Allow Me To Flog A Dead Horse

by yurizanow on Jun 4, 2008 12:39 AM EDT Comment 20 comments

I'm going to try and make this the last time I pick on perfectly good player and Oriole with a promising future Nick Markakis. I realize almost everybody here understands that the O's need better players than him if they're going to become an elite team, but I decided to illustrate this with the Orioles' own past success.

Nick Markakis' best season so far is his current one where he's hitting for an OPS+ of 125 making him pretty much tied with Luke Scott for the best hitter on the team this year. Not too shabby, but the 1966, 1971, and 1983 Orioles had five guys with over 300 at bats whose OPS+ were either almost or exceeding 125. The 1969 and 1970 Orioles had four and the 1979 team had three.

On the 1969-1971 Oriole pennant winners Don Buford's OPS+ was 128, 126, and 153 (and just for shits and giggles, it was 148 in 1968). Even though I think Buford is an underrated player, no one thinks about him as one of the standout players on those teams. I bet a lot of you are like me and sometimes get him mixed up with Don Baylor and Al Bumbry.

My point is not that Nick Markakis sucks or will never be a great player, it's that the Orioles own history shows you have to have better players than him to win it all. There are no shortcuts and as it stands now, he's just not good enough. He is valuable and if they're going to win they'll need players just like him, but they need players substantially better than him as well.

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

1 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He is a piece....

not a centerpiece, to the Next Great Orioles Team. I think everyone understands that. Nick’s not going to be a multiple-time All-Star (well, no more than a few, anyway). But he is the kind of guy you need in your lineup to keep the offense going, and keep baserunners scared.

And I’m OK with that.

"I wasn't here for the losing years. But it feels a little like the days with Earl in charge and John Lowenstein smashing birthday cakes in the middle of the clubhouse with a bat." - John "T-Bone" Shelby

by duck on Jun 4, 2008 7:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not a stats guy...

... but there’s nothing remotely convincing in your premise.

O’s teams of the past had more guys with higher OPS? Okay, what were the OPS of those guys? You say,

Not too shabby, but the 1966, 1971, and 1983 Orioles had five guys with over 300 at bats whose OPS+ were either almost or exceeding 125

“almost or exceeding”? Well Markakis doesn’t fit into that category, since he sits precisely AT 125, but obviosuly he’s better than the guys who were “almost”. This makes the argument that we need 4 more guys like Nick, not that we need guys better than him.

More to the point, what are the OPS of best players on the 20 WS teams of the past decade? I don’t get why you’re comparing the O’s to their bygone selves instead of winners who play in today’s game.

C’mon law school boyo, let’s see some better arguments.

by zknower on Jun 4, 2008 8:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

thats what i was thinking...

i think we’d have a pretty good shot at winning if we had 5 markakis-type players (and a nice supporting group as well) on the team without an arod/manny/pujols type player. yea, the o’s need more, but we knew that.

"Don't worry, the fans don't start booing until July." - Earl Weaver

by daveh873 on Jun 4, 2008 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, 9 Markakis-type players -- since he can pitch -- would be a hard team to beat. Really.

Rah Rah Rasputin / Lover of the Russian queen
There was a cat that / Really loved Birds. -- Boney M

by Titov on Jun 5, 2008 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

More to the point, what are the OPS of best players on the 20 WS teams of the past decade?

2007: Ortiz 171, Holliday 150
2006: Pujols 178, Guillen 136
2005: Konerko 136, Ensberg 144
2004: Ramirez 152, Pujols 172
2003: Lee 131, Giambi 148
2002: Salmon/Fullmer (yes) 133, Bonds 268
2001: Gonzalez 174, Williams 138
2000: Williams 140, Piazza 155

Could a team win a World Series if 2008 Markakis is its best hitter? Probably not unless it has a hell of a pitching staff and a lot of luck. The missing thought is that one would imagine he is going to get better as he is only 24. But no duh you need better players. This was really kind of a stupid post.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Jun 4, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's my reasoning

The beauty of OPS+ is it’s a measurement of OPS relative to the rest of the league that year. In that sense it cuts through a lot of the bullshit by putting a players performance in the context of the era he played. Thus Honus Wagner and Barry Bonds can have similar OPS+ numbers regardless of the fact Bonds hit literally ten times more home runs. In that sense I have found from a casual investigation that the numbers for World Series champs don’t change a whole lot.

