October 30, 201312 yr Author You guys are funny. Guys who have a better fielding percentage, and all the rest didn't win the award for a reason. So, what's the reason Saberheads?
October 30, 201312 yr Author I know most on here discredit stats and sabremetrics every chance they get, but they point to this being a bad decision. Do you think BP is the best 2B or what? You agreeing with that or not, I can't tell by this post. I misunderstand. Seems you agree that the numbers are misleading here, correct?
October 30, 201312 yr Do you think BP is the best 2B or what? You agreeing with that or not, I can't tell by this post. I misunderstand. Seems you agree that the numbers are misleading here, correct? No. I'm saying no one on hear wants to here it, but they made a bad decision. BP is great defensively, but he did not deserve the award. Plain and simple.
October 30, 201312 yr You guys are funny. Guys who have a better fielding percentage, and all the rest didn't win the award for a reason. So, what's the reason Saberheads? Because the Gold Glove long ago stopped being about solely defense.
October 30, 201312 yr You guys are funny. Guys who have a better fielding percentage, and all the rest didn't win the award for a reason. So, what's the reason Saberheads? Because guys get the vote wrong. ie...Adam Jones getting an award this year. He shouldn't have gotten it either. Sometimes they get it wrong just like you think they got it wrong last year.
October 30, 201312 yr I think some statistics can be interesting and thought provoking...but range factor is not one of them. Someone is going to have convince me how in the world it actually shows the actual "range" of a player. Because here's how I can see the formula (putouts + assists / innings) being very misleading: 1.) Your pitching staff records a lot of strikeouts. More strikeouts means less chances for fielders to record an out or an assist. The result? Your "range factor" drops. 2.) You have members of your pitching staff that throw a lot of off-speed stuff that allows right-handed batters to pull the ball. The result? More actual chances for your 3rd baseman and shortstop, than your second baseman...and again, his "range factor" drops. 3.) You have members of your pitching staff that throw some serious gas, which doesn't allow for a lot of left-handed batters to pull the ball. The result? Same as #2. 4.) You have members of your pitching staff that throw a higher percentage of fly balls versus ground balls. The result? More chances for your outfielders, than your infielders. And again, as a second baseman, your "range factor" drops. 5.) You have a catcher(s) that can't throw out base stealers...or, you're not the one covering the bag on the steal because of who's at the plate. The result? Fewer chances to be involved in an out. The result? Your "range factor" won't go up, or in fact, may go down. All of which, doesn't count for squat when telling me if Player A can get to more balls that Player B can.
October 30, 201312 yr God forbid people have an opinion that differs from the math. No, you're allowed to be wrong all you want. It's no different than the gang mentality on here whenever anyone dares mention statistics as a method of making baseball decisions. How dare anyone bring probability and %'s into a discussion when we've got "gut feeling" and the "eye-test" to use?
October 30, 201312 yr No, you're allowed to be wrong all you want. It's no different than the gang mentality on here whenever anyone dares mention statistics as a method of making baseball decisions. How dare anyone bring probability and %'s into a discussion when we've got "gut feeling" and the "eye-test" to use? Ironically, everyone is using "math" to discount the decisions that people at the highest level of baseball are making. Not necessarily the Gold Glove but everything else. That's just funny to me. And I've stated hundreds of times that I believe stats should play a part of decisions but you guys seem to think it's the stats or nothing. I have never said decisions are made 100% by the gut. However, I've seen very few of you mention an alternative. It seems to be 100% stats and that is not how it works.
October 30, 201312 yr Ironically, everyone is using "math" to discount the decisions that people at the highest level of baseball are making. Not necessarily the Gold Glove but everything else. That's just funny to me. And I've stated hundreds of times that I believe stats should play a part of decisions but you guys seem to think it's the stats or nothing. I have never said decisions are made 100% by the gut. However, I've seen very few of you mention an alternative. It seems to be 100% stats and that is not how it works. I can guarantee if we both took the same team and you made every decision by gut or eye-test, and I made every decision by the numbers, I'd have more success. Clearly, the best way is to use a combination of both, I'm going to error on the side of statistics every time. As far as the thread goes, they stopped giving Gold Gloves to the best defensive players long ago. Offensive production, popularity, etc. all factor in to it. Anyone who says differently is either being stubborn or naïve.
October 30, 201312 yr I can guarantee if we both took the same team and you made every decision by gut or eye-test, and I made every decision by the numbers, I'd have more success. Clearly, the best way is to use a combination of both, I'm going to error on the side of statistics every time. As far as the thread goes, they stopped giving Gold Gloves to the best defensive players long ago. Offensive production, popularity, etc. all factor in to it. Anyone who says differently is either being stubborn or naïve. I agree with the bolded and have been saying that all along. Your first sentence is irrelevant. I have seen very few, if any, posts stating this. Gold Glove is a popularity contest has been for some time. He is the most popular second baseman, therefore he gets the award.
October 30, 201312 yr No. I'm saying no one on hear wants to here it, but they made a bad decision. BP is great defensively, but he did not deserve the award. Plain and simple. Bad decision this year? Who should have won? Why?
October 30, 201312 yr Bad decision this year? Who should have won? Why? UK Mustang is a BP hater! He has no ground to stand on other than that.
October 30, 201312 yr Bad decision this year? Who should have won? Why? I would've given it to either Neil Walker or Mark Ellis over BP. Both had better fielding %, better Range Factors, and a higher DWAR. :idunno: Barney also had a better fielding %, higher DWAR, but a lower Range Factor.
October 30, 201312 yr UK Mustang is a BP hater! He has no ground to stand on other than that. Thanks for the insight...Not sure how this thread would survive without your astute contributions.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.