Yes and long control plus success creates great potential return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Fly
Printable View
Yes and long control plus success creates great potential return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Fly
As I mentioned in my response to westofyou, my opinion about it doesn't any supporting data. I think you need 20 years for a proper sample size, and it has only been about 10 years since players were scared away from taking them when the congressional investigations were going on and the lengthy bans were being imposed. In addition, because being proactive about one's health varies widely in baseball because of the huge percentage of players that come from 3rd World countries, where poverty is the prevalent reason for poor health, questionaires would have to be done for each player and a preventive health score would need to be assigned to them. In baseball, many players struggle with English for a long time, and thus keep themselves closer to their native culture where practicing yoga, avoiding anything that's not good for your body. Being around athletes they are more exposed to healthy lifestyles, but in general, the Europeans lead culturally in this area, followed by the Arabic culture, the Asian cultures, then the US, then South America, then Central America, then Africa. The Aussies don't care what they put in their bodies, as long as it tastes good or feels good. Poking fun at my Aussie friends. I love 'em. Sorry about the tangent, but the bottomline is that my hypothesis that today's athlete, whatever sport that is in, does not begin a decline at 30 anymore, but has added at least two years to that number. Unfortunately, there's no data to support this. You suggest that a younger person with the same knowledge and theoretically, even better health practices, would compete against the older person forcing them to continue to regress at the same pace as before. But, one's decline is independent of what anyone else coming does against them. If I'm 30 and playing at "X" level, at 32, if I haven't lost any flexibility, and in fact, have more through yoga practices, food intake that supports muscle integrity, weight training that retains the same amount of strength, if not more firm, not bulky, and I have an improved ability to focus gained from yoga and other mental practices, and then add to that two more years of experience, I don't see how I won't be a better athlete at 32 instead of 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
I know from having listened to a 1000 NBA players talk about training over the years that they used to gorge out on the free food at the pre-game buffet, and that food had a lot of junk on the table. All the meat had nitrites and nitrates, along with other added ingredients. Hot dogs, chips, desserts. I don't know if you remember Darnell Valentine, but he was 20 years ahead of his time when it came to being proactive about not putting things into the body that aren't good for it. It is as important to put things into it that are good for it, and within 2 years, nearly every NBA player starts catching on when it comes to their eating habits. Most NBA players are way ahead of the curve in this area. It seems that in the NFL, Defensive players are the best at understanding, "you are what you eat".
Now compare that to the list of 33+ guys retired or underperforming their contracts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rojo Rijo
Of course there is no magic age where a player falls off a cliff.
This is about playing the odds, and reviewing specific skills that a player has that are likely to age well. Bruce isn't a particularly patient hitter that battles well. He's a power hitter. I could easily see him aging poorly and not being able to make the adjustments as his bat speed slows. Combined with already declining fielding stats, and I don't see him as a great candidate to age smoothly. Don't want to use one of our few free agent rate contracts on an aging Bruce.
For what it's worth I am 100% hoping to trade him. I'm just trying to convince myself that he's worth at least one top prospect. I've got my heart set on Bregman but that means it probably won't happen. All I wanted last year in a deal with LA was Grant Holmes and that never happened......Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
The thing is Bruce has the tools and the pedigree to remain productive into his 30s if he takes care of himself. It has taken him time to get back to where he was (and better, actually) after his injury but it's not like he's some no-name late-bloomer that was never expected to be as good as he is. He's always been a pretty patient hitter with a pretty high strikeout rate, but that comes with power. Why would he suddenly fall off a cliff outside of injury?
Cooper you're not saying anything groundbreaking. Yes, people decline as they get older. I don't understand why you're obsessed with that point. Yes, Bruce is likely to see some decline as he gets older, as do all players.
I'm in love with the idea of prying Zimmer from Cle for Bruce+. Might take a bullpen arm and B prospect of their liking.
Disco stays
Yeah, no way do they win in 2017 without Jay Bruce. We'll likely still be void of Frazier's contributions, Phillips' contributions of the previous 10 years on both sides of the diamond. But, help is on the way...a lot of help. Mesoraco, this year's #1 pick might be here in September, Winker, Suarez will be past his sophomore slump, Duvall should be here. Votto will still have a high OBP. That's plenty of Offense. Our Offense is way ahead of our Pitching. Our Defense sucks. That's going to be one of the challenges. We're stuck with Votto's Defense, which should be worse in two years. We'll have to make up for it with above average Defense at SS, CF, and 2B, as we do now. I don't know anything about Duvall's Defense, but I suspect it's below average. So, LF and 1B will be below average, putting pressure on our young staff to not let hitters pull the ball. If 3B can also get to above average and RF too, we could live with Duvall and Votto Defensively, in order to get their strong bats in the lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by swaisuc
This is a message board -i thought we discussed the finer points of things and i was attempting to make a finer point. I thought it was interesting. You're welcome to ignore my posts-- but i'm not leaving because you feel my posts aren't groundbreaking enough. You're rude.
Unfortunately, for the REDS when they inked Bruce to the last contract, he was never supposed to see a season with an OPS below .800 until the contract was over. .840-.920 was what he was paid for to produce. We just got done tossing away for nothing a career .800 OPS player in Encarnacion, as we were trying to put together a top-of-the-league Defense to support the quality starting staff we were assembling. Who knew Bruce's excellent Defense in RF of just a few years ago would disappear so quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by REDREAD
Cooper, we'll come back to this subject in 5 years when we have more data. I contend that there will be a higher percentage of a player's career WAR after 30 than what it had consistenly been in the past. Again, there is no data yet post-steroids to form any kind of a conclusion, as there hasn't been enough years to put in the careers of very many players.
I think it will be a lot more interesting if it doesn't turn out to be that much different, despite advances in health and nutrition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingspoint
King- i think we have enough data to make some assumptions but you may be right re data and whether it's enough. I enjoyed the banter. Take care.
It might say more about baseball than the effects of nutritional knowledge and practices by players. If it doesn't change, then maybe Babe Ruth had it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by WrongVerb
With Cespedes out with a wrist injury and Syndergaard having an "elbow flare up" it wouldn't surprise me if the Mets packed it in for this season.
Sorry, but I have a couple of more ideas I have to get off my chest.
Yahtzee or jojo said a couple years ago that data supported the idea that defensive abilities were the first thing effected by age in baseball, as early as 22, 23, or 24. Let's just go with that for now.
I think most would agree that the next thing to go is bat-speed. At what age, we could vary in our opinion, but I would say it correlates with the normal regression in OPS. So, about 30.
But, for ptchers, I have seen consistently the arm-speed disappear almost as soon as they get into the league. I don't think arm-speed can be maintained once a pitcher throws 220 innings early in their careers. The arm itself has it's own career projectory separate from the rest of the body. But, in general, I would say that arm speed begins regressing at age 25. I'm sure there's data out there that tells us when it generally happens.
I do think that leg speed begins it's decline four or five years before bat speed, at about 25 or 26.
Now, projecting what skillset next begins to go, I'd say it was between "focus" and "strength".
I think every one of these skillsets can have their declines begin two to three years later through daily yoga training to help with focus, strength, agility for defense, and even eyesight. Cumin, can possibly improve eyesight, as it has properties that increase bloodflow (good for lot's of things) and that in turn helps the eyes.
Add to yoga a thousand other things one can do to improve their health, and I don't see how the decline in skillsets can't be delayed by years.
Idk if u get Bill James website King ...but just other day he reported defense began decline at age 25 so u hit that on nose. He wrote a long article this week about What kinds of players sustain and have long careers - it came down to the age they started career and the players speed. He made the point that speed is the 1 skill that is used for both offense and defense, thus allowing the player to use that skill in different ways (I kno that's simple But he always brings to light things that I forget about). Lastly, he discussed pitchers and how many of the great pitchers didn't get too many innings on their arms before age 26. He reported that too many innings before age 26 leads to a leveling off of a pitchers career...whereas if they wait then they have the frame and oth err supports to have greater success. He did not mention,arm speed nor the effects of Tommy John surgery.
Thanks. Nice info. No, I have never been to his website.
I don't see how he can claim that pitchers never used to throw for a lot of innings before age 26 in the past. In the 20's, 30's and 40's, it was nothing for a pitcher to throw 400 innings in the minors. 300 innings thrown by a pitcher in the minors was commonplace. Can you provide a link to his article? My theory, that I've stated on this site before, is that because so many boys grew up either on farms, or at the very least, had a million physical chores to do every day from the time they could talk, that their whole bodies developed a memory for stamina. They could go out and throw 400 innings in a year, and not need surgery afterwards.
I also think he's wrong about speed being a driving force behind better defense. I think it's not even needed for defense. Anticipation, agility and footwork, focus, fundamentals (so many major league players suck at fundamentals on defense because they were always the best hitter on their team from Little League to College, so they didn't have to learn the fundamentals of Defense to be highly successful), intelligence and using that intelligence to prepare properly in practice and to always know ahead of time what you will do before the ball is hit, confidence (but not cockiness), and quickness are the tools needed to be a great defensive player. Speed is not needed.
I've stated for years that I'm a believer in limiting the types of pitches a developing arm can throw, from Little League until age 27, when I think is when the developing arm matures. It's why Defensive Tackles don't have that "man" strength until they hit 27. There are certain muscles that continue to mature through that age (personal belief I've gleaned through observation). Curveballs should be banned before the age of 16. Split-fingers should be banned through 26. Any pitcher should learn to pitch through control, velocity of a fastball, and changing speeds. That's a repertoire for success for any pitcher at any age. And, of course, I've been a supporter of the 30-rule (increase a pitcher's stamina by increasing his inning count 30 innings from one year to the next, though it should actually be measured by pitch count) ever since Bill James presented the supporting evidence for this from one of his books from the 70's.
I think i may have reported it wrong ....he reported that many great pitchers didn't have a lot of wear and tear on the arm pre age 26. He mentioned Warren Spahn as an example --not many innings before the age of 26 and then when he hit that age his body could handle the stress of pitching over a long haul. Guys that threw a lot of innings pre age 26 tended to burn out because of the stress -there young bodies could not handle it long term --i think they key words were long term, I know i'm not doing what he said justice ....oh crap, i just realized i'm putting together 2 different Bill James things -- one was an article and the other was a presentation he gave at Cape Cod (rob neyer was sort of the MC of the event). I'm not performing at my best --too tired:)
Rob Neyer is from here, Portland, I believe.
I forgot to correct my statement. I reread what you wrote and we're talking about just a few pitchers (as Spock said to Kirk on the bus in San Frncisco, "Ahh, The Great Ones") here James is referring to. It only makes sense.
It pisses me off that Dwight Gooden's Manager abused his arm his Rookie season by having him throw way too many innings while consistently using the fastball on 70+% of the pitches. Dwight would have been a great one instead of just incredibly good.
Unless Thor's injury becomes season-ending, not a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by WrongVerb
The Mets have become thee team in NYC. No way they begin dismantling or stunting chances of another playoff run and risk momentum with a growing fanbase. They'll keep going for it, especially when it's the Gnats ahead of them.
If all hell breaks loose between now and the deadline I could see them moving Harvey but that's about it.
The Reds had that problem big time in the 60s - they lost Maloney, Nolan (who resurrected his career as a off speed pitcher) Simpson, McCool - all to overwork at young ages. When Gullett arrived he was abused, too, by today's standards, but Sparky actually limited his workload early on, especially compared to how they treated the other guys I mentioned. Simpson & Nolan were especially egregious cases - when I think what they might have become with proper handling....but you can make a long, long list of great young hurlers through the dark ages of sports science in baseball, from its earliest days to Billy Martin's destruction of Oakland's young staff, that were ruined by overuse and the stupid idea that you simply pitched through pain and discomfort. Every time I hear someone say "Well, a ton of innings didn't hurt Nolan Ryan, or those early guys like Iron Joe McGinnity, I want to reply "Yeah but that same abuse destroyed 50 guys for every one you can name that survived."Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingspoint
I would honestly be surprised if there isn't more longevity, just based on the explosion of legal to use dietary supplements alone, not to mention the advances in nutrition, training etc. you mentionedQuote:
Originally Posted by Kingspoint
What Roger Craig did to the Giants staff, making all of them learn the split-finger fastball, was suicidal to their careers. Craig learned it as a Dodger, as overusing pitchers and treating them like chattel was always their philosophy. Just bring up another arm from the endless supply their scouting staff supplied.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedlegJake
I didn't know that about the '60's REDS. Would they have kept Robinson if they hadn't abused the pitching leaving the club unbalanced and in search of more pitching?
So, Bruce had another good day with a couple of doubles, and a couple of runs scored, beginning two rallies that almost got them back in the game against MLB's hottest team in June.
Suarez had a throwing error allowing a run, but had a 3-run blast in the 8th to make it 5-4. Mayne Suarez could move to RF when Bruce leaves, our 1st Rd draft pick can play 3rd Sep 1st?
Duval was in the middle of both rallies, knocking Bruce in to make it 4-1, before getting on after Bruce ahead of Suarez' dinger. Strailey had one bad inning, but otherwise was very effective again.
The error was committed by DeJesus (playing 1B tonight), not Suarez.
Thanks for catching that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Klu
I was 13 yrs old the first time I laid eyes on Gary Nolan pitching in a Reds uniform.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedlegJake
I was amazed to see a kid just five yrs older than me on the mound in Crosley Field pitching for my favorite team.
I can still remember him striking out three Houston Astros in the first inning of his first big league start.
This can be said about a lot of players I guess, but if Gary Nolan hadn't been hurt, he'd dominate the Reds pitching leader boards the way Pete Rose dominates most of the hitting ones. Most people remember him as the junkballer on the 75 & 76 reds. I remember a kid who could throw 99 and carry it deep in the game. We already know that he would have been able to transition when the stuff went away.
But let's take some of the hindsight out of it. If you ran another team that needed an OF with pop and had the Reds' current prospects, what is the best package you would give to get Bruce? It's a nice way to put something relatable on the table, while limiting the bias most of us have. Then if we want to really talk plausible trades, we can convert the Reds prospects to comps from other teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by WrongVerb
Yeah, most of us (myself included) would say nobody is off the table, but that doesn't get us very far in terms of what's realistic for Bruce. So if you ran another team that needed an OF with pop and had the Reds' current prospects, what is the best package you would give to get Bruce?Quote:
Originally Posted by WrongVerb
I can recall Gary Nolan striking out Willie Mays 4 times in one game in 1967. Nolan was barely age 19. He struck out 206 hitters in 226 innings in 1967 and was arguably the best rookie in baseball even though Tom Seaver was voted the NL Rookie of the Year. Maybe the arm injuries were inevitable, but he was worked hard and his dominating fastball was a memory by the time he was age 22.Quote:
Originally Posted by mth123
Arms are getting blown up as much or more today as they ever were when pitchers were being "abused"Quote:
Originally Posted by RedlegJake
The only advancement that's been made from then to now is the ability to repair them.
Well, I've been saying the Reds should receive a LH reliever on the cusp of the majors and a prospect in the 100-200 range. There are now people saying that Garrett is going to wind up being a reliever. Maybe him and Mella or Blandino, someone like that? Maybe Ervin. For the chance at a run at the WS my best package would be: Garrett and Ervin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyecat
Not sure Nolan was that much better than Maloney, who, if not for the Achilles injury, would, IMHO, have dominated the "pitching leader boards the way PR dominates" the hitting ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by mth123
Love the history lesson on Gary Nolan. I had no idea he was a stud in the 60s and debuted at the age of 18. I'm just familiar with his work for the BRM during his post-injury phase.
When did I ask you to leave? Where did I say your posts were not relevant or that I would ignore them? I was responding to the inference that some of us weren't capable of understanding that people age. That's not groundbreaking, and it's not some kind of new concept. We've been discussing whether or not Bruce (or other players) can still bring value after a certain age despite decline. I really don't see how that was rude, but glass houses and all that. Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Bruce to the Indians makes so much sense for both parties. I doubt he fetches Zimmer or Frazier, but is there another package that Cleveland could put together that would be satisfactory?
Then they can't have him. Seriously. If they want him, they need to pay, but no more settling in deals for the Reds.Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat13
Outside of Zimmer and Frazier the Indians have no prospects I want at the cost of Bruce. The Indians could put a very good pitching package together but the Reds don't need more prospect pitchers (at the cost of offense). Like membengal said, pay up or no deal.
Preferably Frazier. Not really sure I'd take Zimmer for Bruce at this point.