The human body is like bread that won't stop baking. Age 33 is about the age at which you KNOW the bread is getting over-done and you wish that you could turn off the oven, but you just can't.

Except that many players have better seasons at 34 and beyond, including players listed in the article. Aging is continuous, and there is no discrete drop-off at a particular age. Certainly, at 33 players are declining in athletic ability so that it is overcoming mental compensation, but you could say the same about 32 or 34.

Interesting to see a JC comment in a thread about 33.

Well, *every* player doesn't eventually hit 33.

This would have been better with some attempt to measure the likelihood of falloff, rather than just anecdotal evidence. What would've been thought provoking in an '83 Abstract seems more like a wasted opportunity today.

This would have been better with some attempt to measure the likelihood of falloff, rather than just anecdotal evidence. What would've been thought provoking in an '83 Abstract seems more like a wasted opportunity today.

It's a quick "chat" on the SI website. A detailed breakdown and analysis of aging patterns wouldn't fit the format or the target audience of that site.

Actors say the same thing. When you are young, you are strong enough to play King Lear but you don't understand the part; when you are old, it's the other way around.

As to the "age 33" thing, yeah, just naming ten guys who had off-years, or even declined for good, at 33 isn't very interesting. You could absolutely do the same for all ages beyond 30: pretty clearly, 33 is somewhere over the hill for baseball players, so it isn't surprising that some players' numbers dive at that age. And one can also play the opposite game:



And of course, when that happens, almost always the player will decline at age 34. The thing is, as others have mentioned, a few pairs of seasons don't mean much of anything; you might as well say from my examples that "Age 33 is when great hitters often have that renaissance season" or whatever.

What is the age all musicians die? Isn't it like 32 or something like that?

What is the age all musicians die? Isn't it like 32 or something like that?

27, at least for Morrison, Joplin, Cobain.

Well Keith Moon, Cass Elliot, and John Bonham died at 32.

But Hendrix, Ron "Pigpen" McKernan (Grateful Dead, no irony there) and Brian Jones were 27.

#4 of course in the 80s James did precisely what you're asking for (twice). Thing is that the detailed studies on aging are pretty big and as Ryan points out doesn't lend itself to the format.

If you're interested I did a study of regular players (300+ PAs) in consecutive year.

Age Number SI II SD ID
20 36 22.2 16.7 8.3 8.3
21 109 18.3 17.4 9.2 14.7
22 217 17.5 17.5 10.6 11.1
23 379 12.1 14.2 12.7 15.8
24 514 14.4 16.5 10.1 17.5
25 650 13.4 15.1 12.5 16.6
26 723 11.8 15.1 14.5 15.1
27 699 11.6 13.4 14.4 16.9
28 658 12.6 12.8 14.0 16.9
29 599 11.0 14.9 13.0 18.2
30 503 9.9 14.9 11.5 15.7
31 413 12.3 12.8 16.5 17.4
32 348 8.6 12.9 17.0 19.8
33 255 10.6 15.3 15.7 17.3
34 185 5.9 11.4 19.5 18.9
35 130 10.0 15.4 11.5 19.2
36 90 5.6 7.8 18.9 16.7
37 65 6.2 15.4 26.2 21.5
38 41 12.2 7.3 14.6 12.2
39 24 12.5 20.8 20.8 16.7
40 14 7.1 7.1 42.9 28.6


SI = substantial improvement (percentage of players)
II = important improvement
SD = substantial decline
ID = important decline

substantial in this case = more than the standard deviation in player performance ( around 14 runs in full-time play) using
what Steve Mann called OBS (essentially OPS with crude support for base stealing. IBBs removed.)

Age is the age during the first season.

Number is the number of players who had 300+ PAs in consecutive seasons. 1955-99. If there were fewer than 10 players, not included.

Thus there were 41 players who had 300+ PAs at both 38 and 39. and 12.2% played significantly better at 39.

Note that you can get another notion of how age affects players as a group by looking at the number column. And that's shaped more or less the way you'd expect. (IE while the 36 year olds who are still good enough to play don't decline much as a group, a huge chunk of them lose their jobs. This explains why Bill James' study on aging produces such a different result from Pete Palmer's. James keeps these guys in and assigns them a value of zero. Palmer drops them)

Note that this doesn't deal with declines in playing time while still meeting the 300+ PAs. Nor does it deal with defensive value. To get to the 32-33 issue that we're talking about, decliners outnumber advancers by a better than 3-2 margin and around 15% of players playing regularly at 32 lose their job for one reason or another.

Well, *every* player doesn't eventually hit 33.

Then there are those who have their drop-off at the end of their age 33 season, like Jesus.

I'm going to hell for that bit, but I keep hearing that I'm going to be the same age as Jesus was when he died, in a week...

I think Scott Joplin made it to 48
Michael jackson died last week at age 50
Fats Waller was only 39 when he croaked
Frank Sinatra made it to age 82 before he died.
Not sure what you mean by the age when all musicians die?

UPDATE: No comment.

From 1983 to 1990, Alan Trammell missed a total of 168 games.
From 1983 to 1990, Cal Ripken missed a total of 0 games.

All this just proves Keith Richards should be in EVERY Hall of Fame, before finally, finally dying and beginning his direct work with Satan to fulfill that deal he, quite obviously, made some years ago.

27, at least for Morrison, Joplin, Cobain.

But Hendrix, Ron "Pigpen" McKernan (Grateful Dead, no irony there) and Brian Jones were 27.

Shannon Hoon and the guy from Sublime both died at 28. Sortof appropriate.

I think Scott Joplin made it to 48
Michael jackson died last week at age 50
Fats Waller was only 39 when he croaked
Frank Sinatra made it to age 82 before he died.
Not sure what you mean by the age when all musicians die?

Sorry, I meant all great musicians. Not this Frank Whatshisname you mentioned.

Well, *every* player doesn't eventually hit 33.

Particularly in the Logan's Run Summer League.

Mozart died at 35.

I'm going to hell for that bit, but I keep hearing that I'm going to be the same age as Jesus was when he died, in a week...

I found it funny, but i'm also aproaching 33.

At age 33, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln got married, and Richard Nixon first won election to Congress.

At age 33, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln got married, and Richard Nixon first won election to Congress.

I have wasted my life.

Mozart died at 35

Inspiring Tom Lehrer's remark: "It is sobering to think of how little I have accomplished. When Mozart was my age, he had been dead for five years."

Lehrer would have heard that line when he was in graduate school from his fellow mathematics students - only the name would have been Galois, not Mozart, and the ages would have been considerably younger.

I have wasted my life.

Don't feel bad, I'm 41 and my legacy might be my Mike Morgan article from 8 years ago.

On the other hand there's Penelope Fitzgerald, who started to write fiction at the age of 60 and published ten books in the next 23 years, to become one of the greatest English novelists of the 20th century. Sort of the Dazzy Vance of the literary world.

Don't feel bad, I'm 41 and my legacy might be my Mike Morgan article from 8 years ago.

I've got a different predicament. I'm 42, but my 13-year-old son has already accomplished something greater than I ever have, or, sadly, will.

I've got a different predicament. I'm 42, but my 13-year-old son has already accomplished something greater than I ever have, or, sadly, will.

Teasing is cruel.

Teasing is cruel.

My son finished tied for 15th out of the original pool of 5 million entrants nationwide (if Alex Trebek's numbers are to be believed) at the National Geographic Bee in Washington, D.C. last month. And unlike me, he actually does have a chane to accomplish something greater, because since he's returned he's been pretty committed to taking the necessary steps to get back there and win the thing next year.

Obviously, his accomplishments are really not something I'm lamenting. The day he won the state bee was one of the greatest days of my life.

All congratulations to your son!

SoSH, that rocks! You should be proud.


Of course, if you'd rather be competitive, give him the gift of a BTF registration. That should finish him off.

Wow, 15th nationally in any academic competition is darn impressive.

I'm sure 5 million is accurate, if you count all the kids who were forced to take a geography test in class as the first hurdle into the competition.

Google is not helping me stalk your child.

This thread will now begin its decline.

As to the "age 33" thing, yeah, just naming ten guys who had off-years, or even declined for good, at 33 isn't very interesting. Y

well, whenever some player faceplants at age 32-34, you ALWAYS have some primate posting that such decline is "inexplicable", "unusual" or even "unprecedented"... a quick list of ten such guys is a pretty good rebuttal.

My son finished tied for 15th out of the original pool of 5 million entrants nationwide (if Alex Trebek's numbers are to be believed) at the National Geographic Bee in Washington, D.C. last month. And unlike me, he actually does have a chane to accomplish something greater, because since he's returned he's been pretty committed to taking the necessary steps to get back there and win the thing next year.

Cool, congratulations to you and your son! Seems like such a small world... I made it to my state championships in 1990, got knocked out in the preliminary rounds. Finished tied for 3rd in my section, only the top 2 made it to the finals. Missed some question involving India/Pakistan....

Of course, if you'd rather be competitive, give him the gift of a BTF registration. That should finish him off.

And this explains why I don't remember anything about geography today.

Cungradulashuns t'yer sun!

but i bet you can remember the minutiae of pavement lyrics and what OPS rusty greer had in 1997

Sosh, is your son a roadgeek? I probably would have done well in that competition if we had it back in our school days, but I would have probably choked somewhere at the state level.

Don't feel bad, I'm 41 and my legacy might be my Mike Morgan article from 8 years ago.

At age 41 .. .

Grant took Vicksburg, won the Battles of Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge, and was promoted Lt General.

Rutherford Hayes fought at Battle of Cloyd's Mountain, spearheading an assault there.

Teddy Roosevelt became the GOP nominee for the vice-presidency.

Then again, Ike took part in the Battle of Anacosta Flats, so I think you're having a better year than he did.

Missed some question involving India/Pakistan....

Pakistan is the one on top.

in regards to the actual article, it's pretty obvious who hasn't read the article vs who has from the comments.

I mean the article specifically states

Right off, we should say: This isn't true of all players and not even most players (and we are talking every-day players here, not pitchers). Bill figures that about 70 percent of players perform about the same at age 33 as they did at age 32.

so they prefaced the article saying that it's not a majority or anything, just a somewhat general rule and most of the discussion is to talk about aging and how 33 seems to be a bad year(or an off year) and give some current examples on both sides (Russel Branyan and Torii Hunter vs Ortiz, Arod and others for this year) and then to go into a list of a bunch of good players who had a 33 struggle season

Pakistan is the one on top.

so's your mom

My unscientific observation has been that, in general, players with poorer plate discipline decline much more rapidly and have fewer great seasons in their 30s. Players like Steve Garvey and Cecil Cooper might hang around through their late 30s, but they're only doing so on reputation; whereas only players like Darrell Evans can have truly great seasons at age 40. My theory on this is that what players with plate "discipline" actually have are better reflexes, h/e coordination, whatever. They can wait longer on pitches. When the reflexes start to slow with age, those that were already behind fall off that much more. I think if you broke the study down to two groups of above- and below-average K/BB ratios, you'd see a pattern emerging.

But plate discipline is an old player's skill and I thought those guys aged early.

My unscientific observation has been that, in general, players with poorer plate discipline decline much more rapidly and have fewer great seasons in their 30s. Players like Steve Garvey and Cecil Cooper might hang around through their late 30s, but they're only doing so on reputation; whereas only players like Darrell Evans can have truly great seasons at age 40. My theory on this is that what players with plate "discipline" actually have are better reflexes, h/e coordination, whatever. They can wait longer on pitches. When the reflexes start to slow with age, those that were already behind fall off that much more. I think if you broke the study down to two groups of above- and below-average K/BB ratios, you'd see a pattern emerging.

I'm inclined to agree, unscientifically. It would be interesting to see such a study.

While I'm sure there's something to your assertion that "players with plate 'discipline' actually have are better reflexes, h/e coordination, whatever ... They can wait longer on pitches," it is the case that the great majority of players show an improvement in walk rate over the course of their careers, indicating that there's a strong learned component to the skill as well. And to the degree that there is, I suspect that the development of this skill is crucial in remaining an effective hitter as one ages.

Your classic hacker -- an Alfonso Soriano, say -- is able to be successful as a young player due to his extraordinary athleticsm; he hits well despite not managing the count at all. But once such a player loses his great bat speed, he has no plate-discipline, count-management ability to fall back on.

But plate discipline is an old player's skill and I thought those guys aged early.

It's only one of the elements of "old player's skill" exhibited by young players. These guys also show good power, and most tellingly, lack of speed. One very definite thing is that slow players age earlier, in general, than players with good speed. Speed I think in this instance serves as an indicator, a proxy if you will, for general athleticsm/flexibility.

It's an old player's skill relative to a 22-year-old, and I think it's generally restricted to young players without a lot of speed. I'm not sure the Brunansky theory has ever really been proven, anyway. Brunansky and Bonds had about the same BB/K ratio and the same ISO at age 21, and Brunansky was labeled the old player I guess because of lack of speed.

the narrowing of talents begins long before the player reaches the major leagues.

I don't think that's true. Assuming a guy makes the majors in his early twenties, there's a very good chance he is either at his physical peak or yet to reach it.

Very quick study
I took everyone who had 200+ PAs at age 25 in 1999, 200+ PAs at age 28 in 2002, 200+PAs at age 31 in 2005 and 200+APs at age 34 in 2008.

15 players (small sample size alert)
here is the OPS+ age "curve" for the 15:

age OPS+:

Ok that passes the sniff test.

I then broke the group into 2- a low k/bb group and a high k/bb group (based on age 25 performance, the low group had a k/bb of 1.2, the high were at 2.6):


at all ages the low K/BB group was better, but the high k/bb group gains at each age interval (the opposite of what #44 would seem to suggest)

I think that the bad k/bb group actually has more slack- more room for improvement- whereas if you have a good k/bb already at age 25- you may already be close to your potential- and there is less you can do to improve.

Very quick study

Thanks for the work, JPWF13.

However, a quibble, if you'll forgive me ... I don't think k/bb is the best indicator of plate discipline. I think bb rate/ISO is much more effective.

The true test is to ask the ballplayer's mistresses at what year the ballplayer began the real decline.
Of course, you do not want to ask your own wife or mistress.

Of course, you do not want to ask your own wife or mistress.

Especially not at the same time.

I don't think k/bb is the best indicator of plate discipline. I think bb rate/ISO is much more effective.

I'm not sure how you'd evaluate this. The highest numbers on this scale would go to someone like Chone Figgins or Luis Castillo, while the lowest would go to someone like Alfonso Soriano. Is that really what you are trying to measure?

-- MWE

Off-hand, I'd think BB/PA would be best. A guy may have good "discipline" in that he sees pitches well but just doesn't make good contact - perhaps I misunderstand what discipline implies. So, he may walk a lot but also strike out a good bit (e.g. Adam Dunn). Or k/bb might be low not because the player has a good eye or good discipline but simply because he can put lots of balls in play (e.g. Vlad). I'm not sure I see why you'd bring ISO into it at all - aren't you basically looking for someone who knows the strike zone, knows the value of taking a walk, and knows what sort of pitches they can handle? That just boils down to bb/pa, it seems to me.

However, a quibble, if you'll forgive me ... I don't think k/bb is the best indicator of plate discipline. I think bb rate/ISO is much more effective.

ok I divided into two groups using bb rate divided by ISO:



Ok, ummm, wow, I'm going to have to look into this some more, I need a bigger sample, because that is one hell of an apparent effect.

edit- my first thought was along MWE's line, but something is going on- I think that guys who start with low walk rates but good power, will show more improvement than most any other group- guys with low power and hi walks- well there is nowhere for them to go but down. But most guys who have power at a young age, get even more- and Alfonso Soriano notwithstanding- pick up some walks along the way.

The highest numbers on this scale would go to someone like Chone Figgins or Luis Castillo, while the lowest would go to someone like Alfonso Soriano. Is that really what you are trying to measure?

Well, yes. I don't have it handy, but I've done quite a bit of analysis using that metric. The Figginses and Castillos of the world don't necessarily score highest, but they tend to score high, and yes, the Sorianos score very, very low.

And I think that's a very accurate reading of strike zone discipline. There's no reason in the world for a pitcher to not challenge a Figgins or a Castillo; practically speaking the worst that can happen is that you give up a single. But there's every reason for a pitcher to not want to lay it in there for a Soriano, because he can hurt you with the long ball. So the fact that a Figgins or a Castillo draws more walks than a Soriano indicates a lot more about their relative strike zone judgment than any of their strikeout totals.

I'm not sure I see why you'd bring ISO into it at all

A player with a high ISO will see less strikes than a player with allow ISO. Manny Ramirez and Luis Castillo could have the exact same ability to recognize and not swing at balls- and Manny will still have a far higher walk rate.

A player with a high ISO will see less strikes than a player with allow ISO. Manny Ramirez and Luis Castillo could have the exact same ability to recognize and not swing at balls- and Manny will still have a far higher walk rate.

Yep.

So the fact that a Figgins or a Castillo draws more walks than a Soriano indicates a lot more about their relative strike zone judgment than any of their strikeout totals.

Not really. What it actually says is that they have smaller hitting zones than a Soriano, and in order to be successful at all in the majors they have to take pitches that they can't handle, whereas someone like Soriano can swing at more pitches because he can handle more of them. Generally, the more pitches that you take, the more walks that you are going to draw, period.

FWIW: Of guys with 2500 or more PAs in the Retrosheet DB, the top 10 in Steve's metric are:

Otis Nixon
Bill North
Bud Harrelson
Richie Ashburn
Dal Maxvill
Julio Cruz
Jose Oquendo
Walt Weiss
Willie Randolph
Mark Belanger

and the bottom 10 are:

Garret Anderson (yes, really)
Tony Armas Sr.
Shawon Dunston
Juan Gonzalez
Alfonso Soriano
Andre Dawson
George Bell
Matt Williams
Don Demeter
Dante Bichette

Another way to look at this is ISO/K rate. The guys who should rank high in this metric are those who know their own personal hitting zones AND the strike zone, so that they drive the balls they know they can hit and spoil the ones that they cant. The guys who should rank low are the ones who swing and miss at, or make weak contact on, pitches that they can't handle. The high ranking guys here are:

Nellie Fox
Yogi Berra
Vic Power
Stan Musial
Albert Pujols
Smoky Burgess
Don Mattingly
Tony Gwynn Sr.
Bill Buckner
Hank Aaron

which makes some sense, and the guys who rank low are:

Dal Maxvill
Gary Pettis
Otis Nixon
Mark Belanger
Hal Lanier
Bill North
Bud Harrelson
Sandy Alomar Sr.
Bobby Knoop
Tom Goodwin

That latter list is most of Steve's list, because those guys had *so* little ISO that their relatively modest strikeout rates still drove them down the chain. If I limit the bottom list to guys with ISO of .100 and above, the bottom 10 are:

Mike Matheny
Ron LeFlore
Jose Hernandez
Dick Green
Cesar Geronimo
Royce Clayton
Mariano Duncan
Willie McGee
Damian Miller
Delino DeShields

which makes a little more sense, but not much more. Probably some combination of the two is needed.

-- MWE

Interesting stuff, Mike.

Not really. What it actually says is that they have smaller hitting zones than a Soriano, and in order to be successful at all in the majors they have to take pitches that they can't handle, whereas someone like Soriano can swing at more pitches because he can handle more of them. Generally, the more pitches that you take, the more walks that you are going to draw, period.

We may be wallowing into semantics, here. The fact that a Castillo or a Figgins is able to recognize which pitches he can't handle, and take them, is exactly what I would consider to be discipline (whether we want to call it "strike zone discipline" or "plate discipline"). And it's abundantly obvious that a Soriano, successful though he is, would be yet more successful were he able to lay off the truly bad pitches; he obviously is swinging at plenty that he can't truly handle (often he can't even reach them).

FWIW: Of guys with 2500 or more PAs in the Retrosheet DB, the top 10 in Steve's metric are:

Otis Nixon
Bill North
Bud Harrelson
Richie Ashburn
Dal Maxvill
Julio Cruz
Jose Oquendo
Walt Weiss
Willie Randolph
Mark Belanger

Might be necessary to remove IBBs from the equation here. Many of the BB's that 8th-place NL hitters draw are intentional.

Another way to look at this is ISO/K rate. The guys who should rank high in this metric are those who know their own personal hitting zones AND the strike zone, so that they drive the balls they know they can hit and spoil the ones that they cant.

Intriguing, but the issue here is that the ability to make contact (such as "spoiling the ones") is at least as much a function of bat control as plate discipline. An important skill, to be sure, but not the same thing as plate discipline.

Mozart died at 35

Inspiring Tom Lehrer's remark: "It is sobering to think of how little I have accomplished. When Mozart was my age, he had been dead for five years."

he stole it from woody allen, though i'm not saying i know for sure allen didn't get it from someone else.

he stole it from woody allen, though i'm not saying i know for sure allen didn't get it from someone else.

Given that Lehrer is older than Allen, and performing before Allen was, I suspect it was Allen who stole it from Lehrer. Though, as you say, it's the sort of joke that may have been performed in Vaudeville forever.

Snider lost the MVP award to teammate Roy Campanella in 1955 by five points, but a writer had put Campanella in both the first slot and in the sixth slot on his ballot. (Some accounts have the writer putting Campy in the first and FIFTH spots, but it appears to be the sixth spot.) The writer was ill and could not clarify; had his ballot been thrown out, Snider would have won the award. Had Snider been given the sixth spot on that ballot, he would have shared the award with Campy.

I did not know that. Pretty amazing. Is it common to basically consider Snider the de facto 1955 MVP?

Ovid: Quando Catullus aetas meus habebat, lustrum mortuus erat!

Then again, Ike took part in the Battle of Anacost(i)a Flats, so I think you're having a better year than he did.

I think it’s a matter of record that Eisenhower disapproved deeply of that military “incursion.” There's even a great photograph of him and MacArthur taken during the battle. They're in the same frame. MacArthur is in the foreground, his back to the camera, wearing jodhpurs, his arms akimbo. Directly in front of him, across the street, is Eisenhower. Ike would be facing MacArthur except he's averted his eyes. There's a good reason for that. It's obvious he's incensed at what is going on, and if he looked at MacArthur with that look he would have probably been court-marshaled.

Isn't there a serious control problem here...generally (and this is less true now than 20 years ago, I'm sure) only the best players last past 33.

There are exceptions...Gary Gaetti's best three-year stretch as a hitter came from ages 27-29 (solidly normal), suffered severe decline at age 30 and lasted another 10 years...his second-best three-year stretch as a hitter came at ages 35-37.

Gaetti aside, there appear to be basically two groups of players who play, and play well, after age 33:

Superstars, like Willie Mays or Barry Bonds or Hank Aaron...OK, let me leave Bonds out of thise for now...Mays, Aaron, Reggie Jackson, Rickey Henderso...who start from such a high level of performance they can slowly, imperceptibly decline for 12 years and still be effective.

Guys who peak late (as hitters). There are guys who generate enormous value outside the batter's box who gradually improve as hitters like and are the occasional guys who are better hitters at 35 than at 25, like Ozzie Smith, Brett Butler or Jose Cruz.

There are a few guys who aren't really in one category or the other, but play past 33 largely on reputation or something, who are clearly in serious decline...like Dave Parker. But the superstars and late-bloomers make up the majority of past age-33 players, so it seems like a difficult issue to study.

Isn't there a serious control problem here...generally (and this is less true now than 20 years ago, I'm sure) only the best players last past 33.

I would imagine so, when they first posted the original list (that was based upon bb/pa instead of iso) I was thinking that the guys on the right were probably having a greater drop out of the league rate than the guys on the left (to maybe explain why it was counter-intuitive to the original comment) but after they went with the iso, since it matched my expectations more, I forgot to bring up the objection.