988%is almost perfect, and by far the best in the league....... and you call this purely reputation? Who was better? ----- Yeah, that's what I thought! Well, in that case, why don't we just give the award to this guy. A 1.000% is perfect, and that's all that seems to matter to you. The reason that Fielding % isn't the be-all-end-all of fielding stats is that it doesn't reflect the mobility and range of the player. If I play shortstop, I might get to 5 balls in a game. If Rafael Furcal plays shortstop, he might get to 9 balls in a game. The 5 balls I get to are the simplest of ground balls/pop-ups, and I'm very unlikely to make an error. The 4 extra balls that Furcal gets to are the more difficult ones, and in the process of making a nice diving grab, pop-up and throw, he might rush one and heave it over the first baseman's head. The other three he doesn't make an error on, he guns out the runner at 1B, while I watch the ball roll into the OF. So at the end of the game, I have a 1.000 fielding percentage on 5 plays, and Furcal has an 0.889 fielding percentage on 9 plays. But you'd have to be crazy to say that I was a better fielder than Furcal. 2005 stats: O.Vizquel - 234 put outs, 426 assists, 81 double plays, 8 errors in 1292.1 innings fielded R.Furcal - 255 put outs, 504 assists, 119 double plays, 15 errors in 1306.1 innings fielded Doing the math, that's a net advantage of 90 outs (PO + A - E), in just 14 extra innings. That's why some people believe Furcal should have been the Gold Glove recipient over Vizquel, and why using just fielding percentage to make that determination is not always a good idea. By the way, I'm not suggesting that Vizquel is a terrible fielder. He is a fantastic fielder, and I don't think it's a crime that he wins the Gold Glove. I just don't think he may have been the best choice.
I just don't think he may have been the best choice. And I respectfully disagree!
.... and this is why: You see, the stats you have presented show quantity not quality! Maybe Vizquel's (PO + A - E) ratio was less... but you're not taking into account the quality of the plays made by each player here. I don't have the stats, but say that most of Vizquel's plays were to the "hole" as opposed to Furcal's being "right to him", then would you still consider your math equation the way to go? That's why we have the Managers and Coaches choose the GG winners, because they can distinguinsh between the average Good, and the Great! They see this guys play more than any of us can through the stats. Furcal is an above average (very good) SS; but Vizquel is an above average (Great SS). - If his hitting had only been as solid early in his career as it has been reascently, he would surely be a 1st. round Hall of Fame selection! Conclusion: - Quality - Not Quantity!
I just don't think he may have been the best choice. And I respectfully disagree! As long as it's respectfully, I have no problem. Disrespectfully disagree with me, and I'll...um...be a bit ticked off, I guess.
That's why we have the Managers and Coaches choose the GG winners, because they can distinguinsh between the average Good, and the Great! They see this guys play more than any of us can through the stats. Agreed. That's why it's a voting award instead of a stats award. I have no beef with the managers and coaches making their selection, as they do see these players more often than I do. My only problem was that you used fielding % as a way of justifying Vizquel's award, and I was presenting an argument as to why fielding % isn't necessarily a proper reflection, and I presented a different set of statistics to suggest a different answer. I don't have the stats, but say that most of Vizquel's plays were to the "hole" as opposed to Furcal's being "right to him", then would you still consider your math equation the way to go? As an opposing view, couldn't you then imply that Furcal's positioning before the hit gives him a chance to turn an easier play? It has been suggested that the best fielders in the game aren't the ones that make spectacular plays, but the ones that make adjustments and remove the need for spectacular plays. If an outfielder can position himself before the play so that he only has to run 30 feet (instead of 60 feet), he's going to make a routine catch instead of a diving one. If a shortstop positions himself 5 feet to the right because he knows the pitcher is going to throw a curveball, he might turn what could have been a diving play in the hole to a simple scoop and throw. So there is less chance for a spectacular play, but the defensive prowess is still there. Obviously, we are attempting to make distinctions about subjective observations, and that's pretty difficult to do. While I feel that the statistics imply that Furcal may be the better fielding shortstop, I obviously can't insist that it's the case. In the same way, the voting by the managers implies that Vizquel is the better fielding shortstop, but the possibility of awarding it based on previous reputation does have to be taken into consideration.
You see, the stats you have presented show quantity not quality! No, they don't. You cannot produce a fielding statistic that encompasses quality (check out Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance if you're interested in whether Quality can be quantified at all). Range Factor and Zone Rating seek to tell us something about how much ground a player covers (though they are skewed by the players around a fielder, as is FP) precisely because it's ahrd to discern how well they cover it. Either way, grum's original point stands: FP says nothing about how many balls a player gets to. If you want to suggest an aged Omar Vizquel, standing stock still and only fielding balls that rool directly to him, but doing so bare-handed, is a higher quality fielder than someone else, that's your call. Saying Furcal deserves a Gold Glove over Vizquel this year in no way denigrates the terrific accomplishments of Omar Vizquel or suggests Furcal is a better player than Omar ever was. It's just that he's a better fielder now.
This is a great warmup for AL MVP. Keep those muscles fresh folks.
