Is Nick Markakis still an everyday player?

[Nevermore]

The Rays had a lot of success with low payroll over the years by treating players as commodities that could be traded when they got too expensive.

I feel its best to take the human element out of building a team instead of getting too attached.

I'm with Frobby here. Ballplayers are human being and that's one of the main factors of being a fan -- rooting for guys that make up your team. Otherwise, we might as well cancel MLB games and play Madden Sports video games instead. Digital images are a lot less expensive with no need for spending money on multi year contracts for real ballplayers. We could cheer for these digital images. :clap3:

[Can_of_corn]

IMO Nick does not have an injury history, unless you count a time he was hit, probably on purpose, by a d*** Yankee. He is penciled in the lineup card Every day, and rarely lets the team down. If the Orioles do not win the WS in 2015, it will not be because Nick is playing right field. He is in my book, Mr. Reliable, and by the way, a current Gold Glove winner.

So this didn't happen?

Orioles Gold Glove right fielder Nick Markakis, who has been bothered for months by what he initially thought was a deep bone bruise near his abdomen, had surgery Thursday to repair an abductor muscle and his rectus abdominis, also known as the “six-pack” muscle.

Despite the extensive muscle damage, Markakis hopes to play in exhibition games by mid-to-late March and expects to be ready for Opening Day, April 6 at Camden Yards against the Minnesota Twins.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-06/sports/bal-orioles-nick-markakis-has-surgery-0106_1_markakis-first-sports-hernia-muscle

[Frobby]

You said Nick would need a few more years in a row with a 2013 type of performance. Which would seem to imply that only if Markakis had 3 out of 4 years with a negative WAR' date=' would you say he was no longer a regular.

Law didn't say it was "[u']likely[/u]," he said it's not clear. You said there was no evidence why someone could say it isn't clear that Markakis deserves to be a regular starter going forward. And that just isn't true. Anytime you have a negative WAR year, and then follow that up with a year in which you need your best fielding year in 4 years and as many at bats as about any player in MLB, just so you can put forth a 2.1 WAR season, there is at least legit reason why an intelligent person could say it's not clear if Markakis is going to be a productive enough player into his 30's to be an everyday starter going forward.

What I said was:

If Nick performed as in 2013 a couple of years in a row, he'd be in danger of losing his "regular" status. But he's had one year in nine that was even remotely like that.

I stand by it. And I wasn't talking about whether Nick "is going to be a productive enough player into his 30's to be an everyday starter going forward." I'm talking about what he is now. It might be reasonable to think Nick won't be good enough to be a starter in 2017. Maybe even 2016, if you are a super-pessimist. Right now he's a guy coming off a 2+ WAR season who has missed under 100 games in a 9-year career.

At this point, you and I are just parsing words. So, I'll put it this way: barring injury, I'd peg the odds that Nick starts 150+ games in 2015 at over 90%. I'll put the odds that he starts over 150 games in 2016 at over 80%. Please feel free to disagree with me.

[Frobby]

So this didn't happen?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-06/sports/bal-orioles-nick-markakis-has-surgery-0106_1_markakis-first-sports-hernia-muscle

Yeah, it happened, and Nick played 160 games in 2011 anyway, though the injury was suffered sometime in August, if I recall. Then he played 160 games in 2013 despite suffering a herniated disk in spring training. Probably the more correct statement would be, Nick has a history of playing virtually every game, even when dealing with pretty significant injuries, unless a badly broken bone stops him in his tracks.

[Reboulet'sStache]

At this point, you and I are just parsing words. So, I'll put it this way: barring injury, I'd peg the odds that Nick starts 150+ games in 2015 at over 90%. I'll put the odds that he starts over 150 games in 2016 at over 80%. Please feel free to disagree with me.

Not at all. And that isn't what Law is saying. It seems kind of odd that you believe Law is arguing that Markakis won't start for someone next year or the year after that. Nobody in the free world believes that. Law is saying that it isn't clear that Markakis SHOULD be a regular starter going forward, based on his production, and therefore, the contract suggested by the user is foolish, and Law wouldnt' touch it if he was running the team.

[Can_of_corn]

Yeah, it happened, and Nick played 160 games in 2011 anyway, though the injury was suffered sometime in August, if I recall. Then he played 160 games in 2013 despite suffering a herniated disk in spring training. Probably the more correct statement would be, Nick has a history of playing virtually every game, even when dealing with pretty significant injuries, unless a badly broken bone stops him in his tracks.

I was saying he does have an injury history beyond those caused by HBP.

[Malike]

Interesting. How much actual team building experience do you have, that leads to this feeling?

Fantasy Baseball I suspect. It's hard to have a human element when all your players are made of numbers and you've never met them.

[Frobby]

Not at all. And that isn't what Law is saying. It seems kind of odd that you believe Law is arguing that Markakis won't start for someone next year or the year after that. Nobody in the free world believes that. Law is saying that it isn't clear that Markakis SHOULD be a regular starter going forward' date=' based on his production, and therefore, the contract suggested by the user is foolish, and Law wouldnt' touch it if he was running the team.[/quote']

And I'm saying Nick WILL be a starter because he SHOULD be a starter, and that the 30 GM's aren't so stupid that they throw $40 mm contracts at players who don't deserve to be starters NOW. You can argue that they might be shortsighted about looking 2-3 years down the road, but anything beyond that is hyperbole.

