Poll- Who is More Likely to Win a Gold Glove

[zff4]

Is this an old thread or a new thread?

[SrMeowMeow]

Not really. The intent of the award, to name the best fielder at a certain position for that year, doesn't change simply because they may have awarded it to someone less deserving than his peers.

I like the movie Crash, a lot of people don't. It won the Best Picture Oscar and some people would disagree with that. Just because they disagree with it winning doesn't diminish other films winning it that they deem worthy.

I mean, I see your point, but I still agree with Old#5Fan here. (only here)

He's not saying (in the post I quoted, anyway) that Gold Glove players are the best defensively, he's saying that Gold Gloves are an award that some people have and some don't, and that you shouldn't credit players who haven't won it with the phrase "Gold Glove-caliber". And if you think the award is so flawed, why care about using it in your player analysis anyway? Why not just say "Nick Markakis was one of the top 5 defensive right fielders in baseball last season", and then, when people argue, back it up with your reasons, instead of this semantic debate on whether or not he's "Gold Glove-caliber".

[Old#5fan]

I mean, I see your point, but I still agree with Old#5Fan here. (only here)

He's not saying (in the post I quoted, anyway) that Gold Glove players are the best defensively, he's saying that Gold Gloves are an award that some people have and some don't, and that you shouldn't credit players who haven't won it with the phrase "Gold Glove-caliber". And if you think the award is so flawed, why care about using it in your player analysis anyway? Why not just say "Nick Markakis was one of the top 5 defensive right fielders in baseball last season", and then, when people argue, back it up with your reasons, instead of this semantic debate on whether or not he's "Gold Glove-caliber".

BINGO! :clap3: Finally someone understands my entire point of all of this debate!

I am a happy man as I finally got through to someone who otherwise would never have understood this! Bravo to you!

[24fps]

I mean, I see your point, but I still agree with Old#5Fan here. (only here)

He's not saying (in the post I quoted, anyway) that Gold Glove players are the best defensively, he's saying that Gold Gloves are an award that some people have and some don't, and that you shouldn't credit players who haven't won it with the phrase "Gold Glove-caliber". And if you think the award is so flawed, why care about using it in your player analysis anyway? Why not just say "Nick Markakis was one of the top 5 defensive right fielders in baseball last season", and then, when people argue, back it up with your reasons, instead of this semantic debate on whether or not he's "Gold Glove-caliber".

No you shouldn't, but it's because it would be irrelevant to do so. The debate as defined in this post exists purely in the realm of semantics, so why not discuss it on that basis? If a player had already won the award, he would be a "Gold Glove winner". The fact that he was "Gold Glove caliber" would be implicit and unnecessary to mention. "Gold Glove winner" is a fact, "Gold Glove caliber" is a judgment - something categorically different.

I completely agree with the proposition that the award itself is flawed when it comes to accurately determining who had the best year in the field at each position. Even so, it remains a yardstick most uncritical fans accept and all fans understand as to it's purpose regardless of the fact that there's not much statistical foundation for determining the winners. The "caliber" of fan who regularly posts on this board should understand that the phrase is being used generically and not split the hair so finely IMO.

[SrMeowMeow]

No you shouldn't, but it's because it would be irrelevant to do so. The debate as defined in this post exists purely in the realm of semantics, so why not discuss it on that basis? If a player had already won the award, he would be a "Gold Glove winner". The fact that he was "Gold Glove caliber" would be implicit and unnecessary to mention. "Gold Glove winner" is a fact, "Gold Glove caliber" is a judgment - something categorically different.

I completely agree with the proposition that the award itself is flawed when it comes to accurately determining who had the best year in the field at each position. Even so, it remains a yardstick most uncritical fans accept and all fans understand as to it's purpose regardless of the fact that there's not much statistical foundation for determining the winners. The "caliber" of fan who regularly posts on this board should understand that the phrase is being used generically and not split the hair so finely IMO.

