2008 Orioles MVP using WPA

[Sports Guy]

]This is the greatest statistical data and usage I have ever seen[/b]. I think it could also be just as useful as anything else to predict the future as well. I love it' date=' as it shows what I knew to be true about the overhyped Markakis. :clap3: He's like Mike Mussina, a very good player but not great, although hopefully he can get there if he improves over time. Right now he is a young Jeff Conine.[/quote']

Markakis led the team in this stat last year.

[J.D.]

What's that? Oldfan going on and on about a player who does things that oldfan doesn't quite grasp as being valuable? I never would've thought it.

Bonds doesn't know the strike zone? Markakis isn't a great player? Yep. Another typical nonsensical, contrary just to be contrary rant.

I think I'm gonna sit this one out guys. You all are doing just fine.

[Mackus]

This is the greatest statistical data and usage I have ever seen. I think it could also be just as useful as anything else to predict the future as well. I love it, as it shows what I knew to be true about the overhyped Markakis. :clap3: He's like Mike Mussina, a very good player but not great, although hopefully he can get there if he improves over time. Right now he is a young Jeff Conine.

Well, Markakis lead the team in this stat last year. What does that tell you?

And its not useful in predicting future results, because a major factor is the number of at bats a player gets in high leverage situations each year, and that would wildly fluctuate between years, even if a player's performance in those types of at bats is the same.

I can't believe you can't understand this. Well, let me restate that. I can't believe that a human being that clearly is capable of at least operating a computer in some fashion would not be able to see the obvious limitations of this stat, even if it is terribly useful for some uses (such as figuring out who has made the greatest net impact on a team's performance in the past).

[Mackus]

What's that? Oldfan going on and on about a player who does things that oldfan doesn't quite grasp as being valuable? I never would've thought it.

Bonds doesn't know the strike zone? Markakis isn't a great player? Yep. Another typical nonsensical, contrary just to be contrary rant.

I think I'm gonna sit this one out guys. You all are doing just fine.

I hate that I keep involving myself in these things. It just boggles my mind to the point of disbelief that somebody could be so ignorant and still somehow function in society.

[SteveA]

One question, and this is the only question I'm going to address to you in thread, so I would prefer a straight answer. And please, no one else answer. This is for him and him alone to declare in a public forum.

If given a choice between two completely identical teams, one with a 1.000 on-base percentage and one with a 1.000 slugging percentage, which would you choose, and why?

I'd choose the 1.000 slugging percentage, because I have to go to work in the morning so I'd want the game to end eventually.

[Old#5fan]

No no....That isn't the first thing...For that runner to be able to cross the plate, what did he accomplish first?

Any number of things each involving a wide varying range of degree of skill. For example, hitting a homer, triple, double or single, in general all require much more skill than getting on base by essentially luck as in hit by a pitch or reaching base on an error, or by virtue of a catcher letting a swinging strike three get by him and the runner to reach.

[Sports Guy]

Any number of things each involving a wide varying range of degree of skill. For example, hitting a homer, triple, double or single, in general all require much more skill than getting hit by a pitch or reaching base on an error, or by virtue of a catcher letting a swinging strike three get by him and the runner to reach.

LOL...You are unreal.

The bottom line is you have to get on base, somehow, for you to be able to score a run.

Do you agree that you can't score a run if you don't get on base first(excluding homers which is still technically getting on base)?? Just answer that question.

(BTW, reaching on a 3rd strike or error has nothing to do with OBP)

[mweb]

I've got a secret.

Guess who led the Orioles hitters in a certain someone's new favorite stat (even if he doesn't know what the stat means) in 2007?

Haha, yeah, that's funny. In case you didn't notice this Oldfan, Markakis led the hitters in WPA last year, was behind Bedard and Guthrie though.

[J.D.]

Any number of things each involving a wide varying range of degree of skill. For example, hitting a homer, triple, double or single, in general all require much more skill than getting on base by essentially luck as in hit by a pitch or reaching base on an error, or by virtue of a catcher letting a swinging strike three get by him and the runner to reach.

I think you just back-handedly said "reaching base."

Judges, are we counting this?

[longflyball]

Any number of things each involving a wide varying range of degree of skill. For example, hitting a homer, triple, double or single, in general all require much more skill than getting on base by essentially luck as in hit by a pitch or reaching base on an error, or by virtue of a catcher letting a swinging strike three get by him and the runner to reach.

Players who get on base as often as Markakis are more rare than players who collect more home runs and RBI than Markakis. What does that tell you about the level of skill involved in each?

There is a direct relationship between a team's on-base percentage and the number of runs it scores. Can you disprove this?

[Old#5fan]

I hate that I keep involving myself in these things. It just boggles my mind to the point of disbelief that somebody could be so ignorant and still somehow function in society.

I never said Bonds didn't know the strike zone but many of his walks he was simply pitched around and really had no possibility of hitting the ball in play. Moreover he got an abnormal amount of regular intentional walks. His true skill is not his high OBP but his ability to hit the ball ouf of the park in fair territory repeatedly. And Markakis is a long way from being a "great" player. Correct me if I am wrong but he has never been rookie of the year, an allstar, MVP or won any kind of batting title or award. Great players usually do this sort of thing and certainly don't come in 6th on their own last place team in importance of contributing to a win. Instead of making fun of me maybe you ought to do a reality check on your extreme overestimation of Nick Markakis as a player. Again, he is a young Jeff Conine and I have cited why. Maybe you should let it sink in.:scratchchinhmm:

[Old#5fan]

Haha, yeah, that's funny. In case you didn't notice this Oldfan, Markakis led the hitters in WPA last year, was behind Bedard and Guthrie though.

Good for him, but all that means is he has not stepped it up to another level this year. He is continuing his Jeff Conine path to "greatness.":clap3::laughlol:

[ledzepp8]

Why do you guys continue to engage in a battle of wits with Old #5 Fan, when it's clear he comes unarmed? There's no point in discussing anything with him when he's purposefully being obtuse. Let it go and he'll have no reason to talk.

[Old#5fan]

Players who get on base as often as Markakis are more rare than players who collect more home runs and RBI than Markakis. What does that tell you about the level of skill involved in each?

There is a direct relationship between a team's on-base percentage and the number of runs it scores. Can you disprove this?

Um, I would take Mickey Mantle, Yaz, Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, Al Kaline, Harmon Killebrew, Roberto Clemente, Stan Musial, Joe Dimaggio, and

Ted Williams any day over Markakis. They are "great" players. To espouse that Nick Markakis at this point in his career is "great" at anything is laughable and a gross exaggeration. Again, akin to proclaiming Jeff Conine as equivilent to those HOF players I mentioned.:rolleyestf:

[Moose Milligan]

Any number of things each involving a wide varying range of degree of skill. For example, hitting a homer, triple, double or single, in general all require much more skill than getting on base by essentially luck as in hit by a pitch or reaching base on an error, or by virtue of a catcher letting a swinging strike three get by him and the runner to reach.

You're being intentionally obtuse. There's just no way you're for real.