The decline in our OF defense is on display

[Lucky Jim]

As others have wondered, maybe it has something to do with being happier personally (married) and having less stress or aggression to work out on the field. Same concept of some athletes saying they'll never have sex before a game because it lessens their killer instinct.

Obviously, complete speculation.

This is why I work so hard to stay unhappy. Winner's edge.

And, you know, with so much winning it's that much harder to stay unhappy. I have to strive constantly.

[Old#5fan]

Huh? Not trying to call you out, but you just responded to one of his posts at 1:59pm.

Yeah, I did as I saw it quoted in someone elses posts and couldn't help myself as it was so absurd.

I need to keep saying - self control, self control, over and over when it comes to his posts. I try to avoid them but they seem to be everywhere and quoted by others arguing with him !

[SilentJames]

Getting back on track here.

I still don't see how our defense could have declined THIS much. It doesn't make that much sense to me. AS for last night, well after a huge uplifting win, a gut-crucnching loss followed by an immediate cross-country plane trip, hell I could see how the boys may have been a little off for a night.

[ChaosLex]

I guess what I'm telling you guys is to avoid watching tonight's game.

characters

[Lucky Jim]

Look Jim, what is your problem on this subject? You're clearly a smart guy yet you've completely misrepresented what I've written on this subject and this isn't the first time.

1st - I've agree multiple times in this thread that there is clearly a problem with Nick's defense this year so this sentence

is just incorrect. I can provide you the examples from this thread and other threads if you insist.

2nd - I've stated multiple times in this thread and in another where we were debating that I think these systems have value, but that they're not yet good enough to use on the sample size many try to use them for or at the level of fidelity that people tend to utilize to quantify differences between players.

3rd - I wasn't referring to you with my statement about people that utilize stats they don't remotely understand. I think you know darn well who I was referring to. Board rules prevent me from naming them directly.

4th - Your last sentence is just gratuitous and rude IMO. I've lost some respect for you.

Okay. Well, that's fine. I'm not sure why that sentence is particularly rude - my point was only that you're rarely going to have a system that is complete and hermetically sealed off from uncertainty. I don't understand evolution all that well, but I do respect those who talk about it. That was the reference. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the end, I guess the problem is that you directed a criticism at someone - I don't know who - but referred to it generically and in plural. It's awfully tough to know just how narrow you're keeping that.

I thought my post was actually pretty tame - I tried to keep it that way, at least. Sorry if I was unsuccessful.

Honestly, I was working off previous conversations. You said this about a week ago:

Markakis is a gold glove caliber outfielder and that really isn't debatable at this point IMO. Will he win one? Who knows because those things are crapshoots. I think we should take the award out of it and say he is clearly one of the top 2-3 defensive right fielders in the game.

I see a guy playing a good RF in general with good range. He has had a couple glaring mistakes.

I guess the question becomes what happened in a week that made you change your tune so aggressively? Talk about a small sample size. That said, then maybe we're in agreement - frankly, we often are on these things. I certainly don't think that UZR and +/- should be overly relied on as any final declaration of defensive value when the sample is small. But they are the best information we have. And I trust them more than my eyes on one point: they see games that I don't get to see.

I'm sorry I didn't catch any of the subsequent posts that mitigated this position. Honestly, I didn't. I was skimming and your post invoked the previous discussion (where you were more dismissive) and that's what I responded to.

That's my bad for not reading this thread more clearly.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, as it appears this is just a misunderstanding, I'll delete my prior post. Bygones...

FYI, my statements that you quoted were intended to refer to Nick's whole body of work, but I agree that this wasn't clear from my post. I'd also agree that we can't possibly call him gold glove caliber thus far this year.

I don't see anything that make me believe that Adam or Nick won't be able to play + defense going forward. But there are obviously some problems right now.

I wouldn't mind Adam losing a little bulk this offseason. I think it's far more important that he keep his quick hands, work on his pitch recognition, and forget about looking like Herschel Walker.

[Old#5fan]

Okay. Well, that's fine. I'm not sure why that sentence is particularly rude - my point was only that you're rarely going to have a system that is complete and hermetically sealed off from uncertainty. I don't understand evolution all that well, but I do respect those who talk about it. That was the reference. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the end, I guess the problem is that you directed a criticism at someone - I don't know who - but referred to it generically and in plural. It's awfully tough to know just how narrow you're keeping that.

I thought my post was actually pretty tame - I tried to keep it that way, at least. Sorry if I was unsuccessful.

Honestly, I was working off previous conversations. You said this about a week ago:

I guess the question becomes what happened in a week that made you change your tune so aggressively? Talk about a small sample size. That said, then maybe we're in agreement - frankly, we often are on these things. I certainly don't think that UZR and +/- should be overly relied on as any final declaration of defensive value when the sample is small. But they are the best information we have. And I trust them more than my eyes on one point: they see games that I don't get to see.

I'm sorry I didn't catch any of the subsequent posts that mitigated this position. Honestly, I didn't. I was skimming and your post invoked the previous discussion (where you were more dismissive) and that's what I responded to.

That's my bad for not reading this thread more clearly.

What happened to make him change his tune so rapidly is he now realizes he put his foot in his mouth in the first place by proclaiming Markakis GG caliber. This is a classic case of instant backpeddling. I am sure if I did that I would be bludgoned like in medieval days without mercy. Thing is, I stick to my positions and take my lumps when I am wrong, I don't change my view just to be right. I love it that you caught him in this. Props to you! I have taken you off ignore.:clap3:

However, in reading further I do find it hilarious that people are actually blaming Jones and Markakis defensive decline on weight gains! How does gaining weight make you not get a good read or jump on a ball? You may be a tad slower but you don't lose quickness nor a lack of focus! It would be more believable to blame an undisclosed injury.

[Lucky Jim]

What happened to make him change his tune so rapidly is he now realizes he put his foot in his mouth in the first place by proclaiming Markakis GG caliber. This is a classic case of instant backpeddling. I am sure if I did that I would be bludgoned like in medieval days without mercy. Thing is, I stick to my positions and take my lumps when I am wrong, I don't change my view just to be right. I love it that you caught him in this. Props to you! I have taken you off ignore.:clap3:

Oy vey. And somehow I unintentionally threw a match near the propane.

[rolliefingers]

this is why i work so hard to stay unhappy. Winner's edge.

And, you know, with so much winning it's that much harder to stay unhappy. I have to strive constantly.

truly a catch-22

[rolliefingers]

Oy vey. And somehow I unintentionally threw a match near the propane.

"Thing is, I stick to my positions and take my lumps when I am wrong, I don't change my view just to be right."

I've had OldFan on ignore for a good year, now, and somehow he just managed to blow my mind yet again.

[winudi]

Jones should have caught the single that Izturis hit in the bottom of the third. It practically bounced on top of him.:angryfire:

[SilentJames]

Defense looked pretty solid last night.

I think people are really over analyzing this.

[Sports Guy]

Defense looked pretty solid last night.

I think people are really over analyzing this.

Really? I think people are pretty much spot on.

It is clear that Nick and Adam are not as good defensively this year as they were last year.

The defensive stats back that up and your eyes should also back it up.

The question is why is this happening?

[Frobby]

Yes to both. I agree with your assessment that Jones has improved since April. Not sure why, but Markakis just hasn't looked like the same player this year - in any aspect of his game.

Markakis after the team's 81st game (the halfway point):

2008: .290/.396/.475, 20 2B, 12 HR, 39 RBI

2007: .270/.328/.425, 21 2B, 9 HR, 44 RBI

2006: .257/.333/.342, 7 2B, 2 HR, 19 RBI

Going into the 81st game today: .297/.356/.456, 25 2B, 8 HR, 53 RBI

Offensively, I don't see a vastly different player. He really hasn't been hot for the last 7 weeks or so, but he's still ahead of where he previously has been in BA, 2B and RBI. If he does what he usually does over the 2nd half, he will look just fine when the season is over.

Defensively, he hasn't played as well. I am not sure why, but I am not buying any of the pop psychology around here, that's for sure.

[Moose Milligan]

The question is why is this happening?

Its the most important question and its the question that everyones overlooking. Everyone loves the "yes they are/no they're not!" argument and the UZR and other defensive metrics stats....

...but no ones trying to figure out why they've slipped.