The way to win the World Series is to lose big for three years

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Here is one on pitchers:

 

This graph shows the peak years for pitchers at 24 to 28

• https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/2/25/5437902/pitching-aging-curves
   

Good thing we got rid of Gausman, then.  

[Frobby]

Someone needs to tell Max Scherzer about this aging curve thing.

[TonySoprano]

17 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Someone needs to tell Max Scherzer about this aging curve thing.

He's a year younger than his ex-teammate, also no slouch

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, TonySoprano said:

He's a year younger than his ex-teammate, also no slouch

You gotta love the outliers.    They’re the ones that keep the owners and GM’s dreaming and paying huge bucks for guys who are likely to decline.  

[atomic]

36 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Someone needs to tell Max Scherzer about this aging curve thing.

Astros had 3 starters in their 30's.  One was 34 and another 35.  

[atomic]

Since one team did this that is the only way to become successful?  The Giant had 3 World Series victories in this decade and they never won less than 71 games in the seasons leading up to those World Series.  This is a load of nonsense.  And also a great thing for GM's are not very good to go about winning as they can be bad for 4 years and still keep their jobs.  

[atomic]

Red Sox other team like the Giants with 3 World Series victories in the last 11 years and they were never terrible for 3 years straight either.  This is loser talk.  

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, atomic said:

Since one team did this that is the only way to become successful?  The Giant had 3 World Series victories in this decade and they never won less than 71 games in the seasons leading up to those World Series.  This is a load of nonsense.  And also a great thing for GM's are not very good to go about winning as they can be bad for 4 years and still keep their jobs.  

 

4 minutes ago, atomic said:

Red Sox other team like the Giants with 3 World Series victories in the last 11 years and they were never terrible for 3 years straight either.  This is loser talk.  

There’s no one size fits all solution.   But you do have to look at our situation.    We’re coming off a 47-win season, our farm system is just so-so and we have no infrastructure in place for going after international talent.    Nor do we have the financial resources of the Red Sox or the Giants.    This is going to take a while.    That’s just reality.  

[atomic]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

There’s no one size fits all solution.   But you do have to look at our situation.    We’re coming off a 47-win season, our farm system is just so-so and we have no infrastructure in place for going after international talent.    Nor do we have the financial resources of the Red Sox or the Giants.    This is going to take a while.    That’s just reality.  

I expect the team to be terrible next season but in 2020 they should show some improvement .  If they are winning 47 games in 2020 that is unacceptable.  

[JR Oriole]

5 minutes ago, atomic said:

I expect the team to be terrible next season but in 2020 they should show some improvement .  If they are winning 47 games in 2020 that is unacceptable.  

Winning only 47 games in ANY year is unacceptable.  Even a truly awful team with a very weak roster should at least be able to win 54.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, JR Oriole said:

Winning only 47 games in ANY year is unacceptable.  Even a truly awful team with a very weak roster should at least be able to win 54.

I lot of posters wanted a rebuild.  Well, here we are at the beginning of the rebuild.  The O's are going to be bad for at least 3 years.  Expect it.  That is what a rebuild from the ground up is all about.   

Collecting the high draft picks, improving international scouting and signings.   Tearing the payroll down to the ground and then building everything back up.   Its easily 3 years if a lot of things go right.

[now]

Viewing the link from Melewski's post today on 1:1 draft picks, I did a little data collection to compare WARs of the first five picks overall. Here are the average career WAR values for the top overall picks (since 1965):

#1: 22

#2: 15

#3: 14

#4: 14

#5: 13

It appears it really is a big deal to get the first pick overall: almost 50% better production than the #2 pick! After that, more of a crapshoot. Of course, the sample size is relatively small, could be skewed by a few big successes. Plus all years are not equal talent pools. Anyway, good to have that #1 in the bag (assuming signability).

[Luke-OH]

18 minutes ago, now said:

Viewing the link from Melewski's post today on 1:1 draft picks, I did a little data collection to compare WARs of the first five picks overall. Here are the average career WAR values for the top overall picks (since 1965):

#1: 22

#2: 15

#3: 14

#4: 14

#5: 13

It appears it really is a big deal to get the first pick overall: almost 50% better production than the #2 pick! After that, more of a crapshoot. Of course, the sample size is relatively small, could be skewed by a few big successes. Plus all years are not equal talent pools. Anyway, good to have that #1 in the bag (assuming signability).

And as others have mentioned, part of the benefit of 1-1 is generally you can save money to get better prospects with subsequent picks.

[Beef Supreme]

On 11/14/2018 at 11:36 AM, wildcard said:

No but it may be the cheapest.

The "cheapest" route is not only still no guarantee of winning the World Series, it may be the least profitable route for the team.

[Frobby]

On 11/15/2018 at 10:29 AM, wildcard said:

Here is an article from Fangraph's:

Aging is based on the premise that players skills and health will change over time and aging curves are developed by comparing players across many years. There is some disagreement about whether hitters improve until they peak around 27-28 or if it’s more of a flat line from 22 until 28 when they start to decline. The jury is still out because a lot of our original premises were based on some data from the Steroid Era.

https://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/aging-curve/

 

 

Here’s an interesting piece from ESPN saying that players 25 and under are making up 27% of the at bats, which is the highest in 40 years, and they are hitting 103 OPS (3% above league average), which is unusually high for that age bracket.  http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25417893/young-players-officially-taken-major-league-baseball