MLB question

Its a popularity contest for the most part. Many people didn't even know Colorado had a baseball team until they made a playoff run ;)

sgh wrote:

I am a little biased but, how can Colorado be considered perhaps the best defense ever and not have a gold glove? Am i wrong in saying Tulo and Helton got hosed? Tulo ranked number 1 in MLB for pretty much every defensive stat at SS. Helton had 2 errors and .999 fielding. The winner had 7 errors and .994 fielding

Sorry for my rant. Just a little confused.

Well, #1, the Colorado scorekeeper was the biggest homer ever. Many plays scored as hits would have been scored errors in other ballparks. It's been that way for years and bugs the heck out of me.

Aside from that, there are other things that go into being a gold glover aside from not making errors. It's not a scientific process and subject to bias. The year Cal Ripken set an MLB record by making only 3 errors at shortstop, Ozzie Guillen won the gold glove, and he had 17 errors.

first of all, fielding percentage and errors are not a particularly good way to measure someone's fielding abilities. second, i wouldn't worry about an award that has been given to many, many dubious selections - most notably to rafael palmeiro in 1999 who played in only 28 games at 1B.

In 2000 or 2001 I believe, Mike Bordick set the MLB record for most consecutive games and chances without an error. He had like 3 errors in the year but A-Rod won because he hit a lot of home runs.

The scorekeepers at Chase Field are the same way. The ball pretty much has to go through someone's legs to be ruled an error, and even that's not a given. As a former pitcher, that gets pretty annoying.

Range Factors and Zone Ratings are the sabermetric way to analyze fielding and are vastly superior to fielding percentage, given that the focus of baseball game is on the batter/pitcher until the ball is hit. Therefore, you miss the most of the defensive action and set-up. A gold-glove is an essentially worthless award at this point. Though is good for a contract inncentive to make some cash money.

look, i will preface this by saying, i've been a Mets fan forever, I live and breath orange and blue, it's been that way since I was 6.

That being said, David Wright should not have won the gold glove for 3b. I think he was definitly a viable candidate, but he made too many throwing errors and was too inconsistant in the throwing dept to get a gold glove. I honestly believe Zimmerman should have won it.

The Gold Glove is a popularity contest. It's easier for a big market player to win one due to people hearing more about them.

Now, I think Dwright should have won MVP. He was the best candidate before the Mets' collapse. Now if Howard is good enough to win it even though the Phils dont' make the postseason in 06. Why suddenly does the winner have to be on a postseason team in 07?