The author's conclusion was that he proved it was "clear that [Fielder's] best days are behind him" (emphasis supplied). Not that his analysis showed that, historically, players shaped similar to Fielder generally aged poorly; but that comparisions to other players proved, clearly, that Fielder's immediate decline was already written. Such hubris, such complete misunderstanding of what proof entails, should alone call into question the entirety of his analysis. Of course, the writer who wrote the bulk of the article was not the same as the one who did the research on how heavier players age. True, he did not do the research for the chart; he did the graphs and all the writing you quoted. Regardless, the link between the charted players and Fielder seems so thinly related to warrant little persuasive merit. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say... because it sounds like you're saying Prince Fielder isn't heavy.