How Will Nick Hit in 2009?

[DrungoHazewood]

Thanks. Good post. To me an alleged hitter on the verge of greatness should want to and actually relish hitting third. If Markakis is going to be something special or a superstar as some who think they are wise presume, I think he should be flourishing not pedestrian batting third. But then again, thats just me. What do I know?

Not much. At least not about splits in someone's batting line.

Not quite correct. I do think it is a positive ability to draw walks as a lead off hitter, just not a heart of the lineup hitter. This why I now look at Markakis as more of a leadoff hitter. If only he had more speed he would be ideal in that role.

You're wrong. Plate discipline is one of the keys to being a successful hitter whether you're batting 1st, 9th, or anywhere else.

I didn't ignore it for any particular reason. I just take the opposite side of the coin. There is zero guarantee that Markakis isn't already at his ceiling. Also, what the heck does Eddie Murray have to do with Nick Markakis? They don't even resemble each other. Murray has way more power and was a switch hitter. He also was a firstbaseman or DH not an outfielder. Bad comparison.

I think Markakis could probably be more accurately compared to Brady Anderson as that is what I see of him. A leadoff hitter, only unfortunately he doesn't have Brady's speed.

I often confuse Nick and Eddie. I mistakenly thought they were brothers.

You do realize that Brady Anderson was about 1/100th the player Nick is until he'd been in the league about 3-4 years? You do know that, right? I assume you made your comp ionly because it's insulting to Markakis.

Not on the Yankees, Rays, Phillies, or Boston. That was what the other guy was trying to spout in his post. He was falsely trying to claim that if Markakis was on a contending team he would win an MVP. That is laughable and another example of the extremely overrating of this guy and embellishment of his abilities that goes on here. It is almost embarassing to see. Luckily probably not to many fans of other teams visit here much or they would be laughing themselves silly of this Markakis lovefest seen here.:rolleyestf:

I can only imagine what this board would be like if the Orioles ever truly glean a real superstar on this team. There would probably be a church established in order to worship him regularly!:rofl:

Objective information is your friend. You can actually look some of this stuff up on the interwebs before you go and post factually incorrect information.

Keep in mind for future posts.

There is nobody on this planet who would take Nick Markakis over Evan Longoria. Longoria is already a superstar so please stop with this ridiculous over-rating of a very good player in Markakis.

Not even the point being made. Make it simpler to defend your position when you get to ignore the original post, and pick out an easier point to rebut!

Please, don't bring that steriod aided abberation of a season up. I actually liked Brady Anderson until that singular season was the turning point in his careeer going south.

You never really saw Brady Anderson play, did you? Because he was an excellent player in 1992, 1993, and 1995. He peaked in 1996, then had four more very good/excellent seasons afterwards.

What a trainwreck.

[Old#5fan]

Not much. At least not about splits in someone's batting line.

You're wrong. Plate discipline is one of the keys to being a successful hitter whether you're batting 1st, 9th, or anywhere else.

I often confuse Nick and Eddie. I mistakenly thought they were brothers.

You do realize that Brady Anderson was about 1/100th the player Nick is until he'd been in the league about 3-4 years? You do know that, right? I assume you made your comp ionly because it's insulting to Markakis.

Objective information is your friend. You can actually look some of this stuff up on the interwebs before you go and post factually incorrect information.

Keep in mind for future posts.

Not even the point being made. Make it simpler to defend your position when you get to ignore the original post, and pick out an easier point to rebut!

You never really saw Brady Anderson play, did you? Because he was an excellent player in 1992, 1993, and 1995. He peaked in 1996, then had four more very good/excellent seasons afterwards.

What a trainwreck.

The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your beliefs on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?

The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

[NewMarketSean]

The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your believes on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?

The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

I will take PRODUCTION over what Brady LOOKED LIKE as a player any day.

No matter how you want to spin it, the facts are:

1. With the 50 HR 1996 season, Anderson set a then career high in OBP with .396.

2. In 1997, he would only lower his OBP by .003 while hitting 32 less HR.

3. In 1999, he set his career high in OBP with .404. Keep in mind this is 3 years after 1996 -- the point where you say his career took a turn for the worse.

4. In 2000, with a .257 AVG, he was still able to get on base at a .375 clip.

5. Brady never hit half the number of HR's he did in 1996 in any season after that year. So I don't know how his swing could be longer and more HR oriented. If anything, he became less obsessed with the HR and got on base more.

And since you love to dismiss OBP and the ability to draw a walk, remember that Brady was a lead-off hitter, and you admitted to valuing the ability to draw walks in the lead-off spot.

So what we're basically looking at here is that Brady had the best seasons of his career starting in 1996 (the year he hit 50 HR) and 3 of the next 4 years after he hit 50 HR.

So you are wrong. 100%.

[ChaosLex]

Not much. At least not about splits in someone's batting line.

You're wrong. Plate discipline is one of the keys to being a successful hitter whether you're batting 1st, 9th, or anywhere else.

I often confuse Nick and Eddie. I mistakenly thought they were brothers.

You do realize that Brady Anderson was about 1/100th the player Nick is until he'd been in the league about 3-4 years? You do know that, right? I assume you made your comp ionly because it's insulting to Markakis.

Objective information is your friend. You can actually look some of this stuff up on the interwebs before you go and post factually incorrect information.

Keep in mind for future posts.

Not even the point being made. Make it simpler to defend your position when you get to ignore the original post, and pick out an easier point to rebut!

You never really saw Brady Anderson play, did you? Because he was an excellent player in 1992, 1993, and 1995. He peaked in 1996, then had four more very good/excellent seasons afterwards.

What a trainwreck.

Great post as always, Drungo. Rep coming your way!

Not like you need it.

[DrungoHazewood]

The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your believes on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

You clearly don't read what I write, because I rarely say that I'm 100% certain of anything, with the possible execption of the knowledge that your posts have no foundation.

Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?

The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

You seem to be confusing production with approach. Brady was a productive player for four years after his big season. How he did that is irrelevant.

[NewMarketSean]

You clearly don't read what I write, because I rarely say that I'm 100% certain of anything, with the possible execption of the knowledge that your posts have no foundation.

You seem to be confusing production with approach. Brady was a productive player for four years after his big season. How he did that is irrelevant.

DH, see my above post. Not only was he productive for 4 years after 1996, he had 3 of his 4 best best seasons as a lead-off after 1996.

[Lucky Jim]

The trainwreck is your pedantic path that only your views are infallibly correct, especially when it comes to opinions on a player's volume of work and how it is viewed. Where you commit your most egregious error is basing your believes on one basis only and not opening yourself to other means of evaluation that don't overwhelming embrace sabermetrical answers and conclusions.

Brady Anderson IMO (mark this for your reference) ruined his career after his 50 homer season. If you watched his on-the-field performance (no-not just his fantasy baseball stats) as a student and observer of the game you would realize that Brady became something of a head case in that he now fancied himself primarily as a home run hitter. His swing became noticebly longer. He refused ever again to bunt for a hit, and he was trying to pull everything into the seats. In short, Brady suddenly fancied himself as the Babe Ruth of leadoff guys. No doubt he probably thought if he could hit 50, why not 60?

The problem is, he was not then, nor ever would be confused with a home run hitter. That season was an abberation, and did immense harm to his overall production from that point forward (again, IMO.)

Except that it didn't.

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG *OPS+  TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+1988 24 TOT AL  94  325   31   69  13  4   1   21  10  6  23  75  .212  .272  .286   57   93  11   1   0   4   3        BOS AL  41  148   14   34   5  3   0   12   4  2  15  35  .230  .315  .304   72   45   4   1   0   4   2        BAL AL  53  177   17   35   8  1   1    9   6  4   8  40  .198  .232  .271   43   48   7   0   0   0   11989 25 BAL AL  94  266   44   55  12  2   4   16  16  4  43  45  .207  .324  .312   84   83   5   0   6   3   41990 26 BAL AL  89  234   24   54   5  2   3   24  15  2  31  46  .231  .327  .308   82   72   4   5   2   5   41991 27 BAL AL 113  256   40   59  12  3   2   27  12  5  38  44  .230  .338  .324   88   83  11   3   0   5   11992 28 BAL AL 159  623  100  169  28 10  21   80  53 16  98  98  .271  .373  .449  129  280  10   9  14   9   2 MVP-14,AS1993 29 BAL AL 142  560   87  147  36  8  13   66  24 12  82  99  .263  .363  .425  108  238   6   6   4  10   41994 30 BAL AL 111  453   78  119  25  5  12   48  31  1  57  75  .263  .356  .419   96  190   3   2   3  10   71995 31 BAL AL 143  554  108  145  33 10  16   64  26  7  87 111  .262  .371  .444  110  246   4   2   4  10   31996 32 BAL AL 149  579  117  172  37  5  50  110  21  8  76 106  .297  .396  .637  156  369   6   4   1  22  11 MVP-9,AS1997 33 BAL AL 151  590   97  170  39  7  18   73  18 12  84 105  .288  .393  .469  128  277   2   1   6  19   1 AS1998 34 BAL AL 133  479   84  113  28  3  18   51  21  7  75  78  .236  .356  .420  103  201   4   1   1  15   71999 35 BAL AL 150  564  109  159  28  5  24   81  36  7  96 105  .282  .404  .477  128  269   1   7   7  24   62000 36 BAL AL 141  506   89  130  26  0  19   50  16  9  92 103  .257  .375  .421  106  213   5   7   5   8   4

Anderson was arguably better after that year than before. Granted, he declined quickly once he hit 35. But I'm not sure what that's got to do with your theory - after all, most players decline at 35.

Average OPS+ in four years before his 50 HR year: 110.

Average OPS+ in four years after his 50 HR year: 116.

Further, his BB percentages stayed roughly the same and his K percentages did not go up until his steep decline beginning in 2000.

He suffered a bad year in 1998, otherwise he was productive until 36.

[Old#5fan]

You clearly don't read what I write, because I rarely say that I'm 100% certain of anything, with the possible execption of the knowledge that your posts have no foundation.

You seem to be confusing production with approach. Brady was a productive player for four years after his big season. How he did that is irrelevant.

It is relevant as if he would have cut down on his uppercut Babe Ruth swing, he may have been a HOF player. He hit far to many fly balls to the warning track and rolled over to second base. Had he not had that abberational season he could have ended up with stats similar to Ricky Henderson and HOF career.

[DrungoHazewood]

Except that it didn't.

Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG *OPS+  TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+1988 24 TOT AL  94  325   31   69  13  4   1   21  10  6  23  75  .212  .272  .286   57   93  11   1   0   4   3        BOS AL  41  148   14   34   5  3   0   12   4  2  15  35  .230  .315  .304   72   45   4   1   0   4   2        BAL AL  53  177   17   35   8  1   1    9   6  4   8  40  .198  .232  .271   43   48   7   0   0   0   11989 25 BAL AL  94  266   44   55  12  2   4   16  16  4  43  45  .207  .324  .312   84   83   5   0   6   3   41990 26 BAL AL  89  234   24   54   5  2   3   24  15  2  31  46  .231  .327  .308   82   72   4   5   2   5   41991 27 BAL AL 113  256   40   59  12  3   2   27  12  5  38  44  .230  .338  .324   88   83  11   3   0   5   11992 28 BAL AL 159  623  100  169  28 10  21   80  53 16  98  98  .271  .373  .449  129  280  10   9  14   9   2 MVP-14,AS1993 29 BAL AL 142  560   87  147  36  8  13   66  24 12  82  99  .263  .363  .425  108  238   6   6   4  10   41994 30 BAL AL 111  453   78  119  25  5  12   48  31  1  57  75  .263  .356  .419   96  190   3   2   3  10   71995 31 BAL AL 143  554  108  145  33 10  16   64  26  7  87 111  .262  .371  .444  110  246   4   2   4  10   31996 32 BAL AL 149  579  117  172  37  5  50  110  21  8  76 106  .297  .396  .637  156  369   6   4   1  22  11 MVP-9,AS1997 33 BAL AL 151  590   97  170  39  7  18   73  18 12  84 105  .288  .393  .469  128  277   2   1   6  19   1 AS1998 34 BAL AL 133  479   84  113  28  3  18   51  21  7  75  78  .236  .356  .420  103  201   4   1   1  15   71999 35 BAL AL 150  564  109  159  28  5  24   81  36  7  96 105  .282  .404  .477  128  269   1   7   7  24   62000 36 BAL AL 141  506   89  130  26  0  19   50  16  9  92 103  .257  .375  .421  106  213   5   7   5   8   4

Anderson was arguably better after that year than before. Granted, he declined quickly once he hit 35. But I'm not sure what that's got to do with your theory - after all, most players decline at 35.

Average OPS+ in four years before his 50 HR year: 110.

Average OPS+ in four years after his 50 HR year: 116.

Further, his BB percentages stayed roughly the same and his K percentages did not go up until his steep decline beginning in 2000.

He suffered a bad year in 1998, otherwise he was productive until 36.

Again, you can't quote facts to someone who doesn't believe in facts. The only things that are real are things that have been vetted by groups of curmudgeonly sportswriters.

[DrungoHazewood]

It is relevant as if he would have cut down on his uppercut Babe Ruth swing, he may have been a HOF player. He hit far to many fly balls to the warning track and rolled over to second base. Had he not had that abberational season he could have ended up with stats similar to Ricky Henderson and HOF career.

I don't care a bit about what he might have been. I care what he was. And what Brady Anderson was in the four years after 1996 was a better player than he was in the four years prior.

[Leitch]

Had he not had that abberational season he could have ended up with stats similar to Ricky Henderson and HOF career.

Are you serious? Rickey Henderson played for 25 years. He averaged more steals per 162 than Anderson had in his best year. He took 1,230 more walks than Anderson. He has more than four times as many stolen bases.

You can't be serious.

[Old#5fan]

I don't care a bit about what he might have been. I care what he was. And what Brady Anderson was in the four years after 1996 was a better player than he was in the four years prior.

Well you should have because apparently you as any Oriole fan does want to see Oriole players make it to the HOF. IMO Brady had he cut down on his swing and not become so inadvertently enamored of the long ball could have had much better numbers.

[Moose Milligan]

Are you serious? Rickey Henderson played for 25 years. He averaged more steals per 162 than Anderson had in his best year. He took 1,230 more walks than Anderson. He has more than four times as many stolen bases.

You can't be serious.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!

<img src = "http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/mcenroe_4.jpg">

:laughlol:

[Old#5fan]

Are you serious? Rickey Henderson played for 25 years. He averaged more steals per 162 than Anderson had in his best year. He took 1,230 more walks than Anderson. He has more than four times as many stolen bases.

You can't be serious.

I am not talking about steals and longevity numbers per se. However, I don't think Brady's career would have flamed out as such a relatively young age, especially when you consider he was a physical fitness nut and in great playing shape and really not ever suffering any major injury. What caused his premature decline and ultimate demise was his hard headedness in trying to replicate the 50 homer season.

[NewMarketSean]

Well you should have because apparently you as any Oriole fan does want to see Oriole players make it to the HOF. IMO Brady had he cut down on his swing and not become so inadvertently enamored of the long ball could have had much better numbers.

Better numbers where? How? He had his best numbers for a lead-off guy after he hit 50 home runs. This is typical OldFan-being-zany-so-people-will-pay-attention-to-me.