now

Interesting observations from the graph: - Biggest jumps at 25/26, and 23/24. The younger jump makes sense, breaking in. But why 25/26? - Biggest drops at 29/30, 31/32, and 34/35. Is the 29/30 drop psychological?

Well said, to explain why offense is more impactful, in a quantitative way. A similar approach makes WAR also a fair measure to compare pitchers with hitters. And for the hitters, the variations of WAR give us the actual breakdown of the offensive and defensive portions of a player's total score... Which works out to, what, like a 4:1 difference typically?

Yes, it's self-evident that defense helps pitching; but so does offense. Ideally, of course, you want both. But when it comes to choosing between them (avg. defense and plus offense, or vice versa), I believe it's no contest, that offense is far more impactful. When I used to play a lot of Strat-O-Matic and other sims, I experimented on that very question, when making roster and lineup decisions, and the results were conclusive that you go with the Westburgs over the Greniers. You can laugh at this Mickey Mouse science, and talk about the value of Belanger, but I'd wager a proper analysis shows the same conclusion, to give offense the higher weight in overall player value. Now, the best strategy might not favor a blanket rule but do what the great Oriole teams did: put great defense up the middle and "cannons at the corners."

Hmm, don't quite see the logic in "trying" if the signing a team makes is a bad one. Throw money out there and see what sticks? Sounds like what the MFYs do.

That earlier article Frobby linked covered a lot of different skills and while the performance peak was at 27-28, the raw tools peak was generally more like 22-24. Basically across the board. Interesting tidbit there was that speed declines 4 inches/year. And yeah, the mental and experience side of the game compensates to some extent. But it's a losing battle, aging!

That's a smooth, easy 96-98!

Sure beats stepping in the same old puddle day after day.

Awesome, thanks for that. Another study linked from there, by Tom Tango, gives the following more numerical results (slightly different depending on method): Obviously, it's not an exact science. But if you bet on the odds, when looking at players on the cusp of these peak years or beyond, I'd go with "younger is better."

And what about bat speed? On the other hand, pitch recognition should improve with age. I would love to see charted the various key skills and how they fare over the course of an average player's twenties and thirties. (Probably "proprietary information"... hopefully in the clutches of our O's brain trust, at least!)

For sure, start young and be veterans when you're still peaking at age 27-28! (Edit: Steve Pearce and Nelson Cruz notwithstanding).

Yep, all about multiple long-term benefits: younger, cheaper, talent on rise instead of decline, and likely more depth. What you lose is "veteran presence"... wonder what numerical weighting Sig gives that??

Okay, I get that. Seemed like @Roll Tide was feeling good about those draftees, but criticizing strategy. We can't speak for him but maybe it's about positional imbalance then.

To me the age considerations are key. Point being, age-wise both Means and Mullins are past their peak in 2024. Maybe Tony's take on skills is a finer lens than age in general, though it counters the overall average decline curve from ages 27-28. Bottom line, if selling high makes sense, and our window of contention is 2024ff, then go for it if the talent return is positive and younger.

Just curious... if you're not a fan of the draft strategy or the trades, how do you account for the farm improvement? Seems contradictory.

Intriguing. Can you say more what you see as "repetitional risk" in terms of O's offseason activities? And how that relates to media and social media perceptions? (Or is that something else, "reputational risk"?)

That's a great point. Still, it's not enough (think Wieters, Bundy). What is needed also is a strong supporting cast. Certainly a bevy of high draft picks will help, but we all know that's still a crap shoot until they actually produce at high levels.

oops, yes of course.

I like the thinking here. Again, it seems the task for Elias now is to arrive at greater confidence in when the real window starts. Previous premature announcements of "the Cavalry" come to mind to suggest caution. Statements like "This is the best looking crop of young prospects, etc. etc." only go so far. More hard data and performance benchmarks are needed.

My favorite quote from the piece: Giving the benefit of the doubt that this is objectivity speaking, not just fan-hope.

Ouch, X5. So much for "a clean slate." Ghosts of FA Xmases past...

So maybe they're not going to commit to that target until more of the young talent proves itself worthy.

Interesting. So pro sports then should operate more like a government--to satisfy citizen desires regardless of budget or costs or debt--than like a business, concerned with profit/loss and ROI? Not that I know anything... but it helps to understand the economic basis of this perennial argument over team spending.

The reason presumably is that ownership prefers to allot its resources to a more likely contender than the 2022 team. If it was your money, wouldn't you do the same? Or do you think (like most govts these days) you can just spend more now and lots more later?

Just wondering, how many wins would satisfy your desire for "competitive and representative"? (Assuming that it translates to wins; but please clarify if that's not the case).

Then it's a different scenario and a different conversation than now. And it'll be time to talk about more than the S. Matz's of the world. Meanwhile, getting "excited" about mid-tier retread FAs on a bad-to-mediocre club gets old after a couple of decades.