Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Subjective awards do have issues. However, with Gold Gloves, players win or don't win based on reputation, not necessarily popularity. No one is more popular than Mike Trout, yet he has never won a Gold Glove and likely never will. Because his reputation defensively is good, but not great. A player who is considered a mediocre fielder (or worse by WAR) is never going to win a Gold Glove. In his day, Parker's reputation was as a very good defensive right fielder, so he won 3 Gold Gloves.
If we are disregarding subjective standards in judging a players' career, should we throw out MVP award winners, as well?
|
Reputation is completely 100% subjective, it is not objective, and is often miles away from the truth. Because a narrative is popular or widespread does not mean it is true whatsoever.
Yes, MVP's have the same exact problem - it is a subjective award and often a popularity or narrative contest. It is not objective at all. We should look at how "who was actually the best player that year?" and try to use objective math to arrive at a reasonable answer, not look at who was given a subjective award.
Objective measurements > subjective measurements. It would be absurd and unreasonable to favor the subjective over the objective when trying to make a logical argument.
EDIT: "A player who is considered a mediocre fielder (or worse by WAR) is never going to win a Gold Glove" - Palmeiro was so mediocre his team didn't even want him in the field, and they still gave him one. I don't think this statement checks out.