12/21/24
November 02, 2005
NL Gold Gloves Awarded: Maddux gets his 15th! Vizquel gets his 10th and is the oldest infielder to get (another) one. Andruw Jones and Jim Edmonds get their 8th. By contrast, no AL Gold Glove winner this year has gotten more than 5.
Obviously a follow up to this post.
Or they just don't award young talent. Third base should have been Wright. Shortstop should have been Furcal or Wilson. And I would take Beltran and Taveras ahead of Edmonds and Abreu (!). The Gold Gloves are usually pretty ridiculous though. More than any other award, reputation plays a major role in who wins them.
posted by panoptican at 06:33 PM on November 02, 2005
Given Vizquel and Edmonds won some of the gloves in the AL, maybe the NL is getting old. Or, more likely, willing to carry guys as they get older because defense has a higher value and offense a lower value in a pitcher's league. Though that seems counterintuitive now that I write it. Which is no bar to a GM acting upon it.
posted by yerfatma at 06:36 PM on November 02, 2005
Shortstop should have been Furcal or Wilson. Vizquel is still an excellent choice. He's not the SS he was a few years ago, but he is still the best at a strong defensive position and had the best fielding percentage in 2005. Wilson doesn't get much national attention because he plays on a bad team and does nothing offensively, which shouldn't matter but contiually does. Furcal is a deserving candidate, but the reputation of inconsistancy has to bite him in the voting.
posted by bigrobbieb at 06:58 PM on November 02, 2005
Maybe gold gloves should just be awarded to the league that wins the all-star game. It would make Uncle Bud the biggest showman since Bill Veeck.
posted by INOALOSER at 07:04 PM on November 02, 2005
i think furcal should have got it too but i'm still glad andrew got it, he is the braves future, look for a world series title in the next few years
posted by nasty nate at 10:14 PM on November 02, 2005
In the next few years? They've won what, fourteen straight division titles? And only one World Series ring to show for it? And as far as Andruw Jones being the Braves' "future," he's already 29 years old, with nine years in the league.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:33 PM on November 02, 2005
Vizquel's award this year was almost strictly on previous reputation. The word among the baseball experts is that the biggest problem with Braves pitching next year won't be the disappearance of Mazzone, but the drop in defence if Furcal takes his fielding magic to another team. i'm still glad andrew got it, he is the braves future, look for a world series title in the next few years I would not be surprised to see the Braves management "sell high" on Andruw Jones during the off-season. They could easily get a great young(er) pitcher plus a prospect or two. It might seem blasphemous to trade him after the season he had, but with the great young OF they have right now (Langerhans, Johnson and Francoeur), they can make that kind of deal.
posted by grum@work at 01:26 AM on November 03, 2005
I would take Beltran and Taveras ahead of Edmonds and Abreu A gold glove centerfielder does not knock himself unconcious by diving into his right fielder. I see your argument for Taveras and Beltran, despite his best efforts to decapitate Mike Cameron and himself, over Abreu, but no one has been more consistent in making fantastic plays in the outfield than Jim Edmonds. He has deserved every Gold Glove he's won.
posted by bdf1010 at 07:45 AM on November 03, 2005
Unless they eliminate the American League from World Series competition, the Braves will never win a World Series! They can't even make it out of the first round. Play amongst yourselves, and tell each other how good National League play is - and then watch the failure in the World Series.
posted by INOALOSER at 07:58 AM on November 03, 2005
the Braves will never win a World Series *cough*1995*cough* then watch the failure in the World Series. *cough*2001*coughcough*2003*cough*
posted by rocketman at 08:48 AM on November 03, 2005
Vizquel's award this year was almost strictly on previous reputation.
Although reputation is does play a huge part on who gets selected, to say that it was "purely" based on this factor is kind of selfish since Vizquel did have the best fielding % of the league.
NAME --------FPCT
Omar Vizquel, SF--.988
988%is almost perfect, and by far the best in the league....... and you call this purely reputation? Who was better? ----- Yeah, that's what I thought!This makes the Venezuelan, the oldest player to recive such a recognition for the position of SS. Closing with this what was a ggreat year for venezuelan ball plyers: Abreu-Gold Glove- HR ALL Star Champ. - -- Vizquel: Gold Globe -- Ozzie & Garcia: WS Champs....
