Is Nick Markakis still an everyday player?

[Guest]

Sure he is just not at 10 to 12m a year.

[LoyalBirdFan]

No one knows what the future will bring, but we can use 140 years of MLB history and 10s of thousands of players' careers as a reasonable guide. And the majority of players at 35 were shadows of the players they were at 27.

You are right, and since Nick turns 35 in 4 years, he is no longer an everyday player.

[Number5]

You are right, and since Nick turns 35 in 4 years, he is no longer an everyday player.

[Guest]

Sure he is just not at 10 to 12m a year.

[El Gordo]

No one knows what the future will bring, but we can use 140 years of MLB history and 10s of thousands of players' careers as a reasonable guide. And the majority of players at 35 were shadows of the players they were at 27.

So if I project Nick to be 2.3, 2.1, 1.8, and 1.5 WAR the next 4 years you think I'm over rating him? That would be 46 M in production value.

[DrungoHazewood]

So if I project Nick to be 2.3, 2.1, 1.8, and 1.5 WAR the next 4 years you think I'm over rating him? That would be 46 M in production value.

I think that's on the high side. He was only at 2.3 this year (2.5 bb-ref, 2.1 fangraphs), and I think a pretty good rule of thumb (and it's just that, not a hard and fast law) is to decline half a win a year.

If you're a pessimistic type you'd probably include 2013 in Nick's 3- or 4-year weighted baseline average, and come up with a starting point of less than two wins a year, and it would be difficult to even consider four years. Why pay guaranteed money for replacement level production?

My estimate before has been he's worth about $30M over three years with the fourth year adding very little to that.

[Reboulet'sStache]

So if I project Nick to be 2.3, 2.1, 1.8, and 1.5 WAR the next 4 years you think I'm over rating him? That would be 46 M in production value.

Do you think Nick will match his best defensive year in 4 years, the next 4 years? If not, you're too bullish.

[Frobby]

Do you think Nick will match his best defensive year in 4 years' date=' the next 4 years? If not, you're too bullish.[/quote']

Nick is a Rohrshack test. He's had one year in his career below 1.9 oWAR. How much weight do you put on that year? I feel good that Nick will be worth 7-8 WAR in the next 4 years. Some people don't.

[24fps]

The inkblot test (also called the "Rorschach" test) is a method of psychological evaluation. Psychologists use this test in an attempt to examine the personality characteristics and emotional functioning of their patients. This test is often employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorders and differentiating psychotic from non-psychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to openly admit to psychotic thinking.

Think carefully about your next post on the subject of Nick Markakis lest you admit something you might otherwise be reluctant to do.

Edit:

[Reboulet'sStache]

Nick is a Rohrshack test. He's had one year in his career below 1.9 oWAR. How much weight do you put on that year? I feel good that Nick will be worth 7-8 WAR in the next 4 years. Some people don't.

7 to 8 would have to be at the absolute high end, regardless of who is looking at Nick. And I'd put a lot of weight on the year Nick had two years ago, and last year, as those are his two most recent years.