MLB Awards Thread

leafaholix*
11-02-2004, 05:33 PM
:D

Just thought we could use one.

leafaholix*
11-02-2004, 05:35 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20041102&content_id=909164&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp

Vernon Wells wins a Gold Glove award. :naughty:

loveshack2
11-02-2004, 06:57 PM
And so does Jeter?

Roughneck
11-02-2004, 07:01 PM
And people said I took Jeter too high in the MLB draft. Ha! I say to you all!

Chaos
11-02-2004, 09:45 PM
And so does Jeter?

He plays for the Yankees and is hugely benefitted by the NY hype machine...what do you expect? I'd have given it to Guzman of the Twins.

Gibsons Finest
11-02-2004, 10:03 PM
Since this is an awards thread, I'll make my picks:

NL
ROY: Jason Bay
Cy Young: Roger Clemens
MVP: Barry Bonds


AL
ROY: Bobby Crosby
Cy Young: Johan Santana
MVP: Vlad the Impaler :D

lux_interior
11-02-2004, 10:23 PM
Darin Erstad (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20041102&content_id=909203&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp) wins his third overall Gold Glove, first at first base. :handclap: :banana: Bret Boone wins at 2B....and I thought Adam Kennedy had a good shot. :(

LuckyLUC20
11-02-2004, 10:23 PM
Cesar Izturis deserves a Gold Glove for NL Short Stop!

Zetterberg4Captain*
11-02-2004, 11:21 PM
Hunter of the Twins won a Gold Glove and so did Ivan Rodiguez of the Tigers!

Zetterberg4Captain*
11-02-2004, 11:26 PM
Here is a list of all the gold glove winners: I. Rodriguez, Kenny Rogers, Darin Erstad, Bret Boone, Eric Chavez, Ichiro Suzuki, Torii Hunter, Vernon Wells, and Derek Jeter.

Big McLargehuge
11-03-2004, 01:11 AM
Silver Sluggers (http://tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?id=103473)

A Pirate...won an award...UNPOSSIBLE!

Chaos
11-03-2004, 07:44 AM
Silver Sluggers (http://tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?id=103473)

A Pirate...won an award...UNPOSSIBLE!

Finally Teixiera gets some respect :handclap:

Tuggy
11-03-2004, 09:35 AM
Chavez :bow:

Crosby :bow:

X0X0A0
11-03-2004, 10:38 AM
Gold Gloves are the biggest waste of an award there is, sadly.

GKJ
11-03-2004, 03:03 PM
Jeter only won the award because he projected himself into the stands for no reason whatsoever

Fish on The Sand
11-03-2004, 03:30 PM
The gold glove award is now meaningless......

Chaos
11-03-2004, 04:01 PM
Jeter only won the award because he projected himself into the stands for no reason whatsoever

Thank you :handclap: :handclap:

BiggMac99
11-03-2004, 04:45 PM
WTF whit Johnny Estrada??! Brian Schneider has a 1 error season and his error was late in the season and he don't have the Gold Glove?!

Damn!

leafaholix*
11-03-2004, 04:57 PM
The gold glove award is now meaningless......
I agree, now that Travis Hafner has managed not to win a Gold Glove, it's meaningless.

stanley
11-03-2004, 08:26 PM
The gold glove award is now meaningless......
If you're referring to the Jeter award, I'm with you. Jeter is many things - a great two-hole hitter, baserunner, positional player, overrated (no fault of his own) - but he's hardly a great fielder even in a very good fielding year for him. It's a mockery of the award to give it to him, but ultimately, this type of award is feeling-based on not statistically based. Actually, many voters probably felt that it WAS statistically based and awarded it to Jeter because he led the AL in putouts. However, he was 7th out of 11 in qualified AL shortstops in putouts. In other words, he caught the ball when it was hit or thrown to him, but he wasn't very good (relatively) at throwing out runners.

I feel that this award should have gone to Bobby Crosby or the guy he replaced, Miguel Tejada. Statistically, those two were the most impressive. Guzman or Carlos Guillen also would have been respectable choices.

