PDA

View Full Version : Rookies Or Veterans


Lip Man 1
08-07-2003, 09:22 PM
In the past most of us at WSI have discussed the best way to go for a team...veterans or rookies.

There were some interesting items along these lines in this week's Sports Illustrated (Ohio State on cover) which I'll pass along for discussion. It's from the baseball story authored by Dan Habib

First off a quote..."The playoffs are not a time that you put rookies out there to learn."--Jason Schmidt.

And a very interesting stat from that story..." At an average age of 31.48 years, the San Francisco Giants are the fourth oldest team in the majors behind the New York Yankees, Seattle Mariners and Atlanta Braves."

Hmmmmm what's the record of those four teams?????

Lip

Dadawg_77
08-07-2003, 09:30 PM
Lip, the answer to your question is it depends on what stage your team is in. You can't buy the World Series, you need to have a good group of players you develop or acquire when they are young in order to get there. The teams you mention are built around those core groups as our beloved Sox. Now to fill holes on these team, vets are better because you are expecting to contend. For teams like the Reds and Tigers, younger players are more preferable since the team lacks a core to build around.

gogosoxgogo
08-07-2003, 09:34 PM
I think you have to differentiate between how long a player has been on the field at the major league level and how well of an ability they have to either hit the ball, or get batters out. Given the choice between two players, one of which is very effective, yet still a youngster, and the other, though a veteran in the league, is unable to consistantly perform his job, I will always take the player with the higher skill level. However, if the two players are very similar, both in ability, and what they have done during the regular season, I will choose the veteran. When all is done, I want the best player on the field, not necessarily the oldest. Age does come into factor in determining the best player, this is true, but it should not be the only factor as some people here at WSI would like you to believe.

With that said, I'm a strong believer in not rushing a highly touted prospect into the middle of a pennant race. I believe that the pressure thurst upon them will have disastorous results for their career. There have been plenty of exceptions, and I know I'm going to here them, but it goes both ways. Although the player may have the physical ability to do his job, the pressure he will have (if he's in a starting position) will ruin his mental ability. This all goes back to having the best possible player on the field. Rushing a kid into a pennant race (like Jason Schmidt said) is not a solution due to the kid's inability to mentally get the job done.

MisterB
08-07-2003, 10:07 PM
Yes Lip, we know what you're getting at. Another couple of facts to add to those numbers:

1) All four have at least four players age 37 or older.

2) The Yankees are one of only two teams in the majors without a player under the age of 24 on their roster.

Lip Man 1
08-07-2003, 10:17 PM
Forgive me for being stupid but what's your point?

The Yankees don't have a player under 24 but they have the best record in the league don't they?

You don't see any Matt Ginter's or Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright on their team do you? and before you start with the "but the Yankees payroll is 180 million," the Mariners payroll isn't...the Giants payroll isn't. They've got sensational records.

I'm just saying if you're going to win in the playoffs you don't do it with kids who don't even know where the bathroom is. That's why the Sox need to give themselves more room for error or injuries and make the payroll a respectable 75 million.

Chicago is the 3rd largest market in the country not the 300th...

Lip

Chisox_cali
08-07-2003, 10:30 PM
Well the rookie thing worked for the Angels last year, in John Lackey and Frankie Rodriguez

jeremyb1
08-07-2003, 10:59 PM
you need the players that will give you the most production at the best value and that is the bottom line. so many would have you believe that "veteran experience" is an intangible that ranks nearly as high as extra base hits or on base percentage. this is completely ridiculous. if you put the best players out there you will win regardless of age.

as far as i'm concerned the ages of the yankees, braves, and other contending teams are completely irrelevant. most veteran players tend to produce more than rookies because they are further along on their development curve, therefore there will be a lot more all-star calliber thirty year olds than all-star twenty year olds. this is not because the thirty year old players have "veteran experience" its simply because on average older players are more developed to a point.

more importantly, competing teams tend not to carry young players because young players are often viewed as unknown quantities. competing teams tend to place much less emphasis on player development than rebuilding teams especially at the major league level. even if dontrell willis was in the yankees farm system right now he would probably not be in their rotation because 1) as a competing team with a high payroll they have five starters with huge paychecks already filling the rotation 2) they would most likely not feel total confidence that he can succeed so early in his career. therefore, even though willis might very well be the best pitchers in the yankees rotation, he is not in their rotation. this is not because willis isn't as good as their other options, because he's not good because he's young, or because he's not good because he doesn't possess "veteran experience".

to summarize, the best player is the player with the best production. since very young players' skills have not yet reached their peak on average the production of a 22 year old will not equal that of a 30 year old. however, this does not mean that young players can't be much better than older players ie buehrle is 24 while rick reed is 37 yet obviously reed is not more valuable simply because he possess veteran experience. as kenny williams discovered, royce clayton was not good simply because he had veteran experience. there is no real meaningful distinction between young players and old players, only productive and unproductive players.

MisterB
08-08-2003, 03:09 AM
Forgive me for being stupid but what's your point?

The Yankees don't have a player under 24 but they have the best record in the league don't they?

You don't see any Matt Ginter's or Danny "I Can't Pitch" Wright on their team do you? and before you start with the "but the Yankees payroll is 180 million," the Mariners payroll isn't...the Giants payroll isn't. They've got sensational records.

I'm just saying if you're going to win in the playoffs you don't do it with kids who don't even know where the bathroom is. That's why the Sox need to give themselves more room for error or injuries and make the payroll a respectable 75 million.

Chicago is the 3rd largest market in the country not the 300th...

Lip

My points were:

1) Each of the teams named have a few players that are particularly old (by baseball standards) bringing the average up some, so those teams aren't as 'old' as they look. And some of those players contribute more than others. (Bonds vs. Galarraga, Clemens vs. Orosco, etc.)

2) Almost all teams have at least some youngsters on their rosters. The Giants have had two rookies in their rotation most of the season. The Braves managed to work Giles, Furcal, both Joneses, Millwood, Lopez, etc. into their rosters while making the playoffs for over a decade straight.

Although I didn't mention money, you also point out that payroll doesn't = winner. Well, age doesn't = winner, either (see the Dodgers and A's about that). We know you don't have faith in young players, and the age issue isn't as cut and dried as you make it sound.

And yes, Chicago is the 3rd largest market, but it's a distant third. Considering it's split with the Cubs, we wind up behind both NY teams, LA, Anaheim, Boston, Philly, and Baltimore. Heck, if the Sox also had a sweetheart national broadcast deal, a stadium that's filled regardless of team performance and were illegally scalping their own tickets, they could spend like the Cubs - but they don't, so they can't. If there were better management in place it wouldn't matter as much. C'est la vie.

spanishwhite
08-08-2003, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

First off a quote..."The playoffs are not a time that you put rookies out there to learn."--Jason Schmidt.



Tell that to KRod Lackey Soriano Renteria JWright Petitte Jeter Kim Donelly.

There are probably more.

They arent the most important part, but they do have some importance.

maurice
08-08-2003, 12:39 PM
Apropos of nothing, Lip writes:

"The playoffs are not a time that you put rookies out there to learn."--Jason Schmidt.
. . .
"At an average age of 31.48 years, the San Francisco Giants are the fourth oldest team in the majors behind the New York Yankees, Seattle Mariners and Atlanta Braves."

The Sox have only one rookie on their 25-man roster. He's perhaps their best defensive player, bats ninth, and platoons with a 37-year-old veteran.

The Sox have 11 players over the age of 30. The average age of a White Sox player is 29, which is the age of perennial All-Star Magglio Ordonez and is higher than the average age of the team that won the most recent World Series. The Sox average age would be higher, except that two of the top four pitchers in their starting rotation (the 4th best rotation in the AL) are 23 and 24, respectively.

Hey, I know! The Sox should increase their average age by cutting Buehrle and Garland, and replacing them with trusty veteran free agents, such as Jerry Reuss and Melido Perez.

Paulwny
08-08-2003, 01:00 PM
I read somewhere that no team with more then 2 rookies has ever won a WS.

spanishwhite
08-08-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I read somewhere that no team with more then 2 rookies has ever won a WS.

John Lackey
Francisco Rodriguez
Chone Figgins
Brendan Donnelly

You know them better as the Angels. All rookies last year.

Paulwny
08-09-2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by spanishwhite
John Lackey
Francisco Rodriguez
Chone Figgins
Brendan Donnelly

You know them better as the Angels. All rookies last year.

Thanks for the info, maybe the article I was reading, possibly last year, was referring to to the chances of the play-off teams winning a WS, and this was in the article.

Vsahajpal
08-09-2003, 09:04 AM
You're missing the big picture here...duhOSU was on the cover of SI?

Yes!

adsit
08-09-2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by spanishwhite
John Lackey
Francisco Rodriguez
Chone Figgins
Brendan Donnelly

You know them better as the Angels. All rookies last year.

That was one thing that made Anaheim's championship run so phenomenal. They were fortunate, perhaps a little lucky, overcoming all odds to win the trophy (which Garret Anderson, a veteran, promptly broke while running victory laps around Edison Field:smile: ).

The edge usually goes to the team built to win, a-la Wayne Huzienga. But it's no guarantee. The playoff/WS spotlight has done strange things to players. It's much less probable, though not impossible, that rookie players can handle the sort of pressure that causes veterans to come unbuckled (remember Mariano Rivera?). I wouldn't have bet on Anaheim to take it all last season... few did... and that's the crux of this discussion.

Come to think of it, betting on baseball in general is risky. Too flukey.
:D:

Lip Man 1
08-09-2003, 02:06 PM
Just a minor point since their is some truth in the past few posts....but Brendan Donnelly was a rookie only in the major league persepctive.

He's actually been in organized professional baseball sine the early 90's. In fact the Sox cut him in 1992.

It's not exactly like he was a 19 year old kid was he?

Lip

spanishwhite
08-09-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just a minor point since their is some truth in the past few posts....but Brendan Donnelly was a rookie only in the major league persepctive.

He's actually been in organized professional baseball sine the early 90's. In fact the Sox cut him in 1992.

It's not exactly like he was a 19 year old kid was he?

Lip

Well I dont see many 19 year olds in the majors period.

Jerome Williams and Jeremy Bonderman being the youngest.

But if you want to go by age I can point out of the top of my head that Pettite was only 23 when he outdueled Smoltz.

Jeter was 23 too.

Renteria was 22 when he hit the series winning rbi.

Livan Hernandez and Jaret Wright were 22 when they pitched phenomenally in that same series.

Ankiel was 21 when he helped the Cardinals to the NLCS

Some of the aforementioned werent rookies (technically speaking) like Donnelly, but they were young and unproven at the time.

Buehrle was only 21 when he struck out ARod :)