Local Maximum Or Global Maximum?

When I discussed the contract that the Orioles gave to Nick Markakis, I projected his value to the team by assuming that he'll continue producing at the level that I have him projected at for 2009 (about 5.5 WAR). Now that may not be very fair to assume, so perhaps comparing Nick to other similar players and seeing how they preformed after the age of 24 may be more appropriate. This is essentially what BaseballProspectus' PECOTA model does, but this is a far (far) less detailed look at it using Chone's historical WAR. I pulled in the data for players comparable to Markakis, including those listed at Baseball Reference, ZiPS, PECOTA, as well as various scouting reports and just players who showed similar offensive profiles at the age of 24, concentrating on left-handed outfielders. Examples include Gary Matthews, Ben Grieve, Steve Kemp, Rusty Staub, and Ellis Burks.

The results, in handy-dandy graphical form (sorry, it's a little blurry; you can click for a clearer version, or just look at the general trends with Nick being in orange and the comparables average being red.):

With the bat, Nick started out just slightly above average but has had drastic improvement each year. His comps likewise started out low but got better relatively quickly, though not to the same degree. Unfortunately, that age-24 season was their peak performance, with a steady decline starting right after that.

Because he was very good on defense his first year, Nick saw only a small bump in WAR in season two. It was in 2008 that he really broke out, and his comps also saw a modest improvement going from age-22 to age-23, and much larger one going to age-24. Again, there is a fairly steady decline starting at age-25.

Nick is actually starting at a higher baseline, so his decline starting at age-25 (if it indeed occurs) will leave him as a more valuable player for the length of his contract. Nick was 40% better with the bat than his comps in his age-24 season, so I at least kept that advantage for him in projecting out his batting runs.

Even though several of his comparable players where done at a young age (Grieve and Kemp most immediately spring to mind), overall they were still able to provide above average offense well into their late 30's. The big age-related decline happens started at age-33, but they are still valuable hitters for a few years after that. With things like these, there is often a selection bias where only the players that were good enough to keep playing are measured. I tried to get around that by including zeroes for players after they were done through age 40 for everyone that isn't still active.

The WARs likewise show the comps as still being somewhat valuable (0.5-1.0 WAR) into their later 30's. There's a steady decline from 25 to around 31 (with a strange down-year at age-30) before a sharper one starts. This has Nick (assuming again that he's better than the composite) declining from 4 WAR to around 3.4 WAR in the first five years of his contract, with a dip to 2.5 WAR at age-30 before having a rebound to 3 WAR at age-31 (when he may be on another team). I would honestly be somewhat disappointed if Nick was just a solid occasional all-star level player for the next six years instead of the star perennial all-star level player he showed he could be last year. Not mad or upset - just disappointed. I am anxiously awaiting another data point to see whether we can adjust the graph to go more into Carl Yastrzemski territory instead of Jeff Burroughs territory.

Even given the downward sloping lines, production at the projected levels would be worth about $95 M to the Orioles (taking into account salary inflation and arbitration year discounts). I'm still (mostly) expecting Nick to be closer to a 5.5 WAR player than a 3.5 WAR player, but even with a reasonable decline he's still easily worth his $66 M contract. Oh yeah... it was a steal.

And sorry for the title. Read more ...

Categorized 2008 Offensive Value

Over at the BaseballAnalysts they've got an interesting article showing the best (& worst) hitters from 2008 (using linear weights - like in wOBA) based on where they hit the ball.

The most successful hitter when pulling the ball was Jorge Cantu (51.82 runs - that's 5 wins just from pulling the ball), and the top 10 where all right-handed (which makes sense, since a ball pulled to the left side of the infield (by righties) is more likely to be a hit than one pulled to the right side (by lefties)). New O's shortstop Cesar Izturis (-8.54) was second worst, but had some good company - Joe Mauer was easily in last place at -10.18 runs.

Manny Ramirez (22.21 runs) was tops at hitting the ball to center, with Nick Markakis rounding out the top 10 (14.41 runs).

Ryan Howard's prodigious opposite-field power puts him first at going the other way at 26.69 runs. Nick Markakis makes a second appearance at #7 (13.21 runs), and Jeremy Greenhouse had this to say:

"Nick Markakis, Matt Kemp, and Manny Ramirez all show up as top center and opposite field hitters. These guys are at times described as "pure" hitters, and there's why. I'd presume each one is quite talented at going with the pitch."

Nick pulled 6 HR in '08; hit 10 to center; and sent 4 to the opposite field. Three of his four longest home runs (by "true" distance, from HitTracker) were actually hit to left-center field. It's the kind of accross-the-board hitting talent that indicates that Markakis may still be improving as a player.

The article also had a link to a similar study done by Dave Studeman over at the HardballTimes. He categorized it by type of ball in play (Not In Play, Groundball, Line-Drive, or Fly Ball) instead of where it was hit.

"I was curious to see which other batters posted such an “even” profile. Here’s my list, in descending order of total runs above average, of the best all-around hitters in baseball last year:

Player	NIP	GB	LD	Fly	Tot
Pujols A	25	9	20	24	77
Jones C	19	4	18	15	56
Berkman L	17	2	6	27	52
Ramirez H	13	11	9	19	51
Wright D	12	3	23	11	48
Holliday M	9	14	12	11	46
Bradley M	12	7	9	17	46
Markakis N	14	7	12	8	42
Utley C	11	-2	16	16	41
Ramirez M	7	3	13	13	37
Ramirez A	11	1	10	10	31

Very few surprises here. Well, you might be surprised to see Nick Markakis here, but you shouldn’t be. He’s one of the best young hitters in baseball."

The M Ramirez was just from Manny's time in LA. He was 13-5-14-32-63 overall.

Being at least 7 runs above average in each category puts him in even more elite company:

Player	NIP	GB	LD	Fly	Tot
Pujols A	25	9	20	24	77
Ramirez H	13	11	9	19	51
Holliday M	9	14	12	11	46
Bradley M	12	7	9	17	46
Markakis N	14	7	12	8	42

I've said it before and (barring a sudden Ben Greive-ing) I'll say it again: $66 M was a steal. Read more ...

That Is So Damn Awesome

The previously awesome and increasingly awesomer FanGraphs has added outfield throwing arm value and double play turning ability value to their defensive stats.

[Which reminds me of this, from SMBC:

End digression.]

Nick Markakis had the third best rated arm in 2008, saving 6.8 runs (Hunter Pence was at 8.6, and Matt Kemp was at 8.1). That's over half a win right there. Nick doesn't have the best range in right (it's a little above average) but his arm makes him one of the better defenders out there.

Adam Jones showed a pretty good arm too (3.2 runs), while Luke Scott is properly hidden (relatively speaking) in left (-0.6 runs).

Brian Roberts wasn't good turning two (-2.9 runs) with all the other infielders being about average (well, Juan Castro was -2.6 runs in his limited time).

Felix Pie appears to have about an average arm, but that outfield defense should still be excellent.

Cesar Izturis is about average at turning the double play; so is Ryan Freel (though he seems to have a pretty good arm from the outfield); and Ty Wigginton is ever-so-slightly below average.

I'm going to update the defensive projections for 2009, but the only change looks like it'll be a slight bump for Nick because of his arm. By the way, with this addition Markakis is now rated as the 13th most valuable player in all of baseball last year (6.1 wins, $27.2 M) - right between A-Rod (6.2 wins) and Matt Holliday (6.0 wins). $66 M is a steal. Read more ...

Nick The Stick

Ted Cook over at OriolesHangout had an interesting article about Nick Markakis.

The gist of it was that Nick's BABIP and ISO-D (OBP - BA) should both go down next year (lowering his BA and OBP), but he may have an increase in power. This conclusion was reached by looking at other players who have seen increases in there BABIP and ISO-D, as Nick did going from 2007 to 2008. Is there anything to explain those increases, and allow for the possibility of further improvements (or even staying where he was) being likely? For the record, I'm personally largely in agreement with Ted. My projection was .301/.401/.493, and he had .303/.391/.498. That means that the BABIP side is spot on in my opinion, but that I think he'll maintain his great OBP skills to a higher degree. To FanGraphs we go...

Nick's BB% has increased every year, from 8.1% to 8.7% to 14.3%. That makes a lot of sense, since his percent of pitches swung at that are out of the strike-zone fell dramatically last year. In 2006 and 2007 it was at 23.8% and 23.4% respectively. In 2008, it looks like he finally put that great batting eye to use, as he only swung at 18% of pitches that were out of the zone (that's 15th in baseball for all players with at least 400 PA). His swing rate at pitches in the zone stayed the same (64.1% in '07 and 64.2% in '08). It also seems that pitchers were more careful with Markakis, as the % of pitches in the zone he saw at all fell from 52.6% and 52.3% in '06/'07, to 50.1% in '08.

He was thrown more balls and he swung less at them. The spike in walk-rate makes sense. Does that mean it won't go down in 2009? Not necessarily, but I don't see any reason to think that he'll start chasing pitches more. I also don't see any reason to think that pitchers will start throwing him more strikes again; the opposite may happen, in fact, if his power increases as was posited earlier.

The only way I see his walk-rate going down is if he starts swinging and missing more (and thus gets more strikes thrown to him). This may be the thing, as his contact rate has dropped from 88.5% to 84.9% to 84.6%. The first decrease makes some sense, as after his first year pitchers didn't challenge him as much (% of pitches that were fastballs fell from 66.7% to 60%). The second (small) drop is likely random variation (and he saw about the same percentage of fastballs; 60.9%). Even then, the extra swings and misses should have some effect on his BA too, so his ISO-D shouldn't change all that much. Ted said "Based on this study, it certainly isn’t unreasonable to expect Markakis to see his ISO-D drop back somewhere between .079 and .094. I should also add, for argument’s sake, that it also isn’t unreasonable to see go up a second straight season." Given the size of the sample he was working with (and readilly admitted as much) I think the underlying skills Markakis has shown make it fairly safe to assume a similar ISO-D in 2009 (I have .100) to the one he had in 2008 (also .100).

On to the batting average on balls in play issue. The Hardball Times recently developed a more comprehensive version of expected BABIP, which goes beyond the old LD% + .120 and incorporates things like handedness, speed, and groundball rate. In 2006 they have Nick's BABIP at .309 (it's different than FanGraphs, but I'll stick to all THT figures here for consistency) and his expected BABIP at .316. For 2007 it's .327 and .321 (so he did get a little lucky). For 2008 it's .348 and .328 (so he got even more lucky). That indicates that Nick will indeed see a drop in BABIP for 2009, and thus a lower batting average. Of course, it (his BABIP) probably shouldn't drop that much, and if it comes along with an increase in home runs then his batting average may even stay the same. [Say in 10 AB you have 3 H and 1 HR. That's a .300 BA and a .222 BABIP. If it's 10 AB, 3 H, and 2 HR, then the BA stays at .300 but the BABIP falls to .125. Less balls in play fall for hits (1 in 8 instead of 2 in 9), but the BA remained unchanged.]

This was all to say that Ted's investigation was interesting and well done, but I still think Nick Markakis is going to walk a little more than Ted does (about one extra base on balls every couple of weeks) and we agree on everything else. Considering random fluctuations that we can't even take into account currently, I'd say differing procedures led to largely the same result. Now watch him turn into Ben Grieve. Or Ted Williams. Read more ...

They Finally Signed The Man

I've lost count of the number of times I've suggested that the Orioles need to sign Nick Markakis long-term. With Nick going into his first year of arbitration, the O's have locked him up to a six year $66.1 M deal, including some incentives and a limited no-trade clause. No word of any team options, but I won't be too nit-picky.

Right now I've got Nick worth a monster 5.5 Wins Above Replacement next year (3.65 with the bat, 0.50 with the glove, 2.50 for the replacement level, -0.75 for the position adjustment, and pro-rated to 650 PA). And, though it's not close to being finalized yet, the feedback I've gotten on my initial projection of .301/.401/.493 is that it's too low. Assuming we don't project him to be even more awesome, Nick should be worth about $25.1 M next year (on the free agent market).

