Zimmerman, Wright and the Gold Glove
So let's get this Gold Glove nonsense out of the way by saying this: It is an offensive award. The more I talked to people about Ryan Zimmerman's chances of winning the Gold Glove for NL third baseman, the more people drilled into my head that playing good defense is great and all, but really, to get into the minds of voters - and in this case, it's the managers and coaches in your league - you have to hit. Then, when the managers and coaches are handed the ballots, they kind of go, "Man, that David Wright's a good player."
I have very mixed feelings about writers voting on awards. The Post doesn't allow its staff members to vote on such things as MVP, Cy Young, rookie of the year or Hall of Fame. More papers are following suit. Think about the potential for conflict brought up by, say, Curt Schilling's contract with Boston, which awards him $1 million if he gets even one third-place vote for the AL Cy Young award in 2008. What's to prevent him from going over to any writer and saying, "Hey, you want $100,000? Put me in third place"? The writer doubles or triples his/her salary, and Schilling still pockets $900 large.
An extreme example, to be sure, but lots of players have incentive clauses, and that puts the press that covers them in position to impact their bank accounts. Not cool.
Still, here's an instance where it's possible the press might put more thought into voting than, say, the Marlins' first base coach.
First, a disclaimer: I do feel like familiarity goes a long way toward determining how you feel about a player's defense. You appreciate the above-average plays a guy makes when you see him every day. I certainly feel this way about Zimmerman. There were so many plays the guy makes that very few, if any, other third basemen make that they got to the point where they didn't seem newsworthy.
That said, because I know he can be so good, I hold him responsible for all those errors (23). Only one NL third baseman, Milwaukee's Ryan Braun, made more. And for voters who want an easy stat to look at, that certainly could have been enough to make them turn to Wright over Zimmerman, even though Wright made 21 errors. Some of the errors, particularly throws to first base, seemed careless and were clearly avoidable.
Let's look at straight stats among NL third basemen, though defensive stats are a little weird. Here we go:
Errors:
1. Ryan Braun, Milwaukee - 26
T2. Miguel Cabrera, Florida - 23
T2. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington - 23
4. Kevin Kouzmanoff, San Diego - 22
5. David Wright, Mets - 21
Fielding percentage:
1. Pedro Feliz, San Francisco -- .973
2. Aramis Ramirez, Cubs -- .972
3. Chipper Jones, Atlanta - 971
4. Scott Rolen, St. Louis -- .969
5. Garrett Atkins, Colorado - .963
8. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington -- .955
9. David Wright, Mets -- .954
Total chances
1. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington -- 511
2. David Wright, Mets -- 452
3. Pedro Feliz, San Francisco -- 406
4. Miguel Cabrera, Florida -- 389
5. Jose Bautista, Pittsburgh -- 361
Total chances/9 innings
1. Abraham Nunez, Philadelphia - 3.41
2. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington - 3.21
3. Scott Rolen, St. Louis - 3.09
4. Jose Bautista, Pittsburgh - 3.05
5. Pedro Feliz, San Francisco - 3.00
7. David Wright, Mets - 2.87
Double plays:
1. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington -- 39
2. Garrett Atkins, Colorado -- 34
3. Miguel Cabrera, Florida -- 33
4. Pedro Feliz, San Francisco -- 28
5. David Wright, Mets - 24
Range factor/game (Putouts/assists divided by games played):
1. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington -- 3.03
2. Scott Rolen, St. Louis -- 2.78
3. Pedro Feliz, San Francisco -- 2.76
4. Aramis Ramirez, Cubs -- 2.76
5. Jose Bautista, Pittsburgh -- 2.75
6. David Wright, Mets -- 2.71
Range factor/9 innings (Putouts/assists divided by innings played times 9):
1. Abraham Nunez, Philadelphia -- 3.27
2. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington -- 3.07
3. Scott Rolen, St. Louis -- 2.99
4. Jose Bautista, Pittsburgh -- 2.92
5. Pedro Feliz, San Francisco -- 2.91
7. David Wright, Mets -- 2.73
Zone rating:
1. Pedro Feliz, San Francisco -- .852
2. Scott Rolen, St. Louis -- .847
3. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington -- .811
4. Abraham Nunez, Philadelphia -- .810
5. Chipper Jones, Atlanta -- .797
8. David Wright, Mets -- .771
So let's make one thing clear: David Wright committed two fewer errors - in 59 fewer chances - than did Ryan Zimmerman. That, however, is the only statistical measure in which Wright beat out Zimmerman.
