I mean, really. You guys act like you've never seen a player having a bad year before. It happens all the time in baseball. Honestly, how long have you been watching baseball? And I know, that sounds patronizing, but I really am amazed at how many people seem to think that what we've seen from Richie this year is somehow evidence of some new talent level that wasn't there before, and this is what we should come to expect from him. Players (unless suffering from some sever, career-changing injury) don't just lose their abilities like that in the span of one year.

I've got a few examples for you, right here:

How 'bout Mike Lowell?:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lowelmi01.shtml

For several years in his 20's, he was one of the best Thirdbaseman in the Majors, hitting for average and power, generally putting up OPS of 800+. So what happens in 2005? He slumps down to .236 with 8 homers, and an OPS of .658. And you heard the rumors, people saying, "Oh, he's 31 now and he's lost his bat speed, he just can't get around on fastballs any more". And of course, he bounced right back, and the last 2 seasons has put up numbers that are among the best of his career. A move to Fenway park has no doubt helped that some, but hardly would be considered the primary reason for his return to form.

Rondell White:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whitero02.shtml

A good hitter throughout his career, generally hitting over .300 in his prime with a fair amount of extra base hits. Lifetime, .798 OPS. But how about 2002?: in 455 at bats, an OPS of .666. The three years after? .829, .790, .837.

Reggie Sanders:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sandere02.shtml

A really excellent player for a very long time, with some yearly OPS during his career of over .900. But when he was 32, he slumped to .705. Not a good season at all for a player with a lifetime OPS over .800. But of course, that was only one year, and it didn't spell doom for him. Some of his best seasons came after that time when he was in his mid- and late-30's.

Jermaine Dye:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dyeje01.shtml

While some of his problems may have been injury-related during his abyssmal 2003, I suppose the same could be said of a lot of players that suffer through bad years. At times, it's almost impossible to divine how much an injury contributes to poor play, and how much is just, well, poor play. This is one of the more stark example of how bad a year a good player can have. Lifetime OPS: .823. OPS in 2003: .514. Oakland fans, if I remember correctly, we're ready to ride him out of town with torches and pitchforks (I'm sure I'm mixing some metaphores in some way there). I bet they wish they still had him now.

Of course, our own Jose Guillen, just last year:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/guilljo01.shtml

We've been hearing from many Mariner fans how much they have loved Jose Guillen's play for us this year. And it comes following a season where he hit .216 with an OPS under .700. After that kind of year, how many people in Washington (the city, not the state) do you think were writing him off as a Major Leaguer? And yet, here he is in Seattle, the following year, doing just fine.

Pat Burrell

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/burrepa01.shtml

A much under-appreciated player in his home park, he suffered through a horrible season in 2003 when he was 26, yet bounced back and otherwise, has been a very productive player, even if Philly fans somehow don't think so. His lifetime OPS: .850. 2003: .713

Well, I hope I've made my point by now. I found these in about 20 minutes looking through Baseball-Reference. This is far from an exhaustive study -- if you spent the time, you could find plenty more. Ballplayers have bad seasons -- that's all there is to it. It's just part of the game.

You can go through baseball history and find literally hundreds of cases where players have had unexpectedly bad years in the middle of their playing careers. And almost to a man, if they're given the playing time, they bounce back to the kind of level they were at previously. You've got to get used to it -- it's going to happen over and over again, it's just part of the nature of the game of baseball.

So Richie Sexson hasn't somehow just forgotten how to hit the ball. You should expect that next season, he's going to return to being the kind of hitter he was before this year. He's just having an unfortunate season. The type of season that's happened to hundreds of players before, to some degree or another, and the type of season that's going to happen to plenty more players. Get over it. He's just had a bad year, and there's nothing more to it.

Someone said above that we can't know for sure that Sexson will bounce back, and that's is 100% true. And we can also say that we really don't know with any surety how any player is going to perform next year. All we can do is try the best we can to estimate as close as possible, come up with the best expectation of what we're likely to see from them.

The list of comps above that G was kind enough to provide for us is a pretty good illustrative point. You can look at those players individually and see that with a couple notable exceptions (Dale Murphy is an odd case) most of them played, and played productively, until they were 35, 36, 37.

And while we can all find examples of very good players who washed out for reasons other than injury in their early thirties, the list is far overshadowed by the number of players who continued to play well til at least their mid-thirties, and quite often beyond.

We can't know for sure what we are going to see from Richie Sexson next year, just like we can't know for sure about any player. But the odds of him coming back and hitting well again are certainly stacked in his favor.