Poll- Who is More Likely to Win a Gold Glove

[Mark Carver]

Sorry, but although Andy McPhail saying it is much more impressive than anyone here proclaiming it (Markakis is Gold Glove Caliber) the fact remains that unless the Gold Glove Commitee votes him the award he technically is no such thing.

In other words comments by fans and GM's don't win you a Gold Glove Award.

Your committee consists of managers and coaches and they are not allowed to vote for their own players. So how many times has Dave Trembley actually seen Ryan Braun (2008 winner) play to judge whether he was one of the best in the OF in the NL in 2008. Ok, 3 games in 2008.

How many times has he seen Matt Holiday play in 2008, another 2008 NL winner in the OF... zero times. They never played Colorado in 2008.

In American baseball, the Rawlings Gold Glove Award, usually referred to simply as the Gold Glove, is the award given annually to the Major League Baseball player judged to have the most "superior individual fielding performance" at each position (in each league), as voted by the managers and coaches in each league. Managers are not allowed to vote for their own players. Eighteen Gold Gloves are awarded each year (with the exception of 2007), one at each of nine positions to a player in both the National League and American League.

[Old#5fan]

Your committee consists of managers and coaches and they are not allowed to vote for their own players. So how many times has Dave Trembley actually seen Ryan Braun (2008 winner) play to judge whether he was one of the best in the OF in the NL in 2008. Ok, 3 games in 2008.

How many times has he seen Matt Holiday play in 2008, another 2008 NL winner in the NL... zero times. They never played Colorado in 2008.

All I know is there was no whining by Orioles or even other teams fans back when Brooks, Blair, Belanger and Palmer were winning them on a seemingly yearly basis. Same with Cal. Now (maybe its a new generational thing) because Markakis doesn't get said award, the whole process and the makeup of the committee is invalid? Gimme a break.:rolleyestf:

I bet that wouldn't be the case if any Oriole got the award though? Suddenly, then it would be just fine!

Apparently, there is this great conspiracy against Markakis for reasons unknown by the voters? Did the thought ever ocurr to anyone that perhaps, just perhaps, he hasn't done enough to separate himself from the pack to earn or merit such award?

[DrungoHazewood]

All I know is there was no whining by Orioles or even other teams fans back when Brooks, Blair, Belanger and Palmer were winning them on a seemingly yearly basis. Same with Cal. Now (maybe its a new generational thing) because Markakis doesn't get said award, the whole process and the makeup of the committee is invalid? Gimme a break.:rolleyestf:

I bet that wouldn't be the case if any Oriole got the award though? Suddenly, then it would be just fine!

Apparently, there is this great conspiracy against Markakis for reasons unknown by the voters? Did the thought ever ocurr to anyone that perhaps, just perhaps, he hasn't done enough to separate himself from the pack to earn or merit such award?

Wrong! The system is broken no matter how many or how few Orioles win. I often hold up Brooks' 16 consecutive GGs as a giant piece of evidence that the system is very broken. No one is the best at anything in high level sports for 16 consecutive years. It's impossible. How many players have won 16 consecutive batting titles? Or home run titles? Or RBI titles? Or led the league in ERA 16 straight years? No one! But Brooks, Jim Kaat, and Greg Maddux have all had runs like that in GGs.

Broken!

[Old#5fan]

Wrong! The system is broken no matter how many or how few Orioles win. I often hold up Brooks' 16 consecutive GGs as a giant piece of evidence that the system is very broken. No one is the best at anything in high level sports for 16 consecutive years. It's impossible. How many players have won 16 consecutive batting titles? Or home run titles? Or RBI titles? Or led the league in ERA 16 straight years? No one! But Brooks, Jim Kaat, and Greg Maddux have all had runs like that in GGs.

Broken!

You say this now, but back when Brooks was winning them and had you been around saying this you would have been thought to be seriously demented as an Oriole fan bar none. I also would bet the farm had you been around to observe Brooks while he was winning those Gold Gloves you wouldn't make such a silly assertion now either.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY thought that way back then, and I maintain the only reason some here feel this way now is Oriole players have an extreme shortage of Gold Glove Awards over the past 15 years or so. I also maintain it is not because of a faulty award system but largely due to lack of talent. (Not completely, but for the most part). I do think Bordick was slighted, but he is about the only Oriole that I can think of who has been.