Go my "Paisanos!!!!!"
posted by zippinglou at 08:55 AM on November 03, 2005
Some of the comments above are confusing. I always thought the Gold Glove was a statistics-based award only, not a popularity contest like All-Star voting. Didn't each of the winners have the highest fielding percentage based on the minimum allowable innings played? Young? Old? Reputation? Somebody please clarify.
posted by qubit at 09:40 AM on November 03, 2005
Fielding percentage isn't a great proxy for defensive ability. Abreu has a good arm, but he has to use it too often because he doesn't get good jumps and doesn't get to the ball very quickly. He's got the speed (witness his SB numbers) but sometimes doesn't seem motivated to use it. on preview: no, GG are not stats based. I think managers and coaches vote.
posted by mbd1 at 09:45 AM on November 03, 2005
yes mbd1, managers and coaches vote. and they can't vote for players on their own team.
posted by goddam at 09:59 AM on November 03, 2005
I didn't know this. Thanks, mbd1 and goddam for clearing this up.
posted by qubit at 10:16 AM on November 03, 2005
managers and coaches vote Which is probably why the awards seem to go to players with a "reputation", rather than those who might deserve it most that particular year. Of course, reputation is often earned fairly, but how often do you hear a manager complimenting a Darin Erstad- or Tony Womack-type player because "they've got hustle" and totally ignoring the fact that they suck balls?
posted by rocketman at 10:22 AM on November 03, 2005
I'm tired of the "AL domination" talk. Sure, the meaningless All-Star game streak and the generally better WS records are "stats". But, while there are notable exceptions (like the current champs), in general the AL is a weak imitation of a league - simply because of the DH. What slugger in their right mind and all else being equal, goes to an NL team? (as evidenced by Manny wanting a trade to only Anaheim or Cleveland). Therefore, you admittedly have stronger overall hitting in the AL, which generally means better records for the top teams. But that's simply due to taking advantage of a weak system, not "playing better ball". Why do you think there was so much chirping about how wonderful it was to see the White Sox play "team ball" or "small ball"?! Because the vast majority of AL teams have no concept of game or season management or style of play and just hope that every other batter in the lineup hits it over the fence. I love ball in general, and respect all who play at this level, even in the AL. But, start spouting about how glorious the AL is ... ugh.
posted by littleLebowski at 10:26 AM on November 03, 2005
He's got the speed (witness his SB numbers) but sometimes doesn't seem motivated to use it. Having good range in the outfield and stealing bases are certianly not related. I watched Bernie track balls down in center field with the best of them but this guy can't steal for shit.
posted by HATER 187 at 11:06 AM on November 03, 2005
988%is almost perfect, and by far the best in the league....... and you call this purely reputation? Who was better? ----- Yeah, that's what I thought! Well, in that case, why don't we just give the award to this guy. A 1.000% is perfect, and that's all that seems to matter to you. The reason that Fielding % isn't the be-all-end-all of fielding stats is that it doesn't reflect the mobility and range of the player. If I play shortstop, I might get to 5 balls in a game. If Rafael Furcal plays shortstop, he might get to 9 balls in a game. The 5 balls I get to are the simplest of ground balls/pop-ups, and I'm very unlikely to make an error. The 4 extra balls that Furcal gets to are the more difficult ones, and in the process of making a nice diving grab, pop-up and throw, he might rush one and heave it over the first baseman's head. The other three he doesn't make an error on, he guns out the runner at 1B, while I watch the ball roll into the OF. So at the end of the game, I have a 1.000 fielding percentage on 5 plays, and Furcal has an 0.889 fielding percentage on 9 plays. But you'd have to be crazy to say that I was a better fielder than Furcal. 2005 stats: O.Vizquel - 234 put outs, 426 assists, 81 double plays, 8 errors in 1292.1 innings fielded R.Furcal - 255 put outs, 504 assists, 119 double plays, 15 errors in 1306.1 innings fielded Doing the math, that's a net advantage of 90 outs (PO + A - E), in just 14 extra innings. That's why some people believe Furcal should have been the Gold Glove recipient over Vizquel, and why using just fielding percentage to make that determination is not always a good idea. By the way, I'm not suggesting that Vizquel is a terrible fielder. He is a fantastic fielder, and I don't think it's a crime that he wins the Gold Glove. I just don't think he may have been the best choice.
posted by grum@work at 11:57 AM on November 03, 2005
I just don't think he may have been the best choice.