Range factor should be explained well enough above. Basically, the idea is that the more outs a player is involved in, the more balls he gets to. Obviously, this could be skewed by a team that allows more balls to be put in play - such as the Nationals - but it's fairly reliable and accepted.
Zone rating is explained here, but it's basically a way to quantify the percentage of grounders hit into an infielder's zone of responsibility on which he makes a play. It's based on dividing the field into pie slices, as seen here.
The bottom line: If Zimmerman makes, say, four fewer errors - or, shoot, just two fewer errors, putting him in a tie with Wright - then I'd say he wins the Gold Glove going away, because the coaches and managers doing the voting can't hold that against him.
For what it's worth, guru Bill James, who came up with "The Fielding Bible," commissioned a 10-member panel to pick defensive awards at each position, and they gave it to Pedro Feliz, who, as you can see above, had a fine defensive year.
(James, as many of you have noted, also had Zimmerman ranked No. 11 in his young talent rankings, just behind Cole Hamels and just ahead of Troy Tulowitzki. And, as some of you have noted, he accompanied it with this comment: "A Ken Boyer, Scott Rolen-type third baseman. You'll know if the Washington press corps ever starts going to baseball games, because if they do, Zimmerman will be more famous than Britney Spears." Ouch. As someone who has attended, oh, let's say a handful of games over the past few years, I'm doing my part to get the word out. Maybe he means Tim Russert and the like.)
Anyway: Zimmerman vowed to me yesterday that he would cut down his errors - way down - next season. It seems to me that he's going to take this as a personal challenge to beat Wright and then win the award for the next eight seasons or so. He already makes the most jaw-dropping plays night-in, night-out, of any third baseman in the league - and, some might argue, of any player at any position. Now, if he just concentrates on making all the routine ones, the Washington press corps could have an annual "Zimmerman Wins Gold Glove" story in its collective laptop and just recycle it each November.
By Barry Svrluga |
November 7, 2007; 2:27 PM ET
Previous: The Wa-Md-Va Nationals |
Next: Arizona Fall League: Garrett Mock
Posted by: Chris | November 7, 2007 02:44 PM
Great stats, thanks Barry. Three posts in less than 24 hours - what "off-season"? That Zimm had an incredible 511 chances at 3rd speaks to his great range - but it might also suggest that we need to find some starting pitching that can consistently break 92 on the radar gun. Two or three years of that many chances is equivalent to four or five years for most other third basemen.
Posted by: lowcountry | November 7, 2007 02:54 PM
Wolf Blitzer was at the 4/7 game this year, and it was 30-something degrees! He was front row behind the home dugout. Does he count as part of the Washington press corps?
As for the defensive stats, if Wright had Zimmerman's chances, he'd have far more errors.
Posted by: Jeff | November 7, 2007 03:03 PM
Nice post, Barry. Thanks. The Fielding Bible's video review project is extremely interesting, I think.
Posted by: Coverage is lacking | November 7, 2007 03:05 PM
Zim wuz robbed.
'Nuff said. :-)
Posted by: Juan-John | November 7, 2007 03:05 PM
"As for the defensive stats, if Wright had Zimmerman's chances, he'd have far more errors."
Their fielding percentages are roughly the same. They'd likely have the same number of errors, maybe one off.
Posted by: Chris | November 7, 2007 03:09 PM
Keep in mind that Zimm was throwing to a new 1st baseman. Young not Johnson
Posted by: Charley | November 7, 2007 03:16 PM
I'm speechless. Well done, Barry.
Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | November 7, 2007 03:17 PM
Gold Gloves are all about rep and ESPN highlight reels. Did Ozzie or Brooks really deserve all of those GGs? Cal has only two and was often derided for not having much range despite the fact that Cal's entire defensive philosophy was centered around positioning. So the GG is really no different than the MVP or All-Star appearences in my book.
Posted by: dgc | November 7, 2007 03:32 PM
The "Rawlings" Golden Glove is the biggest joke in all of sports. It all comes down to what name brand of glove you use.
Barry, do some investigating and tell us what kind of glove each of the winners uses. I will bet at least 16 of 18 use Rawlings.
Posted by: ChrisC | November 7, 2007 03:48 PM
Me, too, both with the speechless and the well done. Thanks, Barry.
---
I'm speechless. Well done, Barry.
Posted by: natsfan1a | November 7, 2007 03:55 PM
Zimm is one of the best fielders I have ever seen, (and I saw Brooks in person many times).
Still he can not win the gold glove in a year when he could not throw accurately to first base on routine plays most of the time and having that terrible game with errors.....that is just the way it is (and should be that way). When he makes the routine plays 99.9% of the time he will win a gold glove.
Posted by: JayB | November 7, 2007 03:59 PM
Apparently, Barry & I were working on our posts at the same time. Great minds must think alike, altho Barry's has more time to work out the details. Thanks Barry!
http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/11/07/not-a-good-day-for-nationals-news/
Posted by: The Borg | November 7, 2007 04:06 PM
gold glove, silver slugger, all-star, mvp...why bother covering these things, the nationals will continue to get no respect on ESPN and therefore will not get any media coverage out side, well you. perhaps if baseball tonite actually covered the nats 2 or 3 nites a week people would know about zim. too much to ask i guess.
Posted by: love | November 7, 2007 04:14 PM
It's sad that Zimm would very likely have got his due GG if he'd been a New York Met.
Lest you object to me as a hopeless fanboy -- which is perhaps true, but irrelevant -- think of Derek Jeter, and ponder. (On the other hand, it could be argued that Jeter's GGs came in his three least undeserving years. Meantime, insert customary Big-City-Media-bashing imprecations here.)
Posted by: Hendo | November 7, 2007 04:40 PM
Oh, one other thing, re the last thread (Barry, you're going like a house afire): Can we promote Boz to "Baseball Columnist Emeritus" and move Fisher over to sports?
Posted by: Hendo | November 7, 2007 04:42 PM
Am I the only person annoyed by Fisher's writing? I'm sure Marc himself is okay, but his style grates on me. It's too.... Kornheiser.
Posted by: Section 506 (Before moving) | November 7, 2007 04:56 PM
I'd like to say one more thing about the previous post. There needs to be more radio stations that carry the Nats games on the Eastern Shore, Southern Virginia, Richmond, and Eastern North Carolina. How does it work? Does the team have to pay the station to put the games on air? Or, does the station pay the team for the right to broadcast the games? All I know is that Petey A. has his games on loud and clear in Richmond, Norfolk, and on the outer banks of North Carolina.
Posted by: 6th and D | November 7, 2007 05:17 PM
Barry, since the Post prohibits you from voting on any awards, would you care to share with your loyal readers who you would vote for on the NL awards if you did have a vote?
Also, has the BBWAA expressed any view on papers prohibiting their writers from voting which, as you say, is a growing trend? At a certain point, I'm not sure how the writers association would be able to continue legitimately presenting the awards if writers at many important papers aren't allowed to vote.
Posted by: Coverage is lacking | November 7, 2007 05:30 PM
I enjoyed this analysis of 3b fielding and Zim not winning the GG. I've always thought hitting played into it since that's what people, even others in baseball, see.
On the Nats gala in MD - I'm GLAD to see them reaching out to Maryland, especially PG and Mtgy Counties. I'm glad they see themselves as a regional franchise and hope they market far and wide. The partnership with hotels and, I hope, travel agencies and corporate and neighborhood social groups - gov't agencies too - to maximize revenue and ticket sales I hope is a commitment that Nats will keep for many years. Even introduce international tourists to baseball!
