would you really bet that the voters had a complex understanding of defense, decided to give a "skill-based" award instead of a performance based award and decided that they could appraise Palmeiro's defense while he was playing 1B? If so, why don't they give Greg Maddux ALL of the AWARDS? After all, I can see that he would make a great shortstop, too.

JRE - I find it humerous that you don't think managers and coaches don't read the box scores. I would wager that less than 10% of them don't.

I don't think the prior movements in baseball reflect this. Before OPS and stuff, there were some GMs who had a better technique in place than OPS (which is a pretty bad metric), but obviously looking at personnel decisions, there were a lot who didn't.

Your missing the point. Before OPS the quality of the offensive components did a find job of assessing value or skill. Eye balling a players Position, Singles, Doubles, Triples Homers, Walks, AB will give a reasonably good assumption in ALMOST all cases if a player was good in a given year.

The defensive components do not. Even with BETTER defensive inputs your output is very noisy and you still miss things.

Which is why you need to look at all the data. Including GG winners because managers and coaches do have value. They have access to scouting reports from people who watch games in bulk and no what to look for. Many of them have worked as advanced scouts or at least instructors so they know what to be looking for. They have the advantage of seeing entire plays develop, which even on TV we don't have that advantage. They have a lot of information we don't have assuming they are dumb, or take a hands off approach or are disinterested approach with out any real evidence is incredibly pompous I think.

I guess it shouldn't suprise me that many Primates think they are so knowledge that the informed opinion of top level profesionals should be ignored, ridiculed and called a joke. I mean many of them think they could be better GM's than most GM's.

Maddux's String of Gold Glove acheivements can only be described with one word: DOMINANCE

15 Gold Gloves....Think about that for a moment.

- Joe Dimaggio played 13 seasons....Maddux has won two more gold gloves than "Joltin' Joe" played seasons.

- CY Young may have won over 500 games, but he never ONCE won a single Gold GLove award...NOT ONE....Think about that. 15 Times the pitcher...If you translated Maddux's gold Gloves into Cy Young wins that would be over 7,500 WINS (500 X 15)...THat's more wins than the Devil Rays, Diamondbacks, Rockies and Marlins have had in their FRANCHISES ENTIRE HISTORIES COMBINED... Those over-paid, underworked honchos in the MLB offices should think about re-naming their annual pitching award in honor of the four-eyed wonder Greg Maddux.

- The most important thing in baseball is winning, and Maddux wins in droves! Maddux has more than 300 Career wins. Think about it... that's over 100 more than a certain dominican fireballer playing in Queens and nearly 50 more than a 6 foot 10 inch lefty in the Bronx that's taking a big chunk of change out of the "Boss"'s (more like the Captian of the sinking Ship) pocket. The Cubs should do the wise thing and lock Maddux up long term.

- Most of you know I'm pretty critical of the "Lovable Losers" on the North Side. Nonetheless, I never missed any of Maddux's starts this season. Why?, Simple: THE DEFENSE....There wasn't a single game I attended where Maddux's Defense didn't dominate. It seemed like everytime he pitched he made an array of dazzling defensive plays. On numerous occasions this season Maddux dove into the left field stands to grab a floating fould ball, only to emerge bloody but unbowed. It seemed like everytime there was a deep drive to the outfield wall, Maddux would be there to make the over-the-wall robbery. You think Kevin Mitchell's 1989 Barehanded grab was something special, Maddux consistently grabbed line-drives barehanded.

And then there was THEE PLAY! There are few sports fans that will ever forget Maddux's patented "Thrice the Man" Defensive showstoper. He tends to only use it with 0 outs and 2 runnners on. With his vetereran experience and intuitiveness, Maddux can literally read where the ball will be driven BEFORE he unleashes the pitch. In one motion, Maddux pitches and begins running to the outfield wall. He dives into the ivy-laced netting above the center field wall at Wrigley (Out One) throws a quick bullet to the cutoff man...who incedentilly is GREG MADDUX, Maddux then throws to 1st Base, where he is ALREADY COVERING THE BASE (out two). Maddux, ever the braniac, then pulls the ultimate Poindexter trick play. Despite the fact that there are only two outs in the inning
Maddux begins walking off the field (a' la Josh Paul) pretending his "veteran senility" has gotten the best of him. The runner on third breaks for home, but SUPRISE, SUPRISE, look who is standing there waiting for him...MADDUX. Joke's on you, runner....OUT NUMBER 3. THRICE THE MAN.....THRICE THE OUTS!

I will never forget the look on Greg Gross's face during a 1988 game when Maddux used the "Thrice" play on him. After the game Gross commented "I have never seen anything like that before...I don't think we will see such defensive dominance in the game again until that Little Leaguer Derek Jeter makes it to the Big Show and that might not be for another 8-10 years". Gross was absolutely right, and the Cubs (and White SOx for that matter) have never been so Wrong.

So let's celebreate this White Sox Championship in style, but never lose focus of what a positive impact Greg GRoss and Derek Jeter have had on the Grand Olde Game.

My mind usually scrabbles.

My mind monopolizes.

I guess it shouldn't suprise me that many Primates think they are so knowledge that the informed opinion of top level profesionals should be ignored, ridiculed and called a joke.

I'm not denigrating the coaches or managers - I just don't think they put the level of analysis into their thinking that you think they do. And they can't vote for the one subset of players that they do spend a lot of time thinking about (their own team).

Bobby Cox might know the defensive abilities and shortcomings of Jose Reyes, for instance, very well. But he probably hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about Omar Vizquel, who he only saw a handful of times this season and wasn't in the National League before this season. Add to that the fact that Bobby Cox has a lot of demands on his time, and I don't think that he would spend as much time over his ballot as you seem to think he would.

I should say that I still haven't seen a defensive stat that I think accurately measures defense, and I don't think that I have a more informed opinion than anyone else. But I don't think the GG voters are infallible, either.

JRE - I find it humerous that you don't think managers and coaches don't read the box scores. I would wager that less than 10% of them don't.

I think most managers and coaches have enough to worry about than reading box scores of other games. This is the kind of fanboy/stathead thinking that you would normally deride if someone else posted it.

I know that we'd all like to think that the voters take this stuff as a holy sacrament, but in all likelihood, they probably spend all of about twenty minutes with their ballot, voting for guys based on reputation, with bonus points if they like the guy and want to see him get his award bonus

See Also: Any All-Star Game, Government Elections

Some people take voting seriously while others are quite casual about it. In the end, it usually turns out that some of those recognized truly deserve their acknowledgement, others are pure head-scratchers, and the rest fall somewhere in the middle. Such is life.

Too bad Counsell did not get recognized. Besides the obvious homer aspect to my support, that was the only chance he will ever have to be recognized for any kind of individual achievement. It would have been a nice thing to tack on towards the end of the career of the ultimate "scrappy white guy"

Oh well, as everyone agrees, gold gloves are a B.S. award, or at least quite often furthest removed from reality, but not so much to the people who get them, and much of the baseball world.

but in all likelihood, they probably spend all of about twenty minutes with their ballot, voting for guys based on reputation, with bonus points if they like the guy and want to see him get his award bonus

You forgot to mention voting for guys based on their hitting.

They have a lot of information we don't have assuming they are dumb, or take a hands off approach or are disinterested approach with out any real evidence is incredibly pompous I think.

I guess it shouldn't suprise me that many Primates think they are so knowledge that the informed opinion of top level profesionals should be ignored, ridiculed and called a joke. I mean many of them think they could be better GM's than most GM's.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but I don't see how anything of this contradicts anything I said.

So you really do think that most coaches are scouting geniuses who put a ton of time and thought into voting Gold Gloves? You think there is some secret storehouse of information that proves that Rafael Palmerio would have been an awesome defender if he had been allowed to play 1B?

I prefer to think that, like I said, the coaches and managers represent a wide spectrum of knowledge on defense, and many don't have a very complete thought process when it comes to these awards.

Which is why you need to look at all the data. Including GG winners because managers and coaches do have value.

Yes, manager/coach opinions have value.

No, the gold glove does not.

If all the coaches/managers filled out a scouting report on Jeter's defense, and it was rated highly, it would be something to consider.

The fact that he's won 2 gold gloves only tells you that a plurality thinks he's #1. For all I know, 25% might have voted for him, and the other 75% might think Jeter is useless, but split their votes among the other candidates.

Ward +11
Taveras +22
Jose Reyes -11

I really want to accept and believe in UZR, but c'mon these are just silly. Poor routes + no arm = +22? I don't think so. It would seem the park effects in Houston are not well understood in this calculation.

You want someone who was robbed, look no further than Rafael Furcal. Andruw should give Furcal his award.

You want someone who was robbed, look no further than Rafael Furcal.

Plbbbt.

Gimme a break.

Gimme a break.

Errors had always been the problem, and he cut those to 15 this year. He still has real good range and the best infield arm in baseball.

Care to elaborate?

Wasn't UZR in favor of throwing Edmonds out of center field this time last year? I could have sworn he had like a -24 or something.

I think the thing with the voters is that they don't really give a ####. Sure, they are intelligent men, and they have access to piles of scouting reports and tapes and stats.

But I can't see the voters sitting there and saying, "Well, first I will look at the scouting reports, and I shall then juxtapose that information with what a remember from my observations, and then I will watch a few tapes and try to evaluate the best fielders based on all of the data available to me." I mean, they could do that, but again I don't think they care.

I think they'd rather just go: "Gold Gloves eh? Let's see ... who won last year? Oh right, Maddux. Is Maddux still good? Yeah. Ok, I'll vote Maddux."

P.S. #68 was RDF

I think you're right. They're like, Gold Glove? Who ####### cares? Give it to Mad Dog.

You forgot to mention voting for guys based on their hitting.

See, I don't think anybody votes for players because they think they're good hitters. It's that the guys who are good hitters are the biggest names. They grab a ballot, start checking guys off, "Okay, Matheny, Vizquel, Edmonds, yada yada yada...crap, I gotta pick another outfielder...hey, Bobby Abreu! I've heard of him!"

Robert, Taveras does take some questionable routes & will never be known as a good outfielder, but he does have a surprisinlgy strong arm.

See Also: ...Government Elections

Nonsense. I can't believe any citizen of the U.S. of A. doesn't thoroughly watch CNN, etc., carefully watch all the debates and take notes, read every position paper on every issue, and come to an informed enlightened decision. Pfft! Next you're going to tell me Jerry Manuel didn't know who was playing first base for the Rangers in 1999.

Wow - #68 is the best Lazlo Toth impersonation I've seen. Kudos, sir.

Wasn't UZR in favor of throwing Edmonds out of center field this time last year? I could have sworn he had like a -24 or something.

Yes, Edomnds UZR was terrible in 2004. I don't remember the number, but it was really bad.

I guess you really do have ignore single season UZR numbers and look at 3 year averages ;)

Also, Edmonds was -1 from 2000-2003

I really want to accept and believe in UZR, but c'mon these are just silly. Poor routes + no arm = +22? I don't think so.

He took some poor routes, but he made up for a lot of it with pure speed. I wouldn't think he's a +22, but suggesting that he has no arm when he has a terrific arm shows that you didn't see much of him.

I cannot tell you how many times he managed to not catch catchable balls merely because he got the wrong jump or was in the wrong place.

Not to pick on one post (I am perusing the last 50 or so), but that would be ironic if it were true (and I'm not saying it isn't), as that is exactly what UZR does, which is to record and quantify (in terms of runs saved or cost) "catchable balls" which are not caught by a fielder, and non-catchable (at least ones that are not caught a high percentage of the time) balls which are caught. If Taveras had a +22 UZR, it is not too likely that he missed many balls in locations on the field where they are normally caught by the CF'er.

And as I think I explained in my original post, I only reported UZR runs and not "arm runs" for outfielders. As it turned out, Taveras saved another 4 runs in 112 defensive games with his arm. Arm runs keep track of, and convert into runs saved or cost, how many assists an OF gets, and how many bases are advanced or not when he fields a ball in the various zones, as compared to an average fielder when he fields a ball in that zone. They are also park adjusted, as for example, it is easier to advance extra bases in Coors Field because the outfielders play so deep, and vice versa in LF at Fenway and Minute Maid. While "arm runs" are subject to the normal random fluctuations we see in any sample measure, the methodology is "pure" enough that, as we get into larger samples, they are quite an accurate measure of a player's arm. I do remember that the announcers during the playoffs were saying that "Taveras has a pretty good arm," but I also recall it not looking all that great either (maybe it is very accurate or he plays very shallow, I don't know, or maybe this year was somewhat of a fluke in terms of those +4 runs)...

but suggesting that he has no arm when he has a terrific arm shows that you didn't see much of him.