For arbitration, players tend to get 40%, 60%, and 80% of the free market value in successive years. That means the team "should" pay him about $161 M for those six years, assuming he stays at those 5.5 WAR every year and there's 10% salary inflation annually.

That's why I've said that no matter what contract Nick would be signed to, he'd still be a bargain. The difference between $64 M and $66 M (or whatever) isn't nearly as important as actually getting the deal done. The guy is a championship caliber player.

Needless to say, I'm really really happy about this.

[Update: It seems that the contract includes a mutual option for 2015, so that's a small plus.] Read more ...

Community Projections: Nick Markakis

To start out our projections conversation I think it's appropriate to go with the team's best player: Nick Markakis.

Nick won a spot on the team three years ago with a blistering spring training, and went on to hit .291/.351/.448 with 16 HR, a 106 OPS+, and a .351 wOBA (101 wOBA+). When a guy that young is able to provide a league-average bat then you know there's a lot of upside there.

In year two, Markakis improved in every way - especially in the power department. The home runs went up to 23, with a .300/.362/.485 line, 121 OPS+, .374 wOBA (110 wOBA+).

Year three see even more improvement; this time with Nick finally turning one of his best tools - his great batting eye - into results in the stat-sheet. .306/.406/.491 with 20 HR (and 48 doubles), a 134 OPS+, .398 wOBA (119 wOBA+).

It's not often you see a player improve that consistently each year, but Nick is a pretty special player.

I've currently got Nick's projection for next year at

PA

H

2B

3B

HR

BB

BA

OBP

SLG

wOBA

650

167

43

2

20

92

.301

.401

.493

.395

That's a pretty great line, and it's still a little worse than he did last year.

Most independent projection systems have an even worse (though still very good) line for Markakis but, given the feedback I've gotten thus far, I think I may actually be low on him.

Have at it...
Read more ...

Value Of Some Current & Potentially Future O's

During the O's game a few days ago, I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about Mark Teixeira, Brian Roberts, and player valuation in general. My points were that (1) Tex might not be worth as much as he'll get, but I'd still overpay a little (say, 4 years / $110 MM, which I doubt he'd accept anyway), (2) Brian Roberts is in the same situation (but even more extreme), though he may actually accept a little less to stay here (but probably not less by enough), (3) Adam Jones, if he never gets much better as a hitter (stays below league average) would still be worth quite a good deal and should be locked up on the super cheap sometime soon (buying out his team controlled years for $20-25 MM with a couple of team options for his first free-agency years would be a steal), and (4) Nick Markakis is really, really, really, awesome. I simply can not overstate how big of a mistake the O's made in not signing him long-term last year. (Actually I can - maybe $15 MM in extra costs to them for waiting a year. They're only going to have waited a year, right?) I like using Tom Tango's Wins Above Replacement system, since it's pretty simple but also does what I need it to do. Hitting, defense, position, and league difficulty are all taken into account.

(1) Mark Teixeira (adjusted from the post about his trade using better numbers for his defense) was an NL (+2) first-baseman (-1) with a very good glove (+1.5) and a big stick (+3.1). Adjusting for playing time, that means Tex is a 5 WAR player, which is worth about $22 MM this year. He's going to be 29 next year, and so after the first couple years of his next contract one can expect some decline from aging as he leaves his prime. To my utter amazement, he's actually worth (about) what he's asking. 4 years / $103 MM; 5 years / $127 MM; 6 years / $151 MM; 7 years / $172 MM; 8 years / $ 191 MM. In the crazy world of free agent contracts, those are all fairly reasonable deals. I still don't think it would be a great idea to sign him given where the team is (in last place), but if they could convince him to accept a little bit less to play in Baltimore then it might be OK.

(2) Brian Roberts is an AL (+2.5) second-baseman (+0) who has been up and down defensively, but is still around average (about +0, lets say) and is worth about 1.4 wins with the bat. That makes Roberts about a 3.5 WAR player, which is worth about $15.4 MM this year (while he's getting paid just $6.3 MM). Taking aging and salary increases into account, I have Roberts worth $14.5 MM in 2009 (he's set to make $8 MM), $13.3 MM in 2010, $11.7 MM in 2011, $9.7 MM in 2012, and $7.1 MM in 2013. He'll want around $15 MM annually based on his current play, but taking that out too far into the future would likely be problematic for the club. Having Roberts making $15+ MM in 2013 while only providing $7 MM in value makes it hard to have a competitive ball-club unless the organization is willing to lock young players up early (and cheaply), which they have shown isn't the case yet. I like Roberts a lot, but he may not even be a regular second baseman by the time his next deal is finished. The best option - the only real option that helps the club - is to trade Roberts for prospects, especially of the middle-infield variety.

(3) Adam Jones is an AL (+2.5) center-fielder (+0.5) who is good with the glove (+0.5) but not with the bat yet (-0.5). That's a a 2.5 WAR player at a young age, who's likely to improve. Even assuming he only gets very slightly better (maxing out as a league average hitter), his remaining team controlled years are worth about $83 MM. If he shows improvement next year, I would run to him with a contract with as many free-agency year team options as I could get. It's what the smarter clubs are doing these days. And if he becomes Torii Hunter, well... you get the idea.

(4) Nick Markakis is an AL (+2.5) right-fielder (-0.5) who plays good defense (+0.5) and is a very good hitter (+3). He is a 5 WAR player right now, which is worth about $22 MM. Assuming no improvements from his current level of play, giving Nick a 7 year / $140 MM deal is pretty defensible. In fact, it very well may be a good deal. Nick's wOBA has improved from .344 (already above average as a 22 year-old rookie) to .372 to .397 this year. If the team can sign him for 7 years / $70 MM then they should jump all over that - it's more than it would have cost a few months ago, but it's still a great deal. Interestingly, I think Nick could very well be as valuable as Roberts and Teixeira combined (in WAR) by 2013. Also of note (discovered by a member at Orioles Hangout) - since 1950, in a player's first 1600 at bats of his career (under the age of 25), no player has had more hits than Nick Markakis. Sign the man! Read more ...

Sign The Man!

Crawdaddy does it again:

"It is understandable why the Orioles might be reluctant to secure Markakis for the long term. If he falters it be a costly mistake (about 50 MM). If he stays the same as he is now, he basically get what he would have gotten anyway. If he breaks out . . . then he will cost a lot of money and years. That is basically what it comes down to. If you are sure that he is going to be a premium player, then you should lock him up in order to maximize your cash efficiency for other players on your roster. Ideally, the only time you pay a premium is when you bring players into your organization via free agency.

I think signing Markakis should be a priority and it will be fine to lock him in for 6 years at 66.01 MM. Perhaps a bit smarter of a contract would grant him 4 years at 40 MM and 2 team options years for 13.005 MM a piece. That way, he would still get a great deal of value for his first 4 seasons of the contract and the team would have an out if he completely crashes. I think Nick is not a high risk player. As opposed to the previous players mentioned (i.e., Craig Worthington, Ben Grieve) is not someone who relies on two tools. Markakis has plus ability in all skills and I think that makes him an easy one to bet on. Of course, this assumes Nick wants an extension. He certainly wants to be paid more, but I am not sure he wants to be lock in long-term. If he buys into the hype (Rob Neyer predicted that over the next 5 years he would be the best RF in the game), then he would be foolish to sign long term. Time will tell.

Though perhaps the biggest lesson is the savings attributed to developing young talent. Looking at Nick Markakis' 75th percentile projection, what we see is that over the next 6 years is that he could earn 103 MM if he goes the arbitration and free agency route. In turn, to get that much production off the free market, it would cost 157 MM. Even with respect to the average RF, you get a savings of 22 MM over 6 years. This is probably the lesson we have learned over the last decade or so: 0-3 year players are worth a lot of money. So, the next time you get excited by your team acquiring an established player (i.e., Bedard) for a collection of prospects (i.e. Adam Jones, Chris Tillman) . . . remember that with the extra 20-30% savings your team may be making, you can extend your own guys or pay the premium for the specific free agent talent to get you over the hump."

The analysis leading up to this conclusion is excellent, and the point is clear. The longer they wait, the more the O's are going to have to spend. Read more ...

Two (Many) K's In Markakis

Nick has been striking out a lot lately, and there was an article written about it by in the Baltimore Sun.

"Orioles right fielder Nick Markakis acknowledges that he goes through a couple of stretches a season in which he picks up strikeouts in bunches. Those stretches are just lasting a little longer than usual this season...

Fifteen of Markakis' strikeouts have come with runners in scoring position, and the outfielder entered last night's game hitting just .220 in those situations. Markakis struck out with the bases loaded and one out in the third inning last night...

"This is all new to me right now," said Markakis, who is hitting .257 with eight homers and 22 RBIs. "The way I'm getting pitched to is new to me. It's just something that I have to adapt to. I think in the long run, it will be something that I'm able to cut down on."

The third-year player rarely shows emotion on the field. But there have been times recently when he has worn a look of frustration on his trip back to the dugout after a strikeout. A considerable number of his strikeouts, including three of his four in the first two games here, have come with Markakis looking at a called third strike. Orioles manager Dave Trembley said he has spoken to hitting coach Terry Crowley about it but has not addressed Markakis.

"You really can't do anything about it," Markakis said. "Whether it was a ball or strike, I'm going to stay within my zone. I'm not going to go out of that zone just to put the ball in play. I have a pretty good understanding of what the strike zone is. If they ring me up on a bad pitch, I'll continue to take it. Once you start doing that and going out of the strike zone, you get into bad habits, and that's something that I don't want to start.""

I went through and looked at all of Nick's strike-outs for the year using MLB's Gameday feature. [I missed one strike-out somewhere. As usual, I'm not going through it again - I think we can get some idea of what's going on without that 47th K.]

Of the 46 strike-outs, 26 were swinging and 20 were looking. I tried my best to break things down to pitches in the zone versus out of the zone. For pitches that were borderline, I erred on the side of calling it a strike. The totals were:

It looks to me like Nick really is getting cheated on a number of called third strikes. If he takes it then there is a good chance that the ball really is out of the zone. The percentage of strike-outs looking has been pretty constant throughout the year, as has the proportion of correct calls in that category. That means he isn't getting fooled more often recently and taking pitches in the zone for a strike three.

The real issue is the swinging K's. In the first part of the year, he swung and missed at about an equal number of pitches in and out of the zone for the third strike. Lately though, the number of pitches he has chased before heading back to the bench has gone way up. That makes me think that he is pressing and really trying to not strike out, while also not seeing the ball terribly well. If he will stick to what he said above ("'I'm not going to go out of that zone just to put the ball in play") then I think he'll be OK. I hope Terry Crowley doesn't try to get him to swing with two strikes more - that would likely exacerbate the problem. It would be very handy to know what the breakdowns are for other hitters but, well, I've still got a good deal of Battlestar Galactica to watch.

[I'm glad I waited until the last (fourth) season to check it out. The show is so damn suspenseful that I couldn't stand to have to wait a week (or, three times, a few months) to see the next episode. It's really very good, though I actually get mad at some of the twists, as well as how addicting it is - watching it for 45 minutes quickly turns into 3 hours.]

In general, Nick is 7th in the majors in not swinging at balls (just 14%) - he's behind three A's (Cust, Thomas, and Barton), two Yanks (Giambi and Abreu), and a Ray (Upton). He's also pretty good at making contact with such pitches when he does swing (34th at 73%). His contact rate on pitches in the zone however, isn't that great (84% - down from 90% last year). I have no idea if his contact rate goes up over the course of a year, but since his batting average goes up I'm gonna guess "yeah", if only a little. It has already gone up from earlier in the year (70 to 73 OZ, 82 to 84 IZ). So in conclusion, I think that Nick should go back to taking pitches that he doesn't think are strikes, and just relax. He is a good hitter, and the results will come (eventually). Read more ...

Not Changing With The Times

I was absolutely livid when I read this.

"Most major-league teams are working to sign their best young players to multi-year deals. But right now, the Orioles' internal philosophy is to wait for at least three years before discussing a multi-year deal with the likes of Adam Jones and Nick Markakis."

