Are the Reds Really a Young Team?
by Slyde on Mar 29, 2010 10:19 AM EDT
in Features
Email
PrintIt seems like a lot of people say things like "The Reds have a lot of young talent that could surprise this year." Or, as Red Hot Mama tweeted this morning:
One of Baker's shortcomings as mgr is his man-love for vets. So, the team has stocked mostly kids. That's called "setting you up to succeed"
At first, it seemed like a reasonable statement, but then I started thinking about the roster make up and I noticed that the Reds' roster isn't really comprised of a lot of kids. Here is a guess at the 25-man roster. I tried to be generous but reasonable. That is, I didn't take all of the old guys just to make a point. The numbers in parentheses are the player's age on July 1st, which is considered their seasonal age statistically.
| Pitchers Aaron Harang (32) Bronson Arroyo (33) Johnny Cueto (24) Homer Bailey (24) Travis Wood (23) Francisco Cordero (35) Nick Masset (28) Arthur Rhodes (40) Jared Burton (29) Daniel Ray Herrera (25) Micah Owings (27) Matt Maloney (26) Catchers Ryan Hanigan (29) Ramon Hernandez (34) |
Infielders Joey Votto (26) Brandon Phillips (29) Orlando Cabrera (35) Scott Rolen (34) Outfielders Jonny Gomes (29) Chris Dickerson (28) Drew Stubbs (25) Jay Bruce (23) Bench Wladimir Balentien (25) Aaron Miles (33) Paul Janish (27) |
Here's the breakdown: 8 players age 33 or older; 10 players age 26-29; 7 players age 25 or younger.
I suppose you can consider the 26-29 year old players to be young, but I tend to think of them as being in their prime, so regardless of experience, I don't call them young. On offense, Bruce and Stubbs are the only players 25 or younger who should get a significant number of at bats this year, assuming one of the old guys doesn't break a hip. Bruce is moving into his third season in the majors this year.
Travis Wood looks like he'll be the only rookie on the Opening Day roster (unless it's Mike Leake, who is 9 months younger than Wood). Johnny Cueto has 61 big league starts. He's still young and developing, but he's also a bit of a veteran too. Homer Bailey has been on the Reds for part of each of the last 3 seasons.
There are some players who still need to fully develop, and yes, the Reds have a lot of young talent that could pop through from the minors, but the way it's looking right now, this team is a solid mix of young and old. Hopefully it's the right mix for success.
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
1990 Opening Day roster had 3 players over the age of 30
Ken Griffey Sr. (40) – 68 PA
Rick Mahler (36) – 134.2 IP
Ron Oester (34) – 171 PA
On offense, everybody but Oliver (24) and Morris (25) were 26-29. Morris was the only rookie on offense.
On the pitching staff, Browning was 30, Rijo and Armstrong were 25, Scudder, who didn’t start the season with the team, was 22. Everybody else was 26-29.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
Oh, what do you know about the 1990 Reds?
What are you, some kinda expert or something? Why don’t you go write a book about it!
by thevole on Mar 29, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I was thinking about this the other day.
I’ve convinced myself that if I consider Arthur Rhodes to be an outlier – yes, he’s 40 but he’s not even gonna be on the field most days – this is a pretty young team.
I think the reason for this ‘debate’ (at least as it occurred in my head) may be that the Reds are old at shortstop and catcher. Two positions where you don’t usually want to be old.
But tell that to the world champions.
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 10:33 AM EDT reply actions
good point
A couple of years ago, one of the talking heads argued that any team with so many old players (over age 32 was old, according to him) couldn’t win the World Series. The Yankees have tried to get younger, but they’re still a pretty old team.
Would be interesting to see the mean and/or median age of all the teams, and how the Reds compare.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
Yankees
That’s what happens when you rely on signing free agents… You get old. They’ve been smart in trying to get their farm system a little stronger lately.
"People don't kill people. Burning oreo packages kill people."
There's a 14 year age difference between the left side of the infield and the right side
But just as Rhodes may be an outlier in the bullpen, can’t Rolen be considered similarly on the field? He may not be a Gold Glove defender anymore, but he’s still an above average infielder when healthy. Maybe it is an older team, but outside of O-Cab, not in a debilitating way.
"aaron harnann is so aweseom" - justin
Young or Old
This group isn’t gonna hit enough to be relevant.
by TheNaturalMevs on Mar 29, 2010 10:59 AM EDT reply actions
Define 'relevant.'
I do think that their offensive numbers will improve over last season (OPS+ of 86… ewww) and they’ll finish ahead of the Pirates (88 in ‘09) and maaaybe the Astros (90 in ’09) but 94 was the league average in ’09 and unless the four big bats have All Star caliber seasons there’s no way the Reds get there.
But I’d consider middle-of-the-division offensive stats and a ~.500 finish to be ‘relevant.’ At least by our recent embarrassing standards. (But I could definitely forgive you if you don’t see it that way.)
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I can define "relevant"
1. It means wondering who your pitching rotation will be in September because you want to stack up well with the teams you are playing
2. It means hoping Player ABC comes back from the DL to give you an extra bit of pop during the pennant race.
3. It means not having the rest of the league looking at your record and making book on when they put an (E) next to your team’s name.
4. It means not selling off four guys to the Red Sox because they need to win the pennant and don’t give a fiddler’s fug that you can’t.
5. It means having crowds of 35,000 on a Thursday night, instead of a computer-adjusted “announced” figure of 12,316.
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
Define "fug."
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Fug
F’ug (n). From the Norse, meaning a large proscul area not from from the extreminotia, one that, when detected, makes a hideous sound. As an adj. a fug-y notion.
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
Wiki just calls it
the act of fugging.
Fuggee
Fuggor
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
Oooh la la la la la la lalala la laaah.
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
It doesn't look like a particularly young team on the whole
at least not Marlins young. But nearly all the players who “matter” – and will have the biggest impact on the success of the team are between the ages of 23-26: Votto, Stubbs, Bailey, Cueto. Harang, Arroyo, Phillips and Rolen are important pieces, but we know about what we’re getting from that lot. If the 29-35 year old market are the top performers, this team’s probably in 4th place again.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Mar 29, 2010 11:09 AM EDT reply actions
right
the whole roster is pretty well-balanced, but most of the important players (Bruce, Votto, Stubbs, Bailey, Cueto, Wood/Leake/Chapman, and Phillips) are well under 30. the role players are vets, but the stars are all pretty young. i think that’s where the “young team” tag comes from.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Mar 29, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
"Love ya, Scrabbles!... Wait.... You sat down and typed out the whole roster and couldn't find room for me?"
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Ahem
“Harang, Arroyo, Phillips and Rolen are important pieces.”
by Brendanukkah on Mar 29, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
"Much love, 'Nukkah! Go ahead and pull my name out of context and put it in there for Chuck. Matter of fact.. put my name anywhere."
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Am I missing something? Who forgot to mention Phillips?
most of the important players (Bruce, Votto, Stubbs, Bailey, Cueto, Wood/Leake/Chapman, and Phillips) are well under 30
(I’m really just pointing this out because I want BP to point at me and say something.)
by the finest muffins on Mar 29, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Only if it isn't to say
“… so it was YOU who backed into my car in the parking lot? My lawyers will speak to your lawyers. In the meantime, have an ice day.”
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
That's cold.
"People don't kill people. Burning oreo packages kill people."
by crolfer on Mar 29, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The alternative
“I left you four box seat tickets at will-call. Pick them up after 5.”
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
My bad.
For some reason (the way the text is layed out?) I missed the fact that Chuck mentioned Brandon Phillips in his comment and then when ’Nukkah pointed out my mistake I still missed seeing Brandon Phillips among his list of players.
So I’ve completely botched my joke about Brandon Phillips loving to see his name in print.
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
"Bim! Bam! Boom! I'm loving it, Vegas!"
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
"Oh yeah! I love a fine muffin that loves me back!"
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
but there is a 24 hour waiting period now...
Volquez, Bailey, Cueto, Chapman, and Leake. The future is so bright I have to wear sunglasses.
by justin007000 on Mar 29, 2010 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
spammers dude
it’s only temporary. SBNation will figure them out and then we’ll be back to status quo.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Mar 29, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
eh, we don't care if you're outraged or not
"aaron harnann is so aweseom" - justin
by BK on Mar 29, 2010 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
He's one of them, get him!
"They're the ones that gave you the keys, they can’t get upset when you crash the car" -- 'tHan on my being a mod
That's what I'm talking about!
Mildly creepy and everything. Good times.
by the finest muffins on Mar 29, 2010 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Lando will be batting 2nd, Rolen 5th, Harang & Arroyo starting games 1 and 3, Cordero is the closer
Those are some important players too.
I’m not saying they are an old team, but I don’t buy the young tag either. Too many old guys to be young.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
i said "most" of the important players
of course some of the important guys are older, but we arent really relying on those guys to be really important, to be stars. solid guys, but no stars. if the team is going to compete, it’s the youngsters who are going to carry them. this team rests on the hopes that Votto is going to be one of the best hitters in the league, Bruce is going to sock 40, Stubbs is going to hit 20 and steal 40, and the pitchers are going to all have ERAs under 4. otherwise, it’s SIS threads in August.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Mar 29, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
it feels a lot like you are saying, "they are young, so they are more important"
but that doesn’t make them a young team. I agree that the young players are important, but I still don’t agree that this is a young team. They are still going to be dependent on several “old” players.
Just for giggles, I calculated the starting offense’s age based on the amount of playing time each player got last season on the whole (I adjusted Bruce up to 500 PA and set Stubbs at 500 PA since I’m factoring in some shared playing time with Dickerson). I got 29.5 years old, which is nearly 2 years older than last year’s offense and would have been the 5th oldest offense in the NL last season. Obviously, the final number is probably going to be lower than that as injuries will likely mean younger players getting some playing time, but my point is still that the Reds are going to be just as dependent on old guys as they are on young guys.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
of course they are dependent on several old players
i agree with you that the overall makeup of the team is not young, if you weight all players equally. but all players are not created equal. they are going to rely on Arty and Coco in the bullpen, but if this team is going to be a winner, it’s not those guys who are going to shine. if they are going to win, it’s the young guys who are going to be atop the WAR leaderboards at the end of the season. sure, Arroyo, Harang, and Rolen are going to be important parts of the team and they will be relied upon, but not for more than 2-3 WAR apiece. the potential 5-WAR players on this team are all young’uns though.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Mar 29, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
It doesn't help that Dusty can't fill out a lineup card properly
And I don’t just mean wringing out an extra 1.6 wins through optimization. Someone like Jay Bruce might benefit from seeing some extra at bats early in the season by hitting 2nd, but you’ve got O-Cab (or whoever’s playing SS) with a permanent claim on the spot.
While I’m skeptical of some of the prevailing knocks against Dusty, the veteran bias / inability to nurture youngsters packs some punch. Veterans seem to get a preference for playing time and lineup slots that can hamper the younger players development, while I suspect – but am unable to empirically confirm – that maxims like “be aggressive at the plate” are not helpful to hitters like Bruce or END. Despite his hot start to the spring, Bruce has got on base at a .280-something rate over 40+ spring PAs. Hopefully it’s just a small sample / ST effect, but it’s pretty well in line with his major league numbers.
This year will go a long way in judging whether Reds management knows can foster growth with young players. Volquez was a success, for a season, though he came up with the Rangers and it’s hard to call TJ-recovery “success.” Votto has been an overwhelming success, though he was nearly fully-formed when he got to the bigs – and probably needs one more season of 550+ PAs to cement things. Then you’ve got prolonged struggle from Bailey and Bruce, with flashes of their enormous potential.
If you can’t oversee a breakout year from either a five-tool number one draft pick entering his peak years or formerly #1 overall ranked pitching and position playing prospects, you’ve failed on some basic level.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Mar 29, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The ultimate test to determine if the Reds are a young team
If Madville starts posting pictures of them in the game thread, then they are officially a young team.
But then they're also irrelevant female athletes..
"You know it's gonna be a good one when you see Fred Quimby's name at the beginning."
by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 29, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This post is meaningless
without a substantive breakdown of the players’ relative sock height.
If you walk out of here tonight and see a man c***-flapping, you run with that man.
The Reds still seem to be in the process of getting younger
They have added a few young/inexperienced players to the mix the last few years.
2008- Votto, Cueto, Volquez, Bruce
2009- Herrera, Dickerson, Masset, Hanigan, Stubbs, Janish, Bailey, Balentien, Fisher
2010- Sutton?, Chapman/Leake/Wood/Maloney?
Then you have the old guys: Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, Rhodes, Lincoln, Hernandez, Cabrera, Rolen, and Miles are all over 30. About the only guys that are in “their prime years” but with more than 3 years experience are Phillips, Burton, and Gomes. With a lot of the older guys being free agents after the season, we may see a truly young Reds team next year with some of the players at Louisville possibly stepping in.
I think the young tag is relative, because, as some said above, the most important players are young
Just glancing around the NL central (because I’m on spring break and have time to kill)
Cubs OF: 34, 32, 32, their IF: 31, 30, 29, 34. Young catcher, and their rotation seems about average
Cardinals OF: 30, 23, 31 IF: 25, 27, 30, 30, catchers: 27, 35, and their rotation is a bit old apart from Wainwright.
Brewers OF: 26, 24, 27 IF: 27, 23, 27, 25 Old catchers and a mix of young and old in the rotation
Astros OF: 33, 27, 27 IF: 34, 27, 34, 34, Average age catchers and rotation
Pirates OF: 25, 23, 28 IF: 26, 27, 31, 26, average age catchers and a rotation with no one over the age of 27
The Pirates are clearly the true young team, and the Brewers are really young too. The other three are significantly older than the Reds.
It seems like Walt has purposely tried to “age” the team to help the young guys out. Hope it works.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle
Old, yes, relative
“Old” would be a roster full of guys you can’t trade, which would give you Griffey, Ross, maybe Stanton, Rhodes, Damon … that sort of player.
“Young” would be a team of players who probably ought to still be in AA or AAA ball.
Substitute “experienced” for “older” and you have a conversation.
On that score, the Reds are decidedly leaning toward “young.”
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
I like where the Reds are as far as age.
They have a pretty balanced roster as far as age. Still have enough time left from the older players to make an impact next year (when I’m seeing us seriously compete), and you also have to take into account the experience some of the younger guys are getting from this year. Also have a few decent guys waiting in the wings.
"People don't kill people. Burning oreo packages kill people."
I agree
it’s a fairly balanced roster age-wise.
Talent-wise though….
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
By the way
I messed up. Scott Rolen will actually be 35 this season! These guys keep getting older every second.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
kinda keeps the morticians guessing!
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
I think we really have a few different questions.
Is this a young team? Sort of – we do seem to have a lot of important young guys. It doesn’t feel like the team is built around aging veterans (whatever that means). I have a gut feeling we haven’t seen the last of Lincoln, Lehr, Wells, or Nix, though.
Is this team built so that the best players will go on the field regardless of Dusty’s veteran fetish? Depends. I feel that Janish is a better utility infield option than Aaron Miles, that Stubbs will be better overall than Dickerson, Hanigan is better than Hernandez and that Rhodes is going to suck in the bull pen – and that Dusty is going to distribute playing time inappropriately, from that perspective. However, I think all of these things are somewhat debatable, and it’s probably a fairly insignificant effect, overall.
Is this team built so that the young players have the opportunity to develop for future seasons? Probably. I see the guys that need the playing time to develop this season as Bruce, Stubbs, and all the unproven young pitchers. And it’s not really as if Dusty controls who is in the rotation very much anyway. I do worry about Stubbs seeing too much time on the bench – but it’s not so much a matter of youth.
IAN! I'm on traain!
I guess I'm a bit Justin Lehr-y
… of labeling Dusty as having a veteran fetish. I think that’s a stereotype conned up by the Chicago media to explain their meltdown in 06, which didn’t include some other obvious problems they conveniently overlooked. So what stuck was the Dusty Image, and of course his clear propensity for ruining pitchers.
If I look at the roster Dusty had the past two years, exactly how did he NOT use his young guys?
Almost all of them got to play far more than they could have expected and all of them did a Rosales-turn at first base, headed back to the bench.
The baseball-bat collision is violent and involves large forces which act over a very short time and which compress the ball to a fraction of its normal size. -- Alan M. Nathan
I dunno
The “middle age” guys are mostly relievers, bench players, or platoon players – 8 of the 10 fit into these “role playing” slots (not exactly the right words, but you know what I mean). The guys we’ll count on, though, are either young (expand it just a year, and 6 of the 14 SP/non-platoon hitters/closer are 26 or younger), or old (6 are 30+). Significantly, though, of the 8 players 30 or older only Rolen and Cordero are under contract for next year, while Alonzo, Leake, Chapman, Heisey, Frazier, and Cozart could all contribute significantly this year and should next year.
I think you could call them a young team without stretching things at all.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
holy resurrection, batman!
sid is back and he actually agrees with me!
by Charlie Scrabbles on Mar 29, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
HONK!
"They're the ones that gave you the keys, they can’t get upset when you crash the car" -- 'tHan on my being a mod
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