[Reboulet'sStache]

And I'm saying Nick WILL be a starter because he SHOULD be a starter, and that the 30 GM's aren't so stupid that they throw $40 mm contracts at players who don't deserve to be starters NOW. You can argue that they might be shortsighted about looking 2-3 years down the road, but anything beyond that is hyperbole.

Yeah, I get what your point is. You just kept arguing that Nick will start for someone next year and after that, and I didn't understand why, because neither Law or anybody else was arguing otherwise. Law's point was that a 4 year deal is insane, since it's unclear Markakis should be a regular starter over the life of that contract. And that's isn't hyperbole. It all just depends on what you put the base line number at for a starter (yours being a lot lower than 2 WAR), and where you think it's possible Markakis' production could be relative to that number.

[Frobby]

Yeah' date=' I get what your point is. You just kept arguing that Nick will start for someone next year and after that, and I didn't understand why, because neither Law or anybody else was arguing otherwise. [b']Law's point was that a 4 year deal is insane, since it's unclear Markakis should be a regular starter over the life of that contract. And that's isn't hyperbole.[/b] It all just depends on what you put the base line number at for a starter (yours being a lot lower than 2 WAR), and where you think it's possible Markakis' production could be relative to that number.

The way you stated it, it is not hyperbole. I'd readily admit that there is no certainty that Nick will be good enough to be a full-time player 3-4 years from now. I think it is pretty likely that he will be, but there's no way to know for sure. I guess it boils down to us having different interpretations of what Law said. And of course, the thread title here is "Is Nick Markakis still an everyday player," not "Will Nick Markakis be an everyday player in 2017-18?"

As to the threshold of who is a starter, I think the line is a little mushy, and it depends a bit on what your criteria are for "starter." I decided to look at where Nick stands in fWAR over 1, 2, 3 and 4 years among players with 500 PA.

1 year - 82nd of 149

2 years - 100th of 119

3 years - 104th of 116

4 years - 85th of 97

2011 - 101 of 146

2012 - 113 of 148 (missed 58 games and didn't have 500 PA, but I'm comparing him to those who did)

2013 - 137 of 141

2014 - 82 of 149

On the one hand, it's clear there are quite a few starters who are better than Nick. On the other hand, he's really been in the bottom rung only once in the last 4 years (or at any time in his career). And, it's a pretty select group to begin with.

[Reboulet'sStache]

I think Law would certainly argue that it's unclear Markakis should be a regular starter next year, but I doubt if the user had said, "1 year, 8 to 10 million for Markakis?" that Law would have given the reply that he did. So while he might think it isn't clear about next year, I think he probably only cares within the context of the contract the user suggested, which was 4/40.

And like I said, it's all about how you interpret the data. You find comfort in his 2011-2014 years. I think a reasonable person could look at them and be very concerned. Those years were suppose to be his PRIME years. And that's the best he could do, not being in the bottom rung.

[El Gordo]

Fantasy Baseball I suspect. It's hard to have a human element when all your players are made of numbers and you've never met them.

The game is also entertainment. Winning isn't the only thing, and the human element factors into the equation. Fans connect to players and pay to see them play no matter if their production falls off.

[Frobby]

The game is also entertainment. Winning isn't the only thing, and the human element factors into the equation. Fans connect to players and pay to see them play no matter if their production falls off.

To a degree. For the most part, I'd rather see a winning team than a familiar one.

[El Gordo]

To a degree. For the most part, I'd rather see a winning team than a familiar one.

Of course, but the truth is it's the entertainment business, and if the team did not factor in the human element, they wouldn't make as much money. If it was just numbers to crunch I doubt they would be trying to sign Nick to anything more than 2 years. If it were just numbers Cal wouldn't have broken Lou Gehrig's record and Brooks wouldn't have played as long as he did.

[jjnono]

Yeah' date=' I get what your point is. You just kept arguing that Nick will start for someone next year and after that, and I didn't understand why, because neither Law or anybody else was arguing otherwise. Law's point was that a 4 year deal is insane, since it's unclear Markakis should be a regular starter over the life of that contract. And that's isn't hyperbole. It all just depends on what you put the base line number at for a starter (yours being a lot lower than 2 WAR), and where you think it's possible Markakis' production could be relative to that number.[/quote']

As interpretations go, it seems clear to me that Law is saying the following: It's unclear (i.e., not a given, not a certainty) that Nick is "even a regular" (a starter, a player counted on to play everyday if capable), "at this point" (i.e., right now, today, at this point in his career). If he had meant what you are inferring he means, he should have said, "there is no guarantee that Markakis will still be a starter in four years or over the life of the contract." When I read Law's comments, I interpreted them to mean he was concerned that Markakis is probably a platoon-type player at this point in his career. Which just seems deliberately pessimistic.