Poll- Would You Make This Trade?

[SilentJames]

What is Markakis hitting this year in C&L situations? I can assure you Michael Young has never been that bad. Markakis has numbers equivilent to a NL pitcher hitting so far!:laughlol:

He has 45 ABs! Young is batting .159 with an OPS of .419 with runners in scoring position this year.

You can divide it up all you want, but this year with RISP Markakis is batting 317 with an OPS of .983.

But I am totally glad you can decide someone's future on 45 ABs.

You brought up track record, well Markakis has an excellent track record in those situations - why won't he get better?

You are so biased it is ridiculous. You seem to have a simple inability to digest information

[Lucky Jim]

So you think they are being positioned differently this year than last? The OPACY dimensions haven't changed and their positioning last year was pretty effective. If it ain't broke don't fix it, except of course we are dealing with the baseball challenged DT and his gang of coaching clowns, so who knows?:laughlol:

I don't know. The numbers don't provide answers.

[SilentJames]

I don't know. The numbers don't provide answers.

i guess what I am asking is this: Could these numbers be a fluke. They are so out of sink with his career numbers could these numbers be a fluke? Or should we genuinely be concerned?

[BeerIsFood]

What is Markakis hitting this year in C&L situations? I can assure you Michael Young has never been that bad. Markakis has numbers equivilent to a NL pitcher hitting so far!:laughlol:

Old Fan, you know for a fact that I have no problem with you, and don't pile on. I will state the following: I agree with your overall assessment (is that spelled right?) of Markakis offensive game, to the point that I agree he is not a 3 or 4 hitter. Where I disagree with you, respectfully is the he is that horrible in C&L situations. I do not think that we should examine his numbers in those situations based on this year alone, however I think we should look at his (very short) career as a whole up to this point where he has performed admirably in those situations. So, overall, I believe I agree with you regarding Markakis' ability, except in C&L situations. Also note that Markakis is among the league leaders in RBI % this year...

Where I do respectfully disagree with you is regarding his defense. I am very aware of what his numbers indicate this year, however I think sometimes numbers can shield us from the truth, rather than lead us to it. There is no concrete evidence to support what I believe, I just honestly believe that over his career Markakis will be an above average defensive outfielder, and I do think that he will win a GG before all is said and done.

You are entitled to your opinion, which I respect, as I am entitled to mine. I only wish that you respect mine as I do yours.

Regarding the trade, that would not work. Andino came from the Marlins for Hayden Penn, and I rather like Andino to be honest with you. He has turned into one of my favorite players to watch during CI's absence and I honestly enjoy watching him play. Is he an all star? No, but I think he is a good player. Hanley Ramirez is down right untouchable for the Florida Marlins I believe at the current moment. And finally, as much as I know you don't want to hear it, I would not want to trade Markakis, just the same as I have no interest in trading Jones, Wieters or Reimold to be honest with you. I doubt we trade any of them. If we need any more position players we will dip into our pitching depth in order to get it.

Those are my thoughts.

[Lucky Jim]

i guess what I am asking is this: Could these numbers be a fluke. They are so out of sink with his career numbers could these numbers be a fluke? Or should we genuinely be concerned?

Here's my answer - which may surprise you - yes, they may be fluke-ish. And yes we should be concerned.

[SilentJames]

Here's my answer - which may surprise you - yes, they may be fluke-ish. And yes we should be concerned.

What would it take this year to get his numbers back to normal? Say Markakis plays his usual D, career-wise, for the rest of this year? How much would these number normalize after a rough start?

[SilentJames]

He has 45 ABs! Young is batting .159 with an OPS of .419 with runners in scoring position this year.

You can divide it up all you want, but this year with RISP Markakis is batting 317 with an OPS of .983.

But I am totally glad you can decide someone's future on 45 ABs.

You brought up track record, well Markakis has an excellent track record in those situations - why won't he get better?

You are so biased it is ridiculous. You seem to have a simple inability to digest information

.149 and a .419 OPS for young this year with RISP. THAT is NL pitcher numbers. But hey I guess you won't answer to that.

[Lucky Jim]

What would it take this year to get his numbers back to normal? Say Markakis plays his usual D, career-wise, for the rest of this year? How much would these number normalize after a rough start?

I honestly don't know. My guess is he'd end up around average. I'd be fine w/ that going forward.

[Frobby]

We all know that Old#5Fan is a Nick-basher, and he'll bash him unless and until Nick replicates Frank Robinson's 1966 season. He has an agenda that he will harangue over and over and over.

Let's put all that aside and look for the grains of truth in what he is saying. Not everything he says is 100% wrong, and we shouldn't ignore the 5% that is right just because the other 95% is hogwash.

These points are true, in my opinion:

1. For the first 72 games this year, Nick has not played at an all-star or a gold-glove level.

2. For the first 72 games this year, Nick has hit extremely poorly in late & close situations.

3. Nick has never been named to an all-star team or won a gold glove.

4. Based on his first 3.5 years in the majors, at the age of 25, Nick is a very good player but not a superstar at this time.

If anyone wants to disagree with the above, please speak up.