By the way, I whole-heartedly stand by the "overrated" comment, but it's not Jeter's fault that is so. He doesn't need to apologize for receiving the award; it's those voters who need to do some explaining. Actually, they don't. Presenting an award based on nothing more than gut feeling or laziness isn't that uncommon.

stanley
11-03-2004, 08:27 PM
I agree, now that Travis Hafner has managed not to win a Gold Glove, it's meaningless.
Ha, ha...

Fish on The Sand
11-04-2004, 03:30 AM
I agree, now that Travis Hafner has managed not to win a Gold Glove, it's meaningless.
I don't give a rats ass about the Indians being snubbed, but Jeter doesn't deserve any mention of this award, never mind actually winning it. I personally think Vizquel deserved it, but even if not him there were so many better choices.

Ironchef Chris Wok*
11-04-2004, 03:35 AM
I don't give a rats ass about the Indians being snubbed, but Jeter doesn't deserve any mention of this award, never mind actually winning it. I personally think Vizquel deserved it, but even if not him there were so many better choices.

Tejada and Crosby would have been acceptable choices.

Fish on The Sand
11-04-2004, 03:42 AM
Tejada and Crosby would have been acceptable choices.
I don't know much about Miggy, but Crosby would have yes.

Tuggy
11-04-2004, 03:58 AM
Tejada and Crosby would have been acceptable choices.

Crosby was dynamite in the field this year. He is definately going to win his fair share of gold gloves during his career.

stanley
11-04-2004, 10:56 AM
Crosby was dynamite in the field this year. He is definately going to win his fair share of gold gloves during his career.
He just might - he looks like a real player, but again, it's an award presented based upon feeling, not fact, so I wouldn't hold it against him or etch his face in stone should he be overlooked or win many, respectively.

Here are the AL SS fielding statistics, sorted by fielding percentage: Def. Stats (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2004&seasonType=2&split=82&sortOrder=true&sortColumn=fieldingPct)

Discuss...

Ironchef Chris Wok*
11-04-2004, 12:07 PM
Crsoby had the 3rd highest RF and 2nd highst ZR... interesting. I didn't know he was THAT good.

Anybody have Defensive WS or Defensive VORP numbers?

Son of Steinbrenner
11-04-2004, 12:19 PM
here is a surprise more jeter bashing :shakehead

funny in a year that bret boone won you guys have a problem with jeter winning. should jeter have won the award i don't know but i know he had a pretty good year in the field.

FOTS do you have days on this board where u don't bash the yankees?

Brock
11-04-2004, 12:24 PM
here is a surprise more jeter bashing :shakehead

funny in a year that bret boone won you guys have a problem with jeter winning. should jeter have won the award i don't know but i know he had a pretty good year in the field.

FOTS do you have days on this board where u don't bash the yankees?

We have a problem with Derek Jeter winning the award because he's simply not that great of a fielder. Simply put.

Bret Boone may be overrated, and he may have had a crappy year at the plate, but the fact is that hes still an outstanding fielding second baseman.

Ironchef Chris Wok*
11-04-2004, 12:33 PM
here is a surprise more jeter bashing :shakehead

funny in a year that bret boone won you guys have a problem with jeter winning. should jeter have won the award i don't know but i know he had a pretty good year in the field.

FOTS do you have days on this board where u don't bash the yankees?

The people at baseballprimer were HAMMERING the voters for voting Boone.

He was one of the WORST defensvie 2B in the league.

Supposedly according to their stats, I can't remember, I think Hudson would have been a good pick. Kennedy was great before the injury. Rivas was also supposedly decent.

Son of Steinbrenner
11-04-2004, 12:37 PM
We have a problem with Derek Jeter winning the award because he's simply not that great of a fielder. Simply put.

Bret Boone may be overrated, and he may have had a crappy year at the plate, but the fact is that hes still an outstanding fielding second baseman.
jeter had a career year in the field and i can see people bashing the voters for voting him the award. my problem is this thread is just an anti-yankee bashing thread which i know is the in thing to do on these boards. bret boone winning the award is a travesty while jeter winning isn't that big of a deal.

Son of Steinbrenner
11-04-2004, 12:44 PM
how come nobody is going crazy about pudge winning? look at the defensive stats and varitek martinez and molina all had better years.
how come nobody is going crazy about boone winning over roberts or scutaro?
shouldn't hinske have won over chavez i mean the guy played 25 more games and had 5 less errors.

i honestly thought when the red sox won the world series the yankee bashing would take a backseat for awhile but i was wrong.

~i'm trying to get the water off my keyboard from spitting up laughing at anybody even suggesting hafner win a gold glove.~

Hockeyfan02
11-04-2004, 02:21 PM
I think SOS and FOTS are too busy in their heated debate to miss the sarcasm in the post about Travis Hafner winning the award.

stanley
11-04-2004, 02:33 PM
bret boone winning the award is a travesty while jeter winning isn't that big of a deal.
Absolutely. Among AL second basemen (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2004&seasonType=2&split=80&sortOrder=true&sortColumn=fieldingPct), Boone ranks near the end in just about every feel-good stat (fielding %) AND the intrinsic ones (zone rating, range factor). Maybe the voters were asked who was the WORST fielder, or that a glove made of elemental gold wouldn't really be useful in the field and awarded it to the poorest defensive player based on that concept. Either way, it's clear to me that this is yet another award nearly useless for everything except as fodder between the end of the season and the hot stove discussions.


Again - trophies awarded based on a poll really aren't worth the material of which they're made. This should be the real discussion here. The award, not the players (or the Yankees), is what should be exposed as a fraud.

-----------------------------

I think SOS and FOTS are too busy in their heated debate to miss the sarcasm in the post about Travis Hafner winning the award.
Word to your mother. I'm almost certain Hafner was suggested as a candidate as a joke. He's practically a full-time DH, and hasn't played anywhere near enough games to qualify statistically.

SOS spits up water? Does anybody else have this problem? I spit up acid, like the Alien creature. I thought it would be cool at parties and such, but I'm a drooler and it really gets in the way.

Fish on The Sand
11-05-2004, 01:41 AM
I think SOS and FOTS are too busy in their heated debate to miss the sarcasm in the post about Travis Hafner winning the award.
I got the sarcasm, but this isn't about the indians, its about Jeter being the worst and getting something that the best deserve.

Fish on The Sand
11-05-2004, 01:44 AM
here is a surprise more jeter bashing :shakehead

funny in a year that bret boone won you guys have a problem with jeter winning. should jeter have won the award i don't know but i know he had a pretty good year in the field.

FOTS do you have days on this board where u don't bash the yankees?
Bret boone is an excellent 2nd baseman. He may have had an off year defensivly, but defensive stats are meaningless. Jeter may have improved his defence but its still horrible.

Son of Steinbrenner
11-05-2004, 01:54 AM
Bret boone is an excellent 2nd baseman. He may have had an off year defensivly, but defensive stats are meaningless. Jeter may have improved his defence but its still horrible.
you harp on jeter because you are biased yet you look past everything else.

bret boone :lol

Ironchef Chris Wok*
11-05-2004, 04:05 AM
The stats say that Boone stunk this year.
The stats say that Jeter had a career year but was average at best.

Draw your own conclusions.

Fish on The Sand
11-05-2004, 07:29 AM
The stats say that Boone stunk this year.
The stats say that Jeter had a career year but was average at best.

Draw your own conclusions.
you can't quantify defence. Fielding percentage has too many flaws, zone rating is too vague, and range factor is totally dependant on the number of chances you have. It has to be something observed, and it doesn't take a genious to watch and figure out that Boone is an outstanding 2nd baseman, while Jeter sucks.

loveshack2
11-05-2004, 10:20 AM
it doesn't take a genious to watch and figure out that Boone is an outstanding 2nd baseman, while Jeter sucks.
You're right it doesn't take a genius it takes a mental patient.

