Hot stove heater

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan

So what am I missing here? If playing in 3x as many games is not another way of saying someone is better, then what does it mean? Usually better players play longer. I thought your point was that the D-Backs are not getting younger and better by playing Overbay because he really is not that good a prospect. If that isn't your point, then what is it?

You originally asked why the age thing was brought up by Huckabay and discussed that we're getting younger.

The first point I wanted to make was that considering the makeup of our team before '03 we had no choice but to get younger unless we wanted to continue to field 38-40 yr olds ( which we seem to have a lot of ). And that younger is relative. Yes, Overbay at 27 is younger than Grace at 39, but what kind of accomplishment is that exactly? Overbay at 27 starting his 1st full year is extremely old. You seem to blow that off as not a problem but that tells me either two things:

1. He needed the development in the minors and even though he performed well and possibly could continue he does not forecast to our longterm 1B solution like most people think
2. or he could have come up into the majors earlier because he was talented enough but because of external situations he had a lot of his productivity wasted in the minor when it could have been used in the majors meaning he's used up some of his productivity.
   [/list=1]
   
   Eitehr way Overbay doesn't project to a long and productive career as our 1B. He could have immediate success since he is technically at his peak ( which is a good possiblity ) but then fade quickly in years 5-6.
   
   So taking this into account, Huckabay, IMO, correctly assesses our current situation in that we are good, and we are young, but that those two things seem to be mutually exclusive at this moment.
   
   Good: Randy, Curt, Finley, Gonzo
   
   "Young": Moeller, Overbay, Barajas, Cintron
   
   And we can't really call these guys young because Cintron is the only pos player that will be under 25 next year and he won't be a starter.
   
   This to me leads to a circular strategy of sorts where you must get that big name FA because all of your young returning talent are fill-ins and your former big name FAs are either about to retire or are not nearly as productive as they were when you signed them. IMO the is the reverse of the strategy I'd LOVE to see implemented where our big time players are our young guys tied up cheap and we fill-in with cheap replacable FA and waiver talent.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by DWKB
And that younger is relative. Yes, Overbay at 27 is younger than Grace at 39, but what kind of accomplishment is that exactly? Overbay at 27 starting his 1st full year is extremely old.
....
This to me leads to a circular strategy of sorts where you must get that big name FA because all of your young returning talent are fill-ins and your former big name FAs are either about to retire or are not nearly as productive as they were when you signed them. IMO the is the reverse of the strategy I'd LOVE to see implemented where our big time players are our young guys tied up cheap and we fill-in with cheap replacable FA and waiver talent.

A couple of thoughts DWKB, and I'm discussing not arguing. First Lyle Overbay was born on January 28, 1977. He debuted last year at age 25. He'll just be 26, not 27 this year. Most people debut in September call-ups or mid to late season, so his actual debut age is 25, not 27. I think that makes a big difference when you look at the statistical analyses done related to age. Given his productivity in the minors where he mostly hit over .350 arguably he coul well have debuted at age 24. However, given that the D-Backs had Grace, Durazo AND Cust through most of the time Lyle was in the minor leagues, they had no reason whatsoever to rush his development by skipping a level.

You also mention that because he stayed in the minors he lost much of his productivity. That may well be true, that he could have been a productive major leaguer, but that says nothing about what he will do in the future, only that the D-Backs lost the value of his bat in the past. He also may have benefited from constant play in the minors instead of being only a bench guy in the majors, with less at bats. Who knows?

I think you are basing your objections to Overbay based solely upon his age and not looking at the individual and his history. Also getting younger is really between Durazo and Overbay as much as Grace, because Durazo really was the full-time 1B last year. Overbay is certainly cheaper than what Durazo will be in his three arbitration years. Is he better than Durazo, not from a slugging straight power standpoint. He may hit for better average and have doubles power.

