That's a really interesting break out. I would have bucketed the ages a little differently though, something like 25 and under, 26 to 31, 32-36, and 37+. Is there some statistical study that suggests decline starts at age 30? That seems awfully early.
Gammons: Perspective on Struggling Rookie Hitters
- Thread starter mabrowndog
- Start date
This is such a great thread...couple thoughts:
1) Gammons' piece seems to indicate the need for players to be eased into the MLB pool. Ideally JBJ and X would have entered the year with some solid platoon mates so that they could avoid some of the toughest match ups, learn from a vet,, etc.
2) On a related note, I think confidence matters a lot. There have been a lot of posts this year arguing that maybe X or JBJ can't learn anything more in AAA - if the nasty slider gives him fits, he needs to face it at the MLB level, the thinking goes. I wonder if any of these posters ever played the game at even a high school level. A player's confidence is a huge factor when he is deciding whether to swing in a millisecond or reacting to a funny bounce in the field - the game is so so mental. I couldn't agree more with the idea that a player is better served by overcoming a few slumps in the minors. JBJ and X seem like good kids character wise, but both of them have to be struggling mentally right now - don't think the FO optimally handled things on that front
1) Gammons' piece seems to indicate the need for players to be eased into the MLB pool. Ideally JBJ and X would have entered the year with some solid platoon mates so that they could avoid some of the toughest match ups, learn from a vet,, etc.
2) On a related note, I think confidence matters a lot. There have been a lot of posts this year arguing that maybe X or JBJ can't learn anything more in AAA - if the nasty slider gives him fits, he needs to face it at the MLB level, the thinking goes. I wonder if any of these posters ever played the game at even a high school level. A player's confidence is a huge factor when he is deciding whether to swing in a millisecond or reacting to a funny bounce in the field - the game is so so mental. I couldn't agree more with the idea that a player is better served by overcoming a few slumps in the minors. JBJ and X seem like good kids character wise, but both of them have to be struggling mentally right now - don't think the FO optimally handled things on that front
Plympton91 said:
Most of what I've read has pegged peak MLB age at 27 (earlier than received wisdom).
Here's one:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10058
and another:
http://www.tangotiger.net/agepatterns.txt
and another:
http://www.tangotiger.net/aging.html
Rudy Pemberton said:
I don't see what's so interesting about that decision. Part of this decision is based on the reason why the player is struggling and what the best way to fix that is, and part of this decision is based on 40-man roster construction.
(1) JBJ's swing has got away from him. He's tinkered with his mechanics too much and he needs to deconstruct it. They feel this is best done in AAA where there is no pressure, rather than at the MLB level. In my novice eyes, it doesn't look like X has lost his swing mechanics. Instead, it looks like his pitch recognition and approach is terrible and this may be best fixed by continuing to take ABs against MLB pitching.
(2) Their #1 prospect is an MLB ready(ish) in-house replacement for JBJ and they want to get a good look at him against MLB competition. The situation is different for Xander. The Sox do not have a top MLB ready prospect tearing it up at SS in AAA. So if they demote him to AAA, which may not benefit him for reasons cited above, they need to make a 40-man roster move to promote Marrero and his .572 AAA OPS or move Holt to SS full-time, which requires they make roster adjustments to bring on a new back up 3B/SS and 5th OFer.
Plympton91 said:
Yeah, you could certainly make an argument for alternative ways to break it out. The impression I've gotten from everything I've read recently is that decline does typically start around 30 (sometimes even a bit sooner), but tends to be pretty slow until the mid-30s when it tends to accelerate. So if you wanted to label my buckets descriptively, it would be (1) kids who are probably still getting better, with rare early-bloomer exceptions; (2) players who are at, or right in the vicinity of, their peak; (3) players who are still producing at fairly close to peak levels, but typically beginning to slip a bit; (4) players who are usually declining, and often declining sharply.
As if on cue, Ben Lindbergh has a front-page article at Grantland today entitled The Top Prospect Progress Poll. The judgment is partially scouts observations and partially stats. But more telling is that this article is expected to generate sufficient clicks to as to warrant a writer's assignment and front-page placement.
This, friends, is the prospect hype train at full steam.
This, friends, is the prospect hype train at full steam.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that we are talking about the perception that rookie batters are struggling excessively this year. But you have to keep in mind that offensive levels have completely tanked in the past 5 years or so. The average AL hitter had an OPs of .763 .. We are down to .710 this year .. Add 50 points of OPs to their batting lines and they don't look nearly as bad. I'm having the same problem thinking about veterans as well .. In my mind 1B or corner OF chiming in with a .750 OPs is not much of a player .. But in 2014 they are.
