SS Gold Glove Decision

[greenOak]

Usually, I don't have much of a problem picking award winners in my leagues, but this is an interesting decision came up pertaining the 2030 AL Gold Glove Award at SS in my game. Haven't come across a situation like this before. Should a player who played just 87 games be deserving of a gold glove award? Wondering who you guys would choose here:

Player #1

87GP, 86 games started at SS, .983 fielding%, 4.01RF, +15.4 ZR, 1.106 EFF.

Player #2

138GP, 129 games started at SS, .983 fielding%, 4.20RF, +10.9 ZR, 1.046 EFF.

[rpriske]

Player 2

[RchW]

Originally Posted by greenOak

Usually, I don't have much of a problem picking award winners in my leagues, but this is an interesting decision came up pertaining the 2030 AL Gold Glove Award at SS in my game. Haven't come across a situation like this before. Should a player who played just 87 games be deserving of a gold glove award? Wondering who you guys would choose here:

Player #1

87GP, 86 games started at SS, .983 fielding%, 4.01RF, +15.4 ZR, 1.106 EFF.

Player #2

138GP, 129 games started at SS, .983 fielding%, 4.20RF, +10.9 ZR, 1.046 EFF.

When did player 1 play his 87 games? If he played the first 87 then got injured or started injured and played the last 87 games then he is a slam dunk IMO. If he played as a platoon or sporadically because he wasn't good enough then number 2 is the man.

[greenOak]

When did player 1 play his 87 games? If he played the first 87 then got injured or started injured and played the last 87 games then he is a slam dunk IMO. If he played as a platoon or sporadically because he wasn't good enough then number 2 is the man.

For everyone who wants to know: Player 1 missed around 30 games at the beginning season and then the last month and a half due to injury. So he is not a platoon player.

[Matt Arnold]

Shouldn't matter when he played the games. They're close enough that I'd give it to the guy with more games, but we've seen stupider voting in the past for Gold Gloves.

[wuttang]

GG awards IRL r generally stupid imo, often going to vets or players with better offensive #s.
But here it's close enough I'd give it to player #2.
BTW, I also think "GG 1st baseman" is one of the funniest terms in baseball

[eriqjaffe]

Give it to the first guy.

Sincerely,

Rafael Palmeiro

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by wuttang

BTW, I also think "GG 1st baseman" is one of the funniest terms in baseball

I guess you never had the privilege of watching Keith Hernandez play first base.

[JMDurron]

Player 1 had the superior rate stat (EFF) and the superior counting stat (ZR) that are meaningful enough to demonstrate that he was the better defensive SS. Since he missed time due to injury instead of offensive ineptitude, I think Player 1 deserves it. The difference in Zone Rating is pretty stark, in less playing time.

I understand that defensive stats in real life are far more vague, but since OOTP is a little more deterministic than real life, and it is safe to assume that the ZR measurements are not biased by human error, then this is the equivalent and choosing a positional silver slugger winner between a player with a 1050 OPS and a 900 OPS. It's not like Player 2 exactly put a full year in at the position, either, 123 games seems light for a starter in a 162 game season.

[kingtut313]

i wouldnt even consider player 1 because of how few games he played. player 2's GP is borderline at best as well

[jaa36]

Originally Posted by greenOak

Usually, I don't have much of a problem picking award winners in my leagues, but this is an interesting decision came up pertaining the 2030 AL Gold Glove Award at SS in my game. Haven't come across a situation like this before. Should a player who played just 87 games be deserving of a gold glove award? Wondering who you guys would choose here:

Player #1

87GP, 86 games started at SS, .983 fielding%, 4.01RF, +15.4 ZR, 1.106 EFF.

Player #2

138GP, 129 games started at SS, .983 fielding%, 4.20RF, +10.9 ZR, 1.046 EFF.

I'd think about it like this. The first player saved 15 runs with his glove, the second player 11. Is it better to have the 15 runs saved plus 40 games of replacement-level play, or the 11 runs saved? Depends how much you think a replacement level shortstop can provide you on defense. I think in OOTP it's pretty easy to find an average defender at SS off the scrap heap, so I would find the 15-run player more valuable and worthier of the Gold Glove.

[chucksabr]

If you want to replicate how GGs are given in real life, one of the big questions would be, who's the better hitter?

No, seriously.

[wuttang]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I guess you never had the privilege of watching Keith Hernandez play first base.

Sure he was great... for a 1st baseman, but would you really think the then 5th best SS wouldn't play better defense at 1st than keith?
I relate 1st base GGs to a 33yr old minor league mvp.

[greenOak]

Well it looks like enough of you are willing to give it to player #1 despite his limited season for me to justify giving him the award (he was my initial preference).

[RchW]

Originally Posted by wuttang

Sure he was great... for a 1st baseman, but would you really think the then 5th best SS wouldn't play better defense at 1st than keith?
I relate 1st base GGs to a 33yr old minor league mvp.

There are plenty of SS who should be playing 1B but their bats aren't good enough.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by wuttang

Sure he was great... for a 1st baseman, but would you really think the then 5th best SS wouldn't play better defense at 1st than keith?
I relate 1st base GGs to a 33yr old minor league mvp.

You can't even compare the two positions. The way he defended the bunt was a unique skill that doesn't translate at any other position, just like turning a double play as a shortstop has no relevance to playing first base.

[Vida Blue]

2

[bwburke94]

Definitely player 2. A full season of .983 is better than a half season of .983

[wuttang]

Originally Posted by RchW

There are plenty of SS who should be playing 1B but their bats aren't good enough.

You're 100% right, but we're talking about only defense here and i say even an above average SS would play better defensively at 1st than a GG 1st baseman.

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

You can't even compare the two positions. The way he defended the bunt was a unique skill that doesn't translate at any other position, just like turning a double play as a shortstop has no relevance to playing first base.

And again, I say even a defensively above average SS after a short time of getting acclimated to playing 1st base, can "defend the bunt" the same if not much better than a GG 1st baseman, even KH.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by wuttang

You're 100% right, but we're talking about only defense here and i say even an above average SS would play better defensively at 1st than a GG 1st baseman.

I wasn't talking about defense only, despite the thread. You cannot separate the fact that any defensive improvement realized at 1B would be lost in offense with very few exceptions. It's also very clear that many teams take less defense at SS if he hits with power. A quick look at SS by games played in 2013 shows that in the top 20 only 5 were above average by Rtot. That says to me that offense still drives the lineup or there are few very good SS.

Originally Posted by wuttang

And again, I say even a defensively above average SS after a short time of getting acclimated to playing 1st base, can "defend the bunt" the same if not much better than a GG 1st baseman, even KH.

That may be your opinion but little evidence exists to support it. If it was clearly evident then managers would replace 1B with backup SS and/or 2B on a regular basis in close games.