New Fielding Stat

[WietersOvechkin]

Nick Markakis is a gold glove caliber RFer.

The gold glove award is a stupid popularity contest where the deserving party rarely wins.

agreed per example last year Jimmy Rollins over Troy Tulowitzki

[Old#5fan]

Nick Markakis is a gold glove caliber RFer.

The gold glove award is a stupid popularity contest where the deserving party rarely wins.

Oh, so Paul Blair, Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger, Jim Palmer, and Cal Ripken Jr were simply popular players who couldn't field, all because Markakis didn't garner said award? That makes a lot of sense.:rolleyestf:

[Frobby]

Oh, so Paul Blair, Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger, Jim Palmer, and Cal Ripken Jr were simply popular players who couldn't field, all because Markakis didn't garner said award? That makes a lot of sense.:rolleyestf:

Actually, Cal probably got short-changed when it came to Gold Gloves. Brooks, I think, won a couple on reputation in years when someone else was a bit better. But there's little doubt in my mind he was the greatest defensive 3B ever.

The problem with your argument is you are generalizing. Nobdoy is saying that all the Gold Gloves ever awarded were undeserved. But a lot of them were. Specifically, many Gold Gloves have been given to (1) guys who at one time were the best at their position, but no longer were, and (2) guys who were very good hitters but only average as fielders.

By the way, Nick is an excellent defender but he did not deserve a Gold Glove.

[Mashed Potatoes]

Oh, so Paul Blair, Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger, Jim Palmer, and Cal Ripken Jr were simply popular players who couldn't field, all because Markakis didn't garner said award? That makes a lot of sense.:rolleyestf:

I wrote that post just to provoke you.

The Gold Glove is often awarded to the right player, and often not. I do not think the inconsistencies of its selection devalues the true defensive performances of the players you mentioned, since I see the true defensive performances of Blair/Robinson/Belanger represented in more objective metrics.

As for Markakis winning the gold glove, I don't actually care, I would only enjoy it because the award would afford Nick more positive national press.

[Mackus]

By the way, Nick is an excellent defender but he did not deserve a Gold Glove.

If they gave out GG for LF, CF, and RF, then I think you could make a decent case for Nick.

But, since they just give out 3 OF GG's, I don't think any LF or RF should ever get one. It should be 3 CF every year.

[Frobby]

If they gave out GG for LF, CF, and RF, then I think you could make a decent case for Nick.

But, since they just give out 3 OF GG's, I don't think any LF or RF should ever get one. It should be 3 CF every year.

Franklin Gutierrez was the best RF in the AL this year.

Right Field – Franklin Gutierrez, Cleveland

Franklin Gutierrez led all right fielders in Plus/Minus last year with +20, although he did not win the Fielding Bible Award. To show that 2007 was no fluke, however, Gutierrez led them again this year with +29. Here’s the amazing part: he did it while playing only 88 games in right field in 2007 and only 97 games this year. Gutierrez received 85 total points from our panel and is a first-time Fielding Bible Award winner in right field.

http://www.fieldingbible.com/

[Mackus]

Franklin Gutierrez was the best RF in the AL this year.

http://www.fieldingbible.com/

I'm not a huge fan of the Fielding Bible, but even using those numbers, Gutierrez was +29, Markakis +12.

Markakis led all MLB with 17 assists. Gutierrez had 4.

[Old#5fan]

Actually, Cal probably got short-changed when it came to Gold Gloves. Brooks, I think, won a couple on reputation in years when someone else was a bit better. But there's little doubt in my mind he was the greatest defensive 3B ever.

The problem with your argument is you are generalizing. Nobdoy is saying that all the Gold Gloves ever awarded were undeserved. But a lot of them were. Specifically, many Gold Gloves have been given to (1) guys who at one time were the best at their position, but no longer were, and (2) guys who were very good hitters but only average as fielders.

By the way, Nick is an excellent defender but he did not deserve a Gold Glove.

I agree with you on this but I bet we are among only a handful of all posters here who believe that. Don't worry, I am not going to do a poll!

[BaltimoreTerp]

I agree with you on this but I bet we are among only a handful of all posters here who believe that. Don't worry, I am not going to do a poll!

Yeah, but he backed his assertion up. You've just been giving the "because I said so" routine that may work on your kids and grandkids but not around here.

[Old#5fan]

Yeah, but he backed his assertion up. You've just been giving the "because I said so" routine that may work on your kids and grandkids but not around here.

Oh, I see. So forty plus years of watching thousands of major league players including hundreds of outfielders play is meaningless to you? Fine. However, some day, some where, regarding some thing in life you will eventually find out that there are benefits to having simply observed more as a result of time.

Being dismissive of others who have been around longer as if that matters not is simply very poor judgment by anyone and you certainly at some point will learn this. I am ultimately confident of that. In fact I know you will eventually find this out.

