Nick...killing it in the 2 spot.

[Old#5fan]

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

I suggest that you slowly read and try to comprehend my own statement regarding rookie baserunners coming into the league every year. Of course the term "every year" would include the years that Nick Markakis is playing. He no doubt has thrown out his share of rookie baserunners as well.

I also posted that I think Clemente's assists remained high because he continued to complete plays that would be impossible for virtually any other RFer to make. So runners were not always overly chancy on him, he just continued to display greatness that defies description and plays to match.

Talk to any Pirate fan who routinely watched him if you don't wish to believe me for whatever reason. This includes you Drungo, as obviously you never saw him play and have no idea how incredible his arm and accuracy were from RF.

[BRobinsonfan]

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 good as he always was.... why wouldn't he be playing in the field? I mean... why not put the other guy... who's not the gold glove third baseman... at DH?

I mean... Oh never mind.... :rolleyestf:

[Frobby]

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.

I'm speechless. And, I think you should be added to the list of people who get to vote for the Gold Glove, since you obviously are in tune with the voters.

[Maverick2143]

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.

You honestly going to sit there and say that if a player only plays 17.9% of his team's games at a position that it is completely fair for him to win a Gold Glove. That is pretty much the equivalent of a player hitting .395 in April, having a season ending injury, but still winning the Silver Slugger at the end of the season.

[Old#5fan]

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?

Maybe he had some kind of injury (back stiffness for example) where he couldn't dive for balls like he normally did but still could DH. Some of you really don't use your thinking caps do you?:scratchchinhmm:

[Old#5fan]

You honestly going to sit there and say that if a player only plays 17.9% of his team's games at a position that it is completely fair for him to win a Gold Glove. That is pretty much the equivalent of a player hitting .395 in April, having a season ending injury, but still winning the Silver Slugger at the end of the season.

Hey, I don't make the Gold Glove Rules or necessarily agree with them, but if there was nobody special that year playing first, I can at least understand why they would give it to Raffy. Why should some mediocre fielder get it merely because he played more games? Again, if Brooks Robinsion had to DH it wouldn't change the fact he was the best fielding thirdbaseman in baseball, and if there were no minimum number of games required to win the award so what?

[Dr. FLK]

Maybe he had some kind of injury (back stiffness for example) where he couldn't dive for balls like he normally did but still could DH. Some of you really don't use your thinking caps do you?:scratchchinhmm:

If he has a back injury, I'd be willing to bet that his defense would suffer. Therefore, he probably wouldn't be able to play gold glove caliber defense until his back healed. As a result, he'd be moved to DH. Normally, players who are still great defenders aren't moved to DH. I hate this theory that designated hitters are designated to hitting, thus restricting them from contributing in the field. I don't have a trophy yet, so it's just an opinion for now.

[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.

Wow. Now we learn that if player gets the gold glove based on past years' play, and that the year he won he had, say, an injured leg and hobbled about, he played "gold glove defense" that year since he won the gold glove award. You asked us to correct if you were wrong, so you stand corrected on this and other points above. Think about it: If Brooks Robinson were injured all year and didn't play ANY defense, but was voted the gold glove, you've just argued he played gold glove defense without playing any defense, and claimed this proves that no others deserved the gold glove, not because they didn't play great defense, but because a player who didn't play defense won it. I repeat: Wow. Don't you see you are sticking with conclusions while writing whatever necessary to (illogically) make the facts fit a pre-set conclusion?

-Larrytt

[jdlea]

Maybe he had some kind of injury (back stiffness for example) where he couldn't dive for balls like he normally did but still could DH. Some of you really don't use your thinking caps do you?:scratchchinhmm:

That would clearly mean that he wouldn't be the same fielder and, therefore, wouldn't deserve the Gold Glove.

[ledzepp8]

Maybe he had some kind of injury (back stiffness for example) where he couldn't dive for balls like he normally did but still could DH. Some of you really don't use your thinking caps do you?:scratchchinhmm:

Well then he wasn't as good as he always was. Methinks someone needs to get their thinking cap re sized.:scratchchinhmm:

[Old#5fan]

If he has a back injury, I'd be willing to bet that his defense would suffer. Therefore, he probably wouldn't be able to play gold glove caliber defense until his back healed. As a result, he'd be moved to DH. Normally, players who are still great defenders aren't moved to DH. I hate this theory that designated hitters are designated to hitting, thus restricting them from contributing in the field. I don't have a trophy yet, so it's just an opinion for now.

Look Kid, maybe you should eat some more fruit loops but how would his defense suffer if he was dhing most of the games? You don't make errors as a DH!!! Common sense would tell you he would play the first 27 games in this scenario, hurt his back and then have to DH the rest of the year. Do I have to spell every single aspect of everything out to ya?:rolleyestf:

[larrytt]

I suggest that you slowly read and try to comprehend my own statement regarding rookie baserunners coming into the league every year. Of course the term "every year" would include the years that Nick Markakis is playing. He no doubt has thrown out his share of rookie baserunners as well.

I also posted that I think Clemente's assists remained high because he continued to complete plays that would be impossible for virtually any other RFer to make. So runners were not always overly chancy on him, he just continued to display greatness that defies description and plays to match.

Talk to any Pirate fan who routinely watched him if you don't wish to believe me for whatever reason. This includes you Drungo, as obviously you never saw him play and have no idea how incredible his arm and accuracy were from RF.

You are still changing the facts to fit your pre-set conclusions, while ignoring how you are contradicting your own postings. The facts have been presented over and over, and your circular reasoning isn't going to change them. Remember (to use just one of many examples), you argued players like Clemente got few assists because players didn't challenge his arm; then, when you found out he got lots of assists, you reinterpreted to facts to match your pre-set opinion - while making up new "facts" to explain why Guererra got few assists to match this pre-set opinion. You are just making the stuff up as you go along. You can't have it both ways, although you can argue illogically all day. Have a nice day living in your world, but it's not reality.

-Larrytt

[Old#5fan]

Well then he wasn't as good as he always was. Methinks someone needs to get their thinking cap re sized.:scratchchinhmm:

Lets see where this great logic comes from. Player gets injured and now he 'isn't as good as he always was'? Unless it is a permanent injury causing him damage beyond repair why would this be the case? I guess AROD isn't any good now because he strained his calf and missed some games earlier in the season? Good Grief Charlie Brown!!:laughlol:

[Mackus]

<img src="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/ab/TonyCliftonMoon.jpg">

[larrytt]

Maybe he had some kind of injury (back stiffness for example) where he couldn't dive for balls like he normally did but still could DH. Some of you really don't use your thinking caps do you?:scratchchinhmm:

:laughlol::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol::laughlol:

So now the argument is that, despite an injury that prevents a player from playing good defense, you argue he deserves the gold glove, and therefore he played gold glove defense (circular reasoning), even though he couldn't play good defense (contradiction)??? I think your thinking cap needs a bit of tuning!!! This thread should be printed out for a Logic 101 class.

-Larrytt