MLB 2017 Season

[buckchuckler]

Your post-30 numbers aren't all that meaningful without more detail.

Dunn's 108 HR came in only 4 seasons.

Teixeira hit 31 HR at age 35.

Killebrew averaged 34 HR/year from age 31-36. His dropoff came at age 37.

Kingman hit 35 HR in his final season at age 37.

Fielder only played 2 seasons after age 30 because of injuries.

Juan Gonzalez had back issues and only played 1 full season after age 30...and he hit 35 HR that year. He also hit 24 HR in just 82 games at age 33.

Snider's power numbers went down when the Dodgers moved to LA and right center field was nearly 450 feet from home plate, compared to ~300 down the RF line at Ebbets Field.

That is the point exactly.  There is a lot that can happen between age 28 and 38.  Are you certian Stanton will avoid the problems that plagued Fielder and JuanGon?

Are you certain he won't be Adam Dunn where his career falls completely off the rails?  Like, willing to bet $259 million dollars on it, certain?

Maybe he will still have great seasons as he ages like Teixeira, but will they be spotted with mediocrity in a similar fashion?  Teixeira hit 24,3,22 HRs before that 31 and 15 after.  As players get older they are more susceptible to injures especially the nagging kind.  Stanton will be making 32 mil for those early/mid 30's seasons.  And he has struggled to stay on the field throughout his 20's.

Yeah Kingman continued to hit lots of homers.  But is average declined steadily.  That last season, in which he hit 35 HRs, he also hit .210/.255/.431.  He turned into Chris Carter.  You want to pay that guy another 50 mil?  That is what Stanton's contract calls for at age 37 and 38. 

Killebrew continued to hit.  But he wasn't the same guy.  He hit 40 or more twice after 30.  From age 23-30, he averaged 41.  So yeah, his avg of 34 form 31-36 is great, but not quite the same.  And again Stanton is signed until age 38. 

The numbers are meaningful because all of them indicate decline.  In some cases severe decline.  In some cases early decline.  In others the inability to continue playing.  Others, maybe because they are a hopeful scenario.

[Jockey]

Adam Dunn hit 354 HRs with a .250/.381/.521 through age 30.  Beyond that he hit 108 with .202/.321/.407

Mark Teixeira hit 275 HRs with .286/.377/.536 through age 30.
After that he hit 134 HRs .234/.327/.455

Harmon Killebrew hit 336 HRs with .263/.371/.535 through age 30
After that he hit 237 with .247/.381/.478

Dave Kingman hit 252 HRs with .241/.305/.504 through 30.
After that he hit 190 HRs with .231/.298/.448

Prince Fielder hit 288 HRs with .285/.388/.522 through 30
After that he hit 31 HRs with .273/.348/.419

Juan Gonzalez hit 362 HRs with .294/.343/.566 through age 30
After that he hit 72 HRs with .302/.345/.540

Duke Snider hit 316 HRs with .303/.383/.560 before 30 and 91 with .275/.370/.482

Yeah, Thomas, Thome, Winfield, Papi and others mashed beyond age 35.  Most guys don't.  Most, even some guys that were elite power hitters, don't play up to, or much past 35, and their skills rapidly decline after 30.  Maybe power does age more gracefully than other skills.  But it is still a rare player that stays relevant, impact-ful and feared into his late 30's.

Chuckler, while I usually agree with you on the baseball thread (you are one of  the more knowledgeable guys here), I think you are just trying to be argumentative here. You list a bunch of guys, most of whom had lots of injuries, as examples. Then, you minimize the guys that were able to play into their late 30s and beyond.

I could cite Ken Griffey as an example of a multi-faceted player to prove that those type of players decline after age 30 - his WAR over his last 10 years was 3.8 - not 3.8 per year, but 3.8 total.

Will Stanton - even injury free - be worth the money in the last couple years of his contract? History says no, but that doesn't matter to teams because if he lives up to it for the next 6-7 years, any team will be overjoyed at the results.

Your last sentence is spot on - but it applies to players with any type of special skills.

[buckchuckler]

Chuckler, while I usually agree with you on the baseball thread (you are one of  the more knowledgeable guys here), I think you are just trying to be argumentative here. You list a bunch of guys, most of whom had lots of injuries, as examples. Then, you minimize the guys that were able to play into their late 30s and beyond.

I could cite Ken Griffey as an example of a multi-faceted player to prove that those type of players decline after age 30 - his WAR over his last 10 years was 3.8 - not 3.8 per year, but 3.8 total.

Will Stanton - even injury free - be worth the money in the last couple years of his contract? History says no, but that doesn't matter to teams because if he lives up to it for the next 6-7 years, any team will be overjoyed at the results.

Your last sentence is spot on - but it applies to players with any type of special skills.

First of all, thank you, I truly appreciate that. 

I am not trying to be argumentative, though, maybe I am coming off that way.  I certainly didn't mean to minimize the guys that continued to dominate, I just meant to show that for every one of those guys, there are many more, that for whatever reason, fail to be the player they were.

I guess I am just trying to make my point, that because of the immense amount of risk involved in his contract, I would not take on Stanton's contract even considering his immense talent.  He could very well be Papi, and rake until he is 40, but he could be Dunn and fall apart at 30.  More than likely he falls somewhere in between.  It is just that to me, Stanton's contract could be crippling to all but the wealthiest (Yanks, Dodgers, Boston?) teams. There is a lot of money there at ages where players usually fail to be impactful. 

My problem isn't with Stanton the player, it is with the contract entirely.  Long term contracts don't usually work out.  His contract is very long term, with an immense amount of money on it.

But, I guess everyone is quite done with my opinion here, and I am clearly an outlier.  I guess watching the White Sox bullpen will make one cranky.  Sorry.


 

[Jockey]

First of all, thank you, I truly appreciate that. 

I am not trying to be argumentative, though, maybe I am coming off that way.  I certainly didn't mean to minimize the guys that continued to dominate, I just meant to show that for every one of those guys, there are many more, that for whatever reason, fail to be the player they were.

I guess I am just trying to make my point, that because of the immense amount of risk involved in his contract, I would not take on Stanton's contract even considering his immense talent.  He could very well be Papi, and rake until he is 40, but he could be Dunn and fall apart at 30.  More than likely he falls somewhere in between.  It is just that to me, Stanton's contract could be crippling to all but the wealthiest (Yanks, Dodgers, Boston?) teams. There is a lot of money there at ages where players usually fail to be impactful. 

My problem isn't with Stanton the player, it is with the contract entirely.  Long term contracts don't usually work out.  His contract is very long term, with an immense amount of money on it.

But, I guess everyone is quite done with my opinion here, and I am clearly an outlier.  I guess watching the White Sox bullpen will make one cranky.  Sorry.

 

I pretty much agree with all this.

Yes, it would be a huge burden for all but a few teams and could cripple the small to mid market teams in the latter years of the contract. And the teams that could afford him are not desperate for OFs, so it is not surprising at all that no one claimed him.

[wadesworld]

If a team feels that Stanton can put them over the hump to win a WS they'd be smart to take on his contract even if it is bad for the last 5 years of it.  Most teams will fall into one of two categories (or, in the Cubs case, both).  They'll either be desperate for a long awaited WS title that they may never see again (like if 2 years from now Stearns felt that the last piece to a WS contender is a corner OF who can hit 65 bombs in Miller Park) and the price of a WS title is well worth being horrendous for the, say, 2024-2030 seasons, or they'll be a team who can afford to have a horrible contract on their roster for those 2024-2030 seasons (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, etc).  Of course it wouldn't make sense for a team like the current Reds, who would go from a terrible team to a team whose ceiling is .500.  But for many teams you'll take on a future bad contract and accept that there will be some bumpy times in the future for a chance at WS title or you'll be able to eat a future bad contract because money is never an issue.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

First of all, thank you, I truly appreciate that. 

I am not trying to be argumentative, though, maybe I am coming off that way.  I certainly didn't mean to minimize the guys that continued to dominate, I just meant to show that for every one of those guys, there are many more, that for whatever reason, fail to be the player they were.

I guess I am just trying to make my point, that because of the immense amount of risk involved in his contract, I would not take on Stanton's contract even considering his immense talent.  He could very well be Papi, and rake until he is 40, but he could be Dunn and fall apart at 30.  More than likely he falls somewhere in between.  It is just that to me, Stanton's contract could be crippling to all but the wealthiest (Yanks, Dodgers, Boston?) teams. There is a lot of money there at ages where players usually fail to be impactful. 

My problem isn't with Stanton the player, it is with the contract entirely.  Long term contracts don't usually work out.  His contract is very long term, with an immense amount of money on it.

But, I guess everyone is quite done with my opinion here, and I am clearly an outlier.  I guess watching the White Sox bullpen will make one cranky.  Sorry.


 

Buckchuckler and I butt heads quite a bit due to our Cubs and Sox fandom but I do agree with him here in terms of Stanton as well as the risk inherent in older players, especially when a contract is that enormous.

I wouldn't be worried about Stanton's performance in the near-term. I would be worried about his health because this year is more the exception than the rule in terms of being healthy.

[Lennys Tap]

Chuckler and I are usually simpatico on baseball matters, but IMHO Stanton is a generational long ball hitter. I would take some risk on the back end for that. He is NOT Adam freakin' Dunn.

[MUBurrow]

i think the only thing that would keep Stanton from being acceptable value for a big market team are injuries that keep him off the field entirely, and that's a risk with any big contract and is not unique to Stanton. I'd actually be more hesitant to give a big contract to guys that rely on speed or fielding prowess to generate value, because one, they're more involved in plays that can result in value tanking injuries, and two, minor injuries more readily reduce their effectiveness.

You're really only paying Stanton to hit massive dongs and get on base, and those skills typically age better than others. And though he's been banged up throughout his career, I think you can work with Stanton to play a bit safer going forward than a guy like Harper. I absolutely love Harper and think he's great for the game, but there's no way I'd hand him a massive contract the way he plays.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Machado's slump is long over.  Been on a tear, hitting well over .300 since July 1.  3 homers last night, including a walk off grand slam.  8 hr 28 rbi in August. By far his best month of the season and there are still 12 days left.

[WI inferiority Complexes]

Machado's slump is long over.  Been on a tear, hitting well over .300 since July 1.  3 homers last night, including a walk off grand slam.  8 hr 21 rbi in August. By far his best month of the season and there are still 12 days left.

I take fantasy baseball very seriously, and Machado was my first round pick, (I think I was 4th overall).  He has 3B and SS eligibility in Yahoo! leagues and hasn't exactly been a disappointment, but if he can have a great final 6 weeks, he'd really help me out.

[Jay Bee]

Twins win again! Sano on the 10-day DL... hope it doesn't go longer. Next 5 games are at ChiSux - winning ways will hopefully continue. Would love to go 4-1 against them.

I may walk over to the ballpark a lot in September if we're still looking good then. I fear I'm getting my hopes up too much, but starting to get emotionally invested.

[tower912]

This Sunday night game in Williamsport is really cool.  All the little leaguers and their families in a fancied up 2500 seat A-ball field.

[buckchuckler]

This Sunday night game in Williamsport is really cool.  All the little leaguers and their families in a fancied up 2500 seat A-ball field.

Really cool. Just a great idea.  Loved the LLWS style jerseys, loved the kids being at the game, meeting players at the airport.  Just a cool thing.

[buckchuckler]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/little-league-pitcher-consoled-opposing-team-walk-off-165209358.html

The LLWS is all the is right with the world. 

[Jockey]

Here'a a catch most big leaguers couldn't make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYDizBLz-is

Funny thing is - it is still a home run and the umps screwed up the call.

[JWags85]

Here'a a catch most big leaguers couldn't make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYDizBLz-is

Funny thing is - it is still a home run and the umps screwed up the call.

I know you like ridiculous hyperbole but every starting CF in MLB makes that catch.  Or maybe you just mean they don't have the chance cause the walls aren't waist high.

[buckchuckler]

Boy, some rough luck for Rich Hill tonight.

[wadesworld]

Boy, some rough luck for Rich Hill tonight.

Brutal. Could've been the greatest start in the history of baseball. So close to a perfect game with 10 Ks in about 95 pitches but an error starts the 9th, he still goes 9 no hit innings but his team also gets shut out through 9 innings, and he goes back out there and gives up a walk off homer.

[Jockey]

Brutal. Could've been the greatest start in the history of baseball. So close to a perfect game with 10 Ks in about 95 pitches but an error starts the 9th, he still goes 9 no hit innings but his team also gets shut out through 9 innings, and he goes back out there and gives up a walk off homer.

Wades, you obviously didn't see Kerry Wood's masterpiece in '98. I've never seen anything even remotely close to that game.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Wades, you obviously didn't see Kerry Wood's masterpiece in '98. I've never seen anything even remotely close to that game.

One of my college friends (who was in HS at the time & it was before we met) had tickets to that game but decided not to ditch school.  He said he had no idea who Kerry Wood was then but he sure did from that day on.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Wades, you obviously didn't see Kerry Wood's masterpiece in '98. I've never seen anything even remotely close to that game.

Wood was a Cub so that outing doesn't register for Wades. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Wood was a Cub so that outing doesn't register for Wades. 

Wades believes Wood juiced up for just that one game.

[GGGG]

Using Bill James's "Game Score" stat, that Kerry Wood start is considered the best of all time.  Followed by Scherzer's second no hitter in 2015.

[wadesworld]

Wades believes Wood juiced up for just that one game.

Yeah there is absolutely zero chance that a guy who came onto the scene in the heart of the steroid era of baseball that threw 100 MPH and had a history of nagging injuries used PEDs.  Because, of course, he's a Chicago guy.  Chicago athletes are not only the absolute best to ever walk the Earth, but they are also the cleanest and the greatest human beings in history.

Thanks for bringing it up though.

[4everwarriors]

It don't matta. Got himself sum pretty nice digs in Lake Geneva dat he's unloadin', ai na?