Comments on: Nick Markakis’s Down Season

By: Sorbil

Sorbil — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:32:56 +0000

He saw an almost 25% increase in AB vs. LHP in 09, and he didn’t hit them as well as in prior years. AL seems to have more LHP than NL, though doesn’t seem to have been more than a minor increase overall in LHP from prior year, so this was either random or teams played match up against him since he was struggling more vs. LHP. Wouldn’t be surprised if this explains pretty much all the difference, but will it repeat? He had over 40% of his AB vs. LHP, which is just a huge number. Most of that has to be random – expect him to rebound.

By: CircleChange11

CircleChange11 — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:55:48 +0000

I posited the similar situation/possibility with Derrek Lee’s poor start in 09, with Aramis out of the lineup. Batters likely tend to get [1] nibbled by pitchers, and [2] more anxious to make something happen. It’s not necessarily the “protection” arguement (although it could be), but also teammates trying to force production into occurring to make up for the absence or shortcomings of those behind them.

Both (pitcher ‘nibbling’ combined with anxious batters) have the possibility to lead to fewer walks, poorer contact, and decreased overall production.

By: excatcher

excatcher — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:19:26 +0000

Nice look at Nick’s peripherals. He could have benefited from more protection at the plate, with Huff and Mora having big down seasons, with Huff eventually being moved. I’m hoping he can return to 2008 form.

I think Jason Berken, Adam Eaton, and Rich Hill may have something to do with the across the board UZR drops for the Orioles outfielders. Those guys were insanely hittable, posted huge H/9 and LD%, to the point of statistical aberration. 200IP of LD% > 20 and GB% < 40 is gonna wear out your outfield.

By: exxrox

exxrox — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:44:20 +0000

Can somebody say Alex Rios?

By: JoeR43

JoeR43 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:11:05 +0000

I just want to point out that seeing an undergrad math major makes me wonder when I can write for this site.

Never? Okay.

Keep up the good work, Jack, look forward to reading more from you.

By: Samuel Lingle

Samuel Lingle — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:15:40 +0000

Perhaps he expanded his zone because he knew that he had to do something instead of letting a mediocre cleanup hitter fail, and thus swung more often at the extra pitches out of the zone he was seeing.

There’s all sorts of speculation we can make about this that may or may not be valid, but we won’t really know anything until we see what happens next season.

By: joser

joser — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:23:59 +0000

Tom Tango did a study that showed protection doesn't matter as much as you think it does.

The entire point of protecting a batter is to improve his offensive output (wOBA) by forcing the opposing pitcher to pitch to him. And indeed, we saw above that opposing pitchers pitch to protected hitters, something that is evidenced by the fewer walks. However, when the ball is put into play, we see no significant difference between how the two sets of hitters perform. The unprotected hitters have a wOBA of .395 (counting only balls that are hit), compared with .391 for protected hitters. ... In short, protecting a star hitter appears to accomplish very little. He indeed gets fewer walks; however, there is no evidence that he gets more hittable pitches, since the pitcher always avoids pitching to a good hitter when the situation would call for an intentional walk.

As for fielding, we see a lot of year-to-year variation in UZR. I wouldn't allow one year's results to convince me to jump off a bridge.

By: Corey

Corey — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:51:25 +0000

David I don’t think the protection theory makes sense. If pitchers were much more willing to pitch around Nick to get to a mediocre cleanup hitter he would’ve walked more. Instead his walk rate dropped drastically.

By: Jeff V

Jeff V — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:20:56 +0000

“Believe teammate Adam Jones also suffered a severe drop in defensive statistics this season that is hard to explain”

Jones went to the Athlete performance center in AZ last offseason and put on about 20 pounds. That was probably a factor in his decreased range, he was also having hamstring issues.

Not sure the cause for Markakis, part of the blame might fall on the personal life ledger, he was newly married with his first child born during spring training. It is conceivable that it was a factor, as I am sure his dailly routine suffered.

By: Whateverfor

Whateverfor — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:53:12 +0000

Markakis played absolutely terribly in the field for the first two months: he was at something crazy like -10 UZR by the break. He looked bad during that time too. After that he’s looked much better, and the numbers have conveniently improved too. The huge step back in pitch recognition is much more worrisome.