For example I saw Brooks Robinson on a regular basis playing third base, did you? I also saw Paul Blair patrolling centerfield in his prime, did you? I also saw Mark Belanger his entire career from a rookie on, did you? If not, I have a basis to compare based on observation that you simply do not have nor will you ever. To dismiss this as worthless is simply inexcusably short-sited and that is being kind. Same as you having seen Cal Ripken play and the kid of age 5 or six has no idea other than checking stats, talking to folks like us and watching old video.

So having seen Nick Markakis play, so far I can say he is a good but not great defensive outfielder. The same can be said about his offense. He certainly is not the type to carry a team anywhere. He could be if he developed more power and came up with more game winning hits.

[DrungoHazewood]

Being dismissive of others who have been around longer as if that matters not is simply very poor judgment by anyone and you certainly at some point will learn this. I am ultimately confident of that. In fact I know you will eventually find this out.

The point you constantly miss (probably on purpose) is that we don't dismiss others who've just been around longer. We dismiss those who've been around a little longer and exclusively use experience as a sledgehammer to bludgeon the life out of a conversation.

I am ultimately confident of the fact that earning my respect involves expressing relevant facts backed, at least in part, by trusted sources.

You get little respect because you never use objective information. It's the difference between a well-researched book with pages and pages of footnotes, and an breezy opinion piece that has none.

[Old#5fan]

The point you constantly miss (probably on purpose) is that we don't dismiss others who've just been around longer. We dismiss those who've been around a little longer and exclusively use experience as a sledgehammer to bludgeon the life out of a conversation.

I am ultimately confident of the fact that earning my respect involves expressing relevant facts backed, at least in part, by trusted sources.

You get little respect because you never use objective information. It's the difference between a well-researched book with pages and pages of footnotes, and an breezy opinion piece that has none.

Oh, so if I wrote a book about all my recollections of seemingly impossible plays made right before my eyes by Brooks Robinsion for example, that would validate what I know I saw? I don't need to convince anyone of what I saw. I know what I saw. People not around should respect that, especially if it doesn't drastically conflict with what is generally known.

I will give you another example, I don't know if you follow football but the 1958 championship (Greatest NFL Game Ever) is about to be replayed in HD and I have been dreaming about this for ever. I was three years old when that game was played and don't remember it. However I have several books about the game, have read numerous books by the various players in the game (17 HOF players/coaches) and pretty much know all the plays.

However, I have never seen most of the plays before. As such, I have always felt I never got the true essence I needed to experience of that game. Now, I will get the opportunity and you cannot imagine the thrill I have. Nevertheless, this is still not the same thrill (not even close) to the experience of someone who watched the game as it was played, like my Dad, my uncles and one of my older cousins. I have always envied them for being around to see that game.

If you don't understand this, there is no point in explaining it further (or trying to).

[BRobinsonfan]

Oh, I see. So forty plus years of watching thousands of major league players including hundreds of outfielders play is meaningless to you? Fine. However, some day, some where, regarding some thing in life you will eventually find out that there are benefits to having simply observed more as a result of time.

Being dismissive of others who have been around longer as if that matters not is simply very poor judgment by anyone and you certainly at some point will learn this. I am ultimately confident of that. In fact I know you will eventually find this out.

For example I saw Brooks Robinson on a regular basis playing third base, did you? I also saw Paul Blair patrolling centerfield in his prime, did you? I also saw Mark Belanger his entire career from a rookie on, did you? If not, I have a basis to compare based on observation that you simply do not have nor will you ever. To dismiss this as worthless is simply inexcusably short-sited and that is being kind. Same as you having seen Cal Ripken play and the kid of age 5 or six has no idea other than checking stats, talking to folks like us and watching old video.

So having seen Nick Markakis play, so far I can say he is a good but not great defensive outfielder. The same can be said about his offense. He certainly is not the type to carry a team anywhere. He could be if he developed more power and came up with more game winning hits.

Outrageous/nonsensical claim... holes blown in it by objective data... appeal to age.

Lather... rinse... repeat

OldFan Groundhog Day

[Old#5fan]

Outrageous/nonsensical claim... holes blown in it by objective data... appeal to age.

Lather... rinse... repeat

OldFan Groundhog Day

Sigh, as usual you are wrong again despite your weak attempt at drama. Frobby used objective data (not that I needed it at all) to prove our take that Markakis is not the best defensive right fielder in the AL who warrants a Gold Glove Award. So, even by your own measure you are wrong. Dead wrong.

Lather...rinse.... repeat. Wrong yet again.

[waroriole]

Oh, so if I wrote a book about all my recollections of seemingly impossible plays made right before my eyes by Brooks Robinsion for example, that would validate what I know I saw? I don't need to convince anyone of what I saw. I know what I saw. People not around should respect that, especially if it doesn't drastically conflict with what is generally known.

Then why are you always on here talking about how you're a more knowledgable fan b/c you "saw him play." I'm sure there are many other posters who saw as many, or more, players and O's games than you. However, they don't constantly talk about that as their only basis for an argument.