95 replies to this topic

[dude]

This.  

 

...but there's no difference in "this" in your example.

 

I mean, you're actually making the case for the opposite side of your point.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I asked if two players were equally ready for the majors would you rather they be a 23 year old or a 25 year old. Given the storyline that baseball players peak at 27 then I would much rather have a guy from 23-29 than 25-31. How is that making the opposite point?

 

Not to mention that with the 23 year old you no longer have your minor league staff having to work with him giving them more time to work with other players who aren't "ready."

 

Not to mention that the longer a player is in the minors there is always the increase in risk that they get injured and never make it to the majors. Especially true for pitchers.

 

This is just common sense here. Athletes have finite performance lives. The more of that time spent producing results for the major league team the better.

[dude]

Goodness, no.  just. no.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I asked if two players were equally ready for the majors would you rather they be a 23 year old or a 25 year old. Given the storyline that baseball players peak at 27 then I would much rather have a guy from 23-29 than 25-31. How is that making the opposite point?

 

Not to mention that with the 23 year old you no longer have your minor league staff having to work with him giving them more time to work with other players who aren't "ready."

 

Not to mention that the longer a player is in the minors there is always the increase in risk that they get injured and never make it to the majors. Especially true for pitchers.

 

This is just common sense here. Athletes have finite performance lives. The more of that time spent producing results for the major league team the better.

 

Your entire point in your previous posts seemed to be that rushing players to the majors was a good idea, development be damned.  Obviously, if a player is ready for the majors, then put him in the majors.  The younger the better.  But that's not what you had been talking about.  You were saying that college players should be ready to play in the majors, and development wasn't really necessary.  That's what I thought was crazy.  Maybe I misunderstood?

[dude]

I'm excited to see Joey Ortiz as our starting SS next year.  #winning

[Mackus]

Two equal players with equal service, you prefer the younger because you're confident or hopeful that the younger guy has more room to improve.

But if for this exercise we are assuming they will stay the same over their years of control I don't think there is much of a difference. Young players aren't exciting just because they are young. They are exciting because they can get even better.

[Slidemaster]

I think we should look at a player's prime as really ending around age 31-32. There are an awful lot of All-Star caliber players that don't dip much until after their age 30 or 31 season.

[Nigel Tufnel]

You only control a player for 6 years, so you want those 6 years to be as productive as possible.  That's why you let them develop in the minors, before the 6-year clock starts ticking.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next CBA.  I'm just making this up as an example, but if the rules were changed so that team control ended after 8 years in the organization, majors or minors, then I think you would see guys getting promoted earlier.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I think we should look at a player's prime as really ending around age 31-32. There are an awful lot of All-Star caliber players that don't dip much until after their age 30 or 31 season.

 

There are definitely exceptions, but in general all players are in decline after 30.  It's just that for great players with a really high peak, you can be in decline and still be great.

[SportsGuy]

I think we should look at a player's prime as really ending around age 31-32. There are an awful lot of All-Star caliber players that don't dip much until after their age 30 or 31 season.

Historic peak age is still 27 and has been forever.

Now, that’s not a hard and fast rule for everyone and some guys had such a high peak that even if they drop 30-50 points in OpS, they are still really good.

A good example of this was Pujols. While St Louis was willing to keep him at a certain number and while he was still really good with them, there were signs a decline was coming and obviously that was proven true.

I want as many sub 30 year old years as I can get.

I personally don’t believe in the concept of rushing a players except in extreme examples that we rarely see.

But you also can’t bring up guys until they have shown they are ready. The debate, imo, is “what does ready mean”.

That’s the topic that I feel is far more interesting.

[Slidemaster]

Historic peak age is still 27 and has been forever.

Now, that’s not a hard and fast rule for everyone and some guys had such a high peak that even if they drop 30-50 points in OpS, they are still really good.

A good example of this was Pujols. While St Louis was willing to keep him at a certain number and while he was still really good with them, there were signs a decline was coming and obviously that was proven true.

I want as many sub 30 year old years as I can get.

I personally don’t believe in the concept of rushing a players except in extreme examples that we rarely see.

But you also can’t bring up guys until they have shown they are ready. The debate, imo, is “what does ready mean”.

That’s the topic that I feel is far more interesting.

I mean...sure, if we're calling a "peak" the summit of the proverbial mountain, but that's not what we're doing. We're discussing what range of years is considered a player's peak.
I think it's fair to say that most players are generally in the same realm from the years 26 through 30. There is of course a wide variety of statistical examples that prove or disprove this, but if we're making a general rule about what the prime years of a baseball player's career are, I think it's about right. Not too many guys are considered old by age 30. They aren't running backs.

[dude]

They aren't running backs.

 

Right...but it feels like Steve thinks 'running backs' are the model that baseball will catch up on.

 

The skills and experience that allow you to compete successfully, earlier, at the highest level are different across the sports.

 

Ken Griffey Jr isn't the Talent projection path that Anthony Servideo is on. 

[dude]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next CBA.  I'm just making this up as an example, but if the rules were changed so that team control ended after 8 years in the organization, majors or minors, then I think you would see guys getting promoted earlier.

 

So this is actually included (sort of) in my plan (GSP) for the next CBA (at least the financial point).  You have to incentivize the contract relationship on both sides for the unique cases without negatively impacting the broader groups on both sides.

[SportsGuy]

I mean...sure, if we're calling a "peak" the summit of the proverbial mountain, but that's not what we're doing. We're discussing what range of years is considered a player's peak.
I think it's fair to say that most players are generally in the same realm from the years 26 through 30. There is of course a wide variety of statistical examples that prove or disprove this, but if we're making a general rule about what the prime years of a baseball player's career are, I think it's about right. Not too many guys are considered old by age 30. They aren't running backs.

Right..as I said, you want as many sub 30 year old years as you can get.

I’ll take my chances at letting players leave after that.

I just wouldn’t waste years/innings for players in the minors if they are ready. But again, how you define ready is different for many.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Your entire point in your previous posts seemed to be that rushing players to the majors was a good idea, development be damned.  Obviously, if a player is ready for the majors, then put him in the majors.  The younger the better.  But that's not what you had been talking about.  You were saying that college players should be ready to play in the majors, and development wasn't really necessary.  That's what I thought was crazy.  Maybe I misunderstood?

I don't believe I said that and I certainly didn't mean to say anything like player development be damned.

 

What I did say is:

 

1. Baseball is behind all other sports in the lengthy approach they take to player development.

2. College baseball players should be ready to play at the ML level except for getting exposure to higher level pitching. I believe two years in the minors should be adequate for that. Changing positions can add some complexity to this.

[Mackus]

I'm highly skeptical that anyone but the very top college picks are ready to go at he MLB level right away. I think you'd get sub-replacement level from most guys you just throw in relatively soon after drafting.

How many draftees are even league average at A+ right away?

[dude]

Joey Ortiz was a 3-yr college SS at New Mexico State, had a great Junior year, the Orioles also drafted him in the 3rd round and he OPSed .612 at Aberdeen.

 

I do not expect him to be the Orioles SS in 2022.

[SportsGuy]

I do agree that the upper echelon college players should be in the majors within 2 years of being drafted (of course, that assumes they play the year they are drafted, unlike this year.

[Mackus]

I do agree that the upper echelon college players should be in the majors within 2 years of being drafted (of course, that assumes they play the year they are drafted, unlike this year.

If upper echelon means the top ten or so college guys, then I think that's reasonable. And I wouldn't say should in any case, since something like half of the first round guys never make it at all. If guys progress, then two years is totally reasonable, but progression is not a safe assumption even for the first round guys.

I randomly picked 2010...there were 14 college draftees in the first round and 7 in the supplemental first. 6 never made the majors. Another 10 acrrued fewer than a quarter WAR (0.25) for their career.

[SportsGuy]

If upper echelon means the top ten or so college guys, then I think that's reasonable. And I wouldn't say should in any case, since something like half of the first round guys never make it at all. If guys progress, then two years is totally reasonable, but progression is not a safe assumption even for the first round guys.
I randomly picked 2010...there were 14 college draftees in the first round and 7 in the supplemental first. 6 never made the majors. Another 10 acrrued fewer than a quarter WAR (0.25) for their career.

Put it another way...if they are going to make it and be more than just a mediocre player, they should be in the majors within a few years.