Pedroia wins gold glove
- Thread starter phrenile
- Start date
- Status
I was concerned that Pedroia would not win the Gold Glove this year because he was kind of mediocre offensively.
I was more worried by the number of games missed. He is hands down fantastic. It is a pleasure to have him as a lifetime Red Sox.
Between the amount of games JBJ missed and his utter suck on offense (related concepts in his case), I'm glad he didn't win the GG. I get that it's a defensive award and that it does not logically follow that winners need to be accomplished on offense. But JBJ's lack of produciton with the bat in 2014 was arguably beyond the pale, even in the context of a defensive award.HangingW/ScottCooper said:
And yeah, a hearty salute to DP. His brand of defense is a pleasure to watch.
So JBJ shouldn't win a defensive award because his offense sucked? Does not compute. JBJ blew away Jones in RF and DWAR. What Bradley did on offense should have no impact on what he did on defense.TheoShmeo said:
Wait, why should offensive production have anything at all to do with an award which is only supposed to recognise defense? Do you think he was so bad with the bat that we should pretend he spent the season in the minors as he probably should have?TheoShmeo said:
TheoShmeo said:
Would you carry this in the other direction as well? Would you have denied Manny Ramirez all 8 of his Silver Slugger awards on the grounds that his lack of production with the glove was beyond the pale, even in the context of an offensive award?
Good and fair questions from all of you.Savin Hillbilly said:
If Manny's defense was so pathetic that the Sox either benched him or sent him down to Pawtucket to figure it out for as many games as JBJ missed (even on a team that was out of it in August), then yeah, I would not think he should win a Silver Slugger.
As I said in my original post, JBJ's lousy offense was tied to his diminished playing time, and the combination leads me to the conclusion that he should not have won a Gold Glove.
To those asking about what offensive production has to do with Golden Gloves, the answer SHOULD be: "NOTHING". But the facts are the facts, that Golden Glove awards ARE skewed by offensive statistics and have been for decades (see Palmeiro, Rafael: 1999), which is why you see Adam Jones beating JBJ for the Gold Glove this year with defensive stats that are comparatively positively offensive.
Lose Remerswaal said:
To be fair it seems they are at least trying to clean it up after the last Jeter GG.
Edit - Pedroia won the Fielding Bible Award this year as well. JBJ lost Lagares (FBA only awards one per position in all of MLB)
This kills me. As much as I love Baseball things like this make me hate it a little too.Montana Fan said:
Down the road no one will know/care that Jeter won gold gloves because gosh darn it people really liked him and those calming eyes that led grown professional men to victory.
This may be true but then again the team finished last 2 of the last 3 years and is now getting young very quick. What exactly is he crucial to?Koufax said:
seantoo said:
Probably that team in the middle that won the World Series? Are you seriously asking that?
Can you clarify this, you say one thing the other and the pieces do not fit at least they don't by your explanation.TheoShmeo said:
D should be D, JBJ deserved the award. Adam Jones had no right winning the award for 2 years running now.
Back in the day once someone was awarded the GG they often received it because well ....they won it last year. This award has been an utter joke until the past few years now they get it right or very close to right most of the time with few execeptions and it oddly coincided with a Sabermetric measure getting 25% of the vote.
Trying to put a little perspective on where the team is right now. [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]Maybe a few moves down the road that changes quickly but with our staff right now there is alot of work and/or time required to change things. There is a reason why players in Andre Dawson's situation rarely win MVP's. [/SIZE]TomRicardo said:
I asked a simple question, "what is he crucial to?" Did I say or even imply he has no value? Of course not, put down the pom-poms and just answer the question. Not what his value is, but what is he crucial to? It's not meant to make a declaration but encourage thought, good grief.SoxLegacy said:
seantoo said:
As one of the more stable parts of the team's roster, wouldn't this suggest his crucial-ness instead of negate it?
Seatoo, it fits in fine. When your offense is so bad that you end up on the bench or in the minors for a huge chunk of games, you should not win the Gold Glove.
If Bradley had played as many games as Adam Jones, then yeah, he should have won the Gold Glove. Part of me would have wondered about a guy with horrific offensive numbers winning the award, but that part of me would have been wrong.
If Bradley had played as many games as Adam Jones, then yeah, he should have won the Gold Glove. Part of me would have wondered about a guy with horrific offensive numbers winning the award, but that part of me would have been wrong.
TheoShmeo said:
Well then your issue is just with games played and not offense. It wouldn't matter really why he wasn't playing the games, if he isn't in there as often as Jones that's a knock against him per your argument.
It really has nothing to do with his actual offense, though, and your original post suggested his offense was so "beyond the pale" that he didn't deserve the defensive superlative, which continues to not make sense.
JBJ prides himself on his defense. Perhaps this will act as an additional incentive for him to focus on the offense. (There was some random noise regarding his pre-game focus on defense.)
Theoshmeo, I agree with this and even if you are wrong it is how the real world operates.TheoShmeo said:
JohntheBaptist, the first sentence of my original post was: "Between the amount of games JBJ missed and his utter suck on offense (related concepts in his case), I'm glad that he didn't win the GG."
My focus -- in that post and others -- is indeed on both games played and offense, and as I noted, these are related concepts here in that JBJ would have been in the line-up more if his offense wasn't so terrible.
This is not complicated.
My focus -- in that post and others -- is indeed on both games played and offense, and as I noted, these are related concepts here in that JBJ would have been in the line-up more if his offense wasn't so terrible.
This is not complicated.
I'm aware it isn't complicated--they are related, but the issue isn't the offense, it's the time on field. That would be true if he was hurt, if he was playing another position for more time than the one in reference, whatever the case may be. Your focus is on games played and offense, I'm saying the focus on offense doesn't make sense.
If you're back away from this:
then sure, I can see wanting Jones, the guy who was out there all year, to win. But you're tying the defensive award to his offense being "beyond the pale," which is what I was responding to.
If you're back away from this:
then sure, I can see wanting Jones, the guy who was out there all year, to win. But you're tying the defensive award to his offense being "beyond the pale," which is what I was responding to.
For some reason you're ignoring that I tied games played and bad offense in every post.
If my posts only mentioned offense and did not note that they are causally related, then you would have a point.
That said, I do admit, as I already have, that I have some trouble with someone with horrific offensive numbers winning the award. And I've already noted that such a reaction, whether consistent with the real world or not, is wrong. So I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by pointing that wrongness out, yet again, and ignoring that it was said in the context of my main point about games played and bad offense.
If my posts only mentioned offense and did not note that they are causally related, then you would have a point.
That said, I do admit, as I already have, that I have some trouble with someone with horrific offensive numbers winning the award. And I've already noted that such a reaction, whether consistent with the real world or not, is wrong. So I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by pointing that wrongness out, yet again, and ignoring that it was said in the context of my main point about games played and bad offense.
I was only reacting to an objection to someone with horrific offensive numbers winning the award, which you're copping to (right?). I'm not sure why you'd make it such a central theme of your posts if you know it's wrong, but I must have missed that, so I apologize, and I agree--it is wrong 
My only point is that the operative part is the games played. I still don't know why we're talking about his offense--the focus on the depth and nature of his offensive failure, as well as the way it was initially worded, lead me to believe it was not just there to note the catalyst for fewer games played, but part of why he didn't deserve the award. Since you're telling me that's wrong, we're in full agreement.
My only point is that the operative part is the games played. I still don't know why we're talking about his offense--the focus on the depth and nature of his offensive failure, as well as the way it was initially worded, lead me to believe it was not just there to note the catalyst for fewer games played, but part of why he didn't deserve the award. Since you're telling me that's wrong, we're in full agreement.
I'll put down the pom-poms when you put away the pitchforks and torches. If you pay attention to the team, you might recall that John Henry, Lucchino, Ben Cherington believe that Pedroia is a franchise player due to the fact that the team awarded him what amounts to a lifetime contract which, judging by the statements at the time and since then, was based on valuation of not just his baseball skills but also his leadership and capacity to be a role model for the younger players. Clearly there are several key figures in the Red Sox front office that believe that Pedroia is crucial to the success of the franchise.seantoo said:
'Nuff sed. This thread was supposed to be about a member of the Sox winning the Gold Glove. Congratulations, Pedey!
Oh, it definitely plays a part--and if that's more what TS meant, I apologize further. That'd be really hard to argue. I'd just quibble with it being something where, since he was SO bad, that was part of not giving him the nod.
That being said, I don't want to belabor it because TS clearly meant that Jones should get credit for being able to answer the bell every day where JBJ couldn't/ didn't and I agree completely.
That being said, I don't want to belabor it because TS clearly meant that Jones should get credit for being able to answer the bell every day where JBJ couldn't/ didn't and I agree completely.
Again Pitchforks and Torches? Where is their any sign of that? That's you again being defensive. When a team finishes in last place hard questions should be asked, unconventional ones as well. This is not 2012, where injuries and down years by key members of the team gave a realistic hope that 2013 would be much better. With nearly the entire rotation traded, the hole to climb out of is much steeper this go round.SoxLegacy said:
There is a very realistic chance it takes multiple years before we can seriously contend again. Anyone that is 30 years or older now may not be as crucial to the next great Redsox team as you think.
I'm not being defensive, it's called having a different point of view than yours on the value that Pedroia (and apparently anyone over the age of 30) has to the team. Injuries and down years didn't figure into the team performance in 2014? I think that Pedey's wrist, Victorino's back, Napoli's finger, and the myriad of ills afflicting Middlebrooks coupled with the underperforming Bradley, Bogaerts, Nava, Ross, Buchholz, Doubront, and Peavy had something to do with the W/L record.seantoo said:
Following your line of thought, the Sox should look into moving Pedroia, Ortiz, and Napoli this off season as well as avoid going after Lester, Scherzer, Headley, et al because they might not be of any value to the future team due to their age. And what about the part about the team owners and front office valuing leadership? It's the veteran players that are the folks providing that commodity. Happily, your thoughts are not reflective of the front office.
Ortiz and Koji were deep into their 30's last year and the 2013 World Championship doesn't happen with your line of thinking...seantoo said:
Players age differently and again for the 100th time Pedroia is not going anywhere.
I think your missing a key element. This team is in a different stage of development then the 2012 team. If this was 2012 I'd being singing a different tune, however you appear to approach team building as if all teams are in the same stage of team development. You have to have different approaches and even any specific strategy has to have multiple plans within that same approach. Guys like Napoli (especially with Craig in the fold) are definitely guys you'd consider trading and not because he's not valuable but because he is valuable and he's only here for this year. He's definitely on the back nine of his career to so extending his does not seem prudent, so why not trade in a current asset you have to help you down the road when you have a better chance of contending. This is common sense, yes?SoxLegacy said:
Actually the Sox have done several things I suggested in the past so I think I do have a good sense of what they are doing a good portion of the time. This is a huge off-season for them simply because there is so many different directions they can go in. They moved players this past trading deadline in an unprecedented manner. They in fact traded several of the players you list such as Doubront & Peavy. Both of them underachieved. Several players you mentioned had down years because that is the path they are on. Most here agree that anything we get out of Victorino will be a bonus. Players peak in their mid-late 20's and decline noticeably by as early as 33 years old but the steroid era has made some people forget that fact of life.
The team still has to put a solid product on the field, so of course they'll sign players older than 30 however it will be for a short term deal, maybe they'll make an exception to their own rule. That is their own words or did you miss that? I hope they don't sign players over 30 to long term deals right now, simply because they don't have to. With the collection of outstanding young talent and only a few core players left the overall direction is obvious. Several were mad when I said the team was clearly going with a youth movement earlier this year, well they have. Several were mad when I predicted Pedroia would be hurt again and sure enough he was. I noted his overall numbers decreasing especially SLG% and was attacked and warned even (still not clear on that other than voicing an unpopular belief) that many Boston sport writers wrote about a short time after I had brought it up. Apparently editors of several major newspapers agreed with me that they idea was worthy of discussion. I know most fans don't like when players who they have becomes attached to are traded, however nearly all older players are either traded or not resigned. With that in mind merely exploring the idea of trading an aging player for a player who can help us when we should be in a better position to contend should be part of what SOSH is about.
How are they in a different "stage of development"? What does that even mean? You're still not making a good case that the Red Sox can't be competitive in 2015 and you're derailing the Pedroia thread even further. But please, keep on earning your tag line and telling us (for the millionth time) that trading Pedroia is a brilliant idea.
Please learn to read or you can pursue repeating the same crap until others think its true. After his last injury the boat sailed on that one, which was minor to begin with and I noted that early on but that was conveniently ignored.MakMan44 said:
Different stage of development is a confusing concept to you? If I have to explain it to you then I shouldn't bother. Their is different levels of competing too. They will spend and make trades and should obviously be better but chances are they will be only be competitive for a wc if everything breaks right. That's compete to not actually win. They have to many young players who usually take 2 years to approach their own level and to many major holes as well. It could happen but most agree that it is unlikely to compete for the WS.
It's just a weird turn of phrase for a baseball team.seantoo said:
As for the rest of the post, I still think you're mostly wrong. Mookie adapted very well in his second run through the majors, Xander was pretty dominate throughout September, and there's literally no chance they run out 4 under 25 SPs. All that has to happen is a few solid deals, and some luck in the health department and it's not hard to imagine a scenario where they're in the division race.
All that being said, it's wonderful to hear you will literally never bring up the "trading Pedroia" thing again. I'm happy we can move on from that.
- Status