Official 2011-2012 Texas Rangers' Offseason Thread

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

The ticket did a numbers break down of so-called "Fat Bats" earlier. Normal players hit their peak at 26, but fatbats peak at 23, with a steady level-off or decline in production. And when they hit 30 things just fall apart. Fielder is 5'11 275lbs that should be very concerning. Also apparently his 1st base defense is marginal.

edit: also JD said that Fielder was never really a target, but he won't close the door and is always open for business. However he didn't sound too optimistic about signing him.

Who on the ticket did this? Because while "fat bats" (meaning big sluggers who are typically three true outcome hitters) do tend to break down faster, a peak at 23 sounds ridiculous. I very, very seriously doubt this "study".

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Who on the ticket did this? Because while "fat bats" (meaning big sluggers who are typically three true outcome hitters) do tend to break down faster, a peak at 23 sounds ridiculous. I very, very seriously doubt this "study".

Junior said it this morning around 7:00. He went into a lot of detail about it and I dont remember everything he said. Trying to find his source.. Granted, it's a muser but its not Gordo. lol

Most guys are rookies at the age of 23. Who exactly peaks in their rookie season?

Well, Prince Fielder for one. That was the year he hit 50 HRs and 119 RBIs. Although I guess you could make an argument for his 25yr season where he hit 46 and 141 (albeit at more bats, and with fewer runs).

Edit: Here is something, not quite it though
http://mlbreports.com/2012/01/16/tall-heavy/

Further edit: I think this is the real info. VERY interesting
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...e-fielder-age/

In order to attempt to predict what Fielder will do over the life of his next contract, we should compare him to players with similar body types. Jeff Zimmerman has put together a list of 205 players who weigh more than 3.25 lbs per inch of height in order to construct an aging curve. To put that in perspective, a 6’0″ tall player would have to weigh a minimum of 234 lbs in order to be included in the sample.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

Well, Prince Fielder for one. That was the year he hit 50 HRs and 119 RBIs. Although I guess you could make an argument for his 25yr season where he hit 46 and 141 (albeit at more bats, and with fewer runs).

He also had virtually the same OPS (it was actually slightly higher) in his age 25 season. How many runs he scored or knocked in is not really relevant to the discussion. Their slash lines were very comparable, thus the almost identical OPS. So, the idea that he peeked at 23 is completely out the window when turns in an almost carbon copy season at 25.

The Fangraphs article is interesting, but it's including positional and UZR data, and it's sample size for fatties is all of 205 players.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the notion that bigger players peak sooner, but at 23? No. And if the Ranger sign him they won't care at all if he gets worse in the field, because in two years he'll be a DH.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I'm perfectly willing to accept the notion that bigger players peak sooner, but at 23? No. And if the Ranger sign him they won't care at all if he gets worse in the field, because in two years he'll be a DH.

That's another thing. Paying 17-20 mil a year for a DH seems a bit foolish. JD isn't that frivolous, especially when there are valuable older players who can fill the role nearly as well for a lot less. That kind of money can be put to a lot better uses, IMO.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

That's another thing. Paying 17-20 mil a year for a DH seems a bit foolish. JD isn't that frivolous, especially when there are valuable older players who can fill the role nearly as well for a lot less. That kind of money can be put to a lot better uses, IMO.

I'm going to need you to define "nearly as well". The guys that hit "nearly as well" as Prince Fielder still get paid an awful lot of money.

Again, I understand why it's a risk, but let's not miss the point on how good Fielder is. He's a better hitter than anyone we have on our team. I would much, much rather give Fielder that kind of money than give it to Josh. You can't just wake up any off season and sign a hitter the caliber of Prince Fielder.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I'm going to need you to define "nearly as well". The guys that hit "nearly as well" as Prince Fielder still get paid an awful lot of money.

Again, I understand why it's a risk, but let's not miss the point on how good Fielder is. He's a better hitter than anyone we have on our team. I would much, much rather give Fielder that kind of money than give it to Josh. You can't just wake up any off season and sign a hitter the caliber of Prince Fielder.

Alright, lets look at Vladimir in 2010 - 29 homeruns and 115 RBIs for roughly $8 mil. Pretty good value. Can we put Napoli on the list? He was signed to be DH last year but turned into the starting catcher.
Hank Blalock in 2009, 25 homers. Milton Bradley in 2008 22HR and .321 avg.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

Alright, lets look at Vladimir in 2010 - 29 homeruns and 115 RBIs for roughly $8 mil. Pretty good value. Can we put Napoli on the list? He was signed to be DH last year but turned into the starting catcher.
Hank Blalock in 2009, 25 homers. Milton Bradley in 2008 22HR and .321 avg.

Napoli is going to be very expensive after this season. And we traded for him, we didn't sign him.

No one else you listed are even close to "nearly as good" as what Prince Fielder would be in this ballpark.

Prince Fielder is someone that anchors an entire lineup and carries a team. That's Josh's role on this team, except he probably won't be doing it beyond this season. You have to replace a dynamic bat like that somehow. Picking up your random scrap heap player and hoping they're decent is not how you replace your anchor when you're a World Series contender.

BTW, Hank Blalock had a .736 OPS in 2008, and got on base at a .277 clip. Let's please not ever mention that again, especially not when trying to prove a point about finding productive players.