[SilentJames]

You say this now, but back when Brooks was winning them and had you been around saying this you would have been thought to be seriously demented as an Oriole fan bar none. I also would bet the farm had you been around to observe Brooks while he was winning those Gold Gloves you wouldn't make such a silly assertion now either.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY thought that way back then, and I maintain the only reason some here feel this way now is Oriole players have an extreme shortage of Gold Glove Awards over the past 15 years or so. I also maintain it is not because of a faulty award system but largely due to lack of talent. (Not completely, but for the most part). I do think Bordick was slighted, but he is about the only Oriole that I can think of who has been.

It is hysterical that you are keeping this up. I mean it is the GG, it means largely nothing. But Drungo is right that the system is broken. Look at third base last year. Adrian Beltre? Really?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=81&sortColumn=fieldingPct

He is not "the best" in any real category. Hell A-Rod had a better FPCT. I don't get how he won that award. I mean Mora had a better RF, Hannahan had fewer errors.

Beltre is a name that makes flashy plays.

The Best does not always win the award.

[Old#5fan]

It is hysterical that you are keeping this up. I mean it is the GG, it means largely nothing. But Drungo is right that the system is broken. Look at third base last year. Adrian Beltre? Really?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=81&sortColumn=fieldingPct

He is not "the best" in any real category. Hell A-Rod had a better FPCT. I don't get how he won that award. I mean Mora had a better RF, Hannahan had fewer errors.

Beltre is a name that makes flashy plays.

The Best does not always win the award.

Well let me ask you this. Who do you think would deserve a Gold Glove the most? A third baseman like Melvin Mora, who is solid but rarely makes a spectular play and say commits 7 errors out of 300 chances, or Brooks Robinson, who commits 9 errors out of 330 chances but made 35 seemingly humanly impossible plays. Mora made zero all year (seemingly humanly impossible plays.) The reason some of you think the way you do is you never saw a player the likes of Brooks Robinson which is a shame. There is nobody in today's game comparable. Not even close, and I am not talking stats, I am talking the ability to make seemingly humanly impossible players on a regular basis.

Just ask some of the other old timers who post here. They can easily vouch for what I am stating here.

[SilentJames]

Well let me ask you this. Who do you think would deserve a Gold Glove the most? A third baseman like Melvin Mora, who is solid but rarely makes a spectular play and say commits 7 errors out of 300 chances, or Brooks Robinson, who commits 9 errors out of 330 chances but made 35 seemingly humanly impossible plays. Mora made zero all year (seemingly humanly impossible plays.)

Define "seemingly humanly impossible" because every player has a couple spectacular plays a year. But you keep saying "the best" "the best" "the best".

Derek Jeter makes a bunch of plays that look fantastic but they are routine to other players because Jeter is a crappy fielder.

I'm not saying Mora deserved a Golden Glove but I am saying that at third base Beltre was not "the best".

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=80&sortColumn=fieldingPct

Look at 2B. Pedroia won. But statistically he is not "the best" in many many categories.

Once again, it is a disconnect between the stats and the perceptions of people. the GG is all about flash. And that is fine.

But don't go around thinking Markakis is not elite because he has not won an award that, as you put it, is based more on visual perception than actual statistics. The bottom line is that you are wrong about Markakis and you are using the lack of a GG to back up your view. and that is deeply flawed logic.

[Mark Carver]

Define "seemingly humanly impossible" because every player has a couple spectacular plays a year. But you keep saying "the best" "the best" "the best".

Derek Jeter makes a bunch of plays that look fantastic but they are routine to other players because Jeter is a crappy fielder.

I'm not saying Mora deserved a Golden Glove but I am saying that at third base Beltre was not "the best".

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=80&sortColumn=fieldingPct

Look at 2B. Pedroia won. But statistically he is not "the best" in many many categories.

Once again, it is a disconnect between the stats and the perceptions of people. the GG is all about flash. And that is fine.

