Much has been made about the Gold Glove awards handed out by Major League Baseball for the 2012 season, but nothing was more controversial than Baltimore Orioles center fielder Adam Jones winning the award over the Los Angeles Angels rookie phenom Mike Trout. Many fans, and even some analysts, are scratching their heads over the fact that Trout appeared to be one of the clear-cut favorites to win the hardware over anyone else at the position.
Trout has made a strong case to win the Gold Glove award for his work in center field this year based on his superb range, strong and accurate arm, as well as his knack for robbing home runs – the most notable of which came against the Orioles when he climbed the wall to rob J.J. Hardy of a homerun.
Jones, on the other hand, has made many of his own highlight reel worthy diving catches and won his first Gold Glove in 2009. When you look at the different metrics used to analyze defensive performance there probably isn’t any other center fielder in the league where those different metrics tell completely different stories. Some view Jones as one of the worst center fielders in baseball, while others rate him as the second or third best in the game, and then there are some that rate him as average.
Without getting knee-deep into who deserves what, I decided to reach out to Ben Lindbergh of Baseball Prospectus to get his take on the Gold Glove awards, the different processes or metrics that people use to evaluate defensive performance, and whether he believes the eye test or advanced statistical metrics are better able to evaluate defensive performance.
BSL: The Fielding Bible made the determination that Trout was the best defensive center fielder in baseball this past season and doesn’t even mention Jones for this year or 2009, his other GG season.
Lindbergh: I’d be happy to help if I can–I’m not sure I have any brilliant explanation for why Jones won instead of someone else, but feel free to send me something. Sam Miller and I talked about the Gold Gloves and Fielding Bible Awards on our podcast today, if you want to hear what we had to say about it first.
BSL: Good show today Ben.
You mentioned that you’re not big into paying too much attention to the Gold Glove awards – is that because you don’t see them as being all that relevant to what actually takes place defensively throughout the season on the field?
Lindbergh: Thanks. Yes, I suppose that has something to do with it, but I’m also not all that confident in my/our ability to evaluate defensive performance over a single season, so I have a hard time getting too worked up about the choices. For example, according to BP’s fielding system, FRAA, Jones was worth 6.4 runs in the field in 2012. We have both Trout and Austin Jackson at 8.6, but the error bars surrounding single-season defensive stats are much bigger than the difference between those totals. I know other fielding systems rate Jones much worse, and I would say that Trout/Jackson look better than Jones (not that Jones looks bad), but it’s not like I watched all 162 Angels, Tigers, and Orioles games. And even if I had, I’d have a hard time proving conclusively that Jones was much worse this season. If I had to bet, I’d say that Trout and Jackson were better, but I’m not nearly as confident in my opinion about that as I am, say, my opinion about which one of them was the best batter.
Really, though, it’s that I just don’t particularly care who wins the awards, and I rarely remember who won them for long. If you (not you, personally, but everyone responding to the results) think Trout is the best center fielder, I have some good news: the opinion of the managers and coaches doesn’t invalidate yours. I tend to think that the best way to combat what people see as mistakes and oversights in award voting is by not letting them bother us. The Gold Gloves are a big deal because we make them a big deal. if every site out there didn’t discuss who won and who should have won, the awards would be irrelevant. Of course, talking about Gold Gloves can make for a fun debate and an easy post (or podcast) topic, so I understand why it happens, and it’s possible that some of the internet backlash about various award results has helped to spread the sabermetric approach to a larger audience, which can’t be a bad thing.
BSL: You’ve pretty much summed up my feelings about how we evaluate defense and the defensive metrics used, including the deficiencies still involved with evaluating defense with the utmost accuracy the way we can a pitcher or a player batting. There is still no sure fire way to, without a doubt, say which fielder is better here or there – but I do feel like the time is coming (maybe not in the next year or two, but I’d say within the next five or six) where we will be better able to make those determinations.
Defensive metrics are still relatively young when it comes to breaking down the data, figuring out what’s important, what’s not, and what tools on defense have more value than others. Then of course so many of us are trying to bring that data together and come up with some way (saber-metrically speaking) to really deliver those results to people that they can be confident in.
