patterns of decline

[brett]

I rememer Mike Schmidt deciding to retire, and talking about not being able to get around on the fastball like he used to. I had assumed he struggled because of a lot of Ks at the end by noticed that his Ks were low at the end:

Through '83: 142 Ks per 162
'84-'87: 99 per 162
'88-'89: 64 per 162

In reality his average dropped because of loss of BABIP and home runs.
BABIP dropped to .232 in last 2 years versus .280 overall.

George Brett meanwhile K-d more and walked less:
39 Ks per 162 through 1990, but 70 from '91-'93

His final 3 year BABIP was .287 and he had 12 home runs per 162 which are not far off of his career rates.
The truth is that aside from his higher Ks and lower walks, his BABIP and home run rates were not out of line with a normal season.

Of course these changes are dynamic. Schmidt may have lost home runs because he was trying to make contact. Brett may have Kd more in exchange for maintaining his BABIP.

Furthermore, some BABIP decline came from a loss of speed.

Rod Carew seemed to have lost BABIP and power but kept his K rates at about his career rate.

So I just wanted to open a discussion of player patterns of rise and decline at batters. What tends to mark a decline.

Are there hitters who became more patient and raised their walk rates considerably? Brett was known as a guy who went from low walk, to fairly high walk and back to anemic.

[pheasant]

Hank Aaron's walks increased later in his career. Aaron averaged 62 Walks per 162 games(703 PA) from ages 20-34. From ages 35-42, he averaged 86 walks per 162 games(645 PA).

[pheasant]

Babe Ruth's walk rate surprisingly increased slightly during his decline. From 1920-1929(ages 25-34), Ruth averaged 144 walks per 722 PA. From ages 35-40, he averaged 144 walks per 697 PA.

[brett]

Babe Ruth's walk rate surprisingly increased slightly during his decline. From 1920-1929(ages 25-34), Ruth averaged 144 walks per 722 PA. From ages 35-40, he averaged 144 walks per 697 PA.

That's interesting because his Ks actually dropped a little too despite the conjecture that more K-type pitchers were in the league the later you go with the live ball. His 35-38 BABIP relative to league BA stays on par with 25-34.

[brett]

A similarity between Schmidt and Brett seems to be that they both took fewer walks, but what are the dynamics behind Brett striking out more (even more than Schmidt at the end) but Schmidt basically losing BABIP but cutting Ks significantly.

I mean Schmidt is among the all time K leaders, and Brett had some super low K years for someone with power. How do two guys basically reverse their approaches at the end.

[BigRon]

Schell has done in-depth studies on aging trends among players with extended careers. It's in "Baseball's Greatest Sluggers"- at least I think that's the title- I'm not at home now and don't have access to it.

HR rates and BB rates tend to increase until late in players' careers. Some hitters' BB rates increase late, or remain high, because their reputation extends past their ability- that is, opposition managers and pitchers remember how great this guy was and continue to pitch him carefully, even though his ability is diminishing. Wilie Mays is one example of this. There are some others.

In the case of Schmidt, it's pure speculation on my part. He probably was cutting down on his swing in an effort to make solid contact, thus losing power. If his skills were diminishing rapidly- which does happen- he may have been losing contact as well as losing power. I saw Schmidt play several times the year before he retired, and he seemed similar to the hitter he had been- but that's based on small observation samples.

CORRECTION: I actually last saw Schmidt play in person in 1987- that was TWO years before he retired.

[pheasant]

That's interesting because his Ks actually dropped a little too despite the conjecture that more K-type pitchers were in the league the later you go with the live ball. His 35-38 BABIP relative to league BA stays on par with 25-34.

I think Ruth's strikeout rate decreased for two reasons: I believe that he didn't chase nearly as many pitches out of the strike zone later in his career. And secondly, he used a much lighter bat towards the end of his career vs his prime. I've read that he started with a 52 ounce bat in 1920 and ended with a 38 ounce in 1935. So at least Ruth showed the ability to adjust to the game.

[pheasant]

Amazingly, Tony Gwynn struck out only 45 times in 1101 AB during the last 4 years of his career. I.e, his K percentage dropped slightly, despite always being a contact hitter. When adjusting for era, I personally believe that Gwynn was the best contact hitter of all time by a pretty big margin. Cobb's avg was largely bolstered with his adroit bunting ability and his blazing wheels. Even then, I see Cobb hitting around .330 for a career in Gywnn's era.

[dominik]

do HOFers decline later and more gradual than the average player or do they have basically the same curve but shifted upward because their base level is higher (dropping the same but have a high level longer just because they were better to begin with.

[pheasant]

I think the very best ever in their categories decline much more slowly. Ted Williams was probably the best non-PED old hitter ever. Also, Rickey Henderson won a SB title at age 39. Ruth from ages 37-40 still managed a 177 OPS+, still close to Lou Gehrig type of hitting rates. Gwynn hit above .320 in each of his last 4 seasons during his decline(ages 38-41). Gwynn really didn't even decline much at all in effiency. His OPS+ from ages 38-41 was 126, only 6 points shy of his career. The decent player in his prime would probably start declining fair rapidly at age 32 and be terrible and out of MLB by 35. I.e, I believe the better the player, the late his decline starts and it declines more slowly.

[leecemark]

--There may be somewhat of a trend for great players to decline slower, but it is far from an absolute. Some great players decline abrubtly or early and some lesser players stick around forever. On average great players last longer, simply because they can decline and still be good, but actually staying at the same level into ones late 30s is something else entirely.
--One player who really makes me wonder is Carl Yastrzemski. He dropped off from being a really great player after 1970 and then stuck around for over a decade - longer than his career up to that point - as a merely pretty good ballplayer. It wasn't that he started to decline, he fell off several levels and then stayed at more or less that same level for 10 years.
--Some guys decline slowly. Others fall off a cliff. You can do some guessing based on work ethic, body type and style fo play, but guys will surprize you by lasting alot longer than you' expect or being finished alot quicker than you'd expect.

[brett]

--There may be somewhat of a trend for great players to decline slower, but it is far from an absolute. Some great players decline abrubtly or early and some lesser players stick around forever. On average great players last longer, simply because they can decline and still be good, but actually staying at the same level into ones late 30s is something else entirely.
--One player who really makes me wonder is Carl Yastrzemski. He dropped off from being a really great player after 1970 and then stuck around for over a decade - longer than his career up to that point - as a merely pretty good ballplayer. It wasn't that he started to decline, he fell off several levels and then stayed at more or less that same level for 10 years.
--Some guys decline slowly. Others fall off a cliff. You can do some guessing based on work ethic, body type and style fo play, but guys will surprize you by lasting alot longer than you' expect or being finished alot quicker than you'd expect.

Is he really that different from say Musial on a relative basis though.
Through age 30: 143 OPS+ 31-40: 121 (down 18.2%)

Musial through: 172; 31-40: 151 (down 13.9%)
Cobb through: 185; 31-40: 152 (down 21.7%)
Murray through: 143; 31-40: 117 (down 22.2%)
Brett through: 141; 31-40: 130 (only 8.5% down)

OK granted Cobb had a changing game contributing to his relative drop. Musial was up and down. Yaz did kind of "sit" at the little above average level for a long time.

This was a surprise:
Kaline through: 133; 31-40: 136
Winfield: 135 to 132



How about this thoug: Molitor through 30: 118; 31-40: 128

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think Ruth's strikeout rate decreased for two reasons: I believe that he didn't chase nearly as many pitches out of the strike zone later in his career. And secondly, he used a much lighter bat towards the end of his career vs his prime. I've read that he started with a 52 ounce bat in 1920 and ended with a 38 ounce in 1935. So at least Ruth showed the ability to adjust to the game.

Very perceptive Pheasant. Think he even went lighter toward the end and did change his mindset a bit. Having a competent hitter like Gehrig behind him musta been nice; it wasn't all on him anymore.

Interesting, more than twice as many walks as K's each year from ages 35-37. Accumulative 394/174.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

So I just wanted to open a discussion of player patterns of rise and decline at batters. What tends to mark a decline.

