Forrest has only one fewer assist and the same number of plus plays as Hanrahan while playing over 250 innings less in the field.  Slightly higher range factor (1.28 vs 1.27).

So you're saying it's based more on a percentage basis than overall stat basis? He also has 2 more errors in 250 less innings.

I hadn't thought about it on a percentage basis though...

I'm just looking for possible reasons.  Plus/minus does play a big part, though.  Project Forrest's stats to the same number of innings that Hanrahan has played, then they are even in assists but Forrest has two more plus plays.

That's a good point.

My first thought was the same as tec's. Here is what the FAQ says: "Gold Glove: Fielding percentage, good plays, poor plays, Errors, and Range Factor". The FAQ then goes on: "In each case, there are weights assigned to the individual components for the award calculation. While real life awards are decided by writers using the core raw stats and their personal opinion of how good/valuable players are (despite numerous objections by other esteemed writers across the land), HBD can use more appropriate statistics and accuracy to determine the best of the best.

If you think you have a player that should be up for an award but he isn't listed, be sure to evaluate all the component pieces and compare them to the players ranked ahead of them. It's hard to take sometime (like when you have a player with 55 HR, 150 RBI and a .340 AVG not in the top then), but there are always reasons why they are ranked where they are. They could be playing 1B while those ahead are SS & CF. They could be playing half their games in a hitter's park while those ahead play in pitcher's parks. Many reasons, all put together, and the best are at the top of the pack."

Reading between the lines, with similar raw statistics the rate of accumulation is likely given weight in deciding between the two. Maybe the only time when less playing time is given greater weight in determining awards.

Bringing this back up.  Can someone take a look at these two SS and tell me how Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Harvey Byrne wins the Gold Glove over Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Ed Brownson ?

Brownson has a better Fielding %, Better RF, More + plays and double the amount of DP.  He does have 6 more errors and 2 more - plays but he played 153 games to only 100 or so for Byrne?  Seems like giving that award to a part-time player should be a no no in the first place.  Giving it to a part time player with worse stats is vexing.

I would appear that minuses have an impact, and a rather large one, based on that comparison.

Here's a copy of a CS exchange I had regarding GG awards. I highlighted the comments regarding the most significant factors, but I left the rest in for your reading enjoyment.
           

5/4/2009 7:43 AM	carnivore
Not a big deal, but .... In No Quitters!!!! how did Harry Graham win the CF Gold Glove with only 97 games played? Phillip Thompson's fans (Dover White Cliffs) were not happy to see his consecutive GG streak ended this way.
5/5/2009 10:16 AM	Customer Support
Larry, In order to qualify for the Gold Glove award you must have played in at least 730 innings. Graham has played in 853.
5/11/2009 5:34 PM	carnivore
1. 730 innings is a ridiculously low number - it approximates half a season. It doesn't begin to compare with the 3.1/game PA standard for batting awards. Where does it come from? MLB or did you guys choose it? 2. Graham's defensive rates seemed comparable (at best) to Thompson's. It seems hard to believe that the guy who actually played a full season didn't get the award. Does your formula actually factor in games/innings played or is it based solely on rates?
5/13/2009 10:38 AM	Customer Support
Larry, The eligibility is 1/2 of a team's innings (assuming 9 inning games) for the season. This is much more stringent than MLB, where, if you remember, Rafael Palmeiro won a gold glove at 1B a few seasons ago when he didn't even play there that season. MLB is about the voters. We use statistics.
5/13/2009 11:04 AM	carnivore
I remembered the Palmeiro award - I had thought that perhaps they instituted a rule afterwards (much like when they came up with the 3.1PA rule after a disputed BA title). And btw, he did play something like 28 games that season. But I'm still interested in which statistics you're using. Graham may have had a slight rate advantage (or may not - I don't know the formula), but he was injured the last 2 months of the season. In fact, IIRC when the prelim awards were first posted, Thompson was leading. Then - while Graham was already on the DL - Graham replaced him. So ... Does your formula actually factor in games/innings played or is it based solely on rates?
5/13/2009 11:16 AM	Customer Support
It includes PO + A as a minor factor. But it's the ratio of the other factors that matter most.
5/13/2009 12:27 PM	carnivore
Hmmm ... I see. In that case, I would suggest that you consider bumping the minimum number of IP to 1000. Batting rate awards require 502 PAs; Pitching rate awards require 162 IP; I figure that you should shoot for at least 120 games played for a gold glove. Just my opinion of course.
5/14/2009 3:25 PM	carnivore
Who closed this?
5/14/2009 9:45 PM	Customer Support
Larry, Your opinion has been noted but it's not something we happen to agree with in this instance. 50% of a team's innings at a position is what we consider to be enough for consideration for the award. As a result, the ticket has been closed.
5/15/2009 7:39 AM	carnivore
Has Mr. Hide recently taken over the job of answering customer tickets? WHAT KIND OF RUDE HALF ASSED RESPONSE IS THAT? THE STANDARD PROCEDURE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT IT'S THE CUSTOMER'S DECISION WHEN TO CLOSE A TICKET. WHY HAS IT SUDDENLY CHANGED IN THE LAST WEEK? In real life (up until this odd policy change) you would have responded with: "Your opinion has been noted but it's not something we happen to agree with in this instance. 50% of a team's innings at a position is what we consider to be enough for consideration for the award." I would then have the knowledge that at least you received my suggestion, and I could then proceed accordingly. I could close the ticket if satisfied with the situation or respond further. I could also leave it open and survey my peers in the forums. In no proper business of any kind is a customer inquiry closed without the knowledge and participation of the customer. And by the way: regarding the original subject (which as a stated at the beginning is no big deal), why do you think that fielding awards should require less participation than batting or pitching?
5/15/2009 9:29 AM	Customer Support
Larry, We have always closed tickets when the end of a ticket has been reached. In this case, there was nothing further to discuss as you voiced your opinion, we registered it and there was no question remaining. A ticket is closed so that the user is not waiting for an answer and so that the ticket does not remain open in our queue to process. The reason we have lighter restrictions for fielding over hitting/pitching is because a player can play more than one position during a season due to injury, promotion, trade or any other such factor in which a player shifts position for the sake of the team. 50% of a team's innings is a statistically significant amount of innings for a season and, as mentioned earlier, a huge improvement over how they do it in the MLB. If you still disagree with this, it's one of those situations then where we have to agree to disagree. Our intent was not to be rude in this ticket -- we apologize if it came off that way.