Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Rany on the Royals

"Bubba."

20 Comments -

1 – 20 of 20
Blogger Unknown said...

Malcolm Gladwell looked at the redshirting effect on hockey and baseball players in Outliers. I would expect that the early draft is filled with older guys whose birthdays fall around the age cut-off date for little league baseball.

June 20, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Blogger Old Man Duggan said...

In your 80 grade discussion, I believe you overlooked Josh Hamilton, who coming out of high school had an 80-arm, 80-power, 80-speed, 80-hit tool IIRC. I may be giving too much credit for the speed, but I'm pretty sure at that point he was at least a 70-speed guy, and I'm 90% on the other three.

June 21, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Blogger Nathan said...

I have often wondered about exactly how the loss of early development time pans out. Does being drafted at an older age result in a player having a weaker prime, or does it just make them take longer to reach it? For example, In terms of how a player will perform at ages 26 and up, I don't quite see why losing a year at 25 is any better than losing a year at 18. Does being drafted later than they could have been actually lower a player's peak performance?

Basically, if Alex Rodriguez had been drafted in 1994 instead of 1993, would he have been a less successful player in, say 200? How about today?

I understand that age at the time of the draft probably has some effect on player's career, but am unsure what shape the effect takes.

June 21, 2011 at 5:33 AM

Blogger Collin said...

@Nathan:

I think Rany's idea that Bubba is "already 19" simply means that he's a year closer to his prime (26-29) than an 18 year old. This is a concern only because he doesn't have much room to play around in the minors. If he was only 18 right now, he could take his time in the minors and still make it to MLB at age 22. But the fact that he's already 19 means he's going to have to rocket thru the system and have no setbacks in order to make it to MLB by 22... and if he has any setbacks he might not reach MLB until 23 or 24.

June 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Blogger Collin said...

I was really hoping for Bundy but you're right that Starling is a great consolation prize.

It sure seems like drafting a position player with your Round 1 pick is safer than drafting a pitcher. I know that every year teams draft gems in the later rounds but that seems like a much better idea to me -- draft a blue chip position player in Round 1 and then draft a bunch of pitchers after that.

June 21, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Blogger Phil said...

@Adam Rentchler

You are close on your hypothesis, but not quite there.

The effect that Gladwell (among others) talks about is an accumulative advantage and is a little different than holding your child back a year. Accumulative advantage suggests that the oldest children in a given age range are more 'experienced' (even if by only 11 to 12 months) and by that token they are better at things (baseball/hockey). Thus, because they are better, they get more attention from coaches et al. And because they get more attention from coaches, they continue to be the best athletes, thus getting more attention all the way through high school.

Best I can tell, parents don't get to choose when they start their children in little league. It's based on age, not grade. Bubba happens to be old for his grade because his parents waited a year to enroll (presumably), and not because he just happened to fall near the age-cutoff date. That is assuming what Rany said is true.

In this case, even if his parents had not waited a year to enroll him, he would have still started rec league baseball at the same age and same grouping of kids (pee-wee, etc).

June 21, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Blogger Kenneth said...

On the age thing, I was born on Nov 27th. I begged my parents to let me go to school early because I wanted to go with my big brother. This meant that for the first couple months of my senior year in High School I was 16, before turning 17.

My children were born on Aug 25th & Sep 14th, so I had to choose if they would be 16 turning 17 like me. As a boy it is not fun being the youngest kid in class. I held my boys back so the Summer after they graduate they will turn 19. It wasn't for sports, for me it was based off experience.

I think being 17 can tell you things. Even though the kid is the youngest in his class he is having sucess against kids 1- 1 1/2 older than him at an age when that difference matters. Or a 19 kid being better than some 17 year olds. So while it doesn't mean less that Bubba is older and having success, I agree with the argument that It DOES mean more if a kid has success when they are younger than their competition. It would mean they are more likely to succeed against older guys in the minors because they have already had sucess doing just that.

June 21, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice piece.

Just to let you know, when I was traded to the Reds for Leibrandt, I had an undiagnosed torn labrum and rotator cuff injurty.

Despite the Blue trade debacle, this made up for part of it.

Bob Tufts

June 21, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Blogger Kenneth said...

So I just read Jarrod Dyson is rejoining the team giving us 5 outfielders. Anyone notice Mike Aviles's line in 9 games ?

baseball-reference.com

4 HR's & .325/.725/1.051 & even 2 sp's for good measure.

June 21, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Blogger McGoldencrown said...

I dont get your logic at all on the (teen)age issue. Please explain to me how A-Rod, Mauer and Griffey's development would have been greatly jeopardized if they graduated H.S. a year later. You act if their is some perilous growth stunt looming like a 12 year old chain smoking filterless Pall Malls. The fact is, when a normal aged high school grad chooses to play ball in college for three years instead of starting a pro career immediatly, he is on avg, losing a year of development. Thats why college players make their ML debuts on avg, a year older than H.S. players. If Hosmer had started kindergarten at 6, the only difference is that he would be 22 now and he STILL would have made it to the bigs sooner than if he had chosen college and instead was drafted 3 weeks ago. Help me out here buddy. Your theory is not only illogical, its down right bizarre.

June 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Blogger McGoldencrown said...

...In addition, I would like to propose the possibility that Starlings extra year of maturity might have actually helped him. Maybe he doesnt handle the constant national media pressure as well a year younger and almost assuredly wasnt as physically developed a year ago as he is now. Also, in response to Collin's comment,

'If he was only 18 right now, he could take his time in the minors and still make it to MLB at age 22. But the fact that he's already 19 means he's going to have to rocket thru the system and have no setbacks in order to make it to MLB by 22... and if he has any setbacks he might not reach MLB until 23 or 24.'

