Trib says Walker "probably as good as gone"

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I also disagree that Overbay is a better defensive player than Lee. Overbay doesn't have Aramis, Nomar, or Todd making wayward throws that have to be scouped up routinely. I think Lee is a better defender than Helton as well.

 

I never said that Overbay was a better fielder. I just said on the whole that Overbay+A-Rod is better than Lee+Nomar/Neifi/Cedeno/whoever

[Blueheart05]

I also disagree that Overbay is a better defensive player than Lee. Overbay doesn't have Aramis, Nomar, or Todd making wayward throws that have to be scouped up routinely. I think Lee is a better defender than Helton as well.

 

I never said that Overbay was a better fielder. I just said on the whole that Overbay+A-Rod is better than Lee+Nomar/Neifi/Cedeno/whoever

 

I missed your attempt to return A-Rod to SS. I thought you were talking about getting rid of the corners all together. Just for the record, Overbay and ARod is not better than Lee and Ramirez.

 

Well, while we're at it, let's get Cabrera, A. Jones, and Guerrero in here (if we're going to get ARod). :lol: :lol:

[Derwood]

I also disagree that Overbay is a better defensive player than Lee. Overbay doesn't have Aramis, Nomar, or Todd making wayward throws that have to be scouped up routinely. I think Lee is a better defender than Helton as well.

 

I never said that Overbay was a better fielder. I just said on the whole that Overbay+A-Rod is better than Lee+Nomar/Neifi/Cedeno/whoever

 

I missed your attempt to return A-Rod to SS. I thought you were talking about getting rid of the corners all together. Just for the record, Overbay and ARod is not better than Lee and Ramirez.

 

Well, while we're at it, let's get Cabrera, A. Jones, and Guerrero in here (if we're going to get ARod). :lol: :lol:

 

Baker would still F that lineup up.

[1908]

some would argue that 30 is the prime of a baseball player's career.

Who would that be?

[Blueheart05]

some would argue that 30 is the prime of a baseball player's career.

Who would that be?

 

Who? I've heard that many times from sportswriters and athletes. It's not new.

[1908]

some would argue that 30 is the prime of a baseball player's career.

Who would that be?

 

Who? I've heard that many times from sportswriters and athletes. It's not new.

Ah, just curious if you'd seen any research that supported it. Thanks.

[Blueheart05]

some would argue that 30 is the prime of a baseball player's career.

Who would that be?

 

Who? I've heard that many times from sportswriters and athletes. It's not new.

Ah, just curious if you'd seen any research that supported it. Thanks.

 

Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive.

 

http://www.runner.org/agegrade.htm

http://www.philsport.com/narf/aagegrdn.htm

[1908]

Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source.

[rocket]

Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source.

 

I've never done any real scientific observations, but I've noticed looking at a lot of superstars career stats, their best seasons came between ages 30-33. (Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, among a few others I've just randomly looked at).

[Blueheart05]

Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source.

 

I've never done any real scientific observations, but I've noticed looking at a lot of superstars career stats, their best seasons came between ages 30-33. (Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, among a few others I've just randomly looked at).

 

LOL, I guess this was meant to be funny?

[NorthsideAvenger]

What people haven't touched on is the fact that Walker has an cheap option for 2006. So the Cubs DON'T have to trade Walker. Because of his production, and his contract status, and the option yr, the Cubs should be able to get a couple of prospects/players (perhaps Riske/Phillips for Walker?) that can only help the Cubs beyond this yr. And yes, I think the Cubs could get a Riske/Phillips (yes, I am still high on Brandon Phillips) type deal for Walker.

 

So I wouldn't necessarily say that Walker "is as good as gone" like the Trib says, but I think Hendry should hold out for as strong of package as possibile.

[rocket]

Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source.

 

I've never done any real scientific observations, but I've noticed looking at a lot of superstars career stats, their best seasons came between ages 30-33. (Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, among a few others I've just randomly looked at).

 

LOL, I guess this was meant to be funny?

 

well if it made you laugh i guess i'm happy.

[Blueheart05]

Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source.

 

Well, I think it's a hotly debated topic in Baseball (and athletics as a whole) which is why I said some would argue for 30 as a prime age. There have been studies that suggest that 28-32 is a prime age range for baseball players. Bill James wrote about this in "Looking for Prime." Conversely, there are others such as Billy Beane who believe that 25-29 is the prime age group. Of course, it could be argued that the 25-29 age group doesn't account for late bloomers. In either case, there will always be individuals to peak outside of the normal or expected timeline.

Edited August 30, 2005 by Blueheart05

[stitchface]

Well, I'm a runner and I know that runners are in their prime through their mid 30's. Lots of research has been done on the subject which is why races are age graded to make them more evenly competitive.

All the research I've read suggests that baseball hitters most often peak between 26 and 27, maintain close to that level until about 30, and then start to slowly decline. I've never seen any research that suggests that baseball hitters peak at 30, which is why I was curious about your source.

 

Well, I think it's a hotly debated topic in Baseball (and athletics as a whole) which is why I said some would argue for 30 as a prime age. There have been studies that suggest that 28-32 is a prime age range for baseball players. Bill James wrote about this in "Looking for Prime." Conversely, there are others such as Billy Beane who believe that 25-29 is the prime age group. Of course, it could be argued that the 25-29 age group doesn't account for late bloomers. In either case, there will always be individuals to peak outside of the normal timeline.

 

I think Beane is also considering production for the dollar - once players hit arbitration and then free agency, their production becomes much more expensive - hence by 29 a player is past his prime in production per dollar though not necessarily in production alone.

[1908]

Well, I think it's a hotly debated topic in Baseball (and athletics as a whole) which is why I said some would argue for 30 as a prime age. There have been studies that suggest that 28-32 is a prime age range for baseball players. Bill James wrote about this in "Looking for Prime." Conversely, there are others such as Billy Beane who believe that 25-29 is the prime age group. Of course, it could be argued that the 25-29 age group doesn't account for late bloomers. In either case, there will always be individuals to peak outside of the normal timeline.

I don't have my Historical Baseball Abstract handy, but I know Bill James' research in that book supports the 26-27 peak. The Baseball Prospectus crew is also on board that age range. In fact, that age range seems widely accepted to me in baseball research circles at the moment and not the hotly debated topic you suggest it is.

 

I do agree that there are outliers -- both late and early bloomers. And it's possible that Lee is one of the former. I also think it's reasonable to expect Lee's numbers to drop next season based on his age and career numbers to date.

[Tim]

Don't want to break up the Derrek Lee dreaming, but this is from Tuesday's Cleveland Plain Dealer:

 

 

General Manager Mark Shapiro would not comment directly on reports in Chicago that the Indians are working on a trade that would bring infielder Todd Walker from the Cubs.

 

The waiver deadline for trades is Wednesday.

 

Walker, 32, is hitting .298 with nine home runs and 31 RBI in 84 games with the Cubs. He's appeared in 75 games at second base, four at first.

 

"We have investigated every single bat available," Shapiro said, "and I can say there are not a lot out there.

 

"I will not comment on individual players."

 

Walker, who has previously played for Boston, Cincinnati. Colorado and Minnesota, signed a one-year, $2.5 million deal with the Cubs in December.

 

Link at: http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/1125394390193750.xml&coll=2

 

Sizemore please.

 

 

Seriously though, some combo of Riske, Betancourt, Crisp, etc. might work, although trading Walker because someone is willing to trade for him isn't the wisest of choices.

The players coming from Cleveland would have to either:

 

1) be guys that could pass through waivers themselves

 

or

 

2) not be on the 40 man roster.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well, I think it's a hotly debated topic in Baseball (and athletics as a whole) which is why I said some would argue for 30 as a prime age. There have been studies that suggest that 28-32 is a prime age range for baseball players. Bill James wrote about this in "Looking for Prime." Conversely, there are others such as Billy Beane who believe that 25-29 is the prime age group. Of course, it could be argued that the 25-29 age group doesn't account for late bloomers. In either case, there will always be individuals to peak outside of the normal timeline.

I don't have my Historical Baseball Abstract handy, but I know Bill James' research in that book supports the 26-27 peak. The Baseball Prospectus crew is also on board that age range. In fact, that age range seems widely accepted to me in baseball research circles at the moment and not the hotly debated topic you suggest it is.

 

I do agree that there are outliers -- both late and early bloomers. And it's possible that Lee is one of the former. I also think it's reasonable to expect Lee's numbers to drop next season based on his age and career numbers to date.

 

I wonder if the steroid players will skew those numbers.

[Blueheart05]

Well, I think it's a hotly debated topic in Baseball (and athletics as a whole) which is why I said some would argue for 30 as a prime age. There have been studies that suggest that 28-32 is a prime age range for baseball players. Bill James wrote about this in "Looking for Prime." Conversely, there are others such as Billy Beane who believe that 25-29 is the prime age group. Of course, it could be argued that the 25-29 age group doesn't account for late bloomers. In either case, there will always be individuals to peak outside of the normal timeline.

I don't have my Historical Baseball Abstract handy, but I know Bill James' research in that book supports the 26-27 peak. The Baseball Prospectus crew is also on board that age range. In fact, that age range seems widely accepted to me in baseball research circles at the moment and not the hotly debated topic you suggest it is.

 

I do agree that there are outliers -- both late and early bloomers. And it's possible that Lee is one of the former. I also think it's reasonable to expect Lee's numbers to drop next season based on his age and career numbers to date.

 

LOL, ok as I eat crow here I hope I don't choke... I realized what I wrote while having lunch. Bill James does not support 28-32 as prime in fact, he was a driving influence of Beane, the A's, Alderson, et al, in crafting rosters of so called peak performers. However, prior to James' Abstract in 1982 it was widely accepted that the prime age of baseball players was 28-32. He along with Money Ball helped to change that idea.

 

James wrote the following:

 

Both pitchers and non-pitchers attain their greatest aggregate value at the age of 27, with a nearly equal figure at age 26. Thus both pitchers and non-pitchers, as groups, attain their greatest value before the 28-32 period even begins, are declining throughout that range and have lost nearly half of their peak value by the time it ends. If you must assign a 5-year peak period to all players regardless of description, the best shot would be 25-29.

 

In all fairness, there are writers and executives alike that believe the peak extends into the 30's and as such it is hotly contested. Furthermore, there are many Baseball people who publically and not so publically denounce the ideas behind Money Ball. Afterall, the backbone of the "diminished returns" theory is more economically based than purely based on athleticism and ability.

[1908]

I wonder if the steroid players will skew those numbers.

That's an excellent quesiton. I hope there's not enough of them to do so. They could help explain Rocket's three examples, though. That is, why Sosa, Big Mac and Raffy had their career years in their 30's.

[1908]

n all fairness, there are writers and executives alike that believe the peak extends into the 30's and as such it is hotly contested. Furthermore, there are many Baseball people who publically and not so publically denounce the ideas behind Money Ball. Afterall, the backbone of the "diminished returns" theory is more economically based than purely based on athleticism and ability.

There's research and there's Moneyball. I'm much more interested in the research when it comes to this question than how baseball executives decide to apply it.

[Blueheart05]

I wonder if the steroid players will skew those numbers.

That's an excellent quesiton. I hope there's not enough of them to do so. They could help explain Rocket's three examples, though. That is, why Sosa, Big Mac and Raffy had their career years in their 30's.

 

I'm sure steroids have had some effect on the numbers but its also fair to say that some guys have a longer prime naturally. For instance, a guy like Isringhausen, who's soon to be 33 years old, has thrived.

 

Obviously, Oakland deemed him too expense and too old (at 29) when in fact they could have used him before the emergence of Street. Izzy may actually have a better all around year in 2005 than he ever had during his time with the A's ('99-'01)

[1908]

I'm sure steroids have had some effect on the numbers but its also fair to say that some guys have a longer prime naturally. For instance, a guy like Isringhausen, who's soon to be 33 years old, has thrived.

 

Obviously, Oakland deemed him too expense and too old (at 29) when in fact they could have used him before the emergence of Street. Izzy may actually have a better all around year in 2005 than he ever had during his time with the A's ('99-'01)

I'm under the impression that hitters and pitchers are different animals when it comes to peak years despite what James wrote in his original abstract.

[Nobody youd want to know]

Trading Lee over Walker isn't as crazy as it sounds. Etc. etc. etc. . . .

 

Here are some deals for Lee I'd consider: Lee + Mitre to the Reds for Casey and Dunn.

 

Lee and Williams to the Rangers for Teixeira and Mench.

 

Lee to the Braves for LaRoche and Francoer.

 

Lee to the Yankees for Rodriguez and cash.

 

Lee to the Nationals for Wilkerson and Cordero.

 

Lee to the Angels for Vlad.

 

Lee to the Brewers for Sheets and Fielder.

 

How about:

 

Lee to the A's for Zito + Kotsay?

[imb]

hahahha, how about, hell no.

[Nobody youd want to know]

hahahha, how about, hell no.

 

Um, OK. Nice reasoning there.

 

How about, why not?