Jorge Mateo Deserved a Gold Glove

Every year I have to remind myself that Gold Glove snubs aren’t worth getting worked up about. It’s exceedingly difficult to measure defense objectively, especially in a single season’s worth of games. It’s even harder for voters to make judgments about players’ defensive capabilities when they only watch them play a handful of games each year. Beyond that, the Gold Gloves have gone to “unworthy” players so often before that it’s foolish to be bothered by one more bad choice. Sometimes the wrong guy wins the Gold Glove, and that’s just how it goes. The players know it, the fans know it, and we all go on living.
Yet here I am, about to spend the next thousand or so words rattling on about how Jorge Mateo was snubbed for a Gold Glove. Because as troublesome as it is to evaluate defense, we do have some pretty great statistics available to help accomplish that task. And while Gold Gloves are awarded to undeserving fielders almost every season, they tend to go to those who need them the least: established stars with impressive offensive numbers. This year, the metrics make an ironclad case for Mateo at shortstop, and he would benefit from the recognition more than any of the three finalists. So against my better judgment, I’m here to write about a Gold Glove snub. If Rawlings won’t honor his dazzling defense, I’m going to have to do it myself.
Just watch him leap:
And watch him fly:
And watch him slide:
The AL Gold Glove finalists at shortstop this year are Carlos Correa, Xander Bogaerts, and Jeremy Peña. None of those finalists comes as much of a surprise, nor are any of them completely undeserving. Correa is the reigning Platinum Glove winner, and Platinum Glove winners have always been Gold Glove finalists the following season barring injury or retirement. Bogaerts took some big strides with his defense in 2022, and voters took notice. Peña flashed the leather in his rookie season, and his glove looked every bit as good as the prospect reports said it would. Here’s a look at each of their defensive results in 2022:
| Player | DRS | UZR | OOA | FRAA | Arm Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Peña | 14 | -6.3 | 7 | 1.2 | 84.3 mph |
| Xander Bogaerts | 4 | 4.9 | 5 | 1.1 | 82.1 mph |
| Carlos Correa | 3 | 1 | -3 | 0.7 | 88.0 mph |
DRS loves Peña. UZR, however, is much kinder to Bogaerts. Correa, for his part, has an absolute gun at shortstop. Understanding the limitations of defensive metrics in small sample sizes, you could look at these numbers and at least make a case for any one of the three players. There’s no runaway favorite.
Now, for comparison, here’s the same table with Mateo added in:
| Player | DRS | UZR | OOA | FRAA | Arm Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jorge Mateo | 14 | 7.5 | 11 | 5.1 | 86.9 mph |
| Jeremy Peña | 15 | -6.3 | 7 | 1.2 | 84.3 mph |
| Xander Bogaerts | 4 | 4.9 | 5 | 1.1 | 82.1 mph |
| Carlos Correa | 3 | 1 | -3 | 0.7 | 88.0 mph |
What was that about no runaway favorite? Mateo has a sizeable lead in three of the four comprehensive fielding metrics, and he’s only one run behind Peña for the lead in DRS. These numbers don’t just make Mateo look better; they put him on a whole other level.
To prove that just a little further, here’s the table one more time with all 12 qualified AL shortstops:
| Player | DRS | UZR | OOA | FRAA | Arm Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jorge Mateo | 14 | 7.5 | 11 | 5.1 | 86.9 mph |
| Jeremy Peña | 15 | -6.3 | 7 | 1.2 | 84.3 mph |
| Xander Bogaerts | 4 | 4.9 | 5 | 1.1 | 82.1 mph |
| Carlos Correa | 3 | 1 | -3 | 0.7 | 88.0 mph |
| Elvis Andrus | -4 | 3.8 | 3 | 1.5 | 81.5 mph |
| Bo Bichette | -16 | -15.4 | -7 | -2.1 | 84.8 mph |
| Isiah Kiner-Falefa | 10 | 0 | -2 | -3 | 81.1 mph |
| Amed Rosario | 6 | 9.4 | -7 | 2.3 | 85.2 mph |
| J.P. Crawford | -3 | -0.3 | -11 | -0.6 | 83.3 mph |
| Andrew Velazquez | 11 | 1.7 | 3 | 0.5 | 83.3 mph |
| Corey Seager | -3 | 2 | 4 | 1.7 | 81.9 mph |
| Javier Báez | -3 | -10.5 | 2 | 3.1 | 88.7 mph |
Mateo stands out from the pack in a clear and marked way. He is the only one to rank first in multiple categories, and the only one to rank in the top three of all five. Moreover, he is the only AL shortstop who even grades out above average in all five metrics.
Numbers like this should be enough to make anyone a Gold Glove finalist, and in fact, at nearly any other potision they would be. Mateo is one of only two eligible fielders to have led his position in Outs Above Average and not be named a finalist; the other is his teammate, first baseman Ryan Mountcastle. Unlike Mateo, Mountcastle did not grade out as an elite defender by any other metrics, and he plays the least valuable position on the field. Besides, while Mateo led the next-best eligible shortstop by 4 OAA, Mounctcastle was only worth 3 OAA total. Similarly, only two eligible players with 12 or more DRS were not named finalists: Mateo and another teammate of his, Adley Rutschman, who lost out to three other talented catchers with significantly more playing time.
Here’s the part where a skeptic might point out how unreliable defensive metrics can be. Indeed, the chart above proves as much. Báez has been worth 3.1 Fielding Runs Above Average, but his Ultimate Zone Rating is a disaster. Rosario, meanwhile, has the best UZR of the bunch, but his OAA makes him look like a major liability. OAA is Seager’s friend, but DRS certainly isn’t. And while Kiner-Falefa has an outstanding 10 Defensive Runs Saved, his -3 FRAA is at the bottom of the heap.
Yet as much as these numbers conflict and contradict one another, there’s one thing they can all agree on: Mateo is an elite defensive shortstop. The fact that defensive metrics are so volatile makes his 2022 stat line all the more impressive. Of all the advanced statistics designed to measure glovework, not one could identify a flaw in his game.
As a matter of fact, no matter how deep you dive into Mateo’s defensive numbers, there’s no weakness to be found. Outs Above Average, Defensive Runs Saved, and Ultimate Zone Rating can all be broken down into their constituent parts. OAA has four components: outs on plays in, plays back, plays toward third, and plays toward first. He was worth at least one out on all four categories of play, and he is the only qualified AL shortstop who can say that. Similarly, he was worth at least one run in all three components of DRS: double plays, good fielding plays, and plus/minus, the primary range component of DRS. He was the only AL shortstop to save a run in all three categories. It’s the same story with UZR; no other American League shortstop (min. 100 innings) had an above-average rating in range runs, error runs, and double play runs, the three categories that make up the metric. Upon close inspection, all of Mateo’s numbers hold up. It’s really quite something. How could you even begin to make a case for anyone else?
| OAA | DRS | UZR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In | Back | Lateral 3B | Lateral 1B | rGDP | rGFP | rPM | RngR | ErrR | DPR |
| 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.6 |
I’m not trying to argue against the eye test here, or to say that Gold Gloves should be determined based solely on numbers. But defensive metrics sometimes get a bit of a bad rap. We find ourselves repeating the same phrases about their limitations over and over (as I myself have already done in this piece), and eventually that repetition starts to plant seeds of doubt. It makes us hesitant to form arguments using these stats. But that shouldn’t be the case! Defensive metrics are flawed, highly volatile, and more subjective than offensive stats. Yet that does not mean they’re useless. These stats make an excellent effort to perform an incredibly difficult task, and they do a pretty great job of it too. They’re highly detailed, they’re carefully constructed, and when properly understood, they can tell us a lot about a player’s performance. These metrics may not be perfect, but they’re still the best we’ve got, and we should use them as such. Therefore, sometimes it is okay to make a Gold Glove case using just the numbers.
This is one such case. According to several of the best measurements we have, Mateo was far and away the top fielding shortstop in the AL. Overall, his defensive stat line was unparalleled. If the Gold Gloves are truly meant to honor the best defenders at each position, then he deserved to have won for his performance this year.
Leo has written for FanGraphs, MLB Trade Rumors, Baseball Prospectus, and Lindy’s Sports. You can follow him on Bluesky @leomorgenstern.bsky.social.
Oh man!! I could not agree more – As a Blue Jays season-ticket holder I saw him play a lot and he passes the eye test with flying colours as well as all the metrics
Somehow I ended up seeing the Orioles almost every time I went to the Rogers Centre this year, and Mateo went from someone I hadn’t heard of at all to someone I really looked forward to seeing!
Every time I try to make sense of a chart of defensive metrics I get the same feeling, what am I looking at and why am I bothering to read this garbage? I didn’t have to go any farther down the list than #2 and there is Jeremy Pena who DRS says is the best then right next to that is UZR that has him 3rd from the bottom. Please, you people who swear by the cult of sabermetric analytics, stop pontificating until something like this doesn’t pop up every time defensive metrics are mentioned.
Well that’s pretty funny that you admit not reading on where the author breaks down the components and shows why they disagree easily. They measure different aspects entirely. Your opinion?
It’s like saying because someone strikes out a lot or grounds into a lot of double plays, they suck, even though they hit .300 with 45 homers.
Few players have all good stats offensively and the same is true defensively. If you’re good in 4 out of 5 you’re still good. Why is that hard to understand?
You’re unwillingness to even read about the stats is encouraged by the constant badmouthing we give defenseive stats as the author mentions. We should stop that.
“Defensive metrics are flawed, highly volatile, and more subjective than offensive stats.” The author also states that the numbers conflict and contradict one another or his admission that “the chart above proves as much” The word proves carries some weight with me. I choose to ignore anything that, even the author who is presenting them, admits are flawed. I do not need flawed information to tell me that Bo Bichette had a really tough year or that Ozzie Smith was pretty good. There are several other statements in the article that reinforce my position. For years everything I read about Ryan Mountcastle was that he was a candidate to be the worst defender in the game regardless of what position the Orioles tried to hide him at. Yet here I read that he led 1st baseman in Outs Above Average. It has been the same since I first started to see defensive metrics in the media and until there is some semblance of agreement I will choose to use my eyes.
“I choose to ignore anything that, even the author who is presenting them, admits are flawed.”
There’s an aphorism in statistics: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong). Every single metric on this site is “flawed” in the sense that it fails to perfectly capture objective reality. If you choose to ignore “flawed” metrics you will ignore all metrics. And that should include what you see with your eyes, which is itself just another (imperfect and limited) form of data.
Piecing different metrics together, like Leo did in this article, can be useful. If they all agree, like they do about Mateo, it means something, and strongly suggests Mateo is a great defender. If they disagree, like they do for some of the others, it still means something: you can dig into the components of each statistic and find out where they disagree and form hypotheses about why that is the case and continue your investigation. That could include using your eyes, but starting and ending with your eyes isn’t itself a solution. After all, the information from “using your eyes” is just as prone to disagreement….unless everyone else’s eyes agree with yours, which I somehow doubt!
Point definitely taken on the noise in the defensive metrics – they have a mixed bag of definitions and the baselines used for things like “league average” and “runs saved” require use of noisy data in the first place.
But, aside from the obvious improvement over fielding percentage as the main defensive stat (Robbie Grossman for Gold Glove?? or maybe Ken Singleton back in the day???), when you have agreement across all the metrics for either well-above or well-below average defense, that becomes a strong signal that a player has performed well or poorly with the glove.
And when a player with consistent strong defensive metrics also passes the eye test, you’d have a very hard time arguing that they weren’t a big plus with the glove. Which is why Mateo’s snub for Gold Glove consideration is so confusing.
I agree that the Gold Glove finalists struck me as unusual in many instances. I seldom watch the Orioles except when they are playing the Red Sox but, in this case, Mateo’s consistently high numbers indicate that the people choosing the finalists are blind. Do people with experience watching baseball closely for years, in my case more than 70, really need to have their eye test reinforced? I have watched Xander Bogaerts play for years and I saw a very steady player who almost never botched a routine play or tossed an easy flip away on a crucial play in the 7th inning of an ALCS game. Did he have great range, no, but he was not the stiff that Bo Bichette is. The various systems appear to value some skills quite differently and that leads to the discrepancies that we see. What is more important, flash or reliability, extra outs lose ball games, but a great play has value? That is simply preference and while I might prefer one or the other I don’t believe metrics have any way of making that determination.
Dismissing a player’s defensive range as “flash” is, with all due respect, foolish. Of course converting routine plays is valuable, but a player who can’t make a play five feet to their left is still a terrible fielder even if they make all the plays that happen right in front of them. Nick Castellanos has a fielding percentage of .990 in the outfield but he’s still putrid because he simply cannot reach most balls in play.
LOL… so this is all just about being pissed that Bogaerts isn’t considered a great fielder?
I thought the “but he makes all of the routine plays” thing was retired when Jeter retired.
We come across this all the time when we try to measure things in more than one way and come up with different results–it’s because the sources of error are different. That’s more or less why factor analysis is a thing.
In any case, there’s an emerging consensus that OAA is superior to the equivalent components of UZR and DRS. It’s not perfect–it seems to be a bit jumpy compared to UZR, but it takes into account shifts which UZR doesn’t do and it’s much more accurate (and less jumpy) than DRS.
I certainly do not see how a system that doesn’t take into account shifts can have any credibility in the game as it has been played for the past several years.
Which is why FG now uses OAA/RAA rather than UZR to calculate range, for the purposes of WAR and DEF.
OAA is also just a lot better than DRS, because it uses Statcast data rather than threaders, and uses every historical play outcome on similar balls to assess the probability of making the play.
it’s been a while now since i started paying attention almost exclusively to oaa and the attendant charts. boone/cashman alluding to drs as their ‘internal metrics’ on ikf really hammered that home for me.
The funniest thing about this comment is at least hafl a dozen other comments have emphatically stated that Mateo passes the eye test with flying colors. If we should throw out the eye test and the metrics… how are we supposed to come to the correct conclusion that Xander Bogaerts deserves the Gold Glove???
Excellent.
This is the first time I’ve seen Mateo’s defensive metrics, but they aren’t surprising to me. As a retiree who spends his entire summer watching game after game, Mateo was the best defensive SS who came through Arlington or I saw on television. With the way voters stress offensive production over actual defensive value these days, Mark Belanger wouldn’t have ever sniffed a Gold Glove. Absurd.
fielding bible awards are ones that really matter
The Padres had him last year, and Baltimore just picked him up off waivers, and he finished 2021 strong.
There is another article on fangraphs saying that SD could enter 2023 with a four shortstop infield. Actually all four will definitely be on the roster, but Tatis might be in the outfield.
Had SD kept Mateo, SD could have had a FIVE SS infield, with Mateo on the bench I guess.
Great for Jorge Mateo. Going to Baltimore was great for him.
What is it about defensive metrics that rank Rosario first in UZR but second last in OAA?
Mateo is the best defensive SS I have seen play and I watched hundreds of Ozzie Smith Games! Mateo simply has more range than Ozzie. Smith was the best at making unbelievable catches probably ever and had great range, but Mateo gets to balls no one else can. Not even Ozzie.
I have to agree. The preponderance of evidence meets the standard of proof imo!
It is too bad that name recognition seems to factor too much sometime. Mateo is a pretty exciting athlete who just happens to not be a great hitter.
The “eye test” is important too but I am pretty sure Mateo more than meets that standard based on the clips shared.
I do like the concept of using the various defensive metrics, as you have here, to compare potential finalists. Wouldn’t necessarily select the winner that way but I think it’s important to ensure no glaring omissions among the finalists. Otherwise, the process doesn’t have a lot of credibility important.
Great, great article. I am among those who have increasingly found themselves dismissing articles/paragraphs that cite defensive metrics to support the author’s case after years of reading the same preemptive hedging — “though we know these stats should be taken with a grain of salt, …” — that is then followed by a conclusion that rests on the (cherry-picked?) negative or positive metrics needed to prove the desired point. Or, more often, based on a WAR that is largely buttressed by said “hypothetical” defensive prowess.
My binary brain appreciates Leo reminding me that each defensive stat is flawed mostly in that it just paints a small picture. Thus, like doubles, SLG or max exit velocity, piecing those pictures together still leads us closer to seeing the jigsaw puzzle than ignoring that data altogether.
Certainly I’ll remain skeptical of each stat’s efficacy in a vacuum, if only because their practical measurement appears difficult, but it’s high time I swing my mindset pendulum from an extreme of “these metrics tell us nothing” to “these metrics tell us a little and, collectively, tell us a little more.”
Yankees and Athletics could use a GG SS. Neither gave him the opportunity
I have to object to the mph stat being an indicator of arm strength. How hard you throw doesn’t mean as much as how quickly you get the ball going to first. There have been a lot of guys who have to take too long to load up and throw and miss baserunners because of it no matter how many mphs are on the throw.
That’d be like a Pop Time number for SS, which I can see the value on.
That said, Mateo didn’t just have a strong arm but quick and smooth reactions when I was saw him.
Fortunately, he did get the Fielding Bible Award for SS. Which makes it even odder that he was not a finalist for the Golden Glove.