Markakis

[Lucky Jim]

I will let you have the last word on this but I will say one more time. His bat was slow. You can argue semantics as much as you want and say the bat speed was the same but the swing mechanics are different now. I choose to say the swing mechanics are what made a slow swing, quicker. He could not catch up to good fastballs at one time. He needed to start his swing sooner and then was helpless against offspeed stuff. People who said he had the talent and it would take time but he'd be okay were right. I don't mind an "I told you so" in that regard. I just mind someone telling me now that his bat wasn't slow back then.

Well, I'm sligthly better at analyzing hitting mechanics as I am pitching mechanics and I'd rate my ability to judge pitching mechanics as zero. No doubt he does seem more confident and selective though.

I don't mean it as an "I told you so," and perhaps it's just that we don't agree on the definition of "slow bat." But the fact that he was slow on FB and quick on change-ups isn't necessarily illustrative of the ability (or lack of ability) to get the bat through the zone quickly. The bolded touches upon this - what I saw from Wieters was someone caught in between, not someone merely helpless against off-speed pitches because he was starting early. I saw plenty of ability to get the bat through the zone quickly, w/ plenty of batspeed to hit a good FB. Very different from what we see from Nick.

Like I said, disagreement is fine.

[Slappy]

I guess it depends on how other people perform in that spot compared to other spots. Just to take a simple example, let's say you have guys who are solid at 1 and 4-9. Both the other two guys hit much better in the 2-hole than the 3-hole. Well, you have to choose which one you are going to put in a spot that's not his best.

Obviously, real life is more complicated than that simple example. But if Nick loses 80 OPS points by moving from 2nd to 3rd, and anyone else loses more than that by moving from their normal spto to no. 3, or simply isn't a good enough hitter to warrant batting in the top half of the lineup, Nick at no. 3 could still be the best option.

And no, I didn't mind being called stupid.

I can see your argument, sure. Take Jones for example. His futility at #3 is even worse than Markakis. .674 career OPS in 462 PA, compared to nearly .800 everywhere else!

I'm not sure any of this is anything more than coincidental. Hard to imagine where you hit in the lineup having that profound of an effect on batting output.

[Stotle]

I will let you have the last word on this but I will say one more time. His bat was slow. You can argue semantics as much as you want and say the bat speed was the same but the swing mechanics are different now. I choose to say the swing mechanics are what made a slow swing, quicker. He could not catch up to good fastballs at one time. He needed to start his swing sooner and then was helpless against offspeed stuff. People who said he had the talent and it would take time but he'd be okay were right. I don't mind an "I told you so" in that regard. I just mind someone telling me now that his bat wasn't slow back then.

His bat was not slow back then. You can argue that his approach was flawed. You can argue that his pitch-ID was such that he didn't get started in time. You can argue that he was overcompensating for swings-and-misses early on and reverted to a swing that got long in the back (trying to keep his hands back through load and barring some) and threw off timing and swing plane (time of barrel in hit zone).

But you just can't make the argument that his bat speed was an issue. I mean, you can identify one of the above issues and just call it a "slow bat" -- it just isn't what people generally mean when they say "slow bat".

I am fully on board if you want to say his timing was an issue, or he wasn't putting the barrel through the hit zone effectively, etc.

[Lucky Jim]

His bat was not slow back then. You can argue that his approach was flawed. You can argue that his pitch-ID was such that he didn't get started in time. You can argue that he was overcompensating for swings-and-misses early on and reverted to a swing that got long in the back (trying to keep his hands back through load and barring some) and threw off timing and swing plane (time of barrel in hit zone).

But you just can't make the argument that his bat speed was an issue. I mean, you can identify one of the above issues and just call it a "slow bat" -- it just isn't what people generally mean when they say "slow bat".

I am fully on board if you want to say his timing was an issue, or he wasn't putting the barrel through the hit zone effectively, etc.

Thanks. Stated much more articulately than I could, so much appreciated. This is what I saw, and have tried to describe here.

[Flosman]

Nick's career numbers leading off an inning are very good. I know you can only ensure he actually is the first batter once, but with our lack of a real lead off hitter he probably should be leading off until we find a lead off guy.

[Stotle]

Thanks. Stated much more articulately than I could, so much appreciated. This is what I saw, and have tried to describe here.

Right. It's like taking a player who runs a 6.4 60-yard dash, watching him struggle with his jumps and getting thrown out 50% of the time, and calling him slow because he's being thrown out by three steps. Or taking a kid who hits 500 foot homeruns in BP but struggles identifying off-speed pitches and saying he lacks power because he's only hit 3 homeruns in 150 ABs.

[primetime]

I would never call you stupid and didn't mean to imply or say that something you said was stupid. I shouldn't have used that word. How bout it doesn't make sense to me. Batting order isn't supposed to effect a way a hitter hits for the most part. Should Adam Jones or Matt Wieters hit differently from the #5, #4, or #3 spot? No. It doesn't make sense. You could make a case that a hitter would hit different from the #1 or #2 spots because it's considered more of a get on base, do the little things spot(s). Again, I don't really see any logic to why Nick would hit that much better from the #2 spot but I'm willing to see it he really does. Turning Nick back into a .850 OPS kind of hitter seems worth taking the chance on someone else actually being a worse hitter in the #3 hole (wouldn't make sense to me) than their previous spot.

In a vacuum, hitters should hit to their ability regardless of their spot in the lineup. However, this is where the tricky human element comes into play.

Guys that hit 3, 4 and 5 are the "heart of the order" and supposed to be the run producers. As a result of the long held baseball ideas about those spots, guys may try to "do more" when they hit in those spots and may have more of those "emotional ABs"; as Buck likes to say. Often why you see a manager have a young player hit lower in the lineup because the perception (and perhaps the reality) is that there's less pressure associated with hitting lower in the lineup.

On paper, no matter where you hit, an at bat is an at bat. It shouldn't matter whether you're anywhere from 1-9. However, when you see career splits for players at different spots throughout the lineup and see disparity from one spot to the other, there certainly appears to be an effect of some kind. It could be completely coincidental or it could be that player X feels pressure when they hit in one spot versus another and they press or try to do too much.

[Stotle]

How about a runner who runs a 6.6 60 and then is taught better running mechanics and runs a 6.4? You could argue that the talent or the speed was always there but different mechanics actually help him to run faster. I'm not talking about better starts or jumps.

The issue is that the claimed mechanical tweaks wouldn't be helping him to improve because the bat speed is improving. They would be helping him improve because he is more effectively implementing his well above-average bat speed.

[Frobby]

The powerless Markakis is now on pace to hit 26 home runs this year. How does that fit the narrative?

Just goes to show that people shouldn't overreact to small samples, good or bad. The baseball season is incredibly long. Players have peaks and valleys. Nobody can say right now whether Markakis will be in the 12-15 HR range (as in 2010-11), the 18-23 HR range (2007-09), or set his career high. I guess we know he will hit at least 5. Which is more than we knew after 31 games in 2007, when he hit his career high of 23.

[Lucky Jim]

The powerless Markakis is now on pace to hit 26 home runs this year. How does that fit the narrative?

Just goes to show that people shouldn't overreact to small samples, good or bad. The baseball season is incredibly long. Players have peaks and valleys. Nobody can say right now whether Markakis will be in the 12-15 HR range (as in 2010-11), the 18-23 HR range (2007-09), or set his career high. I guess we know he will hit at least 5. Which is more than we knew after 31 games in 2007, when he hit his career high of 23.

The way small samples always do, subjectively?

[SurhoffRules]

The powerless Markakis is now on pace to hit 26 home runs this year. How does that fit the narrative?

Just goes to show that people shouldn't overreact to small samples, good or bad. The baseball season is incredibly long. Players have peaks and valleys. Nobody can say right now whether Markakis will be in the 12-15 HR range (as in 2010-11), the 18-23 HR range (2007-09), or set his career high. I guess we know he will hit at least 5. Which is more than we knew after 31 games in 2007, when he hit his career high of 23.

Before anyone asks, it was off an 85 MPH slider down and in.

[Lucky Jim]

Before anyone asks, it was off an 85 MPH slider down and in.

Think it was a cutter, no? That said, yep. I originally wrote "when he hits something over 86 MPH w/ authority, get back to me." I probably should have left it in.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The powerless Markakis is now on pace to hit 26 home runs this year. How does that fit the narrative?

Just goes to show that people shouldn't overreact to small samples, good or bad. The baseball season is incredibly long. Players have peaks and valleys. Nobody can say right now whether Markakis will be in the 12-15 HR range (as in 2010-11), the 18-23 HR range (2007-09), or set his career high. I guess we know he will hit at least 5. Which is more than we knew after 31 games in 2007, when he hit his career high of 23.

Ehh, 3 years of steady decline is hardly a peak and valley and it's surely not the the player we thought he might develop into. I have yet to see him turn on a 90+ fastball and his inabilty to hit with power to the opposite field is well documented. It's great he can hit changeups and mid to upper 80 fastballs. Nick is a good hitter and will put up decent numbers in the end. I think most all understand that. Beyond that, maybe you are the one overreacting.

[Frobby]

The way small samples always do, subjectively?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I just can think of so many times when posters have decided a player is an all-star or a bum based on the first 30 games (or fewer) of the season. Sometimes they're right, more often they are wrong.

Wait, Nick just struck out. He's a bum.

[SurhoffRules]

Think it was a cutter, no? That said, yep. I originally wrote "when he hits something over 86 MPH w/ authority, get back to me." I probably should have left it in.

Whatever it was is was slow and spinning, but neither sliding nor cutting particularly well. Regardless he hit it hard with two strikes.