I'd rather have Cameron Maybin then Peter Bourjos

[Rebbiv]

Mr Clean...re-read this entire thread.

My contention has been that Maybin does not have more upside, which you claim. In fact, no where in the article you posted does it refute anything I said.

Fact. Maybin and Bourjos are about the same offensively (both slightly below average).

Fact. Bourjos is the better defensive CFer. The debate would then be by how much. Which was never addressed in this thread.

Fact. Neither player helps the Tigers, especially since neither hits LHP all that well.

I would like to know what "arbitrarily flawed stats" you think I use to support my arguments.

 

[jdeb]

I think he meant "that person" when he said "someone", not everyone else.

Correct, that person....

 

[tigersofjustice]

Without changes in walk rate or BAVG, decreasing Strike Out rates proves nothing and is not an indicator. I see no positive trends. If fact, there are some disturbing trends like first pitch swinging.

Maybin SO Rates

Minors = 4.34 PA/SO

AA+AAA = 4.61 PA/SO

Majors = 4.27 PA/SO

2011+2012 = 4.80 PA/SO


For the most part (93.7%), a player is what he is when he reaches 26 years old. Maybin turns 26 on April 4th, 4 days after Bourjos turns 26.

Weird that you take that approach since lower strikeout numbers do correlate to batting average and have mild correlation to walk rates. Peak aging curve is also more along the lines of 28-29. Not sure where you got the 93.7% figure.

 

[Rebbiv]

Weird that you take that approach since lower strikeout numbers do correlate to batting average and have mild correlation to walk rates. Peak aging curve is also more along the lines of 28-29. Not sure where you got the 93.7% figure.

First, look at the numbers I posted on Maybin's SO rate and tell me where he significantly lowered it.

Because Maybin has not significantly lowered his SO Rate, we have not seen any change in his BB Rate or BAVG.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/hitters-age-like-wine-power-like-cheese/

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

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=age27myth

http://www.indranet.org/frontal-lobes-development-and-technology-use/


A person's frontal lobe fully develops around age 25 and tracks with the commonly assumed peak years being from 26-30 (26-32). 26 is supposed to be the age the physical and mental peak. From that point on, the physical declines. As a rule, minor league players are no longer considered a "prospect" past the age of 25.

When I say we know what they are at 26, is they are at their peak physical and mental, combined. After 25, it is almost impossible to teach them something different (i.e. take a walk). Occasionally, a player will have a "fluke" season (I can explain what constitutes a "fluke" season later). Also, sometimes "fluke" seasons are rookie seasons (Listach)

2000 Darin Erstad (26)

1986 Steve Sax (26)

1996 Brady Anderson (32)

2001 Luis Gonzalez (33)


Now, each study has/had different criteria as to how they calculated peak years. How do you include a player that doesn't make the majors until age 27 or 28? What happens with the players that are gone from baseball by age 26, 27 or 28? Are they included?

Most studies focuses only on players that played in the majors from ages 24 to age 32 and beyond. And then figured out their peak years. This is great for that group. But it doesn't tell you the whole picture.

Try to explain the careers of Curt Blefary, Joe Charboneau, Ben Grieve, Angel Berrora, Pat Listach, Jerome Walton and Earl Williams.


For the Tigers, it would be players like Matt Nokes, Darnell Coles. Chris Shelton, etc.


A MLB season = about 26 weeks

.333 = 200 hits

.300 = 180 hits

.267 = 160 hits

The difference between a .300 hitter and a .267 hitter, is less than a hit per week.

I regress.....anyways....I did my own calculations. I included players from 1945 - 2011. Players had to be active from ages 24 to 32. I used Linear Weights as the value. Peak year was at age 26-27 from this group. Less than 10% change for most players from year to year, which was (drum roll please)....93.7% of these players.

Seriously, if you are trying to compute peak years, but neglect players that did not play after 26, then your peak years is going to be higher than 26. And you include players that make it after age 27.

 

[jdeb]

hey rebbiv, any stock tips?

 

[Mitchrapp]

hey rebbiv, any stock tips?

No kidding, holy shit.

 

[Rebbiv]

hey rebbiv, any stock tips?

Buy low, sell high

 

[tigersofjustice]

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

I tend to subscribe to the philosophy espoused here. It may be wrong but I would tend to say that 26 is the low end of the ranges.

