Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Well, Magpie got it going and now I have to figure it out. How has the age of players changed over the years, especially regarding teenagers?

Making use of the Lahman Database (data through 2009) I can figure out age of players fairly easily. I'll use age as of July 1st for players age. So lets do this a few ways...
  1. How many teenagers played semi-regularly (150+ PA) in each decade of MLB?
  2. What was the average age of all hitters (using PA to weigh playing time) in each decade?
  3. What about pitchers? Same questions as above?
  4. And while I'm there, how many 40+'ers were there?
Notes:
  • There are players in the 1800's who do not have a year of birth listed, thus are not factored in.
  • The youngest ever were Fred Chapman (2 PA & 5 IP) & Billy Geer (8 PA) - both 14 when they first played in the 1870's and 1880's.
  • In the 20th century Joe Nuxhall was the youngest at 15 (no PA, 2/3 IP)
  • There hasn't been a 17 year old since the 60's
  • Satchel Paige at 58 is the oldest (3 IP), with Julio Franco at 48 the oldest to get 100+ PA while Hoyt Wilhelm threw 25 1/3 IP at age 49
So, here we go with hitters (anyone with 150+ PA)...
DecadeUnder 20Over 40Total% U20% O40Avg Age
1870's1605163.1%0%25.4
1880's19516361.2%0.3%26.6
1890's71115850.4%0.7%27.8
1900's61016690.4%0.6%28.5
1910's6619410.3%0.3%27.5
1920's5918500.3%0.5%28.5
1930's8718400.4%0.4%28.3
1940's61219120.3%0.6%28.6
1950's71019100.4%0.5%28.4
1960's5524130.2%0.2%27.6
1970's4930620.1%0.3%27.7
1980's23332950.1%1%28.6
1990's22935670.1%0.8%28.8
2000's23638810.1%0.9%29.2
Total = total player seasons with 150+ PA.

And here are the pitchers (25+ IP)
DecadeUnder 20Over 40total% U20% O40Avg Age
1870's1301349.7%0%23.9
1880's4206316.7%0%24.6
1890's1418111.7%0.1%25.4
1900's10310650.9%0.3%27.4
1910's22514651.5%0.3%26.8
1920's61614060.4%1.1%28.7
1930's73814840.5%2.6%29
1940's134716360.8%2.9%29.4
1950's152516990.9%1.5%28.5
1960's172221940.8%1%27.5
1970's101126900.4%0.4%27.5
1980's35730880.1%1.8%28.4
1990's14237090%1.1%28.4
2000's18143570%1.9%28.7


I'd say we have a clear trend here. The players, as a group, are getting older and teenage pitchers are an endangered species (5 in 30 years vs 6+ in every decade before that). What is interesting is the blip in the 20's-40's for pitchers where they were older than they are today (on average). The 40's to the 70's saw a group of teenagers get shots as pitchers in the majors then it died off in the 80's. Can't help but wonder what occurred - the only thing that comes to mind is David Clyde and how he collapsed so quickly. Yet, in the 80's the ones getting a shot were Dwight Gooden, Edwin Nunez, and Jose Rijo - three who had a fair amount of success. The 90's was Rick Ankiel, 00's Felix Hernandez. Odd so few given a full shot (in the 00's Edwin Jackson and Madison Bumgarner cracked 10 IP but not 25).

Also interesting to note how the 40+ crowd gets a real shot if they are pitchers but not if they are hitters and how pitchers were getting shots in their 40's a lot in the 1930's and 40's.

In the end we can see that teenagers haven't been common since the 1800's and that 1980 is the dividing line between giving kids a chance and letting the 40+'ers have a shot. This suggests that free agency, which was supposed to remove the older player as they'd be too rich to bother continuing, has enabled older players to stick around (or encouraged it).
Teenage Hitters | 14 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 02:00 PM EDT (#221862) #

remove the older player as they'd be too rich to bother continuing, has enabled older players to stick around

I always thought that line of reasoning was a buncha hoo-hah. The big salaries actually encouraged players to get and stay in phenomenal shape (comparatively), which enabled them to play longer -- which they wanted to do in part because of the six- , seven- and now eight-figure salaries.