When it comes to evaluating defense though – would you put more stock in the eye test and basic statistical measures (Fielding %, errors, etc.) that many managers and scouts rely on when making those determinations (which is basically how they probably vote on these awards), or would you be more comfortable relying on the many different defensive metrics currently available and sifting through that data to make a judgement on a player?
Lindbergh: I think FIELDf/x data will make it possible (actually, is already making it possible) to determine the difference between fielders very accurately, but I don’t think that info will be available publicly anytime soon, if ever. So I’m not holding out much hope for a big change in the next few years. I hope I’m wrong.
I think I’d put more stock in the eye test–assuming we’re talking about experienced eyes–over a smaller sample and assign more weight to “advanced” defensive data as the sample size increases (although as BP’s Colin Wyers has observed, some systems may have biases that persist in large samples). I’m not sure where exactly the point is at which I’d trust the stats’ evaluation more than the scouts’, but it would definitely take me more than a single season to get there.
BSL: The fact that the FieldF/X data isn’t publicly available yet is really disappointing to me because it could really elevate and even accelerate the defensive metrics available, as well as the ways in which we measure an individual players defensive contributions.
Since your own feeling is that the eye test – of those experienced using such a method – is the best way to evaluate defensive performance in when working with relatively small sample sizes; at what point do you feel a sample size is large enough to go at the data using advanced metrics to evaluate a player?
In conjunction with that – let’s say that you are a part of that team that makes the decisions when determining who wins a Gold Glove and who doesn’t. How would you approach that responsibility?
Obviously, short of FieldF/X being made publicly available I would say we’re sort of hamstrung when it comes to taking defensive evaluations to the next level. Would you agree or disagree with that?
Lindbergh: Yeah, it’s disappointing that we don’t get to see FIELDf/x info, but I don’t blame Sportvision for trying to turn a profit. That’s valuable data that I wouldn’t expect them to give away for free. We’ve been somewhat spoiled by our access to PITCHf/x, which we’re lucky to have. And yes, I would agree that the next step in evaluating defense with the information at our disposal will be a difficult one, though I certainly wouldn’t be shocked if some smart sabermetrician managed to transcend its limitations to some extent and refine one of the current approaches (or come up with a new one).
As I said in the last email, I’m really not sure at exactly what sample size I would trust the stats more than the scouts, but it would certainly be more than a single season. Maybe three seasons? And I’m not saying I’d disregard the results of the eye test at that point, just that I’d give them a little less weight than the numbers. At some point, if a player is very good or bad at defense, it should show up in the numbers, whether you’re using one of the usual “advanced” stats, a with-or-without-you approach, or possibly even some sort of team-level look.
If I were involved in Gold Glove voting, I’d do what I imagine the Fielding Bible Awards voters do–look at all the available stats, talk to experienced evaluators in the industry, and try to synthesize what I discovered into some sort of ranking. Even after doing that, I wouldn’t have complete confidence that I’d arrived at the right answer, but my goal would be to make sure I hadn’t overlooked any source of information that could help me make a more informed decision.
BSL: I’ve actually reached out to Ryan Zander of Sportsvision, he handles the baseball side of things, to get his thoughts on where evaluations regarding defense are without FieldF/X and with it on their end. I’m hoping to hear back from him, or a Sportsvision rep soon. If anyone over there does take the time to speak with me I’ll definitely forward the link to my interview with them over to you. It seems you and I both have a high level of interest in that data.
Who knows, maybe that brilliant Sabermetrician will revolutionize the way we evaluate players based on defense in the near future and actually come out of the BP camp. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised.
I appreciate your time and thoughts on this subject Ben.
Lindbergh: Yeah, can’t imagine anyone who’s interested in baseball analysis not being interested in FIELDf/x. Happy to give you my thoughts. Thanks for asking.
To read more of Ben’s work over at Baseball Prospectus you can visit their website at http://baseballprospectus.com; you can also listen to his daily podcast “Effectively Wild” with Sam Miller, always a great listen, and finally you can follow Ben on Twitter @ben_lindbergh or @baseballpro.
And again, those of us here (myself included) at Baltimore Sports and Life really appreciate the time Ben took out of his day to speak with me – it’s always a great conversation with him.