But don't go around thinking Markakis is not elite because he has not won an award that, as you put it, is based more on visual perception than actual statistics. The bottom line is that you are wrong about Markakis and you are using the lack of a GG to back up your view. and that is deeply flawed logic.

How can someone that has spent his entire working lifetime in professional baseball be wrong? How can someone who was around his father, who himself spent his entire working lifetime in professional baseball and in fact, is himself in the HOF, be wrong? How can someone who was around his grandfather, who himself spent his a good amount of his working lifetime in professional baseball and in fact, is himself in the HOF, be wrong?

"When you look at him, he is one of the game's premiere defenders in right field - really Gold Glove caliber." - Andy MacPhail, 01/22/2009.

[Sanfran327]

To echo the sentiments of previous responses, Jones' atheticism and speed will help him win a GG quicker. Nick is a very fluid, mistake free defender, but I don't frequently see him make those eye-popping, jaw-dropping, acrobatic plays (Torii Hunter on an almost daily basis, G-Mat's crazy catch back in Texas, etc) that we'll likely see from Jones.

[TonySoprano]

Your committee consists of managers and coaches and they are not allowed to vote for their own players. So how many times has Dave Trembley actually seen Ryan Braun (2008 winner) play to judge whether he was one of the best in the OF in the NL in 2008. Ok, 3 games in 2008.

How many times has he seen Matt Holiday play in 2008, another 2008 NL winner in the OF... zero times. They never played Colorado in 2008.

FWIW, I believe the American League managers and coaches only vote for A.L. players.

Wrong! The system is broken no matter how many or how few Orioles win. I often hold up Brooks' 16 consecutive GGs as a giant piece of evidence that the system is very broken. No one is the best at anything in high level sports for 16 consecutive years. It's impossible. How many players have won 16 consecutive batting titles? Or home run titles? Or RBI titles? Or led the league in ERA 16 straight years? No one! But Brooks, Jim Kaat, and Greg Maddux have all had runs like that in GGs.

Broken!

How many times must we prove that with the curious case of Palmeiro's 1999 Gold Glove "earned" in only 28 games the entire year?

[DrungoHazewood]

You say this now, but back when Brooks was winning them and had you been around saying this you would have been thought to be seriously demented as an Oriole fan bar none. I also would bet the farm had you been around to observe Brooks while he was winning those Gold Gloves you wouldn't make such a silly assertion now either.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY thought that way back then, and I maintain the only reason some here feel this way now is Oriole players have an extreme shortage of Gold Glove Awards over the past 15 years or so. I also maintain it is not because of a faulty award system but largely due to lack of talent. (Not completely, but for the most part). I do think Bordick was slighted, but he is about the only Oriole that I can think of who has been.

NOBODY had the slightest clue about how to objectively measure fielding back then. NOBODY. So I don't blame them too much for taking the easy way out and checking the Brooks box every year until he retired.

Well let me ask you this. Who do you think would deserve a Gold Glove the most? A third baseman like Melvin Mora, who is solid but rarely makes a spectular play and say commits 7 errors out of 300 chances, or Brooks Robinson, who commits 9 errors out of 330 chances but made 35 seemingly humanly impossible plays. Mora made zero all year (seemingly humanly impossible plays.) The reason some of you think the way you do is you never saw a player the likes of Brooks Robinson which is a shame. There is nobody in today's game comparable. Not even close, and I am not talking stats, I am talking the ability to make seemingly humanly impossible players on a regular basis.

Just ask some of the other old timers who post here. They can easily vouch for what I am stating here.

I'll take the guy who saved the most runs and therefore contributed the most wins to his team. That might not be any of the people you're talking about.

How can someone that has spent his entire working lifetime in professional baseball be wrong? How can someone who was around his father, who himself spent his entire working lifetime in professional baseball and in fact, is himself in the HOF, be wrong? How can someone who was around his grandfather, who himself spent his a good amount of his working lifetime in professional baseball and in fact, is himself in the HOF, be wrong?

"When you look at him, he is one of the game's premiere defenders in right field - really Gold Glove caliber." - Andy MacPhail, 01/22/2009.

Maybe MacPhail has been corrupted by the idiots on interwebs messageboards who haven't been watching baseball since 1889? Sadly, we may be nearing the end - there soon won't be anyone left who can ignore those deceptive nerds and judge players the way God intended: with tobacco-stained, 87-year-old eyeballs.

[Frobby]

Well let me ask you this. Who do you think would deserve a Gold Glove the most? A third baseman like Melvin Mora, who is solid but rarely makes a spectular play and say commits 7 errors out of 300 chances, or Brooks Robinson, who commits 9 errors out of 330 chances but made 35 seemingly humanly impossible plays. Mora made zero all year (seemingly humanly impossible plays.) The reason some of you think the way you do is you never saw a player the likes of Brooks Robinson which is a shame. There is nobody in today's game comparable. Not even close, and I am not talking stats, I am talking the ability to make seemingly humanly impossible players on a regular basis.

Just ask some of the other old timers who post here. They can easily vouch for what I am stating here.

There is one big difference between 2009 and 1969 when it comes to assessing fielders -- the availability of statistics that attempt to measure range, plays made outside a player's "zone," etc. In 1969, everyone knew that merely looking at errors and assists didn't really capture defense, but there was no way to measure anything meaningfully. Therefore, the voters basically went on their gut instinct and the player's reputation. What other choice did they have?

But this is 2009. We have statistics that, although they aren't capable of capturing every last detail, are pretty decently accurate. And so when you see guys who are winning Gold Gloves even though these stats show them to be well below average defensively, it makes you realize that the voting is severely flawed. And in my opinion, it's worse now than back in the day.

Let's just take Brooks for example. I agree with Drungo -- it is highly doubtful that he had the best fielding season of any 3B for 16 years in a row. But modern statistics do support that he was by far the best fielding 3B of the last 55 years, and arguably the best fielder at any position in that time span. So, he very well might have been the best in, say, 12 of the 16 years, and in the years when he wasn't the best, he was still one of the best 3-4, so nobody's really complaining.

But when you see Rafael Palmeiro win a gold glove in a year when he only played 1b in 28 games, or Derek Jeter win 3 in a row when the statistics consistently show him to be one of the worst defensive shortstops in the game, you have to conclude that the current voters are pretty damned lazy.

By the way, while Brooks was the best 3B I ever saw by a wide margin, I think you are overstating things to say he made superhuman plays nobody else could make 35 times a year. Mora has made plenty of great plays -- Brooks just made them a lot more often. The kind of play that a good 3B makes 1 out of 10 times would be about at 1 in 3 shot for Brooks.

[DrungoHazewood]

Just ask some of the other old timers who post here. They can easily vouch for what I am stating here.

Why would we want to give much of any weight to 40-year-old memories of 60-year-old fans? If I want an objective measure of fielding prowess I'll look at the numbers. If I want a subjective measure of the same I'll look at contemporary accounts, like magazine and newspaper articles from 1966.

What I won't do is make any kind of decisions based on hazy old memories of people with agendas to push.

[Old#5fan]

To echo the sentiments of previous responses, Jones' atheticism and speed will help him win a GG quicker. Nick is a very fluid, mistake free defender, but I don't frequently see him make those eye-popping, jaw-dropping, acrobatic plays (Torii Hunter on an almost daily basis, G-Mat's crazy catch back in Texas, etc) that we'll likely see from Jones.

While steady, but normally unspectacular play can glean a Gold Glove if you look at the careers of Blair and Belanger, I think you are essentially right in that Markakis doesn't make that many spectacular plays to get himself noticed.

Jones is the better candidate. That is unmistakably true.

[Old#5fan]

Why would we want to give much of any weight to 40-year-old memories of 60-year-old fans? If I want an objective measure of fielding prowess I'll look at the numbers. If I want a subjective measure of the same I'll look at contemporary accounts, like magazine and newspaper articles from 1966.

What I won't do is make any kind of decisions based on hazy old memories of people with agendas to push.

Well that is your choice, but I will strongly caution (and I emphasize the word strongly) not to believe everything you read either. Just because something appears in print doesn't make it any less subjective.