- 24% of MLB.com's Top 50 Prospects are 23 or older.
#3 Domonic Brown-23, #4 Dustin Ackley-23, #9 Desmond Jennings-24, #15 Mike Minor-23, #19 Brandon Belt-23, #33 Kyle Gibson-23,
#36 Tanner Scheppers-24, #37 Dee Gordon-23, #38 Devin Mesoraco-23, #41 Yonder Alonso-24, #42 Christian Freidrich-23, #45 Dellin Betances-23.
This isnt tennis were talking about. Nobody has a problem with these guys still being the cream of the crop. Clearly, its much more important to make sure you get the right player and mold him properly than to obsess over a handful of months.

June 21, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Blogger Rany said...

Bob,

Glad you enjoyed the piece; I enjoy your insight over at Baseball Primer. I always wondered what happened to you after the trade...

Like Joe Foy, Fred Rico, Van Snider, Lance Clemons and Jim York, you'll always be remembered fondly by Royals fans for nothing you did on the field itself :)

Rany.

June 21, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Blogger Rany said...

To clarify my point about Starling's date of birth: I'm not arguing that Starling's parents made a mistake in holding him back from kindergarten for a year. On the contrary, the evidence I've seen suggests that the oldest kids in a classroom tend to do better academically than the youngest kids - and it's exactly that evidence which is encouraging parents to hold their kids back as much as possible.

My point is simply that, when you evaluate Bubba Starling the baseball prospect (as opposed to Bubba Starling the high school student), you have to acknowledge that players improve their baseball skills very rapidly between the age of 18 and 19. The fact that Starling has already gone through that year of development, while Francisco Lindor hasn't, suggests that by the time Lindor is the age Starling is today, he might have improved to the point where he looks like the better prospect. It's not a guarantee by any means, as Moustakas/Vitters demonstrates. But it's something that needs to be kept in mind.

June 21, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Blogger Michael said...

Rany,

I would also add that if Starling had been drafted a year aho instead of now, he would have a year of development against much better competition than he faced this past year in high school. That would also most likely speed up his development as well.

June 21, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Blogger Nathan said...

I think I agree that gaining/losing development time in this fashion can affect how good a prospect looks at a certain point in their career, such as HS graduation. It can also affect how quickly they reach the big leagues.

What it probably doesn't affect is their actual peak value.

That is, if the Royals had drafted Starling 1 year ago, they could probably expect the same peak performance that they can expect today, albeit maybe a little sooner because he would develop more rapidly against good competition.

So teams should certainly take age into account when evaluating players, but we can't generally assume that players drafted when older will have a lower peak. Given that peak performance is the most important quality we want in a 1st round draft pick, talent trumps age by quite a large margin.

June 22, 2011 at 3:33 AM

Blogger McGoldencrown said...

Nathan, your exactly right. Every player has a certain level of baseball potential inside them. KC and everyone else knew how old Bubba was and the talent level he has shown up to this point. If Lindor was the same age, maybe he would be sightly better than he is now and maybe he wouldnt. He is only going to be as good as he is going to be. Its a moot point. They are in the "Spring Training" of their careers. No one will remember any hesitation in projecting their development a month after they are signed. Lets just hope that doesnt take forever. It certainly didnt do Brent Eibner any favors to completely whiff on his first year.

June 22, 2011 at 6:08 AM

Blogger Michael said...

What it can affect though, Nathan, is how long they perform in their peak. If a prospect reaches their peak at age 25 instead of 26 or 27, then they will perform at that level for a longer period of time, adding even more value to the pick. I agree that talent trumps age, but I understand the concern of age that Rany discusses.

June 22, 2011 at 6:27 AM

Blogger Nathan said...

Michael, I think you make a good point as regards pitchers, because lots of good pitchers are already having arm problems before they reach free agency. But star-level hitters are usually still within their peak when they become free agents. What happens after that is not so important to their drafting team. Sure, drafting a player gives you a better chance to sign them long term, but it's far from a given.

Something neat for a budding sabermetrician to investigate might be the correlation, if any, between players' ages when drafted and the payroll of the drafting team. If teams that have large payrolls are drafting younger talent, it may be because they think they have a better chance of keeping their own free-agents than small-payroll teams do. A team will only care whether a player's peak lasts 7 years or 8 years if they think they're likely to be employing that player 8 years into their career.

June 22, 2011 at 7:15 AM

Blogger trjones said...

All this talk about age of pitchers is superfluous for the Royals, if they can't get any of their prospects to the point that they can go longer than 5 or 6 innings (Duffy, Montgomery, Dwyer, et al), or get through a batting order the third time around without getting shelled (Hochevar).

I listened to KC sports talk all day yesterday, and the picture painted for our pitchers of the present, and future, was dire indeed.

Rany, why wasn't the fact that our pitching prospects all have a history of going low innings per start in the minors, not factored into all the rosey assessments of our farm system? Seems to me it is a very important issue, given what we have seen with Duffy. If all our big arms have the same innigs per game issues, what kind of a future does that bode for the organization.

I am in a state of shock/disbelief over all of the recent revelations regarding our pitching, present and future. Ugh!

June 23, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Blogger trjones said...

Rany, to follow up on my last post, what are the chances that you could do an analysis of the innings pitched issue with the Royals young arms. Seems like the organization's stance on long toss may be factoring into the equation in a very negative way.

June 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

This blog does not allow anonymous comments.

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.