Where I think most posters part company with Old#5Fan is that we appreciate that Nick is way ahead of most of his 25-year old peers. Sure there are 25-year old superstars, but at that age, most players are still learning and improving. Since we are on the topic of Michael Young, at age 25 he hit .262/.308/.382. Nick got better from 2006 to 2007 to 2008, and there is still plenty of time left in this season for him to end up with even better final numbers in 2009 (though it's not a sure thing by any means). And most of us, when watching a young player, appreciate watching them grow and develop their talents over the years. And, of course, the vast majority of us realize that Nick's career RISP and "close and late" numbers are very good, and that 3 months of poor performance "close and late" doesn't override 3 years of very good performance in that regard.

I really don't care if Old#5Fan feels like bashing Nick on a daily basis. He can bash him every day from now until 2025 for all I care. We know what we're watching.

[PeteCanes]

First, I challenge anyone to produce a Venn diagram outlining the choices provided in this poll. I'm afraid my head will explode if I try. The illogic is simply too much for me. :rofl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

I accept. Bear in mind, truly understanding this requires ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE of quantum physics, but you should get the gist.

http://www.mediafire.com/?yoydvl52djm

Nothing happening at work today.

[Lucky Jim]

Jim,

I appreciate you going to the effort to post this info, but all those descriptions SCREAM subjective to me.

How does somebody decide if Nick missed a play that at least one other player didn't miss? In the infield, I can see how that is possible though it wouldn't be easy. Infielders are usually within a 2 foot window of each other and there aren't as many variations in the types of hits that they see IMO.

But the outfield has huge changes in ball speed, spin, trajectory, height, positioning, situation, etc..... that to me makes no one play exactly like another play. I just can't see how a person "judging" that effort and categorizing it so that it gets lumps into a bazillion other judgments for decisions to be made makes any sense at all. If Nick's ball goes to the same place as another ball that was caught, but is a little lower and a little harder and he is shaded a little differently then suddenly a diving catch turns into a "missed" play. I just don't see it. The negatives are WAY too subjective in my opinion.

Fine. Frankly, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You should feel free to disregard them. And feel free to publish your own rankings.

From, you know, all that time you spend watching every MLB RF.

You've basically just made an argument for how we judge Gold Gloves. Which - as you well know - has been virtually flawless in honoring the best fielders.

Just to be clear - I get this stuff is incomplete and I don't disregard the criticisms. But I'm not throwing the baby out w/ the bathwater simply because I can imagine marginal scenarios that might be hard to call.

[El Gordo]

i guess what I am asking is this: Could these numbers be a fluke. They are so out of sink with his career numbers could these numbers be a fluke? Or should we genuinely be concerned?

I doubt they are a fluke. The +/- system is pretty accurate when it comes to rating the other top defenders at their positions, so I doubt they are suddenly screwed up when it comes to 2 of our favorite players. The decline may not be as extreme as the numbers are indicating, but I think that the extreme differences between this year at last, indicate a real trend downward.,

[SilentJames]

Fine. Frankly, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You should feel free to disregard them. And feel free to publish your own rankings.

From, you know, all that time you spend watching every MLB RF.

You've basically just made an argument for how we judge Gold Gloves. Which - as you well know - has been virtually flawless in honoring the best fielders.

Now Jim. I am willing to agree with the numbers, I have always said that I will defer to the math. I mean Markakis does have three errors already this year, that is the same total he had all of last year. Now it is possible that maybe one or two of those errors were "tough errors" or maybe he goes all year without making another one.

Bottom line his defense did take a step back this year, but good players have bad years. Paul Blair had a couple four - five error years in the OF. SO its not that big of a deal. What concerns me about the numbers is that they are such a dramatic shift from the previous year.

The size of the shift tells me that this is either a fluke of maths, or something to genuinely be worried about. We shall see what the numbers hold at the end of the year and whether or not Markakis normalizes. Right now, I am leaning toward fluke.

[Steel Curtain]

Nothing came up, but it may be because I'm at work. I can't wait to see this thing. Rep for you just for attempting it. :clap3:

http://yfrog.com/eqvennj

I just took his image, and threw it up on a free image host.

[Lucky Jim]

Nope, now you're spouting logical fallacies. I didn't argue FOR my method or the Gold Glove selection or whatever. I simply argued against your method. I don't think there is a good way to judge range at the macro level right now. I wish there was, but I don't think there is.

You seem to me to be saying "well, I'll use these because they're stats and someone has put a lot of time and effort into them." I agree that a lot of work has been done, but until someone can answer my questions (and I've asked them to most of these sites with no good answers) then they still aren't there. What we've got now is "lies, damn lies, and statistics" IMO.

Do you have good answers to how they deal with any of the issues I've brought up here? I don't. Do you not agree that all these questions are good questions? Do you not agree that if these very smart guys had good answers for these questions that they would be in the white papers published on the metrics when they were introduced? Do you not think this means that these issues are likely still in the TBD bucket?

Do I think they're real questions? Only to the extent that you think one RF sees a disproportionate number of some undefined kind of play.

Do you think that's likely to be the case over a season?