Slugger Pedro Alvarez Signs w Orioles (1 yr: 5.75 + 1.5 potential bonuses) OFFICIAL

[Can_of_corn]

It can't be that confusing can it? You used Jeter to show that Markakis didn't deserve his gold glove. So I figure that because you're right that both Markakis and Jeter didn't deserve their gold gloves, everyone that has won a gold glove must also not deserve it.

Or it could be that Jeter won his GG's on name recognition and "highlight reel" plays, and that most other people that win them are actually good defenders in that year. Markakis included.

No, I used Jeter as an example of why winning a Gold Glove is not necessarily proof of defensive excellence.

For the record I think Nick won his Gold Gloves in large part to name recognition and his strong defensive play earlier in his career.

[survivedc]

"Other than lacking the most important thing, he was pretty good."

I know this was at least somewhat tongue and cheek, but I am in the camp that outside of the base physical ability that any professional athlete must have, the most important part is smarts, or baseball IQ or whatever you want to call it.

[DrungoHazewood]

No he was terrible. So was Manny in 2013. And Hardy in 2014. And Brooks all those years. One bad gold glove award doesn't mean the rest all lose their value.

One? Probably 3-4 a year were not among the top 10 fielders at their position. At least prior to when they changed the process a few years ago.

[Tx Oriole]

The Orioles have jet engines?

It's a prop. It's okay as long as the rubber band doesn't break.

[survivedc]

No, I used Jeter as an example of why winning a Gold Glove is not necessarily proof of defensive excellence.

For the record I think Nick won his Gold Gloves in large part to name recognition and his strong defensive play earlier in his career.

And I can point to far more players that clearly deserved their Gold Gloves as necessary proof of defensive excellence.

No doubt, Markakis was a better defender in the years before, and if some portion of his awards goes back to the years that maybe he was somewhat slighted by not winning, thats fine with me.

Really my opinion on GG's is that they are nice to have, but don't really mean anything one way or another. Plenty of good (potentially more deserving) players get left out every year. It just seems odd to me to use GG's as an argument to invalidate other GG's.

[DrungoHazewood]

It can't be that confusing can it? You used Jeter to show that Markakis didn't deserve his gold glove. So I figure that because you're right that both Markakis and Jeter didn't deserve their gold gloves, everyone that has won a gold glove must also not deserve it.

Or it could be that Jeter won his GG's on name recognition and "highlight reel" plays, and that most other people that win them are actually good defenders in that year. Markakis included.

It's pretty easy to use Markakis to prove Markakis didn't deserve the Gold Glove. Although I will stand by the fact he's Gold Glove caliber forever.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm going to be measured here, because Nick was my favorite player and I know I am biased. You can take everything I say in that light.

That said, I'm going to go to my grave believing that Nick was never a below average outfielder while he was here, except for in 2012 when he was returning from abdominal surgery and was visibly slowed in the field. I know he was a hell of a lot better than the players who preceded him in RF and the guys who succeeded him last year. And if that makes me an out of touch old geezer in this one instance, so be it. I saw a guy who ran good routes, was a pretty decent judge of fly balls, was extremely sure-handed and had the ability to make makes while diving or sliding, who rarely bobbled a ball that he picked up off the ground, who knew now to play caroms of the wall flawlessly and pivot and throw a strike to 2B, who had a very accurate arm and a quick release, and who almost never made a mental error in the field. And, he knew when to back off and let Jones make the play. Was he the rangiest guy in the world? No.

I will be amazed if I watch Mark Trumbo in RF and think to myself, "he is as good or better than Nick." And I hope I do, but I'm not counting on it.

I am not expecting Trumbo to be as good or better than Nick.

[Can_of_corn]

And I can point to far more players that clearly deserved their Gold Gloves as necessary proof of defensive excellence.

No doubt, Markakis was a better defender in the years before, and if some portion of his awards goes back to the years that maybe he was somewhat slighted by not winning, thats fine with me.

Really my opinion on GG's is that they are nice to have, but don't really mean anything one way or another. Plenty of good (potentially more deserving) players get left out every year. It just seems odd to me to use GG's as an argument to invalidate other GG's.

I will even go so far as to say that if Gold Gloves were specifically awarded to right fielders early in his career that Nick should have won at least one of them.

But he wasn't deserving of the ones he did win.

And Gold Gloves are a terrible piece of evidence when trying to prove defensive excellence.

[Pickles]

I'm going to be measured here, because Nick was my favorite player and I know I am biased. You can take everything I say in that light.

That said, I'm going to go to my grave believing that Nick was never a below average outfielder while he was here, except for in 2012 when he was returning from abdominal surgery and was visibly slowed in the field. I know he was a hell of a lot better than the players who preceded him in RF and the guys who succeeded him last year. And if that makes me an out of touch old geezer in this one instance, so be it. I saw a guy who ran good routes, was a pretty decent judge of fly balls, was extremely sure-handed and had the ability to make makes while diving or sliding, who rarely bobbled a ball that he picked up off the ground, who knew now to play caroms of the wall flawlessly and pivot and throw a strike to 2B, who had a very accurate arm and a quick release, and who almost never made a mental error in the field. And, he knew when to back off and let Jones make the play. Was he the rangiest guy in the world? No.

I will be amazed if I watch Mark Trumbo in RF and think to myself, "he is as good or better than Nick." And I hope I do, but I'm not counting on it.

It really amazes me that many of the same folks that were telling us two years ago the Cruz was a better fielder than Markakis, b/c the metrics said so (though they shut up about that about a week into the season), and last year told us that Snider was a better fielder than Markakis b/c the metrics said so (though they shut about that about a month into the season), are now telling us Trumbo is better than Markakis b/c the metrics say so.

It's really mind-boggling to me.

[Pickles]

"Other than lacking the most important thing, he was pretty good."

Range is hardly the most important thing when it comes to fielding, or Shawn Dunston would be an all-time great.

[survivedc]

And Gold Gloves are a terrible piece of evidence when trying to prove defensive excellence.

I don't disagree with this at all. I'm mostly playing devils advocate here with a little intransivity. A (Jeter) = B (Gold Glove)-----B = C (Markakis) but in this case C=/=A.

[George]

It's impossible to take the gold glove award seriously after Palmiero won it one year for his 1B work as a Ranger The award raised some eyebrows because Palmiero didn't play any first base that year. A bunch of gold glove voters don't take it seriously.

[Frobby]

I will even go so far as to say that if Gold Gloves were specifically awarded to right fielders early in his career that Nick should have won at least one of them.

But he wasn't deserving of the ones he did win.

And Gold Gloves are a terrible piece of evidence when trying to prove defensive excellence.

I am not a complete believer in the advanced defensive metrics, particularly when it comes to outfielders. I have said more than once that in about 10 years, when all the new data that has been collected has been analyzed and digested, people will look at today's advanced metrics about the same way we now view blood leeching as an advanced medical technique. (OK, maybe that's a slight exaggeration.)

[Can_of_corn]

I am not a complete believer in the advanced defensive metrics, particularly when it comes to outfielders. I have said more than once that in about 10 years, when all the new data that has been collected has been analyzed and digested, people will look at today's advanced metrics about the same way we now view blood leeching as an advanced medical technique. (OK, maybe that's a slight exaggeration.)

Leeches are actually still used by the current medical community.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bloody-suckers-leech-therapy/11360/

[weams]

Leeches are actually still used by the current medical community.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bloody-suckers-leech-therapy/11360/

Not really successfully.