Yeah, it looks like the consensous is that he has a pretty good arm. I retract my statement. Although I felt pretty sure of myself when writing it, I'm not sure where I got the idea he has a poor arm. I guess I should have stopped with poor routes.

I think that the coaches and managers do not give it much though and they are more informed that we are. They probably have scouting reports and though they do not memorize them when they see a player come up time after time it sticks and they vote for them. That is why we see players getting it when it is not deserved anymore. But it kind of balances with the fact that they deserved them earlier in their careers.

Even in a worst case scenerio their was an extremly split vote, and Palmero won with a small percentage of the total votes, and those votes were cast out of ignorance. It is still just 1 result. Your throwing out an entire system because of 1 bad result. Well throw out ZR, UZR and the rest because all of them have bad results.

The problem is that we don't know *which* of the results are like that. We have no gradations of data: every player either won a gold glove or didn't, and we know no more than that. If we at least had voting breakdowns, it would be much better.

Care to elaborate?

He doesn't a superior job of turning ground balls hit to the SS area into outs.

You are right, though. By cutting his errors in half, he turns a bakers dozen singles into outs, and helps his rating, but he's still a long way from Everett (10 runs or so).

He doesn't a superior job of turning ground balls hit to the SS area into outs.

You are right, though. By cutting his errors in half, he turns a bakers dozen singles into outs, and helps his rating, but he's still a long way from Everett (10 runs or so).

Chris, I know you've made defensive evaluation your life's work, but there is no way the current metrics can allow you to make such categorical statements with complete confidence. Do you mean to tell me that Jim Edmonds went from being a horrible CF in 2004 to one of the best in 2005?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Even if I concede that UZR or ZR can accurately measure results in an appropriate run currency, I still don't have a great idea about a player's ability.

Case in point: Kelly Johnson "saved" a lot of runs according to Chone's and DSG's metrics. Having watched most of the games that he played this year, I can state with complete confidence that Johnson isn't nearly as good an outfielder as Ryan Langerhans, but for some reason scored much higher in these metrics. It might be possible that Johnson indeed made a lot more plays than expected (and thus should be credited with those runs), but it is likely that he did so by sheer luck.

I don't know enough to state for certain, but I don't think the data that mgl or chone use can distinguish between two balls hit in the air to the same spot with different trajectories such that one play is much much harder to make than the other.

Sure, over a large sample of BIP, these kind of problems will become less important. But our best guess as to how Furcal would have done with Everett's BIP faced is just that, a guess. Maybe he would have been 10 runs worse; I don't think so, but I've certainly been wrong before. But current defensive metrics don't really provide a good basis for comparison.

I'd like to see who would win the throwing contest among Juan Pierre, Scott Podsednik, and Bernie Williams.

I think we all win.

"[Stats] are a record keeping of EVERYTHING that happened."

also not true.

I'm one of the folks who have very little trust in UZR (or any defensive statistic), especially 1 season's worth. But I have even less faith that Gold Gloves mean a damn thing these days. (They may have meant more before all the expansion, when the managers and coaches got to see a lot more of each player's defense. Now? In the immortal words of Bill the Cat, Phhht)

But our best guess as to how Furcal would have done with Everett's BIP faced is just that, a guess. Maybe he would have been 10 runs worse; I don't think so, but I've certainly been wrong before. But current defensive metrics don't really provide a good basis for comparison.

Well, our best guess with how Furcal would have done with Everett's pitches faced is just that, a guess.
Of course, we don't try to line up Furcal's pitches with Everett's, just the result of those PAs.

But if Furcal got to see the pitch distribution that Everett does, he'd hit a lot differently.

I would suggest that you don't believe because you don't believe, and not for any other reason.

I think Langerhans is a better fielder after watching them.

I think Jack Wilson is a terrible hitter, but 2004 he was pretty good. I don't throw out offensive stats. He basically went from the worst hitting SS to the best in the NL.

Did you not see Derrek Lee's 2005? Is that his skill level? Do you completely distrust offensive stats now? Is Andruw Jones now a 50-HR guy?

As you will read shortly, you'll come to understand that defense fluctuates, and two players like Johnson and Langerhans didn't get enough "chances" (read like At bats) to come to their true talent level.

Mike Jacobs of the Mets hit 11 HRs in 100 PAs. He slugged .700. I don't think that means he's a better hitter than every 1B not named Pujols.