Whatever comments you may have about the caliber of my fandom, let me just say I'm not deeply invested in this issue one way or the other. I just think Old#5Fan is right on this point. It's not really worth a big argument or me repeating myself again, though, so I'll let it go.

[24fps]

Whatever comments you may have about the caliber of my fandom, let me just say I'm not deeply invested in this issue one way or the other. I just think Old#5Fan is right on this point. It's not really worth a big argument or me repeating myself again, though, so I'll let it go.

My last comment wasn't really directed at you, although I do disagree with you on this point. Clearly I should have addressed a different post. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Old#5fan]

No you shouldn't, but it's because it would be irrelevant to do so. The debate as defined in this post exists purely in the realm of semantics, so why not discuss it on that basis? If a player had already won the award, he would be a "Gold Glove winner". The fact that he was "Gold Glove caliber" would be implicit and unnecessary to mention. "Gold Glove winner" is a fact, "Gold Glove caliber" is a judgment - something categorically different.

I completely agree with the proposition that the award itself is flawed when it comes to accurately determining who had the best year in the field at each position. Even so, it remains a yardstick most uncritical fans accept and all fans understand as to it's purpose regardless of the fact that there's not much statistical foundation for determining the winners. The "caliber" of fan who regularly posts on this board should understand that the phrase is being used generically and not split the hair so finely IMO.

Fine, but if it remains a yardstick than I suggest that those that wish to use it as such quit denigrating it at the same time. Either you view the award as valid or you don't. You cannot have it both ways. It defies logic, reason and plain ole common sense!

To me, if you claim someone is Gold Glove Caliber, it means they are equivilent in ability to someone winning the Gold Glove Award (an opinion - not a fact) or a prediction that the player will get the award based or perceived on his high level of performance. If said player gets the award the prediction/opinion is validated. However, if said player never receives said award than either the opinion was wrong, the prediction was wrong, or the award should then be viewed invalid as the player was unfairly snubbed (a radical opinion I don't hold).

Where I find the problem is posters in large number are of the belief either that Markakis was snubbed and/or the award is invalid (only goes to Cfer's, is a popularity contest, based only on flash, being on a big market team, etc.) yet continue to use the term in describing players that don't get the award. It is as basic a fallacy as you can have.

Either the award is acceptable (flaws and all in the selection process) and so is continued use of the term or- it is not, and thus other descriptions of the player's high level of defense (excellent, superb, outstanding) should be used as a substitute.

There is no argument to counter this that makes any sense whatsover. Stop using Gold Glove Caliber to describe players who don't get the award while complaining about those who do. :cussing: End of story.:wedge:

[ledzepp8]

Where I find the problem is posters in large number are of the belief either that Markakis was snubbed and/or the award is invalid (only goes to Cfer's, is a popularity contest, based only on flash, being on a big market team, etc.) yet continue to use the term in describing players that don't get the award. It is as basic a fallacy as you can have.

You continue to try and counter this argument, an argument that no one has made. Not one person has complained that Markakis hasn't won a gold glove. They call that a strawman argument, but you should know that Mr. Logic 101.

[SrMeowMeow]

You continue to try and counter this argument, an argument that no one has made. Not one person has complained that Markakis hasn't won a gold glove. They call that a strawman argument, but you should know that Mr. Logic 101.

Really? I'm not trying to bust your chops but I've heard plenty of people say that he's been snubbed or passed over for less deserving players.

[ledzepp8]

Really? I'm not trying to bust your chops but I've heard plenty of people say that he's been snubbed or passed over for less deserving players.

I really don't recall seeing anyone on here complain that Markakis hasn't won a gold glove. If there are examples, they haven't been in regards to this ongoing argument over semantics with Oldfan. And besides, saying that Nick is deserving of a gold glove or that he plays gold glove caliber defense, isn't the same as saying that the winner shouldn't have won.

[Old#5fan]

I really don't recall seeing anyone on here complain that Markakis hasn't won a gold glove. If there are examples, they haven't been in regards to this ongoing argument over semantics with Oldfan. And besides, saying that Nick is deserving of a gold glove or that he plays gold glove caliber defense, isn't the same as saying that the winner shouldn't have won.

It sort of is because somebody else actually won it, not Nick. So continuing to spout he played that caliber yet didn't win the award is once again, factually incorrect. It was a prediction that didn't come true or hasn't come true yet, as the Gold Glove Commitee didn't vote him the award. Ergo, he is not Gold Glove Caliber period! What part of that is so hard to understand?:scratchchinhmm::angryfire:

That type of comment should be reserved for a player only who is about to receive the award. Otherwise it is out of context.

The whole point is there are people who have been arguing with me here (how you missed them I do not know) that the award is stupid because Palmiero won it one year playing 29 games at first base and therefore, Markakis not winning it means nothing. Well, if that is how someone feels, fine, just stop using the term to describe a great defensive player then.

There are people here who are using the term while denouncing the award selections. That is a paradox and makes no sense. It is also downright stupid. Yet you continue to defend this defenseless argument! Why????:scratchchinhmm:

[BRobinsonfan]

Sorry, but to me the term Gold Glove caliber just means different things to different people, and your definition is no more valid than Old#5Fan's. It's like using the term "ace" or "number one starter" -- everyone seems to have a different idea of what it means. Nobody is right or wrong.

I'm not following you. Do you really believe there is a wide disparity among the participants on this board about what "Gold Glove Caliber" means? How many different was do you think it's been used on this board?

While its true that many terms are subjective words still means things, hence the qualifier "caliber" or, to use a term employed by Old#5Fan himself, "MVP Type Season." Everyone knows what he means when he says "MVP Type Season," just as I think everyone knows what "gold glove caliber" means. That's why when Andy McPhail said it we all didn't scratch or heads and say, "huh?"

If terms like this didn't have wide understanding and weren't in common usage we would scarcely be able to have a conversation.

[BRobinsonfan]

This post actually just won the thread. Hats off to Old#5Fan!

I'm not joking.

Except that old Fan himself said that Mike Bordick got robbed of the award one year - so - using that logic, OldFan should not be utilizing a term (gold glove) that he believes to be "bogus."

[Old#5fan]

Except that old Fan himself said that Mike Bordick got robbed of the award one year - so - using that logic, OldFan should not be utilizing a term (gold glove) that he believes to be "bogus."

Not true. I don't use the term Gold Glove Caliber when proclaiming someone is top notch defensively. I only use the term when someone has won the award, and in that case I usually just say Gold Glove Defense period.

I have never said the Gold Glove Award is bogus, so don't try to claim I have. That is an out and out blatant lie. Like many I have on a few (actually quite rare) occasions disagreed with the selections but I don't use that to invalidate the award the way I have seen some here flat out try to do.

You really like to twist things in with a negative spin when it comes to me don't you? As I once posted before, it must be jealousy over my screen name because I don't see you doing this with anyone else on the OH.

[maudibjr]

It sort of is because somebody else actually won it, not Nick. So continuing to spout he played that caliber yet didn't win the award is once again, factually incorrect. It was a prediction that didn't come true or hasn't come true yet, as the Gold Glove Commitee didn't vote him the award. Ergo, he is not Gold Glove Caliber period! What part of that is so hard to understand?

 

What is so hard to understand about the meaning of the english word caliber? You seem not to grasp the meaning of the word.

cal⋅i⋅ber

 

3. degree of capacity or competence; ability: a mathematician of high caliber.

By saying that Nick is GG caliber you are saying that he has the competence or ability to win one. It is the correct use of the word. It has nothing to do with actually winning a GG or not.

Saying that Nick is a GG winner would be factually incorrect. You can debate whether he is that caliber or not but your interpretation of the word is factually incorrect.