Ironically, all this, if it increases attendance and other sales will result in more tax dollars for DC. I think the new ballpark is the commuter tax DC has longed for -- and if they get the Redskins to come back, they'll get even more. The city needs to market itself just like the Nats. Washington is a beautiful, vibrant city with lots to do and enjoy - the Council should see this and try to entice as many MD and VA and world travelers in as they can - means more money for schools, infrastructure, everything.
That said, the Nats need to hold events in DC and the DC biz community needs to partner with them to do so - not EXCLUSIVELY in DC, but at least some in DC.
OK, I'm ready to go back to baseball talk!
Posted by: natswriter | November 7, 2007 05:32 PM
C'mon Barry- If anyone talks about "if the Washington press ever pays attention to the Nationals," they mean if the Post ever has 1/4 the people who slobber over the Redskins even mention the Nats. If you ask Kornheiser and Wilbon why they ignore the Nats, they'll claim to be national columnists, until it is time for the next Redskins article. Mike Wise is all over them, Boswell won't bother with the Ravens, Sally Jenkins will drop skating for them, and I think Angus Phillips has forgotten to bait his hook for the opportunity to kowtow to the 'Skins.
You are essentially all we have, and we are grateful it is you. But if even rank outsiders can see that the Nats aren't getting full coverage, then it has to be true.
Posted by: Three more months | November 7, 2007 05:55 PM
Anything we outsiders say has to be true!
Posted by: Buster Olney | November 7, 2007 05:59 PM
Crap!! Stay out of this, Buster! you are hurting my argument!!
Posted by: Three more months | November 7, 2007 06:00 PM
Don't mind Buster, three more, he's deluded.
Posted by: Buster's ex | November 7, 2007 06:06 PM
Or is it demented? At any rate, pay no attention to the man behind the ESPN curtain...
Posted by: Buster's ex | November 7, 2007 06:08 PM
Heck with Buster Olney. I'm busy trying to project what the team's record will have to be for Kornheiser to go on PTI wearing a Nats jersey. (And telling Wilbon "I told you so.")
Posted by: Hendo | November 7, 2007 06:33 PM
Back to the roster topic - here's a fun link:
http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071106&content_id=320400&vkey=news_milb&fext=.jsp
It's the top 25 minor league free agents. The first guy, Jason Bougeois, sounds like a good compromise between my "I want a RH platoon guy to pair with Ryan Church in CF" and others desire for a middle infielder with high OBP. And he is basically there for the major league minimum.
There is also a piece up in Baseball America with all of the minor league FAs and guys dropped from rosters.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=644
I have not done any work on middle infielders or CFs, but I think that there might be platoon guys and insurance buried in here.
Posted by: jon | November 7, 2007 07:18 PM
The interesting thing about these stats packages is that (and rightly so) they keep changing.
For instance, the offensive averages that we are all up to our eyeballs with (BA / OPS / HR / SLG, etc) seem to have their lives set in stone and the "winners" live forever. What many (and most of the sports writing fraternity are guilty of this) don't quite get is that, as time goes by, the value of individual numbers changes.
To provide an example (without comment):
The last Major league hitter to hit .400 was Ted Williams. No question about that number. The real question is what did that number mean. How does .408 relate to a current batting average, given era factor? How does .408 relate to current average, given ballpark factor (OK, probably not a good example, since T.Baseball played in one of the two still in use parks, but you get the idea)?
This concept becomes even more pronounced, when looking at fielding. How would Zim look if he had Ozzie Smith at SS and didn't have to cover as much ground? How would Zim look if he knew that he didn't have as much foul ground to cover as he does at RFK? How would Zim look if he had Frank Howard playing first?
Ain't SABRmetricians a pain in the butt?
BTW, speaking of DC, SABR, and changing points of view, does anyone know if Bill James has ever acknowledged that he didn't know what he was talking about when he called John Dowd a Doofus in "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame"?
Posted by: Catcher50 | November 7, 2007 07:36 PM
Back OFF the subject-
Dear DC Council- While you fretted about the Nationals planning a gala outside of DC, possibly costing a DC hotel $250K, two of your city employees were embezzling $16 million dollars. Get a grip, and some perspective:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110701367.html?hpid=topnews
Posted by: Three more months | November 7, 2007 08:02 PM
What more could Barry have done to cover Zimm? Bill James is elbow deep in KC Royals, Sawx and C.C. Sabathia. He knows not what he does in making the hardest working beat writer in the universe say "ouch." On behalf of humankind, I apologize to Barry for this otherwise excellent fellow, James. You have to realize that if he were editing the Post Sports page, the Redskins and all other sports would be relegated to the back page. Barry's and Bill James' enthusiasm for Zimm should warm all of our hearts. We are witnessing greatness.
Posted by: flynnie | November 7, 2007 09:26 PM
The Fielding Bible lists fielders major-wide by +/-, a rating based on balls at least one other position player could/ could not field. Under this rating system, 4 Nats rated in the top 5 by position in all of the majors - Zimmerman (#3d base), Church (#4 LF), nook (#5 CF), and Kearns (#2 RF). Catchers not rated. In fairness, Dmitri was the worst 1st baseman. Also, in their overall award voting involving 10 different evaluations, Zimmeramn was the #3 3d baseman, Church #8 LF, Nook #10 CF, Kearns #2 RF, and Schneider #12 C. i guess that, and $2, gets you a medium coffee with a tip at Dunkins, but it also backs up our impression that Zimmerman and Kearns are elite fielders in their positions.
Posted by: jon | November 7, 2007 10:07 PM
anyone catch the 20 seconds on sportcenter about zim and the broken bone? i was so shocked i dropped a plate of food on the floor!! the washington nationals on a tv station other than masn (and still the secondary focus). what next...something other than football dominating sportcenter?
Posted by: love | November 8, 2007 03:32 AM
OK, everyone- this from Ken Rosenthal on Fox Sports today:
Nationals right-hander Garrett Mock is pitching well in the Arizona Fall League, and could be the team's No. 3 starter next season. The Nats would like to trade for another young, major league-ready starter -- and the Mets' Kevin Mulvey and Twins' Kevin Slowey both fit that description. However, the Indians' Lee would be a more established option. Nats outfielder Ryan Church, a left-handed hitter coming off a 15-homer, 70-RBI season, continues to intrigue many clubs.
Posted by: Three more months | November 8, 2007 04:59 AM
Rosenthal didn't bellyache about the Maryland gala?
Wonder how much FSN reportage there's been on the Arizona Fall League? (Am now in Peoria, Arizona, for the weekend, on my way back from L.A. Javelinas play in Surprise, 10 miles west of here, at 12:35 MST this afternoon, then Friday and Saturday at the Peoria Sports Complex just down the road from here. Will keep you posted.)
Posted by: Hendo | November 8, 2007 05:31 AM
Wow, what a great thread. Thanks to all for the many contributions.
Posted by: Bob L. Head | November 8, 2007 09:21 AM
Barry has a new post up. He's on a roll, eh?
Posted by: natsfan1a | November 8, 2007 09:34 AM
re. the Gold Glove Awards
As Barry indicated, they're too often based on a players offensive numbers, who he plays for, and how big a star he is. How else to explain Derek Jeter winning three GGs at shortstop? Or even more pathetic, Wade Boggs winning two at third base? Hopefully, the proper recognition will come Zimm's way, especially if he cleans up his throwing.
Posted by: blueson | November 8, 2007 10:35 AM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
One thing to keep in mind -- and that's why zone rating is superior to some of the other stats -- is that the composition of the pitchers in front of the fielder can influence their chances.
In the Nats' case, the pitchers were at the bottom of the league in strikeouts -- meaning they allowed more balls into the field so Zimmerman likely had more opportunities to flash his range. Also, the Nats staff seems to be more of a groundball staff than the Mets' one is.
So Nats pitchers allow more balls into play and allow more of those on the ground. If Wright had played in front of the Nats' staff, he'd have had more total chances, too. (Likely not as many as Zimmerman though!)