I would think that stat forecasters like Pecota would somehow take these issues that Gammons mentioned into consideration. So even if it is harder to make the jump from AAA, that would be reflected in their predicted performance. And if I remember correctly, Pecota predicted around a .262 ave with double digit HRs for X, and Bradley around .235-240 with some pop for this year. Based on this - and I realize there's various limitations to these predictions - both guys have been offensive disappointments even considering the added difficulty of making the AAA to bigs jump
Thanks for doing this. What this table tells me is that it's almost impossible (Cubans notwithstanding) to have 26-29 year olds on your team unless you develop them yourself.
And the main reason we don't have any 26-29 year olds on our team? Because we haven't drafted and developed any position players since Ellsbury. Which is not to say that our drafts have been terrible - it's just that we've either haven't been patient enough, haven't had enough luck, or dealt them for an established veteran.
And while we've discussed this briefly throughout the years - ever since Theo's $100M player development machine statement - there is definitely contradiction between the concepts of "being in the playoff hunt" every year and "wanting to integrate one or two rookies per year." Watching one or two rookies flail for a year can quickly sink a team's playoff chances, but not giving them enough rope leads to blocking them with "established veterans." I am still interested in seeing whether the Red Sox have the patience to really try to integrate one or two rookies per year; if so, I suspect we're in for more last place finishes than first place ones.
I think you can shoot for that on average, especially if you're looking at 1 or 2 rookies a year out of the whole 25 man roster and not just out of the 9 everyday players. But, you have to do it in a way that allows for those rookies to fail without torpedoing your season. Also, you can't be dogmatic about what constitutes a rookie or what constitutes "breaking them in" -- for all intents and purposes they broke in 3 rookies as sink or swim starting options on day 1 -- Middlebrooks, Bradley, and Bogaerts -- with the plan apparently being to integrate a fourth if necessary -- Vazquez -- before the end of the season.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Another criteria is that if you're going to have 2 rookies breaking in to your everyday lineup, then maybe you ought to do so in a year where the other 7 spots don't have a bunch of question marks about health (Victorino was never healthy last offseason, Pedroia was also coming off surgery), age (Ortiz and AJP were prime candidates for decline), or readiness (Middlebrooks was hardly proven)
Still the overall concept of developing new blood is correct. I think if you say you're going to break in one starting player at a position where you have organizational depth to absorb a collapse (which the emergence of Holt now allows them to choose basically anywhere on the field), 1 rookie as a 5th starter (they have 4 options with Owens coming fast), and 1 rookie as a 12th man in the bullpen, you can meet their goals of working in rookies pretty regularly without torpedoing a season like this year if they all fail.
For 2015, they're still beating that prescription. They should still look at Bogaerts as a "rookie who is breaking in" but at least they now have the depth to absorb a second season of growing pains thanks to HOlt; they're obviously going to integrate Castillo but they can turn to Betts, Holt, or Bradley if he flunks -- that's two -- they're more than likely going to give a rotation spot to De La Rosa -- that's three -- and maybe one to Webster or Ranaudo -- that'd be four -- and they can have Hembree as the 12th guy out of the pen -- that'd be five.
So, the rest of the offseason should be devoted to filling the other 20 roster spots with the surest things they can find for those 20 roles. That doesn't mean sign an all-star for all of them, (e.g., Holt is a great 10th man, Workman is perfectly capable of being the 6th/7th inning righthander; figure out who's going to hit 7th and make that an above-average seventh place hitter, etc).
Speaking of struggling since the All-Star game Holt's OPS is .557, with a 224 average and a 266 SA in 143 AB.
Um Bradley didn't start the year with the team and he only got called up when things fell apart, but feel free to ignore that since it dosent support your point. So at most they had two rookies breaking in, but according to you they shouldn't have done it unless they had no question marks? I can't recall a year where there wasn't some question marks.
Things fell apart on the first day of the season? Geez, I wasn't even that much of a pessimist.OptimusPapi said:
Feel free to ignore the main point with a nitpick though, you're good at that. Do you add any value here? Ever?
Barring the Ft. Myers miracle that was Grady Sizemore's spring training, Bradley was on course to be the Opening Day CF.
You are correct my bad. I am not sure what I was looking at. Upon further review I do agree that three rookies was too much of a roll of the dice. When Vic went on the DL they should have had Grady in center Nava in Right and Carp in left and left JBJ down. Though of course the results in that scenario would have been about the same. But once again there is no point where the Sox are not going to go into a season without question marks. I was actually going to be dragged down to your level when you asked if I had any value here. But since we have both been warn about personal attacks I am going to ask you to keep things civil and just respond to my counter argument rather then attack me. See Plympton I am able to admit when I am wrong there is no need to get nasty.Plympton91 said:
Plympton91 said:
Both of you need to quite sniping at each other on the main board or you will going on a vacation.OptimusPapi said: