Obvious? No. But I can certainly make a case for why he would be below average over the next 3 seasons. My dilemma comes in that I can also make a case that he could be pretty good for a couple of those seasons. If both cases can be made, it can't be an obvious conclusion. His bad year was most recent. But he didn't have bad years (plural) recently. Last season was absolutely terrible. But '05 was above average and '04 was well above average. He is certainly up and down, thats for sure. But the question remains, what stats and logic support the notion that his career worst season of '06 is more the norm and than the exception? I say obvious, as in "it's more likely". Marquis is a guy who, outside of 129 innings in 2001, has been slightly above average once, average once, and decidedly below average three times. I don't know why you say bad "year" like he's had only one, he was awful in 2002 and 2003, too. Out of his last five seasons, three of them have been below average, with his last season being the worst. I think the expectation that his 2006 will be closer to the norm than his slightly above average years is the fact that he's really nothing special, even at his best. He's an average player at best, and he was historically awful last year. To look at Marquis numbers and say "I bet he has a good year" would be ridiculous. To say "I think he can have a good year" is less so, and there's the distinction. Think of it in this context. If ARod were to hit .250/.320/.470 next year, people would say "well, it's still ARod, and he's only 32, he'll be better next season". And of course he would be, he's been an amazing player for over a decade. If Marquis has a season where he has a 6.02 ERA with a 73 ERA+, strikes out just 96 and walks 75, people are going to say "well, it's Jason Marquis, he probably lost it." Then when he signs a 3-year, $21 million dollar deal with the most tortured fan base in sports, what kind of reaction do you expect?