Question for baseball guys

Boopotts

How does Steve Garvey not win the Gold Glove in 1984 after committing 0 errors in 159 games?

jlbsquared

Garvey might have made a few errors that year has he been willing to take a step in either direction to field a ball. He protected that errorless streak like it was the Holy Grail.

bri2327

Perhaps Keith Hernandez was a few of the voters coke connection ?

Seriously though, who knows why these things happen. Maybe it was Hernandez being the receipient of playing in NY and getting more coverage, maybe it was that Hernandez did have nearly twice as many assists, slightly better range and so on.

ziggy29

<< <i>How does Steve Garvey not win the Gold Glove in 1984 after committing 0 errors in 159 games? >>

I'd rather have a guy who makes 10 errors but gets to 100 more balls that Garvey wouldn't have gotten to. The latter turns 90 more batted balls into outs than the former. Plus, there tends to be an incumbency bias to the award, as well as a bias toward the better offensive player.

softparade

The Gold Glove is notoriously a very subjective process. So many times a guy will win it year after year based on reputation alone, etc. The Gold Glove is not an award that ranks high on my list of stuff to keep track of.

dallasactuary

<< <i>..., maybe it was that Hernandez did have nearly twice as many assists, ... >>


Hernandez probably deserved the Award, maybe Garvery did, but Gold Gloves have been tainted beyond repair so who really cares?

Anyway, what I did find interesting was bri's comment here about their relative assist totals. SOME of the difference between two first basemen's assist totals will be due to their range, but MOST of the difference will be meaningless. For a really dramatic comparison, check out Garvey - one of the best first basemen - and Buckner - one of the worst. Buckner always had higher assist totals than Garvey for one reason, and one reason only: on a ground ball to first, Garvery preferred to touch the bag himself (and played close enough to it that he could), while Buckner preferred to flip to the pitcher (and played so far from the bag that he usually had to). Think about that. Because Buckner was such a lousy first baseman he played extremely deep so that he had a prayer of fielding a hard hit ball; and because he played so deep, he had to flip to the pitcher; because he always flipped to the pitcher he had very high assist totals.

So, equating lots of assists by a first baseman with better fielding may be exactly wrong; it may equate with worse fielding. And sometimes it may not; Hernandez was maybe the best ever at fielding bunts and some of his extra assists come from that. I think the bottom line is that it is virtually impossible to discern how good a first baseman's fielding was from any of the standard stats.

Boopotts

<< <i>The Gold Glove is notoriously a very subjective process. So many times a guy will win it year after year based on reputation alone, etc. The Gold Glove is not an award that ranks high on my list of stuff to keep track of. >>



I don't hold Gold Gloves in particularly high regard either, but it does seem curious that a guy who at the time looked like a bona-fide HOF candidate could go an entire season without committing an error (as an infielder) and lose the Gold Glove.

ziggy29

<< <i>I don't hold Gold Gloves in particularly high regard either, but it does seem curious that a guy who at the time looked like a bona-fide HOF candidate could go an entire season without committing an error (as an infielder) and lose the Gold Glove. >>

Fielding percentage is to defensive value as batting average is to offensive value. Both statistics tend to be the first ones people notice to give a quick assessment of a player's value in that area.

But by themselves, both are of little use without more substance behind it. Someone hitting .300 might draw attention as a "good hitter," but if they hit an "empty" .300 (very few walks, no power), they may not even have a .700 OPS and thus be a rather weak offensive player overall. Similarly, someone can lead the league in fielding percentage, but if they have little range they won't turn as many batted balls into outs as someone who has much more range. Ultimately, the value of a defensive player is (IMO) best summed up as the number of batted balls they turn into outs (relative to his peers at that position). And someone who fields like a statue -- with almost no range -- is less valuable defensively than someone who has much better range, even if the latter boots it a few more times.

Let's look at this another way: Player A has no range and Player B has great range. Player B makes a fantastic play with the glove on a ball almost no one at his position would be able to stop. He gets up and throws the ball in the dirt and the 1B is unable to scoop. He gets tagged with an error and the batter-runner is safe at first. Player A lets the ball go into the outfield for a base hit, and isn't penalized for his lack of range (or effort in trying to get to the ball).

Defense is really something that needs to be witnessed and examined in order to really assess it. No single metric (or group of metrics) tell the whole story. Even my working definition of "good defense" -- the number of batted balls they turn into outs relative to his peers at that position -- is flawed. Teams which have more ground ball pitchers are going to have infielders with more chances, and teams loaded with fly-ball pitchers will have outfielders with more chances. As I said, no stats really capture the big picture. So in summary, Gold Glove defense is like the old Potter Stewart definition of obscenity -- we can't precisely define what is it is...but we can often know it when we see it.

calaban7

In 1990 Cal Ripken made only "3 " errors. Fantastic until one looks a little closer and you realize that he made over 100 less plays as the average SS in the same amount of playing time. Those 100+ (plays not made), means most 100+ runners on base. I live in the Baltimore area and saw Cal play many, many times. It was common knowledge that Cal was shying away from risky plays to avoid a throwing error.

I've gotten in discussions about Garvey before on this forum. For fans growing up with a 1st baseman that made very errors, its "REALLY " hard to listen about his horrible range and bad arm. I only saw Garvey play mabe 40-50 times, but most tricky groundballs were a serious adventure for him. Thank god he had some good fielding pitchers that got over there fast. He had "1" season where his assist totals was at or above average. Almost every other season he was at the bottom or very near. the bottom line is that all them ground balls where he held the ball or never reached it in the 1st place , cost his pitchers many extra runners.

Yes , Steve Garvey did not make an error that season, but I truely believe if Keith Hernandez had put the glove on the other hand, he still may have fielded much better that "The Padre".

Boopotts

<< <i>

<< <i>I don't hold Gold Gloves in particularly high regard either, but it does seem curious that a guy who at the time looked like a bona-fide HOF candidate could go an entire season without committing an error (as an infielder) and lose the Gold Glove. >>

Fielding percentage is to defensive value as batting average is to offensive value. Both statistics tend to be the first ones people notice to give a quick assessment of a player's value in that area.

But by themselves, both are of little use without more substance behind it. Someone hitting .300 might draw attention as a "good hitter," but if they hit an "empty" .300 (very few walks, no power), they may not even have a .700 OPS and thus be a rather weak offensive player overall. Similarly, someone can lead the league in fielding percentage, but if they have little range they won't turn as many batted balls into outs as someone who has much more range. Ultimately, the value of a defensive player is (IMO) best summed up as the number of batted balls they turn into outs (relative to his peers at that position). And someone who fields like a statue -- with almost no range -- is less valuable defensively than someone who has much better range, even if the latter boots it a few more times.

Let's look at this another way: Player A has no range and Player B has great range. Player B makes a fantastic play with the glove on a ball almost no one at his position would be able to stop. He gets up and throws the ball in the dirt and the 1B is unable to scoop. He gets tagged with an error and the batter-runner is safe at first. Player A lets the ball go into the outfield for a base hit, and isn't penalized for his lack of range (or effort in trying to get to the ball).

Defense is really something that needs to be witnessed and examined in order to really assess it. No single metric (or group of metrics) tell the whole story. Even my working definition of "good defense" -- the number of batted balls they turn into outs relative to his peers at that position -- is flawed. Teams which have more ground ball pitchers are going to have infielders with more chances, and teams loaded with fly-ball pitchers will have outfielders with more chances. As I said, no stats really capture the big picture. So in summary, Gold Glove defense is like the old Potter Stewart definition of obscenity -- we can't precisely define what is it is...but we can often know it when we see it. >>




Ziggy-- You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that Garvey SHOULD have won the Gold Glove, since I have no idea what kind of fielder he was, or if he was any better than Hernandez, etc. I just thought it was unusually strange that a high profile infielder who was playing for a pennant winning team could go an entire season without an error and not win the Gold Glove.

ziggy29

<< <i>Ziggy-- You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that Garvey SHOULD have won the Gold Glove, since I have no idea what kind of fielder he was, or if he was any better than Hernandez, etc. I just thought it was unusually strange that a high profile infielder who was playing for a pennant winning team could go an entire season without an error and not win the Gold Glove. >>

I don't think I'm missing your point. I'm saying why I think some voters could have easily passed on Garvey despite the zero errors. If they saw other first basemen turn a lot more hits into outs than Garvey, that could very well have weighed in their decision. That Hernandez had a reputation and a zillion Gold Gloves already, didn't hurt. The truth is that when someone has won a few Gold Gloves in a row, someone else has to be MUCH better to beat him. Past winners tend to win again by default.

Boopotts

<< <i>

<< <i>Ziggy-- You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that Garvey SHOULD have won the Gold Glove, since I have no idea what kind of fielder he was, or if he was any better than Hernandez, etc. I just thought it was unusually strange that a high profile infielder who was playing for a pennant winning team could go an entire season without an error and not win the Gold Glove. >>

I don't think I'm missing your point. I'm saying why I think some voters could have easily passed on Garvey despite the zero errors. If they saw other first basemen turn a lot more hits into outs than Garvey, that could very well have weighed in their decision. That Hernandez had a reputation and a zillion Gold Gloves already, didn't hurt. The truth is that when someone has won a few Gold Gloves in a row, someone else has to be MUCH better to beat him. Past winners tend to win again by default. >>



The phrasing of my original post suggests that I'm offended--and not simply mystified-- by the fact that Garvey didn't win it, and that is firmly on me. But isn't is weird that Garvey didn't win it? Consider: At the time, Garvey was

a) A HOF candidate
b) A starting infielder for a team that won their division (and later their league)
c) boasting a 1.000 fielding percentage despite only missing three games all year

Putting all this together I just think it's very, very peculiar that Garvey didn't win it. Again, this isn't a normative judgment. I know nothing of Garvey's fielding prowess, and very little of Keith Hernandez's 'way with the leather', so I have no idea whether or not this slighting was justified or not.

bri2327

Heck, if Palmeiro can win it in '99 having only played 28 games at 1st base there really shouldnt be anything surprising.

Boopotts

<< <i>Heck, if Palmeiro can win it in '99 having only played 28 games at 1st base there really shouldnt be anything surprising. >>




That would certainly qualify as another curiosity worth mentioning. I never knew about Garvey's errorless season until tonight, so I guess that's why it seemed so surprising.

joestalin

Gold Gloves and MVP's are for players not sure about themselves, real men bat .400 and win triple crowns!

Sincerely,
Ted Williams