Arizona Diamondbacks 2007 - Page 2

darkhorse · 08-09-2007, 05:24 PM

I've checked back through the 1990 season, and there's been only one team with as many as five everyday players aged 25 or younger during that stretch and that would be..........

Cool beanes.

C Ramon Hernandez 24
3B Eric Chavez 22
SS Miguel Tejada 24
LF Ben Grieve 24
CF Terrence Long 24

Arlie Rahn · 08-09-2007, 06:46 PM

And I think having both a 29-year old Jason Giambi and a 38-year old Randy Velarde was big factor in helping the team stay consistent.

Jonzard · 08-09-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

I've checked back through the 1990 season, and there's been only one team with as many as five everyday players aged 25 or younger during that stretch and that would be..........

How do you go about doing that? Not team by team, I hope.

MuertoDesagradecido · 08-09-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

And I think having both a 29-year old Jason Giambi and a 38-year old Randy Velarde was big factor in helping the team stay consistent.

Looking at their month-by-month splits, it really doesn't look like those two players were any more consistent than the youngsters. Unless you are using the Joe Morgan definition of "consistent", which as best as I can tell has no meaning at all.

Arlie Rahn · 08-09-2007, 11:17 PM

I didn't say they were necessarily more consistent, I said they helped the team stay consistent. For example, to a man the DBacks players constantly compliment Tony Clark, Byrnes and Orlando Hudson for helping the young players. Justin Upton is constantly talking with Byrnes. Chris Young, on the other hand, talks with Tony Clark after nearly every AB. Clark has ranged from .179 to .290 in each month so far and been a fairly inconsistent player. Yet, he has been a big factor with many of the young guys (Young, Drew, Reynolds, Montero) in helping them learn.

My point is that if you run a team out there with 7 everyday starters at 19-25 years old, there is no leader to turn to when you have a 5-game losing streak. No player to ask questions when in a slump. Leadership is a part of having a successful team. Baseball isn't a bunch of mindless robots each equating to an OPS between .600 and .950 based solely on talent.

CMH · 08-09-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

Baseball isn't a bunch of mindless robots each equating to an OPS between .600 and .950 based solely on talent.

Ah, crap, did I get here to late to warn you of what not to say?

Arlie Rahn · 08-09-2007, 11:53 PM

Yeah, I know there's a little Joe Morgan in that. But, I don't think you can discount the effect of having a couple good leaders on a young team.

Skipaway · 08-10-2007, 12:55 AM

Age is not related to leadership at all though. Surely it's helpful to have someone with leadership qualities, but I don't see how you could link that to age.

Arlie Rahn · 08-10-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Age is not related to leadership at all though. Surely it's helpful to have someone with leadership qualities, but I don't see how you could link that to age.

So, if you're Chris Young and hit a slump, it would be just as helpful to talk with someone like a 24-year old Stephen Drew (by most accounts, a solid leader) as a 35-year old Tony Clark? Drew will have just as much wisdom on working through slumps at the big leagues in his 160 games as Clark would have in his 13 seasons?

I'll drop this because it's pretty obvious both we will just go in circles. To put it in a different manner, the Diamondbacks were in danger of being the Devil Rays of the NL West had they not kept Byrnes. They would go into next year not knowing what to expect from most players. Drew was a .357 OBP, .874 OPS guy in 05, but just a .297/.662 guy this season. Quentin had numbers of .317/.741 in his 382 Abs. Chad Tracy had 27 HRs and a .912 OPS in 04, this season he has 7 HRs and a .798 OPS. Chris Young has seen his average go .232, .325, .196, .240, .178 in the five months so far.

Letting Byrnes walk for Quentin makes it a literal crapshoot and what you are getting from 4 of your key hitters (Drew, Young, Quentin, Upton). By holding on to Byrnes, they have two guys that have been fairly consistent (Byrnes and Hudson) the past two season which gives you a better chance at being competitive. Now, if Upton struggles next season, they won't be counting on Quentin or Drew to pick up the slack - they can look to Byrnes and his 25/25, .800+ OPS that he's had the two seasons here. If you're going to be competitive, you have to try and mitigate some of the risk with inconsistent young players. As a fan, I feel much better penciling in Eric Byrnes in the heart of the lineup in 08 (.820 OPS in 1000 AZ abs) than Carlos Quentin (.740 in 400 Abs, with a .640 OPS this season).

darkhorse · 08-10-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonzard

How do you go about doing that? Not team by team, I hope.

