The Curious Case of Nick Markakis

[Arthur_Bryant]

What if it's not a case of the O's emphasizing it, specifically, but a hundred plus years of conventional baseball wisdom having ingrained those roles. Read old#5fan's post in this thread....he details what baseball conventional wisdom has said FOREVER. Leadoff man should get on base. #2 hitter should hit for average and should be able to advance the runner by hitting behind him, having good "bat control" skills moreso than home run power. #3 should be a great overall hitter with average, onbase, and power. #4 should be able to hit the ball out of the park, etc. Old#5fan didn't make that stuff up...he was taught it by his coaches when he was a kid and they were probably taught it by their coaches when they were kids.

Now you can say that modern statistical research has shown that a lot of that is very unimportant, lost in the noise, just put your best OPSs higher in the order and you'll do fine. But that certainly hasn't permeated baseball top to bottom, and I mean minor league, college, high school, little league. You don't think most little league coaches still aren't constructing lineups the same way they have been for years? You think Nick Markakis was reading the Bill James Handbook in middle school and high school? No, he wasn't observing the game from the outside and studying the latest trends in statistical analysis, he was absorbing what he knows about the game from coaches and uncles and older players and his Dad while actually playing the game....and probably absorbing the same conventional wisdom that has been passed down from generation to generation.

So it wouldn't surprise me that a batter would bring a certain mental approach to the plate depending on where he is in the order. Batting #3 or #4, a player might feel pressure to produce extrabase hits and RBIs. Now whether a player allows that pressure to affect them or not is probably dependent on the particular player's psyche and makeup, but I could certainly see them feeling more pressure in that spot.

Meanwhile, at #2, the hundred year old conventional wisdom says hit behind the runner, put the ball in play, etc. Someone might not put as much pressure on himself in this type of situation, might not grip the bat as tightly, might not swing as hard, might think more about making contact than hitting the ball 400 feet. And not only will this approach help you hit for a better average, paradoxically it might actually help you hit for more power too....people trying to hard, gripping the bat too tightly, and overswinging actually will wind up with fewer extrabase hits.

So I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand that someone who has spent their life playing baseball and absorbing the conventional wisdom might take a different approach batting 2nd than 3rd/4th. I can't say that's the case with Nick, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss the possibility as absurd unlikely notion.

Spectacular post, and dead on.

[RShack]

What if it's not a case of the O's emphasizing it, specifically, but a hundred plus years of conventional baseball wisdom having ingrained those roles.

[stuff deleted]

So I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand that someone who has spent their life playing baseball and absorbing the conventional wisdom might take a different approach batting 2nd than 3rd/4th. I can't say that's the case with Nick, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss the possibility as absurd unlikely notion.

I agree with all of this. It's not just what some coach tells him to do or not do now. It could be just a subtle thing that affects how he views the role he thinks he's in, regardless of what anybody else says about it. It might be something he's not even aware of.

[RShack]

You're right.

I was showing how false another of his silly arguments in this thread.

He makes so many it's hard to keep track.

The problem is that it's easy to say something dumb. It only takes a second and requires no effort.

But if you wanna refute it, then you start doing your homework to get your story straight.

But it doesn't do any good, because your big reward is that it's just as easy to say something else stupid.

It just goes on and on, and the guy saying the stupid stuff can dish it out with way less effort than refuting it takes.

[El Gordo]

The problem is that it's easy to say something dumb. It only takes a second and requires no effort.

But if you wanna refute it, then you start doing your homework to get your story straight.

But it doesn't do any good, because your big reward is that it's just as easy to say something else stupid.

It just goes on and on, and the guy saying the stupid stuff can dish it out with way less effort than refuting it takes.

That's what a troll does, doesn't he? :scratchchinhmm:

[Arthur_Bryant]

The problem is that it's easy to say something dumb. It only takes a second and requires no effort.

But if you wanna refute it, then you start doing your homework to get your story straight.

But it doesn't do any good, because your big reward is that it's just as easy to say something else stupid.

It just goes on and on, and the guy saying the stupid stuff can dish it out with way less effort than refuting it takes.

The Internet version of asymmetrical warfare.

[Frobby]

Wasn't this exactly how Wade Boggs hit? He seldom if ever swung on the first pitch as I recall. I also don't recall him having much problem hitting lefties either. So if your argument is this is a bad approach for a great hitter, I disagree. It however may well be a bad approach for someone who is not a great hitter, that I would agree. So in essence you seem to be inferring that NM is not a great hitter eh?

:scratchchinhmm:

In addition to only having a career OPS vs LHP of .761 (or 85% of his career OPS versus RHP), Boggs had a sub-.700 OPS versus LHPs seven times during his 18-year career.

Markakis has a career .751 OPS versus LHP (also 85% of his career OPS versus RHP) and has been below .700 only once out of four seasons.

To be fair, he's not talking about hitting against LHP here, he's talking about taking the first pitch.

Boggs had an .862 OPS for his career on the first pitch from 1988 on. I don't have the data from before. In 1990, at 32, he put up a .624 OPS on the 1st pitch.

Although I usually try not to respond to comments I consider to be trolling, in this case I can't resist adding to what 1970 and Lucky Jim have said in response to Old#5Fan's stupid comment:

Wade Boggs, after getting down in the count 0-1, was a .286/.333/.373 hitter.* Yeah, a .706 OPS after being down in the count 0-1. So, Boggs was a great hitter, but taking the first pitch for a strike was not a particularly successful strategy for him. Markakis actually is better: .284/.326/.424 after being down 0-1. Another trolling post by Old#5Fan destroyed. Check your facts, or shut up.

By the way, Nick swung at the first pitch 21% of the time in 2009, compared to 29, 27 and 27% in his first three seasons. So I think this supports my thesis that he laid off the first pitch too often in 2009. On the other hand, it appears pitchers threw him about the same percentage of first-pitch strikes in 2009 as in prior years: 57.3% of the first pitches were either a strike or put in play in 2006-08, 57.9% in 2009. So, it doesn't appear that pitchers changed their first-pitch approach, it was Nick who changed his first-pitch approach.

I want to stress, in all this, that I like a hitter who is selective and sees a lot of pitches. I just think there are times when you have to recognize that the pitch that is on the way is the best pitch to hit you are likely to see in that at bat, and Nick leaned too far the other way last year.

*As with Lucky Jim, my numbers are based on available data from 1988 onward.

[KAZ97]

What if it's not a case of the O's emphasizing it, specifically, but a hundred plus years of conventional baseball wisdom having ingrained those roles. Read old#5fan's post in this thread....he details what baseball conventional wisdom has said FOREVER. Leadoff man should get on base. #2 hitter should hit for average and should be able to advance the runner by hitting behind him, having good "bat control" skills moreso than home run power. #3 should be a great overall hitter with average, onbase, and power. #4 should be able to hit the ball out of the park, etc. Old#5fan didn't make that stuff up...he was taught it by his coaches when he was a kid and they were probably taught it by their coaches when they were kids.

So I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand that someone who has spent their life playing baseball and absorbing the conventional wisdom might take a different approach batting 2nd than 3rd/4th. I can't say that's the case with Nick, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss the possibility as absurd unlikely notion.

I'm not sure I agree with this logic. If this reasoning had a strong effect, it would apply to almost all MLB'ers. Yet when you look at the league as a whole, you don't see any meaningful performance differences by batting order position.

I agree with Drungo that in general, batting order shouldn't make a difference. Some guys may perform better in some spots, and an equal number may perform worse. It just so happens that Nick Markakis is one of those who has consistently performed better batting 2nd. So the question is what makes Nick different from most of the other MLB'ers. A few potential reasons are that BRob bats leadoff on his team and his team is managed by Dave Trembley.

If you are looking for reasons why Nick has performed better batting second, it needs to be specific to Nick, otherwise you'd expect to see a difference across the league like you do in Righty/Lefty splits.

[BRobinsonfan]

Minus the inevitable and regrettable detour by Old#5Fan - this has been a great thread. I've enjoyed the different perspectives (backed up by real numbers) presented by Drungo and KAZ97.

I'm wondering if there's a way to quantify why (or how) Nick ended up hitting against so many left handed pitchers last year? How do his numbers compare to those hitting immediately before him or after him in the line-up?

[KAZ97]

A little more digging around ...

Regarding Nick's performance batting second vs batting third, there is no significant difference in his walk rate over the course of his career. So the theory that he might draw more or less walks based on lineup position isn't support by the data. The difference in OBP batting second is due mostly to an improved batting average.

Also, statistically speaking, lefties have a bigger impact on his walk rate than his batting average. Curious indeed.

[KAZ97]

Controlling for the fact that he was in different spots in the lineup over the course of his career and the fact that he has faced a growing number of lefties, the outlier is clearly Nick's 2008 walk rate. His walk rate in 2006, 2007 and 2009 are close enough that any fluctuation seen is consistent with a walk rate of about 8%. The probability of having a walk rate of ~8% and drawing 99 walks in 697 plate appearances like he did in 2008 is about 1%.

Instead of asking what happened wrong in 2009, it might be worth while asking what happened right in 2008.

[Old#5fan]

Your point is still ridiculous, however. Pointing out that Boggs was a good hitter who generally took the first pitch means nothing with regard to Nick. Literally nothing.

