Poll- Would You Make This Trade?

[Old#5fan]

George Sherrill, Andino and Markakis for Hanley Ramirez?

I would do it in a heartbeat if the Marlins could be persuaded (actually fleeced is more the word).

[threedaysrest]

Absolutely not. I wouldn't trade Stick for anyone except Pujols. Flat Breezy and Andino also have the potential to be quite valuable to the Orioles.

[Dadaist]

Well since you spilled the beans so vociferously about Nick's problems in the clutch, no team is ever going to take him off our hands.

[Bings012]

in saying "no way, ramirez isn't that good", i do not at all mean that ramirez isn't good. clearly he is good. i just would not like to see the o's making this kind of deal, at this time, i like what i have seen from andino so far, and i love kakes. as with sherrill i dont think he would be part of a deal where we give up multiple players, we should probably move him to get a couple of prospects.

[OrangeJerseys]

Big no for me. He's good, but he's not worth that much.

[Runs2the1Show]

I think I would. Both are great players in their own rights, but stats don't lie. Look at shortstops in the MLB and Rightfielders in the MLB.

Since PEDS have been removed from the game, shortstop has become a position in which production has sharply declined. You could make a case that Izturis was arguably the second-best SS in the AL before he got hurt. Hanley is one of the 10 best players in the league, and while Nick wouldn't be easy to replace, guys like Reimold could step in and fill decently, something that can't be said about SS. I like Andino, but he's no where near Hanley.

[SimplyZ]

this is a terrible poll. Leave out hte bias so that we can make our case

Don't say "they would want jones" you just leave it as "florida wouldnt do the trade"

Ever think they simple WOULDNT TRADE HIM? Hes one of the best (top 3) players in the league...

[Dadaist]

Don't say "they would want jones"

I didn't even notice that until now! Hahahahah, that is absolutely classic.

[E Burg Os]

I don't post on here much, but I do read a lot. Your bias is unbelievable. You are absolutely blind.

And this might be the worst poll ever.

[Jagwar]

Where's the choice for "worst idea ever?"

[jets4ever]

Big no for me. He's good, but he's not worth that much.

Exactly the way I feel.

[ShoelesJoe]

I assume they might want Jones instead of Markakis because Jones is cheaper? Either way I'd do the trade because we've got five outfielders who even in a DH league can't all play at once. You trade from strength to fill your weaknesses. Long term the O's are weak at two positions: SS and 3B. Hanley Ramirez fills one of those spots gloriously, and even dealing Nick we're losing less than we gain.

[PitchingWins]

If they wanted Jones, I'd do it in a second.

[Steel Curtain]

I'm surprised you aren't throwing Chris Ray into the trade as well.

[LookinUp]

I wish you made the poll a simple yes or no. The first two options are essentially the same, and the last two aren't effectively differentiated.

Either way, I'd do it, but your player mix is broken. They'd probably want younger guys than Sherrill, and they'd want starters.

[DrungoHazewood]

George Sherrill, Andino and Markakis for Hanley Ramirez?

I would do it in a heartbeat if the Marlins could be persuaded (actually fleeced is more the word).

Oh but of course. Who wouldn't trade an overrated LOOGY, a AAA suspect, and the new Ben Grieve for the best player in baseball?

:rolleyes:

What I need to make is a poll on the over/under for number of minutes until your next thinly-veiled crack at Markakis.

[cindyluvsbrady]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:no:

[allstar1579]

Oh but of course. Who wouldn't trade an overrated LOOGY, a AAA suspect, and the new Ben Grieve for the best player in baseball?

:rolleyes:

What I need to make is a poll on the over/under for number of minutes until your next thinly-veiled crack at Markakis.

I'm going to take 7 minutes. I don't think he could hold out longer without his head exploding ;)

[Old#5fan]

Oh but of course. Who wouldn't trade an overrated LOOGY, a AAA suspect, and the new Ben Grieve for the best player in baseball?

:rolleyes:

What I need to make is a poll on the over/under for number of minutes until your next thinly-veiled crack at Markakis.

Didn't you just make a crack at Markakis in calling him the new "Ben Grieve'? I gotta admit, that was funny coming from you.:clap3::laughlol::)

[Dadaist]

Markakis wishes he was Ben Grieve. Grieve was Rookie of the Year and an All-Star!

[Fairfax Bird]

Didn't you just make a crack at Markakis in calling him the new "Ben Grieve'? I gotta admit, that was funny coming from you.:clap3::laughlol::)

Sarcasm ... satire ... no ... o.k.

[O'sfan07]

Whats your problem with Markakis?

I cant remember reading a thread that didnt involve you bashing him.

[Old#5fan]

Whats your problem with Markakis?

I cant remember reading a thread that didnt involve you bashing him.

I have no problem with Markakis. The problem I have had was the ridiculous overating of his abilities and projected abilities on the OH. That has seemed to have somewhat subsided after his performance so far this season, but at one time the threads here glorifying him as a Gold Glover, All-Star, future HOFer type ad nauseum just annoyed the living crap out of me as I just could never see it.

He is a good, solid player but not an -all-star, not a Gold Glover and not a number three hitter. This has been my stance all along, yet I have been accused of hating him because of it, which is simply untrue. I just think he needs to be realistically viewed and I think I am one of the few here who does so and always has.

[heeeman22]

Only on Orioles board. People would not make this trade. Marlins would be laughed out of the league if that's all they got.

[Moose Milligan]

:laughlol::laughlol::laughlol: OldFan hates him and doesn't think he's a great ballplayer yet he thinks he's good enough to be a centerpiece for a Hanley Ramirez deal.

OldFan, pass what you're smokin dude. Puff puff give. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Old#5fan]

:laughlol::laughlol::laughlol: OldFan hates him and doesn't think he's a great ballplayer yet he thinks he's good enough to be a centerpiece for a Hanley Ramirez deal.
OldFan, pass what you're smokin dude. Puff puff give. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yeah, if we could fleece the Marlins!:laughlol: I would fully expect them to settle for no less than Adam Jones as the centerpiece if they would even consider the trade.

[Burg]

I have no problem with Markakis. The problem I have had was the ridiculous overating of his abilities and projected abilities on the OH. That has seemed to have somewhat subsided after his performance so far this season, but at one time the threads here glorifying him as a Gold Glover, All-Star, future HOFer type ad nauseum just annoyed the living crap out of me as I just could never see it.

He is a good, solid player but not an -all-star, not a Gold Glover and not a number three hitter. This has been my stance all along, yet I have been accused of hating him because of it, which is simply untrue. I just think he needs to be realistically viewed and I think I am one of the few here who does so and always has.

This is a criminally obtuse statement.

Why you are continually allowed to make these "stir the pot" ridiculous posts about Nick is beyond me. I get that everyone can have their opinion but yours has reached an agenda level.

[Moose Milligan]

Yeah, if we could fleece the Marlins!:laughlol: I would fully expect them to settle for no less than Adam Jones as the centerpiece if they would even consider the trade.

The Adam Jones of the .540 June OPS? Or the Adam Jones who was killing it for the first month of the season?

Will the real Adam Jones please stand up?

[Tony-OH]

I have no problem with Markakis. The problem I have had was the ridiculous overating of his abilities and projected abilities on the OH. That has seemed to have somewhat subsided after his performance so far this season, but at one time the threads here glorifying him as a Gold Glover, All-Star, future HOFer type ad nauseum just annoyed the living crap out of me as I just could never see it.

He is a good, solid player but not an -all-star, not a Gold Glover and not a number three hitter. This has been my stance all along, yet I have been accused of hating him because of it, which is simply untrue. I just think he needs to be realistically viewed and I think I am one of the few here who does so and always has.

I know it's easy for people to pile on you, but honestly, I'm not so sure what's wrong with this opinion? I think Markakis has All-star capability, but he's never going to be a 35-40 homer guy and realistically, he makes a better number two hitter than number three on a contending team.

I would disagree with you on the GG thing although I think the whole GG thing is ridiculous since the year Ripken lost it despite making three errors all year at SS. Defensively, he's one of the best right-fielders in the game for me.

Either way, no way the Marlins would take that trade. He's a Latin super star shortstop in Miami and they already can't sell tickets. Imagine if they got rid of the one marketable guy?

[Sanfran327]

I have no problem with Markakis. The problem I have had was the ridiculous overating of his abilities and projected abilities on the OH. That has seemed to have somewhat subsided after his performance so far this season, but at one time the threads here glorifying him as a Gold Glover, All-Star, future HOFer type ad nauseum just annoyed the living crap out of me as I just could never see it.

He is a good, solid player but not an -all-star, not a Gold Glover and not a number three hitter. This has been my stance all along, yet I have been accused of hating him because of it, which is simply untrue. I just think he needs to be realistically viewed and I think I am one of the few here who does so and always has.

OldGuy,

I've always agreed with you about Markakis. I think he's a litter overrated around here offensively, but defensively, I have to disagree. He's a pretty damn good right fielder. I don't know that he'll ever win a Gold Glove, but he's certainly going to be in many of the discussions. If the awards were given to RF, LF, and CFers, he'd almost certainly win one or more. Unfortunately, it's given to the top three OFers in each league, and that's pretty elite company. It'd be a hell of an honor to win one, but sometimes (aka most of the time) you turn it into some kind of knock on Nick that he may not win one. You just take it a little further than you really need to, hence the agenda comments.

Offensively, I agree with your assessment. He's not a #3 hitter on a championship team. Whether other fans want to admit it or not is their business. He'd make a good #2 hitter, #6 hitter, or in a pinch, a decent leadoff hitter (perhaps down the road once BRob is gone or begins to age beyond leadoff hitter status), but I agree, he doesn't fit the ideal profile of a #3 hitter. I want me #3 hitter hitting 30 HRs, not 20. He's got the potential to drive in a ton of runs in the 6 spot, or be a nice tablesetter with BRob at #2. But, simply, a #3 hitter he is not.

[Sanfran327]

The Adam Jones of the .540 June OPS? Or the Adam Jones who was killing it for the first month of the season?

Will the real Adam Jones please stand up?

Jones in June - WOW!

[Lucky Jim]

I know it's easy for people to pile on you, but honestly, I'm not so sure what's wrong with this opinion? I think Markakis has All-star capability, but he's never going to be a 35-40 homer guy and realistically, he makes a better number two hitter than number three on a contending team.

I would disagree with you on the GG thing although I think the whole GG thing is ridiculous since the year Ripken lost it despite making three errors all year at SS. Defensively, he's one of the best right-fielders in the game for me.

Either way, no way the Marlins would take that trade. He's a Latin super star shortstop in Miami and they already can't sell tickets. Imagine if they got rid of the one marketable guy?

Agree with the first part. The truth is, Old Fan is looking pretty prescient w/ his stance on Markakis right now. As are the pessimistic predictive models like PECOTA (how's that for alliteration).

It looks as if Markakis's high BABIP and extreme breakout on BB rate were anomalous, and have legitimately normalized. He's showing little power, and even his defensive metrics are down.

I don't think he's Ben Grieve (though I continue to hold that simply acknowledging the risk of a Grieve-like falloff is not irrational), but I don't think he's one of the top-10 OFers in baseball right now. Heck, value-wise this year, he's not even one of the top-10 RFers in the AL.

[SrMeowMeow]

I am so annoyed by the little digs you threw into this poll just to get people to fight that I'm not voting.

Get your kicks some other way. This has become completely independent of any opinion you have of Markakis, legitimate or otherwise. You're just trolling. How can you possibly make a poll where there are three choices to insult Markakis and one choice to insult Hanley and expect to be taken seriously? What if I think it's a fair trade?

I can't believe (well, I can believe it of you) that there's no option for "yes I would do this trade" when your question is "would you make this trade?" This is just another bush league attempt to try to trick people into agreeing with you on the record. It's like if I made a poll, "should OldFan be permanently banned from OH?" and it was a 50/50 split because some people think that's too harsh, and then you used that to say "50% of people approve of my posts!"

Find a new way to express any legitimate opinions you want to debate, or stop trolling.

[Old#5fan]

Agree with the first part. The truth is, Old Fan is looking pretty prescient w/ his stance on Markakis right now. As are the pessimistic predictive models like PECOTA (how's that for alliteration).

It looks as if Markakis's high BABIP and extreme breakout on BB rate were anomalous, and have legitimately normalized. He's showing little power, and even his defensive metrics are down.

I don't think he's Ben Grieve (though I continue to hold that simply acknowledging the risk of a Grieve-like falloff is not irrational), but I don't think he's one of the top-10 OFers in baseball right now. Heck, value-wise this year, he's not even one of the top-10 RFers in the AL.

At the risk of sounding overly pessimistic, I personally believe Nick Markakis is the third best offensive outfielder on the Orioles, behind both Jones and Reimold. He is also way behind Luke Scott as far as HR power as well.

[Khaezh12]

At the risk of sounding overly pessimistic, I personally believe Nick Markakis is the third best offensive outfielder on the Orioles, behind both Jones and Reimold. He is also way behind Luke Scott as far as HR power as well.

:wedge: ....wait, you're not joking? Oh...

Being worse than Jones is debatable, but worse than Reimold? Do you just change the channel whenever the ball is hit towards Markakis (especially with runners trying to advance)? Your statement would make more sense then.

[Lucky Jim]

:wedge: ....wait, you're not joking? Oh...

Being worse than Jones is debatable, but worse than Reimold? Do you just change the channel whenever the ball is hit towards Markakis (especially with runners trying to advance)? Your statement would make more sense then.

He did say "offensive."

[Lucky Jim]

At the risk of sounding overly pessimistic, I personally believe Nick Markakis is the third best offensive outfielder on the Orioles, behind both Jones and Reimold. He is also way behind Luke Scott as far as HR power as well.

Unlike you, I don't think a slumping Markakis is really indicative of his value. My point was only that you'd been vindicated so far - I doubt you are in the long run.

That said, I think that folks may overvalue Nick a little around here.

[Old#5fan]

:wedge: ....wait, you're not joking? Oh...

Being worse than Jones is debatable, but worse than Reimold? Do you just change the channel whenever the ball is hit towards Markakis (especially with runners trying to advance)? Your statement would make more sense then.

I stated offensively. Go back and re-read.

[Khaezh12]

I stated offensively. Go back and re-read.

:o Well now I just look stupid. My bad...

[leapinghorsered]

For me Nick Markakis is very comparable to Paul O'neill. Nick is a solid, solid, above-average player, but he's unlikely to hit 30 home runs and should probably get some time off against really tough lefties. This team has been horrible for so long that we all desperately want him to become an elite superstar in the category of Pujols or Utley, but he is just not that player.

[Sanfran327]

For me Nick Markakis is very comparable to Paul O'neill. Nick is a solid, solid, above-average player, but he's unlikely to hit 30 home runs and should probably get some time off against really tough lefties. This team has been horrible for so long that we all desperately want him to become an elite superstar in the category of Pujols or Utley, but he is just not that player.

I've been making the Paul O'neil comp for about a year now. He's not going to be the focal point of your offense, but he's going to be a player hitting in the lower half of your offense (if it's a really good offense) that is going to crush other guys around the league hitting in the same slot. He's a very good player, but not elite. We need some elite bats - at least one - to take that next step offensively. If we got that bat and AJ, Wieters, Reimold, and Snyder all progressed, we'd have a very deep, very powerful lineup.

[Balmer Bomber]

I think Old Fan is secretly the Randy Quaid character from Major League 2.

[SrMeowMeow]

He's a .380 OBP bat with good patience and 20+ HR power. That is a very good hitter. Combined with his defense and arm, he is a very good player. He's not Barry Bonds or Hanley Ramirez, but few people are.

Also, home runs aren't everything.

[srock]

If this was a simple yes/no poll I would be very tempted to say yes. However the aforementioned 'thinly veiled crack at Nick' has caused to me to abstain from voting.

As for the trade idea, I'm tempted because losing Markakis leaves us with a still formidable OF: Jones, Reimold, Scott, and Pie. Plus replenishing OF depth is easier then MI depth.

Since we have zero MI depth in the minors, solidifying SS with Hanley is very appealing.

Sherill and Andino as the other parts is negotiable. But, overall, I do like this idea.

The Marlins, however, are unlikely to like it.

[vatech1994]

First, I challenge anyone to produce a Venn diagram outlining the choices provided in this poll. I'm afraid my head will explode if I try. The illogic is simply too much for me. :rofl:

Second, I find it hilarious that anyone would say "No" to this trade. Ramirez is much more valuable than Markakis or Jones. I'd trade either of Markakis or Jones plus one of our big three plus Sherrill for Ramirez assuming we could have control of him for 5 years or more. Heck, I'd give serious thought to trading Markakis AND Jones for Ramirez if we had him for at least 5 years.

Third, this is not an insult to either Markakis or Jones. Ramirez simply plays a position that is much leaner in terms of offensive talent AND he brings more than the table than AJ or Kakes. He was drafted #1 in the OH fantasy league and he should have been. It was a no brainer to me. The guy is one of the top 2-3 offensive players in the game. He simply doesn't get as much press as he should because he plays in a mausoleum every night.

Fourth, O5F's contention that we all overvalue Markakis is simply laughable. A few of us do, but most of us realize that Nick is just a really good player who will likely end up with outstanding career numbers due to how early he got started and his likely consistency as he ages.

Markakis is a gold glove caliber outfielder and that really isn't debatable at this point IMO. Will he win one? Who knows because those things are crapshoots. I think we should take the award out of it and say he is clearly one of the top 2-3 defensive right fielders in the game.

Markakis is likely to play on a couple All Star teams at some point. He is good enough to get there in the right situation. If Jones continues to suck wind, I'd say there is a decent chance Markakis will be our rep this year (though I'd lean toward Roberts because 2B is weak this year and I think Sherrill will get consideration).

Markakis will never be an MVP IMO. He is unlikely to ever produce at quite a high enough level for a full season. Even if he does, his game just isn't flashy enough to garner the imagination of people like O5F who can't analyze very well, but love the flashy play. Nick does many things well, but few things at an "what did I just witness" level which is what ultimately pushes great players into MVP awards because of goofy voters like O5F.

The only true ridiculousness on this board re: Markakis is O5F. He has a vendetta. It is just that simple. If Markakis had played the way Jones has played over the past 4 weeks, O5F would have been on here pointing it out every single day. Yet he has written almost nothing about Jones. That tells me all I need to know.

Finally, I'd pay money to hear O5F try to explain the "rationale" behind how he tried to cover all the possible logical combinations in his poll answers. That would be priceless, especially if I was a bit drunk or stoned at the time. If someone could find a good movie clip and splice in their take on what he'd say, I'd forever be indebted (I'm talking to you Clarence :p).

Note: O5F, here is a link to Venn diagram for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

[Lucky Jim]

First, I challenge anyone to produce a Venn diagram outlining the choices provided in this poll. I'm afraid my head will explode if I try. The illogic is simply too much for me. :rofl:

Second, I find it hilarious that anyone would say "No" to this trade. Ramirez is much more valuable than Markakis or Jones. I'd trade either of Markakis or Jones plus one of our big three plus Sherrill for Ramirez assuming we could have control of him for 5 years or more. Heck, I'd give serious thought to trading Markakis AND Jones for Ramirez if we had him for at least 5 years.

Third, this is not an insult to either Markakis or Jones. Ramirez simply plays a position that is much leaner in terms of offensive talent AND he brings more than the table than AJ or Kakes. He was drafted #1 in the OH fantasy league and he should have been. It was a no brainer to me. The guy is one of the top 2-3 offensive players in the game. He simply doesn't get as much press as he should because he plays in a mausoleum every night.

Fourth, O5F's contention that we all overvalue Markakis is simply laughable. A few of us do, but most of us realize that Nick is just a really good player who will likely end up with outstanding career numbers due to how early he got started and his likely consistency as he ages.

Markakis is a gold glove caliber outfielder and that really isn't debatable at this point IMO. Will he win one? Who knows because those things are crapshoots. I think we should take the award out of it and say he is clearly one of the top 2-3 defensive right fielders in the game.

Markakis is likely to play on a couple All Star teams at some point. He is good enough to get there in the right situation. If Jones continues to suck wind, I'd say there is a decent chance Markakis will be our rep this year (though I'd lean toward Roberts because 2B is weak this year and I think Sherrill will get consideration).

Markakis will never be an MVP IMO. He is unlikely to ever produce at quite a high enough level for a full season. Even if he does, his game just isn't flashy enough to garner the imagination of people like O5F who can't analyze very well, but love the flashy play. Nick does many things well, but few things at an "what did I just witness" level which is what ultimately pushes great players into MVP awards because of goofy voters like O5F.

The only true ridiculousness on this board re: Markakis is O5F. He has a vendetta. It is just that simple. If Markakis had played the way Jones has played over the past 4 weeks, O5F would have been on here pointing it out every single day. Yet he has written almost nothing about Jones. That tells me all I need to know.

Finally, I'd pay money to hear O5F try to explain the "rationale" behind how he tried to cover all the possible logical combinations in his poll answers. That would be priceless, especially if I was a bit drunk or stoned at the time. If someone could find a good movie clip and splice in their take on what he'd say, I'd forever be indebted (I'm talking to you Clarence :p).

Note: O5F, here is a link to Venn diagram for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

Agree w/ much of what you said. Two points:

One, do you disregard the defensive metrics and what they say about Nick's defense this year?

Two, aren't the results of this poll proof of O5F's point that this board drastically overrates Nick? Or do you think they just drastically underrate Hanley?

[waroriole]

Two, aren't the results of this poll proof of O5F's point that this board drastically overrates Nick? Or do you think they just drastically underrate Hanley?

I know you weren't asking me, but I think the results are proof of how ridiculous everyone thinks OF5 is and their desire to not give him anything to cite to when making an argument.

[Lucky Jim]

I know you weren't asking me, but I think the results are proof of how ridiculous everyone thinks OF5 is and their desire to not give him anything to cite to when making an argument.

Well, until this recent slump it was almost gospel around here that Markakis was the best RF in the AL, if not the game.

[waroriole]

Well, until this recent slump it was almost gospel around here that Markakis was the best RF in the AL, if not the game.

That's true, but it would not be a good idea to judge him while he is in a bad power slump.

What RF's would you think are as good or better than him right now?

[vatech1994]

Agree w/ much of what you said. Two points:

One, do you disregard the defensive metrics and what they say about Nick's defense this year?

Two, aren't the results of this poll proof of O5F's point that this board drastically overrates Nick? Or do you think they just drastically underrate Hanley?

I do disregard the range metrics thus far this year simply because they're way out of line with all previous results. If that continues the whole year then I'll have to take another look at it. I think a couple bad plays really skew an outfielders numbers and Nick had a couple earlier this year.

With defensive ability of outfielders, I tend to be quite subjective because I just don't buy the metrics yet. I'm not saying that is right, but it is what I do.

When I think about who I'd rather have in right field than Nick defensively, I can't come up with a clear choice. When I think of who I'd rather have the ball hit to in the OF with a runner on second, 1 run game, 9th inning, Nick is the clear choice for me.

I don't know if he is the best, but I think his assist numbers and the lack of guys who now run on him are pretty important numbers in his corner.

Re: your second question, I'm not sure. The choices were so poorly put together that I'm not sure I can draw any conclusion about the poll, especially when I consider that I'm sure some of the votes were intended as a "poke in the eye" of O5F because he posted yet another vendetta/agenda poll. Who knows what people really think on this board? I would agree that people overrate him or didn't look at Hanley well enough IF they actually wouldn't do this trade.

[Lucky Jim]

That's true, but it would not be a good idea to judge him while he is in a bad power slump.

What RF's would you think are as good or better than him right now?

Oh, I'm not really weighing in on that, because I don't think we know.

What we do know is that his break out last year had some anomalous improvements. That so far this year both of those breakouts have normalized/regressed. And that it remains to be seen what kind of numbers he ends up w/ this year.

I will say this, however: we seem to believe a big part of his value is + defense and there's simply no indication (beyond our loyalty) that he's offering that for us.

Here are the guys who've been more valuable than Nick so far this year:



Ben Zobrist
Justin Upton
Ichiro Suzuki
Nelson Cruz
Hunter Pence
Kosuke Fukudome
Shin-Soo Choo
J.D. Drew
Brad Hawpe
Jayson Werth
Nick Swisher
Michael Cuddyer
Bobby Abreu
Jay Bruce
Cody Ross
Alex Rios
Randy Winn
Adam Dunn
Jermaine Dye

Who wouldyou take? Hard to say. We really need to see where Nick ends up this year.

[vatech1994]

BTW, every time AJ catches a ball in front of Nick that he could have caught it hurts Nick's range metrics. I'm not saying that is wrong. I'm just saying that these metrics are inherently subject to a lot of noise. I wonder if it is even possible to have three outfielders with high range factors together? A good CF is going to "take" a lot of balls that a good LF or good RF can catch if they play the game correctly.

I've seen AJ catch balls that Nick could have caught at least 10 times this year.

[Stotle]

Oh, I'm not really weighing in on that, because I don't think we know.

What we do know is that his break out last year had some anomalous improvements. That so far this year both of those breakouts have normalized/regressed. And that it remains to be seen what kind of numbers he ends up w/ this year.

I will say this, however: we seem to believe a big part of his value is + defense and there's simply no indication (beyond our loyalty) that he's offering that for us.

Here are the guys who've been more valuable than Nick so far this year:



Ben Zobrist
Justin Upton
Ichiro Suzuki
Nelson Cruz
Hunter Pence
Kosuke Fukudome
Shin-Soo Choo
J.D. Drew
Brad Hawpe
Jayson Werth
Nick Swisher
Michael Cuddyer
Bobby Abreu
Jay Bruce
Cody Ross
Alex Rios
Randy Winn
Adam Dunn
Jermaine Dye

Who wouldyou take? Hard to say. We really need to see where Nick ends up this year.

I'd take Justin Upton without a doubt, probably Jay Bruce as well. But the power is the biggest draw (for me) for each.

[Lucky Jim]

I do disregard the range metrics thus far this year simply because they're way out of line with all previous results. If that continues the whole year then I'll have to take another look at it. I think a couple bad plays really skew an outfielders numbers and Nick had a couple earlier this year.

With defensive ability of outfielders, I tend to be quite subjective because I just don't buy the metrics yet. I'm not saying that is right, but it is what I do.

When I think about who I'd rather have in right field than Nick defensively, I can't come up with a clear choice. When I think of who I'd rather have the ball hit to in the OF with a runner on second, 1 run game, 9th inning, Nick is the clear choice for me.

I don't know if he is the best, but I think his assist numbers and the lack of guys who now run on him are pretty important numbers in his corner.

Re: your second question, I'm not sure. The choices were so poorly put together that I'm not sure I can draw any conclusion about the poll, especially when I consider that I'm sure some of the votes were intended as a "poke in the eye" of O5F because he posted yet another vendetta/agenda poll. Who knows what people really think on this board? I would agree that people overrate him or didn't look at Hanley well enough IF they actually wouldn't do this trade.

But a lot of guys run on him - which is why he has assists. His ARM rating (which weighs not just outs w/ his arm but the percentage of guys who move up on him) is barely positive. Marginally top-10 among RFers in MLB.


ARM (outfield arm runs): Outfielder’s get credit (plus or minus) depending on what the runners do on a hit or a fly ball out. A runner can stay put, advance, or get thrown out. A fielder will get credit not only if he throws out more than his share of runners, but also if he keeps more than his share of runners from advancing extra bases.

What I see this year is a RF w/ seeming decreased range, increased mental errors and a still-accurate arm. I hope it's just a down year. I've watched 80% of the games this year, and I don't see any reason to doubt the numbers.

I'm not sure what the effect of an atrocious pitching staff has on either UZR or ARM. That said, the pitching has been much better recently, and yet the numbers for both Jones and Markakis remain very poor. Markakis has 3 errors on the year so far, which matches his totals from the past two years, pretty much. And that may distort his numbers some - but it's only a component input and shouldn't be assumed to explain Markakis -19 UZR pace. Unless you have reason to think that it's the answer, that is (rather than suspicion).

[Lucky Jim]

I'd take Justin Upton without a doubt, probably Jay Bruce as well. But the power is the biggest draw (for me) for each.

Zobrist doesn't really count, as he's playing SS now. lol.

[vatech1994]

Here are the guys who've been more valuable than Nick so far this year:



Ben Zobrist
Justin Upton
Ichiro Suzuki
Nelson Cruz
Hunter Pence
Kosuke Fukudome
Shin-Soo Choo
J.D. Drew
Brad Hawpe
Jayson Werth
Nick Swisher
Michael Cuddyer
Bobby Abreu
Jay Bruce
Cody Ross
Alex Rios
Randy Winn
Adam Dunn
Jermaine Dye


This list is a good example of why I'm not so sure I'd put a tremendous amount of faith in the total value metrics that are available out there. I'm not sure which one you're using, but I have some major problems with saying that several of these guys have been more valuable.

Jay Bruce has a 298 OBP this year.

Rios has a 755 OPS.

Randy Winn? This Randy Winn http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3837 WOW

Fukudome? He has 45 at bats as a RF all year AND his stats look worse to me. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=28948

Abreu has basically no power anymore AND his OF range looks pretty bad to me though he does have steals and a good OBP.

Dunn shouldn't even be in the list IMO as his value as a RF would be much lower if he played out there all the time because his defense is awful. He has only 81 at bats as a RF all year.

[SilentJames]

I have no problem with Markakis. The problem I have had was the ridiculous overating of his abilities and projected abilities on the OH. That has seemed to have somewhat subsided after his performance so far this season, but at one time the threads here glorifying him as a Gold Glover, All-Star, future HOFer type ad nauseum just annoyed the living crap out of me as I just could never see it.

He is a good, solid player but not an -all-star, not a Gold Glover and not a number three hitter. This has been my stance all along, yet I have been accused of hating him because of it, which is simply untrue. I just think he needs to be realistically viewed and I think I am one of the few here who does so and always has.

Okay, once again lets go over this.

One - Markakis once again leads the ML in outfield assists.

Two - He is a career .299 hitter, who is currently batting 297 and will most likely bat over .300 due to his past statistics

Three - In the clutch or "late and close" as you like to bring up he is a career .320 batter with an OPS of .895. With runners in scoring position he has a career OPS of .886 and a BA mark of .296

Four - Around baseball he is becoming the identifiable face of the team

Five - Every scout/ coach/ member of the sports media looks at Markakis and sees the same thing we do. So it is not just OH.

And finally SIX:

Every theory, assumption you have ever made about Markakis has been proven wrong time and time again. Of course Markakis went into a slump, the whole team did, he is human and no one expected him to bat .360 this year. He will bat right around .295-.315, and that will make him one of the best right fielders in the game. He will finish with between 20-30 HRs, again making him one of the best RF'ers in the game. He will most likely continue to lead the AL, if not all of MLB in assists making him one of the BEST RF'ers in the game.

He will most likely be our one All-Star representative, especially if he gets hot in the next couple of weeks. And it will be well-deserved.

Old Fan, You cherry pick obscure stats to prove a point. You say we need Michael Young, even though that he is having a WORSE year than Nick in Close and Late situations and Nick has BETTER career numbers than he.

Now its Hanley Ramirez, who is a fantastic talent. But you are going to ask the Marlins to trade the Face and future of their organization for Markakis, Sherrill and Andino?

This is what that tells me: You are either complete diluted and mad to think a trade like that would work, because in your mind Markakis is overrated.

Or you DO understand that Markakis is as good as we all think he is to be worthy of a trade for one of the premiere talents in baseball. Because if Markakis is who you say he is there is no way that he Sherrill and Andino (someone they gave up for HAYDEN PENN straight up) gets you Ramirez.

So logically you must think that Markakis is premiere, first class talent to be worthy of Hanley Ramirez and your constant bashing of Markakis, in the face of irrefutable evidence, is nothing more than internet trolling and you should have posting privileges reduced drastically.

Either that, or you just continue to live in your own fantasy.

[Lucky Jim]

This list is a good example of why I'm not so sure I'd put a tremendous amount of faith in the total value metrics that are available out there. I'm not sure which one you're using, but I have some major problems with saying that several of these guys have been more valuable.

Jay Bruce has a 298 OBP this year.

Rios has a 755 OPS.

Randy Winn? This Randy Winn http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3837 WOW

Fukudome? He has 45 at bats as a RF all year AND his stats look worse to me. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=28948

Abreu has basically no power anymore AND his OF range looks pretty bad to me though he does have steals and a good OBP.

Dunn shouldn't even be in the list IMO as his value as a RF would be much lower if he played out there all the time because his defense is awful. He has only 81 at bats as a RF all year.

That's using Fangraphs WAR calculation. Just a heuristic. But that's how bad Nick's defense has been according to UZR.

[vatech1994]

But a lot of guys run on him - which is why he has assists. His ARM rating (which weighs not just outs w/ his arm but the percentage of guys who move up on him) is barely positive. Marginally top-10 among RFers in MLB.

What I see this year is a RF w/ seeming decreased range, increased mental errors and a still-accurate arm. I hope it's just a down year. I've watched 80% of the games this year, and I don't see any reason to doubt the numbers.

I'm not sure what the effect of an atrocious pitching staff has on either UZR or ARM. That said, the pitching has been much better recently, and yet the numbers for both Jones and Markakis remain very poor. Markakis has 3 errors on the year so far, which matches his totals from the past two years, pretty much. And that may distort his numbers some - but it's only a component input and shouldn't be assumed to explain Markakis -19 UZR pace. Unless you have reason to think that it's the answer, that is (rather than suspicion).

You really think Markakis is a -19 UZR so far this year based on what you've seen with your own eyes? If so, we definitely disagree. I see a guy playing a good RF in general with good range. He has had a couple glaring mistakes.

You don't see how that ARM rating is just random as all hell? What happens if the next 20 hits to right field with a runner on 1st base are all line drives on one hop right at him? I'll tell you. Nobody will go to third.

However, if the next 20 hits to right field with a runner on 1st base are all bloopers just over the first basemen's head down the line with 2 outs in the inning than ALL of them are going to go to third and there is nothing anybody is going to do about it.

Those type of stats have GOT to be subject to short term statistical anomalies. There just aren't enough balls hit to a RF with a runner on 1st base to even it out in the short term. It would take something like 500 balls out there for the noise to work itself to an acceptable level based on some rudimentary calcs I just did. Also, this number will depend on the 1B range since a lack of range makes the RF have to go to the RF line more often to get balls. It depends on how often a team play a shift in the IF. A hard hit ball that would normally be right at the 2B would be in the gap against a shift and the RF would have a long run that would likely lead to an extra base.

I watch the games and I see guys routinely holding up on Markakis and Jones. I can tell the other team respects the crap out of both of their arms.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that this pseudo science is there yet. I can think of too many ways to distort the numbers in the short and medium term.

[SilentJames]

That's using Fangraphs WAR calculation. Just a heuristic. But that's how bad Nick's defense has been according to UZR.

Markakis ZR has him at a solid second behind Jose Guillen though.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2009&seasonType=2&split=85&sortColumn=zoneRating

And he has only made three errors in 622.2 innings this year, which is second-most in the AL.

He has 200 more innings than Guillen does.

Every other metric has Markakis near the top, so I don't know what is going on with UZR.

[Lucky Jim]

You really think Markakis is a -19 UZR so far this year based on what you've seen with your own eyes? If so, we definitely disagree. I see a guy playing a good RF in general with good range. He has had a couple glaring mistakes.

You don't see how that ARM rating is just random as all hell? What happens if the next 20 hits to right field with a runner on 1st base are all line drives on one hop right at him? I'll tell you. Nobody will go to third.

However, if the next 20 hits to right field with a runner on 1st base are all bloopers just over the first basemen's head down the line with 2 outs in the inning than ALL of them are going to go to third and there is nothing anybody is going to do about it.

Those type of stats have GOT to be subject to short term statistical anomalies. There just aren't enough balls hit to a RF with a runner on 1st base to even it out in the short term. It would take something like 500 balls out there for the noise to work itself to an acceptable level based on some rudimentary calcs on my first. Also, this number will depend on the 1B range since a lack of range makes the RF have to go to the RF more often to get balls. It depends on how stringently teams play shifts in the OF. A hard hit ball that would normally be right at the 2B would be in the gap against a shift and the RF would have a long run that would likely lead to an extra base.

I watch the games and I see guys routinely holding up on Markakis and Jones. I can tell the other team respects the crap out of both of their arms.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that this pseudo science is there yet. I can think of too many ways to distort the numbers in the short and medium term.

The hedge against all of this is sample size. It is, of course, going to be prone to small sample problems.

Jones has a 3.5 ARM rating, btw.

I think the ARM rating is incomplete. And probably prone to some kind of noise - which is why, say, Ichiro has ranged from -2.0 to 8.6 w/in a span of three years.

That said, I don't think the substitution of what one "sees" is a proper replacement for more objective metrics. It's why even incomplete metrics are important. They don't suffer the very real biases (as opposed to hypothetical biases like '20 hard hit balls to RF') that individuals do.

I don't see any reason to think Nick shouldn't remain a good fielding RF. But I haven't seen it this year. And the numbers support that.

His +/- is poor, too, btw. So two separate metrics, based on two separate approaches, both designate him as being well-below-average this year.

I'd like to believe that he's not. Unlike you, however, I'm less inclined to disregard those systems just because they don't comport w/ what I see. It's a little O5F-like to do so, I think. (And I don't mean that in nearly the provocative way it might seem - just that we're all prone to our biases, and he's a good example of how those biases manifest themselves while disguising themselves to the individual as objectivity.)

[Lucky Jim]

Markakis ZR has him at a solid second behind Jose Guillen though.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2009&seasonType=2&split=85&sortColumn=zoneRating

And he has only made three errors in 622.2 innings this year, which is second-most in the AL.

He has 200 more innings than Guillen does.

Every other metric has Markakis near the top, so I don't know what is going on with UZR.

I don't think anyone who follows defensive metrics relies on those statistics anymore, James. Seriously. And three errors so far is a lot for a RF.

[SilentJames]

I don't think anyone who follows defensive metrics relies on those statistics anymore, James. Seriously. And three errors so far is a lot for a RF.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6368&position=OF

But then how is Jones' UZR in the negative as well. I mean by these metrics we have a TERRIBLE outfield when many other metrics say we have a very good outfield. He has three errors, but I am willing to bet he made 2/3 in April when the entire team had a case of the yips and was screwing up.

He made three all last year, has three already this year. I bet he has four/ five by the end of the year. A bad year for him.

I don't really understand what UZR is seeing in both Jones and Markakis that other metrics aren't. And could these numbers be drastically changed by the end of the year? Because it seems to me that UZR is based on RngR and ErrR. And if the player makes an error or two in the beginning of the year that leads to a run or two that could drastically throw off midseason UZR stats.

[Lucky Jim]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6368&position=OF

But then how is Jones' UZR in the negative as well. I mean by these metrics we have a TERRIBLE outfield when many other metrics say we have a very good outfield. He has three errors, but I am willing to bet he made 2/3 in April when the entire team had a case of the yips and was screwing up.

He made three all last year, has three already this year. I bet he has four/ five by the end of the year. A bad year for him.

I don't really understand what UZR is seeing in both Jones and Markakis that other metrics aren't. And could these numbers be drastically changed by the end of the year? Because it seems to me that UZR is based on RngR and ErrR. And if the player makes an error or two in the beginning of the year that leads to a run or two that could drastically throw off midseason UZR stats.

+/- has us as having a terrible OF defensively, too.

Those are the two statisticians really pay attention to. And the shortcomings of the ones you're looking at are the reason others were derived.

But - yes - they should normalize somewhat. Both Jones and Markakis have made more errors than is ideal. That said, both have showed diminished ability to make + plays this year.

[SilentJames]

+/- has us as having a terrible OF defensively, too.

Those are the two statisticians really pay attention to. And the shortcomings of the ones you're looking at are the reason others were derived.

But - yes - they should normalize somewhat. Both Jones and Markakis have made more errors than is ideal. That said, both have showed diminished ability to make + plays this year.

But what is a + play? I mean, Markakis and Jones make plays that look easy that might be considered a + play for someone like an Adam Dunn. I guess I don't understand how Nick Markaks goes from a +12 fielding value in 2008 to a -9.1 in 2009.

That type of collapse should be manifesting itself in other more basic numbers. That is why it seems to me to be a fluke in the maths.

If Markakis makes an error that would have been the second out - do all subsequent runs AFTER that error count against his UZR? Because that could explain these awful numbers being skewed by a team-wide awwful April when it came to unearned runs.

Is there a Way to isolate his UZR from May-present?

[Tony-OH]

I've been making the Paul O'neil comp for about a year now. He's not going to be the focal point of your offense, but he's going to be a player hitting in the lower half of your offense (if it's a really good offense) that is going to crush other guys around the league hitting in the same slot. He's a very good player, but not elite. We need some elite bats - at least one - to take that next step offensively. If we got that bat and AJ, Wieters, Reimold, and Snyder all progressed, we'd have a very deep, very powerful lineup.

Funny, I was making the Paul O'Neill comp when he was in the minor leagues. :D

Markakis is far from being our problem on offense and is certainly part of a bright future in my opinion. He's not going to be a big home run guy but he will hit around .300 or more every year, take some walks and club 20-30 homers. I'll take it...

[Lucky Jim]

but what is a + play? I mean, markakis and jones make plays that look easy that might be considered a + play for someone like an adam dunn. I guess i don't understand how nick markaks goes from a +12 fielding value in 2008 to a -9.1 in 2009.

That type of collapse should be manifesting itself in other more basic numbers. That is why it seems to me to be a fluke in the maths.

If markakis makes an error that would have been the second out - do all subsequent runs after that error count against his uzr? Because that could explain these awful numbers being skewed by a team-wide awwful april when it came to unearned runs.

Is there a way to isolate his uzr from may-present?

+/-


my book, the fielding bible, goes into great length (ad nauseum to some) describing the new fielding system we developed at baseball info solutions, the plus/minus system. Video scouts at bis review video of every play of every major league game and record detailed information on each play, such as the location of each batted ball, the speed, the type of hit, etc. Using this in-depth data, we’re able to figure out how each player compares to his peers at his position. How often does derek jeter field that softly batted ball located 20 feet to the right of the normal shortstop position, for example, compared to all other major league shortstops?

A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season. A total plus/minus score near zero means the player is average. A score above zero is above average and a negative score is below average. Adam everett turned in the highest score we’ve had in four years of using the system with a +43 at shortstop in 2006. That means he made 43 more plays than the average mlb shortstop would make.

uzr:


i’m pleased to announce that uzr (ultimate zone ratings) stats are now available on fangraphs!

This would of course not be possible without mgl (mitchel lichtman), and i’m extremely grateful that he allowed us to use his fielding model. He’s put in a tremendous amount of work getting the stats ready for use on fangraphs and i really can’t thank him enough.

Unlike other versions of uzr, the ones that appear on fangraphs use baseball info solutions location data instead of stats location data. Also, this uzr data does not currently include outfield arms and double plays are treated as regular outs. Here are the definitions for all the uzr stats available:

Dg (defensive games): The number of outs made by an average fielder at his position given the exact distribution of balls in play for that player divided by the number of outs an average player at that position makes per game.

Exo (expected outs): The number of outs plus reached base errors that would be made by an average fielder given the distribution of balls in play while that fielder was on the field.

Rngr (range runs): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, determined by how the fielder is able to get to balls hit in his vicinity.

Errr (error runs): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, determined by the number of errors he makes as compared to an average fielder at that position given the same distribution of balls in play.

Uzr (ultimate zone rating): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs and error runs combined.

Uzr/150 (ultimate zone rate per 150 games): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, per 150 defensive games.

[El Gordo]

The hedge against all of this is sample size. It is, of course, going to be prone to small sample problems.

Jones has a 3.5 ARM rating, btw.

I think the ARM rating is incomplete. And probably prone to some kind of noise - which is why, say, Ichiro has ranged from -2.0 to 8.6 w/in a span of three years.

That said, I don't think the substitution of what one "sees" is a proper replacement for more objective metrics. It's why even incomplete metrics are important. They don't suffer the very real biases (as opposed to hypothetical biases like '20 hard hit balls to RF') that individuals do.

I don't see any reason to think Nick shouldn't remain a good fielding RF. But I haven't seen it this year. And the numbers support that.

His +/- is poor, too, btw. So two separate metrics, based on two separate approaches, both designate him as being well-below-average this year.

I'd like to believe that he's not. Unlike you, however, I'm less inclined to disregard those systems just because they don't comport w/ what I see. It's a little O5F-like to do so, I think. (And I don't mean that in nearly the provocative way it might seem - just that we're all prone to our biases, and he's a good example of how those biases manifest themselves while disguising themselves to the individual as objectivity.)I agree, that's what I'm seeing as well. I agreed with his FB+/- last year, it reflected what I saw. A +11 rating, with +10 shallow, +4 medium, -4 deep. This year it's -2 shallow, -5 medium, -6 deep for a -13. So he seems to be struggling with balls his in front of him or at medium depth this season. It could be a result of the pitching this year but I doubt it.

[Lucky Jim]

I agree, that's what I'm seeing as well. I agreed with his FB+/- last year, it reflected what I saw. A +11 rating, with +10 shallow, +4 medium, -4 deep. This year it's -2 shallow, -5 medium, -6 deep for a -13. So he seems to be struggling with balls his in front of him or at medium depth this season. It could be a result of the pitching this year but I doubt it.

We've talked about this before, but what's the effect of positioning on those numbers? None, right?

Is it possible that the O's bench is hurting both Nick and Adam's numbers by an over-aggressive or flawed positioning?

[Tony-OH]

You really think Markakis is a -19 UZR so far this year based on what you've seen with your own eyes? If so, we definitely disagree. I see a guy playing a good RF in general with good range. He has had a couple glaring mistakes.

You don't see how that ARM rating is just random as all hell? What happens if the next 20 hits to right field with a runner on 1st base are all line drives on one hop right at him? I'll tell you. Nobody will go to third.

However, if the next 20 hits to right field with a runner on 1st base are all bloopers just over the first basemen's head down the line with 2 outs in the inning than ALL of them are going to go to third and there is nothing anybody is going to do about it.

Those type of stats have GOT to be subject to short term statistical anomalies. There just aren't enough balls hit to a RF with a runner on 1st base to even it out in the short term. It would take something like 500 balls out there for the noise to work itself to an acceptable level based on some rudimentary calcs I just did. Also, this number will depend on the 1B range since a lack of range makes the RF have to go to the RF line more often to get balls. It depends on how often a team play a shift in the IF. A hard hit ball that would normally be right at the 2B would be in the gap against a shift and the RF would have a long run that would likely lead to an extra base.

I watch the games and I see guys routinely holding up on Markakis and Jones. I can tell the other team respects the crap out of both of their arms.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that this pseudo science is there yet. I can think of too many ways to distort the numbers in the short and medium term.

Until the time it takes for the ball to reach each defensive zone is taken into consideration, these outfielder metrics will be questionable at best. As for an arm rating, again, time needs to be taken into consideration. How long does it take an outfielder to field a ball from a certain zone and make a throw to the bag?

[mweb]

How can anyone say no to this trade???

Other than the Marlins that is.:D

I agree with VaTech, this would be a no brainer, Nick doesn't come close to Hanley, and ther other guys don't do a lot to bridge the gap.

[SilentJames]

+/-



uzr:

Yes I got all of that but it doesn't answer my question.

Does ErrR work like Earned runs v Unearned for a pitcher. If out one is an error and that run scores it is an unearned run, but subsequent runs are not counted.

Or, do all runs that come after the error count against him?

Markakis' Range Factor is low so far, he has 129 TC, but only 118 PO. But his Zone Factor is second in the AL, and the first among RF with 600+ innings.

So when it comes to + that seems rather subjective. It is not like he is leading the league in errors.

[Lucky Jim]

Until the time it takes for the ball to reach each defensive zone is taken into consideration, these outfielder metrics will be questionable at best. As for an arm rating, again, time needs to be taken into consideration. How long does it take an outfielder to field a ball from a certain zone and make a throw to the bag?

But +/- does account for that in part, no?


Video scouts at bis review video of every play of every major league game and record detailed information on each play, such as the location of each batted ball, the speed, the type of hit, etc.

[Old#5fan]

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6368&position=OF

But then how is Jones' UZR in the negative as well. I mean by these metrics we have a TERRIBLE outfield when many other metrics say we have a very good outfield. He has three errors, but I am willing to bet he made 2/3 in April when the entire team had a case of the yips and was screwing up.
He made three all last year, has three already this year. I bet he has four/ five by the end of the year. A bad year for him.

I don't really understand what UZR is seeing in both Jones and Markakis that other metrics aren't. And could these numbers be drastically changed by the end of the year? Because it seems to me that UZR is based on RngR and ErrR. And if the player makes an error or two in the beginning of the year that leads to a run or two that could drastically throw off midseason UZR stats.


What the heck does it matter if Markakis made his errors when "the entire team had a case of the yips and was screwing up?" :confused:You think that discounts his errors somehow? :scratchchinhmm:I guess Brooks Robinson and Mark Belanger would screw up intentionally and make errors just so the rest of the the team wouldn't feel bad when they were screwing up? Some of the stuff I read here is mind blowing when it comes to excuses.:eek: He is simply not a GG outfielder. He is good but not great or spectacular, same with his hitting.

[ScottieBaseball]

It's like throwing ice cubes at alligators. :D

[Lucky Jim]

Yes I got all of that but it doesn't answer my question.

Does ErrR work like Earned runs v Unearned for a pitcher. If out one is an error and that run scores it is an unearned run, but subsequent runs are not counted.

Or, do all runs that come after the error count against him?

Markakis' Range Factor is low so far, he has 129 TC, but only 118 PO. But his Zone Factor is second in the AL, and the first among RF with 600+ innings.

So when it comes to + that seems rather subjective. It is not like he is leading the league in errors.

They don't count actual runs against the player. No. That's not how the system works. It has no part in the calculation. Just like someone determining how many runs above average a player is batting doesn't take into account RBIs.

[Lucky Jim]

It's like throwing ice cubes at alligators. :D

Lock the thread. It's been tagged and bagged. ;)

[SrMeowMeow]

It's like throwing ice cubes at alligators. :D

I'm going to start a real ruckus if this catches on for reals. ;)

[SilentJames]

But +/- does account for that in part, no?

Okay but what is plus? I mean if Markakis gets to a ball easily gets under it makes the play, not plus. But Adam Dunn has to truck and make a diving catch even though , in theory, it would be the same ball is Adam Dunn plus?

[ScottieBaseball]

Lock the thread. It's been tagged and bagged. ;)

I thought about it, but I don't want anyone to feel oppressed. :D

[Lucky Jim]

Okay but what is plus? I mean if Markakis gets to a ball easily gets under it makes the play, not plus. But Adam Dunn has to truck and make a diving catch even though , in theory, it would be the same ball is Adam Dunn plus?

Did you read the description I quoted? It doesn't appear you did.


Video scouts at bis review video of every play of every major league game and record detailed information on each play, such as the location of each batted ball, the speed, the type of hit, etc. Using this in-depth data, we’re able to figure out how each player compares to his peers at his position. How often does derek jeter field that softly batted ball located 20 feet to the right of the normal shortstop position, for example, compared to all other major league shortstops?

A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season.

[SilentJames]

They don't count actual runs against the player. No. That's not how the system works. It has no part in the calculation. Just like someone determining how many runs above average a player is batting doesn't take into account RBIs.

Okay, so is Markakis' rough early season, that coincided with a team rough defense early in the season, hurting his UZR midway through?

It might not be as good as it was last year, but should we expect it to return to something resembling career averages at the end of the season if Nick continues to follow his career averages.

As to Old Five. Come off it, you know what I was going after. The entire team defense has been below expected this year. And most of their team-wide numbers have been thrown off due to a harsh April. Since May the team's defense has been very, very solid - Markakis included.

Which is why I asked if there was a way to isolate May-June to see if Markakis' defense had improved along with the general team defense.

And Old Fan, why don't you go back and respond to my last post with logic and reason - if you can do that then I will continue to respond to you.

Explain to my why Michael Young clutch numbers will get better even though Markakis has better career numbers than Young? Explain that to me.

[Old#5fan]

Okay, so is Markakis' rough early season, that coincided with a team rough defense early in the season, hurting his UZR midway through?

It might not be as good as it was last year, but should we expect it to return to something resembling career averages at the end of the season if Nick continues to follow his career averages.

As to Old Five. Come off it, you know what I was going after. The entire team defense has been below expected this year. And most of their team-wide numbers have been thrown off due to a harsh April. Since May the team's defense has been very, very solid - Markakis included.

Which is why I asked if there was a way to isolate May-June to see if Markakis' defense had improved along with the general team defense.

And Old Fan, why don't you go back and respond to my last post with logic and reason - if you can do that then I will continue to respond to you.

Explain to my why Michael Young clutch numbers will get better even though Markakis has better career numbers than Young? Explain that to me.

What does NM's career numbers have to do with Young? Markakis has never had a season where he hit 416 with RISP has he? Young has been playing a lot longer and has a proven track record in case that isn't obvious to you. Again, rather than take common sense into account you would rather make excuses for him instead of recognizing he has been vastly overated here for a while.

[El Gordo]

We've talked about this before, but what's the effect of positioning on those numbers? None, right?

Is it possible that the O's bench is hurting both Nick and Adam's numbers by an over-aggressive or flawed positioning?
In Nicks cas it's hard to believe it's a result of positioning since his numbers have declined in every category. With AJ he has altered his positioning and it is reflected n his numbers. Early this year he was +1 shalow, -1 medium and -9 deep. Lately he is +2 shallow, +2 medium, and -9 deep for a -5. Last seasomn he was +5 +7 -5 +7.

[SilentJames]

Did you read the description I quoted? It doesn't appear you did.

Yes I did read it. But let me explain.

Markakis makes a routine play. It is neither plus nor minus.

Now Dunn would need to go into a dive to make a play on a ball in the same area. Does he get a plus because he had to go into a dive? Because it is no longer a routine play it is a diving play?

Or is the ball being in the same zone make it all equal and the effort it takes to get to said ball is irrelevant?

[Lucky Jim]

In Nicks cas it's hard to believe it's a result of positioning since his numbers have declined in every category. With AJ he has altered his positioning and it is reflected n his numbers. Early this year he was +1 shalow, -1 medium and -9 deep. Lately he is +2 shallow, +2 medium, and -9 deep for a -5. Last seasomn he was +5 +7 -5 +7.

It appears that both are playing shallower than normal, perhaps in part because Camden suppresses doubles and triples and so there's less risk?

Because this isn't a rate stat, it's entirely possible that that shallow positioning has resulted in inflated deep numbers (a team rotation that is hit hard will have more deep balls) and that this should stabilize as the year goes on, no?

[Lucky Jim]

Yes I did read it. But let me explain.

Markakis makes a routine play. It is neither plus nor minus.

Now Dunn would need to go into a dive to make a play on a ball in the same area. Does he get a plus because he had to go into a dive? Because it is no longer a routine play it is a diving play?

Or is the ball being in the same zone make it all equal and the effort it takes to get to said ball is irrelevant?

It doesn't matter if he dives or not. You don't get a + for diving.

[SilentJames]

What does NM's career numbers have to do with Young? Markakis has never had a season where he hit 416 with RISP has he? Young has been playing a lot longer and has a proven track record in case that isn't obvious to you. Again, rather than take common sense into account you would rather make excuses for him instead of recognizing he has been vastly overated here for a while.

BUNK

Total Bunk. So you are going to pick ONE SEASON. And go off of that? In 2008 he batted .298 and in late and close situations he had an OPS of 579!

See why you can't just pick one season? Looking at their career numbers:

Markakis RISP .296 OPS .886, Late and close .319 OPS .895

Young RISP .327 OPS .845, Late and close .274 OPS .694

So, in close and late siutations WHO HAS THE BETTER TRACK RECORD? Seeing as how you brought it up?



Young has been playing a lot longer and has a proven track record in case that isn't obvious to you.

So look at those numbers again? Who has the better track record in RISP and Late and close situations?

[El Gordo]

It appears that both are playing shallower than normal, perhaps in part because Camden suppresses doubles and triples and so there's less risk?

Because this isn't a rate stat, it's entirely possible that that shallow positioning has resulted in inflated deep numbers (a team rotation that is hit hard will have more deep balls) and that this should stabilize as the year goes on, no?Perhaps, but I've been tracking both weekly and the deep numbers have held steady for both so far.

[SilentJames]

It doesn't matter if he dives or not. You don't get a + for diving.

Okay, so all catches, no matter the effort taken to get to them are equal.

[Lucky Jim]

Perhaps, but I've been tracking both weekly and the deep numbers have held steady for both so far.

Sure. But that consistency between both could - theoretically - be a problem of positioning.

[El Gordo]

Okay, so all catches, no matter the effort taken to get to them are equal.
If Nick has an easy play at vecter X and Dunn has to dive for it, then Dunn doesn't get to the ball at vecter Y that Nick has to dive for. So it is eventially reflected in the numbers.

[Old#5fan]

BUNK

Total Bunk. So you are going to pick ONE SEASON. And go off of that? In 2008 he batted .298 and in late and close situations he had an OPS of 579!

See why you can't just pick one season? Looking at their career numbers:

Markakis RISP .296 OPS .886, Late and close .319 OPS .895

Young RISP .327 OPS .845, Late and close .274 OPS .694

So, in close and late siutations WHO HAS THE BETTER TRACK RECORD? Seeing as how you brought it up?




So look at those numbers again? Who has the better track record in RISP and Late and close situations?


What is Markakis hitting this year in C&L situations? I can assure you Michael Young has never been that bad. Markakis has numbers equivilent to a NL pitcher hitting so far!:laughlol:

[Lucky Jim]

What is Markakis hitting this year in C&L situations? I can assure you Michael Young has never been that bad. Markakis has numbers equivilent to a NL pitcher hitting so far!:laughlol:

Please stop. We're having an actual baseball conversation here.*


BTW, Young has a .694 OPS in C&L situations for his career. And a .579 OPS last year.

[El Gordo]

Sure. But that consistency between both could - theoretically - be a problem of positioning.So you think they are being positioned differently this year than last? The OPACY dimensions haven't changed and their positioning last year was pretty effective. If it ain't broke don't fix it, except of course we are dealing with the baseball challenged DT and his gang of coaching clowns, so who knows?:laughlol:

[SilentJames]

What is Markakis hitting this year in C&L situations? I can assure you Michael Young has never been that bad. Markakis has numbers equivilent to a NL pitcher hitting so far!:laughlol:

He has 45 ABs! Young is batting .159 with an OPS of .419 with runners in scoring position this year.

You can divide it up all you want, but this year with RISP Markakis is batting 317 with an OPS of .983.

But I am totally glad you can decide someone's future on 45 ABs.

You brought up track record, well Markakis has an excellent track record in those situations - why won't he get better?

You are so biased it is ridiculous. You seem to have a simple inability to digest information

[Lucky Jim]

So you think they are being positioned differently this year than last? The OPACY dimensions haven't changed and their positioning last year was pretty effective. If it ain't broke don't fix it, except of course we are dealing with the baseball challenged DT and his gang of coaching clowns, so who knows?:laughlol:

I don't know. The numbers don't provide answers.

[SilentJames]

I don't know. The numbers don't provide answers.

i guess what I am asking is this: Could these numbers be a fluke. They are so out of sink with his career numbers could these numbers be a fluke? Or should we genuinely be concerned?

[BeerIsFood]

What is Markakis hitting this year in C&L situations? I can assure you Michael Young has never been that bad. Markakis has numbers equivilent to a NL pitcher hitting so far!:laughlol:

Old Fan, you know for a fact that I have no problem with you, and don't pile on. I will state the following: I agree with your overall assessment (is that spelled right?) of Markakis offensive game, to the point that I agree he is not a 3 or 4 hitter. Where I disagree with you, respectfully is the he is that horrible in C&L situations. I do not think that we should examine his numbers in those situations based on this year alone, however I think we should look at his (very short) career as a whole up to this point where he has performed admirably in those situations. So, overall, I believe I agree with you regarding Markakis' ability, except in C&L situations. Also note that Markakis is among the league leaders in RBI % this year...

Where I do respectfully disagree with you is regarding his defense. I am very aware of what his numbers indicate this year, however I think sometimes numbers can shield us from the truth, rather than lead us to it. There is no concrete evidence to support what I believe, I just honestly believe that over his career Markakis will be an above average defensive outfielder, and I do think that he will win a GG before all is said and done.

You are entitled to your opinion, which I respect, as I am entitled to mine. I only wish that you respect mine as I do yours.

Regarding the trade, that would not work. Andino came from the Marlins for Hayden Penn, and I rather like Andino to be honest with you. He has turned into one of my favorite players to watch during CI's absence and I honestly enjoy watching him play. Is he an all star? No, but I think he is a good player. Hanley Ramirez is down right untouchable for the Florida Marlins I believe at the current moment. And finally, as much as I know you don't want to hear it, I would not want to trade Markakis, just the same as I have no interest in trading Jones, Wieters or Reimold to be honest with you. I doubt we trade any of them. If we need any more position players we will dip into our pitching depth in order to get it.

Those are my thoughts.

[Lucky Jim]

i guess what I am asking is this: Could these numbers be a fluke. They are so out of sink with his career numbers could these numbers be a fluke? Or should we genuinely be concerned?

Here's my answer - which may surprise you - yes, they may be fluke-ish. And yes we should be concerned.

[SilentJames]

Here's my answer - which may surprise you - yes, they may be fluke-ish. And yes we should be concerned.
What would it take this year to get his numbers back to normal? Say Markakis plays his usual D, career-wise, for the rest of this year? How much would these number normalize after a rough start?

[SilentJames]

He has 45 ABs! Young is batting .159 with an OPS of .419 with runners in scoring position this year.

You can divide it up all you want, but this year with RISP Markakis is batting 317 with an OPS of .983.

But I am totally glad you can decide someone's future on 45 ABs.

You brought up track record, well Markakis has an excellent track record in those situations - why won't he get better?

You are so biased it is ridiculous. You seem to have a simple inability to digest information

.149 and a .419 OPS for young this year with RISP. THAT is NL pitcher numbers. But hey I guess you won't answer to that.

[Lucky Jim]

What would it take this year to get his numbers back to normal? Say Markakis plays his usual D, career-wise, for the rest of this year? How much would these number normalize after a rough start?

I honestly don't know. My guess is he'd end up around average. I'd be fine w/ that going forward.

[Frobby]

We all know that Old#5Fan is a Nick-basher, and he'll bash him unless and until Nick replicates Frank Robinson's 1966 season. He has an agenda that he will harangue over and over and over.

Let's put all that aside and look for the grains of truth in what he is saying. Not everything he says is 100% wrong, and we shouldn't ignore the 5% that is right just because the other 95% is hogwash.

These points are true, in my opinion:

1. For the first 72 games this year, Nick has not played at an all-star or a gold-glove level.
2. For the first 72 games this year, Nick has hit extremely poorly in late & close situations.
3. Nick has never been named to an all-star team or won a gold glove.
4. Based on his first 3.5 years in the majors, at the age of 25, Nick is a very good player but not a superstar at this time.

If anyone wants to disagree with the above, please speak up.

Where I think most posters part company with Old#5Fan is that we appreciate that Nick is way ahead of most of his 25-year old peers. Sure there are 25-year old superstars, but at that age, most players are still learning and improving. Since we are on the topic of Michael Young, at age 25 he hit .262/.308/.382. Nick got better from 2006 to 2007 to 2008, and there is still plenty of time left in this season for him to end up with even better final numbers in 2009 (though it's not a sure thing by any means). And most of us, when watching a young player, appreciate watching them grow and develop their talents over the years. And, of course, the vast majority of us realize that Nick's career RISP and "close and late" numbers are very good, and that 3 months of poor performance "close and late" doesn't override 3 years of very good performance in that regard.

I really don't care if Old#5Fan feels like bashing Nick on a daily basis. He can bash him every day from now until 2025 for all I care. We know what we're watching.

[vatech1994]

BUNK

Total Bunk. So you are going to pick ONE SEASON. And go off of that? In 2008 he batted .298 and in late and close situations he had an OPS of 579!

See why you can't just pick one season? Looking at their career numbers:

Markakis RISP .296 OPS .886, Late and close .319 OPS .895

Young RISP .327 OPS .845, Late and close .274 OPS .694

So, in close and late siutations WHO HAS THE BETTER TRACK RECORD? Seeing as how you brought it up?

So look at those numbers again? Who has the better track record in RISP and Late and close situations?

Why in the freaking world are you doing this? He is just posting the same worthless tripe that he always posts. Ignore the tree and it won't make a sound. Please. I beg you.

[PeteCanes]

First, I challenge anyone to produce a Venn diagram outlining the choices provided in this poll. I'm afraid my head will explode if I try. The illogic is simply too much for me. :rofl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

I accept. Bear in mind, truly understanding this requires ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE of quantum physics, but you should get the gist.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yoydvl52djm

Nothing happening at work today.

[vatech1994]

I accept. Bear in mind, truly understanding this requires ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE of quantum physics, but you should get the gist.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yoydvl52djm

Nothing happening at work today.

Nothing came up, but it may be because I'm at work. I can't wait to see this thing. Rep for you just for attempting it. :D:clap3:

[vatech1994]

+/-



uzr:

Jim,
I appreciate you going to the effort to post this info, but all those descriptions SCREAM subjective to me.

How does somebody decide if Nick missed a play that at least one other player didn't miss? In the infield, I can see how that is possible though it wouldn't be easy. Infielders are usually within a 2 foot window of each other and there aren't as many variations in the types of hits that they see IMO.

But the outfield has huge changes in ball speed, spin, trajectory, height, positioning, situation, etc..... that to me makes no one play exactly like another play. I just can't see how a person "judging" that effort and categorizing it so that it gets lumps into a bazillion other judgments for decisions to be made makes any sense at all. If Nick's ball goes to the same place as another ball that was caught, but is a little lower and a little harder and he is shaded a little differently then suddenly a diving catch turns into a "missed" play. I just don't see it. The negatives are WAY too subjective in my opinion.

[Lucky Jim]

Jim,
I appreciate you going to the effort to post this info, but all those descriptions SCREAM subjective to me.

How does somebody decide if Nick missed a play that at least one other player didn't miss? In the infield, I can see how that is possible though it wouldn't be easy. Infielders are usually within a 2 foot window of each other and there aren't as many variations in the types of hits that they see IMO.

But the outfield has huge changes in ball speed, spin, trajectory, height, positioning, situation, etc..... that to me makes no one play exactly like another play. I just can't see how a person "judging" that effort and categorizing it so that it gets lumps into a bazillion other judgments for decisions to be made makes any sense at all. If Nick's ball goes to the same place as another ball that was caught, but is a little lower and a little harder and he is shaded a little differently then suddenly a diving catch turns into a "missed" play. I just don't see it. The negatives are WAY too subjective in my opinion.

Fine. Frankly, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You should feel free to disregard them. And feel free to publish your own rankings.

From, you know, all that time you spend watching every MLB RF. :)

You've basically just made an argument for how we judge Gold Gloves. Which - as you well know - has been virtually flawless in honoring the best fielders.

Just to be clear - I get this stuff is incomplete and I don't disregard the criticisms. But I'm not throwing the baby out w/ the bathwater simply because I can imagine marginal scenarios that might be hard to call.

[El Gordo]

i guess what I am asking is this: Could these numbers be a fluke. They are so out of sink with his career numbers could these numbers be a fluke? Or should we genuinely be concerned?
I doubt they are a fluke. The +/- system is pretty accurate when it comes to rating the other top defenders at their positions, so I doubt they are suddenly screwed up when it comes to 2 of our favorite players. The decline may not be as extreme as the numbers are indicating, but I think that the extreme differences between this year at last, indicate a real trend downward.,

[SilentJames]

Fine. Frankly, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You should feel free to disregard them. And feel free to publish your own rankings.

From, you know, all that time you spend watching every MLB RF. :)

You've basically just made an argument for how we judge Gold Gloves. Which - as you well know - has been virtually flawless in honoring the best fielders.

Now Jim. I am willing to agree with the numbers, I have always said that I will defer to the math. I mean Markakis does have three errors already this year, that is the same total he had all of last year. Now it is possible that maybe one or two of those errors were "tough errors" or maybe he goes all year without making another one.

Bottom line his defense did take a step back this year, but good players have bad years. Paul Blair had a couple four - five error years in the OF. SO its not that big of a deal. What concerns me about the numbers is that they are such a dramatic shift from the previous year.

The size of the shift tells me that this is either a fluke of maths, or something to genuinely be worried about. We shall see what the numbers hold at the end of the year and whether or not Markakis normalizes. Right now, I am leaning toward fluke.

[vatech1994]

Fine. Frankly, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You should feel free to disregard them. And feel free to publish your own rankings.

From, you know, all that time you spend watching every MLB RF. :)

You've basically just made an argument for how we judge Gold Gloves. Which - as you well know - has been virtually flawless in honoring the best fielders.

Nope, now you're spouting logical fallacies. I didn't argue FOR my method or the Gold Glove selection or whatever. I simply argued against your method. I don't think there is a good way to judge range at the macro level right now. I wish there was, but I don't think there is.

You seem to me to be saying "well, I'll use these because they're stats and someone has put a lot of time and effort into them." I agree that a lot of work has been done, but until someone can answer my questions (and I've asked them to most of these sites with no good answers) then they still aren't there. What we've got now is "lies, damn lies, and statistics" IMO.

Do you have good answers to how they deal with any of the issues I've brought up here? I don't. Do you not agree that all these questions are good questions? Do you not agree that if these very smart guys had good answers for these questions that they would be in the white papers published on the metrics when they were introduced? Do you not think this means that these issues are likely still in the TBD bucket?

[vatech1994]

I doubt they are a fluke. The +/- system is pretty accurate when it comes to rating the other top defenders at their positions, so I doubt they are suddenly screwed up when it comes to 2 of our favorite players. The decline may not be as extreme as the numbers are indicating, but I think that the extreme differences between this year at last, indicate a real trend downward.,

OK, why? If I buy that these two good defensive players suddenly got below average and just plain bad, why did it happen? And why don't I see that with my eyes AT ALL.

I don't think Markakis has showed the same range or sure handed this year, but I surely don't think he has been below average. I simply don't see many balls falling in that should be caught. I can think of 4 off the top of my head ALL year that I thought should be caught. 3 of the 4 were communication plays and the other he just screwed up.

[Steel Curtain]

Nothing came up, but it may be because I'm at work. I can't wait to see this thing. Rep for you just for attempting it. :D:clap3:

http://yfrog.com/eqvennj

I just took his image, and threw it up on a free image host.

[Lucky Jim]

Nope, now you're spouting logical fallacies. I didn't argue FOR my method or the Gold Glove selection or whatever. I simply argued against your method. I don't think there is a good way to judge range at the macro level right now. I wish there was, but I don't think there is.

You seem to me to be saying "well, I'll use these because they're stats and someone has put a lot of time and effort into them." I agree that a lot of work has been done, but until someone can answer my questions (and I've asked them to most of these sites with no good answers) then they still aren't there. What we've got now is "lies, damn lies, and statistics" IMO.

Do you have good answers to how they deal with any of the issues I've brought up here? I don't. Do you not agree that all these questions are good questions? Do you not agree that if these very smart guys had good answers for these questions that they would be in the white papers published on the metrics when they were introduced? Do you not think this means that these issues are likely still in the TBD bucket?

Do I think they're real questions? Only to the extent that you think one RF sees a disproportionate number of some undefined kind of play.

Do you think that's likely to be the case over a season?

[vatech1994]

Do I think they're real questions? Only to the extent that you think one RF sees a disproportionate number of some undefined kind of play.

Do you think that's likely to be the case over a season?

Yes, because these plays come up so randomly and there are so many different types. I think it could take a couple of seasons or more for some of this stuff to average out.

How many times do you think Markakis gets a ball hit 4 steps to the right and 6 steps to the home plate side of straight away right field on a 20 foot trajectory with a knuckle that is spinning 6 revs/second when he is pinching toward right center because it is a right handed pull hitter? I'm guessing not a lot. I'm guessing that is an awfully tough play. If he gets 3 in 2 months that are somewhat in that category, he may not get another for a year.

Also, a lot of my questions aren't about the evening out of plays. A lot of my questions are about the subjectiveness of the categorizations. Heck, even the number of categories and number of options per category aren't discussed by these systems. That doesn't make you wonder?

BTW, you don't think a RF could see a disproportionate amount of balls compared to another if RF A was pitching behind Adam Eaton and RF B was pitching behind Derek Lowe? Now, once you've got 12 pitchers instead of 1 pitcher this should even out a bit, but the point is still valid. The Orioles have a ton of fly ball type pitchers right now - Guthrie, Uehara, Berken, Hill, Ray, Sherrill, Eaton (was). You don't think that is a potential distortion compared to a team with a bunch of strike out and ground ball pitchers? I certainly do.

[El Gordo]

It seems to me that how we evaluate defense comes down to what we see. If a manager says I want that guy at SS every day because I have watched a lot of SS play and to my eye he has the best combination of hands range quickness, arm strength, and accuracy of any I have ever seen, then he is relying on what he has seen. As a manager of baseball he is in a better position to make evealuations of a players relative defensive capabilities than most of us because he has seen more. But the +/- sytem is merely doing the same thing in a more systematic and codified way. For the most part when I watch the game, plays seem to be routine and fall in to several basic categories. The unusual ones involving slight differences of spin, velocities, etc. seem few in comparison. And these factors are operating for all players at a position. I don't think that they have that big of an impact on the overal numbers. I would trust the FB system of evaluating defense over the GG method of polling managers. Of course it's not perfect and there is a lot of noise but I think it reflects general trends pretty well IMO.

[vatech1994]

http://yfrog.com/eqvennj

I just took his image, and threw it up on a free image host.

I literally can't stop laughing. I owe him rep whenever the system will allow me to give it to him for the rest of my life.

:rofl::mwahaha::rofl::mwahaha::laughlol:

Thanks for the transfer BTW

[SilentJames]

I doubt they are a fluke. The +/- system is pretty accurate when it comes to rating the other top defenders at their positions, so I doubt they are suddenly screwed up when it comes to 2 of our favorite players. The decline may not be as extreme as the numbers are indicating, but I think that the extreme differences between this year at last, indicate a real trend downward.,

One year is not a trend. Paul Blair had five errors in 1969, he then went 3,1,1 over the next three. So this could be just a bad year. It could be an error on Markakis that a lesser fielder would not have gotten to - etc. Errors and fielders are tough sometimes.

We have seen a big improvement in the overall defense already since April, Markakis is included in that. I can't find an efficient way to see how Markakis has been doing since April.

[vatech1994]

It seems to me that how we evaluate defense comes down to what we see. If a manager says I want that guy at SS every day because I have watched a lot os SS play and to my eye he has the best combination of hands range quickness, arm strength, and accuracy of any I have ever seen. As a manager of baseball he is in a better position to make evealuations of a players relative defensive capabilities than most of us because he has seen more. But the +/- sytem is merely doing the same thing in a more systematic and codified way. For the most part when I watch the game, plays seem to be routine and fall in to several basic categories. The unusual ones involving slight differences of spin, velocities, etc. seem few in comparison. And these factors are operating for all players at a position. I don't think that they have that big of an impact on the overal numbers. I would trust the FB system of evaluating defense over the GG method of polling managers. Of course it's not perfect and there is a lot of noise but I think it reflects general trends pretty well IMO.

All of this makes sense. So, you must believe that Nick has been an awful defensive RF so far this year, right?

[maudibjr]

I accept. Bear in mind, truly understanding this requires ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE of quantum physics, but you should get the gist.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yoydvl52djm

Nothing happening at work today.

I didn't realize spaceball1 was bigger than the death star

[El Gordo]

All of this makes sense. So, you must believe that Nick has been an awful defensive RF so far this year, right?

I think he has a great arm and that covers up for a decline in range from last season. Whether it is as extreme as the numbers show, I will wait and see as the season plays out. I am looking for improvement. I see that from Jones but I haven't seen that from Nick so far.

[wickedwitch]

What happens if someone else gets to a ball in their zone? Say Jones catches a ball well into Markakis's zone that Markakis can get to. Does Markakis get marked down because of this, because he didn't make a play others made? He certainly wouldn't get credit for it, which would affect his rating negatively.

It seems like a player could be inadvertently penalized for playing next to a good fielder.

But the OF positioning can definitely be improved. Does anyone know if Trembley and his coaches consider how good an OFer is for positioning? If they don't, they should consider spreading Markakis and Jones apart.

ETA: Markakis has only 18 out-of-zone plays, according to the Hard Ball Times (http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=zone_rating&direction=DESC&qual_filter=1&season_filter[]=2009&league_filter[]=1&pos_filter[]=7&pos_filter[]=8&pos_filter[]=9&Submit=Submit). I assume that Jones's range hurt that.

[PeteCanes]

I didn't realize spaceball1 was bigger than the death star

Who can really say. The poll choices seem to bend and distort time and space. Maybe they caused a massive black hole causing Spaceball 1 to APPEAR larger. Maybe neither of them really exist, or exist at multiple different places of the universe at the same time. All of this is really way out of my league. It boggles the mind.

[olehippi]

Reading through this thread makes me wonder if some other people have been drinking the water from OldFan#5's well.....

[Sports Guy]

I haven't look at the stats but is our staff more of a flyball staff this year vs last year?

If it is and more balls are falling in then last year, could that be what is effecting the numbers for Nick and Adam?

[vatech1994]

What happens if someone else gets to a ball in their zone? Say Jones catches a ball well into Markakis's zone that Markakis can get to. Does Markakis get marked down because of this, because he didn't make a play others made? He certainly wouldn't get credit for it, which would affect his rating negatively.

It seems like a player could be inadvertently penalized for playing next to a good fielder.

But the OF positioning can definitely be improved. Does anyone know if Trembley and his coaches consider how good an OFer is for positioning? If they don't, they should consider spreading Markakis and Jones apart.

ETA: Markakis has only 18 out-of-zone plays, according to the Hard Ball Times (http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=fielding&linesToDisplay=50&orderBy=zone_rating&direction=DESC&qual_filter=1&season_filter[]=2009&league_filter[]=1&pos_filter[]=7&pos_filter[]=8&pos_filter[]=9&Submit=Submit). I assume that Jones's range hurt that.

I agree. I asked this question earlier, but nobody seemed to know the answer. I tried reading the rules on some of these systems and can't tell from them either.

This sure is a question I'd like to know the answer to before I subscribe to any of these numbers.

[vatech1994]

I haven't look at the stats but is our staff more of a flyball staff this year vs last year?

If it is and more balls are falling in then last year, could that be what is effecting the numbers for Nick and Adam?

Another question I posed earlier.

According to MLB.com, the Orioles rank 18th with a GO/AO of 1.13. Last year, it was 1.15 and they were 18th. So, no difference it appears.

However, this stat is only outs. It doesn't take into account the hits. I haven't found that info yet. I'm guessing hardball or fangraphs has it.

[Sports Guy]

Another question I posed earlier.

According to MLB.com, the Orioles rank 18th with a GO/AO of 1.13. Last year, it was 1.15 and they were 18th. So, no difference it appears.

However, this stat is only outs. It doesn't take into account the hits. I haven't found that info yet. I'm guessing hardball or fangraphs has it.

Looks like the FB% is the same and LD% was actually higher last year...So, there goes that theory.

Its very interesting...Like you said, if these guys are that much worse, why is that the case and like you, I don't see them being way worse...It does seem like Jones isn't getting to as many balls over his head...Nick was shaky at times early in the season but it wasn't like it was several plays or anything like that.

[RShack]

How does somebody decide if Nick missed a play that at least one other player didn't miss?
The system doesn't care about anything except where the ball went, how it was hit, and the outcome of the play. It doesn't care where the fielder was standing, and it doesn't care whether he caught it with or without drama. All it cares about is where the ball went, how it was hit, and whether it got turned into an out or not. For each play, that is what gets input into the database. From interrogating the data for all the plays for all the RF's, the db spits out the +/- results for Nick.

To me, the idea makes perfect sense. I think the one key thing we don't know is about how many attributes and gradations there are for rating how the ball was hit. I don't think we know what the answer is. If I was the guy running that operation, and had money coming in based on its utility, what I would want is computational analysis of video images to make the rating both accurate and meaningful. However, I think that's not viable without multiple camera angles. Last I heard, they used trained observers to rate the ball. Using trained observers is not the problem that some seem to think it is, but we don't know how many ball-scoring attributes and gradations they have to work with. We also don't know how many they really need to produce meaningful results. I think exactly how they do it, and where they think the imperfections might be, is a trade secret.

[Old#5fan]

One year is not a trend. Paul Blair had five errors in 1969, he then went 3,1,1 over the next three. So this could be just a bad year. It could be an error on Markakis that a lesser fielder would not have gotten to - etc. Errors and fielders are tough sometimes.

We have seen a big improvement in the overall defense already since April, Markakis is included in that. I can't find an efficient way to see how Markakis has been doing since April.

Or is it not possible that you (an a host of others here) have simply vastly overated Markakis to begin with? To me at least, not only is this possible it is more likely as true as anything I have ever observed since reading and posting here.

[Lucky Jim]

A few things...

> Reference the question of what happens if Player A catches a ball in Player B's zone, and how does it get counted. The people who operate these systems are extremely smart, and know an awful lot about baseball. I think it is safe to say that they have thought of and addressed this question. It should also know that they go so far as to make park adjustments. It is possible that they are making a different adjustment this season for RF at OP@CY. I'd love to see Nick's H/A splits.

> One thing I didn't see anyone mention (I only looked at the last page), is that the ratings can also be affected by the performance of other players. What I mean is that Nick's 2008 rating was based on how he compared to other players who played RF in 2008. His 2009 rating is based on how he compares to other players who have played RF in 2009. If the cumulative numbers for all other RFers improved this season, and Nick stayed the same or regressed slightly, then that would make a huge difference.

> Reference the question of whether Orioles pitchers are giving up more fly balls this year. They've faced 2801 batters and allowed 840 flyballs. Last year's staff allowed 746 flyballs for every 2801 batters faced. At their present pace they will allow in excess of 200 more flyballs than last year's staff. That very well could have an impact. I'm a strong believer that a pitcher plays a big role in the quality of defense behind him (probably more so than most "DIPS-centric" people). Maybe some of the putrid stuff some members of this year's staff have called pitching has had a negative impact on 2110. If this is the case, then we should see their numbers improve as the season moves on.

> Unlike some, I have a great deal of confidence in UZR and TFB. I buy into most of what they're saying. I'd still love to see how they compare to some of the more advanced metrics that many teams use. For that matter I'd love to see how the publically available UZR compares to the more advanced system that its creator surely uses.

Thanks, 1970. Your faith in these systems has - from the beginning - been a source of confidence for me that they're legitimate.

These systems were designed to counter the real problems of bias that occur in trying to eyeball fielding. As a result, I'm highly skeptical of attempts to disregard them because folks think they see things differently.

None of these stats are a reason to say that Nick (or Adam) is - as a matter of rule or law - a poor fielder. They just point out reasons for concern.