Are we really a "young team"

[TwinsBrewersWorldSeries]

In virtually every offseason thread, the key assumption is that we are a "young team" and will continue to get better. At first glance, i would dispute this notion. Since players largely by year 7 of their career are either 1) too expensive for us to keep or 2) too mediocre for us to keep, I would define a "young" team as mostly pre-arby guys and in their first 1-2, maybe 3 years of their career.

Looking at our starters

(24) Prince Fielder- Year 4, this should be his prime (when we consider his time in Milwaukee)
(26) Rickie Weeks- Year 4 ( put up or shut up year)
(26) JJ Hardy- Year 5- based on the past two years he's in his prime (also when considering how long he'll be in Milwaukee)
(28) Billy Hall (or whoever winds up at third) - Year 7
(26) Corey Hart- Year 4
(35) Mike Cameron- Year 999
(25) Ryan Braun- Year 3
(34)Jason Kendall- Year 9999

With the exception of maybe Braun, every member of our starting eight is in atleast their fourth year in the bigs

(22) Yo Gallardo- Year 2-3
(26) Manny Parra- Year 2-3
(29) Dave Bush- Year 5
(33) Jeff Suppan- Year 99999
(27) Seth McClung- Year 5

Our top pitchers (Yo/Parra are entering their third seasons, second full seasons) and are arguably the only "young aspect" of this roster. The problem we face is that with Hardy, Weeks, and Fielder already in year 4 or 5, by the time Yo/Parra are legit 1/2 starts (maybe their year 4/5), we'll have lost one, two, or maybe even all three of our offensive trio. If we commit to our nucleus being Yo, Parra, JJ, and Braun, trade Escobar and Fielder for young pitching, and bring up Gamel/Nelson. Then i'll agree we're a young team. But based on our MLB roster at present, i think that isn't a valid argument

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Yes, because our core players are all at a fairly young age. Sure we have veterans filling in as stop gaps, but when your core is Braun, Prince, Hardy Gallardo, and Parra, that's a pretty young team.

[Thurston Fluff]

They may not be young in terms of years of major league service but most of them came up at a relatively young age. Going forward I do not believe they could be considered young. Most will be 25 or so and should be approaching their prime. That is one of the primary reasons I think the Brewers will defy the national perception that they will not be competitive for a division title next year.

[JohnBriggs12]

No it's not a young team. It's a veteran team. Some of the veterans are still on the young side, but their still veterans.

 

By the way, Cameron will be 36 on opening day, not 35. Hart will be 27. Gallardo will be 23 and Suppan will be 34. Even Gamel will turn 24 during the season and isn't a kid by any means. Of the guys with a chance to make the team, only Escobar is younger than 23.

 

What really bothers me is that Parra is always talked about as being such a young pitcher. He's 26 and that's not all that young.

 

Over the history of the game, most top players reach the big leagues by 23 or so, with many a year or two earlier than that. You hear a lot of times that people will say, "oh back in the old days, guys had more time to develop etc." That's really not true for the best players. Joe Torre made his debut at 19 as did Johnny Bench. Al Kaline never played in the minor leagues. He went straight from HS to the majors at 18. My recollection of the 60s and 70s were that pitchers were a lot younger. It wasn't all that unusual for the oldest guy in a rotation to be 26 or 27.

[joepepsi]

The team is built around these guys: Prince, Weeks, Hardy, Braun, Hart, Gallardo, Parra. For the most part these players have been "untouchable" for other teams during the last several seasons. Only Hart will be 27 by Opening Day. These are the team's stars. That makes the Brewers core players among the youngest and most talented in baseball. The are still young enough that we can reasonably hope none have reached their peak.

 

There are several older players on the team, but for the most part they are temporary and replaceable.

[Thurston Fluff]

Over the history of the game, most top players reach the big leagues by 23 or so, with many a year or two earlier than that. You hear a lot of times that people will say, "oh back in the old days, guys had more time to develop etc." That's really not true for the best players.

 

That may be true for the best payers but what is the average age for the normal players? I seem to remember something like 25 or 26 as the average age to break into the majors but that could be way off. It is true that many of the best and brightest of all time can play at a high level early on but I don't think anyone is saying the likes of JJ Hardy, Cory Hart, Manny Parra and Rickie Weeks are in that category. This core, though very talented as a whole, is more along the lines of good quality major league players. What makes them so good is they are all above average. I don't think any of them qualify as historically the best like Yount or Molitor. So their age progression should probably be viewed as such not as the best of the best of all time.

[rluzinski]

No it's not a young team. It's a veteran team. Some of the veterans are still on the young side, but their still veterans.

 

Young, veteran... label them any way you want. Each player is different of course but baseball players, on average, peak around 27-29. It seems like people are suggesting that if a guy comes up at age 20, he's probably already peaked by his 25th birthday. I don't think the data supports that.

 

The Brewers have 5 positional players and 2/5th of their starting rotation that would be expected to improve with age. How many other teams have 5 guys in their starting lineup under 27?

[DougJones43]

None of them are young or inexperienced enough anymore that "youth" should be used as an excuse for baserunning mistakes, defensive miscues, or (for pitchers) wearing down by August. I don't think those types of things can be written off to "the kids are ...." anymore.

 

Hopefully we don't have to listen to the manager and announcers bludgeon us with that stuff again in 2009.

[TooLiveBrew]

The point imo isn't finding things or people to blame for isolated incidents during the course of a season, it's about what to reasonably expect in 2009. An overwhelming amount of player data indicates that just about every player in the group of Fielder/Hardy/Weeks/Braun/Hart/Gallardo/Parra/Villy should be expected to improve next season.

 

Old players make errors & baserunning mistakes too. Not to mention the study rluz did last year on the assumption of baserunning inferiority by the Brewers. In reality, they just weren't as bad as some fans claim. Pitchers tire, young or old, talented or not. Young pitchers need to be handled differently because you're increasing their workloads, but aside from that I think it's about the same.

[Boy Jeenius]

The core of the team is all 27 and under - you bet they are still considered a "young team." However, the blueprint of having all of the younger players with so much mlb experience as they are nearing prime years should be cause for great excitement.

[PeaveyFury]

Are they young? Yes, absolutely.

 

Are they inexperienced? Nope.

 

I agree with the sentiment that youth and inexperience is no longer a valid claim for this team, but also agree that considering the ages listed above, there's still a lot of natural progression and improvement to come from these players, as they haven't hit their statistical peak years yet, and some are still years away from them.

[Invader3K]

"Rickie Weeks- Year 4 ( put up or shut up year)"

 

That was last year.

[valpocrewsader]

Looking at the ages of starting position players according to ESPN's current Depth Charts, here's how the NL central looks in terms of average age:

 

Reds: 216 / 8 = 27

Pirates: 221 / 8 = 27.6

Brewers: 224 / 8 = 28

Cardinals: 234 / 8 = 29.3

Cubs: 245 / 8 = 30.6

Astros: 245 / 8 = 30.6

 

It'd be interesting to do this for the rest of the teams. Maybe I'll have time later today.

[rluzinski]

I don't think a simple average is the best way to quantify it. And this isn't about finding excuses. It's about looking at average aging curves and realizing that the majority of the starting positional players are still on the upward slope of it.

 

Just look at any decent projection system. It has those curves accounted for. If you think they don't apply to a specific player (like Fielder for instance), let's talk about that.

[valpocrewsader]

I don't think a simple average is the best way to quantify it.

 

I don't know what "it" you're referring to. "Are we 'young'?" is a pretty large topic that could be taken in many different directions, but even the original post listed the ages of Brewers players. I would say that a comparison of how this team's average age compares to other teams' average ages is certainly part of the discussion.