People here seem to forget

[TyCobb]

A-rod never had a bad year.

Dye did start out strong and had some off years. Looked like might have had some injuries in there?

I was just looking for 2 peaks. I didn't look for bad years.

[JTrea81]

A-Rod and Jermaine Dye come to mind.

Albert Belle is another example

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/belleal01.shtml

[hatepaste]

I was just looking for 2 peaks. I didn't look for bad years.

Ahhhh...Don't feel like looking it up...But Cal had that crazy year (91 I believe?).

That was out of the middle of nowhere.

[Sports Guy]

And I'm saying Oriole fans, even the most casual ones, would not accept that excuse from MacPhail. I would hope that he wouldn't think fans were dumb enough to believe that Huff as good a 1B solution as Teixeira is. I don't see him pulling that because I think he knows fans aren't that naive, especially the only fans that the Orioles have left...

Oriole fans will accept whatever excuse given by the team...Hell, i guarantee you most people on this site would be praising AM if he came out and said that and would be saying he knows what he is doing, blah blah blah.

Have you not been paying attention the last several years?

Most of the people praising AM and the direction he has this team going in praised Beattie, Flanny and Duq as well. They talked about how they are good baseball men and know what they are doing.

Again, same arguments, different years, players and FO personnel.

Now, for once, i think the argument actually holds water but still, lots to do.

[Number5]

I think he can be a good player, but a 30+ HR and .900+ OPS is a bit too much to expect. Something around .850 with 25-30 HRs is the highest I'd expect for him.

Not many players have career years at age 31 after 3-4 years of averageness/medioctrity and then maintain that level or something close to it for multiple years after the "career year". Often times a guy will have a big year after a few down years, but its very rare for that to then become their norm.

What are you basing these statements on? What players have you cited? Where did you come up with this?

BTW, this is NOT Huff's "career year."

Willie Stargell struggled a bit at ages 27 (.830), 28 (.756), and 30 (.840), only to have his 2 "career years" at ages 31 (1.026) and 33 (1.038). He was over .900 OPS at ages 37, 38, and 39.

Harmon Killebrew fell to .761 at age 32, only to bounce back to his "career year" of 1.011 at age 33 and continue with .957, .850, and .817 at ages 34,35, and 36.

Willie McCovey had 2 different down years, one at age 26 (.738) and one at age 34 (.719). Both times he bounced back quite well, peaking with 1.109 and 1.056 at ages 31 and 32. He recovered from the .719 with .966, .922, and .809 at ages 35,36,37.

Fred McGriff dipped to .797 and .814 at ages 33 and 34, only to bounce back to .957, .825, .930, .858 at ages 35, 36, 37, and 38.

Frank Howard had three consecutive off years at ages 27,28,29 with .735, .835. and .790. He then came back with .849, .890, .976, .962, .841 the next five years at ages 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34. That sounds a lot like Huff to me. "Very rare."

So far, I have yet to find one single corner infielder/corner outfielder type player that falls into your "often times" scenario of not recovering for more than one "career year" and 100% of them seem to fall into the category that you describe as "very rare."

Even Chipper Jones recovered very nicely from his poor 2004 season (.848 -very poor by his standards) at age 32 to string together very nice .968, 1.005, 1.029 seasons at ages 33,34,and 35 in 2005-2007. This year he is 36 years old and has a 1.042 OPS right now. Kind of shoots your "very rare" theory all to pieces, doesn't it? As you may recall, Chipper had some troubling personal issues himself in 2004, not unlike Aubrey Huff.

Boog Powell, Greg Luzinski, David Justice, Tino Martinez... the list of slugger corner infielders/ corner outfielders that bounced back for extended good years after a down period of 1-3 years is seemingly endless -- certainly not "very rare." I did find a couple - Willie Horton and George Scott who just fell off all at once and never recovered, but I have not yet come across one single player that bounced back for only one "career year" then fell back off, as you suggest happens "often times." I'm sure it must have happened, but I haven't found one yet. Check it out yourself. Frankly, it seems that since Huff has bounced back at all, the normal pattern would be for him to continue with a decent run of good seasons.

[JTrea81]

Oriole fans will accept whatever excuse given by the team.

They will? How do you explain the drop in attendance again? The team has made plenty of excuses for it's position in the past 10 years and the fans have stayed away because they haven't accepted them.

[square634]

What are you basing these statements on? What players have you cited? Where did you come up with this?

BTW, this is NOT Huff's "career year."

Willie Stargell struggled a bit at ages 27 (.830), 28 (.756), and 30 (.840), only to have his 2 "career years" at ages 31 (1.026) and 33 (1.038). He was over .900 OPS at ages 37, 38, and 39.

Harmon Killebrew fell to .761 at age 33, only to bounce back to his "career year" of 1.011 at age 33 and continue with .957, .850, and .817 at ages 34,35, and 36.

Willie McCovey had 2 different down years, one at age 26 (.738) and one at age 34 (.719). Both times he bounced back quite well, peaking with 1.109 and 1.056 at ages 31 and 32. He recovered from the .719 with .966, .922, and .809 at ages 35,36,37.

Fred McGriff dipped to .797 and .814 at ages 33 and 34, only to bounce back to .957, .825, .930, .858 at ages 35, 36, 37, and 38.

Frank Howard had three consecutive off years at ages 27,28,29 with .735, .835. and .790. He then came back with .849, .890, .976, .962, .841 the next five years at ages 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34. That sounds a lot like Huff to me. "Very rare."

So far, I have yet to find one single corner infielder/corner outfielder type player that falls into your "often times" scenario of not recovering for more than one "career year" and 100% of them seem to fall into the category that you describe as "very rare."

Even Chipper Jones recovered very nicely from his poor 2004 season (.848 -very poor by his standards) at age 32 to string together very nice .968, 1.005, 1.029 seasons at ages 33,34,and 35 in 2005-2007. This year he is 36 years old and has a 1.042 OPS right now. Kind of shoots your "very rare" theory all to pieces, doesn't it? As you may recall, Chipper had some troubling personal issues himself in 2004, not unlike Aubrey Huff.

Boog Powell, Greg Luzinski, David Justice, Tino Martinez... the list of slugger corner infielders/ corner outfielders that bounced back for extended good years after a down period of 1-3 years is seemingly endless -- certainly not "very rare." I did find a couple - Willie Horton and George Scott who just fell off all at once and never recovered, but I have not yet come across one single player that bounced back for only one "career year" then fell back off, as you suggest happens "often times." I'm sure it must have happened, but I haven't found one yet. Check it out yourself. Frankly, it seems that since Huff has bounced back at all, the normal pattern would be for him to continue with a decent run of good seasons.

I don't have time to research this from work, but it seems like you are including lots of players who bounced back after one down year or non-consecutive down years, when in Huff's case it is more like three consecutive down years.

[Sports Guy]

They will? How do you explain the drop in attendance again? The team has made plenty of excuses for it's position in the past 10 years and the fans have stayed away because they haven't accepted them.

2 different things though.

Saying we weren't able to sign a FA because of money(especially in this economy) and then saying we have a good replacement for him is good enough.

But not putting a good team on the field in other areas is a different thing.

I guarantee you that if we don't get Tex and AM spins it that he wanted too much and we have Huff, most of this board will be on board with AM and his decision.

[ledzepp8]

Glad to see you got the point there.

Well if that was your point, I'm not sure what sense it made to include Huff in it. Plus even if that is what has happened in the past (which it pretty much did) it doesn't have much to do with the present. It's not like the FO is going to field a lineup full of Mora's and expect 2004 numbers.

[Sports Guy]

I don't have time to research this from work, but it seems like you are including lots of players who bounced back after one down year or non-consecutive down years, when in Huff's case it is more like three consecutive down years.

Right...And they were 3 consec healthy years as well I believe.

And, Huff isn't a HOFer like some of the guys being mentioned either.

[JTrea81]

2 different things though.

Saying we weren't able to sign a FA because of money(especially in this economy) and then saying we have a good replacement for him is good enough.

But not putting a good team on the field in other areas is a different thing.

I guarantee you that if we don't get Tex and AM spins it that he wanted too much and we have Huff, most of this board will be on board with AM and his decision.

Look at the Luis Hernandez situation. I'm not saying it compares, but although fans generally want to support the guy because he's an Oriole, most knew that if it walked like a duck and talked like a duck, it wasn't a swan...

[Sports Guy]

Look at the Luis Hernandez situation. I'm not saying it compares, but although fans generally want to support the guy because he's an Oriole, most knew that if it walked like a duck and talked like a duck, it wasn't a swan...

Yea but many people were happy with the decision of playing him at SS as well.

[hatepaste]

I don't have time to research this from work, but it seems like you are including lots of players who bounced back after one down year or non-consecutive down years, when in Huff's case it is more like three consecutive down years.

Huff got moved around a bit there. Still has OPS's of about .813, .750 and .780 the past 3 years.

We'll see, I always thought Huff was a pretty good player. I was excited when the O's sign him. We'll see how it goes from here on forward...

[hatepaste]

Yea but many people were happy with the decision of playing him at SS as well.

I was! Sort of...I knew the rest of the offense would be pretty good. So I thought if Hernandez could play great defense, and handle the bat (bunts, sac flies, etc.) that his .250 AVG would be ok.

BUT

He can't hit .250. And he can't field.

[Three Run Homer]

I personally think that Huff will be a better hitter for the next 1-2 years than he was in 2006-2007. Although this is not a typical career aging progression, I think there's something beyond the statistical averages in this case--I think Huff was someone who didn't work hard or take conditioning seriously in the past, and therefore underachieved, and that he has become more mature in the last year about his craft.

However, I also think that this discussion is a waste of time. I think I've posted this four times already on OH, but I'll say it again: if nobody wanted to put in a waiver claim on Huff earlier this month, then nobody is going to want to give up a real prospect for him over the offeason--why give up talent to get someone, if you weren't willing to pick up his contract for free?

And I think we all agree that we'd might as well keep Huff for next season, unless we can actually get a real prospect in return for him. So Huff will stay, and we'll see if he can defy the odds next season.