Three Questions on Player Evaluation (and a poll)
by rebus on Jan 4, 2007 6:35 AM PST
Email
PrintI wasn't planning on posting this diary now, but all this discussion about Lastings Milledge and player value make me think it's a good time. I'll spare you anymore frivolous introduction and just get to it.
I have a few major questions about the evaluation of player development.
What determines a player's success?
When is a player's success relevant?
When does a player's development end, and where does decline begin?
Here are some of my ideas, recently influenced by these two articles:
The Myth of Prodigy and Why it Matters
What determines a player's success? For the most part, I think young player success coincides with their ability to meet assess their skills, practice well, and (we all hear this a lot) make adjustments. But what does that mean? Would you rather have a player who blows through the minors, or one that takes half a season to adjust at every level? In my estimation, (and all other things being near equal) both players are of the same value, but I don't think most MLB teams see it that way. For some reason, the 20 year old usually gets the tilt over the 24 year old, even though both players have no major league experience. This seems like a questionable philosophy, which brings me to my next question...
When is a player's success relevant? This kid can tear the cover off the ball, light up the bases, and cover the field like a miniature Kotsay with a bionic back. Trouble is, he's 11 years old. Sure, he could be the next elite player, but how relevant will these skills be in 5 years when he meets the age requirement? It baffles me how teams continue to project even high school adolescents, let alone junior high kids overseas. If the very most important time really is Now, then the next most important time is yesterday, and so on. Weighed in this manner, it seems ludicrous to base judgment on anything but the last 3-4 seasons of playing time.
When does a player's development end, and where does decline begin? I think the short answer to the first part is never. Even the best of the best look for ways to improve their game or face certain decline. It sounds obvious, but I often find myself thinking of established players in a static sense, unlike younger players who are more easily viewed as always in phase, but everyone's on a learning curve. As for decline, I believe most of that's up to the player, but it's not written in stone that they're in for physical decline at 35. I don't think everyone will find the Fountain of Julio Franco, but there's no physical reason why a player can't have a career best season at age 37 or 38... Barring major injury of course (not like that would ever happen to one of our players), but that's another diary altogether.
3 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Fountain of Julio Franco
In a non-chemical environment, people shouldn't able to peak past age 35.
I would say that you should pretty much know who a hitter is by time he's 27-28. Most baseball people would agree with this, and if you look at statistics for generations of hitters, they pretty much bear this out with a few outliers.
However, a hitter/pitcher is going to experience more CHANGE relative to performance, on average, between age 21-22, or 22-23, than he ever will between age 28-29, 30-31, etc.
That's a long-winded answer to your question of why a 20-year prospect is more coveted than a guy who's 24 with similar numbers.
Years and years of statistics suggest that between two guys with similar numbers, aged 24 and 20, respectively, the 20 year old will eventually outperform the 24 year old.
An example is Miguel Cabrera. Miguel Cabrera's 21/22 year old seasons (already very good), meant more than they would from a player who was already 30.
Not coincidentally, Cabrera had another quantum leap in performance at age 23. He may have another next year as his power matures and establish himself as this half-generation's Manny Ramirez.
You wouldn't expect a quantum leap in performance from a 28-29 year old player (performance enhancing drugs aside). He already is for the most part the player he's going to be.
This sort of relates back to our discussion of maturity on the Milledge thread. You grow more in the three years from 21 to 24 than you would from 24 to 27.
All other things being equal, that makes a 21 year old prospect better than a 24 year old.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 4, 2007 10:24 AM PST reply actions
couple of things
Even a sedentary person will only show a very small amount of physical decline between 25 and 35. Sure, baseball players have more wear and tear, but they're also spending a lot of time preparing their bodies for it. Especially for a hitter, approach has much more to do with it than physical ability.
I would agree that by the time a player is 27-28, you'll have a good idea of what skills he has learned and what he has not. But I think one reason is that the league has decided his development is over, and either he fills a role, or he goes away. By that time a team would rather get whatever than can from the player than risk any steps backwards by continued development.
I also agree that most players learn more from 21-24 then 24-27, but I don't think it's because of their age. I think room to grow is more determined by the level of play than the age, unless you have some other explanation.
One other question - how do you perceive the leaps from say high school to college, college to A, AA, AA and then the majors? Do the differences between players and the competition become more pronounced, or less so?
I think physical ability...
Hitting a homerun is largely a function of bat speed. Bat speed requires more than just technique.
And we're talking just the smallest differences between bat speed here.
So, I think that even the smallest loss of bat speed, as a hitter ages, have a profound effect on performance. He has to cheat to catch up to fastballs (think of watching Frank Thomas last year - he is an outstanding guess hitter - he would constantly open up his stance mid-pitch to catch up to inside heat). The point is, he isn't fast enough anymore to catch inside heat without "cheating". Sometimes he'll guess right, sometimes he'll guess wrong and swing badly (we saw plenty of these swings against Detroit, where Frank was overmatched by great fastballs).
There is a notable difference in a guy's bat speed between 25 and 35. There's a notable difference in any athlete between 25 and 35. You called a "very small" decline, but statistics would suggest that it's significant enough to hurt performance.
As for your last question:
I'm not sure this answers it, but I guess I'd just say, the faster you rise through the minors with dominant numbers, the younger age you are...the more likely you are to be a dominant pro. Miguel Cabrera was already a dominant minor league hitter age 19. He adjusted to the better pitching at each level rapidly - a sign that he would also adjusted to pro pitching very rapidly.
If a guy stumbles at Double A and doesn't get a promotion for 2-3 years, that's a bad omen for his pro prospects. There are very few cases of a guy being in the minors until age 27-28 and becoming a very good pro. (And the ones that are, probably were chemically enhanced).
This is why the Mets take on Ambiorix Burgos from the Royals - he's young enough that he could be a very successful reclamation project. Same with why the Yankees have only acquired prospects 25 and under in trades. Teams perceive age 25 (26?) as a sort of "magic cutoff" of when a prospect has either demonstrated himself as a potential pro or not.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
