Aramis Ramirez or Scott Rolen?

[XZero771679666304]

If you use career numbers for similar players who are aged 31 and 27, it's almost always going to favor the 31 year old because they've had more of their prime years.

You are assuming Ramirez is entering his prime now. Over the last three seasons (inclucing this one), his numbers are on the decline.

Maybe Ramirez is leaving his prime as well? Maybe he peaked in 204? That kind of thing is hard to judge. There isn't a set number of years for a player's prime (could be long, could be short), nor is it set as to when they are in their prime. Some guys peak early and some peak late.

 

Last 3 years

 

Rolen: .289/.384/.533/.917

Ramirez: .296/.350/.532/.882

Do those numbers include Rolen's stats from last year's bad shoulder season? If so, that brings his 3-year average numbers down.

 

Rolen is the superior defensive player. Rolen has had the superior career so far. Going forward, I'd take Ramirez, because he's entering his prime while Rolen is leaving his in addition to the uncertainty that Rolen can regain his offensive prowess coming off a serious shoulder injury.

Why do you think Rolen is leaving his prime? He has shown no signs of slowing down.

 

I think Rolen has established early on that his shoulder is just fine. He's played every game so far, has put up good numbers, and says his shoulder feels good.

 

With all due respect, Rolen has has only one star quality offensive season (2004). You can't tell whether he is coming or going, especially considering he is exiting his prime years. Over the vast majority of his career, Rolen has been very solid offensively, a .280/.375/.890 guy. Very good, but not elite. His 2004 season sticks out like a sore thumb in his career numbers. Ramirez has been better than the average of Rolen's best years (OBP aside) over the last two years, and Ramirez is four years younger. Don't forget, Ramirez has had injuries skew his numbers as well. We'll know a lot more about Rolen's trend after this season.

 

f Ramirez improves in his prime years as most players do, he will put up numbers that Rolen hasn't even approached.

 

In all probability, in 2 or 3 years Ramirez will be on a whole other level than Rolen offensively.

 

Having said that, I would take Rolen if I had to win right now, but only because of his stellar defense and ability to take more walks.

[K-Town]

One more time.......

 

Rolen is a little over 3 years older than Ramirez, NOT 4 years older.

 

If you assume that Rolen's best years are behind him (prime years), then you have to assume the same thing for Derrek Lee. Right?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

[K-Town]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

[Mizzou]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

Do you come here just to argue?

[Chocolate Milk]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

 

Geez, lighten up.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

One more time.......

 

Rolen is a little over 3 years older than Ramirez, NOT 4 years older.

 

If you assume that Rolen's best years are behind him (prime years), then you have to assume the same thing for Derrek Lee. Right?

 

In comparison to Pujols, yes.

[K-Town]

One more time.......

 

Rolen is a little over 3 years older than Ramirez, NOT 4 years older.

 

If you assume that Rolen's best years are behind him (prime years), then you have to assume the same thing for Derrek Lee. Right?

 

In comparison to Pujols, yes.

 

No, in comparison to himself. "Past his prime", I think, is the term that we're using.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

 

Your post is an idiot.

[K-Town]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

Do you come here just to argue?

 

Someone else brings up Pujols being 46, and I'M the one that wants to argue? What's the point in saying something like that? If it were original, I might see the humor in it. At this point, it's just stupid.

[XZero771679666304]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

 

I wish I had a spare sense of humor.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

One more time.......

 

Rolen is a little over 3 years older than Ramirez, NOT 4 years older.

 

If you assume that Rolen's best years are behind him (prime years), then you have to assume the same thing for Derrek Lee. Right?

 

In comparison to Pujols, yes.

 

No, in comparison to himself. "Past his prime", I think, is the term that we're using.

 

You're missing the point. When comparing Ramirez and Rolen, you have to take into effect that Ramirez will likely improve and Rolen will likely plateau or decline because of their ages. The same holds true for Lee and Pujols, even though no one has really compared who will be better going forward(correct answer: Pujols).

[Mizzou]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

Do you come here just to argue?

 

Someone else brings up Pujols being 46, and I'M the one that wants to argue? What's the point in saying something like that? If it were original, I might see the humor in it. At this point, it's just stupid.

No, it wasn't just that post. Every post I see from you, you're arguing with someone. Every single time. I guess I just don't see the point in a Cardinals fan coming to a Cubs site if she's just going to argue all the time.

[XZero771679666304]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

Do you come here just to argue?

 

Someone else brings up Pujols being 46, and I'M the one that wants to argue? What's the point in saying something like that? If it were original, I might see the humor in it. At this point, it's just stupid.

 

Regardless of the originality of the Pujols joke, the general tenor of many of your posts is defensive and argumentative. You are in enemy territory, and the humor isn't always going to suit you.

[minnesotacubsfan]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

 

I wish I had a spare sense of humor.

 

 

why waste it?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

And we assume it for Pujols as well since it is well known that he is really 46 years old. I think his grandkids gave that away.

 

So funny....... and so original. He hits REALLY well for a 46-year old, doesn't he?

 

Got anything new?

Do you come here just to argue?

 

Someone else brings up Pujols being 46, and I'M the one that wants to argue? What's the point in saying something like that? If it were original, I might see the humor in it. At this point, it's just stupid.

 

Maybe it isn't humorous to you, but it is to Cub fans. Perhaps, you could find a Cardinal board to your liking and you wouldn't have to deal with our trite played-out humor any longer.

[K-Town]

The stuff about Pujols' age was funny back in 2004. Now? I just don't get it. It's not like I attacked someone for saying it........ I just didn't find the humor in it. Relax. It goes both ways.

 

As for being argumentative......... yeah. It's a freakin' baseball message board. Why be "rivals" if we can't argue? It's not personal...... I haven't called anyone names......... haven't insulted anyone. Keep it in context, folks. That's all.

[XZero771679666304]

One more time.......

 

Rolen is a little over 3 years older than Ramirez, NOT 4 years older.

 

If you assume that Rolen's best years are behind him (prime years), then you have to assume the same thing for Derrek Lee. Right?

 

In comparison to Pujols, yes.

 

No, in comparison to himself. "Past his prime", I think, is the term that we're using.

 

I'd imagine Lee has about two years of prime left, if you follow the age prescription (27-32, I think).

 

But yes, I think Lee will start to decline soon, which is why I would rather have seen him signed to a 3 year extension.

 

But Rolen's fragility compounds his age, so that has to be a consideration as well.

[Chocolate Milk]

Relax.

 

That's all anyone's asking you to do.

[XZero771679666304]

The stuff about Pujols' age was funny back in 2004. Now? I just don't get it. It's not like I attacked someone for saying it........ I just didn't find the humor in it. Relax. It goes both ways.

 

As for being argumentative......... yeah. It's a freakin' baseball message board. Why be "rivals" if we can't argue? It's not personal...... I haven't called anyone names......... haven't insulted anyone. Keep it in context, folks. That's all.

 

There's nothing wrong with arguing, but it seems like that's all you do here. Mix it up a little.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Pujols is 46.

[Chocolate Milk]

Pujols is 46.

 

YOU MONSTER!!!!

[K-Town]

One more time.......

 

Rolen is a little over 3 years older than Ramirez, NOT 4 years older.

 

If you assume that Rolen's best years are behind him (prime years), then you have to assume the same thing for Derrek Lee. Right?

 

In comparison to Pujols, yes.

 

No, in comparison to himself. "Past his prime", I think, is the term that we're using.

 

You're missing the point. When comparing Ramirez and Rolen, you have to take into effect that Ramirez will likely improve and Rolen will likely plateau or decline because of their ages. The same holds true for Lee and Pujols, even though no one has really compared who will be better going forward(correct answer: Pujols).

 

I don't necessarily buy into the idea of Derrek Lee suddenly declining because of his age. I think he's FOUND his prime. Some find it later than others. That's why this whole discussion of Ramirez' prime versus Rolen's prime is completely arbitrary, in my mind. We don't know when their prime was, is, or will be.

[K-Town]

My reaction to the Pujols "joke" was that it wasn't that funny, or original. Some of you are overreacting to my reaction.

[K-Town]

The stuff about Pujols' age was funny back in 2004. Now? I just don't get it. It's not like I attacked someone for saying it........ I just didn't find the humor in it. Relax. It goes both ways.

 

As for being argumentative......... yeah. It's a freakin' baseball message board. Why be "rivals" if we can't argue? It's not personal...... I haven't called anyone names......... haven't insulted anyone. Keep it in context, folks. That's all.

 

There's nothing wrong with arguing, but it seems like that's all you do here. Mix it up a little.

 

It's harmless fun. A victimless crime. Save your frustration for someone who actually makes personal attacks and doesn't know what he's talking about. :wink: