Article: Gold Glove Is Mauer Or Miss

[Mr. Brooks]

No clue, but he must be since he won the award last year in spite of being an average defender.

From the article:

 

First and foremost, let’s take a look at what nabbed the award a year ago. Mitch Moreland grabbed a Gold Glove, and despite the sometimes poor decisions for the award (I’m looking at you Eric Hosmer), was a deserving recipient. Moreland posted 7 DRS (2nd), 6.4 UZR (1st), 9.2 UZR/150 (1st), and a 5.0 RngR (1st) a season ago.

[Doomtints]

 

From the article:

First and foremost, let’s take a look at what nabbed the award a year ago. Mitch Moreland grabbed a Gold Glove, and despite the sometimes poor decisions for the award (I’m looking at you Eric Hosmer), was a deserving recipient. Moreland posted 7 DRS (2nd), 6.4 UZR (1st), 9.2 UZR/150 (1st), and a 5.0 RngR (1st) a season ago.

 

Some of those ranks are incorrect which you can check on your own. This was a down year for AL 1B defense, Moreland's rank in the MLB last year was 15th.

 

The best 1B defenders in the AL last year were Byungho Park and Travis Shaw, neither of which were going to win the award over Moreland. So yeah, popularity contest. Remember, there is no minimum innings qualification for the Gold Glove, but a decent sanity check would be to use the pitching qualification of 162 innings at the position.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Doomtints

[Mr. Brooks]

Some of those ranks are incorrect which you can check on your own. This was a down year for AL 1B defense, Moreland's rank in the MLB last year was 15th.

 

The best 1B defenders in the AL last year were Byungho Park and Travis Shaw, neither of which were going to win the award over Moreland. So yeah, popularity contest. Remember, there is no minimum innings qualification for the Gold Glove, but a decent sanity check would be to use the pitching qualification of 162 innings at the position.

No, that's not a reasonable innings qualification at all.

Defensive metrics have zero value at 100 to 200 innings.

Moreland doesn't even drop below 2nd place until you get below 290 innings - that's 33 games.

He doesn't drop below 5th place until you get below 206 innings - or 23 games.

 

Suggesting Mitch Moreland won a gold glove because of his popularity is totally off base.

 

Can you guess who is 1st this year using your tiny innings standard? Kennys Vargas.

[jimmer]

Last year for QUALIFYING AL 1Bs, Moreland WAS 2nd in AL with 7 DRS, his UZR WAS 1st at 6.7, his UZR/150 WAS 1st at 9.2, and his RnGR WAS 1st at 5.0.  So all four of those were right.

 

Now, if we expand it to players with only 700 or more innings, 13 AL 1Bs show up; however, three of Morelands ranks stay the same, the only one that changes is RnGR from 1st to 2nd.

 

So the paragraph WAS right cause these ranking have to include players who played enough for the ranking to mean anything. Park barely had 200 innings at 1B, and Shaw didn't reach 300 innings.   Voters SHOULDN"T take their performances into any kind of consideration nor should anyone doing an article.  Gold glove consideration for only 162 innings for position players would be a HORRIBLE idea.  That's not even 20 games.

Edited August 29, 2017 by jimmer

[Doomtints]

 

No, that's not a reasonable innings qualification at all.
Defensive metrics have zero value at 100 to 200 innings.

 

Nevertheless, GGs have been awarded to players who played less than 30 games at the position. Which brings us back to what I said, it's a popularity contest. Feel free to take your argument up with the people who voted for Rafael Palmiero in 1999. You are shooting at the messenger because you don't want to admit that the GG is worthless.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Doomtints

[snepp]

It's not 1999 anymore, and there are criteria in place to eliminate that nonsense right from the start.

[Mr. Brooks]

Nevertheless, GGs have been awarded to players who played less than 30 games at the position. Which brings us back to what I said, it's a popularity contest. Feel free to take your argument up with the people who voted for Rafael Palmiero in 1999. You are shooting at the messenger because you don't want to admit that the GG is worthless.