An easy answer for pitchers. Besides general fatigue and/or loss of velocity, some pitchers become nomads. They drift from team to team in their later careers, unable to adjust to the constantly changing batteries as well as fan/media pressure to be as greadt as they once were (or at least worthwhile). That sort of thing gets into his head, giving him a failing mentality each time he starts. I think this happened to Steve Carlton. At age 41 in 1986, Carlton was traded to the Giants. After Struggling there, the White Sox picked him up in the same season. The following year, Cleveland got him. Before 1987 was over, Carlton relocated to Minnesota for a miserly finish to his career. For over 21 seasons, Carlton pitched only for either St. Louis or Phillie. He played for 5 teams in his final three years. The thing is (correct me if I'm wrong), he still had good stuff for a 41-year old. He really just fell off.

Then there's the mighty fall of Dontrelle Willis, who also dirfted a bit. However, his fall from grace can be greatly attributed to the general tweaks he made in his delivery. We see him twist on one foot during his glory run of 2005. Similar to Luis Tiant. Over the years, he slowly turned more and more until his body completely face second base. Both arms elevated more and more as did his legs. However, his head remained inthe same spot. By the time 2008ish came along, his body was contorting too much for him to control. We see his BB/9IP gradually rise after 2005 to the point of utter lack of control. If he needed a strike, he was more lilkely to leave one in a very hittable spot. When 2011 came along, he was an unrecognizable pitcher. Unlike Greg Maddux, who kept the same forumlated-for-success delivery throught his career (1995 vs 2008)

[leewileyfan]

An easy answer for pitchers. Besides general fatigue and/or loss of velocity, some pitchers become nomads. They drift from team to team in their later careers, unable to adjust to the constantly changing batteries as well as fan/media pressure to be as greadt as they once were (or at least worthwhile). That sort of thing gets into his head, giving him a failing mentality each time he starts. I think this happened to Steve Carlton. At age 41 in 1986, Carlton was traded to the Giants. After Struggling there, the White Sox picked him up in the same season. The following year, Cleveland got him. Before 1987 was over, Carlton relocated to Minnesota for a miserly finish to his career. For over 21 seasons, Carlton pitched only for either St. Louis or Phillie. He played for 5 teams in his final three years. The thing is (correct me if I'm wrong), he still had good stuff for a 41-year old. He really just fell off.

I'd suggest that what you wrote [above] betrays how "not easy" is is to stereotype pitcher decline tell tale signs. I won't pretend to get inside a pitcher's head; but for every much-traded pitcher who struggled, there are others who flourished. A modern case in point: Andy Pettitte, who has not only moved around a bit but has also aged. He has also been through the drama of the Clemens/Bonds 'roids [if only as a witnesss/teammate,friednd/neighbor]; but he has flat out knowledge of how to pitch; how to control his pitches; and how to deliver them with least wear and tear on his arm/body.

Then there's the mighty fall of Dontrelle Willis, who also dirfted a bit. However, his fall from grace can be greatly attributed to the general tweaks he made in his delivery. We see him twist on one foot during his glory run of 2005. Similar to Luis Tiant. Over the years, he slowly turned more and more until his body completely face second base. Both arms elevated more and more as did his legs. However, his head remained inthe same spot. By the time 2008ish came along, his body was contorting too much for him to control. We see his BB/9IP gradually rise after 2005 to the point of utter lack of control. If he needed a strike, he was more lilkely to leave one in a very hittable spot. When 2011 came along, he was an unrecognizable pitcher. Unlike Greg Maddux, who kept the same forumlated-for-success delivery throught his career (1995 vs 2008)[/QUOTE]

In short, Dontrell Willis was a poster boy for self-destructive pitching mechanics. I am no expert scout or MLB trainer; but even I knew, the very first time I saw him pitch, that if someone didn't work with him on those mechanics, his career would be a short one. Luis Tiant's basic mechanics were certainly not as devastating as Dontrelle's; but his constant fooling around with a variety of deliveries probably kept him from any sustained dominance through a more refined polishing of his best moves. 'Way back when, we fans were all awed by Ewell Blackwell and his intimidating exaggerated sidearm whip delivery. He dominated for a short time. Then came the arm troubles.