Neither Jeter nor Boone deserved to win a gold glove this year, that is all.

stanley
11-05-2004, 11:20 AM
I don't like Jeter, either (that's the fan in me talking), but I sure think he's the kind of player I'd want around were I putting together a team. I do think he's woefully overrated, but 1) that's not his fault, and 2) he's still an fantastic player. He's rare in that I'd consider him a "core" player, but he certainly doesn't put of the kind of numbers like a Tejada or a healthy Garciaparra. In this respect, he reminds me a lot of Pete Rose. Anywho, the one knock on him defensively is that he has and always has had one of the worst ranges among AL shortstops and is only average with the balls he does get to. Again, see point #2 above.

Not to belabor my meaning here, but in the Historical Abstract, Bill James's assessment of Pedro Martinez is that none of his single pitches is one of the best of current or modern time, and he would expect him to be a better-than-average pitcher based on this observation. However, when you combine hard- or impossible-to-quantify factors such as his command, arm angles, and willingness to effectively throw any of his pitches anywhere in the count, he becomes much, much better than it had appeared. I think Jeter has many of the same intangible characteristics. It's a feeling on my part; I have no tangible evidence to support it.

Brett Boone, at 35 years old, has lost range over the past few years. Statistically, his defensive decline has been pretty predictable. This doesn't mean he's out there tripping over his own two feet, but that it's clearly apparent that he's lost a step. There are now better defensive players at his position. Jeter shouldn't have won a Gold Glove, but Boone shouldn't be anywhere near one now. Again, the Gold Glove may just as well have been a swimsuit competition, because it's abundantly clear that no statistical evaluation whatsoever goes into the voters' selection. It's in the same boat as MVP and the Cy Young. When are we going to get a BA against, WHIP, or OPS award?

------------------------------------------
...you can't quantify defence. Fielding percentage has too many flaws, zone rating is too vague, and range factor is totally dependant on the number of chances you have. It has to be something observed...
Fielding percentage is absolutely wraught with holes. However, to write that ZR is too vague is a gross misstatement. It's complex, but it's clearly defined: in essence, the percentage of balls fielded within a fixed, defined range based on position played. Every player at a position is compared equally. RF is indeed dependent on the number of chances, but discounting a player's ability to get to a ball is like saying "Tony Perez was only considered a better home run hitter than Dave Concepcion because he was bigger, stronger, and had much better plate coverage." Furthermore, it seems that if you discount RF in particular, you're removing the A-Number One why most people think Derek Jeter is overrated, and lend support to SOS's claim. I think you're both in the same boat in this case regarding the manner in which you assess Jeter and Boone - you're just rowing in opposite directions. :-)

Fish on The Sand
11-05-2004, 04:20 PM
Fielding percentage is absolutely wraught with holes. However, to write that ZR is too vague is a gross misstatement. It's complex, but it's clearly defined: in essence, the percentage of balls fielded within a fixed, defined range based on position played. Every player at a position is compared equally. RF is indeed dependent on the number of chances, but discounting a player's ability to get to a ball is like saying "Tony Perez was only considered a better home run hitter than Dave Concepcion because he was bigger, stronger, and had much better plate coverage." Furthermore, it seems that if you discount RF in particular, you're removing the A-Number One why most people think Derek Jeter is overrated, and lend support to SOS's claim. I think you're both in the same boat in this case regarding the manner in which you assess Jeter and Boone - you're just rowing in opposite directions. :-)
I'm a sabermetrics guy, but Bill James gave up on defence 30 years ago for a very good reason; you just can't quantify it. The stats say Jeter is better defensivly than guys like Vizquel, thats how you know it is flawed. Plus, range factor is completly dependant on not only chances, but also fielding percentage as well. If you have a generous scorekeeper, like I suspect Jeter no doubt does, it will improve your standing in all 3 categories. RF and ZR are just as flawed as Fielding Percentage for the sole reason that they depend on fielding percentage to quantify themselves.