Just because it was a popularity contest in 1999, which I don't think anyone disagrees with, doesn't mean it still is.

[USAFChief]

 

Just because it was a popularity contest in 1999, which I don't think anyone disagrees with, doesn't mean it still is.

Just because there was one egregious award given in 1999, doesn't mean it was a popularity contest then, either.

[Mr. Brooks]

Just because there was one egregious award given in 1999, doesn't mean it was a popularity contest then, either.

Look at how many Jeter won. There was a time when it was more or less a popularity contest.

[USAFChief]

 

Look at how many Jeter won. There was a time when it was more or less a popularity contest.

Not everyone believes Jeter's GGs where entirely undeserved.

 

He was a good, reliable SS.  Always in the right place, never made the wrong play, strong and accurate arm, not prone to errors.  Range challenged but not to the extent of current urban legend.

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Not everyone believes Jeter's GGs where entirely undeserved.

 

He was a good, reliable SS. Always in the right place, never made the wrong play, strong and accurate arm, not prone to errors. Range challenged but not to the extent of current urban legend.

Fine, but good and reliable shouldn't be GG worthy.

I don't think he wins them if he's a good, reliable SS hitting .220 in Oakland.

[Ryan Atkins]

I believe that Joe Mauer is deserving of a Gold Glove award and to win it at multiple positions would be a really amazing accomplishment. I only know about these two players having done it:

 

Darin Erstad won 3 GG (2 in OF and 1 at 1B) and Placido Polanco won 3 GG (2 at 2B and 1 at 3B).

 

So, I think he would be the first catcher to accomplish the feat.

 

Craig Biggio (HOF) won a Silver Slugger as a catcher and also was an All-Star as a catcher, but all 4 of his GG awards were as a 2B.

[USAFChief]

 

Fine, but good and reliable shouldn't be GG worthy.
I don't think he wins them if he's a good, reliable SS hitting .220 in Oakland.

That's a fair point, probably true.  I'll concede it, but also suggest that may be more a publicity issue than a popularity one.

 

But overall, I believe the exceptions prove the rule.  

[nicksaviking]

I'd also say the voting wasn't based on popularity so much as it was on fame. For one, too many of the voters weren't informed league wide. For another, fielding measurements amounted almost entirely to fielding percentage and total errors.

 

I don't think these guys were voting for players because the players were popular, they were voting for players because all they had to work with was assumptions and "talk of the town" kind of hearsay. It wasn't nefarious collusion, it was lack of information. Largely due to the era but probably also due to a lack of effort to research the correct option.

[Thrylos]

 

I don't think he wins them if he's a good, reliable SS hitting .220 in Oakland.

 

Rey Ordóñez, his 3 gold gloves, and career .246 batting average (.216 the season he won the first) beg to disagree.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Thrylos

[Squirrel]

Whether or not one believes the 'popularity contest' angle of the GG award, in terms of what it is meant to be/should be, I think Mauer deserves top consideration, whether he wins it or not.

[Mr. Brooks]

Rey Ordóñez, his 3 gold gloves, and career .246 batting average (.216 the season he won the first) beg to disagree.

I think you misunderstand my point.

I wasn't saying a lite hitting SS from nonNY team X couldn't win them.

I said that a guy who was average , at best, defensively- as Jeter was, wouldn't have won them if he was hitting .220 in Oakland.

[Jham]

I think you misunderstand my point.

I wasn't saying a lite hitting SS from nonNY team X couldn't win them.

I said that a guy who was average , at best, defensively- as Jeter was, wouldn't have won them if he was hitting .220 in Oakland.

Plus he was an NY ss technically...

 

I think being able to hit a little AND field at an elite level should be considered, if only as a tie breaker. Just my opinion...

 

If Park was rated highly as a 1b despite the affinity for fielding throws in the baseline, i can't support those ratings for first basemen. Maybe we should track digs as a stat.