Gonzalez Wins a Gold Glove, Kouzmanoff Does Not
November 11th, 2009 | Published in Adrian Gonzalez, Awards, Daniel Gettinger, Kevin Kouzmanoff, Padres, baseball | 9 Comments
by Daniel Gettinger
The National League Gold Glove winners were announced today. Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez won his second consecutive gold glove. Despite heavy support from the Padres and the San Diego media, Kevin Kouzmanoff, who set the National League single season record for fielding percentage, did not win an award.
Before I touch on Adrian’s award, I want to reiterate that Kouzmanoff did not deserve to win a gold glove this season. Sure, he made very few errors, but he also has limited range. Ryan Zimmerman was clearly the best fielding third-baseman in the National League. His UZR of 18.1 was more than double Kouz’s 7.5. Zimmerman also bested Kouz by a significant margin in Tom Tango’s community scouting report.
As for Adrian…At first, I was surprised to see him win the award again this season. Most Padres fans know Gonzalez is a pretty good fielding first baseman, but I had just assumed Albert Pujols, who is also often cited as a great fielding first baseman would win the award.
According to UZR though, the voters got this one right. Gonzalez led all N.L. first basemen with a 3.8 UZR, just edging out Derrek Lee (3.7). Pujols ranked fourth with a UZR of 1.3. The thing is, fielding statistics are not entirely precise, so I am not sure we should make much out of the difference between Gonzalez and Pujols in the stat.
According the fan’s scouting report, Pujols actually bests Gonzalez. But not by much. Pujols scored an average grade of 3.96, while Gonzalez had an average grade of 3.91. Derek Lee was at 3.69. Even if you are not too familiar with the distribution of scores in the fan’s scouting report, it is pretty clear that little separated Pujols and Gonzalez.
All in all, I’d say this one was a toss-up. Neither Gonzalez nor Pujols (nor Lee if you prefer) distinguished themselves as significantly better fielders than the other this season. Because the voters did not ignore a greatly more deserving candidate (as would have been the case had Kouzmanoff earned a gold glove at the expense of Zimmerman), I am happy to see Gonzalez, a Padre, be recognized with a post-season award.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:09 pm (#)
Websoulsurfer had a great article about the so called advantage in range by Zimmerman. I think he is right. Zimmerman had more balls hit his way. That’s it. He didn’t convert balls farther away from his initial position at a good enough rate to matter if he can get to balls a half a step further away than Kouzmanoff.
Getting to more balls when more balls are hit your way doesn’t mean he was better. The guy had 14 more errors. Nearly 6 times as many errors. How is that better? It isn’t is the answer. Oh, but Zimmerman hit .292 with 33HR and 106 RBI.
The Gold Glove is a crock that is about offense, popularity and who was on TV more. Everything but who actually played better defense.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:11 pm (#)
Websoulsurfer’s article is based on the idea that Zimmerman got more ground balls then Kouzmanoff because of Washington pitching, but Zimmerman played in 15 more games.
Even if you average the numbers out, and look at the ground ball rate for both teams against balls in play (plate appearances is not a good barometer), and account for the percent of ground balls fielding by a third baseman in general, Zimmerman got to more balls than Kouz.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm (#)
Thepadfather-Take a look at this article by Myron, and the corresponding comments. It addresses Websoul’s critique of the range argument:
http://anotherpadresblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/kouzmanoffs-fielding/
November 12th, 2009 at 11:31 am (#)
I think maybe you can compare it to football. Say you compare to linebackers. One makes 110 tackles in a season, but misses 15 tackles. He would still be considered a better linebacker than a guy that made 80 tackles, but missed none. Fair comparison?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:50 am (#)
Daniel, good stuff.
Mark, I think that is a fair comparison. Basically, we are trying to figure out the number of plays made, based on the number of opportunities. Figuring out the opportunities is the hard part.
But stats like UZR, RZR, and most of the other advanced metrics, say that Zimmerman was better at making plays, based on his opportunities last year (and in the past).
It appears to me that Zimmerman is better from a statistical perspective and a scouting perspective, and I don’t really get any outrage about him not winning this award. I’m not sure why people are still stuck on fielding percentage, to be honest.
Note: Kouz did have a nice year in the field, and he’s been improving year by year. That’s great. It just doesn’t mean he deserves the gold glove.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm (#)
To continue with Mark’s analogy:
Kouz is the linebacker playing behind a run-stuffing D-line with a good tackling secondary. Zimmerman’s playing behind a porous D-line and in front of a weak secondary. Of course he’s going to miss more tackles, the line isn’t even slowing down the running backs, the safeties are barely redirecting tight ends, the CBs are allergic to contact.
I don’t understand why people suggest that we punish Zimmerman for playing behind lefties with ground ball tendencies but not adjust Kouz downward for working behind a right-handed strikeout/flyball staff in a home park that rewards fly balls.
The pro-Kouz camp reminds me of a story called “Harrison Bergeron” by Vonnegut. Pile chains on Zimmerman, minimize his advantages, decide that making hard plays isn’t really important after all, and bingo, Kouz deserves the Gold Glove.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:15 am (#)
You have made some strong valid points here.
Excellent post!
It is not ESPNs fault, or anyone else (insert conspiracy theory here) that Kouzmanoff did not win.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:31 am (#)
Myron didn’t address my comments, he brought up other stats that don’t take into account my comments or the failings of the UZR.
This is what he said:
“If we look at THT’s advanced fielding stats, we see that Zimmerman has a substantial lead over Kouzmanoff in plays made.”
And the very fact that Myron closed that piece by saying “I’m not really sure that he’s anything more than an average defensive third basemen” even though the stat he claims he values shows that Kouzmanoff is far above average at +6.
That alone shows that Myron really doesn’t believe in the validity of that stat either.
Zimmerman played more and had a greater percentage of ground balls hit his way. He has a marginally larger range, but was prone to throwing the ball away. He had nearly a 40% lower double play percentage.
Without something that measures exactly how far each fielder actually went to get a ball from his original positioning (Fielding F/X?), none of the fielding stats will be accurate in evaluating range.
Oh and for the guy with the football example, it would be more like one linebacker who makes 110 tackles and misses 17 with 21 tackles for a loss and another linebacker who made 102 tackles and missed 3 and had 34 tackles for a loss. Which linebacker do you want?
November 19th, 2009 at 9:34 pm (#)
I’m the guy with the football example, and no, it’s not at all like that, no more than Colby Rasmus’s assist total proves that he has a Juan Pierre arm.
Kouz backs a strikeout-flyball-RH pitching staff and plays his home games (and many away games) in parks that reward pitchers for giving up fly balls. He throws to one of the best fielding 1b in the game. That’s the run-stuffing line and the strong secondary. It’s a lot easier to make the tackles on players who come into your area of responsibility (definitely not behind the line of scrimmage in Kouz’s case) if that’s all you need to worry about.
You act like Zimmerman’s total chances were somehow artificially inflated because of playing time (as if durability shouldn’t count) and by working behind a LH staff. They’re not, that’s just what happened, and you can’t punish him for it. His advantage in range is real and significant and can easily seen by the naked eye, but is not so easily detected by those looking through sand-and-blue tinted glasses.