Jump to content

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


Greg

Recommended Posts

How about instead we ignore what evidence we actually have and just pretend what we want to happen is actually going to happen!

Buck has shown a tendency to be very loyal to players.

Do you honestly think that Buck would not, once again, run out a replacement level producing Markakis every day?

I think all managers would have kept playing a guy with his track record and the options he had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
How about instead we ignore what evidence we actually have and just pretend what we want to happen is actually going to happen!

Buck has shown a tendency to be very loyal to players.

Do you honestly think that Buck would not, once again, run out a replacement level producing Markakis every day?

I think that if Nick played very poorly while the team was underperforming he'd make a change, or at least start a platoon. If he had better options. You're acting like 2013 didn't happen, or at least that Buck doesn't realize it happened. It's now part of the dataset the team will use to make decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not the President of the Nick Markakis fan club. He has his flaws but overall when heathy I see a dependable player. I personally do not want to go into 2015 banking on options like Lough, Pearce and DeAza with little depth behind. We are built to win now and aren't going for high end types anyway. Yes, a longer deal could hurt down the road but to me it is worth that risk.

The only reason you are not the President is that Frobby beat you in the election.

:P

Don't feel bad, none of us would have won. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I would love to know how they made that calculation given that he played in the same league and ballpark both years. I still see nearly identical AVG, .013 points of OBP, and .030 points of SLG in the same league and ballpark.

The bottom line being that 2013 does not look like an aberration. If you want to look at OPS+, he is <107 three out of the last four years. Maybe 2013 is his floor, but I don't see his "new normal" being much better than 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if Nick played very poorly while the team was underperforming he'd make a change, or at least start a platoon. If he had better options. You're acting like 2013 didn't happen, or at least that Buck doesn't realize it happened. It's now part of the dataset the team will use to make decisions.

I don't understand why, if it is part of the dataset, they are contemplating a four year deal.

I think to some degree they have blinders on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason you are not the President is that Frobby beat you in the election.

:P

Don't feel bad, none of us would have won. ;)

Very true. :). To another point I don't agree with you about playing Nick in 2013 but I do think Buck should rest his regulars more often. Pearce would be a nice option to help do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not the President of the Nick Markakis fan club. He has his flaws but overall when heathy I see a dependable player. I personally do not want to go into 2015 banking on options like Lough, Pearce and DeAza with little depth behind. We are built to win now and aren't going for high end types anyway. Yes, a longer deal could hurt down the road but to me it is worth that risk.

Put it this way: Assuming the Orioles payroll is at about 110 million right now, and they aren't going much over 120. Is the difference between Lough/De Aza/Pearce and Markakis worth butting right up against 120 and having no flexibility to add much of anything else? I don't see how the answer could be yes for anyone under those parameters. If you think the Orioles are going to spend 140 to 150 million in the near future, I guess you'd be fine with paying significant money for hopefully average players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. :). To another point I don't agree with you about playing Nick in 2013 but I do think Buck should rest his regulars more often. Pearce would be a nice option to help do that.

If he can stay healthy himself, it remains to be seen, if Pearce can play an entire season first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to know how they made that calculation given that he played in the same league and ballpark both years. I still see nearly identical AVG, .013 points of OBP, and .030 points of SLG in the same league and ballpark.

The bottom line being that 2013 does not look like an aberration. If you want to look at OPS+, he is <107 three out of the last four years. Maybe 2013 is his floor, but I don't see his "new normal" being much better than 2014.

47 points of OPS doesn't equal the 50+ that it would equal in a static context because the league was friendlier to hitters in 2013 than it was in 2014 and hence, not static. In 2013 the AL OPS was .725. In 2014 the AL OPS was .706. That is a significant difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is foolish to enter the season thinking Pearce can play every day. I would have a system in place to make sure he gets regular rest to protect those wrists.

Which means, bringing back Davis, or bringing in another 1st to be the starter.

Pearce can be on the bench as platoon DH, backup First and Backup OF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it this way: Assuming the Orioles payroll is at about 110 million right now, and they aren't going much over 120. Is the difference between Lough/De Aza/Pearce and Markakis worth butting right up against 120 and having no flexibility to add much of anything else? I don't see how the answer could be yes for anyone under those parameters. If you think the Orioles are going to spend 140 to 150 million in the near future, I guess you'd be fine with paying significant money for hopefully average players.

You really want to count on those 3 players? What about all the season ticket sales that were sold? Markakis aside this is not the time to play it cheap and hope with unproven players.

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...