Nick...killing it in the 2 spot.

[larrytt]

Maybe I should as if what you state is true, they are guilty of the same moronic mistake. Until a player actually makes an all-star team stating they are "all-star" caliber is stupid and totally untrue.

That's hilarious! Do you even understand what the word "caliber" means? It's a description of a LEVEL!!! So when someone is described as "all-star caliber" (or level), that has NOTHING to do with whether they make the all-star team; it's a description of LEVEL! Denying this over and over doesn't change the reasoning. Example: If a player hits 50 home runs and bats .500 at the time of all-star voting, but is so unpopular he isn't chosen, he's still having an "all-star caliber" season. This is a description of LEVEL, not whether he's been chosen as an all-star! This is a simple concept. I KNOW you get this, but I also KNOW you will argue back unreasonably. Sigh....don't expect me to waste more time on this with you.

-Larrytt, getting out the popcorn....

[TommyD4207]

What a minute? Are you suggesting this OldFan "superhuman" Clemente thing might not be legit????

Because I've heard that - in addition to being able to throw out runners no one else could ever do - he could also bend a spoon using just his mind.

Seriously dude, do you even follow the Orioles or are you strictly on OldFan patrol? Although I think OldFan is looney tunes about a great variety of things, you're just plain stalker-ish with him.

[BRobinsonfan]

Seriously dude, do you even follow the Orioles or are you strictly on OldFan patrol? Although I think OldFan is looney tunes about a great variety of things, you're just plain stalker-ish with him.

Oh come on Dude, of my 1500 posts only 749 are devoted to OldFan.

[larrytt]

I was merely using the example of Clemente (best RF arm I ever saw) along with Vlad and Dewey Evans (the other two best I have ever seen) as examples that when you are truly elite runners put on the brakes and don't even try to test you. This is not the case with Nick. He gets tested a lot as evidenced by his high number of assists.

This is downright hilarious. So the more assists, the weaker the arm? And so Markakis gets tested a lot, as evidence by his high number of assists? While players "put on the brakes and don't even try to test you" if you have an arm like, say, Clemente's? So, based on this, Clemente would have far less assists than Markakis. WRONG!!! Apparently they liked to test Clemente's arm more!

Clemente's first gold glove was in 1961. He had 27 assists that year in 144 games. The following year he had 20, and 23 the next year, again winning the gold gloves.

Meanwhile, Markakis had a total of 13 assists last year in 161 games, and this year has 12 in 112 games. So by your reasoning, Markakis has the better arm, since he's not being tested, while Clemente is!

Meanwhile, Vladimir Guerrero has only 5 assists this year, and had only 5 all of last year. So let's see, Guerrero has a better arm than Markakis because players don't run on him and so he gets fewer assists, while Clemente has a better arm than Markakis because he gets more assists?!!!

-Larrytt

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, there is actually another explanation as to why Clemente's assists always were so high and that is he got even better and was making plays that were virtually impossible for anyone else to make. In other words, on a sure double or triple for anyone else, Clemente was making superhuman throws. I saw him do this a couple of times. It was simply unbelieveable that any runner would be thrown out on those plays. It defied belief.

This is just like Rickey Henderson. He was able to keep stealing bases into his 40s because he just got better and better, faster, and faster as time went on. By the late 90s he was so good at reading pickoff moves, and so fast, that he'd occasionally steal second base while the shortstop was holding the ball the whole time. He'd sometimes steal third, starting from first base, during appeal plays on check swings. I once saw him steal home three times during an off day while he was with his kids at the zoo.

[Mark Carver]

That's hilarious! Do you even understand what the word "caliber" means? It's a description of a LEVEL!!! So when someone is described as "all-star caliber" (or level), that has NOTHING to do with whether they make the all-star team; it's a description of LEVEL! Denying this over and over doesn't change the reasoning. Example: If a player hits 50 home runs and bats .500 at the time of all-star voting, but is so unpopular he isn't chosen, he's still having an "all-star caliber" season. This is a description of LEVEL, not whether he's been chosen as an all-star! This is a simple concept. I KNOW you get this, but I also KNOW you will argue back unreasonably. Sigh....don't expect me to waste more time on this with you.

-Larrytt, getting out the popcorn....

No, All-Star Caliber means a player played in the Al-Star game, even if they didn't deserve because the rules state that ALL teams must have a representative, and some players may get overlooked because of the rules.

[longflyball]

Then how the hell has Derek Jeter won gold gloves? He's never been better than average defensively and is usually well below that.

How did Palmeiro win a GG the year he played only 28 games in the field?

The gold glove is voted by baseball writers. Baseball writers know the team they cover, but they don't know the other teams very well. Winning the GG and playing GG caliber defense are two different things.

That said, I don't feel Nick plays GG caliber defense in RF. He was great his first year, but hasn't been as good the past two, IMO, at least in terms of catching flyballs. He does have a phenomenal arm, and that is part of the GG debate, so overall he's above average defensively, but I don't think he's quite the best defensive RF in the AL.

I've been away for a while, and stopped by, and read this thread. It's hilarious! Yep, there's a very actively dense person in this thread. Since no one has explicitly shown the illogic of his main claim, I'll do so.

Duffman wrote:

"I guess that gold glove defense he brings to the park every night as well doesn't make him elite either?"

Old#5fan wrote:

"...you actually have to WIN a GOLD GLOVE before you are considered a GOLD GLOVE DEFENSIVE PLAYER!!!!"

Now Old#5fan says "Some of you apparently never took a basic college course in Logic 101." So let's apply some logic. (And I took years of it.)

The problem here is that it mistakes "gold glove defense" with "gold glove winner." These are two very different things. One is a level; the other is a specific award.

Suppose Nick Markakis were a superhuman athlete. Suppose he covers the entire outfield alone. In 162 games, he never makes an error, and he catches every ball hit on the fly to the outfield, even jumping 50 feet into the air to catch home run balls. He sets every record for outfield assists, never missing a throw, etc., etc. Objectively speaking, he is the greatest defensive outfielder in history.

But suppose that after each game he insults all the sports writers to the point where they refuse to vote for him when they vote for gold glovers. And so he does not win a gold glove.

And so there are three others who win the gold glove that year, and yet Markakis clearly had a higher level of defense. Markakis clearly played gold glove defense (unless you want to argue he didn't play gold glove defense because he played better than gold glove defense, but that too is a logical fallacy I won't go into here). He simply didn't get the subjective votes of the writers, who voted against him for his attitude, which has nothing to do with his defensive level.

Therefore, the hypothesis that you have to win a gold glove to play gold glove defense is false. The problem with this hypothesis is that it equates outside factors, such as attitude, with defensive level, which are logically separate. As pointed out, this is why some players win gold gloves when they clearly did not play gold glove defense. (The examples of Palmeiro and Jeter are illustrative.)

Another, simpler example. It was pointed out that Palmeiro won a gold glove while playing only 26 games on defense. Suppose he played zero games, but was still voted the gold glove, despite playing no defense. Logically, you cannot play gold glove defense if you do not play any defense, and yet, by the hypothesis, by winning the gold glove, Palmeiro has played gold glove defense, which is a logical fallacy.

-Larrytt

At the risk of derailing this illuminating thread, I will point out that Gold Glove awards are voted upon by managers and coaches, not sports writers. I point it out because I was once corrected after making the same mistake.

Carry on.

[Mackus]

At the risk of derailing this illuminating thread, I will point out that Gold Glove awards are voted upon by managers and coaches, not sports writers. I point it out because I was once corrected after making the same mistake.

Carry on.

Hmm, thanks.

[larrytt]

There are stupid rookies and overconfident/poor baserunners every year introduced into the big leagues.

Hypocrisy alert. When someone said Markakis played "gold glove defense," you attacked him over and over for not saying that this was only his opinion. Yet here you come up with the above, clearly an opinion, but state it as a fact in the same way as the "gold glove defense" poster! I'm dying to hear how you explain why you believe there were all these "stupid rookies and overconfident/poor baserunners" when Clemente played outfield, but not when Markakis plays outfield. But you don't use facts or logic; you start with a conclusion, and then claim the facts match that, as you do here, without evidence, and then use the made-up "facts" to prove your original conclusion! Yep, circular reasoning. The fact that your entire posting contradicts your postings about runners not challenging players with great arms doesn't seem to bother you a bit. Clemente's getting lots of assists means he has great arm; Guerrera's few assists means he has a great arm; Markakis, no matter what he does, doesn't have a great arm because it doesn't match your pre-set conclusion.

Okay, enough logic with you. I've had my fun with your "logic," but you obviously are not going to budge in your pre-set and illogical mind-set.

-Larrytt

[Mark Carver]

At the risk of derailing this illuminating thread, I will point out that Gold Glove awards are voted upon by managers and coaches, not sports writers. I point it out because I was once corrected after making the same mistake.

Well, than that explains why Palmeiro received a Gold Glove in 1999 while playing 1B in 29 games and was the DH for 135 games.

[larrytt]

At the risk of derailing this illuminating thread, I will point out that Gold Glove awards are voted upon by managers and coaches, not sports writers. I point it out because I was once corrected after making the same mistake.

Carry on.

Good point. I didn't think to check on it when someone else posted that. And yet, Palmeiro managed to win the gold glove while playing only 29 games on defense??? Somehow I think there was an "gold glove caliber" first baseman who was cheated that year.

-Larrytt

[ledzepp8]

This is downright hilarious. So the more assists, the weaker the arm? And so Markakis gets tested a lot, as evidence by his high number of assists? While players "put on the brakes and don't even try to test you" if you have an arm like, say, Clemente's? So, based on this, Clemente would have far less assists than Markakis. WRONG!!! Apparently they liked to test Clemente's arm more!

Clemente's first gold glove was in 1961. He had 27 assists that year in 144 games. The following year he had 20, and 23 the next year, again winning the gold gloves.

Meanwhile, Markakis had a total of 13 assists last year in 161 games, and this year has 12 in 112 games. So by your reasoning, Markakis has the better arm, since he's not being tested, while Clemente is!

Meanwhile, Vladimir Guerrero has only 5 assists this year, and had only 5 all of last year. So let's see, Guerrero has a better arm than Markakis because players don't run on him and so he gets fewer assists, while Clemente has a better arm than Markakis because he gets more assists?!!!

-Larrytt

Duh...I mean I thought everyone understood how outfield defense and gold gloves worked.

[itzDaBigE]

Just thought Id throw in my 2 cents and say that I am blown away that this thread lasted 11 pages...

[Old#5fan]

Good point. I didn't think to check on it when someone else posted that. And yet, Palmeiro managed to win the gold glove while playing only 29 games on defense??? Somehow I think there was an "gold glove caliber" first baseman who was cheated that year.

-Larrytt

Not necessarily. I always just assumed there were no other really deserving candidates that particular year and Palmeiro got it based on his past years of consistent Gold Glove performance. I mean, if Brooks Robinson would have been a DH in one of his playing years and played only 29 games on defense wouldn't he still be just as good as he always was and thus deserve the Gold Glove? Correct me if I am wrong, but apparently there are no minimum number of games required per year to win it.

[Dr. FLK]

Not necessarily. I always just assumed there were no other really deserving candidates that particular year and Palmeiro got it based on his past years of consistent Gold Glove performance. I mean, if Brooks Robinson would have been a DH in one of his playing years and played only 29 games on defense wouldn't he still be just as good as he always was and thus deserve the Gold Glove? Correct me if I am wrong, but apparently there are no minimum number of games required per year to win it.

If he was just as good as he always was, why in the world would he be playing DH? Did they acquire Superman to man the hot corner? And, if so, shouldn't he win the GG?