Markakis

[TiredofLosing20]

I am having a hard time reconciling this statement:

The numbers back me up.

With this statement

You're going into irrelevant UZR numbers. Fact is this: I don't care what the UZR is, or the dWAR, or similar stats -

and this statement (as they are pretty much all subjective, not necessarily wrong but definitely subjective)

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.

I am a pretty major Nick Markakis defender. I think his biggest problem on this board is the expectations he set in 2008 along with his contract. He is a good supporting piece but not the cornerstone many felt he would be after 2008. Over the past few years, his numbers reflect a slightly above average offensive player and doesn't not compare well with other RF in the AL.

[Lucky Jim]

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.

How have I not made a real point? I've made several:

1. The slashline numbers you've used are dated, and thus weighted to a past performance w/ little-to-no predictive value.

You wrote:

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.

But he averaged 13.5 HRs and 67 RBIs over the last two years. His decent counting stats (HR/RBI) are inflated by his 2007-09 years. There's not much predictive value in dated stats. That said, the actual difference between them as hitters isn't all that great. Here's a chart of their relative value as hitters:

<iframe src="http://www.fangraphs.com/graphframe.aspx?config=0&static=0&type=comparison&num=3&h=450&w=450&position=OF&page=8&players=5930,9927" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" height="450" width = "450" style="border:1px solid black;"></iframe><br /><span style="font-size:9pt;">Source: <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF&page=8&players=9927">FanGraphs</a> -- <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF">Nick Markakis</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9927&position=OF">Brett Gardner</a></span>

If you'd like to challenge the value of wOBA, please do, but let me know what your issues are. At this point, the discrepancy between the two players is not all that great on offense. And Markakis is showing signs of further decline that all of that doesn't take into account.

2. On the base-paths, Gardner has a clear, undisputed advantage.

3. You're relying on a GG (and anonymous "analysts") for Markakis' defensive valuation, and called UZR irrelevant. He clearly has a better arm than Gardner, but - even considering the fact that OPACY may suppress OF defense numbers - I think it's equally clear from the available metrics that Gardner provides a good deal more overall value as an defensive OFer. I love Nick's arm in right (which is quick and accurate, though not as strong as it once was) and he manages the wall well. But his range is average at best and appears to be in decline. Ruling out the metrics as "irrelevant" is a rhetorical device - it's not substantive. (And it fails to account for the fact that +/- has Gardner at +58 over the last two years and Markakis at -9.)

4. In all, Nick has been declining to the point where his advantages over Gardner even for slash-line are marginal, and his disadvantages (on the basepaths and in the field) are enormous. Given the trends, Gardner seems a much better bet for value going forward.

[Frobby]

In all, Nick has been declining to the point where his advantages over Gardner even for slash-line are marginal, and his disadvantages (on the basepaths and in the field) are enormous. Given the trends, Gardner seems a much better bet for value going forward.

My worry with Gardner is that a lot of his value derives from speed, and speed declines faster than some other tools. Also, as to the chart you posted, I wouldn't put much stock in the 2012 numbers, especially for Gardner who has all of 34 PA.

[Lucky Jim]

My worry with Gardner is that a lot of his value derives from speed, and speed declines faster than some other tools. Also, as to the chart you posted, I wouldn't put much stock in the 2012 numbers, especially for Gardner who has all of 34 PA.

No disagreement. The context was "who would you start tomorrow." And I haven't taken 2012 into account at all, save for the analysis of Nick's numbers earlier in the thread (and the suggestion of continued decline). You don't need to look at 2012 to see that Nick doesn't confer a whole lot of value over Gardner even as a hitter anymore.

[OsShallreturn]

How have I not made a real point? I've made several:

1. The slashline numbers you've used are dated, and thus weighted to a past performance w/ little-to-no predictive value.

You wrote:

But he averaged 13.5 HRs and 67 RBIs over the last two years. His decent counting stats (HR/RBI) are inflated by his 2007-09 years. There's not much predictive value in dated stats. That said, the actual difference between them as hitters isn't all that great. Here's a chart of their relative value as hitters:

<iframe src="http://www.fangraphs.com/graphframe.aspx?config=0&static=0&type=comparison&num=3&h=450&w=450&position=OF&page=8&players=5930,9927" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" height="450" width = "450" style="border:1px solid black;"></iframe><br /><span style="font-size:9pt;">Source: <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF&page=8&players=9927">FanGraphs</a> -- <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF">Nick Markakis</a>, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9927&position=OF">Brett Gardner</a></span>

If you'd like to challenge the value of wOBA, please do, but let me know what your issues are. At this point, the discrepancy between the two players is not all that great on offense. And Markakis is showing signs of further decline that all of that doesn't take into account.

2. On the base-paths, Gardner has a clear, undisputed advantage.

3. You're relying on a GG (and anonymous "analysts") for Markakis' defensive valuation, and called UZR irrelevant. He clearly has a better arm than Gardner, but - even considering the fact that OPACY may suppress OF defense numbers - I think it's equally clear from the available metrics that Gardner provides a good deal more overall value as an defensive OFer. I love Nick's arm in right (which is quick and accurate, though not as strong as it once was) and he manages the wall well. But his range is average at best and appears to be in decline. Ruling out the metrics as "irrelevant" is a rhetorical device - it's not substantive. (And it fails to account for the fact that +/- has Gardner at +58 over the last two years and Markakis at -9.)

4. In all, Nick has been declining to the point where his advantages over Gardner even for slash-line are marginal, and his disadvantages (on the basepaths and in the field) are enormous. Given the trends, Gardner seems a much better bet for value going forward.

THAT'S more like it. All valid points, and I apologize if some of my statements have been vague or contradictory as I'm working as we speak!

Agreed that Gardner is a talent, but aside from speed, which I am not discounting in value, Markakis has the superior traditional numbers (even the subpar 2010-2012 Markakis). Metrics often don't tell the true story. Regardless, this is just enjoyable banter since neither of us have any idea what a GM/manager would do if given the choice to take Markakis or Gardner tomorrow. I still feel Markakis is the more versatile talent.

[Frobby]

No disagreement. The context was "who would you start tomorrow." And I haven't taken 2012 into account at all, save for the analysis of Nick's numbers earlier in the thread (and the suggestion of continued decline). You don't need to look at 2012 to see that Nick doesn't confer a whole lot of value over Gardner even as a hitter anymore.

I was just referring to the chart you posted, which showed Nick trending down for 2012 and Gardner trending up. Both trended down in 2011 so if the chart ends there it paints a different picture.

Personally, whether I preferred Gardner or Markakis would depend on other attributes of my team. For a team like the Yankees that has power to burn, Gardner is an excellent fit. With him in the OF, Granderson can shade a bit more towards Swisher, which is a good thing.

[Lucky Jim]

I was just referring to the chart you posted, which showed Nick trending down for 2012 and Gardner trending up. Both trended down in 2011 so if the chart ends there it paints a different picture.

Personally, whether I preferred Gardner or Markakis would depend on other attributes of my team. For a team like the Yankees that has power to burn, Gardner is an excellent fit. With him in the OF, Granderson can shade a bit more towards Swisher, which is a good thing.

If the chart ends in 2011, then the offensive value is virtually indistinguishable, which was my point. All other factors favor Gardner.

[tilgaham]

I wonder what we could get for Markakis on the open market if we ate some salary.

[Can_of_corn]

I wonder what we could get for Markakis on the open market if we ate some salary.

Considering that the O's are down to two able bodied outfielders on the 40 man roster I do not think they can afford to trade him right now.

[O Man]

All you guys are nuts. It's early in the season, and he always has low #'s at the begining of the season. I can't wait to read the post is June-Sept.

[Lucky Jim]

All you guys are nuts. It's early in the season, and he always has low #'s at the begining of the season. I can't wait to read the post is June-Sept.

Because his numbers have been sparkling the last couple years?

[tilgaham]

Considering that the O's are down to two able bodied outfielders on the 40 man roster I do not think they can afford to trade him right now.

It was a hypothetical musing.

[Oriolesfan4life]

All you guys are nuts. It's early in the season, and he always has low #'s at the begining of the season. I can't wait to read the post is June-Sept.

Markakis is the king of the meaningless double. He's good for a double when your down 7-0 in the 8th. Thus, his numbers look fine at the end of the season.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Markakis is the king of the meaningless double. He's good for a double when your down 7-0 in the 8th. Thus, his numbers look fine at the end of the season.

Yes, good call. Anecdotal evidence wins out again.

Markakis "Late and Close" stats for career:

567 AB's / 37 doubles / . 314 BA / .398 Obp / .460 SLG / 859 OPS.

Markakis "Tie Game" stats for career:

1135 AB's / 67 Doubles / .305 BA / .371 OBP / .447 SLG / 818 OPS.

[Can_of_corn]

Yes, good call. Anecdotal evidence wins out again.

Markakis "Late and Close" stats for career:

567 AB's / 37 doubles / . 314 BA / .398 Obp / .460 SLG / 859 OPS.

Markakis "Tie Game" stats for career:

1135 AB's / 67 Doubles / .305 BA / .371 OBP / .447 SLG / 818 OPS.

I notice you left off his line when down 7-0 in the 8th. :scratchchinhmm: