Old player skills = short career?

by fargocraig1971 on Mar 15, 2006 3:35 PM EST Comment 6 comments

It seems like you hear a lot these days about how players with "old players' skills" - i.e. drawing walks, hitting for power, and generally being on the easy side of the defensive spectrum - tend to have short careers and flame out early. I know there are a lot of anecdotal examples of this (Ben Grieve immediately comes to mind), but what I am wondering is, does anyone know of an actual analysis or study that has been on this topic?

I guess what I am asking is, is there any sort of quantification of this phenomenon? It doesn't do any good to point at a player after he's flopped and say "that's because he had old players' skills." I'm more interested in what the future holds for the Conor Jacksons and Billy Butlers of the world.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Um

I think Bill James did some things on this. Im not really sure though, it is pretty much a given that IN GENERAL unathletic, low average, high walk and power guys age worse. Of course there are million exceptions to this since every player is different and there are so many other factors you cant control for.

Guys who rely heavily on their speed also age poorly though since as soon as they lose just a step they can be toast. Generally the guys with both power and speed early in their careers age best.
Rickey is the easiest example of this.
Julio Franco is another interesting extreme example. If he wasnt a toolsy SS when he came up he wouldnt still be playing. He just had more natural athleticism than most and its been enough to keep him going.

Having "old player skills" doesnt mean a guy will flop either. It does increase the risk of this but generally it means that this guy wont do too much after his early 30s and his decline will be hard and fast.

by nms on Mar 15, 2006 4:12 PM EST reply actions

James' comments

Bill James did do a study, detailed in the 1987 Baseball Abstract. He found that, among players who had comparable value as rookies -- obviously not comparing Rickey Henderson to Rob Deer or Albert Pujols to Roger Cedeno, but, comparable -- the "young skills" players played 33% more career games than the "old skills" players. When he concentrated solely on speed, he found that fast players played 43% more career games than otherwise comparable slow players.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Mar 15, 2006 8:51 PM EST reply actions

Well...

is games played a decent piece of criteria? There are ALOT of crappy "young skills" players who get by just because they happen to have those skills. Neifi Perez...the Met's mid to late 90's SS...so on...

by SenorGato88 on Mar 20, 2006 10:47 PM EST up reply actions

games played = best single career stat

Don't you think? Sure, someone might play when they don't really deserve to, but probably not for years on end. And it takes into account defense and other stuff beyond OPS.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Mar 23, 2006 10:52 AM EST up reply actions

More is better

WTR speedy guys not aging well, I think that means players who's ONLY major skill is derived from running fast. Guys who's only value is primarily tied to batting average via ground balls will probably not age well. Its the guys who can beat out ground balls, lay off bad pitches, rip line drives around the field who age well. Having above average skills in multiple fields means that if one or two skills drop off, the player is still largely above average.

by Cabbage on Mar 15, 2006 11:40 PM EST reply actions