Trade Deadline Come And Gone, No Deals

[monty57]

This is a good read:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9933

 

Conclusion

 

I began my investigation into how baseball players age in order to address some potential problems with past studies. It turns out that after correcting for those flaws that the peak age of baseball players appears to be around 29, and possibly 30 for hitters in modern times. Of course, some players will peak earlier and others later, but this is a general benchmark.

 

I find it interesting that despite his unwavering pronouncement of when players peaked when the article opened, James's tone was tempered in his general conclusion:

 

Good hitters stay around, weak hitters don't. Most players are declining by age 30; all players are declining by age 33. There are difference in rates of decline, but those differences are far less significant for the assessment of future value than are the differing levels of ability (James, 1982, p. 205).

And that's probably about as technical as we need to get.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/images/9933_02.jpg

[LouisEly]

I never questioned age-related performance regression. I'm questioning age-related injury prone-ness.

[monty57]

I never questioned age-related performance regression. I'm questioning age-related injury prone-ness.

 

Then you should have left the line:

 

"But, the main argument isn't the extra injury risk (although that is cause for some worry). The main argument is age-based regression. "

 

All I mentioned regarding being injured is that a 35-year-old player x, given the same circumstance as a 25-year-old player x would be more likely to get injured.

 

Not 25-year old "player y" vs. 35-year-old "player x". Not someone ripping a phone book in half or stabbing himself with a pair of salad tongs. Just that the same person at age 35 has more wear-and-tear on their body, so in the same situation would be more likely to get injured than they would have in the same situation when they were ten years younger. The non-chemically-aided body just doesn't heal as well as it ages. There really aren't stats to "prove this," other than the stat that the vast majority of MLB players are retired by their mid-30's, many due to declining skills, many due to injury, and many due to a combination of both.

 

But, as I mentioned in the above referenced quote that you didn't choose to include, the extra injury risk isn't really a big concern to me, the age-based regression is. Since you don't question the age-based regression, then am I to assume that you are also scared that Kyle Lohse will not be very good in at least one of the next two years? Because that's the main reason I wanted Lohse traded this season, not because he may get some freak injury. Expecting Lohse to continue to pitch well at age 35 & 36 is expecting him to defy nature. It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[TheCrew07]

1) I'm tired of hearing the injury risk argument.

 

Yea... because it's just same made up argument against signing aging players, especially pitchers... Perhaps you should read up on cascading effects and compensation injuries? 1 injury becomes 2, 3, and so on. Signing injury prone players like Ramirez has been is always a risk. The last article explains in scientific terms why players are more injury prone as they age.

 

The Injury Nexus

 

Raising Aces

 

Major League Pitchers 34 Percent More Likely to Be Injured Than Fielders, New Study Finds

 

Age-Related Responses to Injury

 

Shame on us for trying to take more variables into account than the just the production of a player when he's actually on the field... that's just crazy talk.

[LouisEly]

I didn't choose to include the quote because it wasn't relevant to my discussion or argument. My initial post was in response to Trwi's post the prior page that called out injury risk, not age-related regression. Of course I think it's possible for there to be age-related regression. I also believe that the end of the trade deadline isn't the end of the world, and that what happens in the offseason is a much better indicator of the Brewers plans for 2014 and beyond then what happens at the trade deadline.

 

Reading article #1 the attrition rate at age 36 is the second lowest age besides age 24 and the attrition rate drops from age 34 to 36, suggesting a decrease in injury risk beyond age 34. And I don't see the article state whether the differences at each age are statistically significant; just because the slope of the line appears to increase doesn't mean it is statistically significant. The article does state, "Although pitchers aged 37 and up appear in the chart to be as vulnerable to injury as very young ones, that is also the age at which pitchers will begin to retire voluntarily. The uptick in injury risk at the tail end of a pitcher's career is probably not as substantial as what is implied here." The article also says, "However, it may be more proper to associate the pitching motion itself with the underlying risk of injury observed among pitchers of all ages."

 

Shame on me for reading articles in detail with a critical eye.

 

Article #2 implies mechanics is the biggest cause of injury just as article #1, and I don't see anyone say Lohse's mechanics are poor. As for the third article, the link is bad - it just goes back to this thread for me. But I assume that it compares pitchers to position players, which isn't what I am arguing about. The title would suggest investing in hitters instead of pitchers, and I believe you've been advocating investing in pitching. Article #4 is common sense and applies if a player gets injured. I'll give you that one.