Reds 0-for-3 in Gold Gloves

No Reds were winners of National League Gold Gloves on Tuesday. The leagues’ managers and coaches vote for the Gold Gloves, which is based on 75 percent of the votes while 25 percent is based on defensive metrics. Based on those metrics, it looks like the right winners got the awards here.

At 2B, Brandon Phillips lost out on a fifth career NL Gold Glove when the award went to D.J. LeMahieu of the Rockies. Phillips committed only two errors and had a .996 fielding percentage but LeMahieu stood well above the rest at his position in the advanced stats with a 10.7 ultimate zone rating and 16 defense runs saved. Phillips had a 9.9 UZR and a 6 DRS. Chase Utley of the Phillies was the third finalist.

At SS, the Braves’ Andrelton Simmons bested Zack Cozart and the Marlins’ Adeiny Hechavarria. In the advanced stats, Simmons led the league at the position with a 28 DRS while Cozart was second with 19. Simmons had at 15.5 UZR that led the league while Cozart was second at 12.1. Cozart (10) had fewer errors than Simmons (14) and a better fielding percentage with .984 compared to Simmons’ .978.

At CF, Juan Lagares of the Mets won over Billy Hamilton and Denard Span of the Nationals. Lagares led the NL with a 28 DRS while Hamilton was second at 14. Hamilton had a better UZR at 20.1 to Lagares’ 18.6. Hamilton also led all NL center fielders with 10 assists and a .994 fielding percentage.

*Earlier on Tuesday, two Reds were named finalists for BBWAA awards. Johnny Cueto is up for the NL Cy Young Award and Hamilton is a candidate for NL Rookie of the Year.


Sorry – Billy deserved the GG. Like Darwin Bailey winning it over BP in the past – how absurd. There are many stats that can be chosen as more important than others, which is subjective. Billy’s stats were top of the line. If you watched both players you realize that fielding percentage and assists were by far the most important. DRS is a totally subjective stat based primarily on film study and comparing against peer. That is an apples to oranges way at looking at it because there are no calculations for how fast the ball is traveling when hit, the spin on the ball with each fielding chance, the defensive alignment when the ball is hit, the understanding of tendencies by a coaching staff that imparts it to the players, etc. I knew when baseball people gave in to the Sabermetrics crowd that junk like this would happen.

Fielding percentage is an utterly bogus stat, as witnessed here in that the eventual winner never held sway on that measure. Nor should it be otherwise.

Zach Cozart being being the second coming of Ozzie Smith is greatly exaggerated. The right players won the awards for gold gloves.

Yes, but 75% of the result is determined by the votes from the managers and coaches. So, it looks like metrics did not play an overriding role. I like all three of the Reds finalists for their defensive abilities, but I tend to agree with Mark that the correct result may well have been obtained this year.

Absolutely correct. If anyone is unhappy with the results, talk to the Managers and
Coaches. BTW…Managers and Coaches may not vote for their own team player,
if applicable.

Brandon Phillips just passed Ryne Sandberg for the highest fielding percentage of all time. How in the hell does he not win a gold glove?! Phillips has gotten snubbed twice in the past 3 years and Cozart got snubbed this year too. 10 less errors than the guy that won it? I mean this is just an outrage.

Mixing apples and oranges…

Saber metrics . What a Bunch of BS . All three Reds get to balls those other guys can’t come close to. Thus more chance of an error . T2 is right . MLB is so screwed up. No wonder it pales in popularity to football .

Through biased, “red-shot” eyes only! And the sabermetrics are designed to provide the very factor you accuse the voters of overlooking: range. Yours is a silly rant.

Brandon doesn’t win because of injuries and his range is limited.

So saber metrics is saying Phillips,Cozart , and Hamilton don’t have range. You made my point , silly Denny .

But far from the best in those measures, copy-cat Jim. Come up with your own insults.

In your silly opinion.

Not a matter of opinion. Just read the saber stats.

Okay . I respect your input on saber metrics . I just like stats and what ifs determining what is .

In the area of defensive assessment, I’m pretty sure not much is very reliable, the old stats or the new metrics. At least the newer ones take a stab at measuring key qualities of prowess without relying so exclusively on the whims of non-standardized scoring decisions. But, in the end, it requires the eyes of a scout to really know, and that scout can’t watch everyone adequately, even with today’s technological advantages. The awards remain a hunch, a thing determined by word-of-mouth probably more so than anything else.

Understood . Thanks for the info. Sometimes it’s hard for an old dog like me to give in to the new way of doing things . At least I understand it a little better .

I’m an old dog too, but I learned a new trick or two when the available old ones went wanting!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: