The "Poor Hypothesis Theory of Baseball" and rebuilding the O's

[RShack]

Ok.

In 2006 players 30 or older had 45.5% of all at bats. That's 76,239 out of 167,341.

So on any random team, good, bad, or indifferent, you'd expect about 45% of offensive players to be 30 or older.

You found that LCS teams had 45% of their starting lineups over the age of 30. Therefore, this doesn't differentiate LCS teams from non-LCS teams in any way.

Drungo, what does that have to do with anything? It has exactly zero to do with the thing I was pointing out. My entire point was that it is the *rule*, not the exception to the rule, that successful postseason teams have lots of over-30 guys in their starting lineup. And teams that get to the WS have more than is average. Which completely shoots down the idea that guys who will be over-30 in 2010 are somehow not young enough to help us big time when 2010 gets here.

The fact that lots of crappy teams also have over-30 guys has *absolutely nothing* to do with this. It's like anything else: some teams are good, some teams are crappy... some over-30 guys are good, some are crappy... some under-30 guys are good, some are crappy. You think that is news to anybody? What's your point?

[mefogus]

Drungo, what does that have to do with anything?

I think we have officially reached critical mass. Time to move on to the next topic.

-m

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo, what does that have to do with anything? It has exactly zero to do with the thing I was pointing out. My entire point was that it is the *rule*, not the exception to the rule, that successful postseason teams have lots of over-30 guys in their starting lineup. And teams that get to the WS have more than is average. Which completely shoots down the idea that guys who will be over-30 in 2010 are somehow not young enough to help us big time when 2010 gets here.

The fact that lots of crappy teams also have over-30 guys has *absolutely nothing* to do with this. It's like anything else: some teams are good, some teams are crappy... some over-30 guys are good, some are crappy... some under-30 guys are good, some are crappy. You think that is news to anybody? What's your point?

You said in the opening post of this thread:

Based on the evidence, if you want the O's to have a shot at being a good post-season team in 2010, then the whole idea that the O's should not have some over-30 guys in their starting lineup in 2010 is completely silly. If anything, it looks like the O's prolly should make sure that they have about 4 of them, give or take. Especially if they wanna keep going back to the post-season again and again.

Note the bolded part. According to your theory the O's should probably have four, give-or-take, 30+ players in the lineup if they want to win.

My point was that the league is 45% 30+ players. So the number of 30+ year olds in one's lineup doesn't seem to have any bearing on quality of their play or the likelihood of the team making the playoffs. The number of 30 year olds isn't related to how good a team is.

You could have run the same scenario substituting 70-80 win teams for LCS teams and found that an average 70-80 win team had 4 or 5 30+ players in the lineup. Then come to the conclusion that if you want to win 75 games the best place to start is with 4-5 30+ players in the lineup.

[paradoxmoose]

thats all well and good about having 30+ players on a championship team, unfortunately you have to make sure that theyre the right players, good players, that are 30+. quick, we want to make a championship run, sign any 9 age 30+ players! an exaggeration, obviously, but theres a big difference between having a player thats still an all-pro, and one that never was and never will be.

when we have a championship quality team (should we end up with one), id agree having some vets who have the "been there before" quality will help in the playoffs.

but today, while looking to the future, old men will serve as mentors on a youth movement rebuilding losing team, having some to fill that role will be a plus, but others that can bring us young talent that will be ripe when we are ready to have that championship team- which will then be ready for the age 30+ vets to help win.

[RShack]

According to your theory the O's should probably have four, give-or-take, 30+ players in the lineup if they want to win.

Perhaps I should have used different words. Here's what I should have said: The next time the O's get in a WS, they will almost certainly have multiple guys in their starting lineup who are over-30. Recent history (and prolly forever-history, but I didn't look) *proves* that the idea that guys who will be over-30 in 2010 won't help us then is completely wrong. It's just a bogus idea that's based on nothing, as the facts clearly demonstrate. For the last 10 years, almost 50% of the starting lineups of WS teams are guys who are over-30.

So the number of 30+ year olds in one's lineup doesn't seem to have any bearing on quality of their play or the likelihood of the team making the playoffs. The number of 30 year olds isn't related to how good a team is.

Well, good... we are in agreement then. I wonder if we can keep this in mind next time people start saying that we should trade Whomever because by the time 2010 gets here, he'll be in his 30's. There may or may not be good reasons to trade a guy, but that's not one of them. Which is the only thing I was trying to use actual facts to demonstrate. In actual fact, WS teams have just as many over-30 guys as anybody. (Actually, they appear to have *more* than average, but I don't know if that appearance means anything, so let's not worry about that.)

[neon2lsohc]

"Poor Hypothysis", did you change that name just for me?

[ChrisAF79]

Shack, I'm confused as to what your argument is all about. Is this because people have been advocating trading Brian Roberts? You do understand that it's not simply because he'll be over the age 30 by 2010, right?

This has much more to do with his current value, along with the fact that he is very unlikely to resign once eligible for free agency. If anything, I would argue that his age has the least to do with the desire to trade him.

I just get the feeling you're pigeon-holing a good number of posters here with some supposed "obsession" with age.

[CrimsonTribe]

So let's just take a step back here:

(1) You are arguing that 30+ yr old players can contribute to winning baseball teams. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

(2) You are making this argument in order to discredit a mysterious group of "some people" who think we should trade anyone who will be over 30 in 2010 because they won't be able to help us. I don't think any poster worth his (or her) salt actually thinks we should trade a player just because he's going to be 30+. It's a factor in the equation, which you want to construe as an actual argument.

(3) Meanwhile you refuse to define "some people" and act like you are the only one with any real baseball knowledge. Maybe there's a few posters who think that Brian's age is the only reason to trade him, but, seriously, you're way overblowing that segment of the OH population. And no, I'm not reading too much into it. This is how you come off.

I've come to the following possible conclusions:

(A) You're real bored and you just want to hear yourself talk so you write up manifestos against overly simplified "theories" in order to disprove them and pat yourself on the back.

(B) You've grown tired of the overabundance of statistical analysis and are therefore rebelling by posting curmudgeonly arguments and proclaiming your superior knowledge of baseball b/c you don't rely solely on stats. Sounds like "some people" on this board.

I just don't know RShack. You used to be one of my favorite posters, but you've gone off the deep end here. Don't take this the wrong way; I don't mean to offend or anything because we've definitely seen eye-to-eye in the past. It's just odd and concerning.

[Frobby]

It is not surprising that most contending teams have players over 30. However, let's look specifically at who the Orioles have and where they likely will be in 2010:

Millar will be 38

Mora will be 38

Walker will be 38

Payton will be 37

Bradford will be 35

Hernandez will be 34

Gibbons will be 33

Huff will be 33

None of those guys except Hernandez (who has a club option for 2010) are under our control after 2009 (2008 in the case of Millar and Payton). The only ones who arguably are above average now are Walker, Bradfor and Hernandez. The likelihood they will be above average in 2010 is not high.

There is another group consisting of Roberts, Scott and Sherrill who, though over 30, are a bit younger and, in the case of Scott and Sherrill, under lcub control a few more years. They also are good players who may still be above average in 2010. It's easier to make a case for keeping those guys. In Roberts' case, the fact that he is a free agent after 2009 is an issue, as is the fact that his value relies on speed and he will be slowing down a bit as he ages.

[RShack]

It is not surprising that most contending teams have players over 30. However, let's look specifically at who the Orioles have and where they likely will be in 2010:

Millar will be 38

Mora will be 38

Walker will be 38

Payton will be 37

Bradford will be 35

Hernandez will be 34

Gibbons will be 33

Huff will be 33

None of those guys except Hernandez (who has a club option for 2010) are under our control after 2009 (2008 in the case of Millar and Payton). The only ones who arguably are above average now are Walker, Bradfor and Hernandez. The likelihood they will be above average in 2010 is not high.

There is another group consisting of Roberts, Scott and Sherrill who, though over 30, are a bit younger and, in the case of Scott and Sherrill, under lcub control a few more years. They also are good players who may still be above average in 2010. It's easier to make a case for keeping those guys. In Roberts' case, the fact that he is a free agent after 2009 is an issue, as is the fact that his value relies on speed and he will be slowing down a bit as he ages.

Exactly.

Personally, I think BRob will still swipe a lot of bases, due to his large skill component. Plus, if you look at good base stealers, a lot of them were very good into their early 30's. But we'll see about BRob (regardless of whether he's a Baltimore Oriole or not).

[Lucky Jim]

Exactly .

So we can make a case for keeping them (they have value, of course.) And we can make a case for trading them (if their value in trade is higher than their value to the team.)

It all depends on the package. And always has.

I don't think Roberts' speed will be an issue, necessarily. I'd be surprised if fatigue and injury don't increasingly become problematic. They already were, after all, even in his prime.

[mweb]

When/if the young core develops nicely to the point where the team has a chance to contend, it would be great to supplement that young talent with good veteran players. But right now, it makes no sense to add players like that unless it's to trade them or get draft picks when their contracts expire.

[Guest rbrhett]

Don't invent a fight about your politics. I said I used it to refer to applying unproven theories that can turn out bad. Nothing more or less than that.

I don't think you understand the term "neo-con." Neo is Latin for new, and the term "neo-con" refers to "new conservatives" or those who used to classify themselves as liberals yet in the current political climate are "conservatives." This is used to diferentiate between "neo-conservatives" and "paleo-conservatives." If you want to use a label, I would suggest "neo" and nothing more. Adding the con to your "theory" makes no sense.

[SrMeowMeow]

I don't think you understand the term "neo-con." Neo is Latin for new, and the term "neo-con" refers to "new conservatives" or those who used to classify themselves as liberals yet in the current political climate are "conservatives." This is used to diferentiate between "neo-conservatives" and "paleo-conservatives." If you want to use a label, I would suggest "neo" and nothing more. Adding the con to your "theory" makes no sense.

The title's changed, let it go. Also, that's an oversimplified description of neo-conservatives

*is 13 pages into a 30 page term paper on neo-cons*

[Guest rbrhett]

The title's changed, let it go. Also, that's an oversimplified description of neo-conservatives

*is 13 pages into a 30 page term paper on neo-cons*

Of course it is, but this is a message board and thus I didn't have the time or space to write a complete description of neo-conservatism. Good luck with your paper. Have you read Joseph Scotchie's The Paleoconservatives? Are you a regular reader of Chronicles magazine?

I don't care about the title, I was trying to correct his use of the term.