Thanks for Contributing, Nick

[RayFink1e]

One big factor we have to realize is Nick has no one really hitting around him. When and If we get some hitters we could really see his production go up.

Just one of those things we have to factor in

[mweb]

Dunno...its like people criticizing Lebron cause he's not fully matured and reaching his peak potential.

Nick ain't perfect yet, but he's gonna be a good one. He was stinging the ball a couple weeks ago...he's in a slump, so what?

Are you really comparing this to LeBron? Huge difference.

[mweb]

Not when you're talking about a 2nd half player.

Plus, Bryan was determining Markakis' season to be a failure, which you cannot do when he has only played half of it.

It is still a logical point to access all your players. Now with guys like Nick and Huff, you have to consider that they are slow starters.

[the_sandman77]

One big factor we have to realize is Nick has no one really hitting around him. When and If we get some hitters we could really see his production go up.

Just one of those things we have to factor in

EXACTLY!!! Put him in the Red Sox lineup and see what his numbers are...

[Rex Thunder]

Are you really comparing this to LeBron? Huge difference.

It is a huge difference, but I see his point. Both came into an organization with huge expectations (Lebrons maybe a tad higher)- both were immediately starting- quickly became fan favorites, and are looked upon as building blocks, if not cornerstones, of the team's future.

Not to mention, Lebron plays without much talent around him. I won't go there with the talent around Nick, but you can answer that question for yourself.

The biggest difference. Everybody in the world knows and is watching Lbron. Who really knows Markakis outside of Baltimore, besides baseball fantatics??

One thing I might point out as well for not coming thru today, is it's one day. Against the Yankees the other day, A-Rod had the bases loaded, 1 out, and a 3-1 count- and grounded into a double play. The best of the best aren't perfect, and Nick just doesn't have the resume to be substantiate criticism that should be saved for 4-5 years veterans.

[RayFink1e]

EXACTLY!!! Put him in the Red Sox lineup and see what his numbers are...

As lond aws he isnt in front of Lugo

[Baltimoron]

An idea to keep things in context:

Regression toward the mean

Regression toward the mean refers to the fact that those with extreme scores on any measure at one point in time will probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested for purely statistical reasons. Scores always involve a little bit of luck. Many extreme scores include a bit of luck that happened to fall with or against you depending on whether your extreme score is extremely high or extremely low.

For example, imagine we want to examine students who score a perfect 100% correct and a perfect 100% wrong on some standardized test. Both of these scores are hard to get. To get 100% wrong, you would have to be wrong 100% of the time and even when you guess the answer, your guesses are wrong 100% of the time.

1. Some of those people who scored 100% right guessed on some of the questions and guessed right. Conversely, some of those who scored 100% wrong guessed on some of the questions and guessed wrong.

2. The odds of all your guesses being right or wrong is pretty slim. By chance alone, the next time you flip a coin to decide which answer to pick, you will probably not guess 100% right or wrong again. If you guessed right 100% of the time last time, you probably won't be so lucky the next time (on average) and your score will drop a bit (towards the average, or mean). In fact, luck can't take you any higher than 100% right. If luck moves you at all, it moves you down (towards the mean). Similarly, if you scored 100% wrong the first time, you probably won't be so unlucky the next time. Again, you can't do worse than 100% wrong. So, by chance alone your score will go up the next time you take the test.

Statistical analysts have long recognized the effect of regression to the mean in sports; they even have a special name for it: the "Sophomore Slump." For example, Carmelo Anthony of the NBA's Denver Nuggets had an outstanding rookie season in 2004. It was so outstanding, in fact, that he couldn't possibly be expected to repeat it: in 2005, Anthony's numbers had slightly dropped from his torrid rookie season. The reasons for the "sophomore slump" abound, as sports are all about adjustment and counter-adjustment, but luck-based excellence as a rookie is as good a reason as any. Of course, not just "sophomores" experience regression to the mean. Any athlete who posts a significant outlier, whether as a rookie (young players are universally not as good as those in their prime seasons), or particularly after their prime years (for most sports, the mid to late twenties), can be expected to perform more in line with their established standards of performance.

...

John Hollinger has an alternate name for the law of regression to the mean: the "fluke rule," while Bill James calls it the "Plexiglass Principle." Whatever you call it, though, regression to the mean is a fact of life, and also of sports.

Regression to the mean in sports performance produced the "Sports Illustrated Jinx" superstition, in all probability. Athletes believe that being on the cover of Sports Illustrated jinxes their future performance, where this apparent jinx was an artifact of regression.

[Moose Milligan]

It is a huge difference, but I see his point. Both came into an organization with huge expectations (Lebrons maybe a tad higher)- both were immediately starting- quickly became fan favorites, and are looked upon as building blocks, if not cornerstones, of the team's future.

Not to mention, Lebron plays without much talent around him. I won't go there with the talent around Nick, but you can answer that question for yourself.

The biggest difference. Everybody in the world knows and is watching Lbron. Who really knows Markakis outside of Baltimore, besides baseball fantatics??

One thing I might point out as well for not coming thru today, is it's one day. Against the Yankees the other day, A-Rod had the bases loaded, 1 out, and a 3-1 count- and grounded into a double play. The best of the best aren't perfect, and Nick just doesn't have the resume to be substantiate criticism that should be saved for 4-5 years veterans.

That sums it up pretty nicely, thanks.

I'm just annoyed that we're expecting him to be "the man" when he's still clearly learning.

[mweb]

It is a huge difference, but I see his point. Both came into an organization with huge expectations (Lebrons maybe a tad higher)- both were immediately starting- quickly became fan favorites, and are looked upon as building blocks, if not cornerstones, of the team's future.

Not to mention, Lebron plays without much talent around him. I won't go there with the talent around Nick, but you can answer that question for yourself.

The biggest difference. Everybody in the world knows and is watching Lbron. Who really knows Markakis outside of Baltimore, besides baseball fantatics??

One thing I might point out as well for not coming thru today, is it's one day. Against the Yankees the other day, A-Rod had the bases loaded, 1 out, and a 3-1 count- and grounded into a double play. The best of the best aren't perfect, and Nick just doesn't have the resume to be substantiate criticism that should be saved for 4-5 years veterans.

The biggest difference is LeBron already showed he's one of the top 5 or so players in the world, then regressed some this year partly due to effort and attitude. That is until he stepped it up and carried his team to the finals. Plus LeBron has more talent than anyone in the NBA.

[RayFink1e]

The biggest difference is LeBron already showed he's one of the top 5 or so players in the world, then regressed some this year partly due to effort and attitude. That is until he stepped it up and carried his team to the finals. Plus LeBron has more talent than anyone in the NBA.

LeBron doesnt have more talent but he does have more potential. Kobe has the most talent by far overall.

[Moose Milligan]

The biggest difference is LeBron already showed he's one of the top 5 or so players in the world, then regressed some this year partly due to effort and attitude. That is until he stepped it up and carried his team to the finals. Plus LeBron has more talent than anyone in the NBA.

Maybe it was a bad comparison to begin with. I just noticed during the NBA playoffs people criticized him a bit. Ease up! He's still young.

So is Markakis.

[Baltimoron]

Nick's K/PA is up from 14.7% - 16.4%. His BABIP last year was .315, this year its .300.

If Nick's K-rate was the same as in 2006, he would have @ 10 less K's, which would be about 1 more walk and 9 more balls in play. Assuming @ .300 BABIP on balls in play, Nicks line would be somewhere around .282/.343/.445*, or somewhere around a .785-.790 OPS, which is well in line with his .799 OPS from 06.

Obvious this is off the cuff, but the point is his slightly increased k rate is a big part of the "why" his numbers are "off".

*Nick is hitting more flyballs this year, so maybe his slugging should see see a great boost.

[Rex Thunder]

Maybe it was a bad comparison to begin with. I just noticed during the NBA playoffs people criticized him a bit. Ease up! He's still young.

So is Markakis.

Exactly- there may be a better thread to express this point- but since it is on topic. The criticism Lebron got through out the playoffs was ridiculous. Listening to Skip Bayliss on ESPN talk about how laughable it was to call his game 5 performace against the Pistons "one for the ages", I couldn't believe he was actually a paid talk show analyst. I mean, seriously, it was as if his kid was beaten up by Lebron as a kid and he was just looking for excuses to bash him.

Anyway- Lebron has done more, with the biggest expectations probably EVER, coming STRAIGHT from high school to the pro level than anyone else in any sport during my lifetime. If Nick can live up to even half of that- I'd almost be satisfied...ALMOST!

But again, way too early to be jumping off the Nick bandwagon.

[Mu'ayyidSaafir]

It is a huge difference, but I see his point. Both came into an organization with huge expectations (Lebrons maybe a tad higher)-

A TAD???!!! A TAD, LLOYD???!!

[Rex Thunder]

A TAD???!!! A TAD' date=' LLOYD???!![/quote']

I was being facetious. Next time I'll put a wink wink to make it obvious.