How so? It unquestionably shows that what Frobby was criticizing NM for doing was actually a regular practice of a HOF hitter. So apparently it isn't necessarily a bad thing to do now is it? :scratchchinhmm: So how difficult is that rather elementary point to grasp?

[VTmook213]

How so? It unquestionably shows that what Frobby was criticizing NM for doing was actually a regular practice of a HOF hitter. So apparently it isn't necessarily a bad thing to do now is it? :scratchchinhmm: So how difficult is that rather elementary point to grasp?

Your ability to just completely ignore every single fact that shows you were blatantly wrong is actually rather impressive.

I believe Nick has become somewhat predictable at the plate, and the pitchers took advantage of that in 2009. For instance, Nick will almost never swing at a first pitch, even one right down the middle. Pitchers have figured this out and are throwing him a ton of first pitch strikes. The result is he bats from behind in the count quite often.

Wasn't this exactly how Wade Boggs hit? He seldom if ever swung on the first pitch as I recall. I also don't recall him having much problem hitting lefties either. So if your argument is this is a bad approach for a great hitter, I disagree. It however may well be a bad approach for someone who is not a great hitter, that I would agree. So in essence you seem to be inferring that NM is not a great hitter eh?

:scratchchinhmm:

In addition to only having a career OPS vs LHP of .761 (or 85% of his career OPS versus RHP), Boggs had a sub-.700 OPS versus LHPs seven times during his 18-year career.

Markakis has a career .751 OPS versus LHP (also 85% of his career OPS versus RHP) and has been below .700 only once out of four seasons.

Although I usually try not to respond to comments I consider to be trolling, in this case I can't resist adding to what 1970 and Lucky Jim have said in response to Old#5Fan's stupid comment:

Wade Boggs, after getting down in the count 0-1, was a .286/.333/.373 hitter.* Yeah, a .706 OPS after being down in the count 0-1. So, Boggs was a great hitter, but taking the first pitch for a strike was not a particularly successful strategy for him. Markakis actually is better: .284/.326/.424 after being down 0-1. Another trolling post by Old#5Fan destroyed. Check your facts, or shut up.

[SilentJames]

How so? It unquestionably shows that what Frobby was criticizing NM for doing was actually a regular practice of a HOF hitter. So apparently it isn't necessarily a bad thing to do now is it? :scratchchinhmm: So how difficult is that rather elementary point to grasp?

Frobby was saying that Nick has very good eye and he should probably swing at the first pitch more often than he does.

Markakis has a 1.004 OPS when hitting the first pitch. He knows what he is doing up there and should probably swing at the first pitch more than he does.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=markani01&year=Career&t=b#count

Your point is elementary - but it is still a bad point. Many players that never make the majors "take the first pitch" like Boggs.

By your logic, Boggs' taking the first pitch was instrumental in his HOF career. It certainly wasn't his immense talent.

[El Gordo]

Frobby was saying that Nick has very good eye and he should probably swing at the first pitch more often than he does.

Markakis has a 1.004 OPS when hitting the first pitch. He knows what he is doing up there and should probably swing at the first pitch more than he does.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=markani01&year=Career&t=b#count

Your point is elementary - but it is still a bad point. Many players that never make the majors "take the first pitch" like Boggs.

By your logic, Boggs' taking the first pitch was instrumental in his HOF career. It certainly wasn't his immense talent.

If only the science of hitting were as simple as O5F's mind. We would have a team full of Ted Williamses.:rofl:

[Lucky Jim]

How so? It unquestionably shows that what Frobby was criticizing NM for doing was actually a regular practice of a HOF hitter. So apparently it isn't necessarily a bad thing to do now is it? :scratchchinhmm: So how difficult is that rather elementary point to grasp?

Yes. It was a regular practice for one HOF hitter. Which proves what, exactly? It clearly wasn't the practice for any number (i.e., the majority) of other HOF hitters. In the end, taking the first pitch might be a good strategy for some HOF hitters. It may be a good strategy for some non-HOF hitters. Not taking the first pitch and driving it was likewise a good strategy for some HOF hitters. As well as some non-HOF hitters.

Nick is a very different hitter than Boggs. I'm not saying he's as good as Boggs - who was my favorite non-Oriole growing up - but to draw a qualitiative assessment from the information you have reveals someone who doesn't get even the rudiments of logic.

Do you really think that all other HOF hitters could have utilized Boggs' approach and still had the level of success that they did? If not, your point proves - again - literally nothing.

You condescend so often on here about what is elementary, or simple, or easily apparent. But the only things elementary, simple, and easily apparent are the severe limitations in your cognitive ability.