PDA

View Full Version : Brook Jacoby new Reds Hitting coach



FlyingPig
11-03-2006, 07:46 PM
Sorry if this is a repeat and already posted...didn't see it on Redszone...

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061103&content_id=1731658&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

GAC
11-04-2006, 06:31 AM
Rut Roh Reorge. The below is not going to go over well on here..... ;)

His offseason task will be to brush up on the hitters by watching video. That includes Dunn, who enjoyed his third straight 40-homer season but whose .234 batting average and .365 on-base percentage were his lowest in any season with at least 120 games played. He batted under .200 over the final two months of the season, joining many Reds in late-season struggles.

Asked whether Dunn's high strikeout totals are an issue, Jacoby was balanced about it.

"I consider 194 of them a little bit of an issue," he said. "If he were to put the ball in play a little more, I'm sure it would mean more RBIs and possibly some more hits. It might be an approach with two strikes, and it might be a mechanical thing with him."

Reds1
11-04-2006, 10:10 AM
I don't know if it will be a problem. Dunn needs to take it to the next level and put it all together. .260 BA with 150 KO and he can hit 45 HRs and 110 RBIs. Not major improvement, but baby steps. :) Maybe this guy can help

Sea Ray
11-04-2006, 12:16 PM
I am underwhelmed by this announcement.

First of all I was never impressed with him as a player. He had lack of production problems himself. Look at 1987. He hit 32 HRs and had 69 RBIs. Yeah that's right, only 69 RBIs on 32 HRs. That's just the problem this Reds team has.

As a hitting coach he is very unproven. I would have preferred a guy like Mike Easler or Merv Rettenmund. I don't know what Merv's situation is in SD but I have to believe with that team looking for a manager they'd let the coaches shop themselves. Mike Easler's not even in the majors. But I suppose Jacoby's a better choice than Butch Wyneger. Picking up Milwaukee's leftovers didn't work out too well last time (Jim Lefebre).

Cedric
11-04-2006, 12:49 PM
Luckily I couldn't care less about hitting coaches. This guy does not strike me as someone that has any idea how to approach hitting. If things turn for the good I doubt it's coming from him.

GAC
11-04-2006, 01:40 PM
I am underwhelmed by this announcement.

First of all I was never impressed with him as a player. He had lack of production problems himself.

Yeah, but alot of players who had average/mediocre careers, made excellent coaches/managers. The list is quite extensive.

Sparky Anderson, Casey Stengel. ;)

vaticanplum
11-04-2006, 02:07 PM
I know this has been covered before, but it's usually been in the midst of a heated argument, so I would like to know from a baseball/mechanics point of view: when Adam Dunn has been at his best, why do you think that was in terms of coaching? Or do you think it's not terribly related to coaching one way or the other? Because I hear any mention of "tampering" with Dunn and I cringe, because I feel like that's when things start to go wrong...but then again, he had some inarguable rough times this year and I don't know if that was due to tampering or not, due even to the opposite. So I really don't know, and I'd be curious to hear from a more technical or coaching perspective.

Spring~Fields
11-04-2006, 02:26 PM
Luckily I couldn't care less about hitting coaches.

Count me in agreement. How many hitting coaches does that make now for the Reds in the past several years?

Matt700wlw
11-04-2006, 04:03 PM
Pitching coach is the key staff move

Sea Ray
11-04-2006, 04:16 PM
Yeah, but alot of players who had average/mediocre careers, made excellent coaches/managers. The list is quite extensive.

Sparky Anderson, Casey Stengel. ;)


Rarely are good players good managers. I was just commenting on Brook's approach as a hitter while playing for the Indians in the 80s.

You could make a case that Jacoby was a better major leaguer than Rettenmund. The issue to me was approach. To hit 32 HRs and knock in 69 you're not doing a lot of situational hitting. That doesn't impress me as taking good ABs or getting many clutch hits.

I saw a lot of Indians games back then and Jacoby was not an impressive player. In fact I'd go so far as to say he was overrated as a lot of Indians were back then (Corey Snider, Andre Thornton, Doug Jones)

Kc61
11-04-2006, 10:48 PM
Jacoby makes me think Reds intend to keep Dunn. Worked together successfully in the past. His success with Dunn is probably the main reason he was hired.

Just a guess.

max venable
11-04-2006, 11:12 PM
Jacoby makes me think Reds intend to keep Dunn. Worked together successfully in the past. His success with Dunn is probably the main reason he was hired.

Just a guess.
I think that's a very good point.

traderumor
11-04-2006, 11:59 PM
Rarely are good players good managers. I was just commenting on Brook's approach as a hitter while playing for the Indians in the 80s.

You could make a case that Jacoby was a better major leaguer than Rettenmund. The issue to me was approach. To hit 32 HRs and knock in 69 you're not doing a lot of situational hitting. That doesn't impress me as taking good ABs or getting many clutch hits.

I saw a lot of Indians games back then and Jacoby was not an impressive player. In fact I'd go so far as to say he was overrated as a lot of Indians were back then (Corey Snider, Andre Thornton, Doug Jones)

There is absolutely no correlation between a hitting coach's personal performance in his playing days and how he will coach hitters. It just doesn't work that way.

WVRedsFan
11-05-2006, 02:27 AM
Unfortunately, I am suspect of every move that gets a ringing endorsement from Jerry Narron. It's my problem.

Having said that, I could give a flying flip. It is good news that they'e mentioning Dunn as his first project because that means they are keeping Dunn (or at least I hope so), but it is a heck of a lot more than Dunn. Finding a shortstop and another productive outfielder might be the first order of business.

SteelSD
11-05-2006, 03:58 AM
Unfortunately, I am suspect of every move that gets a ringing endorsement from Jerry Narron. It's my problem.

Having said that, I could give a flying flip. It is good news that they'e mentioning Dunn as his first project because that means they are keeping Dunn (or at least I hope so), but it is a heck of a lot more than Dunn. Finding a shortstop and another productive outfielder might be the first order of business.

Sounds to me like the Reds are trying to channel Rudy Jaramillo. He was the BA MLB Coach of the Year in 2005 and Jacoby has been the guy to bring his philosophy to the Rangers' minor league system. Jaramillo returned to the Rangers in early June. Jaramillo has produced a DVD on hitting philosophy. I haven't viewed that and really have no information as to Jaramillo's approach.

That being said, the Rangers had a number of players who went backwards in 2006. Blalock is a shell of his former self. Mark Teixeira didn't progress. Michael Young regressed at age 29. Brad Wilkerson regressed. Mark DeRosa progressed as did Gary Mathews, Jr. But when the core regresses and the fringe players progress, is that actually a hitting coach "win"? I'd suggest not.

The Reds now have a Terry Ryan protege on staff, a Rudy Jaramillo protege on staff, and who knows who the pitching coach protege will be. Chris Chambliss had a history of coaching excellent offenses (including the best NL 2005 offense), but he was let go due to a mid-season trade that robbed his team of a two of their three 90+ Run producers.

Brook Jacoby has a history of exactly nothing at the MLB level, but has earned the trust of Jerry Narron (who has little clue as to how the game should be played). And all in an effort to make a Reds offense that was good before Krivsky screwed it up, better than what Krivsky made it. Problem is that Jacoby hasn't demonstrated the ability to make anyone better at the MLB level.

The Reds' mantra for 2007 should be "We're really trying!"

Unfortunately, I couldn't give half a crap about trying.

Topcat
11-05-2006, 04:12 AM
Steel's Not challenging you ok. Just trying to show you another side. Narron may like Jacoby's philosophy's etc but do you not feel that a hitting coach has to have the ability to adapt to the player's he is given? I try to put my self in the position that Jacoby is in and say I am going to do what is best for each individual player, what are there strengths and weaknesses. In the big picture Jacoby is in this to make a name for himself a a batting coach and the results he produces and what the players say to other players in that regard is going to decide his longterm employment and reputation. The "right way" argument is crap honestly the right way is to play to the players strengths and use them to the best of there ability. I also think that the ballpark they play 82 games in has to factor into this equation.

My thoughts are that if this was my job I do "my job" and I do what is best for each and every individual player to maximize there value to the team and for the benefit of the individual and there ability's.

WVRedsFan
11-05-2006, 04:15 AM
Sounds to me like the Reds are trying to channel Rudy Jaramillo. He was the BA MLB Coach of the Year in 2005 and Jacoby has been the guy to bring his philosophy to the Rangers' minor league system. Jaramillo returned to the Rangers in early June. Jaramillo has produced a DVD on hitting philosophy. I haven't viewed that and really have no information as to Jaramillo's approach.

That being said, the Rangers had a number of players who went backwards in 2006. Blalock is a shell of his former self. Mark Teixeira didn't progress. Michael Young regressed at age 29. Brad Wilkerson regressed. Mark DeRosa progressed as did Gary Mathews, Jr. But when the core regresses and the fringe players progress, is that actually a hitting coach "win"? I'd suggest not.

The Reds now have a Terry Ryan protege on staff, a Rudy Jaramillo protege on staff, and who knows who the pitching coach protege will be. Chris Chambliss had a history of coaching excellent offenses (including the best NL 2005 offense), but he was let go due to a mid-season trade that robbed his team of a two of their three 90+ Run producers.

Brook Jacoby has a history of exactly nothing at the MLB level, but has earned the trust of Jerry Narron (who has little clue as to how the game should be played). And all in an effort to make a Reds offense that was good before Krivsky screwed it up, better than what Krivsky made it. Problem is that Jacoby hasn't demonstrated the ability to make anyone better at the MLB level.

The Reds' mantra for 2007 should be "We're really trying!"

Unfortunately, I couldn't give half a crap about trying.

Daggoneit, Steel...for as many times as we have disagreed over the years, it seems we're of one mind these days. The more moves the Reds make, the more it seems we go back to that old losing philosophy. Offense was good before Wayne. Offense gets screwed by Wayne. We hire someone to get Wayne's screwed offense straightened out, but we hire someone who hasn't fixed anyone who's screwed up.

Everyone's heart is in the right place, but the moves just don't make sense. Maybe DanO's had the front office so screwed up nobody can play it? You think?

GAC
11-05-2006, 08:43 AM
Rarely are good players good managers. I was just commenting on Brook's approach as a hitter while playing for the Indians in the 80s.

You could make a case that Jacoby was a better major leaguer than Rettenmund. The issue to me was approach. To hit 32 HRs and knock in 69 you're not doing a lot of situational hitting. That doesn't impress me as taking good ABs or getting many clutch hits.

I saw a lot of Indians games back then and Jacoby was not an impressive player. In fact I'd go so far as to say he was overrated as a lot of Indians were back then (Corey Snider, Andre Thornton, Doug Jones)

But maybe he understood the approach, but just didn't possess the abilty to carry it out to any great degree of success (i.e. talent).

Coaching is alot more about the attaining, and then sharing, of knowledge, more then personal execution. And from that knowledge having the communication skills in making observations, evaluations, and then recommendations.

Playing and coaching are two very different aspects of the game. Being good at one does not necessarily translate into success in the other.

Dave Duncan is probably the best pitching coach in MLB. Yet he was a catcher, not a pitcher, and a sub-par player at that. In 11 seasons, he accumulated a .214 BA .279 OB% .357 SLG% .636 OPS

GAC
11-05-2006, 08:53 AM
Mark Teixeira didn't progress. Michael Young regressed at age 29.

Huh? How have these two players not progressed and/or have regressed? I don't see it at all.

Teixeira

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4937

Young

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4566

Spring~Fields
11-05-2006, 12:43 PM
I am suspect of every move that gets a ringing endorsement from Jerry Narron. It's my problem.