Fish on The Sand
11-05-2004, 04:21 PM
You're right it doesn't take a genius it takes a mental patient.

Neither Jeter nor Boone deserved to win a gold glove this year, that is all.
well maybe I havent seen much oif Boone lately, but I still remember him having outstanding range and a surprisingly strong arm for a 2nd baseman.

stanley
11-05-2004, 08:29 PM
Fielding percentage is absolutely wraught with holes.

How so, Stan?

FPct = (PO+A)/(PO+A+E)

Actually, it appears that FPct normalizes over the course of a season. As the sample size gets larger, it looks like a fluctuation in the number of errors doesn't do much to FPct. If it sounds like I'm refuting my own statement, then you're reading it right.


If you have a generous scorekeeper, like I suspect Jeter no doubt does, it will improve your standing in all 3 categories.
Angel Berroa led the AL with 28 errors. However, those chances accounted for 0.045% of his total chances. Eckstein had the fewest with 6, which accounted for 0.012% of his total chances. Generous scorekeeper or not, I guess it doesn't amount to all that much.

You lost me here, FOTS:
...range factor is completly dependant on not only chances, but also fielding percentage as well.
FPct is defined by the number of putouts and assists by the number of putouts, assists, and errors (informally referred to as "chances"). RF simply normalizes FPct to a 9-inning game and allows us to compare players on a more equal footing. ZR, on the other hand, is dependent on regions of responsibility, as established by the STATS, Inc. folks. It normalizes players just like RF.

Still, I'm a little less certain about why I think the way I do, although I'm certain the Gold Glove is worthless. I'm going to have to read more about what James thinks about it.

Thanks for making me think about it.

loveshack2
11-06-2004, 12:26 AM
ZR depends on a somewhat arbitrary definition of zone which is relatively inflexible (they don't change according to batter-pitcher combination - a fielder would set himself in a different place depending on this). Neither does it differentiate between hard hit balls, soft ones and pop ups (I think). There is no "difficulty factor" attached to any hit. If a ball is in your zone, regardless of the situation and regardless of how difficult a ball to field it is, it's your responsibility. Now given a large enough sample size (say 2 full seasons worth) you would expect that most players who play the same position would see close to the same number of easy and difficult hits as well as playing in roughly the same number of different fielding situations. It's probably the best of all the current fielding metrics, still it ain't perfect.

RF, Bill James has said that it is one of the dumbest ideas he's ever had (or words to that effect). Bill James' New Historical Abstract has all the details I'm told. I really dont think RF tells you anything useful about a player personally.

The best way to determine fielding is still direct eye observation IMHO, as long as it's relatively unbiased. Fielding stats can be useful in certain instances but especially at small sample sizes, like say a couple months worth, they really tell you very little.

Fish on The Sand
11-06-2004, 04:12 AM
You lost me here, FOTS:

FPct is defined by the number of putouts and assists by the number of putouts, assists, and errors (informally referred to as "chances"). RF simply normalizes FPct to a 9-inning game and allows us to compare players on a more equal footing. ZR, on the other hand, is dependent on regions of responsibility, as established by the STATS, Inc. folks. It normalizes players just like RF.
fielding percentage is errors/total chances. essentially, rf is fielding percentage over 9 innings. Fielding percentage is a very flawed stat as scorekeepers are not very objective, and it does not come close to normalizing over the season.

Fish on The Sand
11-06-2004, 04:15 AM
RF, Bill James has said that it is one of the dumbest ideas he's ever had (or words to that effect). Bill James' New Historical Abstract has all the details I'm told. I really dont think RF tells you anything useful about a player personally.
I don't know if Billy J has ever said this, but when he firsts tarted out, it was soley on evaluating defence. He gave up and is now writing about hitting. I'm sure he came to the same conclusion I have and that there is just no way you can quantify defence. If you watch the following players....Vizquel, Jeter, Cabrera and Tejada, they will all have roughly equal stats, yet you could tell by watching that Jeter just doesn't compare.

stanley
11-06-2004, 04:58 PM
Fielding percentage is a very flawed stat as scorekeepers are not very objective, and it does not come close to normalizing over the season.
The sample size is more than large enough. Even if Eckstein, for example, lumped his 6 errors last season into his first six chances, he'd still have a .940 FPct after 100 chances.

