It's funny how the gold glove is used as a proxy to recognize a player for any number of reasons. Matt Kemp hits well in 2009. Gold glove. Carlos Gonzalez hits well in 2010. Gold glove. Derek Jeter is the cat's pyjamas. Gold glove.

Scott Rolen is still a very good defender, but Ryan Zimmerman is probably better.  Anyways, it looks to me that this year should lock up Rolen's Hall case, but it is my sense that while he does have the heckuva player part, the fame part is not really there.  Maybe he ought to get a mohawk or something...

Joe Posnanski at SI.com details the Gold Glove phenomenon very well.  Briefly put - the Gold Glove is the only award where managers and coaches vote.  They have no say in the Cy Young, MVP, Silver Slugger, etc. So this is their only chance to acknowledge outstanding players.  Despite the fact that it's supposed to be about defence, it's become more of the coaches/managers acknowledgement of guys who play the game right. 

I don't know if I like that, but I definitely understand that.  It's logical.  I can appreciate Derek Jeter getting the award more if that is, in fact, what the award really is. 

Be careful Mick, there are immoral or otherwise unpleasant reprobates, not to mention worthless horses everywhere that might be offended by the term "ripped off" :)

I agree with Mike, for my money Zimmerman has probably surpassed Rolen as standard bearer for the position although Rolen is still a worthy candidate. On that note, is there a less appreciated star in MLB today than Zimmerman?

is there a less appreciated star in MLB today than Zimmerman?

First in war, first in peace...

Last in the National League East?

Since I got out of shape about Derek Jeter winning again, I might as well get on my other high horse. It's almost a crime that Chase Utley has never won a Gold Glove, even while being the best defensive second baseman in all of baseball.

Might be an idea to create a new award for coaches/managers - something about 'best player at his position' or 'these guys play it right' or something. Then shift Gold Gloves to some other voting group who is more likely to take it seriously (as stated before, I think advance scouts would be best).

How 'bout The Diamond Dirt Bags?

The former GM here surely would deserve a vote on that...

Despite the fact that it's supposed to be about defence, it's become more of the coaches/managers acknowledgement of guys who play the game right.

That sounds like a pretty good summation of how managers/coaches might look at the award. I have no problem with managers voting for GG, even if it means there is the odd travesty. A big part of defense is playing the game right in ways that escape the eyes of many fans and don't show up in any of the defensive stats. John Dewan said in one Posnanski column that sabremetrics is about 60 per cent of the way to accurately assessing defensive performance. I doubt there is a single manager with less than a 90 per cent understanding of good defense. Lingering respect for a player might get too much weight from time to time, but when managers do something as crazy as picking Jeter, it makes me wish I could sit down with Joe Maddon for half an hour and have him spell out for me exactly why he thinks Jeter is worthy (if in fact he does). I'm sure I'd learn something that doesn't show up in a defensive metric, and might be just as important as anything that does.

John Dewan said in one Posnanski column that sabremetrics is about 60 per cent of the way to accurately assessing defensive performance. I doubt there is a single manager with less than a 90 per cent understanding of good defense.

It does not follow that all managers have assessed their league's defensive performance with 90 percent accuracy. Or with any accuracy at all. They're basing their judgements on a small sample of player performance, and anyway they're frying much bigger fish all season long. I'm skeptical of defensive stats too, but c'mon. This is sleazy.

It's almost a crime that Chase Utley has never won a Gold Glove, even while being the best defensive second baseman in all of baseball.

It's something about second base. Mark Ellis has been criminally underappreciated in the American League for years (this year he was hurt, so he doesn't have as strong a case, but he should have about three in his display case already). However, one can see why Ellis may be overlooked, as he's a light hitter playing in Oakland. Utley is much stranger, as one would think he'd get a Gold Glove at some point in recognition of his hitting skills, especially given there's no standout defensive second baseman in the NL. Instead, he's several years of legitimately great defense (as far as we can measure and observe) ignored.

John Dewan said in one Posnanski column that sabremetrics is about 60 per cent of the way to accurately assessing defensive performance. I doubt there is a single manager with less than a 90 per cent understanding of good defense.

Well, I am just paraphrasing to the best of my memory what Dewan said. I'm pretty sure I have the 60 per cent right but he may not have used the word "assessing".

Why wouldn't managers have an accurate assessment of the defense of other players? Managers are paid to know exactly how well an opposition team plays defense. It has a direct correlation to their team's ability to score runs and shapes strategy. They have own personal observations, their coaching staff and advance scouts, video, access to every stat. When the game is played they bring a level of understanding about "right plays" that the vast majority of fans, media and even stats gurus don't have, and that further shapes their opinion of players. Multiply that by every manager and you have what should be a pretty accurate collective assessment.

This doesn't mean I believe Jeter should have won the GG (I don't), which is why I'd be curious to know why managers think he should. It may be laziness on their part, more likely a case of lingering respect, but even so I'm sure any manager can point to countless plays made by Jeter (or any guy who plays the game "right") that determined the outcome of a game without showing up in a boxscore or on a defensive zone rating chart.

I'd like to hear it too. I'm just a lot more skeptical about how seriously the managers take the awards. And I doubt you'd get any concrete details if you pressed a manager on what he meant concretely by "plays the game the right way." Joe Maddon might come up with something, but only because he's awesome.

I also think you're overstating how much managers care about shortstop defense. "For God's sake, Vernon, it's Jeter out there! There's a 0.2% chance he'll screw up a routine grounder, as opposed to the 0.4% chance Erick Aybar would! Go the other way or we're doomed!!" I could definitely be wrong about this.

It doesn't really matter what words Dewan used - even if it's 'understanding' in both cases, they're understanding two different things. The stats (allegedly) understand 60% of how to quantify (assess!) a fielder's effect on a game. The managers understand 90% of how to field - play hitters to their pull side because that's where grounders go, play fast runners shallow, trade the run for the out in this situation, assume XYZ ready position. But that doesn't imply any understanding of how beneficial Derek Jeter is as a fielder compared to Alexei Ramirez and Yunel Escobar, which is what's really relevant to the awards voting.

Giving managers way too much credit here - if you lead in Fielding Percentage, how are you not the best fielder?

They do vote, so that's not that simple.