The myth(?) of youth.

[Web Jim Edmonds]

I've always had a problem trying to quantify why so much emphasis is put on "youth" when it comes to the game. Obviously I see why its better to have Hanley Ramirez playing SS for you rather than Omar Visquel right now, but some people when arguing youth seem to argue it the "wrong way" as far I can tell.

 

Looks at it this way; why is a 22 year old CFer batting .290/.384/.560 with a 10 FRAA better than a 32 year old CFer batting .290/.384/.560 with a 10 FRAA? Even more confusing than that, often times the argue is made that the 22 yeard .290/.384/.560 CFer is better than a .313/.388/.584 32 year old CFer. It not about how young a player is, its about how valuable his play is. Whats the use of having a young stud who's hitting way below average? By the time the guy's hitting is producing the adequate value to the team, he's not that young anymore.

 

Some players pay immediate dividends when they are really young like Hanley, Jose Reyes, and others we could name, but they are the exceptions, not the norms. Of the top 10 OPS+ batters last year, only Upton was under 27 in the AL. In the NL, three of the top 10 were 27 or under, but after that, in the next 20, 13 of the players were 28 and older. The numbers were similar in the AL.

 

Youth has its advantages, the only one that counts being that you have the chance to have the player when he's consistently providing his max value to the club, at which point history and statistics shows us that the player wont be so young. So is it better to have that 21 year old right now than it is to have that 29 year old right now? The 29 year old is doing right now what the 21 year old is going to perhaps be able to do years later, so why is that better?

 

Thats just the way I see it any, I'd appreciate different points of views on the subject.

[TheCrew07]

In your outfield comparison, there is no tangible difference on the field, the difference is the salary that each player is making. The older 32 year old player in this current MLB player market is probably making around 10 mil per year, while the 22 year old is making 450-600k depending on what year of service time he's in.

 

In respect to the Brewers, they'll need a good balance of high paid veterans and low paid rising stars to compete consistently. For example, I don't believe that free agent ptiching is a market the Brewers should be a long term player in... In most cases they'll have to overpay for a downward trending pitcher (assuming a standard peak year of 28 years old). I much rather sign the "core" bats longterm, and continue to trade for and develope young pitching. The Brewers have been very good at developing major league bats, but not very good with the arms. Arms in general are high risk to me, there is a much greater injury risk, both short term and long term with pitching than with hitters.

 

I'll use Sheets as example. I like Sheets just fine when he's healthy (I've defended so many "Teddy Sheets" blasts from friends and family that I'm numb to concept now), but he's at the point where he's going to start trending downwards. He's absolutely worth whatever mid teen contract he's going to sign, but is signing Ben in the best long term interest of the organization? I see many pros and cons to signing to Sheets, and I know the Brewers can afford him, but the question that I keep tosssing around in my head is can they realistically afford to have that much money tied up in a pitcher on the DL? Ennder has posted the numbers many times how pitchers, any pitcher, is much more likely to go on the DL than a typical hitter in a given season. I would rather the Brewers use that money to make decisions about which of the young core of players they want around long term and lock them up like Braun. The organization will have a surplus of bats in the very near future, which can be used to aquire pitching.

 

That's my opinion on the matter, I've never been a "win now" guy and I don't see how the Brewers can ever realistically be in "win now" mode. If the ultimate goal is to attain years of success, which I believe it is, then they always have to keep an eye on the future. However, If the idea is to get to a World Series and then sell off the team again... or rebuild the team again... well then we're playing under a different set of rules entirely. I would hope Mark A is in it for the long haul, but I unable to say for certain if that's true or not, and I don't think any of us really can, but I'm not sure I'd be into the Florida management style... World Series then firesale, World Series then firesale. I know many around here would take that 1 year of great success, but that concept doesn't fit my personality very well as I tend to get far too emotionally invested in our guys. I'd relish the WS appearance, especially a victory, but I'd be in anguish on the down cycles.

[Web Jim Edmonds]

You know, no one who Ive talked about this with has ever brought up the difference in pay, and Ive never thought about it. You know why I never thought about it? Because the arguments usually go something like this: "The Indians are going to win the world series, im telling you. They have a good, young, hungry group of players and ...well..and they're just going to win it."

 

"The Yankees are simply to old man! Look at all their players...they are like all over 34. No one they compute this year with the DRays!"

 

"The Braves need to look at getting younger in the outfield. If that doesnt happen, they dont stand a chance."

 

"Yes I know Ludwick and Cabrera have similar numbers but Miggy is younger, therefore he is better."

 

You see, no one ever bothered to talk about the fact that youth, or the younger player is better to have, which is essentially what you're saying. The argument is simply that the younger player is better. If you're talking about saving 10's of millions of dollars then thats one thing, and no one ever argues the point like that. I even wonder if they've even thought about it like this because they sure as hell never mentioned it! LOL

 

So thank you for the insight. And in no way am I talking about the Brewers. I somehow got the feeling from your response that you felt the need to defend the Brewers as if you thought I was "shining a light" on them and I wasnt. Not at all.

[PeaveyFury]

You see, no one ever bothered to talk about the fact that youth, or the younger player is better to have, which is essentially what you're saying. The argument is simply that the younger player is better.

 

I understand what you're saying. It is possible that if something like that is said in say, May though, they might be implying that the 22 year old is young and might get better as they gain more experience as the season goes on, while it's extremely unlikely that the 32 year would be able to say the same.

 

But yeah, in the big picture, it's more a focus on the idea that the young players will get better than they are now in future seasons and the cost rather than them actually being better at baseball, I guess.

[jazzytrav]

I guess you could make some kind of argument that the younger player is in better shape or they're able to heal more quickly. I don't think that argument is really worth anything, but I would think Yo will be coming back more quickly than a 32 year old with the same injury.

 

But that argument is offset by the fact that when you get an older player, you have a general idea what you're going to get regarding injuries. Barring a freak accident, we can all feel pretty confident that Suppan will stay healthy, but we couldn't say the same thing about a younger player that hasn't been playing long enough to know what his injury history will look like.

 

Really, I think in most cases it comes out as a wash. With older players, you usually know what you're going to get. With young players, there's the potential to get better and be really good, but also the potential to bust. For a small market, young players are better for the Brewers because of the price tag, but if we were able to afford a year of 32 year old all-stars, I'm pretty sure I would be on-board. And with your example, I don't think there is any way in hell that I would turn down a .944 OPS CFer. I don't care how old he is.

[TheCrew07]

I don't necessarily mean to suggest that the younger player is better, he's just cheaper... I think who's better for your team depends entirely on your roster make up. I just used the Brewers as an example, they'll need a good mix to stay competitive, they need to be value conscience. A team like the Red Sox or Yankees will spend big money on proven commodities, smaller market teams have to be more shrewd with their roster management.

[monty57]

There is also future value of a contract. I think signing Soriano to his deal was a worse move than signing Cabrera to his deal (let's forget for a moment that Cabrera is a much better player, and just assume they're currently the same talent level). Soriano will be something like 40 years old and making $20MM in his final year. I'll bet the Cubs will consider cutting his dead weight with about three years to go and eating the tens of millions of dollars they'll still owe him. Meanwhile, Cabrera will be in his early 30's when his contract's up, and probably still putting up monster numbers.

 

Therefore, sometimes when you hear someone say it was a bad idea to sign the older player, it may be more because of what he will soon become rather than what he currently is.

 

As far as current value to a team, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't matter how old a player is, what matters is his production.

[DougJones43]

I think the poster makes some pretty good points. Baseball certainly isn't a "young man's game" in the same way something like football is. However, perhaps baseball will see more of a shift towards younger players dominating the game now that steroids aren't going to let old guys stay in top form for as long? It's hard to say though. Last year, the youthful Brewers collapsed down the stretch and looked worn out, where some older teams came alive in August and September. It sure does seem to defy normal logic.

[logan82]

As many have said in the past few months, the young players on the Brewers roster were the ones who stepped up down the stretch last year, not the older veterans.

[rluzinski]

They way I often see the "they are too old" phrase being used is when you have a team that's perennially above average but not by much. A team that won 87 games the previous year but did so on the backs of guys on the decline side of their career may not have a very optimistic outlook. A team that wins 87 games with a bunch of 25 year olds, is generally expected to continue improving, however.

 

If the age adjusted projections are the same, it shouldn't matter, though. If anything, I might take the 32 year old with a more proven track record over the 25 year old with 1.5 excellent seasons.

[JohnBriggs12]

We're seeing reality returning in 35 year old Mike Cameron playing like 35 year old guys did 30 years ago. He still has skills, but he's no longer at or near his peak and not a premier player.

 

As the steroid era (hopefully) gets further and further in the past, we won't have guys peaking in their late 30's like Bonds did.

[Menotti80]

good topic. edmonds, thanks for being in the service and defending our country!