People here seem to forget

[Mad Mark]

I look at career average.

His career average is .825

Now I don't think there is any reason, other than injury, that he shouldn't be able to reach that. He had surgery in the offseason, so no telling how long that hernia was really bothering him.

He will have solid protection in the lineup with Nick, Luke, and Matt batting around him.

A healthy Huff should easily hit the 820's in OPS. Now the question remains, can the Orioles succeed with their starting DH hitting in the 820's?

Hi:

Aubrey's mom here again. Can the Orioles succeed with a DH who is budgeted for an 820-ish OPS? Depends a lot on the bats around him. I had no idea when I made Mad Mark start this thread that you'd be talking about my boy this long...but please remember that the thigh bone connected to the shin bone, etc. How well my boy does is in some measure dependent on how his teammates do. Keep Aubrey, and add another impact bat (or two...plus a couple of starters) is my formula...at least for 2009.

Thanks,

Aubrey's Mom

[BaltimoreTerp]

There are good arguments for both sides of this issue, and bad strawman arguments being put forward for each issue. But, here's my question.

No matter how you feel about Aubrey Huff, is there any way we should go into next season relying on him to put up any minimum numbers?

Even the arguments from the "this year isn't that fluky" side are point out, without actually saying, that he isn't the most reliable player.

"He was out of shape, but changed his habits." That just means he may not have cared enough before, and what reason do we have to believe he'll keep new habits?

"The death of his friend (Joe Kennedy) affected him." The memories will stick with him forever, but the motivation isn't guaranteed to as well.

"He pushed too hard to produce to live up to his contract." Why wouldn't he push too hard in his actual contract year, especially when it is really his last chance at a big payday?

Like someone mentioned, we have spent too many years going into new seasons built on "ifs". There are no guarantees in baseball, but risk and questions can be minimized. I'm not convinced that going into a season with any reliance on Huff is a good idea. Having him around as an extra (not bench, but not relied-upon like we might Markakis or [assuming] Teixeira) bat would be great, but building our expectations on him gives me a little chill.

[Frobby]

There are good arguments for both sides of this issue, and bad strawman arguments being put forward for each issue. But, here's my question.

No matter how you feel about Aubrey Huff, is there any way we should go into next season relying on him to put up any minimum numbers?

Even the arguments from the "this year isn't that fluky" side are point out, without actually saying, that he isn't the most reliable player.

"He was out of shape, but changed his habits." That just means he may not have cared enough before, and what reason do we have to believe he'll keep new habits?

"The death of his friend (Joe Kennedy) affected him." The memories will stick with him forever, but the motivation isn't guaranteed to as well.

"He pushed too hard to produce to live up to his contract." Why wouldn't he push too hard in his actual contract year, especially when it is really his last chance at a big payday?

Like someone mentioned, we have spent too many years going into new seasons built on "ifs". There are no guarantees in baseball, but risk and questions can be minimized. I'm not convinced that going into a season with any reliance on Huff is a good idea. Having him around as an extra (not bench, but not relied-upon like we might Markakis or [assuming] Teixeira) bat would be great, but building our expectations on him gives me a little chill.

I don't see that Huff has been any more inconsistent throughout his career than most players. If anything, he's probably been a bit more consistent than the average player. I think you could pencil him in for a .750+ OPS for next year without any hesitation, and probably have 80% confidence in .800+.

It's worth mentioning that since Huff's contract is up at the end of next season, he has every motviation to stay in shape and put up a very good season. His next contract is probably his last big payday and he'll want to convince someone that he's still worth of a multi-year deal.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm not comparing Huff to anybody but himself. I am comparing each player to himself. Mackus' unsupported statement was that "often times" guys have down years, then have a "career year" only to never do well again. My question is where did he come up with that? I have not found one single case supporting what he claims happens "often times" and I have found many cases that say players do, in fact, have comebacks for an extended period of years. The players' HOF status is irrelevant.

Stargell's years at or close to 125+ were, in fact, very much so off years for him. His lifetime was 147+ and he had quite a few 160+ or even better. I have in no way compared Aubrey Huff to Willie Stargell, other than the commonality of having some off years and then rebounding.

It amazes me that you choose to nitpick minutia as to whether my examples are EXACTLY like Aubrey Huff, rather than look at Mackus' totally unsupported statement that these comebacks are "often times" for only "one career year" and that it is "very rare" for the comeback to last more than one year. Neither he, nor you, have substantiated that statement in any way. Every indication, from looking at the careers of HOFers and non-HOFers alike, is that, in fact, the reverse is true.

Again, I was totally and completely unconcerned with anyones Hall of Fame Status as I looked at this. I was simply looking up corner guys who had down periods in production. I was not comparing one with another, I was looking at each players' statistics individually.

All I know is that you picked a group of dominant, consistent players, and somehow used that as an example of why Aubrey Huff should rebound from three below-average years to consistently go back to peak form. I think that's an irrelevant comp.

[Number5]

A few players who I would qualify as having big "resurgent" years and then not approaching those numbers again.

Richard Hidalgo after a huge 2003.

Bobby Higginson after 2000.

Rondell White after 2001.

Trot Nixon after 2003.

Vernon Wells after 2006.

Thats just from looking at Huff's comparable hitters list on BBRef. Not all are great comparisons, but most of them were guys who usually had a few really good years, but then had settled into the 95-110 OPS+ range, then broke out for a 130-140 OPS+ season, then settled back into the previous range (or less).

I am sure that there must be cases of players coming back from down years, having a "career year" and never playing well again. I doubted very much when you wrote it that it happens "often times" and I still doubt it. I don't see that these examples apply. Of course, every players "career year" is, by definition, his best year, but how do these players support what you said?

Likewise, I have shown that it is not "very rare" for a player to have a multi-year comeback as you stated. It has happen numerous times.

Higginson went .722, .981, .899, .835, .733, .915, .812, .762, .689, .741, with the .915 being the year you've quoted. Hard to see a pattern here, as he certainly had an up and down career, but it is indeed a stretch to cite him in support of your claim, wouldn't you say? .915 was not his "career year, and his .812 year following was still considerably better than his .733 in his down year.

Vernon Wells is 29 years old right now, how is he even applicable? Just because he had a better year in 2006 than 2007?

Hidalgo had an 8-year career. He played full-time 5 or 6 years. Relevance?

Rondell White had 357 AB's in the 2001 season you cite, with a .900 OPS. The 3 years prior to that he had OPS of .876, .864, and .867. How is 2001 a comeback year? Just because it was slightly higher in OPS than the preceding 3 years, all of which had more at bats? Sorry, don't see that one at all.

2003 has been Nixon's best year, no doubt, but EVERYONE has a best year. His OPS in each of the 4 preceding years exceeded .800, and I can't see how this applies at all to what you had stated.

Again, i give you that surely there have been players who had one single "career year" as a comeback from a down period, only to never do very well again. Common sense tells me that it must have happened on occasion. What doesn't ring true is that it happens "often times" as you stated. Neither of us have found an applicable case, as of yet. It also was quite a stretch to say that for these comebacks to last multiple years is "very rare." In no time at all, I found numerous examples.

All I'm saying is that you really should support such statements by citing concrete examples. As to Huff, nothing in what either you or I have found tells me that it would be "very rare" for him to approach his 2008 numbers again.

[Number5]

All I know is that you picked a group of dominant, consistent players, and somehow used that as an example of why Aubrey Huff should rebound from three below-average years to consistently go back to peak form. I think that's an irrelevant comp.

I did no such thing. Go back and read the posts. I responded to an unsubstantiated claim that for a player to have a one-season "career year" after a down period, only to never do very well again happened "often times." And that a multi-year comeback was "very rare." Every example I could find showed that quite the contrary was the case, whehter it be a HOFer or not. The original post by Mackus did not ring true and still does not. His "examples" that he has since cited are clearly irrelevant. To go from .876 and .867 to .900 can hardly be called a "career year comeback."

You said I compared Huff to Stargell. I most certainly did not. I compared only Stargell to Stargell. If you agree with Mackus, provide some examples.

[StaubyStyle]

I think that most people around here believe that if a player is not shatting in his diaper then he must be too old. I know everyone will reference PED's as a reason for production later on in the career, but let's be logical here many players these days are playing well into their 40's. I will take 270 avg with 30+ HR's and 100+ rbis for the last 3 years of a career just the same as I'd be happy with a 270 avg with 30+ homeruns for the first 3 before FA.