Markakis

[Lucky Jim]

That's flat-out silly to say it is "fact" that Gardner would start over Markakis.

You may not realize this, but Markakis is half a year younger than Gardner. Additionally, he has a career average of .294/18HR/84RBI (over 162 game schedule) over Gardner's .265./5/43. Better OBP, OPS 100 points higher and Gold Glove winner to boot. The only appreciable benefit Gardner brings to the table over Markakis is his base-stealing abilities. It's no contest, seriously.

And yes, I do expect players' drive to be questioned if it's a problem - if not publicly, than privately by management. I'll ask one more time to show some type of proof from any analyst of the game that Markakis has no drive.

You're using stats that are weighted to a peak performance that Markakis is way-off of. Right now, Gardner is about a .335 wOBA guy and Nick a .345 wOBA guy. If you put more faith in UZR than GGs (and I do, even w/ concerns about UZR), Gardner has a huge lead over Markakis in value, by about 2.5 wins a year (23ish UZR v. -5 URZ). Factor in speed, and I think only those who overestimate Nick would start him tomorrow over Gardner.

[Frobby]

I just don't think that Markakis has ever thrived as a #3 hitter. He has had some below average cleanup hitters behind him (Vlad for example) so he gets squeezed. They pitch around him.

This year is a little different because Jones is playing well behind him, but Markakis has just never thrived in the middle of the order. Regardless of the scenario or who is behind him. Just from a fans perspective, watching games, he always seems to be more comfortable and do better from the 2 hole.

The problem we typically have had, is that there is nobody better than Nick for the 3-hole. In that spot:

2011 - Nick .710, team .694*

2010 - Nick .765, team .716*

2009 - Nick .811, team .775*

* Team figures include Nick's numbers, so "team other than Nick" would be significantly worse than the "team" numbers shown here.

You'd have to go back to 2008 when Mora was having a good year manning the 3-hole to find a season where Nick didn't outhit the group of other players who batted no. 3. Last year, Jones did a little better than Nick in the 3-hole (.726), but he was much better in other spots in the lineup. So, we simply haven't had a lot of good alternatives there.

[Bohs&O's]

Markakis is def a two hitter but with our lineup lacking a true lead off hitter imo we should have the lineup like this.

1. Markakis

2. Hardy

3. Wieters

4. Jones

5. Davis

6. Reimold(when healthy)

7. Betemit/Reynolds

8. Reynolds/ Betemit

9. Andino

Just my two cents

[OsShallreturn]

You're using stats that are weighted to a peak performance that Markakis is way-off of. Right now, Gardner is about a .335 wOBA guy and Nick a .345 wOBA guy. If you put more faith in UZR than GGs (and I do, even w/ concerns about UZR), Gardner has a huge lead over Markakis in value, by about 2.5 wins a year (23ish UZR v. -5 URZ). Factor in speed, and I think only those who overestimate Nick would start him tomorrow over Gardner.

You're also forgetting that as a #3 hitter for most of his career with nary a true #4 behind him, Markakis has seen garbage to hit. Gardner obviously profits from the luxury of having Cano, Teixeira and Rodriguez behind him or batting late in an All-Star caliber line-up where pitchers go right after hitters.

[Hooded Viper]

You're using stats that are weighted to a peak performance that Markakis is way-off of. Right now, Gardner is about a .335 wOBA guy and Nick a .345 wOBA guy. If you put more faith in UZR than GGs (and I do, even w/ concerns about UZR), Gardner has a huge lead over Markakis in value, by about 2.5 wins a year (23ish UZR v. -5 URZ). Factor in speed, and I think only those who overestimate Nick would start him tomorrow over Gardner.

Do you think Managers would "overestimate Nick", because I seriously doubt any of them would start Gardner over Kakes. Sometimes I think Statistics can be used too often. I think the smart Managers and front offices use them as one of their tools but not the end all or be all. I wouldn't start Gardner over Markakis and I have a hard time believing Managers would either.

[Lucky Jim]

You're also forgetting that as a #3 hitter for most of his career with nary a true #4 behind him, Markakis has seen garbage to hit. Gardner obviously profits from the luxury of having Cano, Teixeira and Rodriguez behind him or batting late in an All-Star caliber line-up where pitchers go right after hitters.

Eh. I mean, unquestionably, a rising tide raises all boats (to some unknown extent), but when you start pointing to difficult-to-quantify factors in order to write-off facially relevant statistics, you betray the weakness of your argument I think.

[Lucky Jim]

Do you think Managers would "overestimate Nick", because I seriously doubt any of them would start Gardner over Kakes. Sometimes I think Statistics can be used too often. I think the smart Managers and front offices use them as one of their tools but not the end all or be all. I wouldn't start Gardner over Markakis and I have a hard time believing Managers would either.

I think they'd be crazy to start 2011-2012 Nick over 2010-2011 Gardner. I'm sure some would, but that's hardly an endorsement.

[OsShallreturn]

Eh. I mean, unquestionably, a rising tide raises all boats (to some unknown extent), but when you start pointing to difficult-to-quantify factors in order to write-off facially relevant statistics, you betray the weakness of your argument I think.

Weakness of my argument? You're kidding. The numbers back me up. You're going into irrelevant UZR numbers. Fact is this: I don't care what the UZR is, or the dWAR, or similar stats - Nick Markakis is consistently a top-3 RF in the American League. He was robbed of the GG in previous years according to almost any baseball analyst. He doesn't make mistakes in the outfield, plays every ball perfectly and has a gun (and an accurate one to boot) for an arm. Teams have been respecting that as you saw the other night.

What's your argument? You think managers would choose Gardner? Solid argument.

[Lucky Jim]

Weakness of my argument? You're kidding. The numbers back me up. You're going into irrelevant UZR numbers. Fact is this: I don't care what the UZR is, or the dWAR, or similar stats - Nick Markakis is consistently a top-3 RF in the American League. He was robbed of the GG in previous years according to almost any baseball analyst. He doesn't make mistakes in the outfield, plays every ball perfectly and has a gun (and an accurate one to boot) for an arm. Teams have been respecting that as you saw the other night.

What's your argument? You think managers would choose Gardner? Solid argument.

Gotcha. You've definitely won this argument. You should print it, frame it, and put it on your refrigerator.

[Moose Milligan]

Nobody puts Lucky Jim in a corner.

[Lucky Jim]

Nobody puts Lucky Jim in a corner with arguments about Gold Gloves, old statistics, and line-up protection.

FIFY, but whatever.

[Guest rochester]

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.

The marital counseling thing was on me - Frobby, I thought a long time of whether I should post anything that is that bizarre and in which I know nothing of when it comes to Nick's personal life. I am not saying that his personal life is bad... but I do remember thinking back in 2009 after the birth of his first, that he is going to be exhausted mentally and physically. He does not come across to me as one to not take care of family and a newborn - baseball is secondary, which IMO it should be. He is obviously tough and loyal... which is why most of us pull for him.(Man, I can't believe I am writing this).

As smart as Lucky Jim was/is regarding NM's long-term projections - the drop-off has been bigger than his analysis I believe, especially the length. I don't recall but more than likely I took Jim's analysis seriously (he's one of the guys I read every analysis) - whether I completely agreed or not is relative... even if I did agree I would have never thought he would be where he is now.

I remember when he first came up, even with struggling, he had a sweet swing and (I thought) an incredible knowledge/eye of the strike zone - to the point that if he was disgusted with a ball/strike call I generally assumed the ump missed it.

I just can't believe I said all this in public but...

[Lucky Jim]

As smart as Lucky Jim was/is regarding NM's long-term projections - the drop-off has been bigger than his analysis I believe, especially the length. I don't recall but more than likely I took Jim's analysis seriously (he's one of the guys I read every analysis) - whether I completely agreed or not is relative... even if I did agree I would have never thought he would be where he is now.

I'm not Nostradamus. In truth, I saw it as a significant-but-unlikely possibility. I certainly hoped otherwise.

That said, I try not to read into personal lives, but it's understandable that we do. I've never met anyone who didn't see an event occur that they were invested in and not want to assign some kind of causal explanation.

[OsShallreturn]

Gotcha. You've definitely won this argument. You should print it, frame it, and put it on your refrigerator.

Lucky Jim, you're taking this the wrong way. I'm not looking for a fight, but a real debate. You haven't made a real point and now seem to be getting peeved at me. Whatever, man ... cheers.

[Frobby]

The marital counseling thing was on me - Frobby, I thought a long time of whether I should post anything that is that bizarre and in which I know nothing of when it comes to Nick's personal life.

Fair enough. You are far from the only person who has made this comment in the many threads about Nick since 2009. My larger point is simply that we don't really know if Nick has changed his work habits since he got married and had kids, and we don't really know what he does in the offseason in terms of keeping in shape, so when statements are made about these things, they are purely speculative. I will just observe that the arc of players' careers vary a great deal, and you can never really know why. Look at Cal -- his OPS declined pretty precipitously between 1983 (.888) and 1989 (.718), dropping or staying steady every year but one. One might reasonably have concluded that his days as an above-average offensive SS were over. As it turned out, he had an MVP season and several other good offensive seasons left in him, along with some mediocre ones. Why? Beats me.