Markakis - Historical Comps Aged Well

[srock]

He's bad in the field. Great arm' date=' great glove, but [b']he struggles to get to far too many balls[/b].

He did look better this year, but the overall picture from the last 3-4 years has not been a pretty one. I expect a continued decline in his range.

As for Buck, of course he is going to say things like that. He's the manager and Nick is his longest tenured player.

I saw some pretty darn good fielding by Nick this year, on dropping fly balls and bloop hits to RF.

I remember one interview after the game and Buck mentioned love having Nick patrolling RF and knowing he is out there, is one less worry that he has.

His range is his problem, no doubt. Nick just isn't that fast. He is fine with balls he gets too.

I don't think he has a position. He doesn't produce enough offense to pass as a average at best corner outfielder and he certainly doesn't have the skills to play a skilled defensive position.

How much is "having quality at bats" worth when that and your throwing arm are you only skills?

At this point he is likely better then replacements we have. That is worth something. If someone in AAA was clearly ready or de Aza was clearly better, then its hard to keep Nick.

But there is value to the organization to make him a life time Oriole. Prestige matters. Clubhouse matters. Signing him long term may be the morale booster the team needs.

But that only take us so far. At the end of the day (or contract) if someone better emerges, Nick's contract can't be the roadblock to replacing him.

[Can_of_corn]

His range is his problem, no doubt. Nick just isn't that fast. He is fine with balls he gets too.

At this point he is likely better then replacements we have. That is worth something. If someone in AAA was clearly ready or de Aza was clearly better, then its hard to keep Nick.

But there is value to the organization to make him a life time Oriole. Prestige matters. Clubhouse matters. Signing him long term may be the morale booster the team needs.

But that only take us so far. At the end of the day (or contract) if someone better emerges, Nick's contract can't be the roadblock to replacing him.

I think Lough can out perform him. Of course if you are one of those guys that doesn't think run prevention counts as much as run creation...

[notyourbuddy]

Sabermetric Faith Test:

Nick Markakis:

1. Worth 2.5WAR last year.
   
2. Set to earn $12M/yr over the next 3/4 years (??)
   

David Lough:

1. Worth 1.9WAR in less than half a season.
   
2. Would have projected close to a 4WAR player over a full season (??)
   
3. Set to earn less than $1M next year (??)
   

Should be a no brainer, right?

[srock]

I think Lough can out perform him. Of course if you are one of those guys that doesn't think run prevention counts as much as run creation...

Freaking Visual Studio hung on me so I went to did some numbers.

Nick's 2014 OPS of .729 is far below the MLB average of .771. Yahoo breaks down numbers by position. I had to use Yahoo? Come on bbref.

AND he is clearly not netting us much defensively. At best he is an average defender due to his lack of range.

By the numbers, its clear we could do better in RF.

Its harder to see HOW we do better in RF.

Lough is better defensively, so is de Aza. But how many runs would they actually prevent? OPACY isn't exactly a huge outfield.

Neither of them has proven they can consistently put up a decent offense.

Unless Duq has a better player available, I don't think making a change is worth the potential damage to the clubhouse nor the lose of a (possible) lifetime Oriole.

[Redskins Rick]

Freaking Visual Studio hung on me so I went to did some numbers.

Nick's 2014 OPS of .729 is far below the MLB average of .771. Yahoo breaks down numbers by position. I had to use Yahoo? Come on bbref.

AND he is clearly not netting us much defensively. At best he is an average defender due to his lack of range.

By the numbers, its clear we could do better in RF.

Its harder to see HOW we do better in RF.

Lough is better defensively, so is de Aza. But how many runs would they actually prevent? OPACY isn't exactly a huge outfield.

Neither of them has proven they can consistently put up a decent offense.

Unless Duq has a better player available, I don't think making a change is worth the potential damage to the clubhouse nor the lose of a (possible) lifetime Oriole.

Nice post.

[Can_of_corn]

Well Jones isn't exactly the rangiest CF out there so there will be a chance for a superior defensive player to make plays in the gap. And of course half the games are played away from OPACY.

You also have to keep in mind the team doesn't have an unlimited budget. If you can get comparable production from a player already under team control who is going to be making under a million then that is the smart play.

[srock]

Well Jones isn't exactly the rangiest CF out there so there will be a chance for a superior defensive player to make plays in the gap. And of course half the games are played away from OPACY.

You also have to keep in mind the team doesn't have an unlimited budget. If you can get comparable production from a player already under team control who is going to be making under a million then that is the smart play.

I think its a tough sell that Lough and/or de Aza would provide comparable production. On paper they should. But in reality, I think they are both players who get exposed over the course of a season who are likely to struggle if pressed into roles they do not fit in.

Especially hitting left handed pitching.

Now, a platoon of Lough or de Aza with say...Delmon Young as the right handed bat. That could really be something. But they we come down to roster spots.

Maybe keeping Cruz who splits his time at corner OF and DH and Young, Lough, de Aza are splitting the rest of the LF/RH/DH playing time could work.

But Nick provides more certainty. Duq and Buck have to balance certainty with potential rewards of platooning and within the confines of a 25 man roster and a complex options system.

And Nick's .729 OPS is below average, but it could be far worse. Some very talented players put up much worse last year. Jay Bruce and BJ Upton for example.

[Redskins Rick]

I rather have Cruz in Left and Young as DH.

I really do not like Young in the OF.

[Babypowder]

I think its a tough sell that Lough and/or de Aza would provide comparable production. On paper they should. But in reality, I think they are both players who get exposed over the course of a season who are likely to struggle if pressed into roles they do not fit in.

Especially hitting left handed pitching.

Now, a platoon of Lough or de Aza with say...Delmon Young as the right handed bat. That could really be something. But they we come down to roster spots.

Maybe keeping Cruz who splits his time at corner OF and DH and Young, Lough, de Aza are splitting the rest of the LF/RH/DH playing time could work.

But Nick provides more certainty. Duq and Buck have to balance certainty with potential rewards of platooning and within the confines of a 25 man roster and a complex options system.

And Nick's .729 OPS is below average, but it could be far worse. Some very talented players put up much worse last year. Jay Bruce and BJ Upton for example.

So, to sum it up we should give Nick a long term and relatively expensive deal because "it could be worse"? I don't think that's a good enough reason to justify paying free agent market value for average production, unless of course payroll is going to stop being a concern at all moving forward.

[srock]

So, to sum it up we should give Nick a long term and relatively expensive deal because "it could be worse"? I don't think that's a good enough reason to justify paying free agent market value for average production, unless of course payroll is going to stop being a concern at all moving forward.

The summation (of a bunch of posts, not just that one):

Give me a clearly superior player and I'm fine with letting Nick leave. But I don't see one at this time.

We could be getting better production from RF.

We could be getting similar production for less money then Nick at FA prices.

Its not clear HOW to do either of those things with much certainty. At the very least, Nick has been more consistent then the likely alternatives.

He hits left handed pitching. Its one less roster spot to juggle and they do juggle a bunch of roster spots.

It is possible keeping Nick around will pay dividends in the clubhouse and organizational prestige (making him a lifetime Orioles has its long term value). I don't personally put a ton of value in this, but ownership may and its their money.

[AdamK]

Moved thought to another thread.

Edit: This is probably too far away from the thread topic. Feel free to ignore.

[Babypowder]

The summation (of a bunch of posts, not just that one):

Give me a clearly superior player and I'm fine with letting Nick leave. But I don't see one at this time.

We could be getting better production from RF.

We could be getting similar production for less money then Nick at FA prices.

Its not clear HOW to do either of those things with much certainty. At the very least, Nick has been more consistent then the likely alternatives.

He hits left handed pitching. Its one less roster spot to juggle and they do juggle a bunch of roster spots.

It is possible keeping Nick around will pay dividends in the clubhouse and organizational prestige (making him a lifetime Orioles has its long term value). I don't personally put a ton of value in this, but ownership may and its their money.

Fair enough I guess. To me it's a coin flip whether or not either De Aza or Lough are better than Markakis in 2015. That's certainty enough for me to not commit something like 10 million for the next 3 or 4 years to him. There's a 50 percent chance he's a worse player next year to me in equal playing time. I certainly don't see any likely difference being worth 30 or 40 million over the next 3 or 4 years.

[hoosiers]

Damon seems a very strange comp to Markakis for me since JD maintained his speed and obp well into his 30s.

JD stole 80 bases in his 28-30 seasons while Nick stole 5.

JD had xbh in 8.1% of PAs between his 28-30 seasons while Nick hit xbh in 6.4% of his.

JD hit into 17 double plays in those seasons, Nick 38.

JD was finished in the top 16 in MVP voting in each of his age 30-32 seasons. Nick is not playing anywhere near good enough to be in MVP Top 20 discussions.

It would be nice if Nick could produce near what Damon did in his early 30s, but they don't appear to be at the same place entering that time period.

[DrungoHazewood]

Baseball Reference lists Gregg Jeffries, Chet Lemon, Al Oliver, Johnny Damon, and Gary Matthews Sr. as comps for Nick through age 30. (Here's the link: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/markani01.shtml) The only one that didn't perform reasonably well ages 31-34 was Jeffries, who was bothered by injuries as a Tiger in 1999 and 2000 and had to retire at 32.

Anyway, all of that to say that even though Nick has tailed off since his thumb injury in 2012 there is historical precedent for a player like him performing pretty well in the years that would be for him a possible 4-year deal.

After looking at it, I wouldn't mind something like a 4/36 deal if he'd accept it. What do you think?

Nick has been worth a total of six wins from 27-30.

Gregg Jeffries was worth -1.2 rWAR from age 31-on. He was basically done at Nick's age.

Al Oliver was very good in his 31-35 years, actually having his career year at 35. But unlike Nick he was worth 3.5+ wins in each year from 27-30. I would argue that he's not all that comparable to Nick.

Chet Lemon was a plus center fielder, who aged reasonably well, but also put up 6, 6, and 4-win seasons from 28-30. As a center fielder with an established baseline near 5 wins he's even less comparable than Oliver.

Matthews Sr was similar to Lemon, in that he was a very good center fielder. He wasn't quite as good, but still put up more value in his 27-30 seasons than Nick, out rWARing him 10.5 to 6. Even with his higher baseline and significantly better defense he only put up about 6.0 wins the rest of his career.

Damon remained productive through age 37, but like most of the others here he has a much higher baseline than Markakis, regularly putting up 4+ win seasons in his late 20s.

So I don't think these comps are all that comparable, and therefore don't provide a lot of guidance for Markakis' career progression.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Damon seems a very strange comp to Markakis for me since JD maintained his speed and obp well into his 30s.

JD stole 80 bases in his 28-30 seasons while Nick stole 5.

JD had xbh in 8.1% of PAs between his 28-30 seasons while Nick hit xbh in 6.4% of his.

JD hit into 17 double plays in those seasons, Nick 38.

JD was finished in the top 16 in MVP voting in each of his age 30-32 seasons. Nick is not playing anywhere near good enough to be in MVP Top 20 discussions.

It would be nice if Nick could produce near what Damon did in his early 30s, but they don't appear to be at the same place entering that time period.

That's the big difference. You really hoped Damon maintained his production, because he was a 3 to 4something WAR player most years. I don't care if Markakis maintains his production, I don't want to pay a 2 WAR player 12 million the next 3 to 4 years.