How Will Nick Hit in 2009?

[KakesForROY]

As I mentioned in the 2009 WAR Projections thread, I was hoping to get some community discussion going on how O's players will be producing next year.

Going back through the posts, it seems that there's a consensus for Adam Jones around a .275/.325/.425 line, that Koji Uehara will pitch around 150-160 innings with an ERA in the 4.50-4.75 range, and that Garrett Olson will pitch around 160 innings with an ERA in the 4.75-5.00 range.

Since asking for general projections didn't get much response (though, in fairness, it was only one day), maybe we should go one player at a time.

There's been a lot of talk about what kind of contract Nick Markakis will get, but that should depend largely on his expected future production.

I think Nick's going to be worth whatever they (hopefully) give him, with a .301/.401/.493 line in 650 PA in 2009.

So, do you all think Nick will keeping hitting as well as he did last year or improving, or do you think he'll regress a little bit like most independent projection system do?

I'm going to be updating the roster/projections at http://frostkingbaseball.blogspot.com/2009/01/updated-os-war-sheet.html
and eventually Beyond The Box Score will get all the team projections together to see how the upcoming season may shape up.

Also, I was hoping to put this up with a poll, but couldn't figure out how to do so - I'd appreciate if someone could point out in what way I was being stupid about that.

[El Gordo]

If Nick were still single I'd be inclined to predict improvement. But with a family on the way he may be somewhat distracted. Pretty big change for a young guy to handle in stride.:scratchchinhmm:

[YaBoyTopher]

I think Nick will put up a line of 315/415/510, 25HR 10SB ....thats my projection and I actually think its pretty realistic, I think from this point forward Nick is going to be approaching Berkman type numbers with a little less power.

[Moose Milligan]

Nick has tacked on roughly 50 OPS points every year. Is it not a stretch to think he can approach .950 this year?

I think he can OPS anywhere from .900-.950 this year and if I had to pick I think he falls around .930. Just a hunch.

At the very least, I think he has a year like last year.

[Frobby]

I will give you my totally biased opinion.

Nick Markakis rocks. You can look at his progression from Aberdeen to Delmarva to Frederick to Bowie to the majors, and then years 1 -3, and see he has gotten better every single year. And he's only 25 this season.

You can watch him play, and literally see him getting better not only year-by-year, but month-by-month. You can see him identify weaknesses and work to eliminate or minimize them.

So if you really want to know what I think, in my heart of hearts, I think Nick has another 50-point OPS jump in him, just like he did each of the last two years. I think you'll see his BA rise 15 points or so as the umpires start giving him the borderline ball/strike calls that have gone against him as a younger player, and I think you'll see him turning on more pitches and driving them out of the park. So, put me down for .320/.410/.535.

Now, when I make my projections I won't be that optimistic, because I try to be more conservative. But if you want to know what I really feel is going to happen, see above.

[Mackus]

Is "very well" a good enough answer?

[KakesForROY]

Wow, and I thought I was being too optimistic. I think he does have a .335/.450/.550 season or two in him, but just repeating last year would be great.

I'm a stat guy so going too far past the projection systems (even the most optimistic ones) worries me. I know I'm prone to being too kind to O's players, but given the response thus far I feel pretty comfortable going with the 300/400/500 ish line I've got now.

Going into last year I was hoping he would finally use his great batting eye to up his walk total, and he did. Now he just needs to use his power to increase his HR total, and he'll be a beast at the plate. I think he can do it, considering the power he's able to show to the opposite field.

[Sports Guy]

Better than I could.

[O's84]

Extend him.

[Brady9Fan]

If Nick were still single I'd be inclined to predict improvement. But with a family on the way he may be somewhat distracted. Pretty big change for a young guy to handle in stride.:scratchchinhmm:

Definitely a good observation. Plus, the team could be a big distraction as well if it doesn't improve. Being on a team that is in 4th place or lower for 11 straight seasons wears on people, and Nick has seen this for 3-4 years. I'm surprised Jason Bay put up decent numbers in Pittsburgh for this same reason.

[Old#5fan]

I think Markakis has hit his ceiling already, and unless he bulks up more I don't see his power ever significantly increasing. Back in the rhoid days all he would have needed to do was follow the Raffy Palmeiro needle regimine and no doubt he would be suddenly out of the blue, hammering 35 homers on a yearly basis.

I seriously think if and when they lose Roberts (either trade or to free agency) that Markakis should be the Orioles leadoff hitter for the next 10 years as that is what he is best suited for. He will never be a three or four hitter which is what they really wanted and needed out of him and what he was drafted to fulfill.

[Frobby]

I think Markakis has hit his ceiling already, and unless he bulks up more I don't see his power ever significantly increasing. Back in the rhoid days all he would have needed to do was follow the Raffy Palmeiro needle regimine and no doubt he would be suddenly out of the blue, hammering 35 homers on a yearly basis. I seriousythink if and when they lose Roberts (either trade or to free agency) that Markakis should be the Orioles leadoff hitter for the next 10 years as that is what he is best suited for. He will never be a three or four hitter which is what they really wanted and needed out of him and what he was drafted to fulfill.

Rather than arguing with you, I'll simply say that it will be interesting to see whether anything happens in 2009 that changes your opinion.

[Moose Milligan]

Rather than arguing with you, I'll simply say that it will be interesting to see whether anything happens in 2009 that changes your opinion.

:laughlol:

Watch Nick hit 35 bombs this year and have OldFan complain that he's on roids and he's not that good because guys back in the day didn't have to juice to hit the longball.

Way to go, OldFan, you never disappoint :laughlol:

[Old#5fan]

Rather than arguing with you, I'll simply say that it will be interesting to see whether anything happens in 2009 that changes your opinion.

Fair enough. I am not nearly as enamored with him as you and the majority of others here seem to be. He is a very good but not great player. I think he would no doubt function quite sucessfully in the leadoff spot, but until Roberts goes will continue to hit in the two hole which also isn't a bad spot for him in a lineup. He just doesn't have the pop to hit in the heart of a lineup. He is certainly not a guy that I would want to build a team around, more like a nice addition to a playoff ready team which is why I would bet my house that he eventually ditches the Orioles for the Yankees or Boston. I wonder how much OH love he will garner then?:laughlol::p

[Moose Milligan]

Fair enough. I am not nearly as enamored with him as you and the majority of others here seem to be. He is a very good but not great player. I think he would no doubt function quite sucessfully in the leadoff spot, but until Roberts goes will continue to hit in the two hole which also isn't a bad spot for him in a lineup. He just doesn't have the pop to hit in the heart of a lineup.

Yeah, but he's a gold glove caliber defender, you can't deny that.

[clapdiddy]

Fair enough. I am not nearly as enamored with him as you and the majority of others here seem to be. He is a very good but not great player. I think he would no doubt function quite sucessfully in the leadoff spot, but until Roberts goes will continue to hit in the two hole which also isn't a bad spot for him in a lineup. He just doesn't have the pop to hit in the heart of a lineup.

Actually, he's the #3 hitter.

[Old#5fan]

Yeah, but he's a gold glove caliber defender, you can't deny that.

In his and your dreams, along with about 80% of the OH as well! :laughlol::p

I would bet my truck payment for the next 6 years that Markakis will never win a Gold Glove Award during this same time.

[Old#5fan]

Actually, he's the #3 hitter.

How can you say this? He was moved around like a ping pong ball by DT last year to the 2 and 3 spot. He doesn't drive in enough runs to bat third as he is too much of a walker, which is why he is much better suited to bat leadoff.

As John Wayne used to say, "its as simple as that."

[Frobby]

Fair enough. I am not nearly as enamored with him as you and the majority of others here seem to be. He is a very good but not great player. I think he would no doubt function quite sucessfully in the leadoff spot, but until Roberts goes will continue to hit in the two hole which also isn't a bad spot for him in a lineup. He just doesn't have the pop to hit in the heart of a lineup.

You could have said the same thing about a lot of 24-year old players, like Carl Yastrzemski or Stan Musial, neither of whom ever hit more than 20 HR until they were 27 even though they had been hitting for high average and hitting a lot of doubles in their early careers. So that's why I say we'll see whether anything happens that changes your opinion.

As to the idea of Nick hitting leadoff if BRob leaves, it's not too bad an idea. Nick's not a huge stolen base threat, but with a .400 OBP and close to 50 doubles, he'd work well as the leadoff guy. I also like him at no. 2 where he played last year, and he proved in 2007 that he can handle the no. 3 spot (112 RBI). I don't see him as a cleanup guy, but that's where Wieters eventually comes in, probably not in 2009, but eventually.

[Flosman]

How can you say this? He was moved around like a ping pong ball by DT last year to the 2 and 3 spot. He doesn't drive in enough runs to bat third as he is too much of a walker, which is why he is much better suited to bat leadoff.

As John Wayne used to say, "its as simple as that."

This is kind of like watching the scene in Jaws were the crew of the Orca (old guy) tries to catch the shark with a Rod and Reel. Old guy has no idea what he is chumming up :eek:. The one thing that makesme happy is Old Guyispretty much universally wrong in his predictions. I say Nick is a legit MVP type player this season, 330/415/600 35 hrs.

[Maverick2143]

You could have said the same thing about a lot of 24-year old players, like Carl Yastrzemski or Stan Musial, neither of whom ever hit more than 20 HR until they were 27 even though they had been hitting for high average and hitting a lot of doubles in their early careers. So that's why I say we'll see whether anything happens that changes your opinion.

As to the idea of Nick hitting leadoff if BRob leaves, it's not too bad an idea. Nick's not a huge stolen base threat, but with a .400 OBP and close to 50 doubles, he'd work well as the leadoff guy. I also like him at no. 2 where he played last year, and he proved in 2007 that he can handle the no. 3 spot (112 RBI). I don't see him as a cleanup guy, but that's where Wieters eventually comes in, probably not in 2009, but eventually.

I have been reading Bill James's Baseball Abstract off and on for the last month and I just read the top 10 Right Fielders last night. I was struck with how well their early careers compared to Nick's. If I think about it at lunch time, I'll grab my book and post specifics.

[Old#5fan]

This is kind of like watching the scene in Jaws were the crew of the Orca (old guy) tries to catch the shark with a Rod and Reel. Old guy has no idea what he is chumming up :eek:. The one thing that makesme happy is Old Guyispretty much universally wrong in his predictions. I say Nick is a legit MVP type player this season, 330/415/600 35 hrs.

I can take your ribbing but now you are going to get some from me. I will say that Markakis has about a 1/26 chance of even representing the Orioles in the All-Star game next season (same as any other player on the roster) and a below 1 % of ever and I mean EVER winning an MVP. That is the biggest joke I have ever read on this forum bar none.:laughlol: He hasn't even shown himself to be the best player on the Orioles roster yet and he's gonna jump to best in the AL? That would be a quantum leap bar none!:confused: You need a reality check Mister!:eektf:

[PaulFolk]

I can take your ribbing but now you are going to get some from me. I will say that Markakis has about a 1/26 chance of even representing the Orioles in the All-Star game next season (same as any other player on the roster) and a below 1 % of ever and I mean EVER winning an MVP. That is the biggest joke I have ever read on this forum bar none.:laughlol: He hasn't even shown himself to be the best player on the Orioles roster yet and he's gonna jump to best in the AL? That would be a quantum leap bar none!:confused: You need a reality check Mister!:eektf:
So Markakis has no better a chance of making the All-Star team than, say, Mark Hendrickson, Ryan Freel, or Gregg Zaun?

I...don't think you've thought this through.

[Frobby]

So Markakis has no better a chance of making the All-Star team than, say, Mark Hendrickson, Ryan Freel, or Gregg Zaun?

I...don't think you've thought this through.

Unless something very strange happens, I'd say Nick has about a 1/4 chance of representing the Orioles in the all star game, maybe more like 1/2.

As to MVP, until the Orioles are a good team there's no point even discussing it. By the time the O's are a good team (may we actually see that day!), there's a good chances Wieters will have surpassed him as an MVP candidate.

[Old#5fan]

So Markakis has no better a chance of making the All-Star team than, say, Mark Hendrickson, Ryan Freel, or Gregg Zaun?

I...don't think you've thought this through.

Yeah, thats right. Last year he couldn't even beat out George Sherrill. His odds are so low because there are a lot of more talented outfielders in the AL who get more votes.

[Frobby]

Yeah, thats right. Last year he couldn't even beat out George Sherrill. His odds are so low because there are a lot of more talented outfielders in the AL who get more votes.

You know, you really love to stir the pot and be provocative. That's fine, but in all the arguments you make about Markakis, there is one point you never seem to acknowledge: that he's 25 years old (24 last year) and therefore still has a lot of room to get better. So even if one concedes that he wasn't quite good enough to merit an all-star selection in 2008, don't we have the right to think that, like the majority of players, he is going to keep getting better for a couple of years?

Just take Eddie Murray as an easy example. He was a very good hitter for his first 3 seasons as a very young player, but never had 100 RBI, never made the all-star team, and never won a Gold Glove. But he got better each year and as he hit his mid-late 20's he was an absolute stud.

Is there some reason you feel like Markakis is going to stagnate? Because everything about his career so far says he gets better and better.

[O'sFanThruJune]

How can you say this? He was moved around like a ping pong ball by DT last year to the 2 and 3 spot. He doesn't drive in enough runs to bat third as he is too much of a walker, which is why he is much better suited to bat leadoff.

As John Wayne used to say, "its as simple as that."

To the admittedly small extent that lineup order matters, I have to kind of agree with OldFan. It sure seems to me like Nick is the quintessential #2 hitter. Great OBP, very good BA, good but not great speed, and solid but not outstanding power. Keeping the roster as is, following up Roberts with Markakis seems like a perfect 1-2 punch. And if you can fill up those 3- and 4-slots with good BA and a lot of homers like what we saw out of Huff last year, that's a great way to start your lineup.

Of course, that all changes if the roster is shuffled, or Nick develops 35-homer power, etc.

[ugen64]

To the admittedly small extent that lineup order matters, I have to kind of agree with OldFan. It sure seems to me like Nick is the quintessential #2 hitter. Great OBP, very good BA, good but not great speed, and solid but not outstanding power. Keeping the roster as is, following up Roberts with Markakis seems like a perfect 1-2 punch. And if you can fill up those 3- and 4-slots with good BA and a lot of homers like what we saw out of Huff last year, that's a great way to start your lineup.

Of course, that all changes if the roster is shuffled, or Nick develops 35-homer power, etc.

