Jump to content

Orioles Discussing Four-Year Deal With Nick Markakis (Signs w/ATL)


Greg

Recommended Posts

Markakis had was hurt in 2013, pretty obvious he wasn't right. His numbers in 2014 fell apart down the stretch.

But overall his 2014 was about the same as 2013. Almost to the point that any difference between the two would be called insignificant by a statistician. We are talking 1400 plate appearances. Yes, he had some hot streaks early in both seasons but the bottom line is two full years of .700 OPS. That looks like a trend, not an aberration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
And my point is why not keep them both along with Nick. We don't have to operate like a Tampa or Oakland. Why not have as much depth as possible?

I have no problem keeping both in theory, although you don't have to be Tampa or Oakland to not want to pay $5 million for a player that you project to have fewer than 200 at-bats. That money could be better allocated elsewhere if neither Lough nor De Aza project to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but it does make sense.

Lough is under contract, he has done enough to stay on the 40 man and bring back next ST, if he performs, then great, if not, DD will find another body.

IMO, Lough is the 4th OF on the roster next year, at least, starting out the season.

No question he should be on the team. I just don't want to count on him that is all. If an injury occurs or DeAza plays poorly right away we have him as an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the cognitive dissonance that allows an individual to believe both that Lough struggled because of the concussion but going forward he will perform at the level he performed in the last for months of 2014 AND that Nick Markakis' 2013 season was in no way an aberration and must be considered as his new reality.

The insanity of the OH in the off-season. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem keeping both in theory, although you don't have to be Tampa or Oakland to not want to pay $5 million for a player that you project to have fewer than 200 at-bats. That money could be better allocated elsewhere if neither Lough nor De Aza project to start.

It would be unusual to have two similar LH-hitting outfielders on the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But overall his 2014 was about the same as 2013. Almost to the point that any difference between the two would be called insignificant by a statistician. We are talking 1400 plate appearances. Yes, he had some hot streaks early in both seasons but the bottom line is two full years of .700 OPS. That looks like a trend, not an aberration.

If a statistician can't differentiate an OPS+ of 88 and an OPS+ of 107 then that is a terrible statistician. You should seek a new one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem keeping both in theory, although you don't have to be Tampa or Oakland to not want to pay $5 million for a player that you project to have fewer than 200 at-bats. That money could be better allocated elsewhere if neither Lough nor De Aza project to start.

I think DeAza starts vs RHP. If he isn't projected to get 400 plus at bats then we should not bring him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

De Aza was a buy low, reclamation project, that worked so far, if it hadn't, he would have been DFA and taken off the 40 man roster.

I see De Aza going into the season as one of the corner OF next season.

Lough is cheap bench OF.

The team signs Kakes, or they will bring in another OFer. Again, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But overall his 2014 was about the same as 2013. Almost to the point that any difference between the two would be called insignificant by a statistician. We are talking 1400 plate appearances. Yes, he had some hot streaks early in both seasons but the bottom line is two full years of .700 OPS. That looks like a trend, not an aberration.

I wouldn't call the difference between an 88 OPS+ and a 107 OPS+ insignificant. In a static context that's 50+ points of OPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • The same thing was happening was MacDonald was the DC and when Wink was the DC, that makes me put most of the blame on Harbaugh 
    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...