At 8:40 AM -0500 1/30/06, Christopher Johnson wrote:

>It looks like Glanville's letter implies that the 2001 Gold Glove won by Jim
>Edmonds might be the one he's unhappy about. Glanville was .991 that year with
425 chances, most of his career. [...]
>
>If indeed its 2001 he's after here, he does have a case. Edmonds had a very
>good year, with a .982 average and quite a few less chances, with 12 assists.
I also like to look at double plays from outfielders, which are rare. That year
I believe Glanville won 3-1.

Good work, Chris! That *has* to be the year and player Glanville is talking
about.

His letter specifically states: "In the year that I raised the question about
the Gold Glove award, I had attained over 100 more putouts in the outfield than
the Gold Glove winner." In 2001, Glanville had 413 putouts in center in 150
games, while Edmonds had 311 putouts in 147 games. Glanville also did mention
Edmonds' 2001 award early in the letter, but I didn't make the connection
between that and Glanville's alleged Gold Glove snub.

I question, though, whether Glanville has a legitimate beef. Glanville got all
those additional putouts not because Edmonds was dropping every other ball hit
to him, but because the Phillies' pitching staff that year was having a hard
time getting opposing batters to hit the ball on the ground. I don't think an
outfielder should get a fielding award just because his team's pitching staff
sucks. :-) Another thing to consider is, even though Edmonds was getting the
ball a lot less than Glanville that year, Edmonds had 50 percent more assists,
12-8. (Granted, Glanville had three DPs to Edmonds' one.) Finally, Glanville
confuses the issue by talking as if there were a Gold Glove Award for center
field, when of course there are *three* Gold Gloves awarded to outfielders.
Glanville didn't finish second to Edmonds; he finished fourth to Edmonds, Andruw
Jones and Larry Walker.

Glanville's raving about not getting a Gold Glove himself didn't help justify
the game company's position that a Gold Glove shouldn't guarantee a "1" or even
a "2" fielding rating. But even though Glanville's own perceived slight isn't
the best example of a gross injustice, I do agree with him that the Gold Glove
voting often seems to be a popularity contest more than an objective measure of
overall defensive abilities. His example of Rafael Palmiero's 1999 A.L. Gold
Glove at first -- after playing a whopping 28 games there -- speaks volumes more
about the problems with the award than the 2001 N.L. outfield vote. And until
now, those problems translated into inappropriate Strat fielding ratings.

Personally, I agree that Strat shouldn't base its fielding ratings on who wins
the Gold Gloves. That may have made sense when Strat had only the basic
1-through-4 rating, but not today, when players also have "e" and throwing-arm
ratings.

-Gary

-------------------------------------------
E-mail: erie@...
Web site: http://www.kirchherr.com
ICQ No.: 4544564
Yahoo Messenger: indiansfaninpa