Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Aramis Ramirez = Gold Glove Candidate?


TURBO

Recommended Posts

I don't think he's been a liability but gold glove? Tom H. is just weird. Fielding % and errors totals completely ignores range.

 

Just like the voters. Add in that he's having a good offensive season and there's no reason for him not to be considered.

 

Well, if we are just talking about what the voters do, they care about three things:

 

1. Hitting Prowess

2. Errors

3. Previous Fielding Reputation

 

I believe that ARam has little chance because of #3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's been a liability but gold glove? Tom H. is just weird. Fielding % and errors totals completely ignores range.

 

Just like the voters. Add in that he's having a good offensive season and there's no reason for him not to be considered.

 

Well, if we are just talking about what the voters do, they care about three things:

 

1. Hitting Prowess

2. Errors

3. Previous Fielding Reputation

 

I believe that ARam has little chance because of #3.

 

You forget steps 4 and 5

 

4. Is name Jeter?

5. If not Jeter please see steps 1-4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that there's more to fielding than fielding percentages, 2 things are undeniable for 95% of all players:

 

A lot of errors is bad.

 

Not many errors is good.

 

His errors are down, so that is a good thing and overall he's been solid. But the guys with the reputations are Zimmerman and Wright, not Aram and both of those guys have been solid as well. Chase Headley and David Freese are also guys worth considering ahead of Aram. Still he's in the upper half, and that's better than I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that there's more to fielding than fielding percentages, 2 things are undeniable for 95% of all players:

 

A lot of errors is bad.

 

Not many errors is good.

 

This is only true for comparisons between players with the same number of chances. Ozzie Smith was in the top 10 for most errors by a shortstop more times (5) than Derek Jeter has been (3)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that there's more to fielding than fielding percentages, 2 things are undeniable for 95% of all players:

 

A lot of errors is bad.

 

Not many errors is good.

 

This is only true for comparisons between players with the same number of chances. Ozzie Smith was in the top 10 for most errors by a shortstop more times (5) than Derek Jeter has been (3)

 

Doesn't that go without saying or do I have to spell everything out so you guys so eager to argue with me will be satisfied? Chances figure into fielding percentages. Duh! Ozzie Smith was in the 5% of guys who's fielding and range was so superior that he's going to have significantly more chances than someone with average talent who'd be facing the same batted balls. That's why he's in the HOF.

 

My point was that yes, Ramirez has had a good year in comparison with his other years and his low error total and fielding percentage (the highest of his career) is evidence of that. I'm refuting the belief by some on here that errors or lack of them don't indicate anything. When comparing one year vs. another for the same player, the assumption is his range is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brewer Fanatic Contributor
You can't make errors on balls you can't get to. That is what made Yuni so special on defense last year.

No way A-Ram wins a gold glove.

 

Wright will probably win it. He's won them before - even when he hasn't deserved them. If not, Zimmerman will. He has the rep.

 

A-Ram's reputation as a mediocre fielder will cost him big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's been a liability but gold glove? Tom H. is just weird. Fielding % and errors totals completely ignores range.

 

I honestly don't know if range factor is that big of a deal for the infield. Melvin has said in the past that it isn't nearly as important to him as it is for outfielders. His reasoning was that a ball hit past and infielder tend to be singles. While balls that get by outfielders tend to be extra base hits. I think that makes some amount of sense. I think it has some relevance I'm sure but it should not be treated with equal weight as it does for outfielders.

There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's been a liability but gold glove? Tom H. is just weird. Fielding % and errors totals completely ignores range.

 

I honestly don't know if range factor is that big of a deal for the infield. Melvin has said in the past that it isn't nearly as important to him as it is for outfielders. His reasoning was that a ball hit past and infielder tend to be singles. While balls that get by outfielders tend to be extra base hits. I think that makes some amount of sense. I think it has some relevance I'm sure but it should not be treated with equal weight as it does for outfielders.

 

It depends one which infield position you are talking about. SS and 2B you will want to have a lot of range as they need to cover more ground. I believe the order is SS, 2B, 3B, and then a distant last 1B as being positions you want range at. I can see not needing a guy with good range at 1B or 3B if you have guys with good range at 2B and SS. To me SS is the most important position in the infield where you need a player with a lot of range with 2B coming in a little bit behind SS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's been a liability but gold glove? Tom H. is just weird. Fielding % and errors totals completely ignores range.

 

 

No, Tom H. isn't the weird one, people who consider FIP and xFIP and..well just all the advanced metrics are the "weird," ones. I try to argue with some friends why pitcher A is better than pitcher B...or hell, just with Greinke last year(though I've come to accept his peripherals will always be a little mis-leading) and they just utterly dismiss it. Don't know it, don't understand it, don't care, it's Wins, ERA, Batting Average, HR's, RBI's, OBP is even somewhat dismissed. I remember arguing with people when Weeks was hitting .239 or whatever, but his OBP was .135 points higher that he was doing good as a leadoff hitter and getting outright laughed at.

 

 

What's more, look at the list of GG winners in a given year? Is the standard improving? Sure, no doubt. Is it still mainly fielding pct, and name recognition? Without a doubt. Do I hate asking questions in my post and then answering them? Yes.

 

Anyway, he's a good offensive player who's had a very solid season defensively and has very few errors. Ergo....GG candidate.

 

Christ...didn't the finger waggler win a GG at 1st base with the O's in the late 90's with like 30 games played in the field and the rest as a DH? Again, getting better, but it's tough to win a GG hitting .250/.290. Ask Carlos Gomez...

Icbj86c-"I'm not that enamored with Aaron Donald either."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that there's more to fielding than fielding percentages, 2 things are undeniable for 95% of all players:

 

A lot of errors is bad.

 

Not many errors is good.

 

This is only true for comparisons between players with the same number of chances. Ozzie Smith was in the top 10 for most errors by a shortstop more times (5) than Derek Jeter has been (3)

 

 

 

No, a lot of errors is bad for pretty much every single player and very few errors is good for pretty much every single player. Far be it for me to come to Briggs "rescue," but my god this is nitpicking. His point was simple and pretty clear, and when it wasn't absolute, there was no need to literally bring up the greatest defensive SS of all time.

 

 

 

On to a more important point, I would argue that having Corey Hart at 1st base has helped him as I think he's helped the IF in general, but of course Aram had a better version of Hart defensively in Lee.

 

 

Just by the eye test, Aram has been a really good defender this year, and while I know a lot of times the eye test tells you what you want it to, I think in this case, he has had a much better year at 3rd than he normally has.

Icbj86c-"I'm not that enamored with Aaron Donald either."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, a lot of errors is bad for pretty much every single player and very few errors is good for pretty much every single player. Far be it for me to come to Briggs "rescue," but my god this is nitpicking. His point was simple and pretty clear, and when it wasn't absolute, there was no need to literally bring up the greatest defensive SS of all time.

 

Everyone knows that less errors are better. Everyone knows that a higher fielding percentage is better. The point is that it is just one part of what makes a fielder good or bad; not screwing up routine plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know if range factor is that big of a deal for the infield.

 

You need to be careful with the verbiage here. :)

 

Range is a good thing, however, "range factor" is a lousy stat.

That’s the only thing Chicago’s good for: to tell people where Wisconsin is.

[align=right]-- Sigmund Snopek[/align]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For our newer members (and because it still tickles me and likely always will):

 

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/png/c9d353e39d8482d662aeccd33714043db48f73b.png

 

Credit should be given to the originator, but I don't know who that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't make errors on balls you can't get to. That is what made Yuni so special on defense last year.

No way A-Ram wins a gold glove.

 

Wright will probably win it. He's won them before - even when he hasn't deserved them. If not, Zimmerman will. He has the rep.

 

A-Ram's reputation as a mediocre fielder will cost him big time.

What made Yuni so special was that despite his bad range he was still amongst league leaders in errors.

Fan is short for fanatic.

I blame Wang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where else to put this, but Aramis Ramirez is having a seriously awesome and largely under appreciated year. He already has his career high in doubles (40) and there is still 30 games or so left in the season. Worth every penny we are paying him this year and some.

 

If you would have told me that the Brewers would get 10 WAR out of this contract, I would have been more than thrilled. So far he's already accumulated over 4 WAR. He likely won't be as good the next two years, but it'd be hard to imagine him falling completely off.

 

All in all he has actually been worth more than Prince Fielder regardless of the difference in price tag. Nice get, Doug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends one which infield position you are talking about. SS and 2B you will want to have a lot of range as they need to cover more ground. I believe the order is SS, 2B, 3B, and then a distant last 1B as being positions you want range at. I can see not needing a guy with good range at 1B or 3B if you have guys with good range at 2B and SS. To me SS is the most important position in the infield where you need a player with a lot of range with 2B coming in a little bit behind SS.

 

Obviously the more range the better. Then again that is the same for any trait in any position for any sport. I am not saying it isn't of value just that it's value may not be as big as one might think for infielders. If a player misses a play due to lack of range in the infield it is usually a single. The only way someone scores is if there is an extra base hit, (even then sometimes it takes more than one double), or if another two players get on base via a walk or single. Even then the walk has to be the second event and the single the third event. Essentially you will need more positive outcomes to score when the infield lets a ball go through than when an outfielder lets it go past them. While lack of range isn't good because it adds to pitch count and will eventually allow more runs than better range will it does not directly lead to more runs as often as a lack of range in the outfield will.

 

Range is a good thing, however, "range factor" is a lousy stat.

 

Good thing yes. How good varies with position.

There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-out play made by an infielder certainly has a lower run value than a non-out play made by an outfielder but the difference isn't as large as you might think. First, we can simply look at the average run value of typical baseball events (I'll keep the numbers simple):

 

out: -.3

1B: .5

2B: .8

 

So when you add it up, a non-out that results in a single is worth around .8 runs and one that results in a double is around 1.1 runs, relative to making an out.

 

Second, while more non-outs by an outfielder results in a double than for an infielder, it's not 100%/0%, obviously. A 3B showing poor range to his right is obviously going to up the number of doubles he gives up. So maybe a play not made by an infielder is worth something like .9 runs and for an oufielder, 1 run. I don't know what the exact numbers are but the point is, it's not insignificant but it's not huge either.

 

Maybe the more important point is, fielding opportunities vary dramatically by position. If lack of range causes you to get to 10% less balls, you have to know the total number of balls that went through your zone to estimate a run value of being slower.

 

Long story short, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that range in the outfield is more valuable than in the infield. We'd have to look at it by position and even then, it might be hard to draw any firm conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 3B showing poor range to his right is obviously going to up the number of doubles he gives up.

 

He can play closer to the line to make sure his lack range doesn't turn into extra base hits. Outfielders really can't do that. I think there are more ways to compensate for lack of range on the infield than there are for outfielders.

 

Long story short, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that range in the outfield is more valuable than in the infield. We'd have to look at it by position and even then, it might be hard to draw any firm conclusions.

 

Doug Melvin said it. I'm simply repeating and adding I think there is some validity to it. I guess it's possible that he's just going on his gut feeling but he doesn't seem to be the type to do that. This is a guy who did a pretty comprehensive study on pitchers to reduce injury and increase the ability to develop our own. Seemingly with positive results. Thus I assume Melvin has done more than a cursory study of the subject. I could be wrong though.

There needs to be a King Thames version of the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
His UZR/150 is 2nd best out of all qualifying 3B this year so not like he would be a terrible pick. Wright should probably win it though since not only does he have more of a reputation and he makes more flashy plays which voters like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...