Are you watching Phillie fans?

Unwittingly, perhaps.

I'd say plate discipline should be in there as well, unless you want to roll that into "Hitting for average".

There are four basic individual skills that go into being a major league baseball player: hitting for power, hitting for average, speed and defense.

I thought they were range, throwing arm, speed, and hitting.

Would Shapiro accept Putz + Sexson + Cash for Hafner?

Hey, Sexson's 7 home runs are tied for 2nd in the AL!

Is that a reference to Ryan Howard?

i TOLD people giving the big contract to Hafner was foolish. but noooooooooo. Hafner was a stat-head darling. can't point out that his dropoff was worrisome.

edit: well, i was hardly alone, but yeah. his 4 year extension was a waste of money. http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/oracle/discussion/indians_signed_hafner1/

i TOLD people giving the big contract to Hafner was foolish. but noooooooooo. Hafner was a stat-head darling. can't point out that his dropoff was worrisome.

I imagine the looks you got were similar to the reactions I got when I was not positive about Ortiz's new contract on SoSH.

There are four basic individual skills that go into being a major league baseball player: hitting for power, hitting for average, speed and defense. The key to longevity is to be above average at as many of those skills as possible...As those skills degrade, Hafner can’t fall back on speed or defense to maintain his value.

Is this necessarily true? I'd always thought the key to longevity was being able to hold onto those skills as long as possible. Granted guys with multiple tools often seem to age better, but it's not because they lose the ability to hit and compensate with speed/defense. It's because they seem to hang onto their ability to hit longer.

I'm not even sure Hafner is a great example of "old player skills," since he hit for a high average during his peak.

I'm not even sure Hafner is a great example of "old player skills," since he hit for a high average during his peak.

.305-.311 isn't particularly high. Not counting HR's, Hafner hit .269, .254, and .238 during his peak.

.305-.311 isn't particularly high. Not counting HR's, Hafner hit .269, .254, and .238 during his peak.

Why would you penalize Hafner for hitting HR's? Babe Ruth hit .254, .258, and .268 at his peak if you don't include HRs, either. What a bum!

Of course, Juan Pierre is still going strong, so maybe Cleveland should look to a new offensive model in Pronk's replacement.

"I imagine the looks you got were similar to the reactions I got when I was not positive about Ortiz's new contract on SoSH."

oddly enough, i was pretty sanguine about that. a part of it is payroll, the Sox can afford having Ortiz fall apart much more than the Indians can eat the Hafner contract. a part of it is blatant homerism. and a part of it is seeing them as somewhat different players, despite the fact that they're remarkably similar offensively. Ortiz did play in more games, which was something, but not a whole heck of a lot.

Babe Ruth hit .254, .258, and .268 at his peak if you don't include HRs, either. What a bum!

But Ruth had that curveball to fall back on.

There are four basic individual skills that go into being a major league baseball player: hitting for power, hitting for average, speed and defense. The key to longevity is to be above average at as many of those skills as possible.

The author may be right, but he offers no evidence to support that assertion. I think being among the best in the game at one of those skills is probably another path to longevity; Tony Gwynn comes to mind.

When you hear about a player with five tools, those tools are: hitting for power; hitting for average; running fast; throwing with velocity and accuracy; and fielding your position well. John Sickels sometimes calls players "Seven skill" players, which I think includes hitting for average, power, plate discipline, baserunning, fielding range, fielding "hands", and throwing arm.

There are four basic individual skills that go into being a major league baseball player: hitting for power, hitting for average, speed and defense. The key to longevity is to be above average at as many of those skills as possible.


The author may be right, but he offers no evidence to support that assertion. I think being among the best in the game at one of those skills is probably another path to longevity; Tony Gwynn comes to mind.

What are the generally agreed criteria for players to age well?

1. 5 tool guys. This seems to be true, but it's tough to say since there are so few of them. Barry Bonds, Barry Larkin, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Eric Davis. Can anybody think of any generally accepted 5 tool players who had their career end early for non-injury related reasons? Maybe Von Hayes? Andy van Slyke (got injured?)

2. Speedy, high average guys. Brett Butler, Ichiro, Kenny Lofton, Willie McGee(?), Otis Nixon (may have been 50 at start of career). I'm having a hard time thinking of any guys in this category who cratered early... maybe Juan Pierre, but his performance hasn't changed all that much, just his team's valuation of that performance. Maybe Harold Reynolds?

3. Guys who are really, really good at one or more things, but aren't 5 tool players. Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire, Manny Ramirez. Hafner seems to fit into this category, since he was the best hitter in the AL for several years in a row. On a rate basis anyway.

Bill James, a long time ago, noted that players are generally forced out of the game because they lose their speed, and I think that's probably the #1 factor in evaluating whether or not a player will age well. It is very rare that a player who has little speed at the outset of his career will age well.

Although now that I think of it, "athleticism" is probably more descriptive of what James meant than "speed".

-- MWE

Probably also a reference to Pat Burrell. A double whammy.

Of course, Juan Pierre is still going strong, so maybe Cleveland should look to a new offensive model in Pronk's replacement.

I could endorse such thinking. Of course, I'm a Twins fan.

I get kind of uncomfortable around such pronouncements as "I saw it coming, he's gonna get fat." For every (group of) Hafner types that eventually slow, swell and fall over there are a fair number of Frank Thomas, Edgar Martinez or Jim Thome types who are slow and swolen but keep on hitting. Some big slow sluggers get too big and find themselves 35 years old and hosting Kent Hrbek Outdoors on Sunday nights, while others keep on hitting years past then.

Clearly there are more Mo Vaughns than Willie Stargels, but I'm not sure the ratio on how late guys "lose it" is much different than any other comparison of super-tip-top best vs not quite as excellent groups (great hitters vs the crowd, healthy guys vs the crowd, etc.) There are enough exceptions that this isn't a terrible risk, just a garden variety signing of someone that'll extend past his expected peak. How different is the risk that a fat slugger goes to seed vs a slap hitting speedy 2B losing that half step or a reliever falling apart? These guys are higher profile so we talk about them more. It's just another risk assessment teams need to do.

a slap hitting speedy 2B losing that half step

Whatever happened to Junior Spivey? A middle infielder who had a couple great seasons and then *poof* gone. Happens to all walks of players. Hafner was very good for a while, but not HOF caliber by any stretch IMHO. It's those special guys that hang around later into their careers and have an east coast continental shelf style drop-off as opposed to a west coast shelf style drop off.

And even when they lose it, the don't lose it this fast.

Hafner has a very strange career arc, rather similar to Ryan Howard's. However, his K-rate has always been pretty good for this type of hitter (about 1 per 4). This is just more oddness in an odd career.

#19, I think the point is more that with this type of player ("fat" would be a good shorthand descriptor, I guess), when you see the core skills start to decline at the margins, the end isn't far away. Rather than the more simple "fat guys turn bad" argument you refute.

When some of Hafner's indicative rates started heading the wrong direction, a lot of people figured he'd hit a steep dropoff before too long. It's not just because he's a "fat" player, it's because he was a "fat" player exhibiting serious warning signs. In a parallel example, everybody didn't expect Zito's monstrous collapse because "command/control lefties with one plus pitch who like to surf" inevitably fall apart, we expected it because "command/control lefties with one plus pitch who like to surf" whose peripherals get worse every year from '03 to '06 and who appear to the naked eye to be losing velocity on the fastball and command of the curve aren't likely to be worth $126mil.

#14: "I think being among the best in the game at one of those skills is probably another path to longevity; Tony Gwynn comes to mind."

Weren't speed and defense among Gwynn's strengths at the outset of his career? And as those skills eroded over time, he maintained his outstanding ability to hit for average and therefore continued to succeed. I think that's the author's point. When Hafner's ability to hit for power is no longer at the elite level, he literally has almost zero value left as a ballplayer.

what bothered me about the Hafner deal was when it was done. he had 2 more years before becoming a free agent and had a crap start to the year. at least Ortiz had been performing.

Maybe Harold Reynolds?

I think it was one of his non-baseball "tools" that led to his downfall.

When some of Hafner's indicative rates started heading the wrong direction, a lot of people figured he'd hit a steep dropoff before too long. It's not just because he's a "fat" player, it's because he was a "fat" player exhibiting serious warning signs.

He was also a late developer. Hafner didn't reach the majors until age 25.

Guys that come up that late generally fade fast. I guess it's because they had to be close to their peak to play in MLB at all. So, once they get a little past that peak, they're not good enough to stay.

He was also a late developer. Hafner didn't reach the majors until age 25.

Guys that come up that late generally fade fast. I guess it's because they had to be close to their peak to play in MLB at all. So, once they get a little past that peak, they're not good enough to stay.

That makes sense for a guy whose performance was average to good, but Hafner was a tremendous hitter during his peak, one of the best, if not the best, in the AL. The general consensus is that really talented guys last longer because they can afford to lose some and still be effective, but Hafner seems to be an exception. Assuming he's really about done and isn't carrying an injury.

Why would you penalize Hafner for hitting HR's? Babe Ruth hit .254, .258, and .268 at his peak if you don't include HRs, either. What a bum!

No he didn't. He hit .292 (1920), .301 (1921), and .341 (1923). For his career, Ruth hit .281 when not hitting a HR.

Anyway, the point was not to penalize him, per se, but to point out that a large portion of his "hitting for average" skill was a result of his old player skill of power.

There are four basic individual skills that go into being a major league baseball player: hitting for power, hitting for average, speed and defense. The key to longevity is to be above average at as many of those skills as possible.


The author may be right, but he offers no evidence to support that assertion. I think being among the best in the game at one of those skills is probably another path to longevity; Tony Gwynn comes to mind.

Gwynn was terrific at three of those things. I don't think he's a good example. I'd say Jim Thome was.

It's those special guys that hang around later into their careers and have an east coast continental shelf style drop-off as opposed to a west coast shelf style drop off.

I think that's a cool reference. Can I borrow it? I would also expect it to start showing up at the WorldWide Leader.

go for it. 98% of the population will have no idea what it means.