I have no words for how mad this makes me. The Orioles current roster is lacking in talent - especially talent that will be contributing to the team's success in the future. The two main exceptions to this are Jones and Markakis. There is approximately zero reasons why they shouldn't lock both guys up (especially Markakis) long-term as soon as is reasonably possible. What do they think is going to happen to Nick? He's shown what kind of player he is, and is he still improving. Of the risk inherent in a contract, I'd say that at this point at least 90% of it is due to injury (which is applicable to all players) and Nick has been healthy through-out his career. If they wait to sign Kakes and it ends up costing them extra money, then I don't really care (as long as it doesn't keep the team from improving elsewhere) - I'd rather the money goes to him than Angelos' pocket. On the other hand, if they either lose out on years of control of his peak (that is, he only stays with the team through age 27 or so) or have to sign him too long (say, $25 million for his age 34 season) then it ends up looking like a horrible decision. Signing one young player long-term is a risk; signing 5 young players long-term diversifies the risk to the point that the team is extremely likely to come out ahead.

Trading Bedard was a good move. If they fail to sign Nick though, I will have to seriously evaluate my feelings towards the team.

[I realize that this is largely an overreaction, but it was my initial response to the situation. Seriously though, they should sign Nick right now. Right now.] Read more ...

Markakis, Rollling

I sure hope Nick Markakis is going to stay an Oriole for a long time. It's always frustrating when a young player suddenly gets a big head (Ryan Howard) and gets as many headlines for his off-the-field activities (contract complaints) as his on-field exploits, so it's nice to see a talented guy who doesn't take things too seriously.

"The impromptu show started when Nick Markakis spotted a basketball and darted across the clubhouse to grab it. For the next five minutes, he effortlessly spun it on various objects, first on his index finger, then on the tongue of his team-issued belt and finally on the tip of a ballpoint pen.

By now, a small group of Orioles had gathered around Markakis, challenging the outfielder to do more. So Markakis, wearing only his white sliding shorts, picked up a chair, lifted it over his head and balanced it on his chin, holding the wobbly chair upright for about 10 seconds."

As long as he doesn't hurt himself, I think that this is pretty amusing, and kind of endearing - he's more regular guy than famous superstar. Read more ...

Pre-Arbitration Player Contracts

Prince Fielder and Cole Hamels are the new crop of pre-arbitration players complaining about not getting paid enough. Fielder is set to be given $670,000 for 2008, and Hamels $500,000. These players need to settle down and just play baseball. The contract structure that is established by the Collective Bargaining Agreement allows the players to make a lot of money after their third year. The trade-off for that is that the team gets to control the players' first three years at near minimum prices (which are still very substantial amounts of money).

I like the idea that King Kaufman (of salon.com's Sports Daily) had. If asked about his salary situation a player should say “We’re heading into a recession and people are struggling out there. They don’t need to hear me complaining about my big salary not being big enough. Thanks for asking, but it’s between me, my agent and the club.” That's the attitude I would like to see.

In a couple of years Prince Fielder may be making $25 million annually. There's a good chance that by the end of his long-term deal (whoever he gets it from) he won't be worth the money that he will be getting paid. I bet he won't be talking about how that's unfair (and neither will the people doing the paying, in all likelihood).

I haven't heard anything from Nick Markakis [edit: he did sound disappointed that he could not reach an agreement with the team, but there was no take of "low-ball offers" or "insults" or "lack of respect" - he just said that he'll have to live with what he got] about the Orioles treating him poorly. I'd like to see the team offer a long-term contract in the neighborhood of Curtis Granderson's recent 5-year, $30 million. I would even be in favor of a 6 or 7 year deal, as I think that Markakis will still get better and will play consistently well for a long time. Since Granderson has the higher profile (from his 20-20-20-20 (doubles, triples, homers, steals) season and his playoff appearance) so the O's may be able to get Markakis slightly cheaper. Granderson has WARP1 (Wins Above Replacement Player) scores of 6.3 and 10.4 in his first two complete seasons. I have to think his true talent level is somewhere in between the two, as I don't expect him to have 23 triples every year. The .302 batting average was also pretty high considering his lofty (though improved) strike-out totals and less than great walk-rate. I see him being a .280/.350/.450 type hitter going into the future, combined with outstanding center field defense (~ 8 WARP1 annually). Nick's WARP1 scores have been 5.1 and 6.8 but I think the power is going to go up into the high 20s in HR (maybe even 30) along with the walk-rate as it comes in-line with his good batting eye. The doubles are already there. As he gets more experience playing right (he's only been a full-time outfielder for a couple of years) he should be amongst the best there in baseball (and if the O's actually contend he may end up in the Gold Glove discussion). I'm going to hope for .310/.400/.530 but expect more along the lines of .300/.380/.500 (~ 9 WARP1).

