nuggets wrote:But if you adjust them for league and park effects you get:
748, 728, 736, 975 (in only 143 PA)
Lets look at better facts.
I'm surpised you have continually over looked the small sample size of his only appealing ""season". If you combine
As far as below aveage, yes he was a below average player in A and A+ where he's had by far the most PA, posting VORPs of -2.3 and -1.3, EqAs of .255 and .255 .
I'm interested if they use metal bats in A- . If so then the numbers are less useful and over inflated.
I'd like to know where the hell you are getting those park factors, because anything that DEFLATES Delmarva is nonsense.
In A and A+ he had MAJOR LEAGUE EqAs .255 and .255.
That means that as a 20 year old in A ball he was performing at almost a major league average player quality.
And the fact that he repeated it AT A HIGHER LEVEL and then exceeded it IN THE SAME YEAR AT STILL A HIGHER LEVEL, suggests that he was improving, not staying the same. In fact, if you calculate his full year EqA for 2005, it was .269.
So, his full-year ML EqAs look like .263, .255., .269. Guys who maintain their EqA as they jump levels are IMPROVING. To post the same performance level against tougher competition is IMPROVING.
Now, this year, Markakis projects to be a .255 to .265 EqA against major league competition as 22 year old. The average player improves 2-6 percent each year. So, at his peak, Markakis projects to tbe all-star level.
I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the facts about Markakis is terribly flawed.
nuggets wrote:Oh come now, terribly? You still haven't acknowledge the small sample size of his only terribly appealing stint. I think there are two main factors creating your feeling of "terrible" interpretation on my part. 1. Bias toward your own team. 2. Your personal bias toward Granderson type players, good but not flashy and often overlooked.
What you see as improvement, I see as staying about the same until a small sample size of appealing stats. At this point I don't see a player with a lot of AS appearances in the future, but because of his production in the past and the fact that every team gets a player in the AS game regardless if there is another more deserving candidate on a team like NYY, I know there is a reasonable chance he may be.
Markakis should be in AAA with all the guys Baltimore has in the OF and because of his relative inexperience at high levels. This will allow him the greatest chance at many years of AS level play. Just my personal bias.
I'm not paying attention to "the small sample size" because it is only a small sample because you parse it out from the rest of his stats.
Instead of saying, in under 150 ABs he had a great performance, you should be saying, "In over 500 ABs, he had a very good performance."
Because that's what happened in 2005. The fact that those ABs were divided over two levels doesn't mean that you have two samples.
The fact is my interpretation of Markakis is not biased. It's almost exactly what people like John Sickels say about him. Sickels just did a comparison between Markakis and Hermida, and rated them about even. When I say "all-star" I'm not talking subjectively about what people think, but that objectively his performance wil be at that level.
Markakis has proven in 3 consecutive years that he will be, at worst, only a slightly below average major league baseball player this year. Now, you can certainly make the argument that he might do better with more minor league time. OTOH, some players do better when over-challenged, and neither you nor I know whether that's the case with Markakis. For the Orioles, there may be business reasons why Markakis should be in AAA; but on the baseball side of things, there's no good reason to hold him back.
As for Granderson: "Jason Beck, of Tigers.MLB.com, reports Detroit Tigers OF Curtis Granderson led all American League leadoff hitters in both on-base (.386) and slugging (.525) percentages entering Saturday April, 22. Granderson's .295 batting average also ranks fourth among all AL leadoff men."
Maybe the correct interpretation is not that GTWMA is biased against certain types of players, but rather that GTWMA knows what he is talking about with respect to what Granderson AND Markakis showed by their minor league performance.
nuggets wrote:I think we're dealing with a grey area and that it could go either way. I agree with the Hermida comparison, both have potential and should be in the minors right now...wait Hermida is, due to hip flexor recovery. I think what is best for both guys is to develop in AAA right now because they're futures are being put in a level of jeopordy they shouldn't. Granderson had a steady progression to where he's at now, I fear I might end up being closer to correct if Markakis is rushed.
Certainly, in terms of fuure projection it's always gray, but I think there's no question that your claim that he had two below average years in A and A+ is not a grey area. It's simply wrong, unless you really think 20 year olds in A ball should be judged against the standard of current major leaguers.
Your view of AAA is one that is long outdated. Most minor league experts agree that the real proving ground for players is AA, not AAA. AAA is where teams store aging retreads and roster filler in case they need a short-term solution. There is nothing for any player to prove in AAA these days.
That's especially true with players like Markakis and Hermida. My god, Hermida has over 1,500 minor league plate appearances. Markakis has almost 1,200, and has college experience, too. Both have proven by their performance that they have the capability to perform at the major league level, assuming normal age development profile.
You argue that their futureis being put in jeopardy, but there's no good evidence to show that case. Some players willhave their future put in jeopardy by being held back too much. Others by being pushed too early. There's no good study or good measure that supports that Markakis or Hermida fall in one category or the other.
You improve your muscles by pushing them past their breaking point, then allowing them to rebuild. You improve your endurance by running farther and fatse,r then allowing your body to rebuild.
I see no developmental reason why prospects should not be pushed to the next level as soon as they demonstrate the ability to make the leap. And the next level from AA these days is the majors, not AAA, especially for the best prospects. Markakis and Hermida have proven that they nothing left to learn in the minors that they cannot learn in the majors where they will have better coaches, better equipment, better and safe facilities, better training, better mentoring---in all a better environment for their personal development as a player.
I agree with you GTWMA. I think more prospects should be brought up when they demonstrate they are capable. Griffey was up @ 19 as was Gooden & Felix. Though, pitchers can get by on pure stuff often times. But why aren't guys that have dominate stuff like Lester, Bailey, Gordon, Quentin, Carrilla, etc. up? It goes against current major league tendencies. Major league teams stupidly give contracts to players that can no way fullfill their earnings in the latter years of their contracts (Gono, Nevin, Bagwell, etc) and hurt their teams. Is Quentin any less capable than Green or Gonzo? No. I know baseball is a business but it baffles me why teams handcuff themselves. Do they really believe that a player at age 38 will usually be as good as he is at 34? The Royals would be much better off with Gordon, Butler, & Huber in the lineup right now. Why call up a aging vet to spot start a game when a young stud could get a taste of the big leagues and possibly take off? Like the Reds calling up Ramirez on Monday instead of Bailey. If Bailey crashes and burns, oh well, send him back but he has crazy stuff. Teams baby prospects far too much and over coach sometimes to the point of irritation (DYoung) or regression (Grienke). Now I can understand if top players are having injury problems (Hamels & Guzman come to mind in the past) or need to work on mechanics. But if a player can get everyday at-bats or some innings at the major league level the learning cruve would be steeper but easier to climb, a purification by fire of sorts. If new blood can make the team better it would be in the team's best interest to do so. IMO