So, if I understand you correctly, there is absolutely nothing that this player could possibly have done to make you think he's a worthy choice here. He has performed at a tremendous level wherever he's been for several years, but it must be all smoke and mirrors, coupled with pure luck over a particular small sample size. Sorry, but you haven't shown me any reason whatsoever to agree with you that he isn't the player he seems to be. You asserted that his home park in college was the sole reason for his numbers, yet his performance away from that environment shouldn't be considered either, because the Cape Cod League's season doesn't last 749 games. You are certainly welcome to your feeling that something tells you that Gonzales isn't for real, but your feeling alone doesn't convince me to agree with you.
I am trusting Elias here. I'd be happy with any of Tork, Martin, Lacy, or Gonzales. I don't see any valid reason to eliminate Gonzales from that discussion. It comes down to what the Orioles' baseball people think, which is OK by me.
I think 1900 the average was about 45, although the distribution was very different because the infant and child mortality rate was many, many times higher than today. So if you got to 20 you had a good shot at 60 or older.
Brooks has a very good case for being the best defensive third baseman ever. And of course he's a stand up guy of the highest order. But the idea that he was the best every single year for 16 years is almost certainly wrong, and an artifact of a flawed Gold Glove voting system.
His numbers should be discounted because of an alien offensive context. That doesn't mean his scouting reports aren't legit. But 42 games is 42 games. David Newhan once hit .400 over 42 games. Hurricane Hazle once had a MLB 1.126 OPS in 41 games. Gonzales' 42 games should be treated like anyone else's 42 games.