Re: ARod problem


X-rated Vermonter wrote:
On 2 Jul 2006 14:20:39 -0700, "BadgerBC"
<neilrichardson3819@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


You don't sign SS at 29 going on 30 for four seasons any more than how
you don't sign CF at age 31 going on 32 for four seasons. The decline
rate in production is similar. Surely you remember Gnork's rants then
don't you? Most shortstops not named Belanger or Ozzie decline in
range once they hit 31, 32. Derek has been terrible this season after
two years of huge defensive improvements.
++++++++++++
I was thinking in terms of Pee Wee Reese and Rizzuto who were still
effective in their day at 35, but I guess those days are over.

I'm not sure what you mean by effective. I never saw Reese or Rizzuto
but according to my old man who saw quite a bit of Phil after he came
back from Korea told me he wasn't that good a defensive shortstop then
and thought Gil McDougald who had much better range should've played
everyday (or certainly at 2B over Billy Martin who was a stiff
apparently). The trouble with determining defensive ability in those
years is that we just don't have reliable data and probably have to
rely on RF which has some problems as a metric. Even by looking at
that I don't think Phil was league average at that age. Pee Wee's
defensive reputation was never that great (the usual "intangibles" were
the superlatives used to describe him) and at least RF reflects that.
His peak was at age 31. Even someone who was as defensively savvy as
Cal Ripken was costing teams after age 32 with his defense. Even Garry
Templeton who was as good defensively as I'd ever seen at short lost
his range after he turned 30,31(he was unfortunate to be playing SS at
the same time as Ozzie just as Willie had played at the same time as
Grich, Frank White and Whitaker) Just look at even the greatest of
them all Ozzie Smith's numbers. His RF declines after age 30 though
the rate is slow compared to other shortstops.

.

Relevant Pages