2005: 7 E, 237 A, 132 PO, in 621 Innings so far 2004: 7 E, 374 A, 276 PO, in 1189 Innings 2003: 11 E, 354 A, 278 PO, 1116 Innings 2002: 16 E, 412 A, 293 PO, in 1259 Innings 2001: 9 E, 390 A, 269 PO, in 1171 Innings
So, yeah, I'd take "old man Kent", who has done quite well for himself manning the middle infield this century, and before then.
4 ('98 in the NL) Gold gloves for Booner to......
none .
Well, there's where we disagree. If I were choosing my defensive team, I'd hardly take Gold Gloves into consideration, with the way they hand them out these days. I see too many guys getting them on rep these days, stealing them away from other deserving players. Not saying that's the case with Boone, but I'd never use Gold Gloves to support an argument regarding current players.
nuggets wrote:After my own research I must say and retract the absoluteness of my earlier post. The numbers support Kent more than I thought. I know Boone can get to balls that Kent cannot, and turns the double play better than anyone but I didn't expect to see what I did from baseballprospectus.
There is a lot you have to look at when evaluating a fielder, a lot more than fld% and ZR and after intensive discussions about it on this site I have determined that only a large difference in fielding stats can determine the better fielding. IMO, the only real was is to watch them and that's a whole new skill in it's own.
Yeah, Boone used to be one the best fielding secondbasemen ever...he's certainly regressed recently.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by bigh0rt » Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:06 pm 
and retract the absoluteness of my earlier post. The numbers support Kent more than I thought. I know Boone can get to balls that Kent cannot, and turns the double play better than anyone but I didn't expect to see what I did from baseballprospectus. 