As to your second point, the D-Backs haven't gotten any "named" player this year by either free agency or trade. In fact there are some name guys out their languishing, like Ivan Rodriguez or Chuck Finley. I seriously believe they our developing their replacements from within. As Derek has said, they can't afford a $100 mil payroll given their market size. But what they did do by their early success was a build a fan base. Their last expensive acquisition was Curt in 2000. Since then they've pretty much stuck with the same team.

I think the D-Backs view Overbay as genuine young talent and I've seen him in some top prospect lists. You quite forgot John Patterson who is a real prospect who makes most top 50 prospect lists, as well as Hairston, Gosling, and Chad Tracy who I think the D-Backs project to be on the team in 2004.

I'm not sure Cintron will make the team. I suspect Donnels may instead, though if Cintron does well in Spring Training that could change.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
A couple of thoughts DWKB, and I'm discussing not arguing. First Lyle Overbay was born on January 28, 1977. He debuted last year at age 25. He'll just be 26, not 27 this year. Most people debut in September call-ups or mid to late season, so his actual debut age is 25, not 27. I think that makes a big difference when you look at the statistical analyses done related to age. Given his productivity in the minors where he mostly hit over .350 arguably he coul well have debuted at age 24. However, given that the D-Backs had Grace, Durazo AND Cust through most of the time Lyle was in the minor leagues, they had no reason whatsoever to rush his development by skipping a level.

You also mention that because he stayed in the minors he lost much of his productivity. That may well be true, that he could have been a productive major leaguer, but that says nothing about what he will do in the future, only that the D-Backs lost the value of his bat in the past. He also may have benefited from constant play in the minors instead of being only a bench guy in the majors, with less at bats. Who knows?

I think you are basing your objections to Overbay based solely upon his age and not looking at the individual and his history. Also getting younger is really between Durazo and Overbay as much as Grace, because Durazo really was the full-time 1B last year. Overbay is certainly cheaper than what Durazo will be in his three arbitration years. Is he better than Durazo, not from a slugging straight power standpoint. He may hit for better average and have doubles power.

As to your second point, the D-Backs haven't gotten any "named" player this year by either free agency or trade. In fact there are some name guys out their languishing, like Ivan Rodriguez or Chuck Finley. I seriously believe they our developing their replacements from within. As Derek has said, they can't afford a $100 mil payroll given their market size. But what they did do by their early success was a build a fan base. Their last expensive acquisition was Curt in 2000. Since then they've pretty much stuck with the same team.

I think the D-Backs view Overbay as genuine young talent and I've seen him in some top prospect lists. You quite forgot John Patterson who is a real prospect who makes most top 50 prospect lists, as well as Hairston, Gosling, and Chad Tracy who I think the D-Backs project to be on the team in 2004.

I'm not sure Cintron will make the team. I suspect Donnels may instead, though if Cintron does well in Spring Training that could change.

Yes I was mistaken about him being 27 and not 26 but as to me focusing on age. Age is the biggest factor in a rookie's projected production. Of course I'm focused on it. uncSteve is focused on it. Every respected prospect rating that had Overbay in it focused on it.

The rest of your post doesn't really address anything new from your perspective. You keep throwing up the excuses of Druazo, Grace and Cust but I've shown you how that doesn't change Overbay's projected production. You talk around the subject by saying things like Overbay sitting on the bench in the majors. That would just make him Durazo and I think we can both agree that Durazo's talent was wasted too by one thing or another.

You keep wanting to situationalize the subject and that clouds it. I don't care why Overbay hasn't debuted earlier. Just that he hasn't and that is telling enough. If you don't see that, well then I guess we're just going to disagree.

The DBacks signed Finley who is this year' big name FA ( and who is old at 39 ) and they still have Randy, Curt, and Gonzo ( the old talent ) My reference was to the future much farther than you are looking to. I see the same fault in your analysis here that Derek claimed you had in the Walker trade. Looking way too short sighted.

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by DWKB
Yes I was mistaken about him being 27 and not 26 but as to me focusing on age. Age is the biggest factor in a rookie's projected production. Of course I'm focused on it. uncSteve is focused on it. Every respected prospect rating that had Overbay in it focused on it.

Hey that's me!

I am obsessed by MLB age!

First let me say I agree with a lot of what both schillingfan & DWKB say. I think the individual circumstances of Lyle Overbay being trapped in the D'back first base logjam make a difference, when considering his age now & MLB debut age.

I also think it's an open question regarding how best to handle individual players regarding preparation in the minors vs. exposure to MLB play. Team chemistry & individual development need to be balanced.

I say this to focus on the big picture about MLB debut age and prospects. Let's not look at cause & effect issues but instead look at the correlation between debut age and long-term MLB success.

A younger debut age correlates implies a better chance of success.

A younger debut age correlates with a higher level of success.

Superstars almost always debut at an early age. The bigger the superstar, the earlier the debut age.

Almost all players--especially non-pitchers--improve until they are between 27 to 30, their peak years are between 27 & 30, then they decline after 30.

If you think about players having growth curves that need to break above a MLB threshold surface to get one's "head above water" this makes sense. To mix metaphors, if these are sub launched missiles, superstars climb rapidly & get above water quickly and can go for thousands of miles. Marginal prospects barely get out of the tube, take forever to reach the surface (if at all), barely get airborne, then quickly return under water.

Maybe keeping the missile in the sub longer to build up the pressure helps the duration of the flight (extra seasoning in the minors); or maybe pressure gets dissipated (wasted opportunities).

I do know that Alex Rodriguez & Andruw Jones were able to be 19 year-old MLB players--that's why they will be superstars deep into their 30's. They are both younger than Junior Spivey. It would not have made Junior Spivey into Junior Griffey to have stuck him on a MLB bench at 20 years old--that's not how cause & effect work IMHO.

It's similar to applying lipstick or feathers to a pig and trying to complete your favorite cliche

 

[Dback Jon]

Jason Giambi, anyone?

Debuted @ 24,
First Full Season @ 25

I guess he didn't have much growth potential.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Jason Giambi, anyone?

Debuted @ 24,
First Full Season @ 25

I guess he didn't have much growth potential.

Congradulations, you've broken the model made by evaluating hundreds of MLB rookies by pointing out that one can buck the trend.

Giambi is the ideal situation we could hope for with Overbay and I would be willing to bet that 2002 was the beginning of his downturn.

 

[Dback Jon]

Originally posted by DWKB
Congradulations, you've broken the model made by evaluating hundreds of MLB rookies by pointing out that one can buck the trend.

Giambi is the ideal situation we could hope for with Overbay and I would be willing to bet that 2002 was the beginning of his downturn.

Actually, he was the third one I looked at.

#6 that I looked at:

Steve Finley:
Debut: Age 24
Full Season: Age 25
Breakout: Age 30

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by DWKB
You keep wanting to situationalize the subject and that clouds it. I don't care why Overbay hasn't debuted earlier. Just that he hasn't and that is telling enough. If you don't see that, well then I guess we're just going to disagree.

Okay, why wouldn't I want to situationalize the subject. I believe that one should always situationalize the subject. Look I don't disagree with you about age. I made the very same points when people were raving about Junior Spivey. But to me reasoning means always application of a generalization - a principle if you will - to the particular. Thus one says hmmmm, Overbay is a old to expect him to be a star, but he's not way too old to be a quality major league player. So starting with that principle, one then looks at other factors, among the factors are his incredibly good minor league stats. Another factor was the fact that he was blocked. How do you balance his excellent minor league production with his more advanced age? Both are good predictors of success, so which do you pick? It seems to me you look at the particular, balance and arrive at a conclusion. Certainly you don't just pick one factor and elevate it to an absolute, which is what you are trying to do. I just don't see anything as absolute and always look at the situational. I guess that's why stat people make me nuts.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Actually, he was the third one I looked at.

#6 that I looked at:

Steve Finley:
Debut: Age 24
Full Season: Age 25
Breakout: Age 30

I think Finley's breakout year ( according to you, I think it was at age 27 ) is an Astrodome anomoly and he, like Gonzo has progressively gone to better hitting ballparks. The only place those guys can extend their career is to move to Coors.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Okay, why wouldn't I want to situationalize the subject. I believe that one should always situationalize the subject. Look I don't disagree with you about age. I made the very same points when people were raving about Junior Spivey. But to me reasoning means always application of a generalization - a principle if you will - to the particular. Thus one says hmmmm, Overbay is a old to expect him to be a star, but he's not way too old to be a quality major league player. So starting with that principle, one then looks at other factors, among the factors are his incredibly good minor league stats. Another factor was the fact that he was blocked. How do you balance his excellent minor league production with his more advanced age? Both are good predictors of success, so which do you pick? It seems to me you look at the particular, balance and arrive at a conclusion. Certainly you don't just pick one factor and elevate it to an absolute, which is what you are trying to do. I just don't see anything as absolute and always look at the situational. I guess that's why stat people make me nuts.

I wasn't making anything absolute. Never did I say "this will happen". That's the second time you've accused me of it too.

I have continued to say that I believe A or B

A) That his age has clouded the evaluation of his minor league productivity ( a la Sabo and Hamelin ) and this will predict an early fizzle

or

B) That he really was capable of being on a major league starting roster a few years ago and was blocked; therefore he wasted some of his productivity in the minors while we were playing 1B roundtable and thus, he will run the normal course of growth but we have cut off the first part ( a la Giambi as DBack Jon has astutuely pointed out ).

I think is B but have not completely ruled out A

 

[Dback Jon]

Originally posted by DWKB
I think Finley's breakout year ( according to you, I think it was at age 27 ) is an Astrodome anomoly and he, like Gonzo has progressively gone to better hitting ballparks. The only place those guys can extend their career is to move to Coors.

Not to quibble too much, but at 27 Finley hit 5 HRs 55 RBI, OPS of .762. Age 30, 30 HR, 95 RBI, OPS of .885 in his second full year at San Diego.

But, there is a reasonable number of players that are All-Stars who do not fit your neat little generalization. I am not saying that Overbay is, or will be close to an All-Star, but to say that it is very unlikely due to his age is an over-statement, IMHO

 

[unc84steve]

Here's the newest analogy I thought of why the extra year on Erubiel Durazo's birth certificate made such a difference. It's similar to Randy Johnson's height: it hits you in at least 3 ways.

Randy Johnson is the tallest power pitcher in baseball. This gives him at least 3 intimidation advanatages on the hitter.

1) Since he has mastered his mechanics, RJ is able to use entire length of legs, torso & arm to create the longest whip action in baseball--thus he has potentially the greatest velocity.

2) RJ has the longest legs & thus the longest stride in baseball. Like all pitchers he starts on the pitching rubber 60'6" from home plate, however he gains at least a foot advantage over other mortal pitchers as he comes to the batter. Greg Maddux (as a hitter) described this phenomenon as feeling as if RJ "is stepping on your shoes." Coupled with his forward reach advantage, this is frightening because the pitch distance is shortened.

3) RJ's arms and chest are the longest & widest. Thus when Randy comes with his sweeping slider, it is starting from a wide, outside location. Again, coupled with #2 (the ball starting so far foward and close to the batter) the ball is coming in from the side of home plate.

How does this relate to Erubiel Durazo's one-year age fib?

1) Durazo's original DOB was reported as 1/25/1975 but now is reported as 1/25/1974. He debuted in 1999 in the MLB after being "discovered" in the Mexican Legue. Thus instead of being a 24 year old with great growth potential who could have made it at 23, he really was 25 who may have made it at 24.

2) Because he's 28 he's already in his peak and can't get much better.

3) Because he's 28, he's already burning up his best years and has one fewer left.

So even though they all seem like related issues, IMHO, they are different and compound among themselves making his potential 8 productive great years boil down to 2 years.

But as DWKB says, Oakland probably is not looking for Rubi to be an 8-year solution.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Not to quibble too much, but at 27 Finley hit 5 HRs 55 RBI, OPS of .762. Age 30, 30 HR, 95 RBI, OPS of .885 in his second full year at San Diego.

But, there is a reasonable number of players that are All-Stars who do not fit your neat little generalization. I am not saying that Overbay is, or will be close to an All-Star, but to say that it is very unlikely due to his age is an over-statement, IMHO

In 1992 Finley's 762 OPS was compared to a league wide OPS of 694 giving him an OPS+ of 120. He also created 87 Runs that year.

In 1995 Finley's 885 OPS was compared to a league wide OPS of 748 giving him an OPS+ of 111. He created 85 Runs that year.

Ok Jon, you get all the players that debuted at age 23 or later and I'll take all the players that debuted at 22 and younger and we'll see who has the better team. Deal?

 

[Dback Jon]

Originally posted by DWKB
In 1992 Finley's 762 OPS was compared to a league wide OPS of 694 giving him an OPS+ of 120. He also created 87 Runs that year.

In 1995 Finley's 885 OPS was compared to a league wide OPS of 748 giving him an OPS+ of 111. He created 85 Runs that year.

Ok Jon, you get all the players that debuted at age 23 or later and I'll take all the players that debuted at 22 and younger and we'll see who has the better team. Deal?

Currently active, or All-Time?
And I know you could put together a better team, but mine would still be an above average team.

Plus - we have to add at least 2 years to the listed age of every Latin-born player.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Currently active, or All-Time?
And I know you could put together a better team, but mine would still be an above average team.

Plus - we have to add at least 2 years to the listed age of every Latin-born player.

The point is that I could field 3 teams better than your one.

RF Ruth ( 19 )
LF Williams ( 20 )
CF Cobb ( 18 )
2B Hornsby ( 19 )
1B Gehig ( 20 )
SS Rodriguez ( 18 )
3B Brett ( 20 )
C Bench ( 19 )

C Berra ( 21 )
3B Robinson ( 18 )
SS Banks ( 22 )
1B Foxx ( 17 )
2B Morgan ( 18 )
CF Mays ( 20 )
LF Bonds ( 21 )
RF Mantle ( 19 )

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by DWKB
The point is that I could field 3 teams better than your one.

RF Ruth ( 19 )
LF Williams ( 20 )
CF Cobb ( 18 )
2B Hornsby ( 19 )
1B Gehig ( 20 )
SS Rodriguez ( 18 )
3B Brett ( 20 )
C Bench ( 19 )

C Berra ( 21 )
3B Robinson ( 18 )
SS Banks ( 22 )
1B Foxx ( 17 )
2B Morgan ( 18 )
CF Mays ( 20 )
LF Bonds ( 21 )
RF Mantle ( 19 )

Hey you can't put Mantle in RF & you know it! Even if you could he'd be a negative influence on that team Brooksie a good guy but he makes outs on offense & defense. and Ruth & Hornsby would be tearing up your first team. Cobb's no pleasure. Foxx drinks. You forgot pitching is at least 20% of baseball

Let me try:

C Mickey Cochrane (22)
1B Mark McGwire (22)
2B Eddie Collins (19)
SS Arky Vauhan (20)
3B Mike Schmidt (22)
LF Stan Musial (20)
CF Tris Speaker (19)
RF Hank Aaron (20)
DH Ricky Henderson (20) (or platoon him with Stan)
RHP Walter Johnson (19)
LHP Warren Spahn (21)

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by unc84steve
Hey you can't put Mantle in RF & you know it! Even if you could he'd be a negative influence on that team Brooksie a good guy but he makes outs on offense & defense. and Ruth & Hornsby would be tearing up your first team. Cobb's no pleasure. Foxx drinks. You forgot pitching is at least 20% of baseball

Let me try:

C Mickey Cochrane (22)
1B Mark McGwire (22)
2B Eddie Collins (19)
SS Arky Vauhan (20)
3B Mike Schmidt (22)
LF Stan Musial (20)
CF Tris Speaker (19)
RF Hank Aaron (20)
DH Ricky Henderson (20) (or platoon him with Stan)
RHP Walter Johnson (19)
LHP Warren Spahn (21)

Look at that old team...you've got 3(!) 22 yr olds.

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by DWKB
Look at that old team...you've got 3(!) 22 yr olds.

And a few of them were call ups too.

I just love proven vets I guess.:wink:

 

[DWKB]

Steve,


Here is a preseason discussion regarding age, Bill James, and even Lyle Overbay

 

[moviegeekjn]

Of course, general rule is long term great players debut at younger ages... but there can be exceptions due to variety of reasons.

23 and over debuts:

C Josh Gibson (36 at death, before potential debut) or Roy Campanella (27)
1B Bill Terry (25)
2B Jackie Robinson (28)
3B Mike Schmidt (23)
SS Luke Appling (23)
LF Oscar Charleston (58 at death, denied debut)
CF Cool Papa Bell (88 at death, denied debut)
RF Turkey Stearnes (80 at death, denied debut)
P Satchel Paige (42 or so)

 

[DWKB]

I'm sorry moviegeek, but that list is incredibly intellectually dishonest.


Why not include Godzilla and Ichiro on it too?

 

[moviegeekjn]

Your point is a simple one.. I already ACKNOWLEDGED that it's correct--in general the all time greats do debut at a younger age. That is a no brainer.... Get any group of all time great player lists compliled and virtually every one will have a debut age of 22 or under.

The point I am making is also a simple one.... There CAN be exceptions. Some players are blocked for various reasons that may be beyond their control.

It might be a more equitable challenge to see if the age 22 stands up for when these players become regular starters on the team instead of tracking when they debut.

 

[unc84steve]

I bet those Negro League players were pretty young in their major league debuts.

Okay, let's do an experiment. The Bill James New Historical Abstract ratings at each position top 5. Let's see how old they were for their first full season (if you want to suggest another player, feel free).

Catcher: Berra 22, Bench 20, Roy Campanella 26, Cochrane 22 , Piazza 24

First Base: Gehrig 22, Foxx 20, McGwire 23, Bagwell 23, Eddie Murray 21

Second Base: Morgan 21, Eddie Collins 21, Hornsby 20, Jackie Robinson 28, Biggio 23

Third Base: Schmidt 23, Brett 21, Mathews 20, Boggs 24, HR Baker 23

Shortstop: Wagner 24, Arky Vaughn 20, Ripken 21, Yount 18, Banks 23

Left Field: Ted Williams 20, Stan Williams 21, Barry Bonds 21, Rickey Henderson 20, Carl Yastremski 21

Center Field: Willie Mays 20, Ty Cobb 19, Mickey Mantle 19, Tris Speaker 21, Joe DiMaggio 21

Right Field: Babe Ruth 20, Henry Aaron 20, Frank Robinson 20, Mel Ott 19, Pete Rose 22

Pitchers: Walter Johnson 20, Lefty Grove 25, Pete Alexander 24, Cy Young 24, Warren Spahn 25, Tom Seaver 22, Christy Matheweson 20, Bob Gibson 25, Kid Nichols 20, Sandy Koufax 22

I'm surprised at the number of 23 & 24 year olds. But some players were blocked by wars (Spahn) and trapped by minor league contracts (Lefty Grove). I wouldn't doubt if Honus Wagner was trapped in a minor league as well.

 

[schillingfan]

What does 50 to 100 years ago have to do with today?

 

[moviegeekjn]

Originally posted by schillingfan
What does 50 to 100 years ago have to do with today?

That's another point to consider. Some of those players came to the majors long before the farm system was as developed as it is and before many went on to college. Additionally, many years ago there was a requirement that "bonus babies" HAD to be carried on the major league roster or they would be let loose for other teams to grab.

Besides... if discussing this in terms of whether Lyle Overbay will ever be an outstanding player is also like comparing apples and oranges. Is anyone really seriously evaluating all young baseball talent to see if they are potential Hall of Fame candidates? Is there someting wrong with a player having decent better than average numbers for a shorter time period?

Besides that, you can find a LOT of players that debuted at an early age and turned out to be a bust.