I don't know - many people prescribe to the idea (and, as you say, it doesn't really matter that much) that you place your best overall hitter at #3, and a big OBP guy at #2 (but not necessarily a slugger). So against righties, that would mean something like this:

1) Roberts
2) Mora/DH signing
3) Markakis
4) Huff
5) Scott

What you're saying is more like this:

1) Roberts
2) Markakis
3) Huff
4) Scott
5) DH signing/Mora/Jones

I'm not sure which of these ideas I like better. I bet a lot will come down to where people feel "comfortable" hitting (not that it should really matter, but ya know).

[Old#5fan]

I don't know - many people prescribe to the idea (and, as you say, it doesn't really matter that much) that you place your best overall hitter at #3, and a big OBP guy at #2 (but not necessarily a slugger). So against righties, that would mean something like this:

1) Roberts
2) Mora/DH signing
3) Markakis
4) Huff
5) Scott

What you're saying is more like this:

1) Roberts
2) Markakis
3) Huff
4) Scott
5) DH signing/Mora/Jones

I'm not sure which of these ideas I like better. I bet a lot will come down to where people feel "comfortable" hitting (not that it should really matter, but ya know).

I thought DT kept moving Markakis down to second and Mora to third in the lineup simply because Mora hit bettter with RISP, even though is BA is considerably lower?

[rlc]

Left handed. I guarantee it.

[rlc]

I thought DT kept moving Markakis down to second and Mora to third in the lineup simply because Mora hit bettter with RISP, even though is BA is considerably lower?

Easy enough to check:

Nick Mel
RISP .311/.435/.523 .360/.417/.547
Second .345/.439/.534 .225/.277/.372
Third .271/.374/.452 .327/.390/.574

Markakis hit well with RISP, but Mora was even better. The more significant split, though, is that Mel was just killing the team batting second, while Nick was somewhat pedestrian batting third.

As for what Trembley's reasoning actually was, who knows? Hitting Mora third allowed him to hit Huff fourth and still have a L-R-L batting order, which seems to be something he likes to do.

[OrangeJerseys]

I presume with a Louisville Slugger.

.299/27 HR/122 RBI/.501 SLG

[Old#5fan]

Easy enough to check:

Nick Mel
RISP .311/.435/.523 .360/.417/.547
Second .345/.439/.534 .225/.277/.372
Third .271/.374/.452 .327/.390/.574

Markakis hit well with RISP, but Mora was even better. The more significant split, though, is that Mel was just killing the team batting second, while Nick was somewhat pedestrian batting third.

As for what Trembley's reasoning actually was, who knows? Hitting Mora third allowed him to hit Huff fourth and still have a L-R-L batting order, which seems to be something he likes to do.

Thanks. Good post. To me an alleged hitter on the verge of greatness should want to and actually relish hitting third. If Markakis is going to be something special or a superstar as some who think they are wise presume, I think he should be flourishing not pedestrian batting third. But then again, thats just me. What do I know?

[Andy_Dufresne]

Nick has tacked on roughly 50 OPS points every year. Is it not a stretch to think he can approach .950 this year?

I think he can OPS anywhere from .900-.950 this year and if I had to pick I think he falls around .930. Just a hunch.

At the very least, I think he has a year like last year.

Josh Hamilton had an OPS last season of .901, he hit 32 HRs 130 RBI hit .300.

If the Orioles have any inclination that Markakis will have an OPS around 930, they need to give him his 6/70 contract.

.930 OPS would make MArkais one of the elite players in baseball, considering ARod and Teixeira had OPS over .960.

BTW Milton Bradley had an OPS of .999, Pujols and Chipper Jones were over 1.100

[KakesForROY]

Josh Hamilton had an OPS last season of .901, he hit 32 HRs 130 RBI hit .300.

If the Orioles have any inclination that Markakis will have an OPS around 930, they need to give him his 6/70 contract.

.930 OPS would make MArkais one of the elite players in baseball, considering ARod and Teixeira had OPS over .960.

BTW Milton Bradley had an OPS of .999, Pujols and Chipper Jones were over 1.100

Considering Nick put up a .306/.406/.491 line last year (.897 OPS), it would only take a 5 point bump in OBP and a 28 point increase in SLG to get there (to .930).

I don't think it'll happen, but if a few of those doubles start leaving the park there is a chance.

[Andy_Dufresne]

Considering Nick put up a .306/.406/.491 line last year (.897 OPS), it would only take a 5 point bump in OBP and a 28 point increase in SLG to get there (to .930).

I don't think it'll happen, but if a few of those doubles start leaving the park there is a chance.

If the O's had someone hitting behind Nick to drive him in from 2nd, he wouldn't need to have 30HRs to be a super star. And if they had someone with speed and a good OBP batting second Nick would have 120RBI instead of 87.

A .310 hitter with 45 doubles and 23 HRs and a .390+ OBP would make Nick one of the premier players in baseball. But without someone to drive him in and a couple of players to get on base, his talent may go to waste.

[Hallas]

.330/.470/.670 and an MVP award, obviously. :D

[Hallas]

Thanks. Good post. To me an alleged hitter on the verge of greatness should want to and actually relish hitting third. If Markakis is going to be something special or a superstar as some who think they are wise presume, I think he should be flourishing not pedestrian batting third. But then again, thats just me. What do I know?

Somewhat unrelated as you're addressing the common notions of a #3 hitter, but having your best hitter at #2 is actually a better move statistically than having him at #3. With Roberts at 1, Markakis at 2, and monstrous-Huff at 4, the O's batting lineup was actually pretty-well optimized for maximal run output.

(reference the chapter of "Inside the Book" on batting order.)

I know you've sort of got it in for Markakis though, so I think you're looking for reasons to hate.

[Andy_Dufresne]

Somewhat unrelated as you're addressing the common notions of a #3 hitter, but having your best hitter at #2 is actually a better move statistically than having him at #3. With Roberts at 1, Markakis at 2, and monstrous-Huff at 4, the O's batting lineup was actually pretty-well optimized for maximal run output.

(reference the chapter of "Inside the Book" on batting order.)

I know you've sort of got it in for Markakis though, so I think you're looking for reasons to hate.

Interesting theory about the best hitter hitting second. What teams have employed the strategy? I don't recall Pujols, Manny, Chipper, ARod, Mauer batting second. When was the last time a Batting title went to a #2 hitter.

Jeter bats second, is he the Yankees best hitter?

[Hallas]

Interesting theory about the best hitter hitting second. What teams have employed the strategy? I don't recall Pujols, Manny, Chipper, ARod, Mauer batting second. When was the last time a Batting title went to a #2 hitter.

Jeter bats second, is he the Yankees best hitter?

Actually the best hitters should be shuffled at 1, 2, and 4. The general rule is that your best OBP guy goes 1st, and your best SLG guy goes 4th. Ideally we'd actually have Nick batting 1st and Roberts batting 2nd, because Roberts' abilities as a baserunner are generally brushed aside in the equation, but I'm happy with a .380 OBP guy leading off

The logic behind this is that the #4 hitter will bat leadoff 20% of the time in the 2nd inning even with great hitters ahead of him, and leadoff is a far better-leverage situation than no one on, 2 outs, which a #3 hitter sees 35% of the time.

But I'm largely saying this to promote discussion, as the difference between the best lineup and the worst lineup is pretty meager, and most teams do a good enough job approximating that it's better to stick people where they're comfortable.

[Fairfax Bird]

Markakis ... .310/.410/.500

Jones ... .280/.325/.450

Pie ... .240/.310./425

[Leitch]

.320/.431/.570

[Flosman]

I can take your ribbing but now you are going to get some from me. I will say that Markakis has about a 1/26 chance of even representing the Orioles in the All-Star game next season (same as any other player on the roster) and a below 1 % of ever and I mean EVER winning an MVP. That is the biggest joke I have ever read on this forum bar none.:laughlol: He hasn't even shown himself to be the best player on the Orioles roster yet and he's gonna jump to best in the AL? That would be a quantum leap bar none!:confused: You need a reality check Mister!:eektf:


To think that Nick is not capable if 325/425/600 and 30+ hrs is very illogical, IMO. Combine those numbers with his baserunning and defense and you have a MVP type season. He won't win it because of the team he is on. BTW ask anyone in baseball who the best player on the O's is.

[Old#5fan]

To think that Nick is not capable if 325/425/600 and 30+ hrs is very illogical, IMO. Combine those numbers with his baserunning and defense and you have a MVP type season. He won't win it because of the team he is on. BTW ask anyone in baseball who the best player on the O's is.

News Flash for ya! He wouldn't win it either if he was on the Phillies, Rays, Red Sox, or Yankees because he wouldn't be the best on any of those teams. Just another good hitter.

[NewMarketSean]

OldFan thinks Markakis as overrated because he doesn't consider the ability to draw walks as a positive trait in a baseball player. So he looks at the .055 increase in OBP that Markakis has made over his 3 seasons in the majors (despite his average only increasing .016 points over that time) and thumbs his nose at it.

OldFan was raised on baseball card stats before they started to add OBP and OPS to them. So you really can't blame him. He is a product of his environment when people thought RBI's were the best stat to judge a player by despite the fact that they are totally reliable on what players batting before you do.

Oh and nothing will ever make him change his mind.

[Old#5fan]

OldFan thinks Markakis as overrated because he doesn't consider the ability to draw walks as a positive trait in a baseball player. So he looks at the .055 increase in OBP that Markakis has made over his 3 seasons in the majors (despite his average only increasing .016 points over that time) and thumbs his nose at it.

OldFan was raised on baseball card stats before they started to add OBP and OPS to them. So you really can't blame him. He is a product of his environment when people thought RBI's were the best stat to judge a player by despite the fact that they are totally reliable on what players batting before you do.

Oh and nothing will ever make him change his mind.

Not quite correct. I do think it is a positive ability to draw walks as a lead off hitter, just not a heart of the lineup hitter. This why I now look at Markakis as more of a leadoff hitter. If only he had more speed he would be ideal in that role.

[Austin]

You know, you really love to stir the pot and be provocative. That's fine, but in all the arguments you make about Markakis, there is one point you never seem to acknowledge: that he's 25 years old (24 last year) and therefore still has a lot of room to get better. So even if one concedes that he wasn't quite good enough to merit an all-star selection in 2008, don't we have the right to think that, like the majority of players, he is going to keep getting better for a couple of years?

Just take Eddie Murray as an easy example. He was a very good hitter for his first 3 seasons as a very young player, but never had 100 RBI, never made the all-star team, and never won a Gold Glove. But he got better each year and as he hit his mid-late 20's he was an absolute stud.

Is there some reason you feel like Markakis is going to stagnate? Because everything about his career so far says he gets better and better.

OldFan conveniently ignores this post.

[Old#5fan]

OldFan conveniently ignores this post.

I didn't ignore it for any particular reason. I just take the opposite side of the coin. There is zero guarantee that Markakis isn't already at his ceiling. Also, what the heck does Eddie Murray have to do with Nick Markakis? They don't even resemble each other. Murray has way more power and was a switch hitter. He also was a firstbaseman or DH not an outfielder. Bad comparison.

I think Markakis could probably be more accurately compared to Brady Anderson as that is what I see of him. A leadoff hitter, only unfortunately he doesn't have Brady's speed.

[Flosman]

News Flash for ya! He wouldn't win it either if he was on the Phillies, Rays, Red Sox, or Yankees because he wouldn't be the best on any of those teams. Just another good hitter.

Even last season he had the 19th best OPS in the majors. Which a reasonable assumption that he would be the best hitter on many teams could be made from that stat alone. The line I said he is capable of producing would rank him 3rd in the majors. So what are you talking about.

[Old#5fan]

Even last season he had the 19th best OPS in the majors. Which a reasonable assumption that he would be the best hitter on many teams could be made from that stat alone. The line I said he is capable of producing would rank him 3rd in the majors. So what are you talking about.

Not on the Yankees, Rays, Phillies, or Boston. That was what the other guy was trying to spout in his post. He was falsely trying to claim that if Markakis was on a contending team he would win an MVP. That is laughable and another example of the extremely overrating of this guy and embellishment of his abilities that goes on here. It is almost embarassing to see. Luckily probably not to many fans of other teams visit here much or they would be laughing themselves silly of this Markakis lovefest seen here.:rolleyestf:

I can only imagine what this board would be like if the Orioles ever truly glean a real superstar on this team. There would probably be a church established in order to worship him regularly!:rofl:

[Frobby]

I didn't ignore it for any particular reason. I just take the opposite side of the coin. There is zero guarantee that Markakis isn't already at his ceiling. Also, what the heck does Eddie Murray have to do with Nick Markakis? They don't even resemble each other. Murray has way more power and was a switch hitter. He also was a firstbaseman or DH not an outfielder. Bad comparison.

I think Markakis could probably be more accurately compared to Brady Anderson as that is what I see of him. A leadoff hitter, only unfortunately he doesn't have Brady's speed.

While nobody can be 100 percent sure Nick hasn't reached his ceiling, general aging trends for major league players and Nick's trend in particular strongly suggests he hasn't. As I said before there is no point in my arguing with you on this - the season will be played and Nick either will keep getting better or he won't.

[KakesForROY]

If this is Nick's ceiling and he just maintains it for the next 6 years then he's still a beast of a player. I'm still amazed that my .301/.401/.493 (which I thought was high) is mostly a distinct lower bound for him next year according to most of the people who've posted thus far.

[Frobby]

I think Markakis could probably be more accurately compared to Brady Anderson as that is what I see of him. A leadoff hitter, only unfortunately he doesn't have Brady's speed.

This comparison makes my point and explains why so many us are high on Nick. You are right Nick last year was pretty comparable to Brady Anderson -- in Brady's prime. But when Brady was 24, he put up a line of .212/.272/.286. Brady didn't hit his prime until age 28 at which point he had a string of seasons that weren't far off what Nick did last year (though Nick's .897 OPS last year was better than any year Brady ever had except for his fluky 50 HR season). If Nick continues getting better as Brady did until age 28 he'll be putting up incredible numbers by then.

[Leitch]

Not on the Yankees, Rays, Phillies, or Boston. That was what the other guy was trying to spout in his post. He was falsely trying to claim that if Markakis was on a contending team he would win an MVP. That is laughable and another example of the extremely overrating of this guy and embellishment of his abilities that goes on here.

I can only imagine what this board would be like if the Orioles ever truly glean a real superstar on this team. There would probably be a church established in order to worship him regularly!:rofl:

By OPS, VORP, EqA, wOBA - almost every offensive and total value metric - Markakis outplayed Evan Longoria.

Also, I'm sure that no one on this board is old enough to remember and appreciate Cal Ripken's career :confused:

[Old#5fan]

By OPS, VORP, EqA, wOBA - almost every offensive and total value metric - Markakis outplayed Evan Longoria.

Also, I'm sure that no one on this board is old enough to remember and appreciate Cal Ripken's career :confused:

There is nobody on this planet who would take Nick Markakis over Evan Longoria. Longoria is already a superstar so please stop with this ridiculous over-rating of a very good player in Markakis.

[weams]

I didn't ignore it for any particular reason. I just take the opposite side of the coin. There is zero guarantee that Markakis isn't already at his ceiling. Also, what the heck does Eddie Murray have to do with Nick Markakis? They don't even resemble each other. Murray has way more power and was a switch hitter. He also was a firstbaseman or DH not an outfielder. Bad comparison.

I think Markakis could probably be more accurately compared to Brady Anderson as that is what I see of him. A leadoff hitter, only unfortunately he doesn't have Brady's speed.


Brady had more power. He hit 50 one year!

[ChaosLex]

Brady had more power. He hit 50 one year!

I think he got a little help with those 50, if you know what I mean. ;)

[Leitch]

There is nobody on this planet who would take Nick Markakis over Evan Longoria. Longoria is already a superstar so please stop with this ridiculous over-rating of a very good player in Markakis.

I didn't say anything like that.

I said that in 2008, Nick Markakis played better baseball than Evan Longoria did in 2008. If Nick Markakis was a 2008 Devil Ray, he would have been the best player on the team in 2008.

That's what I said. If you want to argue who is a better long-term asset or whatever go for it but I was backing up someone's point that in 2008 Markakis could have been the best position player on at least one 2008 playoff team. You could also say that about the 2008 Brewers and probably the 2008 Angels in 2008.

In a vacuum, Markakis 2008 > Longoria 2008

[Leitch]

I think he got a little help with those 50, if you know what I mean. ;)

He only hit 19 of them in Camden Yards, if that's what you mean ;)

[Old#5fan]

Brady had more power. He hit 50 one year!

Please, don't bring that steriod aided abberation of a season up. I actually liked Brady Anderson until that singular season was the turning point in his careeer going south.

[DrungoHazewood]

Thanks. Good post. To me an alleged hitter on the verge of greatness should want to and actually relish hitting third. If Markakis is going to be something special or a superstar as some who think they are wise presume, I think he should be flourishing not pedestrian batting third. But then again, thats just me. What do I know?

Not much. At least not about splits in someone's batting line.


Not quite correct. I do think it is a positive ability to draw walks as a lead off hitter, just not a heart of the lineup hitter. This why I now look at Markakis as more of a leadoff hitter. If only he had more speed he would be ideal in that role.

You're wrong. Plate discipline is one of the keys to being a successful hitter whether you're batting 1st, 9th, or anywhere else.


I didn't ignore it for any particular reason. I just take the opposite side of the coin. There is zero guarantee that Markakis isn't already at his ceiling. Also, what the heck does Eddie Murray have to do with Nick Markakis? They don't even resemble each other. Murray has way more power and was a switch hitter. He also was a firstbaseman or DH not an outfielder. Bad comparison.

I think Markakis could probably be more accurately compared to Brady Anderson as that is what I see of him. A leadoff hitter, only unfortunately he doesn't have Brady's speed.

I often confuse Nick and Eddie. I mistakenly thought they were brothers.

You do realize that Brady Anderson was about 1/100th the player Nick is until he'd been in the league about 3-4 years? You do know that, right? I assume you made your comp ionly because it's insulting to Markakis.


Not on the Yankees, Rays, Phillies, or Boston. That was what the other guy was trying to spout in his post. He was falsely trying to claim that if Markakis was on a contending team he would win an MVP. That is laughable and another example of the extremely overrating of this guy and embellishment of his abilities that goes on here. It is almost embarassing to see. Luckily probably not to many fans of other teams visit here much or they would be laughing themselves silly of this Markakis lovefest seen here.:rolleyestf:

I can only imagine what this board would be like if the Orioles ever truly glean a real superstar on this team. There would probably be a church established in order to worship him regularly!:rofl:

Objective information is your friend. You can actually look some of this stuff up on the interwebs before you go and post factually incorrect information.

Keep in mind for future posts.


There is nobody on this planet who would take Nick Markakis over Evan Longoria. Longoria is already a superstar so please stop with this ridiculous over-rating of a very good player in Markakis.

Not even the point being made. Make it simpler to defend your position when you get to ignore the original post, and pick out an easier point to rebut!


Please, don't bring that steriod aided abberation of a season up. I actually liked Brady Anderson until that singular season was the turning point in his careeer going south.

You never really saw Brady Anderson play, did you? Because he was an excellent player in 1992, 1993, and 1995. He peaked in 1996, then had four more very good/excellent seasons afterwards.

What a trainwreck.

[Old#5fan]

Not much. At least not about splits in someone's batting line.



You're wrong. Plate discipline is one of the keys to being a successful hitter whether you're batting 1st, 9th, or anywhere else.



I often confuse Nick and Eddie. I mistakenly thought they were brothers.

You do realize that Brady Anderson was about 1/100th the player Nick is until he'd been in the league about 3-4 years? You do know that, right? I assume you made your comp ionly because it's insulting to Markakis.



Objective information is your friend. You can actually look some of this stuff up on the interwebs before you go and post factually incorrect information.

Keep in mind for future posts.



Not even the point being made. Make it simpler to defend your position when you get to ignore the original post, and pick out an easier point to rebut!



You never really saw Brady Anderson play, did you? Because he was an excellent player in 1992, 1993, and 1995. He peaked in 1996, then had four more very good/excellent seasons afterwards.

What a trainwreck.


The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your beliefs on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?
The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

[NewMarketSean]

The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your believes on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?
The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

I will take PRODUCTION over what Brady LOOKED LIKE as a player any day.

No matter how you want to spin it, the facts are:

1. With the 50 HR 1996 season, Anderson set a then career high in OBP with .396.
2. In 1997, he would only lower his OBP by .003 while hitting 32 less HR.
3. In 1999, he set his career high in OBP with .404. Keep in mind this is 3 years after 1996 -- the point where you say his career took a turn for the worse.
4. In 2000, with a .257 AVG, he was still able to get on base at a .375 clip.
5. Brady never hit half the number of HR's he did in 1996 in any season after that year. So I don't know how his swing could be longer and more HR oriented. If anything, he became less obsessed with the HR and got on base more.

And since you love to dismiss OBP and the ability to draw a walk, remember that Brady was a lead-off hitter, and you admitted to valuing the ability to draw walks in the lead-off spot.

So what we're basically looking at here is that Brady had the best seasons of his career starting in 1996 (the year he hit 50 HR) and 3 of the next 4 years after he hit 50 HR.

So you are wrong. 100%.

[ChaosLex]

Not much. At least not about splits in someone's batting line.



You're wrong. Plate discipline is one of the keys to being a successful hitter whether you're batting 1st, 9th, or anywhere else.



I often confuse Nick and Eddie. I mistakenly thought they were brothers.

You do realize that Brady Anderson was about 1/100th the player Nick is until he'd been in the league about 3-4 years? You do know that, right? I assume you made your comp ionly because it's insulting to Markakis.



Objective information is your friend. You can actually look some of this stuff up on the interwebs before you go and post factually incorrect information.

Keep in mind for future posts.



Not even the point being made. Make it simpler to defend your position when you get to ignore the original post, and pick out an easier point to rebut!



You never really saw Brady Anderson play, did you? Because he was an excellent player in 1992, 1993, and 1995. He peaked in 1996, then had four more very good/excellent seasons afterwards.

What a trainwreck.

Great post as always, Drungo. Rep coming your way! :)

Not like you need it. :p;)

[DrungoHazewood]

The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your believes on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

You clearly don't read what I write, because I rarely say that I'm 100% certain of anything, with the possible execption of the knowledge that your posts have no foundation.


Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?
The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

You seem to be confusing production with approach. Brady was a productive player for four years after his big season. How he did that is irrelevant.

[NewMarketSean]

You clearly don't read what I write, because I rarely say that I'm 100% certain of anything, with the possible execption of the knowledge that your posts have no foundation.



You seem to be confusing production with approach. Brady was a productive player for four years after his big season. How he did that is irrelevant.

DH, see my above post. Not only was he productive for 4 years after 1996, he had 3 of his 4 best best seasons as a lead-off after 1996.

[Lucky Jim]

The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your believes on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?
The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

Except that it didn't.


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1988 24 TOT AL 94 325 31 69 13 4 1 21 10 6 23 75 .212 .272 .286 57 93 11 1 0 4 3
BOS AL 41 148 14 34 5 3 0 12 4 2 15 35 .230 .315 .304 72 45 4 1 0 4 2
BAL AL 53 177 17 35 8 1 1 9 6 4 8 40 .198 .232 .271 43 48 7 0 0 0 1
1989 25 BAL AL 94 266 44 55 12 2 4 16 16 4 43 45 .207 .324 .312 84 83 5 0 6 3 4
1990 26 BAL AL 89 234 24 54 5 2 3 24 15 2 31 46 .231 .327 .308 82 72 4 5 2 5 4
1991 27 BAL AL 113 256 40 59 12 3 2 27 12 5 38 44 .230 .338 .324 88 83 11 3 0 5 1
1992 28 BAL AL 159 623 100 169 28 10 21 80 53 16 98 98 .271 .373 .449 129 280 10 9 14 9 2 MVP-14,AS
1993 29 BAL AL 142 560 87 147 36 8 13 66 24 12 82 99 .263 .363 .425 108 238 6 6 4 10 4
1994 30 BAL AL 111 453 78 119 25 5 12 48 31 1 57 75 .263 .356 .419 96 190 3 2 3 10 7
1995 31 BAL AL 143 554 108 145 33 10 16 64 26 7 87 111 .262 .371 .444 110 246 4 2 4 10 3
1996 32 BAL AL 149 579 117 172 37 5 50 110 21 8 76 106 .297 .396 .637 156 369 6 4 1 22 11 MVP-9,AS
1997 33 BAL AL 151 590 97 170 39 7 18 73 18 12 84 105 .288 .393 .469 128 277 2 1 6 19 1 AS
1998 34 BAL AL 133 479 84 113 28 3 18 51 21 7 75 78 .236 .356 .420 103 201 4 1 1 15 7
1999 35 BAL AL 150 564 109 159 28 5 24 81 36 7 96 105 .282 .404 .477 128 269 1 7 7 24 6
2000 36 BAL AL 141 506 89 130 26 0 19 50 16 9 92 103 .257 .375 .421 106 213 5 7 5 8 4


Anderson was arguably better after that year than before. Granted, he declined quickly once he hit 35. But I'm not sure what that's got to do with your theory - after all, most players decline at 35.

Average OPS+ in four years before his 50 HR year: 110.
Average OPS+ in four years after his 50 HR year: 116.

Further, his BB percentages stayed roughly the same and his K percentages did not go up until his steep decline beginning in 2000.

He suffered a bad year in 1998, otherwise he was productive until 36.

[Old#5fan]

You clearly don't read what I write, because I rarely say that I'm 100% certain of anything, with the possible execption of the knowledge that your posts have no foundation.



You seem to be confusing production with approach. Brady was a productive player for four years after his big season. How he did that is irrelevant.

It is relevant as if he would have cut down on his uppercut Babe Ruth swing, he may have been a HOF player. He hit far to many fly balls to the warning track and rolled over to second base. Had he not had that abberational season he could have ended up with stats similar to Ricky Henderson and HOF career.

[DrungoHazewood]

Except that it didn't.


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1988 24 TOT AL 94 325 31 69 13 4 1 21 10 6 23 75 .212 .272 .286 57 93 11 1 0 4 3
BOS AL 41 148 14 34 5 3 0 12 4 2 15 35 .230 .315 .304 72 45 4 1 0 4 2
BAL AL 53 177 17 35 8 1 1 9 6 4 8 40 .198 .232 .271 43 48 7 0 0 0 1
1989 25 BAL AL 94 266 44 55 12 2 4 16 16 4 43 45 .207 .324 .312 84 83 5 0 6 3 4
1990 26 BAL AL 89 234 24 54 5 2 3 24 15 2 31 46 .231 .327 .308 82 72 4 5 2 5 4
1991 27 BAL AL 113 256 40 59 12 3 2 27 12 5 38 44 .230 .338 .324 88 83 11 3 0 5 1
1992 28 BAL AL 159 623 100 169 28 10 21 80 53 16 98 98 .271 .373 .449 129 280 10 9 14 9 2 MVP-14,AS
1993 29 BAL AL 142 560 87 147 36 8 13 66 24 12 82 99 .263 .363 .425 108 238 6 6 4 10 4
1994 30 BAL AL 111 453 78 119 25 5 12 48 31 1 57 75 .263 .356 .419 96 190 3 2 3 10 7
1995 31 BAL AL 143 554 108 145 33 10 16 64 26 7 87 111 .262 .371 .444 110 246 4 2 4 10 3
1996 32 BAL AL 149 579 117 172 37 5 50 110 21 8 76 106 .297 .396 .637 156 369 6 4 1 22 11 MVP-9,AS
1997 33 BAL AL 151 590 97 170 39 7 18 73 18 12 84 105 .288 .393 .469 128 277 2 1 6 19 1 AS
1998 34 BAL AL 133 479 84 113 28 3 18 51 21 7 75 78 .236 .356 .420 103 201 4 1 1 15 7
1999 35 BAL AL 150 564 109 159 28 5 24 81 36 7 96 105 .282 .404 .477 128 269 1 7 7 24 6
2000 36 BAL AL 141 506 89 130 26 0 19 50 16 9 92 103 .257 .375 .421 106 213 5 7 5 8 4


Anderson was arguably better after that year than before. Granted, he declined quickly once he hit 35. But I'm not sure what that's got to do with your theory - after all, most players decline at 35.

Average OPS+ in four years before his 50 HR year: 110.
Average OPS+ in four years after his 50 HR year: 116.

Further, his BB percentages stayed roughly the same and his K percentages did not go up until his steep decline beginning in 2000.

He suffered a bad year in 1998, otherwise he was productive until 36.

Again, you can't quote facts to someone who doesn't believe in facts. The only things that are real are things that have been vetted by groups of curmudgeonly sportswriters.

[DrungoHazewood]

It is relevant as if he would have cut down on his uppercut Babe Ruth swing, he may have been a HOF player. He hit far to many fly balls to the warning track and rolled over to second base. Had he not had that abberational season he could have ended up with stats similar to Ricky Henderson and HOF career.

I don't care a bit about what he might have been. I care what he was. And what Brady Anderson was in the four years after 1996 was a better player than he was in the four years prior.

[Leitch]

Had he not had that abberational season he could have ended up with stats similar to Ricky Henderson and HOF career.

Are you serious? Rickey Henderson played for 25 years. He averaged more steals per 162 than Anderson had in his best year. He took 1,230 more walks than Anderson. He has more than four times as many stolen bases.

You can't be serious.

[Old#5fan]

I don't care a bit about what he might have been. I care what he was. And what Brady Anderson was in the four years after 1996 was a better player than he was in the four years prior.

Well you should have because apparently you as any Oriole fan does want to see Oriole players make it to the HOF. IMO Brady had he cut down on his swing and not become so inadvertently enamored of the long ball could have had much better numbers.

[Moose Milligan]

Are you serious? Rickey Henderson played for 25 years. He averaged more steals per 162 than Anderson had in his best year. He took 1,230 more walks than Anderson. He has more than four times as many stolen bases.

You can't be serious.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!

<img src = "http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/mcenroe_4.jpg">

:laughlol:

[Old#5fan]

Are you serious? Rickey Henderson played for 25 years. He averaged more steals per 162 than Anderson had in his best year. He took 1,230 more walks than Anderson. He has more than four times as many stolen bases.

You can't be serious.

I am not talking about steals and longevity numbers per se. However, I don't think Brady's career would have flamed out as such a relatively young age, especially when you consider he was a physical fitness nut and in great playing shape and really not ever suffering any major injury. What caused his premature decline and ultimate demise was his hard headedness in trying to replicate the 50 homer season.

[NewMarketSean]

Well you should have because apparently you as any Oriole fan does want to see Oriole players make it to the HOF. IMO Brady had he cut down on his swing and not become so inadvertently enamored of the long ball could have had much better numbers.

Better numbers where? How? He had his best numbers for a lead-off guy after he hit 50 home runs. This is typical OldFan-being-zany-so-people-will-pay-attention-to-me.

[Old#5fan]

Better numbers where? How? He had his best numbers for a lead-off guy after he hit 50 home runs. This is typical OldFan-being-zany-so-people-will-pay-attention-to-me.

Better numbers as in better than what he posted. How difficult is that to understand? He could have been even better had he not been swinging for the fences. It got much worse towards the end of his career. He had trouble even making contact he was over-swinging so much.

[Maverick2143]

Better numbers where? How? He had his best numbers for a lead-off guy after he hit 50 home runs. This is typical OldFan-being-zany-so-people-will-pay-attention-to-me.


<img src = "http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/CarrieSi/attention_whore3.jpg">

[NewMarketSean]

Better numbers as in better than what he posted. How difficult is that to understand? He could have been even better had he not been swinging for the fences. It got much worse towards the end of his career. He had trouble even making contact he was over-swinging so much.

If he tried swinging for the fences after 1996, then why didn't his numbers suffer for it? Why didn't his batting average go down (it went up)? Why didn't his OBP go down (it went up)? Why didn't his K's spike (they stayed about the same).

For someone who prides himself on being able to notice changes in players and whether they will be good or bad at the outset of their career by watching them on TV, you should know that regardless of whether he was swinging for the fences or not -- it didn't affect his numbers. You say he could have been even better... well he was better. Maybe you were asking for too much.

[Old#5fan]

If he tried swinging for the fences after 1996, then why didn't his numbers suffer for it? Why didn't his batting average go down (it went up)? Why didn't his OBP go down (it went up)? Why didn't his K's spike (they stayed about the same).

For someone who prides himself on being able to notice changes in players and whether they will be good or bad at the outset of their career by watching them on TV, you should know that regardless of whether he was swinging for the fences or not -- it didn't affect his numbers. You say he could have been even better... well he was better. Maybe you were asking for too much.

Again, you would have to recall watching him during this period. Once more, you like other youngsters here seem unduly stuck on numbers. I will spell this out again, he c-o-u-l-d h-a-v-e p-o-s-t-e-d H-O-F n-u-m-b-e-r-s h-a-d h-e c-u-t d-o-w-n o-n -s-w-i-n-g-i-n-g f-o-r t-h-e f-e-n-c-e-s.


He also became a shell of his former self late in his career as his overswinging totally became an obsession with him. He even had to be moved down in the lineup. One of my worst memories is he striking out while trying to homer when Cal was on deck for the last bat of his career. I will never forgive Anderson for his stupid selfishness.

[NewMarketSean]

Again, you would have to recall watching him during this period. Once more, you like other youngsters here seem unduly stuck on numbers. I will spell this out again, he c-o-u-l-d h-a-v-e p-o-s-t-e-d H-O-F n-u-m-b-e-r-s h-a-d h-e c-u-t d-o-w-n o-n -s-w-i-n-g-i-n-g f-o-r t-h-e f-e-n-c-e-s.

He also became a shell of his former self late in his career as his overswinging totally became an obsession with him. He even had to be moved down in the lineup. One of my worst memories is he striking out while trying to homer when Cal was on deck for the last bat of his career. I will never forgive Anderson for his stupid selfishness.

Hmmm... so if he was going to cut down on HR's, how does he get to the HoF then? By hitting 100 doubles a year? By having an OBP of .800? By striking out twice a season?

In 1996 he was 32 and up until then, a decent but not great lead-off hitter. From 1996-2000, he was a great lead-off hitter. It would have been pretty hard for him to have gone from solid player at 32 to Hall of Fame caliber player in just 5 years.

And I watched him throughout his entire career, pal. I was at Cal's last game and saw him strike out. And in typical Old#5Fan fashion, one AB = a trend.

[Miller192]

You guys seriously are doing this?

You really don't know better by now?

[NewMarketSean]

You guys seriously are doing this?

You really don't know better by now?

I just want to know how someone can go from Mike Devereaux to Hall of Famer in 5 seasons.

[Old#5fan]

I just want to know how someone can go from Mike Devereaux to Hall of Famer in 5 seasons.

I think Anderson could have played another three or four seasons had he not become so enamored with the long ball that he lost his focus and ability as a pure hitter.

Instead of scoffing and belittling, what is your explanation as to why his career so abruptly took a turn south? He went from one of the premier leadoff hitters in the game to a guy who seemed a safe bet to whiff more times than not when he came up. Most good players when their skills start to decline take other measures, like shortening their swing, changing their stance, etc. Not Brady, he continued to swing for the fences like there was no tomorrow.

[NewMarketSean]

I think Anderson could have played another three or four seasons had he not become so enamored with the long ball that he lost his focus and ability as a pure hitter.

Brady could have played until he was 42? OK................................................ ...........


Instead of scoffing and belittling, what is your explanation as to why his career so abruptly took a turn south?

You are right about one thing. His career turned south fast. In 2001. He was 37. Thats when it usually happens for most ball players and Brady was no exception. From 1996-2000 he was probably one of the best, if not, the best leadoff hitter in baseball.

[Old#5fan]

Brady could have played until he was 42? OK................................................ ...........



You are right about one thing. His career turned south fast. In 2001. He was 37. Thats when it usually happens for most ball players and Brady was no exception. From 1996-2000 he was probably one of the best, if not, the best leadoff hitter in baseball.

Ricky Henderson played well into his forties and was still productive. Anderson was by all appearances in as good shape or better physically (he was a workout nut) so yes, I thought he should have been able to play into his forties and apparently, so did the Orioles who gave him a long term contract.

[Old#5fan]

Brady could have played until he was 42? OK................................................ ...........



You are right about one thing. His career turned south fast. In 2001. He was 37. Thats when it usually happens for most ball players and Brady was no exception. From 1996-2000 he was probably one of the best, if not, the best leadoff hitter in baseball.

Ricky Henderson played well into his forties and was still productive. Anderson was by all appearances in as good shape or better physically (he was a workout nut) so yes, I thought he should have been able to play into his forties and apparently, so did the Orioles who gave him a long term contract. Cal also played past forty and there was no reason for Brady not to other than his hard headed swinging for the fences mentality that did him in, not his age.

[OsLuvrInKy]

Thank you Old#5Fan. After almost 2 years on this site I have finally figured out how to...
...











Put somebody on ignore....:laughlol::rofl::clap3:

[Old#5fan]

Thank you Old#5Fan. After almost 2 years on this site I have finally figured out how to...
...










Put somebody on ignore....:laughlol::rofl::clap3:


You sure don't post much in two years do ya?

[DrungoHazewood]

I am not talking about steals and longevity numbers per se. However, I don't think Brady's career would have flamed out as such a relatively young age, especially when you consider he was a physical fitness nut and in great playing shape and really not ever suffering any major injury. What caused his premature decline and ultimate demise was his hard headedness in trying to replicate the 50 homer season.

Relatively young age? Most players are out of the league in their mid-30s. Darnell McDonald was probably in better shape than Brady and his career was over before it started. Being in great shape is only coincidentally related to longevity as a ballplayer.

[BRobinsonfan]

What do I know?

Exactly! :D

[Old#5fan]

Relatively young age? Most players are out of the league in their mid-30s. Darnell McDonald was probably in better shape than Brady and his career was over before it started. Being in great shape is only coincidentally related to longevity as a ballplayer.

Yeah, because McDonald didn't have big league talent to begin with. Players today can play longer due to better diet, training, and just overall knowledge of how to maintain oneself. However, it is a no brainer that the ability must be there to begin with. You are stating the obvious with that remark. I still say Brady's decline was due to his being overly enamored with swinging for the fences. He fell in love with the home run and it ruined him for good. He forgot that he was basically a contact hitter who should spray the ball to all fields and use his speed. Not a pull home run hitter.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, because McDonald didn't have big league talent to begin with. Players today can play longer due to better diet, training, and just overall knowledge of how to maintain oneself. However, it is a no brainer that the ability must be there to begin with. You are stating the obvious with that remark. I still say Brady's decline was due to his being overly enamored with swinging for the fences. He fell in love with the home run and it ruined him for good. He forgot that he was basically a contact hitter who should spray the ball to all fields and use his speed. Not a pull home run hitter.

And that's as substantial an argument as me saying that Jeff Tackett would be in the Hall of Fame if he'd turned into a pitcher. Brady was an excellent player. Any claim that he would have been better by radically adjusting his approach is nothing but the idle speculation of someone who couldn't know.

[BRobinsonfan]

Ricky Henderson played well into his forties and was still productive.

Well... um... it depends on how you define "productive." From age 37 to 44 (8 seasons) Rickey only had two seasons in which he had more than 125 hits. His "best" year was at age 40 when he only appeared in 121 games and achieved a high (for the period) of 138 hits. His batting average for that time period was just .247 - well off his career average of .279. His last four seasons he averaged just .234. Maybe that's why he played for five different teams in the last four years of his career?

His last decent year was at age 40. He never hit better than .233 in a season after that.

[Frobby]

I still say Brady's decline was due to his being overly enamored with swinging for the fences. He fell in love with the home run and it ruined him for good. He forgot that he was basically a contact hitter who should spray the ball to all fields and use his speed. Not a pull home run hitter.

Don't let the facts get in the way of what you think.

Honestly, there is ZERO evidence that Brady was a different player after 1996 than he was before 1996. His stats for the 4 years before the 1996 season are nearly identical to those for the four years after. He struck out 11 more times from 1997-2001 than he did in 1992-1995. He was the exact same player before and after 1996.

[KakesForROY]

Old#5fan, you spend a great deal of time arguing about Nick Markakis. Since you feel so strongly about him, would you mind posting your projected batting line (BA/OBP/SLG) for him next season for me to include with all the others. I would like to have as much input as possible.

[Old#5fan]

Old#5fan, you spend a great deal of time arguing about Nick Markakis. Since you feel so strongly about him, would you mind posting your projected batting line (BA/OBP/SLG) for him next season for me to include with all the others. I would like to have as much input as possible.

I don't value stats other than the traditional big three that always were printed on baseball cards and which usually receive official recognition, as I thought most posters here know.

They are BA, HR, and RBIS. I must admit I do look at some of the more finer stats now like Close and Late Hitting, Hitting with RISP, etc. However, I make no predictions on stats other than what I call the big three. I don't even look at OBP as a stat that I care about other than for a leadoff hitter, and SLG I don't value much other than for a cleanup hitter. (But that's just me). With all of this in mind I will predict the following for Nick Markakis in 2009.

If he hits second: 310 BA, 22 homers, and 98 rbis.

If he hits third: 305 BA, 23 homers and 107 rbis.

[KakesForROY]

What would his OBP be if Roberts gets traded and they batted Nick lead-off?

What would his SLG be if he hits clean-up (for whatever reason)?

[Old#5fan]

What would his OBP be if Roberts gets traded and they batted Nick lead-off?

What would his SLG be if he hits clean-up (for whatever reason)?

I would say comparable to Roberts if not better at leadoff. I would say not nearly as good as Huff if he hits cleanup.

[KakesForROY]

I would say comparable to Roberts if not better at leadoff. I would say not nearly as good as Huff if he hits cleanup.

Markakis' OBP was almost 30 point higher than Roberts' last year, and his SLG lat year was higher then Huff's career mark.

[Old#5fan]

Markakis' OBP was almost 30 point higher than Roberts' last year, and his SLG lat year was higher then Huff's career mark.

Well if that is true, why don't they move him to fourth instead of Huff? I think Huff hits more homers so to me he is more of a power guy who should hit fourth. I don't quite understand how the SLG percentage works then because if sure doesn't seem reflective of who has the most power, which to me is clearly Huff.

[waroriole]

What would his OBP be if Roberts gets traded and they batted Nick lead-off?

What would his SLG be if he hits clean-up (for whatever reason)?


I would say comparable to Roberts if not better at leadoff. I would say not nearly as good as Huff if he hits cleanup.


Markakis' OBP was almost 30 point higher than Roberts' last year, and his SLG lat year was higher then Huff's career mark.

Beautiful, rep to you Kakes

[KakesForROY]

I'm just trying to get through the rhetoric for an actual answer. Old#5fan has an... interesting... perspective on things, but I imagine he does represent some O's fans. The community projections project I'm working on wouldn't be as accurate if I only took data from people I agreed with

[Frobby]

Well if that is true, why don't they move him to fourth instead of Huff? I think Huff hits more homers so to me he is more of a power guy who should hit fourth. I don't quite understand how the SLG percentage works then because if sure doesn't seem reflective of who has the most power, which to me is clearly Huff.

Huff had the higher SLG in 2008. He wasn't nearly as good in the last few seasons before 2008.

I don't really see Nick as a no. 4 hitter either. I'm sure he could do it, but I agree I'd prefer a guy with a bit more power in that spot.