Incidentally, nice piece, John. Very Magpie-esque in clairty and table-use, if not in overwhelming awesomeness of sheer verbiage!

vw_fan17 - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 02:03 PM EDT (#221863) #
For the increase in pitchers' ages in the 20s-40s, I think two factors are:

-WW1 & WW2
    younger "fit" players (i.e. potential professional athletes) go to war, possibly losing 5+ years of rookies, making it necessary/possible for vets to pitch.. Effects probably seen until 5-7 years after the war (assuming most "new" soldiers were in the 18-23 age range)

-great depression
    younger players do whatever possible to put bread on the table. "Possibly" making a semi-decent career as a baseball player (IIRC, they were paid decent, but not insane salaries in those days, unlike today - or was just in the NHL?) probably became a distant 3rd or 4th option for younger players when their family needed food NOW. Older players who were already established (i.e. had regular MLB jobs) could continue with less rookies coming up and taking their place. Plus, in those days, if you were 40, your oldest child was probably 18+, and your youngest probably 5-7+. If you're 20 and have a newborn, living on chicken feed in the minors may not have been possible.

John Northey - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#221868) #
Great points vw_fan17. I thought about the wars being a big reason but it hadn't hit me that it would've cost a generation of younger players thus hitting a few years later. Older players (25-35 during the war) might have been off the front lines while the 18-25 were on them, or the 18-25 year olds didn't get a chance to develop baseball skills thus giving a big advantage to the older players.

Lots of possibilities. The depression one makes sense to some degree, but the same rule could apply to people in the Dominican and the like.
Magpie - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 02:31 PM EDT (#221869) #
Also interesting to note how the 40+ crowd gets a real shot if they are pitchers

I wonder how many of them threw knuckleballs. We haven't even had very many knuckleballers over the last few decades, but almost without exception they seem to pitch into their 40s.
China fan - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 02:57 PM EDT (#221872) #
This is a great article, John, and the data is fascinating.  But for greater relevance to the Jays of today, an interesting question would be:  is it less common for players to win a full-time role at age 22 today?  Or, let's say, ages 21 to 23 -- is there a smaller percentage of players in this age bracket today than there was in the past?  If someone like Travis Snider is given a full-time job in the majors at age 22, would this be more exceptional than it was in the past?  Or Adam Lind at age 23 -- would it have been more exceptional for him to have won a full-time job at that age than his predecessors of earlier decades?

In other threads, we've seen people giving anecdotal comments -- citing other 22-year-old players on other major-league teams who have full-time jobs.  Anecdotes don't prove anything, so the data would be interesting.  The claim is also made that the 22-year-old baseball player of today is more ready for the majors than the 22-year-old of the past.  I can believe that today's 22-year-olds have a better understanding of conditioning and technique than the 22-year-olds of the past, but the pitchers of today are probably a lot stronger too. Data might shed some light on this -- although I realize that the research could be time-consuming.

At a glance, John's findings about average age would imply that a 22-year-old today is 7 years below the league-average age, whereas in the 1960s he would be 5 years younger than the league average.  Not sure if that means anything, although it might.

Moe - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 04:00 PM EDT (#221873) #
One other reason the old pitcher get another shot in the 2000s is the expansion of the bullpens. Look at how much the number of pitcher went up relative to the number of hitters. Marginal pitchers get to stick around a little longer these days.

One other thought: cut the 2000s into 2 groups. The post recession (post steriod) era and before. I guess we need a few more years but there could be somewhat of a reversal.


Matthew E - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#221874) #
Moe: Yeah, but wouldn't that also work in the favour of the younger pitchers? You might not want a teenager as the ninth and last guy on your staff, but it might sound more reasonable to have him as the twelfth and last.
John Northey - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT (#221875) #
Well, splitting the 2000's into 2000-2004 and 2005-2009 we get...

2000-2004 Pitchers (out of 2135)
Under 20: 0 - 0%
Over 40: 22 - 1.0%
Avg Age: 28.7

2005-2009 Pitchers (out of 2222)
Under 20: 1 - 0.045%
Over 40: 59 - 2.7%
Avg Age: 28.6

Wow, did the over 40 crew of pitchers jump! Very odd. The overall average though barely budged.
DaveB - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 04:22 PM EDT (#221876) #
Very interesting John. Thanks for taking the time to put all that information together

To me, the
age data reflects three specific phases in baseball history: 1. A significant growth stage from 1870s-1900s as the sport became organized and started attracting and keeping more players; 2. A consolidation stage from the first World Series through to the 1970s where the only significant impact was due to war; 3. The modern stage (from 1980s) of free agency, huge financial growth and training improvements (including PED) that have induced/allowed players to stay in the game longer, and to some extent have encouraged a more cautious approach with young pitchers. Overall I think it's remarkable how little change there has been in the average age over the past 100-plus years.




John Northey - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#221877) #
Oy China fan - you just gotta get me going back into the data don't you?

A quick check for 22 year old hitters...
150+ PA: 2.1% for the 90's and 00's, 2.7% in the 80's, 3%+ every decade before that with the peak being the 1870's at 10.27%. Only the 1910's have been above 5% (5.41%) since 1900.

But what about regular play?
400+ PA: 2.3% for the 00's, 1.9% for the 90's, 2.1% in the 80's, 2.5% to 4.4% from the 1880's to the 1970's.

Now, this isn't necessarily their first season - guys like Griffey Jr and A-Rod would count at 22 as well as 21 and so on. Still, it shows that teams today are not any less likely to play a guy regularly at 22 than they were in the 20's or 50's (both in the mid 2% range) and are slightly more likely than in the 90's and 80's.

I confess to being surprised as I figured it would drop. Go figure. As to raw numbers, 50 in the 00's is the 2nd highest ever to the 1970's 74 (tied with the 1910's 50).
China fan - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 04:42 PM EDT (#221878) #
Thanks, John -- much appreciated.   One question:  your summary seems to suggest that there are fewer 22-year-olds with 150 PAs than with 400 PAs in the current decade -- wouldn't it have to be the reverse, since 400 PAs is less common than 150 PAs? 

In any event, our Travis Snider is a rare breed -- one of a very tiny percentage of players who reach the majors at his age, regardless of the decade.

John Northey - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 04:48 PM EDT (#221880) #
Thought someone would notice. It is a percentage of all players who played that much. Thus fewer 22 year olds have 400+ PA than 150, but even fewer guys who weren't 22 had 400+ PA vs 150. This suggests if a 22 year old is going to play, he'll play a lot.
Kasi - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT (#221884) #
I'm not surprised John that that % number is higher for this decade then the last 2. I think this idea of the college hitter (or professional amateur) has led to a number of hitters who are fast tracked through the minors, which has probably helped to account for the slight uptick. We see it a bit with pitchers too, but it's much more rare (like Mike Leak). I think the difference is that pitchers are being brought up slower and toolsy hitters are as well. Moseby would likely be protected more now like Dom Brown has been, or Desmond Jennings.
Moe - Wednesday, September 01 2010 @ 05:18 PM EDT (#221885) #
Moe: Yeah, but wouldn't that also work in the favour of the younger pitchers? You might not want a teenager as the ninth and last guy on your staff, but it might sound more reasonable to have him as the twelfth and last.

I think those very young ones are regarded as valuable prospects, so you don't add them to your pen. Typically, players who end up in the pen were tried as starters first, so that limits how young your twelfth arm can be.

Teenage Hitters | 14 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.