Not even adjusting for salary inflation, I have Nick the Stick easily worth about $20 million a year. Luckily for the O's, a guy who does a lot of things well (hit for average; some power - especially a lot of doubles; play quality, but not exceptionally flashy, defense; run a bit (he could steal 20 a year if he wanted to, with a solid rate - 18 for 24 in '07); even be a solid clubhouse (for all those "chemistry" people)), is generally undervalued compared to a guy who does one or two things extremely well (Ryan Howard - who just received $10 million in his first year of arbitration - has WAPR1 scores of 3.9 (part-time), 8.3 (MVP), and 6.4 the last three years. He hits a lot of home runs and walks. These are very good things (pretty much the best, really) but they are "old-player" skills and do not age well. Plus, the market is currently understanding how valuable they are and the those players are making a lot of money.)

If Markakis would accept it, I would have no problem offering him a ten-year $100 million deal. Considering Juan Pierre got 5-years, $50 - I am fairly confident that Nick is easily twice the player that Juan is.

By the way, Markakis' WARP3 (WARP adjusted all-time) scores are 7.1 and 9.6. It is certainly a long-shot, but if he plays for 12 more years (until he's 35) with a normal aging curve (he has a couple of years at his peak of .320/.410/.540 and then falls back down to the .280/.370/.460 range after that with some .270/.330/.410 at the end) then he should have a JAWS (Jaffe WARP Score - it averages together a player's career WARP3 and his "peak" (7 top years) WARP3 scores) score of around (very roughly) [14 years * 10 WARP3 (last year as about an average year seems reasonable to me as he was only 23) = 140: "peak" score let's say is about 12 + 11.5 + 11.5 + 11 + 11 + 10.5 + 10.5 = 78] 109. This is outstanding, even for a right-fielder - the Hall-of-Fame average at the position is currently about 90. Even projecting out 12 more years like the one he had (does anyone reasonably think that '07 will be an above-average year for Markakis (barring injury)?) he'll have a JAWS score of [140 + 70 = 210] 105. If he is only as good as his first year, but manages to hang on for a while he'd be at [18 * 7 = 126; 7 * 7 = 49; 126 + 49 = 175] 88.

Is it silly to do this sort of thing? Probably. It's more to give you an idea about what kind of talent the team has as opposed to a serious prediction. The only really silly part is projecting how long Markakis will play, but considering his complete game (to go along with his all-around skills he also seems to have the work ethic and psychological fortitude (he struggled a great deal when he came up but still ended up hitting .291 when other young players would have found themselves back in the minor leagues); he's hit a respectable .278/.324/.427 against lefties in his career so that isn't a major concern going forward; he is a bit of a slow starter (.274/.338/.399 pre-all-star break and .318/.377/.541 post) but hopefully that will get better as he learns how to get ready for the season; he also hits well against all of the other AL East teams (BOS: .283/.352/.472; NYY: .319/.391/.504; TBR: .287/.360/.451; TOR: .301/.363/.504 ); and his home-road splits aren't too extreme (home: .314/.367/.512; away: .279/.348/.427).

I'm not the only one drinking the orange kool-aid: http://orioleshangout.com/article.asp?ID=1114. I'd say a 20% is about right. If he stays as a full-time player through his mid/late thirties then I'd say that it will be about a coin-flip whether or not Nick Markakis should get into the Hall-of-Fame. His chances should improve once Jim Rice undeservedly gets in and lowers the bar for entry for outfielders. You know, at this point I've forgotten what I had started writing this post about... oh, right - young players complaining about not making enough money. Come one MacPhail, sign the man! Read more ...