nsacpi
05-10-2017, 08:11 AM
We are about a fifth of the way through the season, and they are on pace to post 4 and 3 win seasons, respectively. This includes some apparent improvement in their defense relative to recent years.
But there are clearly some parts of their production that are unlikely to be sustained. Both have BABIPS around .380, about 60-70 points above what their track records suggest they can sustain. In the case of Markakis there has also been a continuation of an upward trend in the strikeout rate: 12.1% in 2015, 14.8% last year and 23.7% so far this year. Kemp has an ISO of .314, which would be a career best. Some of that is probably the ballpark.
Going into this season, I thought it was reasonable to project 1-2 win seasons for both. In the case of Kemp I'm now inclined to think he can sustain something a bit higher (in the 2-3 win range) for the remaining 2+ years of his contract. Why? First, it has become clearer that the playing environment in San Diego suppressed his offensive production while exaggerating his defensive weaknesses. Now he is in a ballpark that does the opposite.
Of course, any team trying to assess his underlying value will try to assess these ballpark effects. My tentative conclusion is that his true value in a neutral ballpark lies about halfway between what he showed in San Diego and what he has shown so far in Atlanta. The part of his contract that we are on the hook for ($18M per year) is roughly the going rate for a 2.5 win player. So there is little or no surplus value coming from Kemp. But it doesn't appear to be as negative as it was coming into the season.
As for Muk, the issue with the strikeout rate makes me less inclined to upgrade my assessment of his value (1-2 wins per season). He is being paid the going rate for a 1.5 win player. So like Kemp, I see little or no expected surplus value.
We might get an interesting minor league prospect if we move Kemp or Markakis at the deadline because contending teams are usually willing to overpay some. But I would be very surprised if it was a Top 100 prospect. If we got that, I would consider it a job well done by the front office.
But there are clearly some parts of their production that are unlikely to be sustained. Both have BABIPS around .380, about 60-70 points above what their track records suggest they can sustain. In the case of Markakis there has also been a continuation of an upward trend in the strikeout rate: 12.1% in 2015, 14.8% last year and 23.7% so far this year. Kemp has an ISO of .314, which would be a career best. Some of that is probably the ballpark.
Going into this season, I thought it was reasonable to project 1-2 win seasons for both. In the case of Kemp I'm now inclined to think he can sustain something a bit higher (in the 2-3 win range) for the remaining 2+ years of his contract. Why? First, it has become clearer that the playing environment in San Diego suppressed his offensive production while exaggerating his defensive weaknesses. Now he is in a ballpark that does the opposite.
Of course, any team trying to assess his underlying value will try to assess these ballpark effects. My tentative conclusion is that his true value in a neutral ballpark lies about halfway between what he showed in San Diego and what he has shown so far in Atlanta. The part of his contract that we are on the hook for ($18M per year) is roughly the going rate for a 2.5 win player. So there is little or no surplus value coming from Kemp. But it doesn't appear to be as negative as it was coming into the season.
As for Muk, the issue with the strikeout rate makes me less inclined to upgrade my assessment of his value (1-2 wins per season). He is being paid the going rate for a 1.5 win player. So like Kemp, I see little or no expected surplus value.
We might get an interesting minor league prospect if we move Kemp or Markakis at the deadline because contending teams are usually willing to overpay some. But I would be very surprised if it was a Top 100 prospect. If we got that, I would consider it a job well done by the front office.