So is Alex Gonzalez...

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by M2

I agree with that. My main concern with Gonzalez is for next year and beyond. When his glove goes, you don't want to have to carry him.

The thing with him is that despite all his errors this year, he's still got the rep of having a great glove. The Reds - and the media - need to keep saying this over and over again as many times as possible so if they do decide to trade him, they will trade him to someone who needs that great glove at SS. It seems to me that defensive reps are hard to shake. Unless a guy like EE starts winning a passel of Gold Gloves, his rep as a bad defensive player is going to follow him no matter how much he improves. Look at Royce Clayton last year. He was supposed to be a great glove at SS but we all know how that turned out. But, no worries for Royce because the Blue Jays signed him. Maybe there's an ancient Indian burial ground under SS at GAB.

[pedro]

TBF, Gonzalez has made some very good plays this year as well.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by pedro

TBF, Gonzalez has made some very good plays this year as well.

See, pedro gets it.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by M2

Then how come they never vote for him to win a Gold Glove?

Reds fans have engaged in some serious fictionalizing of his abilities.

Well, these are the same voters who think the best defensive shortstop in the AL is Derek Jeter, so the fictionalizing is coming from many angles.

For sure, he's been in a bit of a fielding slump this year. Hope he shakes out of it.

[M2]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

Well, these are the same voters who think the best defensive shortstop in the AL is Derek Jeter, so the fictionalizing is coming from many angles.

True enough. Though I think Jeter winning a GG over Gonzalez points to Gonzalez's defensive rep inside the game not quite being as sterling as some have been led to believe. No doubt he's been a good defender and he's got a good rep, but a number of guys (including three others in the NL Central) have a similar rep.

He's not perceived as being singularly outstanding is all I was really driving at.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Look at Royce Clayton last year. He was supposed to be a great glove at SS but we all know how that turned out. But, no worries for Royce because the Blue Jays signed him. Maybe there's an ancient Indian burial ground under SS at GAB.

BTW, the Red Sox should probably send the Reds a thank you note for snapping up Gonzalez and leaving Clayton to the Blue Jays.

[Eric_Davis]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

Nah, I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. The Reds were reaching into a tattered and wet paper bag by trying to convince people that Royce Clayton had any value, and most keen observers knew that right away.

The thing with Alex Gonzalez is that he actually was a good defensive shortstop ... all the way up through last season. The problem with Alex Gonzalez is so far through May 23rd of 2007, he hasn't been a good defensive shortstop for the Reds. The Alex Gonzalez of pre-2007 and the Alex Gonzalez of so far through 2007 have been two totally different players defensively.

Basic zone rating is far from the best defensive tool, but it's probably the best defensive tool easily accessible that's available midseason (Dial may post some rankings in early July around the ASB). Here's Gonzalez's zone ratings defensively for the past few years compared to his 2007 zone rating ...

2001: .850
2002: .868
2003: .861
2004: .862
2005: .846
2006: .863

2001-2006 rough average: .858

2007: .827

An .858 zone rating, which is around Gonzalez's six year average through 2006, is above average to good and oftentimes places a shortstop in the top 10 for the majors. If Gonzalez was performing to those 2001-2006 standards of defensive prowess, then most people would be satisfied with his defense and that contract would be tolerable ... not preferred, but something that myself and most others could live with. The problem is Gonzalez hasn't been performing to his previous standards of defensive prowess, and so far he's cost the team a couple runs. If he can't rebound back up to his 2001-2006 levels then that contract handed out to him goes from being tolerable to being awful.

There are so many SS's that are good both defensively and offensively. If you're going to sign a guy for his defense only, which supposedly was the case with Gonazlez, then he better be among the National League's Top-3 defensively year after year....or right behind the 40-year old Visquel and Jose Reyes.

Visquel's lifetime avg: .984 Fielding Percentage, (.972 is what a League Average Player would have over the same years); 4.40 Range Factor by games played, (4.11 is what a League Average Player would have over the same years)

The Mets' Reyes' lifetime avg: .974 Fielding Percentage, (.974 is what a League Average Player would have); 4.11 Range Factor by games played, (4.02 is what a League Average Player would have over the same years)
Keep in mind that Reyes didn't become full-time until 2005 and this year he's at .989 FP and 4.47 Range Factor and from here on end will be the league leader every year, if not 2nd or 3rd in the league.

Gonazlez' lifetime avg: .969 Fielding Percentage, (.971 is what a League Average Player would have); 4.29 Range Factor by games played, (3.95 is what a League Average Player would have over the same years)
Gonzales was a full-time player in 1999, so he's not going to get any better as Reyes will.

Conclusion: Alex Gonzalez is a below average SS when it comes to committing errors. He doesn't even do as well as the average SS, starters and bench players, so he certainly is below average when it comes to starters. Alex Gonzalez is above average as far as range is concerned. Before he got to Boston it looked like he was among the very best in the league, but since then he's been average to above average in range. That he can fix and his range can improve. The coaches in Florida probably have the answer.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by M2

True enough. Though I think Jeter winning a GG over Gonzalez points to Gonzalez's defensive rep inside the game not quite being as sterling as some have been led to believe. No doubt he's been a good defender and he's got a good rep, but a number of guys (including three others in the NL Central) have a similar rep.

He's not perceived as being singularly outstanding is all I was really driving at.

Jeter winning a GG just cracks me up.

Almost as much as when Palmiero won a GG with less than 50 G played at that position.

Offensively, Jeter's a no-doubt 1st ballot HOF. Defensively, however...

[M2]

Originally Posted by blumj

BTW, the Red Sox should probably send the Reds a thank you note for snapping up Gonzalez and leaving Clayton to the Blue Jays.

J.P. Ricciardi may have as big a SS blind spot as any GM in history.

[BRM]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Almost as much as when Palmiero won a GG with less than 50 G played at that position.

28 games at 1B in 1999. What a joke.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by M2

J.P. Ricciardi may have as big a SS blind spot as any GM in history.

John McDonald's terrific defensively, though, so while I could see getting Clayton or someone like him just in case, they'd be much better off starting McDonald at SS most of the time. Clayton is just bad, and it's not like he adds anything much to their offense.

[Eric_Davis]

Gonzalez' best years he was only average to above average in Range Factor per nine innings.

2001....5th
2003....5th
2004....6th
2005....4th

Those were his best years.

I'm convinced that all the REDS have is an average defensive SS that hits like he's Bo Diaz.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by M2

I agree with that. My main concern with Gonzalez is for next year and beyond. When his glove goes, you don't want to have to carry him.

Lugo's been far better than I've ever seen from him in the field in previous seasons. He's really cranked it up a notch or three.

He's 30.

Do defensive skills typically start to taper off around 31/32? I'm asking serriously.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

He's 30.

Do defensive skills typically start to taper off around 31/32? I'm asking serriously.

Yep, most shortstops decline significantly at that age. Tony Fernandez, with four Gold Gloves, was effectively done as a plus SS at age 31. Edgar Renteria's range started going downhill in his late 20s. Roger Metzger, all glove no stick, saw his bird thermometer pop at 31. Robin Yount went to CF at age 29.

Obviously there's the Ozzie Smiths, Omar Vizquels and Barry Larkins who are still very good in their 30s, but since defense is Gonzalez's lone basket, I wasn't an advocate of handing him too many eggs.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by M2

but since defense is Gonzalez's lone basket, I wasn't an advocate of handing him too many eggs.

I was against this move from day 1 for this very reason.

I don't want to be married to someone like Gonzo for 3 years. Not a good risk at all.

Like I said, I would've had a cattle call (Olmedo, Harris, and whoever else we could scrape up). Don't sign Castro, give 2 rookies or castoffs the starting SS and backup SS. Now you've got about 16 million over the next couple of years to spend on something that will make a difference, instead of Gonzo and Castro.