It must be contagious, just the other day I asked the doctor for some anti-narron biotics.

SteelSD
11-05-2006, 02:35 PM
Huh? How have these two players not progressed and/or have regressed? I don't see it at all.

Teixeira

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4937

Young

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4566

Teixeira:

2005: .379 OBP/.575 SLG
2006: .371 OBP/.514 SLG

Young:

2005: .385 OBP/.513 SLG
2006: .356 OBP/.459 SLG

traderumor
11-05-2006, 06:39 PM
But when the core regresses and the fringe players progress, is that actually a hitting coach "win"? I'd suggest not.Apply that same principal to Chambliss, whom you support in the same post.

Johnny Footstool
11-05-2006, 07:57 PM
Apply that same principal to Chambliss, whom you support in the same post.

Chambliss has earned a mulligan based on his prior success with the Yankees and Reds. Jacoby, OTOH, is 0 fer 1.

GAC
11-05-2006, 09:46 PM
Teixeira:

2005: .379 OBP/.575 SLG
2006: .371 OBP/.514 SLG

Young:

2005: .385 OBP/.513 SLG
2006: .356 OBP/.459 SLG

Oh c'mon Kori! You call that regression? 1 season? And those were still pretty solid numbers for both of those players.

Michael Young this past year put up 214 hits to comprise a.... AVG .314 | HR 14 | RBI 103 | OBP .356 | SLG .459

Mark Teixeira meanwhile....AVG .282 | HR 33 | RBI 110 | OBP .371 | SLG .514

I guess I don't understand what you mean by regression and/or progress. Regression to me is returning to a former state. Young has been pretty consistent for the last 4 years...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4566

Compare that to ML league averages for SS's. Wish we had that on this team.

Yeah, there were slight drop offs this past season, but no huge disparity that I'd be worried over. But you say that having an off year, where the numbers are still pretty solid, is regression?

So.... has Dunn then regressed after 1 subpar season?

traderumor
11-05-2006, 10:30 PM
Chambliss has earned a mulligan based on his prior success with the Yankees and Reds. Jacoby, OTOH, is 0 fer 1.That requires a large assumption to be made with respect to how much tangible impact Chambliss had here. But honestly, I'm not real sure how much impact any hitting coach has overall. I'm sure there are a few classic gurus, e.g. Charlie Lau, that made a measurable difference, but I think the typical "successful" big league hitting coach is a babysitter. I think the risk with a hitting coach at the big league level is that he screws a bunch of guys up more than he is going to make a significant positive impact.

SteelSD
11-05-2006, 11:57 PM
I guess I don't understand what you mean by regression and/or progress.

Michael Young regressed to near-2003 levels- in particular his SLG. Ditto Teixeira (whose IsoP dropped 41 points versus 2005 and 47 points versus 2004). That's regression.


Compare that to ML league averages for SS's. Wish we had that on this team.

We did. His name is Felipe Lopez.


So.... has Dunn then regressed after 1 subpar season?

I don't think there's even a question that the answer is "yes". But that red herring aside, you're still not speaking to Brook Jacoby's ability to do anything. He's spent basically four years trying to implement another man's (Jaramillo) hitting philosophy at the minor league level. I don't think there's any question that Jaramillo is a good hitting coach (ditto Chris Chambliss). After all, the Rangers did significantly improve offensively after Jaramillo's return but what does that say about his fill-in (Jacoby)? Nothing, maybe. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe Jacoby is as capable, or more capable, than a guy (Chambliss) who's demonstrated that he's at least as capable as Jaramillo.

But then, I'm an occam's razor kind of guy and I generally think it's a bad idea to replace a successful proven commodity with someone who is, at best, an untested commodity because there's little chance that said untested commodity will out-perform the former. It does happen, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

SteelSD
11-06-2006, 12:28 AM
That requires a large assumption to be made with respect to how much tangible impact Chambliss had here. But honestly, I'm not real sure how much impact any hitting coach has overall. I'm sure there are a few classic gurus, e.g. Charlie Lau, that made a measurable difference, but I think the typical "successful" big league hitting coach is a babysitter. I think the risk with a hitting coach at the big league level is that he screws a bunch of guys up more than he is going to make a significant positive impact.

Reds 2003: 4.28 Runs per Game

Post-Chambliss:

Reds 2004: 4.63 RPG
Reds 2005: 5.03 RPG
Reds 2006: 5.03 RPG (pre-ASB)

Now, regardless of what kind of impact we think Chambliss may have had, one thing is clear- he was the hitting coach while the Reds had a top-notch offense. It's not the first time he was involved in a high-level offense. And considering his track record, I'd suggest that it won't be the last.

Chris Chambliss was fired due to a trade that sent two of three 90+ RC players out of town. There isn't a hitting coach in the world who can overcome that kind of hit to a team's lineup dynamic while also having to work against a manager who doesn't seem to understand how Runs are actually scored and a GM who doesn't seem to understand how making a trade that's destined to be over-under on the Run impact is a bad idea.

Chris Chambliss wasn't fired for his own failings. He was dismissed for the failings of others. That's a pretty good sign that you're headed in the wrong direction. You're a fairly conservative guy, tr. And one thing we both agree on, I'd expect, is that the buck has to stop somewhere. Well, that "somewhere" shouldn't have been at the feet of Chris Chambliss.

And we also agree on the fact that the biggest potential impact from a hitting coach might be his ability to screw folks up. Well, knowing what I know about Jerry Narron's philosophy, I'm a little frightened that the Reds are bringing someone in who better fits the way he thinks.

Chip R
11-06-2006, 12:43 AM
After thinking about this for a while, I've come to the conclusion that the Reds are going to keep Dunn throughout his deal and Jacoby represents his last chance to become more conventional - for lack of a better word. The Reds may believe that if he sacrifices walks for more contact - regardless of what outcome that contact is - that he will be more productive. But if he keeps putting up roughly the same numbers across the board that he's put up over the last 4 years, then I believe the Reds will either trade him in his walk year or let him walk. Jacoby would be his 3rd or 4th hitting coach since he's been a regular here and if Dunn doesn't improve with Jacoby, the Reds may feel that he's a lost cause.

RANDY IN INDY
11-06-2006, 08:16 AM
That's a good take, Chip, and I pretty much agree with it, unless a "can't turn it down" deal pops up around Dunn.

traderumor
11-06-2006, 09:44 AM
Reds 2003: 4.28 Runs per Game

Post-Chambliss:

Reds 2004: 4.63 RPG
Reds 2005: 5.03 RPG
Reds 2006: 5.03 RPG (pre-ASB)

Now, regardless of what kind of impact we think Chambliss may have had, one thing is clear- he was the hitting coach while the Reds had a top-notch offense. It's not the first time he was involved in a high-level offense. And considering his track record, I'd suggest that it won't be the last.

Chris Chambliss was fired due to a trade that sent two of three 90+ RC players out of town. There isn't a hitting coach in the world who can overcome that kind of hit to a team's lineup dynamic while also having to work against a manager who doesn't seem to understand how Runs are actually scored and a GM who doesn't seem to understand how making a trade that's destined to be over-under on the Run impact is a bad idea.

Chris Chambliss wasn't fired for his own failings. He was dismissed for the failings of others. That's a pretty good sign that you're headed in the wrong direction. You're a fairly conservative guy, tr. And one thing we both agree on, I'd expect, is that the buck has to stop somewhere. Well, that "somewhere" shouldn't have been at the feet of Chris Chambliss.

And we also agree on the fact that the biggest potential impact from a hitting coach might be his ability to screw folks up. Well, knowing what I know about Jerry Narron's philosophy, I'm a little frightened that the Reds are bringing someone in who better fits the way he thinks.

Which all points to what we are told was the reason Chambliss was fired and the real reason(s) he was canned. He was also fired by the Yankees. That is the trouble with message boards. Folks make dogmatic judgments on tales from the crypt.

SteelSD
11-06-2006, 11:07 AM
Which all points to what we are told was the reason Chambliss was fired and the real reason(s) he was canned. He was also fired by the Yankees. That is the trouble with message boards. Folks make dogmatic judgments on tales from the crypt.

It's called "scapegoating", tr. Pure and simple.

Redsland
11-06-2006, 11:10 AM
It's called "scapegoating", tr. Pure and simple.
Turd. Hill. Gravity.

GAC
11-06-2006, 10:04 PM
We did. His name is Felipe Lopez.

Now that is regression. The guy had one really solid season (2005). ;)

Lopez couldn't carry Young's glove as far as consistent performance at the SS position over the last few years IMO.

SteelSD
11-06-2006, 10:15 PM
Now that is regression. The guy had one really solid season (2005). ;)

Lopez couldn't carry Young's glove as far as consistent performance at the SS position over the last few years IMO.

Prior to 2006, Lopez only HAD one full season and was shipped off to one of the most severe pitching parks in the game. That kinda' skews the numbers.

And methinks you drastically overestimate Young's fielding performance. He's been near the bottom of any number of defensive lists ever since he acquired the position. He was worse than Lopez in 2005.

Team Clark
11-06-2006, 11:27 PM
Prior to 2006, Lopez only HAD one full season and was shipped off to one of the most severe pitching parks in the game. That kinda' skews the numbers.

And methinks you drastically overestimate Young's fielding performance. He's been near the bottom of any number of defensive lists ever since he acquired the position. He was worse than Lopez in 2005.

Steel... Who would you rather have at SS? Lopez or Young? I am not sure. I like Young's ability with the bat much better than Lopez but I'm not sold on him as a Short Stop. What is your opinion?

Cooper
11-06-2006, 11:51 PM
imo, young is a worse fielder than lopez (that ain't easy)....

SteelSD
11-06-2006, 11:53 PM
Steel... Who would you rather have at SS? Lopez or Young? I am not sure. I like Young's ability with the bat much better than Lopez but I'm not sold on him as a Short Stop. What is your opinion?

Young's got the better offensive performance history with the bat, but he's also 30 years old. Got a couple good seasons left with the stick. Lopez is 3.5 years younger and still has a lot of unrealized potential and is moving into his age-prime years. But I wouldn't be playing either at Short.

Team Clark
11-07-2006, 01:41 AM
Young's got the better offensive performance history with the bat, but he's also 30 years old. Got a couple good seasons left with the stick. Lopez is 3.5 years younger and still has a lot of unrealized potential and is moving into his age-prime years. But I wouldn't be playing either at Short.

We're on the same wave length on this one. I really liked Young as a 2B. I just do not see him as the above average SS that he needs to be for the Rangers. Young certainly can swing the stick with 4 consecutive 200+ hit seasons. Hitting .300 and getting 200+ hits is no fluke. However, he also led the league in Outs which can present it's own set of problems when you do not walk very much. Lopez is still trying to find a measure of consistency in his short career. Young has him beat there by a good margin as you mentioned. Lopez's success will come with AB's and another season under his belt. I believe he has one year left to make himself into a bonafide ML SS.

GAC
11-07-2006, 09:29 AM
At 3 Mil/Yr (his current salary), I would take Young in a heartbeat if having to choose between him and Lopez.

And respectfully, I'm not buying this "unrealized" potential in Felipe Lopez. At some point that "potential" needs to translate into consistent performance, and I just haven't seen it with Felipe, and his time is growing short.

Ltlabner
11-07-2006, 09:35 AM
Young's got the better offensive performance history with the bat, but he's also 30 years old. Got a couple good seasons left with the stick. Lopez is 3.5 years younger and still has a lot of unrealized potential and is moving into his age-prime years. But I wouldn't be playing either at Short.

What is the age when players stats start trailing off rapidly? I would guess it to be 34-35 but Steel's implying that it happens at 32 (unless I am missreading it).

Do players skills, on average, fall off after age 32? If so, that is much younger than I would have supposed.

Does anyone happen to have any data on this.....................(he asks with a grin)? I'm asking serriously because now I'm currious.

Team Clark
11-07-2006, 09:42 AM
What is the age when players stats start trailing off rapidly? I would guess it to be 34-35 but Steel's implying that it happens at 32 (unless I am missreading it).

Do players skills, on average, fall off after age 32? If so, that is much younger than I would have supposed.

Does anyone happen to have any data on this.....................(he asks with a grin)? I'm asking serriously because now I'm currious.

There may be a statistic out there to give you an average but this is one area IMO where you need to evaluate the individual. Body type, Genes, position played, injuries, etc.... I would not be surprised to see Young continue to hit the way he has until he is 34-35. I think he could be a productive 3B/DH from 36-38.

Puffy
11-07-2006, 11:07 AM
Lopez couldn't carry Young's glove as far as consistent performance at the SS position over the last few years IMO.

Have you ever seen Young at SS? He's no better than Lopez - and possibly worse.

SteelSD
11-07-2006, 11:20 AM
What is the age when players stats start trailing off rapidly? I would guess it to be 34-35 but Steel's implying that it happens at 32 (unless I am missreading it).

Do players skills, on average, fall off after age 32? If so, that is much younger than I would have supposed.

Does anyone happen to have any data on this.....................(he asks with a grin)? I'm asking serriously because now I'm currious.

By "a couple", I mean two or three. Guys who profile like Young (low IsoD) tend to fade out a bit faster. From BP, the top 10 most comparable players are:

Johnny Logan
Gil McDougald
Edgar Renteria
Bill Madlock
Jeff Cirillo
Barry Larkin
Bobby Avila
Alvin Dark
Carney Lansford
Ryne Sandberg

At first glance, it looks like a pretty decent list (although I question Larkin's inclusion). But drill down and you'll find a connector:

Excepting Larkin (a high IsoD hitter), the remainder of players with data past age 30 were pretty much effectively done as consistent highly-productive hitters by age 33. That doesn't mean it's sure to happen to Young, but it's just how his skill set tends to operate.

Ltlabner
11-07-2006, 11:50 AM
By "a couple", I mean two or three. Guys who profile like Young (low IsoD) tend to fade out a bit faster. From BP, the top 10 most comparable players are:

Excepting Larkin (a high IsoD hitter), the remainder of players with data past age 30 were pretty much effectively done as consistent highly-productive hitters by age 33. That doesn't mean it's sure to happen to Young, but it's just how his skill set tends to operate.

So guys who rely mostly on hitting prowess/power to get on base slow down around 33 and those who can get on base via other methods along with hitting (and corespondingly have higher IsoD) can continue to be productive longer because basically they are more paitient at the plate (ie. can get more walks, can work the count, wait for "their" pitch, etc) ? That's a grose simplification but is what I am getting out of your post.

I'm assuming that the low IsoD slow down because they start to loose that ability to consitantly use hits to get on base. Basically, their bodies start to slow down and they can't get the hits they did when they were younger.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the help.

RedsManRick
11-07-2006, 11:57 AM
What is the age when players stats start trailing off rapidly? I would guess it to be 34-35 but Steel's implying that it happens at 32 (unless I am missreading it).

Do players skills, on average, fall off after age 32? If so, that is much younger than I would have supposed.

Does anyone happen to have any data on this.....................(he asks with a grin)? I'm asking serriously because now I'm currious.


I'm not sure it's fair to say "players skills" in the aggregate. What's important about aging is that certain skills age differently than others. Offensively, your eye and plate discipline tends to stay good, if not improve. You also tend to get more power. However, your hands tend to slow down as well. If a player can adjust to his changing skills, he can age quite well.

Michael Young reminds me a bit of Jeff Kent. As he ages, I wouldn't be shocked to see his average drop 20-30 points but see him turn some of those 50 doubles in to homers and become a .280/.340/.500 type guy. Defensively, you lose range before any thing else. Some players can position themselves so well that they can hide the range issue (Ripken, later years Larkin). But Young is already range challenged.

Like Steel and TC, I'd not play either Lopez or Young at SS on my team. If I had to choose a guy for next year, I'd go for Young. Over the next 5, I'd go Lopez. Though if Lopez can't get his SLG back in the .450 range, I think his value goes way down.

SteelSD
11-07-2006, 03:11 PM
So guys who rely mostly on hitting prowess/power to get on base slow down around 33 and those who can get on base via other methods along with hitting (and corespondingly have higher IsoD) can continue to be productive longer because basically they are more paitient at the plate (ie. can get more walks, can work the count, wait for "their" pitch, etc) ? That's a grose simplification but is what I am getting out of your post.

I'm assuming that the low IsoD slow down because they start to loose that ability to consitantly use hits to get on base. Basically, their bodies start to slow down and they can't get the hits they did when they were younger.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the help.

I think Rick covered it pretty well. Basically, as the bat slows down, hitters need to make adjustments. Those with better IsoD rates tend to have better residual pitch recognition skill sets, which makes the necessary adjustments easier.

And Rick did some good research on the Jeff Kent comp. There are differences, of course- Kent manifested a better minor league IsoD (about 100 points) more consistently and his IsoD was about 40 points ahead of Young's. It took Kent a while to demonstrate that ability in the Show, however, as he didn't produce acceptable BB rates until age 31 (which was immediately after he first broke the 30 HR barrier).

Young didn't have terrible minor league BB rates (1 BB/9.08 AB) so it's possible that he may have the ability to, as his bat slows, do better in that area. However, I'd also suggest that Kent is most likely a bit beyond Young's highest 33+ age ceiling. Maybe more of a Kent/Aurilia hybrid. Not a bad guy to have around, but that's probably also a "best case" scenario.

Considering everything, I'd be looking to move Young for pitching if I were the Rangers. Pretty attractive bat hides some of his fielding deficiencies, a team can slot him at 2B if they like, and he's got a really decent contract (3.5 M in 2007, club option @4 M for 2008 <up to 5 M with incentives>). Offer that up to any number of clubs with SS or 2B holes, and you might just be able to get a pretty sweet return.

GAC
11-07-2006, 09:58 PM
Have you ever seen Young at SS? He's no better than Lopez - and possibly worse.

I don' think he is any worse, and from an offensive standpoint his production numbers are quite impressive and consistent for the last 4 years. Now put him hitting half the time at GAB.

Other then Dunn, no other Red has put up the kind of consistent offensive numbers on this current squad as Young has done. Check them out.

And I am not advocating going after Young, though it sure wouldn't upset me to have him at 2B with BP at SS, simply for his addition to this offense.

But I was simply stating that if I had a choice between him and Lopez, I'd take Young in a heartbeat.

I am not a fan of Lopez, and don't think he is going to get any better. I'm not shedding any tears he is gone.

One player (Young) has shown something on the field, and consistently so for the last 4 years, while everyone is still waiting for the other (Lopez) to live up to this "potential".

I was also simply disagreeing with Steele's contention that Young has somehow regressed.

And being 30 years old is not ancient and soon to be over the hill.

Cooper
11-08-2006, 05:53 AM
Things to consider:

1. The effect of steroids has to have had an effect on aging patterns.
2. Lopez age works for him as it relates to range (at least a holding pattern) whereas Young range can only get worse.
3. Has anyone mentioned Young playing in the best hitter's park in the AL?
4. I'm of the opinion that low IsO players are more effected by high park factors than high IsO players.

If any of this has been mentioned i apologize --trying to work on a project and read Redzone.