Is age overrated?

[FVBrewerFan]

As I've learned more about MiLB from all of you over the past 8 years or so, seems like there's a lot of emphasis on age of prospects. Is it really THAT big of a factor?

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand evaluating an 18 yr old vs 22 yr old in A ball needs to be a strong consideration when evaluating talent. I'm talking more about the AAA/MLB level.

 

For example, Rogers and Rivera. When Rogers was traded, general consensus was "he's too old anyhow" and Rivera is too old to be part of future plans. I guess my question is, what difference does it make is someone is called up to MLB when they're 22 or 27? Either way, you're getting several years in the players prime. In fact, it could be argued an older player is more likely to contribute more sooner.

 

Very few players make it 6 years on the Brewers roster anyhow, much less any years after the arby years. So, Rivera for example. He will be 24 later this year, so how is that "too old" to be a part of future plans? I realize in his case there's more to it than that, most don't feel he projects into a regularly used position player. And the age thing is just icing on top, but it's always throw in there.

 

Anyhow, just wondering how almost identical players that are, say, 2 years apart considered so different?

[MKE81]

Anyone who thinks Yadiel Rivera is "too old" for the future is out of their mind. He's the same age as Santana, Lopez, Davies, Reed, Houser. He'll be playing AAA at age 23 along with Lopez, Davies (maybe), Reed, Houser. And if they all stay the course they'll be playing at the MLB level at age 24. That means they hit their prime in their 4th MLB season. Rogers is different given he's hitting the "prime" age now. He will have fewer productive MLB years vs someone like the others. That's a huge and major difference when it comes to age of players. However, would you rather take player X who makes it to the MLB level at 27 but has 6 great years vs player Y who makes it at 24 but is an above average role player for 10yrs? Age matters but there are a lot of variables in play.

[JohnBriggs12]

Most guys who end up being stars make an impact in the big leagues by 22 or 23. But that's not a hard and fast rule and many very good major leaguers don't establish themselves until their mid 20's.

 

Jason Rogers is unlike most players in the big leagues. When you are drafted at 22 in the 32nd round, staying in pro ball at all is a year to year proposition. You get no benefit of the doubt for any lack of production. Rogers had to prove himself at every level to make it to the next. He did just that and there were still doubters including Stearns who with the first base job open, thought nothing of dealing him for a marginal CF prospect. I wish he was still a Brewer. Self made players that overcame a low draft position to make it to the big leagues are guys worth having. They've figured it out.

[CheezWizHed]

Ditto on 24 being too old at AAA or MLB level. That is a little odd. Perhaps at AA or A+ if you haven't shown much progress.

 

But the greater point is the age "27". That seems to be the magical year where most players have their peak performance.

 

So if player A is 27 and hits are a replacement level, most people will assume that his projection is mostly or completely gone. Not leaving any room for improvement. Where someone at 24 hitting replacement level still has some years where he could theoretically improve.

[LouisEly]

The part of the age argument that bugs me is when comparing kids who signed out of HS versus kids who signed out of college and they are two or less years apart in age. Yes, the kid who signed out of HS is younger, but in many instances the kid who signed out of HS has three more years of professional coaching than the kid who signed out of college. The younger player should be as advanced if not more advanced because he has had better coaching. Simply put, coaching at the professional level is better than coaching at the college level, even at the top college programs. That's why college draftees have more upside than some people think - their growth will come from better coaching.

 

I'd rather have 4-5 very good years from a 27-year-old than 10 mediocre years from a 22 year old who doesn't make the adjustments.

[TheCrew07]

That's why college draftees have more upside than some people think - their growth will come from better coaching.

 

I'd rather have 4-5 very good years from a 27-year-old than 10 mediocre years from a 22 year old who doesn't make the adjustments.

 

Those are pretty broad assumptions, I would say the reverse is actually true. College pitchers are often abused and less flexible because they've already had quite a bit of success doing it their way post high school. Obviously this is a case by case thing and I've championed college pitchers like Newcomb over Medeiros, there are a ton of factors beyond age to be considered.

 

If we're talking pitchers I'd prefer they go directly to the pro ranks and avoid the college game all together. With position players I'm indifferent.

 

Also why does the college player automatically have better performance and a higher ceiling performance wise?

 

The other glaring issue with a 27 year old rookie is that they are on downside of their career before they are done with arbitration and the previous Brewer regime would have signed that player to a FA contract to decline for 3 years before letting them walk. I'm not sure how the new front office will handle those things but in almost every situation things being equal from a production standpoint I'm going to take the younger player with the hopes of signing an extension buying out 2 years of FA with an option or 2. I'd like to cut ties with all players around age 30-31... I've never understood how it's a business from the players perspective and but when teams treat players like business assets they are devil, it's such a clear double standard.

[MrTPlush]

Going off the high school to college comparison nothing annoys me more than when someone acts like just because a player is making it to the MLB level at 21 or 22 they are somehow better. No one realizes that those players are typically foreign players from Central America that got into pro ball at 16 years old. At that same time any stateside player is still wasting away at the high school level. Stateside players are usually pushing 19 before they can get into pro ball.

[CheezWizHed]

I'd like to cut ties with all players around age 30-31...

 

Like TT and the Packers. Annually one of the youngest teams out there. Keep specific vets after the rookie contracts. And let most go in FA (to get more picks).

 

Football's physical nature puts more emphasis on youth than BB, but the principal is essentially the same. I wouldn't be so absolute, but the players you keep should be the special ones.