Sure. It's only four teams per league per year for most of it and a couple of minutes at BB Reference.

darkhorse · 08-10-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

So, if you're Chris Young and hit a slump, it would be just as helpful to talk with someone like a 24-year old Stephen Drew (by most accounts, a solid leader) as a 35-year old Tony Clark? Drew will have just as much wisdom on working through slumps at the big leagues in his 160 games as Clark would have in his 13 seasons?

But, who needs the old font to be part of the starting lineup to shower his wisdom upon the youngsters? Besides, I thought that is what coaches were paid to do.

Arlie Rahn · 08-10-2007, 01:27 PM

If I'm a young, 23-year old top prospect, I'm going to listen more to a guy that hit a game-winning HR for our team last night than a guy who hasn't played in 15 years. It's just human nature for a younger player to want to pick the brain of a currently productive older vet than some 50-year old manager/coach.

But, again, it's obvious some people on this board don't feel that having a few veteran players as key parts of a playoff team mixed in with young guys has any more value than a team full of slightly less productive (but more talented) younger player at the same spots those vets would take. At this point, there's no solid facts to backup these assertions and it comes down to people's own experiences/opinions. I am completely content to agree to disagree on this subject unless there is some study out there showing the pros/cons of this setup.

darkhorse · 08-10-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

But, who needs the old font to be part of the starting lineup to shower his wisdom upon the youngsters? Besides, I thought that is what coaches were paid to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

If I'm a young, 23-year old top prospect, I'm going to listen more to a guy that hit a game-winning HR for our team last night than a guy who hasn't played in 15 years.

Wow, I'd hate to be a bench player for that manager.

ctorg · 08-10-2007, 02:01 PM

I would think there would be some value to having at least a respected vet or two on a team. It's always better to lead by example than simply by direction, and a good veteran can complement coaches by showing younger players how to go about things as a player on a daily basis. Of course, I'm sure the value varies widely from veteran to veteran and affects different young players in lesser or greater ways, and there's no way to measure any of that, but I can see the argument for it.

Skipaway · 08-10-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

a 35-year old Tony Clark?

Tony Clark doesn't seem to be able to get out of slumps himself. I don't see why people would bother listen to him.

If there are truly the need for what you describe, there are tons of Hall of Fame level talents like Rickey Henderson types out there to be hired as coaches, cheap.

By your logic, teams would better divide the 10m paid to Byrnes to hire 20 great former players than someone below average like Tony Clark.

Skipaway · 08-10-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

I would think there would be some value to having at least a respected vet or two on a team. It's always better to lead by example than simply by direction, and a good veteran can complement coaches by showing younger players how to go about things as a player on a daily basis. Of course, I'm sure the value varies widely from veteran to veteran and affects different young players in lesser or greater ways, and there's no way to measure any of that, but I can see the argument for it.

I don't see how age would have much to do with it though. Two years in the majors would be more than enough for someone with leadership skills to lead and command respect. Someone without leadership skills still won't have it after 15 years in the league. It's the same everywhere, for every kind of job, and for all other sports leagues.

darkhorse · 10-16-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

Quentin has really struggled and you really can't compete with a lineup of rookies. Outside of orlando Hudson, all the other starters next season were going to be Jackson, Drew, Reynolds, Young, Quentin, Upton and Montero. That's 6-7 guys under 25 years old. You need atleast 1-2 veteran players to be competitive. Now, the pitching staff is a different story - they could actually use some youth in the rotation (after Webb, RJ and Doug Davis).

Plus, if let Byrnes walk, you basically lose an asset who has basically been a .350 OBP, .820 OPS, 30 SB (80%) and very good fielder in all 3 OF spots for nothing. Instead, why not sign him to a reasonable 3-year deal and move Carlos Quentin and/or Chad Tracy for a young SP. I'd rather have Byrnes and a young SP with potential than Quentin and next year's Jeff Weaver in FA.

I think they realized that they need some veteran leadership to be competitive while the kids develop. The team is just too streaky if you run out a starting 8 full of 19-24 year olds. Have a couple guys in their early 30s can stabilize this team. And, Byrnes has been pretty good in his two years at AZ.

Man, I dunno how the DBacks could possibly have competed in the playoffs without Eric Byrnes. Without his bold leadership and .204/.258/.407, they'd never have been able to so completely outplay the Rockies in the NLCS.

Zoso1515 · 10-16-2007, 04:33 PM

I never thought I'd be telling DH about sample size.