 

[Rebbiv]

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

I tend to subscribe to the philosophy espoused here. It may be wrong but I would tend to say that 26 is the low end of the ranges.

This is the same article I provided the link above.

Here are the issues with this study.

Hitters

10 years

5,000 Career Plate Appearances

Minimum of 300 PAs per year

Age range from 24-35


With this criteria, players like Alan Trammell, Kirk Gibson and Victor Martinez would be precluded from the group. You don't have problems with this?

Second, the majority of players career does not last 10 years. The average career is something like 5 years. It is just as important to include the Matt Nokes of baseball, along with the Ozzie Smiths.

Within the Baseball Prospectus article, the conclusion of 29-30 years being peak, is only for the prescribed "limited" group. This group would be in line of studying Hall of Fame players and determining their peak. Then saying this peak is for all baseball players. It is not true.

I offer an alternative point of view. Either take it or leave it. But understand that 75% of the articles on the internet are NOT gospel, including sabermetric articles. The author either has an agenda or has limited his control group.

26-27 years is for all major league hitters. 29-30 years is for those hitters that have played 10 years, had 5,000 Career PAs, had at least 300 PAs in each season and had a career that spanned from ages 24-35. Keep in mind, if Miguel Cabrera's career ended today, he would not have been in the study.

 

[tigersofjustice]

This is the same article I provided the link above.

Here are the issues with this study.

Hitters

10 years

5,000 Career Plate Appearances

Minimum of 300 PAs per year

Age range from 24-35


With this criteria, players like Alan Trammell, Kirk Gibson and Victor Martinez would be precluded from the group. You don't have problems with this?

Second, the majority of players career does not last 10 years. The average career is something like 5 years. It is just as important to include the Matt Nokes of baseball, along with the Ozzie Smiths.

Within the Baseball Prospectus article, the conclusion of 29-30 years being peak, is only for the prescribed "limited" group. This group would be in line of studying Hall of Fame players and determining their peak. Then saying this peak is for all baseball players. It is not true.

I offer an alternative point of view. Either take it or leave it. But understand that 75% of the articles on the internet are NOT gospel, including sabermetric articles. The author either has an agenda or has limited his control group.

26-27 years is for all major league hitters. 29-30 years is for those hitters that have played 10 years, had 5,000 Career PAs, had at least 300 PAs in each season and had a career that spanned from ages 24-35. Keep in mind, if Miguel Cabrera's career ended today, he would not have been in the study.

I think it does a good job of preventing bias from low samples. So I don't particularly care if guys like Trammel are excluded so long as enough of their doppelgangers who do qualify are included. What I mean is I'm not particularly bothered by individual cases.

I think by including a wider range you're more likely to get a bias of younger players who see time when they are young because they have to be exposed to the majors to see what their capabilities are and then are out of the league earlier because it is discovered they are not quite up to task, not necessarily because they peak earlier. Like you said the average career is very short, and I think that it is likely to result in bias pushing down the age. The argument can be made the other way to suggest these players just peak earlier, but I think there are enough average to below average players included in his analysis for me to not ascribe to that philosophy.

 

[Rebbiv]

I think it does a good job of preventing bias from low samples. So I don't particularly care if guys like Trammel are excluded so long as enough of their doppelgangers who do qualify are included. What I mean is I'm not particularly bothered by individual cases.

I think by including a wider range you're more likely to get a bias of younger players who see time when they are young because they have to be exposed to the majors to see what their capabilities are and then are out of the league earlier because it is discovered they are not quite up to task, not necessarily because they peak earlier. Like you said the average career is very short, and I think that it is likely to result in bias pushing down the age. The argument can be made the other way to suggest these players just peak earlier, but I think there are enough average to below average players included in his analysis for me to not ascribe to that philosophy.

Once again, the focus of the study is pretty much looking at Hall of Fame players and using that to determine what the peak age of the average baseball player. I do not agree with that premise.

Now back to the Maybin discussion. You want to use a Hall of Fame 29-30 peak age for Maybin or Bourjos, then I have an issue. Their peak is what it is right now. Odds are, that either or both, could be out of baseball by age 30.

 

[@Stakesarehigh]

I don't see maybin making the necessary strides in his plate approach that would be necessary to make his "upside" worth trading a valuable piece for

 

[Mitchrapp]

Best trade ever. Not quite the Ruth trade but Miguel for Maybin and Miller is all sorts of win.