Will Markakis sign with the O's before the FA signing begin? (Option Declined)

[mdbdotcom]

We would both agree that paying 6 million per WAR on low WAR production is overpaying though. Right. Not talking Nick here. Just Philosophy.

Interesting thing about RF. Just about every one of them in the AL who played more than 600 innings out there posted a negative DWAR (source: ESPN). Josh Reddick was the only exception, with 1.2 DWAR. Reddick, Calhoun (-0.1), Ichiro (-0.2) , and Springer (-0.4) were the only RF in the AL with better DWAR than Markakis (-0.5). And Nick played 200 more full innings than any other RF.

So, when you go over to the offensive side and look at WAR for players with over 400 PA as a RF, Nick finishes 4th out of 10.

I am far from a WAR expert, or even an enthusiast, but it looks like RF is a tough position to get more WAR.

[weams]

Interesting thing about RF. Just about every one of them in the AL who played more than 600 innings out there posted a negative DWAR (source: ESPN). Josh Reddick was the only exception, with 1.2 DWAR. Reddick, Calhoun (-0.1), Ichiro (-0.2) , and Springer (-0.4) were the only RF in the AL with better DWAR than Markakis (-0.5). And Nick played 200 more full innings than any other RF.

So, when you go over to the offensive side and look at WAR for players with over 400 PA as a RF, Nick finishes 4th out of 10.

I am far from a WAR expert, or even an enthusiast, but it looks like RF is a tough position to get more WAR.

Thank you for that. I would never have thought to look there. I still don't understand how defensive metrics work, only that we are supposed to use them for comparison.

[MurphDogg]

Interesting thing about RF. Just about every one of them in the AL who played more than 600 innings out there posted a negative DWAR (source: ESPN). Josh Reddick was the only exception, with 1.2 DWAR. Reddick, Calhoun (-0.1), Ichiro (-0.2) , and Springer (-0.4) were the only RF in the AL with better DWAR than Markakis (-0.5). And Nick played 200 more full innings than any other RF.

So, when you go over to the offensive side and look at WAR for players with over 400 PA as a RF, Nick finishes 4th out of 10.

I am far from a WAR expert, or even an enthusiast, but it looks like RF is a tough position to get more WAR.

Yeah, I am not a big fan of the eye test but it seems to steer me more astray when watching Markakis defensively than it does for any other player. It seems to me that if the dWAR of all right fielders collectively adds up to less than zero then there is something flawed with how it is being calculated. I would be curious to see the combined dWAR of all positions by all players at each position. Logically they should all be the same, right?

[weams]

Yeah, I am not a big fan of the eye test but it seems to steer me more astray when watching Markakis defensively than it does for any other player. It seems to me that if the dWAR of all right fielders collectively adds up to less than zero then there is something flawed with how it is being calculated. I would be curious to see the combined dWAR of all positions by all players at each position. Logically they should all be the same, right?

If the net of all players playing that position for a full season is anything other than zero, it doesn't work for me.

[AlbionHero]

Yeah, I am not a big fan of the eye test but it seems to steer me more astray when watching Markakis defensively than it does for any other player. It seems to me that if the dWAR of all right fielders collectively adds up to less than zero then there is something flawed with how it is being calculated. I would be curious to see the combined dWAR of all positions by all players at each position. Logically they should all be the same, right?

I think it does if you count all 3 OF spots. Looking at RF and LF, there are a lot of guys with negative numbers, but far more CFs with positive numbers... which kinda lines up with the thought that you put your best OF defenders in CF. So by the metrics, Markakis isn't really a bad RF, but not a very good OF overall.

[weams]

I think it does if you count all 3 OF spots. Looking at RF and LF, there are a lot of guys with negative numbers, but far more CFs with positive numbers... which kinda lines up with the thought that you put your best OF defenders in CF. So by the metrics, Markakis isn't really a bad RF, but not a very good OF overall.

You have to do it by individual position though for it to make sense. Right? You can't throw all infielders together either.

[Dark Helmet]

I think it does if you count all 3 OF spots. Looking at RF and LF, there are a lot of guys with negative numbers, but far more CFs with positive numbers... which kinda lines up with the thought that you put your best OF defenders in CF. So by the metrics, Markakis isn't really a bad RF, but not a very good OF overall.

Wonder how Jones will take being moved to LF? Because Lough is a better defensive CF then Jones. I think many don't consider how well Nick plays the high wall at OPACY either. I've seen opposing players turn singles into doubles and triples misplaying the scoreboard. But im biasedm

[MurphDogg]

If the net of all players playing that position for a full season is anything other than zero, it doesn't work for me.

Replacement isn't the same thing as average. The numbers shouldn't equal zero. If it was defensive wins below average then the numbers should equal zero.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Wonder how Jones will take being moved to LF? Because Lough is a better defensive CF then Jones. I think many don't consider how well Nick plays the high wall at OPACY either. I've seen opposing players turn singles into doubles and triples misplaying the scoreboard. But im biasedm

But is that a skill only Markakis could do, or could most fielders do that once they actually played more than 3 games a year at Camden Yards?

[Dark Helmet]

But is that a skill only Markakis could do' date=' or could most fielders do that once they actually played more than 3 games a year at Camden Yards?[/quote']

Depends. Is it a skill or an instinct? Some guys never could grasp playing the green monster. I can't really answer that honestly.

[Frobby]

On 11/2/2014 at 11:53 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

Anyone else, any player from another team, any randomly-selected 31-year-old... you'd just assume he was going to lose half a win a year from now on out. And you'd figure his baseline including his zero-win 2013, so maybe 1.5-2 wins a year. 1.5, 1, and 0.5 wins. So if you're ok with 3/30 or 3/36, you're implying that things above and beyond the numbers are worth $5M, maybe more a year.

 

On 11/2/2014 at 12:51 PM, Frobby said:

I am not assuming Nick will be worth a total of 3 wins over the next three years. If I believed that, I wouldn't want him back.

I don't think any player is a "randomly selected 31-year old." I don't think that lumping a group of players together whose only common trait is age, and then taking a simple average of their decline, is a very useful tool for developing expectations for a particular player within that group. Do you think it is typical for a player who has accumulated 25 WAR by age 30 to only accumulate another 3 WAR in the following 3 years, and then start going into negative territory?

Here's a little experiment I just did; I am sure a more sophisticated one could be devised. There are 7 active players age 33 who have WAR totals between 20 and 33. I figure that's the range, up or down, where I would expect Nick to be at age 33 (he's at 25.4 rWAR now). Here's what I found:

....

Average: 21.2 through age 30, 7.1 the next three years.

Obviously, Nick is unlikely to be Jose Bautista, and sure he could turn out to be Alex Rios. But I think any projection of Nick's next three years that has 3.0 as its midpoint is way off base.

 

On 11/2/2014 at 12:58 PM, RZNJ said:

Frobby. If you knew Markakis was going to accumulate 2 WAR, per year, over the next 4 years, having to play 155 games a year to do it, would you pay him 4/40M

 

On 11/2/2014 at 1:15 PM, Frobby said:

I would. Obviously that's not a huge bargain, but it's a bit better than the going FA rate, and I believe Nick's steadiness and durability is helpful to the team. You seem to think that Nick playing 155 games a year is a bad thing, but that leaves Buck with a lot of flexibility everywhere else. Sign me up!

 

On 11/2/2014 at 3:02 PM, RZNJ said:

And If our crystal ball said that David Lough would produce 2 WAR per year over the next 3 years as the RF, playing in 130 games a year, for peanuts, would you still sign Markakis?

This is an exchange I’ve been thinking about for years, and decided I would dredge up once Nick Markakis completed his contract with the Braves.   Nick ended up being valued at 6.7 rWAR, 5.6 fWAR in his four years with the Braves.   By Fangraphs’ methodology, he was worth $46.1 mm, compared to the $44 mm he was paid.

I was not in favor of giving Nick a four-year deal, but in hindsight, I wish we’d matched the Braves’ offer.    Yes, he did play 155 games a year — in fact, he played 156, 158, 160 and 162.    Would I have preferred that to the merry-go-round we witnessed in RF the last four years?    You’re damned right I would!

[interloper]

Yeeeeup, one of the few times the O's medical folks got it wrong. An unfortunate, if understandable at the time, swing and a miss.

[capyy]

RF and OBP have been a joke for the Orioles since he left. They had no replacement plan and he was a fan favorite.

 

Typical.

 

[Ohfan67]

7 minutes ago, capyy said:

RF and OBP have been a joke for the Orioles since he left. They had no replacement plan and he was a fan favorite.

 

Typical.

 

Trumbo was more valuable as a RF in 2016 than Markakis, so the Orioles didn't strike out all four years of his deal. But overall, yeah, the Orioles should have given Markakis the fourth year. And since this was his best year of that deal he might have been worth a B prospect the trading deadline this past summer.  

[Ruzious]

A lot of Markakis' value at Atlanta has been because he never gets injured, and that was certainly something the O's could not have predicted - given his age and questions about his neck.  He's been as durable as anyone in baseball.