I see no evidence to indicate a significant difference in the manner in which official scorers assign errors. Then again, the statistical range between "good" and "bad" fielders at a position is relatively small. I think we should all do a little research.

Fish on The Sand
11-06-2004, 05:18 PM
The sample size is more than large enough. Even if Eckstein, for example, lumped his 6 errors last season into his first six chances, he'd still have a .940 FPct after 100 chances.

I see no evidence to indicate a significant difference in the manner in which official scorers assign errors. Then again, the statistical range between "good" and "bad" fielders at a position is relatively small. I think we should all do a little research.
its not even at all, it doesn't balance itself out. Scorekeeping is very subjective. what is an error, and what isnt an error not only varries park to park, but player to player, pitcher to pitcher. It always varries team to team. It is something extremely flawed.

Big McLargehuge
11-08-2004, 02:59 PM
Bay & Crosby win Rookie of the Year honors (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1918397)

They got both right, unbelievable.

I was certain Greene was gonna win, if for no reason other than ESPN hypes the ****ing hell out of him. Bay is the first Pirate EVER to win the award.

Legionnaire
11-08-2004, 03:48 PM
Green might have won it if he hadn't missed the last month of the season. Bay is a fine choice though.

Big McLargehuge
11-08-2004, 03:59 PM
Bay missed the first month of the season, and about half of May. Greene only missed the final 2 weeks of the season...

stanley
11-08-2004, 04:24 PM
its not even at all, it doesn't balance itself out. Scorekeeping is very subjective. what is an error, and what isnt an error not only varries park to park, but player to player, pitcher to pitcher. It always varries team to team. It is something extremely flawed.
Okay.

Dr Love
11-08-2004, 04:34 PM
I see no evidence to indicate a significant difference in the manner in which official scorers assign errors. Then again, the statistical range between "good" and "bad" fielders at a position is relatively small. I think we should all do a little research.
Thus is the conclusion Beane came to. Defense isn't nearly as important, and the difference between average and good is scant. As for James, he has some excellent articles on defense, in particular his comments on Bill Buckner (which turns into a Garvey/Buckner comparision, which is in a way ironic since Garvey replaced Buckner) are an excellent read on how not to look at defense.

Legionnaire
11-08-2004, 04:44 PM
Bay missed the first month of the season, and about half of May. Greene only missed the final 2 weeks of the season...

The point is, had Green been more visable on a potential playoff team, it surely would have lasted in voters minds.

Bay had a great season, don't get me wrong at all. In fact, he would have been my choice.

But, like you said ESPN was in love with the kid, and had he played down the stretch I think he could have won some more writers/voters over.

tom_servo
11-08-2004, 06:37 PM
Bay & Crosby win Rookie of the Year honors (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1918397)

They got both right, unbelievable.

I was certain Greene was gonna win, if for no reason other than ESPN hypes the ****ing hell out of him. Bay is the first Pirate EVER to win the award.

Bay also happens to be the first native Canadian to win the award.

leafaholix*
11-08-2004, 09:36 PM
Bay also happens to be the first native Canadian to win the award.
He's not Native, is he?

tom_servo
11-08-2004, 10:11 PM
No, not with a capital 'N'.

Ironchef Chris Wok*
11-08-2004, 11:10 PM
Thus is the conclusion Beane came to. Defense isn't nearly as important, and the difference between average and good is scant. As for James, he has some excellent articles on defense, in particular his comments on Bill Buckner (which turns into a Garvey/Buckner comparision, which is in a way ironic since Garvey replaced Buckner) are an excellent read on how not to look at defense.

That wasn't Beane's conclusion.

Defense IS important, but it's too expensive. THAT was his conclusion.