TT: Would you pay Joe Orsulak $12 million year?

[theobird]

I made the Orsulak comparison a few weeks ago. At this age he and Nick are similar players. I have advocated a 3 or 4 year deal for Nick at 8m per year.

Candidly, I tend to agree with those that say De Aza and Alvarez platoon likely is as good as Nick. If it is me I spend the money on Miller.

I can understand the thinking here. And I get Tony's take on the Orsulak/Markakis comparison although Joe's numbers were aided by his manager picking and choosing his best match ups versus the everyday Markakis. My problem is the same one I had last year, which is we apparently are content to sit back and wait for a plum to drop in our lap. If Markakis is off the table, and Miller is too.....Who is this years "lightening in a bottle" addition? I was one of the very few on this board last offseason in support of signing Cruz to a 3 year deal. When we got him 1/8 I was thrilled. But I would have rather signed him to a 3/36 deal. I also would have let him walk this year for the 4/58 deal that the Mariners gave him because of his age. Now if we let Markakis and Miller go....who is the Plum, or do we think that we are set even with the loss of those 3 players? Those 3 guys represent our highest OBP hitter, our top power hitter and our best relief pitcher. Somebody is gonna have to shake the hell out of that plum tree.

[sportsfan8703]

I think playing in a small ball park like OPACY hurts a guy like Markakis. Not alot of square footage in the OF for balls to fall. I'd expect him to have more value playing for a team with a big OF and especially not in the AL EAST. Plus I don't think he's been the same player since CC broke his wrist.

2014 OPS

Home .690

Road .765

[ledzepp8]

Thanks for the excellent stat based disagreement. It's post like these that show why this is the best community around where people can disagree without calling the other opinion ridicuclous, especially when you don't bother to prove other wise.

If you want to hold grudges from prior disagreements and make smart alleck disrespectful posts, feel free to go back to your other community and stay there. this community holds each other to higher standard and for some one who has been around here for a long time off and on, it's pretty disappointing to see such a comment directed for me.

I welcome any and all disagreements but the expectation is that you prove why the other post or analysis is wr ong. It's pretty sad that i had to be having this conversation with you.

I was going to ignore this but seriously, you negative repped me for that? You know I could almost apologize for my unintentionally flippant post if it wasn'tfor your aggressively over the top reaction to it.

I also didn't know I was supposedly holding a grudge for som mythical past disagreement nor did I know I had another community I had come from and was capable of returning to. I also had no idea that I was an "off and on" member of this community.

Why you took that post so personally and with such vitriol, I have no idea.

You're right, I could have posted stats as to why your comparison was questionable (is that less offensive?). But you also cherry picked three years of stats from a marginal major leaguer in an attempt to make a comparison to Markakis. Your opinion on Markakis is probably right but using Joe Orsulak as a comparison does nothing to support it. Markakis has ben worth 25.1 war in 9 seasons and Orsulak was worth 5.5 in 14 seasons. The only similarity is the position they predominantly played.

Your reaction to my post and the way you talked to me was uncalled for. I'm not a child so don't please don't talk to me like one.

[Tony-OH]

Orsulak did not hit lefties well throughout his career including his 28-30 years. He was usually platooned. Which is why he never had more than 486 at bats in a year and on a normal year less than that. Platoon players don't make what players that play 160 games a year make.

Markakis vs lefthanders:

28 - .877 OPS

29 - .651 OPS

30 - .673 OPS

You could argue that Marakkis should have been platooned the last two years vs left-handers as well.

[Tony-OH]

I was going to ignore this but seriously, you negative repped me for that? You know I could almost apologize for my unintentionally flippant post if it wasn'tfor your aggressively over the top reaction to it.

I also didn't know I was supposedly holding a grudge for som mythical past disagreement nor did I know I had another community I had come from and was capable of returning to. I also had no idea that I was an "off and on" member of this community.

Why you took that post so personally and with such vitriol, I have no idea.

You're right, I could have posted stats as to why your comparison was questionable (is that less offensive?). But you also cherry picked three years of stats from a marginal major leaguer in an attempt to make a comparison to Markakis. Your opinion on Markakis is probably right but using Joe Orsulak as a comparison does nothing to support it. Markakis has ben worth 25.1 war in 9 seasons and Orsulak was worth 5.5 in 14 seasons. The only similarity is the position they predominantly played.

Your reaction to my post and the way you talked to me was uncalled for. I'm not a child so don't please don't talk to me like one.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I picked the last three years of Markakis and compared it directly with Orsulak at the same age and used categories commonly used to show a players worth.

I stated specifically that Markakis was the better overall player in his career but i was referring to the peak years of 28-30. The last 2-3 years of performance plus age consideration are usually a good indicator of future performance.

I'm not going to get in a tit-for-tat thing with you. Continual disrespectful posts will take away from the board and will cause you to be removed from this community. If you want to further this discussion PM me, if not, I suggest you change your attitude.

[MurphDogg]

I stated specifically that Markakis was the better overall player in his career but i was referring to the peak years of 28-30.

But those weren't Markakis's peak years, so it is weird that you repeatedly refer to them as that when they are by far the worst years of his career, simply because they coincide with the best years of Orsulak's career.

Orsulak averaged 471 PAs per year during that period and most of his career was around 450 plate appearances while Markakis has been around 700 PAs every year but 2012. While their value may have been similar during this time period, they weren't very similar players, Markakis has more power and played every day.

[Ohfan67]

Please explain why 28-30 year old Orsulak is not a good comp for 28-30 old Markakis.

Because the player with a much better earlier career/track record has a higher probability of being successful in the future. Not insanely higher, but a significantly higher probability. Part of that is probably talent and experience and part of that is because a manager will be more willing to take a chance of them playing out of slumps, etc.

[crawjo]

Please explain why 28-30 year old Orsulak is not a good comp for 28-30 old Markakis.

Didn't play as many games, and did not hit lefties well at all. He was basically one half of a solid platoon.

[Tony-OH]

But those weren't Markakis's peak years, so it is weird that you repeatedly refer to them as that when they are by far the worst years of his career, simply because they coincide with the best years of Orsulak's career.

Orsulak averaged 471 PAs per year during that period and most of his career was around 450 plate appearances while Markakis has been around 700 PAs every year but 2012. While their value may have been similar during this time period, they weren't very similar players, Markakis has more power and played every day.

Peak years for baseball players are normally considered 27-31 years of age. Some will argue that 27 is the peak and then there's a gradual decline through 31 until the decline becomes more pronounced afterwards.

Again, Markakis was a much better player through his career than Joe Orsulak, but from 28-30, Orsulak outperformed Markakis. What do you think is more important, the last three years of performance or the performance 4-6 years ago? I agree that Orsulak is not a career comp for Markakis, but 28-30 I believe he is a decent comp.

[Tony-OH]

Because the player with a much better earlier career/track record has a higher probability of being successful in the future. Not insanely higher, but a significantly higher probability. Part of that is probably talent and experience and part of that is because a manager will be more willing to take a chance of them playing out of slumps, etc.

That's a fair point and why I think Markakis will be better than Orsulak over the next four years, but I have never seen a study to suggest this is more than what we think should happen. That's what I was talking about in a previous post with Drungo. I think it would be interesting to see if there is merit that a player who started off stronger but who matches a player in his peak years will decline more gradual.

[Tony-OH]

Didn't play as many games, and did not hit lefties well at all. He was basically one half of a solid platoon.

So because Markakis was given less at bats and performed poorly 2 out of 3 peak years against lefties that makes him get the advantage over Orsulak. Since Orsulak defense helped his WAR, wouldn't it make sense if he played more that his dWAR would improve and actually had made him more valuable?

Are you just disregarding the WAR and RAR stat and just going by your gut feeling?

[MurphDogg]

So because Markakis was given less at bats and performed poorly 2 out of 3 peak years against lefties that makes him get the advantage over Orsulak. Since Orsulak defense helped his WAR, wouldn't it make sense if he played more that his dWAR would improve and actually had made him more valuable?

Are you just disregarding the WAR and RAR stat and just going by your gut feeling?

Joe Orsulak's net dWAR those three seasons was -0.3.

[Tony-OH]

Joe Orsulak's net dWAR those three seasons was -0.3.

See what I get for going off a comment from Drungo without looking it up! lol

[Frobby]

I think 2013 really influences how Nick's detractors see him. When I look at Nick I see a guy whose value has been pretty consistent the last 6 years except that for whatever reason he had an off year in 2013. Others see 2013 as a harbinger of big decline from which he only partially rebounded in 2014 and into which he could relapse. Both views are supportable IMO. You know which view I have. I believe I will be proven right, but only time will tell.

[Frobby]

.801

.805

.756

.834

Those four years from 2009 to 2012 are pretty consistent.

.685

.729

Those two are pretty consistent also. The first four are a .800 OPS player. The last two are a .700 OPS player.

I look at it this way:

108

120

106

126

88

107

To me the 88 is a pretty obvious outlier.