Big Hugg · 10-16-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Man, I dunno how the DBacks could possibly have competed in the playoffs without Eric Byrnes.

Without Eric Byrnes, how would we know that Arizona actually outplayed Colorado in the series?

PotatoPeeler · 10-16-2007, 08:37 PM

As we all know, Eric Byrnes leads by example. And the face plant he did on his pointless slide into first was literally and figuratively the kind of example he set this series.

08-09-2007, 05:24 PM	#21
darkhorse Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: fort worth, tx Posts: 10,850	I've checked back through the 1990 season, and there's been only one team with as many as five everyday players aged 25 or younger during that stretch and that would be.......... Cool beanes. C Ramon Hernandez 24 3B Eric Chavez 22 SS Miguel Tejada 24 LF Ben Grieve 24 CF Terrence Long 24 __________________ "The Human Torch was denied a bank loan." Last edited by darkhorse; 08-09-2007 at 05:35 PM.

08-09-2007, 06:46 PM	#22
Arlie Rahn All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 564	And I think having both a 29-year old Jason Giambi and a 38-year old Randy Velarde was big factor in helping the team stay consistent. __________________ Developer of Bowl Bound College Football http://www.greydogsoftware.com

08-09-2007, 11:17 PM	#25
Arlie Rahn All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 564	I didn't say they were necessarily more consistent, I said they helped the team stay consistent. For example, to a man the DBacks players constantly compliment Tony Clark, Byrnes and Orlando Hudson for helping the young players. Justin Upton is constantly talking with Byrnes. Chris Young, on the other hand, talks with Tony Clark after nearly every AB. Clark has ranged from .179 to .290 in each month so far and been a fairly inconsistent player. Yet, he has been a big factor with many of the young guys (Young, Drew, Reynolds, Montero) in helping them learn. My point is that if you run a team out there with 7 everyday starters at 19-25 years old, there is no leader to turn to when you have a 5-game losing streak. No player to ask questions when in a slump. Leadership is a part of having a successful team. Baseball isn't a bunch of mindless robots each equating to an OPS between .600 and .950 based solely on talent. __________________ Developer of Bowl Bound College Football http://www.greydogsoftware.com

08-09-2007, 11:53 PM	#27
Arlie Rahn All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 564	Yeah, I know there's a little Joe Morgan in that. But, I don't think you can discount the effect of having a couple good leaders on a young team. __________________ Developer of Bowl Bound College Football http://www.greydogsoftware.com

08-10-2007, 12:55 AM	#28
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	Age is not related to leadership at all though. Surely it's helpful to have someone with leadership qualities, but I don't see how you could link that to age. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

08-10-2007, 01:27 PM	#32
Arlie Rahn All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 564	If I'm a young, 23-year old top prospect, I'm going to listen more to a guy that hit a game-winning HR for our team last night than a guy who hasn't played in 15 years. It's just human nature for a younger player to want to pick the brain of a currently productive older vet than some 50-year old manager/coach. But, again, it's obvious some people on this board don't feel that having a few veteran players as key parts of a playoff team mixed in with young guys has any more value than a team full of slightly less productive (but more talented) younger player at the same spots those vets would take. At this point, there's no solid facts to backup these assertions and it comes down to people's own experiences/opinions. I am completely content to agree to disagree on this subject unless there is some study out there showing the pros/cons of this setup. __________________ Developer of Bowl Bound College Football http://www.greydogsoftware.com Last edited by Arlie Rahn; 08-10-2007 at 01:30 PM.

08-10-2007, 02:01 PM	#34
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	I would think there would be some value to having at least a respected vet or two on a team. It's always better to lead by example than simply by direction, and a good veteran can complement coaches by showing younger players how to go about things as a player on a daily basis. Of course, I'm sure the value varies widely from veteran to veteran and affects different young players in lesser or greater ways, and there's no way to measure any of that, but I can see the argument for it. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

10-16-2007, 04:33 PM	#38
Zoso1515 Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 507 Infractions: 0/2 (2)	I never thought I'd be telling DH about sample size.

10-16-2007, 08:37 PM	#40
PotatoPeeler Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Rapid City, SD Posts: 3,639	As we all know, Eric Byrnes leads by example. And the face plant he did on his pointless slide into first was literally and figuratively the kind of example he set this series. __________________ 培傑西 I have never taken a lesson on how to talk on TV in my life. - Tim McCarver Guns have only two enemies; rust and liberals. The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel.