Gold Glove CF

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You're joking, right? Brutally honest? Here's one little tidbit from Santo (from another thread):

 

"Neifi has had a stellar, stellar season. I haven't seen anyone play a better shortstop. He'll be back next year."

 

Hrabosky is horrible. I can hardly stand to listen to him.

 

Buck is one of the best, easily (heck, the guy has won for Emmy's). He's smooth, unbiased, and informed, whether he's doing football, baseball, whatever.........

 

I said Santo was a homer. My point was that he doesn't try to pretend he isn't. I think Santo is a terrible analyst.

 

Buck is not one of the best. Only a STL fan could think so. He's an arrogant preppy popped collar kind of guy. Unbiased? He is so completely biased it's almost obscene.

 

No doubt Buck panders to the STL crowd, but what drives me crazy no matter what sport he does is that he always is telling me what he thinks. You will always know what his opinion is on a topic. Sometimes even before the analyst, you know, the guy paid to give their opinion that is not Joe Buck, gets an opportunity to voice theirs. The Randy Moss incident last year is a perfect example.

[DesMoinesCub]

I have really started to hate any national broadcast (especially on Fox). There are just not very many good announcers left. Obviously Vin Scully is a legend, and Jack Buck was wonderful (who can forget his call of Kirk Gibson's HR). I just feel IMO that there are very few talanted broadcasters left. Even ESPN has better announcers then Fox.

 

Who else...Bob Ueker???Jon Miller??? I don't hear many games outside of my area, but there are not a lot of names ringing in my mind. I really think Pat Hughes is great for radio and fits in well with Santo.

 

How is Charlie Steiner formerly of ESPN. Doesn't he do games somewhere?

 

Now, keep in mind that I am talking announcers, and not color guys.

 

Thoughts???

[treebird]

We should probably just do away with the gold glove altogether.

 

or we could just not care about it AT ALL and laugh at people when they try to use it as evidence of a player's defensive abilities

 

oh wait i already do

[cubweiser03]

Edmonds makes some great catches with his back to the infield. He also makes bad mistakes in the gap. If the gold glove is about highligts its Edmonds. If its about consitency its Jones. Jones is great in the gaps and i hardly ever seen jones get beat. He makes CF look too damn easy. Both are great, its like splitting hairs.

 

Steiner is doing radio for the dodgers.

[vaball]

This is what Rob Neyer thinks of Andruw's defense:

 

ROB NEYER

I'll say this again (I've been saying it all week) . . . Andruw Jones is no longer a Gold Glove-quality center fielder. He is good, but not great. If he were the same fielder he was five years ago, he'd be my MVP. But then again, if he were the fielder he was in 2000 he probably wouldn't be the hitter he is in 2005.

[K-Town]

You're joking, right? Brutally honest? Here's one little tidbit from Santo (from another thread):

 

"Neifi has had a stellar, stellar season. I haven't seen anyone play a better shortstop. He'll be back next year."

 

Hrabosky is horrible. I can hardly stand to listen to him.

 

Buck is one of the best, easily (heck, the guy has won for Emmy's). He's smooth, unbiased, and informed, whether he's doing football, baseball, whatever.........

 

I said Santo was a homer. My point was that he doesn't try to pretend he isn't. I think Santo is a terrible analyst.

 

Buck is not one of the best. Only a STL fan could think so. He's an arrogant preppy popped collar kind of guy. Unbiased? He is so completely biased it's almost obscene.

 

Only a St. Louis fan could think so? St. Louis didn't give him 4 Emmy's.

[TruffleShuffle]

For whatever reason, almost every game I have seen Edmonds play in over the past couple of years he has seemed below average. Maybe he just played bad defense against the Cubs, but I have seen him butcher some plays against the Cubs (like turning the liner by Zambrano into a triple). I don't know if that play shows up in any of the metrics, and he didn't get an error on that play, but he gave Zambrano an extra 2 bases on that play. There was another poor play that he made in that game, and I recall at least 2 balls that he misplayed against the Cubs in 2004.

[XZero771679666304]

For whatever reason, almost every game I have seen Edmonds play in over the past couple of years he has seemed below average. Maybe he just played bad defense against the Cubs, but I have seen him butcher some plays against the Cubs (like turning the liner by Zambrano into a triple). I don't know if that play shows up in any of the metrics, and he didn't get an error on that play, but he gave Zambrano an extra 2 bases on that play. There was another poor play that he made in that game, and I recall at least 2 balls that he misplayed against the Cubs in 2004.

 

No, those plays aren't reflected in the metrics, and everyone overlooks them when Jim flings himself at a ball or goes over the wall to bring one back. Jim is the ultimate style over substance fielder...well, maybe second to Jeter.

[vaball]

For whatever reason, almost every game I have seen Edmonds play in over the past couple of years he has seemed below average. Maybe he just played bad defense against the Cubs, but I have seen him butcher some plays against the Cubs (like turning the liner by Zambrano into a triple). I don't know if that play shows up in any of the metrics, and he didn't get an error on that play, but he gave Zambrano an extra 2 bases on that play. There was another poor play that he made in that game, and I recall at least 2 balls that he misplayed against the Cubs in 2004.

 

Edmonds has played some bad defense against the Cubs. Both this season and last. I remember thinking it was kind of funny both times because Cubs fans accuse him of so much hot dogging and poor positioning and there he was making very uncharacteristic miscues against the Cubs.

 

By contrast ask some Reds fans what they think of his defense. He has taken so many homeruns away from them the past two years it's absurd.

[K-Town]

For whatever reason, almost every game I have seen Edmonds play in over the past couple of years he has seemed below average. Maybe he just played bad defense against the Cubs, but I have seen him butcher some plays against the Cubs (like turning the liner by Zambrano into a triple). I don't know if that play shows up in any of the metrics, and he didn't get an error on that play, but he gave Zambrano an extra 2 bases on that play. There was another poor play that he made in that game, and I recall at least 2 balls that he misplayed against the Cubs in 2004.

 

No, those plays aren't reflected in the metrics, and everyone overlooks them when Jim flings himself at a ball or goes over the wall to bring one back. Jim is the ultimate style over substance fielder...well, maybe second to Jeter.

 

I don't think anybody ever said that Edmonds has never made a mistake in the field. What fielder hasn't?

 

As for "style over substance", you're free to think what you want, but you're wrong.

 

 

What's ironic to me is that most of the Cardinal rivals think that the Cards' pitchers would be pretty "ordinary" if they didn't have such a great defense behind them. But then when we talk about the great defense, we hear is that Edmonds is "style over substance", Eckstein can't throw, Pujols has no range, Nunez is a scrub, Walker is old, etc. etc. etc . So which is it? Are Cardinal pitchers benefitting by playing in front of a terrific defense, or aren't they?

[vaball]

I'm gonna repost Rob Neyer's comments on Jones that I posted on page two so they don't get buried. A lot of people on this forum seem to put a lot of stock in his opinions so I want to see what they think about his opinion that Jones is only a "good" defensive center fielder.

 

ROB NEYER

I'll say this again (I've been saying it all week) . . . Andruw Jones is no longer a Gold Glove-quality center fielder. He is good, but not great. If he were the same fielder he was five years ago, he'd be my MVP. But then again, if he were the fielder he was in 2000 he probably wouldn't be the hitter he is in 2005.

[XZero771679666304]

For whatever reason, almost every game I have seen Edmonds play in over the past couple of years he has seemed below average. Maybe he just played bad defense against the Cubs, but I have seen him butcher some plays against the Cubs (like turning the liner by Zambrano into a triple). I don't know if that play shows up in any of the metrics, and he didn't get an error on that play, but he gave Zambrano an extra 2 bases on that play. There was another poor play that he made in that game, and I recall at least 2 balls that he misplayed against the Cubs in 2004.

 

No, those plays aren't reflected in the metrics, and everyone overlooks them when Jim flings himself at a ball or goes over the wall to bring one back. Jim is the ultimate style over substance fielder...well, maybe second to Jeter.

 

I don't think anybody ever said that Edmonds has never made a mistake in the field. What fielder hasn't?

 

As for "style over substance", you're free to think what you want, but you're wrong.

 

 

What's ironic to me is that most of the Cardinal rivals think that the Cards' pitchers would be pretty "ordinary" if they didn't have such a great defense behind them. But then when we talk about the great defense, we hear is that Edmonds is "style over substance", Eckstein can't throw, Pujols has no range, Nunez is a scrub, Walker is old, etc. etc. etc . So which is it? Are Cardinal pitchers benefitting by playing in front of a terrific defense, or aren't they?

 

I don't recall saying Pujols had no range. I said Lee had better range, but that's far from a detraction. I never commented on Nunez (he is good defensively), and Walker is old and Eckstein has a weak but accurate arm. You guys have always had good defensive catchers. As for your pitchers, they have been pretty good regardless, and I don't recall ever saying the were only so because of the defense.

 

And I am sorry to tell you that most of Edmonds' rep has been built on the dives and flops that the highlight shows love, and at least half of which were totally theatrical and unnecessary. I have seen enough of Jim to know what he is all about. He doesn't have anywhere near the range or arm of a guy like Jones. He gets great jumps and makes solid throws, but his range just isn't that great and his speed is average at best among CF's. And everyone has seen him slow down a step to position himself for dives he doesn't need to make, and I have heard other Cards fans here admit that. And even when he does go full out and lay out for a ball, it's usually on balls that a guy like Jones could have just run under. As for diving on balls over his head, that is unnessary in the same way diving into first is. On a ball over your head, you will always have a better shot if you run full speed and catch the ball over your shoulder. Always.

 

Jim does that stuff because either A) He is too dumb to realize he is making plays harder than they need to be or B)He does it to look good. I say it's the latter. And the media eats it up. Now I'm not saying Jim isn't a good CF, because he is. What I am saying is that he isn't the defensive wizard that many STL homers and the guys at ESPN want everyone to think he is. His flair for the "dramatic" has caused him to overrated in much the same way Jeter and guys like Eric Byrnes have.

 

And he certainly doesn't deserve the GG if it is at the expense of a guy like Jones, or even Beltran.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm gonna repost Rob Neyer's comments on Jones that I posted on page two so they don't get buried. A lot of people on this forum seem to put a lot of stock in his opinions so I want to see what they think about his opinion that Jones is only a "good" defensive center fielder.

 

ROB NEYER

I'll say this again (I've been saying it all week) . . . Andruw Jones is no longer a Gold Glove-quality center fielder. He is good, but not great. If he were the same fielder he was five years ago, he'd be my MVP. But then again, if he were the fielder he was in 2000 he probably wouldn't be the hitter he is in 2005.

 

I put the most stock in what my eyes tell me, and they tell me that while Jones may be a shade worse in the field than he once was, he is still the best in the NL. He still easily gets to balls that others either can't or barely get to, and there's no other CF I like to see less in the field against the Cubs.

[K-Town]

For their careers:

 

Edmonds / Jones / Beltran:

 

Range Factor: 2.75 / 2.81 / 2.81

 

Zone Rating: .895 / .880 / .905

 

Fielding Percentage: .989 / .991 / .982

 

Assists per game: .069 / .069 / .050

 

 

As you can see, Edmonds is right there with Beltran and Jones defensively, even if you ignore the "showboating". I don't necessarily believe in things like ZR and RF, but it's also not fair to say "I've seen Andruw Jones play, and he's better than Edmonds", or vice versa. To some extent you have to try to quantify defensive excellence, otherwise it's an endless debate.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

No matter who is better, they're both going to win gold gloves this year... for like the 6th year in a row.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You're joking, right? Brutally honest? Here's one little tidbit from Santo (from another thread):

 

"Neifi has had a stellar, stellar season. I haven't seen anyone play a better shortstop. He'll be back next year."

 

Hrabosky is horrible. I can hardly stand to listen to him.

 

Buck is one of the best, easily (heck, the guy has won for Emmy's). He's smooth, unbiased, and informed, whether he's doing football, baseball, whatever.........

 

I said Santo was a homer. My point was that he doesn't try to pretend he isn't. I think Santo is a terrible analyst.

 

Buck is not one of the best. Only a STL fan could think so. He's an arrogant preppy popped collar kind of guy. Unbiased? He is so completely biased it's almost obscene.

 

Only a St. Louis fan could think so? St. Louis didn't give him 4 Emmy's.

 

Doesn't Joe Morgan have an emmy?

[K-Town]

You're joking, right? Brutally honest? Here's one little tidbit from Santo (from another thread):

 

"Neifi has had a stellar, stellar season. I haven't seen anyone play a better shortstop. He'll be back next year."

 

Hrabosky is horrible. I can hardly stand to listen to him.

 

Buck is one of the best, easily (heck, the guy has won for Emmy's). He's smooth, unbiased, and informed, whether he's doing football, baseball, whatever.........

 

I said Santo was a homer. My point was that he doesn't try to pretend he isn't. I think Santo is a terrible analyst.

 

Buck is not one of the best. Only a STL fan could think so. He's an arrogant preppy popped collar kind of guy. Unbiased? He is so completely biased it's almost obscene.

 

Only a St. Louis fan could think so? St. Louis didn't give him 4 Emmy's.

 

Doesn't Joe Morgan have an emmy?

 

I just looked it up. He has 2. That's a good point. Never mind. :oops:

 

I still really like Joe Buck though, and not just when he's doing the Cardinals.

[XZero771679666304]

For their careers:

 

Edmonds / Jones / Beltran:

 

Range Factor: 2.75 / 2.81 / 2.81

 

Zone Rating: .895 / .880 / .905

 

Fielding Percentage: .989 / .991 / .982

 

Assists per game: .069 / .069 / .050

 

 

As you can see, Edmonds is right there with Beltran and Jones defensively, even if you ignore the "showboating". I don't necessarily believe in things like ZR and RF, but it's also not fair to say "I've seen Andruw Jones play, and he's better than Edmonds", or vice versa. To some extent you have to try to quantify defensive excellence, otherwise it's an endless debate.

 

I could write a dissertation on how flawed FPCT, ZR and RF are. They mean next to nothing. I posted this a couple months ago in a debate about Lee vs. Pujols:

 

Defensive stats are usually deceptive. All I can say is watch them play. Lee is just better, it has nothing to do with gut feeling. Also Lee has an advantage over Pujols: sheer size. He can pick and stretch for balls that Albert can't and never will be able to get to. Derreks combination of size and quickness is something that Albert can never match. That's not to denegrate Pujols, but unless he turns into Stretch Armstrong, that's just the way it will always be.

 

Back to the stats; they tell us that Rafael Palmeiro and Paul Konerko have more range than Todd Helton and Derrek Lee, wich is ludicrous. They also tell us that Eric Hinske and Phil Nevin, who are statuesque at best, have a higher ZR than Pujols. Or how about this one: Jim Edmonds is 11th in ZR and 13th in RF. Do you buy what that says? And Rolen is waaaaaaay down the list in all three defensive percentage stats, even though he is the best defensive 3B there is. Even in 2004 and 2003 Rolen trailed many inferior defenders in all three categories. Did you know Aramis had more range in 2003 (his worst defensive season) than Rolen? That what the stats say. And that Andruw Jones, who has more range in CF than anyone on earth, is 14th in RF?

 

I could do this all day. I think the implication is crystal clear, though. The stats are completely unreliable. Quantifying defensive prowess statistically has yet to be done with any kind of accuracy. You don't need a slide rule and calculator to know that Lee is a better defender than Pujols, just the same as you know Rolen is better than those many ahead of him statistically.

[K-Town]

For their careers:

 

Edmonds / Jones / Beltran:

 

Range Factor: 2.75 / 2.81 / 2.81

 

Zone Rating: .895 / .880 / .905

 

Fielding Percentage: .989 / .991 / .982

 

Assists per game: .069 / .069 / .050

 

 

As you can see, Edmonds is right there with Beltran and Jones defensively, even if you ignore the "showboating". I don't necessarily believe in things like ZR and RF, but it's also not fair to say "I've seen Andruw Jones play, and he's better than Edmonds", or vice versa. To some extent you have to try to quantify defensive excellence, otherwise it's an endless debate.

 

I could write a dissertation on how flawed FPCT, ZR and RF are. They mean next to nothing. I posted this a couple months ago in a debate about Lee vs. Pujols:

 

Defensive stats are usually deceptive. All I can say is watch them play. Lee is just better, it has nothing to do with gut feeling. Also Lee has an advantage over Pujols: sheer size. He can pick and stretch for balls that Albert can't and never will be able to get to. Derreks combination of size and quickness is something that Albert can never match. That's not to denegrate Pujols, but unless he turns into Stretch Armstrong, that's just the way it will always be.

 

Back to the stats; they tell us that Rafael Palmeiro and Paul Konerko have more range than Todd Helton and Derrek Lee, wich is ludicrous. They also tell us that Eric Hinske and Phil Nevin, who are statuesque at best, have a higher ZR than Pujols. Or how about this one: Jim Edmonds is 11th in ZR and 13th in RF. Do you buy what that says? And Rolen is waaaaaaay down the list in all three defensive percentage stats, even though he is the best defensive 3B there is. Even in 2004 and 2003 Rolen trailed many inferior defenders in all three categories. Did you know Aramis had more range in 2003 (his worst defensive season) than Rolen? That what the stats say. And that Andruw Jones, who has more range in CF than anyone on earth, is 14th in RF?

 

I could do this all day. I think the implication is crystal clear, though. The stats are completely unreliable. Quantifying defensive prowess statistically has yet to be done with any kind of accuracy. You don't need a slide rule and calculator to know that Lee is a better defender than Pujols, just the same as you know Rolen is better than those many ahead of him statistically.

 

I don't disagree with you, but it's also pointless to say "this guy is better, because I think so". Unless you can watch every player play day in and day out, then it's impossible to say. You and I could argue all day long about who the better centerfielder is, and not come to a conclusion. I'll take Edmonds. You'll take Jones. Someone else might take Beltran.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I know he's not NL, but I'll take Torii Hunter.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I don't disagree with you, but it's also pointless to say "this guy is better, because I think so". Unless you can watch every player play day in and day out, then it's impossible to say. You and I could argue all day long about who the better centerfielder is, and not come to a conclusion. I'll take Edmonds. You'll take Jones. Someone else might take Beltran.

 

That might be the best post in this entire thread.

[K-Town]

I know he's not NL, but I'll take Torii Hunter.

 

He's good, too.

 

For whatever "Win Shares" are worth, Edmonds is the best defensively (yes, even better than Andruw Jones), and easily the best offensively (yes, much better than Jones) this year.

 

And Edmonds isn't having a great year, in the minds of MOST Cardinal fans.

[topher76]

Joe Buck and Al Hrabosky were discussing who should be the Gold Glove CF in the NL this season. This got started after Buck stated that Chipper Jones believes Andruw should win it this season without any question. Buck said no way and that Edmonds should win the award because of how he plays the wall along with his arm strength and accuracy. Hrabosky chimed in saying that Edmonds makes a lot of great plays.

 

 

Actually this conversation was about the MVP. Chipper said Jones should win the MVP because of his offense and DEFENSE. Had nothing to do with GG.

[UK1679666180]

C-Schneider

1B-Helton

2B-Giles

SS-Furcal

3B-Ensberg

OF-Taveras, Edmonds, B. Clark

 

Taveras will soon become the best defensive OF'er in MLB. Of course, the Cubs will run on him when they get the chance and be thrown out by 15 feet.

Edited September 9, 2005 by UK

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

C-Scheider

1B-Helton

2B-L. Castillo

SS-Furcal

3B-Ensberg

OF-Taveras, Edmonds, B. Clark

 

Taveras will soon become the best defensive OF'er in MLB. Of course, the Cubs will run on him when they get the chance and be thrown out by 15 feet.

 

Three games in a row