For Those Who Manually Vote For Awards

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Game

How are the other 3 better then player #1. All 3 would have more E in 157 games. None would have the same amount of TC or A. Yes he is benefited by being on a great team with 3 solid GB pitchers while the other 3 were on teams with a less then .500 record. Although that doesn't factor in for GG's.
Why is player 1 so bad, in your opinion and ZR when his stats are clearly better? Rafael Palmeiro and his 27 games at 1B will never win a GG in my league.

It's not even close.

# 2 playing 1467.1 innings in 2011 (as did #1) would have 969 PO/A to #1's 884, while committing 5 more errors. That is 70 more plays made over the course of a season. That is fielding 3 more balls a week, every week.

#1 has an outstanding field%, but he is not the best fielder.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

It's not even close.

# 2 playing 1467.1 innings in 2011 (as did #1) would have 969 PO/A to #1's 884, while committing 5 more errors. That is 70 more plays made over the course of a season. That is fielding 3 more balls a week, every week.

#1 has an outstanding field%, but he is not the best fielder.

How did you come up with only 5 more errors? I had him at 8 more. Yes he would have more PO. A would have been about the same.
So in you opinion a 1B playing 27 games should win the GG over a 1B playing 158 G? Because he might project better stats? Longevity and durability, which I admit knowing these players as I do means that the winner also benefitted from being the better offensive player which gained him more PT, should also weigh into the decision of who wins.

I still don't see how any of the other 3 are better. I would love to award the GG to a player with range who can play 157 G vs a Ewok with a 5 overall 2B rating who was made to be bad on defense.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Game

So in you opinion a 1B playing 27 games should win the GG over a 1B playing 158 G?

When the heck did I mention Palmeiro? I will present my own opinions. You don't have to assign them to me.

To get the projection for one vs 2, simply take the ratio of IP and multiply/divide into the number you want to project.

In my opinion, 100 games is more meaningful than 27. It is also an adequate number to warrant GG consideration.

Using your method, Ripken wins a CF GG over Edmonds.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by The Game

What are your deciding factors when it comes to Gold Gloves?
Do you rely on ZR? what helps you decide?

When I vote for awards I always ask the computer 1st then make changes.
MVP candidates get more weight when playing on a playoff team. Triple crowns are almost automatic MVP. All my triple crown awards winners have won the MVP and only 1 was not on a playoff team.

Defense is my primary concern. When I override the AI suggestions it is because the AI went with someone with a very good ZR, but may not have lead his position in assists, putouts, DP or least errors. I have given the AL 2B GG to a player who I know has a range of 4 an arm of 5 and a DP rating of 4. He had the most assists and the most DP and the fewest E. His ZR was negative. The AI wanted to give it to a player who played in 20 less games, with less TC, he did have more putouts though. 2 more E then the GG winner.
Catchers with the highest thrown out % + most games win. Even the AI can't dispute 10 time GG winner Dennis Ray and his career 48.7%.

What should I be looking at more when it comes to GG? and why? I will post examples in a few weeks.

I think your methods are excellent. I regularly overrule the AI's choices of award winners.

I also give preference to playoff teams in all categories except Golden Gloves, which i don't think the AI is programmed to do.

One thing I do is give preference to Golden Glovers who play more games. If a player has a .985 percentage in 125 games and another has .980 in 150 games, I consider giving it to the one who played the most games.

Good offense plays no role in my Golden Glove selections - the best defenders are chosen, regardless of their batting stats.

Derek Jeter would never win a Golden Glove in my league with his defensive stats. His reputation for leadership and offense gave him an unfair advantage many times over better defenders. Most years you can find 3-4 players better defensively than him.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

When the heck did I mention Palmeiro? I will present my own opinions. You don't have to assign them to me.

To get the projection for one vs 2, simply take the ratio of IP and multiply/divide into the number you want to project.

In my opinion, 100 games is more meaningful than 27. It is also an adequate number to warrant GG consideration.

Using your method, Ripken wins a CF GG over Edmonds.

If Ripken played in 157 G and was worthy & Edmonds played in 120 games then yes.
No one has yet to give me a clear reason why the other guys are better.
I'll check other positions and see what else I can find.
For Catchers as I have said that award is solely based on Thrown Out % and a few C's have won that with less then 125 G played.
1B is based on PO, DP and fewest E. Most of the 1B winners have been on teams with stellar SS's
3B same as 2B but my league is a very good 3B league.
SS same as 3B
OFers I go with most A + fewest E. I have one RF in the NL with 7 GG's. Always among the leader in A and fewest E. His range was 9 for most of his career, now down to around 6.

I'll try to post more bubble guys soon and will see who should win the 2015 GG's soon.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by The Game

What are your deciding factors when it comes to Gold Gloves?
Do you rely on ZR? what helps you decide?

ZR and innings. If one guy played close to 800 innings and another closer to 1400 then I have to go with the 1400 innings guy.

When I vote for awards I always ask the computer 1st then make changes.
MVP candidates get more weight when playing on a playoff team. Triple crowns are almost automatic MVP. All my triple crown awards winners have won the MVP and only 1 was not on a playoff team.

I hate that approach. Triple Crowns don't = best season. Leading the league in HR is great, but focusing on average ignores a potentially low OBP and I don't care about someone's RBI totals. Nor do I care about whether the MVP comes from a playoff team. I'm not punishing the best player in the league cause his teammates blow.

Look at a combo of OPS+, WAR, ZR and a few other stats to determine the MVP. Certainly not RBI totals.

Defense is my primary concern. When I override the AI suggestions it is because the AI went with someone with a very good ZR, but may not have lead his position in assists, putouts, DP or least errors.

Leading the position in assists or putouts doesn't mean that they played well defensively. If one team had a 60% GB rate and another had a 50% GB rate there's a pretty good chance that the infielder playing for the first team is going to get more opportunities. He could have less range and end up with more assists/putouts simply because he had more chances.

Likewise a team with a high strikeout staff is likely to see less contact or baseballs in play then a team with a low strikeout staff.

Errors are irrelevant, because if a player has no range he's not going to make a play on anything that isn't hit to him. If a player with a ton of range gets to a ball and messes up, he gets an error, but the guy who didn't have the range to get to the ball in the first place watches it go by and isn't credited with an error. I'd rather have the guy who has the range to get to plays the other guy can't even if it leads to more errors.

I have given the AL 2B GG to a player who I know has a range of 4 an arm of 5 and a DP rating of 4. He had the most assists and the most DP and the fewest E. His ZR was negative.

In other words, your player sums up the situation I just mentioned. You basically pulled a Rafael Palmeiro for GG. A guy who has a -ZR is costing his team defensively. He has the fewest errors because he doesn't have the range to get to the baseballs in the first place.

The AI wanted to give it to a player who played in 20 less games, with less TC, he did have more putouts though. 2 more E then the GG winner.

AI probably made the right call but without looking over the other D stats I can't say that for sure.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Game

If Ripken played in 157 G and was worthy & Edmonds played in 120 games then yes.
No one has yet to give me a clear reason why the other guys are better.
I'll check other positions and see what else I can find.
For Catchers as I have said that award is solely based on Thrown Out % and a few C's have won that with less then 125 G played.
1B is based on PO, DP and fewest E. Most of the 1B winners have been on teams with stellar SS's
3B same as 2B but my league is a very good 3B league.
SS same as 3B
OFers I go with most A + fewest E. I have one RF in the NL with 7 GG's. Always among the leader in A and fewest E. His range was 9 for most of his career, now down to around 6.

I'll try to post more bubble guys soon and will see who should win the 2015 GG's soon.

Firstly, these are your Awards. Give them out in whatever manner you like.

If you are saying "I don't agree with how OOTP issues Awards," that is fine.

You are asking for other opinions, here, and you are getting them.

I think a Gold Glove is more than what you outline, above.

To what I said earlier: A guy with a negative ZF is not a GGer. Period.

There are guys on your bench, guys in your minors, and guys in the free agent pool who are better fielders. I define "better fielder" as someone who, when he plays, will reduce the expected runs scored of the opposition as compared to your GG selection.

Your guy's bad range + outstanding field % = average fielder. A GGer is something well beyond average, imo.

You said: "GG's are not to be given out based on a player's offense. "

However, that is EXACTLY why you are giving this guy a GG! He played 157 games not because of his great defense, but because he provided offense at the middle infield position. There are dozens of guys you could pick up in a day that would provide better defense. You are giving him the GG simply because of games played and field%. He has the playing time because of his offense, pure and simple.

In 1984, Steve Garvey played 159 games at 1B and committed zero errors.

Keith Hernandez layed in 153 games, for the Mets, committed 8 errors, and won the GG.

I love Steve Garvey, but he was not robbed by the voters when they gave the GG to Hernandez.

Hernandez had a RF/G and RF/9 below the league average....how is he a GGer?

Keith Hernandez is the best defensive 1Bman I have ever seen, and he was still that in 1984. Garvey's RF/G and RF/9 were also below the league average. So, if they are both below, why not give it to Garvey? No one else went errorless at 1B for the full season.

Well, with a rotation of Gooden, Sid Fernandez, and Ron Darling striking out around 7 hitters a game, fewer balls were put into play than the Padre's rotation of Show, Whitson, and Dravecky, who averaged around 4 and a half strikeouts per 9 IP.
---------------------------------
When you presented your stats, originally, you made zero mention of games played. This matters. The rates do matter. To give the GG to the guy that had more TC not because of superior range, but because of more IP at the position is a point of disagreement between us.

It would be like saying that Pete Rose was a better power hitter than Bo Jackson, simply because he had more career HR.

Playing time matters. Rate stats matter.

Steve Garvey was a competent 1Bman. Hernandez was a Gold Glove.

Cal Ripken might play something close to a competent CF, but he would never be confused for Jim Edmonds.

Your GG selection is getting the award because he has a Major League bat and managed to avoid injury. It is not because he flashes Cooperstown leather.

[Lucas718]

I believe the gold glove should go to the best fielders. Now, I realize this doesn't always happen in real life, but in my OOTP world it does. I sort the list by fielding percentage and the guy with the highest who also has over 1000 innings at the position wins. If there's a tie then I look at total chances, and obviously the guy with the highest is the winner.