And I respectfully disagree!
posted by zippinglou at 01:45 PM on November 03, 2005
.... and this is why:
You see, the stats you have presented show quantity not quality! Maybe Vizquel's (PO + A - E) ratio was less... but you're not taking into account the quality of the plays made by each player here. I don't have the stats, but say that most of Vizquel's plays were to the "hole" as opposed to Furcal's being "right to him", then would you still consider your math equation the way to go?
That's why we have the Managers and Coaches choose the GG winners, because they can distinguinsh between the average Good, and the Great! They see this guys play more than any of us can through the stats.
Furcal is an above average (very good) SS; but Vizquel is an above average (Great SS). - If his hitting had only been as solid early in his career as it has been reascently, he would surely be a 1st. round Hall of Fame selection!
Conclusion: - Quality - Not Quantity!
posted by zippinglou at 01:56 PM on November 03, 2005
I just don't think he may have been the best choice. And I respectfully disagree! As long as it's respectfully, I have no problem. Disrespectfully disagree with me, and I'll...um...be a bit ticked off, I guess.
posted by grum@work at 01:57 PM on November 03, 2005
That's why we have the Managers and Coaches choose the GG winners, because they can distinguinsh between the average Good, and the Great! They see this guys play more than any of us can through the stats. Agreed. That's why it's a voting award instead of a stats award. I have no beef with the managers and coaches making their selection, as they do see these players more often than I do. My only problem was that you used fielding % as a way of justifying Vizquel's award, and I was presenting an argument as to why fielding % isn't necessarily a proper reflection, and I presented a different set of statistics to suggest a different answer. I don't have the stats, but say that most of Vizquel's plays were to the "hole" as opposed to Furcal's being "right to him", then would you still consider your math equation the way to go? As an opposing view, couldn't you then imply that Furcal's positioning before the hit gives him a chance to turn an easier play? It has been suggested that the best fielders in the game aren't the ones that make spectacular plays, but the ones that make adjustments and remove the need for spectacular plays. If an outfielder can position himself before the play so that he only has to run 30 feet (instead of 60 feet), he's going to make a routine catch instead of a diving one. If a shortstop positions himself 5 feet to the right because he knows the pitcher is going to throw a curveball, he might turn what could have been a diving play in the hole to a simple scoop and throw. So there is less chance for a spectacular play, but the defensive prowess is still there. Obviously, we are attempting to make distinctions about subjective observations, and that's pretty difficult to do. While I feel that the statistics imply that Furcal may be the better fielding shortstop, I obviously can't insist that it's the case. In the same way, the voting by the managers implies that Vizquel is the better fielding shortstop, but the possibility of awarding it based on previous reputation does have to be taken into consideration.
posted by grum@work at 02:10 PM on November 03, 2005
You see, the stats you have presented show quantity not quality! No, they don't. You cannot produce a fielding statistic that encompasses quality (check out Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance if you're interested in whether Quality can be quantified at all). Range Factor and Zone Rating seek to tell us something about how much ground a player covers (though they are skewed by the players around a fielder, as is FP) precisely because it's ahrd to discern how well they cover it. Either way, grum's original point stands: FP says nothing about how many balls a player gets to. If you want to suggest an aged Omar Vizquel, standing stock still and only fielding balls that rool directly to him, but doing so bare-handed, is a higher quality fielder than someone else, that's your call. Saying Furcal deserves a Gold Glove over Vizquel this year in no way denigrates the terrific accomplishments of Omar Vizquel or suggests Furcal is a better player than Omar ever was. It's just that he's a better fielder now.
posted by yerfatma at 03:36 PM on November 03, 2005
This is a great warmup for AL MVP. Keep those muscles fresh folks.
posted by YukonGold at 03:50 PM on November 03, 2005
By contrast, no AL Gold Glove winner this year has gotten more than 5. Maybe the NL is just getting old? Or the AL is bringing in the best young players?