Stacey showed the OPS+ for last year’s Red Sox team and you can see the pattern hold up pretty well for most of the other World Series winners as well. The 2005 White Sox had lousier hitters than usual for a World Series team, but the White Sox also had some of the most outstanding pitching in recent years. The 2006 Cardinals had the worst record of any World Series team (except the 1918 season which was shortened by World War I), but even they had a comparable number of high OPS+ guys to the pennant-winning Oriole teams.

A bunch of guys with OPS+ around Markakis would be more than adequate to win big, the 1996 and 1997 Oriole teams that went to the playoffs were like that, but post 1920 teams like that seem to fairly rare for whatever reason.

by yurizanow on Jun 4, 2008 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok.

I’ve read your argument, but I am confused why you made a big post putting down Nick Markakis just to say the Orioles need other good players. You could’ve simply joined the rest of the know-nothing fans and said “we need more good players” and your point would’ve been made just as effectively.

I agree Markakis is not a savior, and he probably won’t be the teams best power hitter. But, if he bats around .300, 25 hr, 100 rbi every year, then we have someone we can build around. Eventually, we will get someone who hits for more power to compliment him. A lot of people like Adam Jones in that role, and I think he is a Markakis type of player with more pop. Obviously, the Orioles need more than just Jones and Markakis, but it is nice to think about those two at the top of the order (2 & 3) in front of a big power guy in the clean-up role.

While your point is valid, your insult is injust and undeserving. Putting down the Orioles best player to make a vague and useless point such as “we need more Orioles players” is senseless.

by PWubbs on Jun 7, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never insulted Nick Markakis

Nick Markakis is a wonderful player. He has plate discipline, mid-range power, and plays the outfield really well. If the Orioles had six or seven hitters exactly like him and their pitching staff without Steve Trachsel, they’d beat the crap out of everybody. However, successful baseball teams don’t ever have a bunch of guys with the same ability, they have a team with guys of varying ability and even then a guy like Nick Markakis would fit right in. That said, elite teams almost always have guys who are substantially better than Nick Markakis. If Markakis eventually becomes that kind of player, then that would be terrific, but even you have to admit it would be a little surprising.

Based on my admittedly anecdotal observation there are a lot of lot of younger fans who’ve never seen a decent ballclub call Camden Yards home or older fans who weren’t paying attention that closely when the O’s were good think that Nick Markakis is a superlative player along the lines of Frank Robinson or Boog Powell or Eddie Murray or Ken Singelton. He’s not. They think he’s the kind of guy you can build a championship franchise around in the sense that he would be be the best hitter on the team like the Red Sox are built around Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. Once again, he’s not. Instead, he’s more of a Don Buford (who had years much better than Markakis has had so far) or Mike Lowell-type player, which is still extremely important.

As someone who has spent a good portion of my life rooting for loser teams, I’ve noticed that the fans of loser teams frequently get inordinately attached to a guy like Markakis – someone who stands out on their team, but doesn’t necessarily stand out in the league at large. They think “hey, he’s our team’s best player which means he’s just as good as any other team’s best player, this guy will lead us to victory.” That just isn’t the case, if it were the team would be better.

I’m sorry you didn’t think I was sufficiently respectful of Nick Markakis. Him being a grown man and well-paid and all, I think he’ll get over it. When the Orioles are a great team and Nick Markakis is batting second or fifth or even third, I’ll have nothing than warm feelings for him and feel grateful he’s on the team I root for.

By the way, why are you so wedded to RBI as a statistic? What does that tell you other than whether your teammates got on base in front of you? Jay Gibbons hit 100 RBI once while Mickey Mantle hit 100 RBI it less than half as many times than Raphael Palmeiro. It’s a weird and arbitrary measure that has almost nothing to do with the guy to whom it is applied.

by yurizanow on Jun 7, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

RBI...

it could point toward his clutchiness… just ask Mr. Jeter McClutch.

"Chickens are hard to catch." Jennifer Scott (Luuuuuuuke's Mom)

by dayzd toe on Jun 7, 2008 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um, yeah, the O's need better players.

They could use smarter ones too! Seems they never learned, or forgot, how to run the bases.

by drj on Jun 4, 2008 9:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A few stats

Here is the Red Sox lineup from game 1 of the 2007 Series and their corresponding OPS+ for the entire 2007. Manny’s looks low but he was injured, Ellsbury’s looks high but he only played the tail end of the year, so we’ll just say those two cancel each other out.

Pedroia 112
Youkilis 117
Ortiz 171
Ramirez 126
Lowell 124
Varitek 103
Drew 105
Lugo 65
Ellsbury 131

I’m not sure if this proves or disproves Yuri’s theory. For one thing, they’ve got Ortiz at 171 which is just ridiculous. But other than hand, besides him, they only have three guys over 120.

Personally, I agree with Yuri that eventually to stay in contention we’ll need a real masher. However, I also agree with Dave that if we had 9 guys at around 125, it’d be pretty freaking good team.

"We’re not concerned about what other teams think. I know teams come in here thinking we’re playing the Orioles. And then 9 innings later, they got the loss, they know what we’re about." ~Adam Jones

by Stacey on Jun 4, 2008 9:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

if we had 9 guys at around 125, it’d be pretty freaking good team.

Getting 9 guys over 100 would be a good way to start.

"Whether your name is Gehrig or Ripken, DiMaggio or Robinson, or that of some youngster who picks up his bat or puts on his glove, you are challenged by the game of baseball to do your very best day in and day out. That's all I've ever tried to do."

by spike2131 on Jun 4, 2008 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so true, my friend

Currently over 100 on the O’s: Roberts, Scott, Markakis, Huff, Cintron (heh).
Almost there: Millar (98), Mora (96)

by Stacey on Jun 4, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course...

the flip side of this is to look at ERA+.

foghat goes with everything--birdman, 5/16/08

by j.q. higgins on Jun 4, 2008 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about the 2006 WS teams?

Game 1 lineups for both teams.

Cardinals
Eckstein 81
C. Duncan 140 (DH in game 1, 90 games played regular season)
Pujols 178
Edmonds 110
Rolen 126
J. Encarnacion 93
Belliard 71
Molina 53
Taguchi 78

Detroit
Granderson 98
Monroe 99
Polanco 80
Ordonez 112
C. Guillen 136
I. Rodriguez 97
S. Casey 67
Inge 98
R. Santiago 32

by Stacey on Jun 4, 2008 9:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Allow me to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee

that the Orioles own history shows you have to have better players than him to win it all.

Duly noted.

If anyone thinks Nicky is on the same level of Manny, Lance Berkman, or any other elite hitter, sorry to burst your bubble.

Wolf, wolf, wolf.

by birdman on Jun 4, 2008 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Or

Or “burst your bobble”, seeing as Nick gets the springy-headed nod this year.

by blawk359 on Jun 4, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are lots of dead horses in the barn.

Why flog Honey Bear?

1933 was a bad year

by Senatorrosewater on Jun 4, 2008 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nick is also 24 year old

And has no protection. This year pitchers have been working him with off speed pitches off the plate and he doesn’t have much of anything to hit. If Adam could put it together in two years you could have Nick, Wieters, AJ and/or Smoak(hopefully) providing him with some strikes for to hit. On a contending team, Nick would be more of a Kevin Youkilis type guy but because he drives in a lot of runs for the O’s people expect him to be a hybrid power hitting/average machine.

My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver

by Baltimo on Jun 5, 2008 5:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs