What is wrong with Nick?

[Frobby]

Markakis has a UZR/150 of -12.4.

I just find that shocking, even with the knowledge the number has been negative the last two years as well. I see a guy that regularly covers a lot of ground for a RF (particularly to the line), and consistently limits hitters from advancing by quickly getting to the ball and making accurate throws.

I get that eyes lie, I just have a hard time believing Markakis is not one of the best defensive RF's in the game.

Nick is a very smooth-looking outfielder. He rarely looks awkward, his arm remains a dangerous weapon, he's very good at picking up balls that hit the wall or bounce into the corner and making good throws. He does a lot of things really well.

I have noticed that Nick has become a little less decisive at times about going after balls that are in front of him. That is the main difference I see from 2-3 years ago.

[Nolanseye14]

Well, you haven't been looking. Per BB-ref, Nick's line drive percentage is 19%, which is the same as his career average. His GB/FB ratio is the lowest it has been, i.e., he is hitting fewer ground balls than usual.

As to Nick being "unlucky" -- in my opinion, that was true in April. He hasn't been unlucky at all in May.

What I'm not seeing, that you usually see a lot from Nick, are the balls lashed down the foul lines or in the gaps. I still believe we will see them, but we'll have to wait and see if that's correct.

It just seems in big spots he keeps grounding to 2nd. I agree with you that it is only a matter of time before he starts hitting the balls in the gaps. Hopefully once the weather heats up Nick's power will start to show.

[Frobby]

It is interesting to look at Nick's OPACY hit chart for 2011: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/nick-markakis/hitchart/388085

Look how many outs he makes on fly balls that are hit 350+ feet to LF and CF. And, other that his one HR at OPACY, every other ball that has been a hit has landed less than 300 feet from home plate.

[Slappy]

It is interesting to look at Nick's OPACY hit chart for 2011: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/nick-markakis/hitchart/388085

Look how many outs he makes on fly balls that are hit 350+ feet to LF and CF. And, other that his one HR at OPACY, every other ball that has been a hit has landed less than 300 feet from home plate.

If he's playing his home games at Fenway, he's got 7 more doubles given that hit chart.

[Sports Guy]

I don't think he is awful and I'm trying not to overreact. With the eye test (which is subjective), I see a lot more weak at bats from him and I see more weak at bats against marginal pitchers. From a statistical standpoint, the lack of power is very worrisome. Maybe he will go on a tear re: doubles, but he has 8 XBH in 185 at bats this year. That is just awful and the sample size is no longer small.

His IsoP the last four years:

2008 0.185

2009 0.160

2010 0.138

2011 0.086

If you guys truly aren't worried about his power numbers, then you're better men than me. I see Ichiro with a lower average (though an equivalent OBP), less speed, and not quite as good defensively. Not good enough for his contract going forward if it continues this way IMO.

Yep...The lack of power is disturbing....And while RBIs aren't the end all be all, his RBI totals over his last 200ish games are atrocious.

[Sports Guy]

The other thing to think about is that Nick has set a standard that almost no one has ever matched. The all time leaders, ALL TIME LEADERS, in doubles through a player's first five seasons:

1) Pujols, 227

2) Markakis, 206

3) Ducky Medwick, 202

4) Chuck Klein, 202

5) Paul Waner, 202

If Nick hits, say, 30 doubles this year that's completely within the range you'd expect. Basically nobody has hit doubles from the start of their career like Nick, except Pujols. Almost every great doubles hitter in history throws in a 25, 30 double season and it's just normal. Klein had a run of five straight years of 34+ doubles, then had 27 and 14 in consecutive years. In Paul Waner's prime he was as high as 62 and as low as 29.

.

Drungo, you are absolutely right.

But at some point, don't you think these types of posts are a problem?

What I mean by that is you are constantly defending Nick's poor numbers with some kind of historic stat.

I am not saying its not valid but at some point, the defending needs to stop and we need to try and figure out what the exact issue is.

One other stat you like to throw out is that historically, hitters peak at age 27..Well, Nick is 27 and has shown no power.

I just think at some point, we need to think that maybe there is some problem, whether it be fading skills, something mental, an injury that he is hiding, a poor approach, too much changing of the stances and thinking at the plate or maybe a poor workout routine that has left him weaker and thinner.

I am not sure what it is...All I do know is that he isn't hitting homers, he isn't driving in runs and he has become a mostly singles hitter...Something is wrong there.

[Redgrape]

From watching him run I actually think Nick may have been hurt earlier this year. His running earlier in the year looked slow, it looked like he was struggling to run full speed. Now he's got a lot more pep in his step, stealing bases here and there. He also was flying home on that Wieters double as soon as he saw it hit off the wall.

Hopefully something physically is/was wrong with him because his numbers are dangerously low.

[JERSEYORIOLE]

From watching him run I actually think Nick may have been hurt earlier this year. His running earlier in the year looked slow, it looked like he was struggling to run full speed. Now he's got a lot more pep in his step, stealing bases here and there. He also was flying home on that Wieters double as soon as he saw it hit off the wall.

Hopefully something physically is/was wrong with him because his numbers are dangerously low.

Im not jumping off a cliff. However, I am concerned and disappointed.

[El Gordo]

Markakis has a UZR/150 of -12.4.

I just find that shocking, even with the knowledge the number has been negative the last two years as well. I see a guy that regularly covers a lot of ground for a RF (particularly to the line), and consistently limits hitters from advancing by quickly getting to the ball and making accurate throws.

I get that eyes lie, I just have a hard time believing Markakis is not one of the best defensive RF's in the game.

That's because you don't get to watch the best regularly. The eyes tend to see what they want to see. If the 3 best defensive metrics, UZR, +-, and tot z,all agree on a player, then I think you can trust the general apparaisal.

[Frobby]

By the way, another interesting thing is there is a marked difference in how Nick is being pitched this year. Historically he has seen 62% fastballs, 9% changeups. This year he is seein 57% fastballs, 13% changeups. Historically, he has feasted on changeups more than any other type of pitch, but this year he has hit them quite poorly. His infield fly rate is way up, and I'd guess that's the result of mis-timing changeups.

[Frobby]

That's because you don't get to watch the best regularly. The eyes tend to see what they want to see. If the 3 best defensive metrics, UZR, +-, and tot z,all agree on a player, then I think you can trust the general apparaisal.

What is the +/- breakdown on balls that are short, long etc.?

[El Gordo]

By the way, another interesting thing is there is a marked difference in how Nick is being pitched this year. Historically he has seen 62% fastballs, 9% changeups. This year he is seein 57% fastballs, 13% changeups. Historically, he has feasted on changeups more than any other type of pitch, but this year he has hit them quite poorly. His infield fly rate is way up, and I'd guess that's the result of mis-timing changeups.

I think you'll find that change ups are up in general. To my eye I think Nick will hit for more pwoer when he stops trying to, just like AJ has. It looks to me that Nick has a good angel whispering BA, OBP, RBI in one ear, and a bad one whispering SLG, HR in the other. He needs to forget the bad angel all together.

[The Rick]

Oh please don't tell me Nick's season is "unacceptable" after 46 games. He had an unlucky April, and so far a pretty solid May. I'm a little surprised that his doubles are so low, but I think I'll allow him to play the remaining 116 games before deciding if his season is "acceptable" or not.

Sometimes I can't believe this place.

I just did. It's an opinion, and like you, I'm allowed to have one.

I alluded in my original post to the fact that he can still have a good season. But he's just not looked good at all, and for what we need him for and the money we're paying him, it's unacceptable to go 50 games and put up the lack of results he has. I don't see how this is such a horrible thing to say.

[DrungoHazewood]

I just did. It's an opinion, and like you, I'm allowed to have one.

I alluded in my original post to the fact that he can still have a good season. But he's just not looked good at all, and for what we need him for and the money we're paying him, it's unacceptable to go 50 games and put up the lack of results he has. I don't see how this is such a horrible thing to say.

I think it shows a lack of understanding of player valuation and the ups and downs of baseball. In May Nick has earned his salary. He's hit much better than league averages and fielded and run the bases well. And all kinds of players have had months like Nick's April, including many, many millionaire free agents. A lot of whom their teams would gladly pay the same for again, despite the occasional month where they don't play well.

[The Rick]

I think it shows a lack of understanding of player valuation and the ups and downs of baseball. In May Nick has earned his salary. He's hit much better than league averages and fielded and run the bases well. And all kinds of players have had months like Nick's April, including many, many millionaire free agents. A lot of whom their teams would gladly pay the same for again, despite the occasional month where they don't play well.

I fully understand the ups and downs of baseball, but I don't pretend to be a GM. I don't care if he earned his salary in May or not, he just hasn't been nearly good enough, IMO.

I can't comprehend how my caveat of "he can still have a good season", doesn't indicate that i've taken into account the ups and downs of baseball. Is it really that big of a deal to say that to date his .671 OPS in 46 games (Not really a small sample size) has been unacceptable?

Or is it the word choice "unacceptable" that has everyone's panties in a bunch? Would, "disappointing" be better? Has his first 46 games been a disappointment to you? I don't see how it couldn't be.

Sorry, I'm just annoyed at being called crazy for my OP. I don't get it, and think it was off base.