New Fielding Stat

[Old#5fan]

No, a system should get the obvious cases right. Belanger and Blair and Brooks were obvious cases (although I take issue with anyone who says Brooks was the best defensive 3B in the league every year for 16 years). A system doesn't get extra credit because it gets the obvious stuff right. The test of a system is when it's stressed. When the GG's are stressed it spits out a Nate McLouth or a Derek Jeter or a Raffy, or a Jim Kaat. And that's just indefensible.

Well, I happen to think they got it right on Markakis. Obviously, he is not an obvious case except here on the OH where far too many seem to envision him as walking on water, when he is only a good swimmer.:laughlol:

[ChaosLex]

It was a TYPO. I obviously put the second not in there by accident, but it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't pick up on that or understand it. Thanks for pointing it out in the most condescending way possible, though. I'm now officially done with you. Taking you off ignore to try and give you another chance was a colossal waste of time.

This will cheer you up.

[The Wedge]

This will cheer you up.

I was thinking of another very popular image. But thanks for that.

[Crazysilver03]

This will cheer you up.

This is a better version!

[Old#5fan]

It was a TYPO. I obviously put the second not in there by accident, but it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't pick up on that or understand it. Thanks for pointing it out in the most condescending way possible, though. I'm now officially done with you. Taking you off ignore to try and give you another chance was a colossal waste of time.

AND OF COURSE THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING! That's what the phrase GG Caliber MEANS! GAHAHGHGHAHA

Seriously, I am not trying to torque you on this but would you agree that a multiple Gold Glove Award winner played "Gold Glove Caliber Defense" during his baseball career? (My guess is yes).

So if someone never wins a Gold Glove Award during his career would you agree that he didn't play "Gold Glove Caliber Defense? Or would you maintain, that it is impossible to know as perhaps the Voters shafted him during his playing career? (If you think the latter) than in your view you might as well just disregard the Gold Glove Award and never even mention it in describing a caliber of play. The simple reason if the award is not administered properly, why use it as a term of excellence when describing a player at any time?

In other words if you describe Markakis as a Gold Glove Caliber player, yet he never wins the award because the Voting Committe for the Award are making bad choices, then why not just ignore the term and award all together?

However, to proclaim him as being a certain type of player that equates to an award you don't value anyway because of the alleged poor administration of it is sort of a parodox don't ya think?

[DrungoHazewood]

So if someone never wins a Gold Glove Award during his career would you agree that he didn't play "Gold Glove Caliber Defense? Or would you maintain, that it is impossible to know as perhaps the Voters shafted him during his playing career? (If you think the latter) than in your view you might as well just disregard the Gold Glove Award and never even mention it in describing a caliber of play. The simple reason if the award is not administered properly, why use it as a term of excellence when describing a player at any time?

"Gold Glove caliber", for better or worse, has become a popular term to describe someone who is a great fielder. The actual Gold Glove awards are a mismash of good, decent, and absolutely indefensible selections - for reasons I've described previously.

So it's entirely reasonable to describe someone as Gold Glove caliber to bow to tradition and common use of the term, while accepting that many of the results of the actual award appear to have been determined by interpreting chicken entrails.

[zff4]

Paraphrasing Scully:

UZR is used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination.

[Old#5fan]

"Gold Glove caliber", for better or worse, has become a popular term to describe someone who is a great fielder. The actual Gold Glove awards are a mismash of good, decent, and absolutely indefensible selections - for reasons I've described previously.

So it's entirely reasonable to describe someone as Gold Glove caliber to bow to tradition and common use of the term, while accepting that many of the results of the actual award appear to have been determined by interpreting chicken entrails.

Reasonable? In my estimation it would only be "reasonable" if you view the Gold Glove Award as generally awarded in most cases to a great fielder. If not, as in you have a problem with the award adminstration, than it would certainly seem at a minimum inconsistent to use the term and actually quite contradictory. Maybe they should have a separately awarded Fan Gold Glove Award, although I think that too would evolve into a popularity contest. I just find it sort of ironic for someone to disagree with how the award is adminstered, while at the same time using it as the ultimate for fielding recognition, and inferring players are of the caliber of winning the award when they don't ever win it. The whole concept of doing this is beyond bizzare. To me you either win it or you don't. If you don't win it you may still be a very good fielder just not "Gold Glove Caliber."

[DrungoHazewood]

Reasonable? In my estimation it would only be "reasonable" if you view the Gold Glove Award as generally awarded in most cases to a great fielder. If not, as in you have a problem with the award adminstration, than it would certainly seem at a minimum inconsistent to use the term and actually quite contradictory. Maybe they should have a separately awarded Fan Gold Glove Award, although I think that too would evolve into a popularity contest. I just find it sort of ironic for someone to disagree with how the award is adminstered, while at the same time using it as the ultimate for fielding recognition, and inferring players are of the caliber of winning the award when they don't ever win it. The whole concept of doing this is beyond bizzare. To me you either win it or you don't. If you don't win it you may still be a very good fielder just not "Gold Glove Caliber."

I've said my case. No further amount of logic will sway you.

[Stacey]

So if someone never wins a Gold Glove Award during his career would you agree that he didn't play "Gold Glove Caliber Defense? Or would you maintain, that it is impossible to know as perhaps the Voters shafted him during his playing career? (If you think the latter) than in your view you might as well just disregard the Gold Glove Award and never even mention it in describing a caliber of play. The simple reason if the award is not administered properly, why use it as a term of excellence when describing a player at any time?

I simply cannot believe this is happening again.

[Old#5fan]

I simply cannot believe this is happening again.

Well, maybe it people stop incorrectly terming a particular player here as something he factually is not, then I won't need to bring it to the forefront.

It really doesn't just apply to the Gold Glove award either. You should not be proclaiming a player as Allstar caliber or quality if he never gets voted to the team. It is bogus to do so and factually incorrect.

[Old#5fan]

I've said my case. No further amount of logic will sway you.

You are right on that. You either accept the Award the way it is, flaws and all or should stop using the Award to describe players who you think should win it.

I think the problem is that when enough people continually describe Nick Markakis as being a Gold Glove caliber outfielder they actually believe he deserves a Gold Glove which is fine, but don't take offense when others point out he has not won such an award so techically he is not as described. I would venture to say that he would be describe as such on very few other teams fan forums.

[ChaosLex]

"Gold Glove caliber", for better or worse, has become a popular term to describe someone who is a great fielder. The actual Gold Glove awards are a mismash of good, decent, and absolutely indefensible selections - for reasons I've described previously.

So it's entirely reasonable to describe someone as Gold Glove caliber to bow to tradition and common use of the term, while accepting that many of the results of the actual award appear to have been determined by interpreting chicken entrails.

Slam. Dunk. Score.

Great post as always, Drungo. Rep to you!

[glenn__davis]

Well, maybe it people stop incorrectly terming a particular player here as something he factually is not, then I won't need to bring it to the forefront.

You brought it to the forefront yourself this time.

[Old#5fan]

I agree, this is completely reasonable. The actual Gold Glove award is garbage, but it's just become one of those "baseball phrases" that is easier to use than "very good defensive player".

If the award is indeed considered "garbage" (I certainly do not consider it garbage merely because they may have voted some apparently less than deserving receipients in the past) it makes no sense for the same folks who consider it as such to use it quite contradictorily as if it is still the ultimate defensive award. Either it is valid or it isn't is all I am saying. To me, anyone who uses it to describe a great defensive player is validating it as still a valid award. Further, in using the term, common sense should dictate it only should be used describing those players who have actually received it. I don't think you can have it both ways.