Markakis

[Frobby]

I am pretty amused by all the amateur batting coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, marital counselors and psychologists trying to diagnose what Nick Markakis needs to do.

Here is what Nick needs to do -- keep grinding away, as he always does. In his career, he's a .762 hitter in April/May, and right now he's just a tick below that at .733. Here is his OPS through 30 games each year:

.565 (ended at .799)

.718 (ended at .848)

.896 (ended at .897)

.987 (ended at .801)

.905 (ended at .805)

.613 (ended at .756)

.733

This isn't his best start by any means, nor it is his worst by any means. He's on pace for 22 homers and his ISO is better than it was in 2009-11. His BB rate is very good despite a rash of bad calls against him. Basically, he's about 5 hits (including 2-3 doubles) shy of where he'd want to be at this point in the year to be on pace to have a typical season. It really is nothing earth-shattering, it is something he can make up easily. If you expect him to be a .900 OPS guy or hit 30 bombs, you are probably going to be disappointed, but I see no reason to think that Markakis won't have a solid year when all is said and done.

[Hooded Viper]

It's time to look at upgrades in RF, IMO, during the offseason or even at the deadline.

Until then, move Markakis down in the order, look to move him if possible. He's a salary dump at this point.

Whatever he is doing in the offseason it's not working. The last hope would be for him to work with Brady, I guess.

Good lord man, this is a stretch, even for your typical pessimistic viewpoint. I would explain why this is so wrong but Frobby did it much better than I could above.

[Lucky Jim]

I am pretty amused by all the amateur batting coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, marital counselors and psychologists trying to diagnose what Nick Markakis needs to do.

Here is what Nick needs to do -- keep grinding away, as he always does. In his career, he's a .762 hitter in April/May, and right now he's just a tick below that at .733. Here is his OPS through 30 games each year:

.565 (ended at .799)

.718 (ended at .848)

.896 (ended at .897)

.987 (ended at .801)

.905 (ended at .805)

.613 (ended at .756)

.733

This isn't his best start by any means, nor it is his worst by any means. He's on pace for 22 homers and his ISO is better than it was in 2009-11. His BB rate is very good despite a rash of bad calls against him. Basically, he's about 5 hits (including 2-3 doubles) shy of where he'd want to be at this point in the year to be on pace to have a typical season. It really is nothing earth-shattering, it is something he can make up easily. If you expect him to be a .900 OPS guy or hit 30 bombs, you are probably going to be disappointed, but I see no reason to think that Markakis won't have a solid year when all is said and done.

And if/when he doesn't? And he produces, say, his fourth straight year of declining results? Will you just write it off as the result of an injury? Or will you just lower the bar again and accept the diminished returns as a "solid year"?

Stats aside, I see a guy who is helpless against a good fastball. Every single extra-base hit I've seen this year has been on a slider/curve/change left over the plate.

His pitch values thus far: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF#pfxpitchvalues

Look at that regression! Amazingly he's faced a relatively low number of FB this year, but that will change as scouting reports get out, I imagine.

His HR/FB is at a career-high rate (and thus likely to regress). His doubles are down below last year's pace. His FB% is continuing a four-year decline. His LD% is high, but his BABIP relatively low - a sign of some bad luck (and he's had some), but also a result of a Delmon-esque GB% and generally weak contact (as well as a sky-high IFFB%). Over 62% of his hits are GBs or pop-ups.

[As a side note, amazingly, his OOZ contact rate and zone contact rate are essentially equal, at 88%, which suggests that he's sacrificing value on hittable pitches because he's concerned about pitches outside the zone - which likewise suggests an umpiring effect.]

In the end, I'm increasingly of the mind-set that Markakis is largely done being a productive part of our line-up. I said earlier I'd send him to Brady, and I still would - and I'm not sure why that suggestion would be mocked. He pretty clearly wouldn't suffer much by being bigger and stronger.

If we assume that Camden suppresses OF defense (I'm open to that) as viewed by UZR, there's an argument that he could be a decent, if over-paid, cog at No. 7 or 8 in our line-up providing marginally above-average defense (with a strong arm and familiarity w/ Camden's quirks).

[Frobby]

And if/when he doesn't? And he produces, say, his fourth straight year of declining results? Will you just write it off as the result of an injury? Or will you just lower the bar again and accept the diminished returns as a "solid year"?

