Todays lineup: No Markakis Again

[bgfield]

For him to sit that many games is a joke.

How is it a joke? I've been reading this place a lot before signing up and I've agreed with a lot of things you say, but this is just ridiculous that you're getting so upset over the guy sitting two games. Allow me to refer back to an earlier post in this thread:

Willie Mays: 464

Mickey Mantle: 341

Roberto Clemente: 474

Stan Musial: 467 (ignoring previous yr cup-o-coffee)

Mel Ott: 163 (ignoring previous call-up; the following yr was 435)

Dave Winfield: 141 (the following year was 498)

Roger Maris: 358

Rocky Colavito: 322 (ignoring previous yr call-up)

etc., etc.

And, lest we forget:

Sam Bowens: 501 (after prev. yr. call-up)

Was it a joke when these players got limited playing time in their first ML season? It obviously didn't impede their process that much. Why are you making such a big deal about this so early in the season?

[bgfield]

I love how everyone who agrees with Perlozzo keeps saying that they do think Markakis should play everyday.

Yet, you don't mind that he has sat 30% of the games this year.

So, which is it?

Why does everything have to be black and white? I'd like to see Nick play every day, but I'd also like to see him do well this year. So far, he hasn't been very good at all. If I didn't already know he was a top rated prospect I'd be wondering why we're wasting time with him the way he's looked so far.

What I'm trying to say is that more than seeing Nick play, I'd like to see us win. Obviously playing Patterson, Millar, and Conine the past two games has helped us achieve that goal. Sure, we could have possibly won if Markakis took the place of one of those players, but we can't argue the results Sam got out of playing the three guys he did in place of Markakis.

[skipshot26]

I think you sit Markakis against Randy Johnson. But he should start the other two games in NY. It is very difficult to support Sammy when he starts Conine over Markakis. Especially when Millar now appears to be the everyday 1B.

The other point worth mentioning is the impact of speed in the lineup. Brob, Markakis and Mora at the top of the order and Patterson in the 9 hole make this team very fast.

[bgfield]

Verging slightly off topic, how is Markakis' speed? He looks very athletic and possibly very fast, but he hasn't attempted to steal yet and he hasn't shown too much speed in the outfield. Is he the kinda guy who could steal 20-30 bases a year?

[Sports Guy]

Why does everything have to be black and white? I'd like to see Nick play every day, but I'd also like to see him do well this year. So far, he hasn't been very good at all. If I didn't already know he was a top rated prospect I'd be wondering why we're wasting time with him the way he's looked so far.

What I'm trying to say is that more than seeing Nick play, I'd like to see us win. Obviously playing Patterson, Millar, and Conine the past two games has helped us achieve that goal. Sure, we could have possibly won if Markakis took the place of one of those players, but we can't argue the results Sam got out of playing the three guys he did in place of Markakis.

Markakis gives us a better chance to win than Millar or Conine, period.

As for you post about the other guys sitting...Were those guys on a team that were on a team that had a losing for 8 straight years? Did those guys have less than 500 professional ab's?

Did those guys have good players in front of them or guys at the end of their careers who should be bench players?

And AGAIN, it is not just the back to back games...It is the fact that he has not started 30% of the games this year and another game he did not start but came ine arly because of Newhan. So really, 6 out of 17 games he was not supposed to get ab's in(unless it was pinch hitting).

If these were his first 2 games off this year or even made 3 games, that would be ok. But for him to have not started more than 30% of the games this year is a joke.

[Sports Guy]

Verging slightly off topic, how is Markakis' speed? He looks very athletic and possibly very fast, but he hasn't attempted to steal yet and he hasn't shown too much speed in the outfield. Is he the kinda guy who could steal 20-30 bases a year?

He is above average in every facet of the game.

[bgfield]

Markakis gives us a better chance to win than Millar or Conine, period.

As for you post about the other guys sitting...Were those guys on a team that were on a team that had a losing for 8 straight years? Did those guys have less than 500 professional ab's?

Did those guys have good players in front of them or guys at the end of their careers who should be bench players?

And AGAIN, it is not just the back to back games...It is the fact that he has not started 30% of the games this year and another game he did not start but came ine arly because of Newhan. So really, 6 out of 17 games he was not supposed to get ab's in(unless it was pinch hitting).

If these were his first 2 games off this year or even made 3 games, that would be ok. But for him to have not started more than 30% of the games this year is a joke.

Well to refute your first sentence, Markakis played in our first loss against the Indians, and in the two games in which he was benched, we won. I know that doesn't mean anything, but it means just about as much as you saying "Markakis gives us a better chance to win than Millar or Conine, period." Markakis is currently batting what, .225? He's not helping that much right now.

And what about Conine, Patterson, and Millar? They've all been hitting better this past week (even if some of those hits were just "lucky singles"). So Sam should just bench them despite their bats heating up to get Markakis playing time? Again I say, the goal of this season is not to develop Markakis. That's ONE of the goals. What if he keeps slumping and is batting .050 in May? Should he still play every day because he needs his at bats?

And I don't care if he hasn't started in 30% of games thus far. This early in the season, that means about as much as Ramon's .425 batting average.

I want to again reiterate I'm not saying your point doesn't hold water, but it is too early in the season to get so worked up over this. If a trend of Nick riding the pine continues throughout May, then send him down. We have no reason to believe yet that that will be the case. So give it time.

[underdog]

Why does everything have to be black and white? I'd like to see Nick play every day, but I'd also like to see him do well this year. So far, he hasn't been very good at all. If I didn't already know he was a top rated prospect I'd be wondering why we're wasting time with him the way he's looked so far.

What I'm trying to say is that more than seeing Nick play, I'd like to see us win. Obviously playing Patterson, Millar, and Conine the past two games has helped us achieve that goal. Sure, we could have possibly won if Markakis took the place of one of those players, but we can't argue the results Sam got out of playing the three guys he did in place of Markakis.

I don't think Nick has looked so bad thus far. His first 2 1/2 weeks haven't been Jim Traber, but I don't think that matters very much in the big picture (certainly didn't with Traber). The temptation is to put too much stock in the actual evidence we have seen, since it's really not enough to base anything on. I'm impressed with the way he handles himself at the plate, particularly with plate discipline, and the way he appears to understand how he is being pitched. With that in mind, I'd like to see him in the lineup more. He's not going to develop on the bench. It also shouldn't be a priority to get Conine AB's. If we're going to get a gauge this year on where Nick is and is going, we'll have to play him in at least 125 games. Otherwise, we wasted a year bringing him up and starting his arbitration and free agent clock.

[jim busby]

I love how everyone who agrees with Perlozzo keeps saying that they do think Markakis should play everyday.

Yet, you don't mind that he has sat 30% of the games this year.

So, which is it?

Maybe this will help, or maybe you will dismiss it with another broken-clock cliche, but I'll try.

You apparently think all of us who are not thoroughly disgusted with Thursday's lineup are saying we completely and wholeheartedly agree that Conine should have played and Markakis should have sat.

For me, anyway, the truth is slightly more complex: If Markakis had played and Conine had sat, I wouldn't have been bothered in the least.

When the issue first surfaced Thursday, I said (and I think some others agreed) that I could understand Perlozzo's wishing to keep intact the lineup that had scored 18 runs the night before. Baseball is a game of streaks, and when your lineup is pounding the ball, you like to take advantage of it.

However, had Perlozzo substituted Markakis for Conine, that would have been fine with me. I think Sammy has a good feel for the game.

I honestly do not get as emotional about such day-to-day developments as you do, SG.

Understand, I am an extremely devoted fan. I get very emotional about what happens on the field, and sometimes, I second-guess the manager, the pitcher, the hitter, everybody including my relatives and close friends.

But in the case of making out a lineup on any given day, if I can see the logic, I usually don't get upset.

I hope that helps you understand what you seem to think is a gross contradiction in the thinking of one fan who "agrees with Perlozzo" about his Thursday lineup.

[bgfield]

Well I guess we'll have to disagree about how he's looked thus far. In many of his at bats recently he's been going 0-2. Someone made a post awhile ago about Markakis being too patient, and I can see what he means.

Again, I ask is 110-120 games in the Majors going to be that much worse than 140 games in the minors? A persons first year in the majors is often going to be a development year. It's certainly the case with Nick. He will develop, even if he's sitting on the bench 30 games this season.

[underdog]

Well I guess we'll have to disagree about how he's looked thus far. In many of his at bats recently he's been going 0-2. Someone made a post awhile ago about Markakis being too patient, and I can see what he means.

Again, I ask is 110-120 games in the Majors going to be that much worse than 140 games in the minors? A persons first year in the majors is often going to be a development year. It's certainly the case with Nick. He will develop, even if he's sitting on the bench 30 games this season.

I wasn't so much a fan of his being up with us to start the year here in the first place, but since he's here, it is a waste of time for him if he's not in the lineup at least 5 days a week. Also, now that we have started his FA and arbitration clock, it would be pointless to give him an everyday spot in the minors. We have put ourselves in a position where we have to sink or swim with him until he proves for sure whether or not he is a player. For the millions (hopefully) that it will cost the team when arb. and FA comes for him a year sooner, I think Perlozzo and the FO should be trying to find reasons to allow Nick to play more, not less. Next year at this time, nobody will care if Conine proved he could still hit at 40.

[Tx Oriole]

I disagree. If Conine is helping the team win games then it is important to have him up. Not on the bench. Kakes needs to play that is for sure. But he shoul;d never have been brought up. He should be getting PT in Bowie or AAA. The more games this team wins the better. Whose to say this team won't win enough games for the wildcard? I say we have a chance.

[bgfield]

I wasn't so much a fan of his being up with us to start the year here in the first place, but since he's here, it is a waste of time for him if he's not in the lineup at least 5 days a week. Also, now that we have started his FA and arbitration clock, it would be pointless to give him an everyday spot in the minors. We have put ourselves in a position where we have to sink or swim with him until he proves for sure whether or not he is a player. For the millions (hopefully) that it will cost the team when arb. and FA comes for him a year sooner, I think Perlozzo and the FO should be trying to find reasons to allow Nick to play more, not less. Next year at this time, nobody will care if Conine proved he could still hit at 40.

I do agree with you on this part. People were going nuts about Nick's numbers in ST, but they ignored the fact that a lot of his good games came at the start of ST when he was facing minor league pitchers. Then he went a week and a half or so where he barely did squat, then had a 4-4 game, and his numbers looked good again. I think he should have started the season in the minors. BUT, since he's here, I also agree that he should get at least 5 games a week, and so far he's getting that.

[Frobby]

I love how everyone who agrees with Perlozzo keeps saying that they do think Markakis should play everyday.

Yet, you don't mind that he has sat 30% of the games this year.

So, which is it?

First, I don't think anyone (even you) has said he has to play "every day." My ideal would be 140 games or so.

Second, there are some of us who do not feel the need to jump on every little decision a manager makes, or draw grand conclusions from what has happened in the first 17 games of the year. Some of us like to give the manager a little leeway, especially early on. So even if I might have done it a little differently, I'm not going to react as though this is the end of the world.

[Sports Guy]

I disagree. If Conine is helping the team win games then it is important to have him up. Not on the bench. Kakes needs to play that is for sure. But he shoul;d never have been brought up. He should be getting PT in Bowie or AAA. The more games this team wins the better. Whose to say this team won't win enough games for the wildcard? I say we have a chance.

Then put him at first and bench Millar.

Kakes needs to play everyday and get ab's. It is that simple.