* * *

In the end, I'm increasingly of the mind-set that Markakis is largely done being a productive part of our line-up. I said earlier I'd send him to Brady, and I still would - and I'm not sure why that suggestion would be mocked. He pretty clearly wouldn't suffer much by being bigger and stronger.

Just to be clear and define my terms, for me a "solid year" for Markakis means an OPS of .800+, unless the league average OPS takes a big drop, in which case I might adjust down just a little. I don't consider 2011 to have been a "solid year" for Markakis by any means, and if Markakis has a similar year this year, you won't find me making excuses for him.

As to Markakis working out with Brady, I am for it, and said that several times last season. Obviously, Nick's abdominal surgery put him on a different track this winter. I do not think that should be used as any form of excuse for how he performs this season, but it certainly does explain why he wasn't following a workout routine that a healthy player would follow in the offseason. By all accounts he worked very hard on his rehab, but that is different from trying to build up greater strength from the season before. As to what he is doing in-season, I don't know. Jim Presley said this back in early April:

"Last year, I think that leg bothered him more than he was letting on,'' Presley said. "A normal guy might have been on the DL a couple of times, but he played 160 games and played hurt most of the year. I've noticed since he came back to spring training after the surgery, he's healthy. He's back in the weight room. He's getting stronger. His leg is stronger."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-06/sports/bs-sp-schmuck-orioles-0407-20120406_1_opposite-field-nick-markakis-brian-roberts

I personally feel that when 2012 is over, Nick will have had a good year. If I'm wrong, I will say so. But you know where I stand.

[DrungoHazewood]

I am pretty amused by all the amateur batting coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, marital counselors and psychologists trying to diagnose what Nick Markakis needs to do.

Here is what Nick needs to do -- keep grinding away, as he always does. In his career, he's a .762 hitter in April/May, and right now he's just a tick below that at .733. Here is his OPS through 30 games each year:

.565 (ended at .799)

.718 (ended at .848)

.896 (ended at .897)

.987 (ended at .801)

.905 (ended at .805)

.613 (ended at .756)

.733

This isn't his best start by any means, nor it is his worst by any means. He's on pace for 22 homers and his ISO is better than it was in 2009-11. His BB rate is very good despite a rash of bad calls against him. Basically, he's about 5 hits (including 2-3 doubles) shy of where he'd want to be at this point in the year to be on pace to have a typical season. It really is nothing earth-shattering, it is something he can make up easily. If you expect him to be a .900 OPS guy or hit 30 bombs, you are probably going to be disappointed, but I see no reason to think that Markakis won't have a solid year when all is said and done.

Let the man play. He'll be whatever he is. I guess you can move him around in the lineup, but who else are you going to put there? It really just doesn't matter.

I know I probably contributed to this by making favorable statements about his HOF chances after his 2008 or 2009 seasons, but I'm not going to take the position that he'd dead to me unless he's Carl Yastrzemski.

[DrungoHazewood]

And if/when he doesn't? And he produces, say, his fourth straight year of declining results? Will you just write it off as the result of an injury? Or will you just lower the bar again and accept the diminished returns as a "solid year"?

Stats aside, I see a guy who is helpless against a good fastball. Every single extra-base hit I've seen this year has been on a slider/curve/change left over the plate.

His pitch values thus far: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF#pfxpitchvalues

Look at that regression! Amazingly he's faced a relatively low number of FB this year, but that will change as scouting reports get out, I imagine.

His HR/FB is at a career-high rate (and thus likely to regress). His doubles are down below last year's pace. His FB% is continuing a four-year decline. His LD% is high, but his BABIP relatively low - a sign of some bad luck (and he's had some), but also a result of a Delmon-esque GB% and generally weak contact (as well as a sky-high IFFB%). Over 62% of his hits are GBs or pop-ups.

[As a side note, amazingly, his OOZ contact rate and zone contact rate are essentially equal, at 88%, which suggests that he's sacrificing value on hittable pitches because he's concerned about pitches outside the zone - which likewise suggests an umpiring effect.]

In the end, I'm increasingly of the mind-set that Markakis is largely done being a productive part of our line-up. I said earlier I'd send him to Brady, and I still would - and I'm not sure why that suggestion would be mocked. He pretty clearly wouldn't suffer much by being bigger and stronger.

If we assume that Camden suppresses OF defense (I'm open to that) as viewed by UZR, there's an argument that he could be a decent, if over-paid, cog at No. 7 or 8 in our line-up providing marginally above-average defense (with a strong arm and familiarity w/ Camden's quirks).

So what do you do with him?

[Lucky Jim]

So what do you do with him?

Make him give us money back, obviously.

I drop him in the line-up, send him to Brady, and mostly just get frustrated. If I could get a return on him (i.e., someone over-values him), I'd trade him in a second. My guess is that the Yankees would love him. I'd send him there tomorrow.*

*To clarify, not because he won't be worth his contract - he may be, if barely. But because we could do a lot more, more efficiently, w/ the money he's owed.

[baltfan]

While some want to dump Markakis, I think the majority of us are just expressing our disappointment. realize there are no better solutions at this time, and also realize this team has other problems that need redress before Markakis.

[Slappy]

That's another topic I wanted to address.

1. Stop talking about the money. It's not his fault he got paid and you're not paying the bills. And FWIW, Nick Markakis would be the 7th highest-paid player for the NYY, slightly higher than Rafael Soriano.

2. Find ONE coach or player that's ever questioned Markakis' drive and determination to improve his game. In fact, it may be to his detriment that he's a constant tinkerer always trying to improve. So it's just silly to ever call that into question. The guy hustles non-stop. Send me proof that he has no drive or never mention that again.

I'm sure you think there is a cogent point in here but I assure you there isn't. I don't care he's getting paid, but it is undeniably true that his career production has been in steady decline since he inked the contact. That is fact. And who cares what he would get paid on the Yankees, the fact is, he wouldn't start on the Yankees when Swisher and Gardner are healthy.

And for the second... you really expect someone to question their own teammate or player's drive? You ever think something negative about a family member but don't express it? I bet you do.

[Skeletor]

The book is out on him. He can't hit a decent fastball with authority. He could be Jack Lalanne in his prime and that won't change.

[Lucky Jim]

For context, my long history of Markakis doom-and-gloom:

From 2008: Here.

Well, not to dissent but I feel there are times when Markakis really struggles with good fastballs.

Now, he's also struggling with pitch recognition. So it's a bad combination.

But before the season started I said the concern was that Markakis would be like Ben Grieve. Now, he's more of an athlete. But the batspeed concerns should be legitimate, as the Ks pile up and he shows vulnerability.

It can be rebutted. But I'm not prepared to disclaim this a "slump" and an aberration because Nick hasn't done enough to merit that benefit of the doubt.

Rank	Hitter	Year	Score	Trend	Rank	Hitter	Year	Score	Trend1	Bruce Bochte	1992	40		11	Gus Bell	2003	33	2	Carlos May	1979	36		12	Todd Hollandsworth	1971	33	3	Willie Montanez	1981	36		13	Dave Winfield	1982	33	4	Mel Hall	1970	36		14	Lee Walls	1960	33	5	Ben Grieve	1973	35		15	Wally Joyner	2007	32	6	Lloyd Moseby	1992	35		16	Rondell White	1975	32	7	Leon Durham	1975	34		17	Chris Chambliss	1969	32	8	Terry Puhl	1975	34		18	Billy Williams	2000	31	9	Norm Miller	1957	34		19	Harold Baines	1979	30	10	Keith Hernandez	1998	33		20	Darin Erstad	2005	30	

Did I say he was Ben Grieve? Give me a break. I'd say you're better than that. But apparently not.

I said the concern is that he'd be like Ben Grieve. The concern. That he WOULD BE like Ben Grieve. I.e., possibility.

My point is that two good years (but more appropriately) is not enough to assume the best about a player. Just as two bad weeks is not enough to assume the worst.

Give me a break.

By the way, I thought that page was great too. I think it goes a long way to rebutting the theory that Nick is intrinsically flawed.

Of course, it doesn't prove anything, necessarily. Nick's poor showing on other pitches could be the result of a number of things.

For instance, poor batspeed could lead to gearing up for fastballs which could lead to a quick trigger which could lead to not hitting offspeed stuff.

Of course, sliders are just plain tough to hit.

But, for instance, here's Richie Sexson's breakdown by pitches: http://baseball.bornbybits.com/2008/batters/Richie_Sexson.html

Now, the entire baseball world knows that Sexson has lost a ton of batspeed. Funny that he still hits fastballs at a much better clip than any other pitch.

I'm a little surprised that folks aren't willing to entertain the possibility that Nick might not be as good as we think he is. I mean, it's just a possibility. Not a probability.

What's the harm in acknowledging there's rarely certainty. And at certain points doubt is more appropriate than others.

From 2009: Here

I should apologize now. I put a hex on Nick when you all mocked me for my argument that one had to hold out Ben Grieve as one possible career outcome for Nick.

Now, suddenly, folks seem willing to revise their confidence. Here's that thread:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63935&highlight=grieve+markakis&page=8

Ben Grieve ain't happening. It was a silly suggestion then and a silly one now, IMO. Unless by 'possible' all you meant was 1 in 100 chance. But we don't waste time talking about the 1 in 100 chance that Dennis Sarfate becomes a Cy Young winner, so I don't see the point in discussing the 1 in 100 chance Nick is out of baseball before his contract is over. And yes, I think both are roughly equally likely.

That's fine. You can continue to believe it. The suggestion isn't "silly" in the sense that all it says is that two (or three) successful years doesn't work to insure against a sudden decline.

I like Nick. I think that outcome is unlikely. But this is the second year in a row that he's gone into tailspins. And this one is longer than last. It's a reason for concern.

In the endj, I'm not sure why a "concern" about Nick is silly. Seems there are lots of concerns about Nick in this thread alone. Heck, I'm a huge fan. But anyone who doesn't see issues beyond bad luck when he's slumping isn't paying attention.

In my mind, eliminating possibilities based on no reason (and, truly, you offer no reason) is silly unless one doesn't have the bandwidth to entertain multiple possibilities at one time.

I'm saying 1 in 100 possibilities aren't worth the time to talk about. That's how "possible" I think it is that Nick is out of baseball in 4 years like Grieve was. Hence, I think its a waste of time to discuss the possibility of Nick turning into Ben Grieve. Sure that's one possible outcome. So is him turning into Barry Bonds. So is him quitting to become a country music star. I don't think we have to spend time talking about all of the minutely probable outcomes for Nick, and should spend more time talking about the outcomes that are within a sigma or two of his most likely career path (whatever that might be).

That's fair. I don't think there's any chance that Nick is out of baseball in four years. But that's not what I take from a comp. It's the kind of overall decline that I'm referring to. That's it. What if he settles into a .750-.810 OPS guy. Say: .290/.360/.450? Are we okay with that?

What if it's .290/.360/.420?

I don't know.

Now, I root for Nick, loudly. And I defended Nick against O5F. But I want to salvage the Nick we used to know, or some approximation, and I think the issues identified in this (not my quoted ones) thread need to be addressed.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

For context, my long history of Markakis doom-and-gloom:

From 2008: Here.

From 2009: Here

Now, I root for Nick, loudly. And I defended Nick against O5F. But I want to salvage the Nick we used to know, or some approximation, and I think the issues identified in this (not my quoted ones) thread need to be addressed.

This is hilarious. My guess is this is what comes up on Google when you type "Lucky Jim Orioles Hangout Ben Grieve"

[Lucky Jim]

This is hilarious. My guess is this is what comes up on Google when you type "Lucky Jim Orioles Hangout Ben Grieve"

Nah. I used the search function here. I'm still sensitive about that because I got roasted so hard (by Mackus! Who everyone loved!). But I am definitely patting myself on the back for the .290/.360/.420 prediction.

[Moose Milligan]

I'm down on Nick as much as anyone, but the "bat speed" comments always make me laugh. C'mon, how do you guys know what good bat speed looks like?

Remember when people were crying about Wieters having a slow bat? Where are those people now?

And as far as Nick's offseason, no one seems to really know what he does, outside of deer hunting. No one knows for sure if he's not working on his game or not.

[olehippi]

The book is out on him. He can't hit a decent fastball with authority. He could be Jack Lalanne in his prime and that won't change.

I think there is little doubt that the good fastball has become Markakis' bane. I've said the same in other threads. For years, he was able to drive fastballs down the line into left field and became a doubles machine because of it. Now, other teams have him figured out, and when he occasionally does still hit the liner down the line to left, their is someone waiting to catch it. There was a significant drop in 2B hits last year. Markakis seems to have become a mistakes hitter....no doubt he can turn on a hanging slider. But, he has to do something to change that....the Oriole's need him to hit the good fastball, too. If not, perhaps he should learn how to bunt.