27 Responses to “6000+ PA In Their 20’s”

1. John Autin Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:09 pm

   Steve, this is interesting, but the title should be rewritten. Nobody gets 6000+ PAs "as a 20-year-old."

2. Steve Lombardi Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm

   D'oh!

   😉

   Yeah, I should have said "In Their 20's"

3. Tmckelv Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm

   I knew Renteria, but I did not know Beltre...are we sure about the accuracy of his age?

   Again, nice list of names. Pujols is really unbelievable.

4. Johnny Twisto Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:21 pm

   Too lazy to check, but I believe the Dodgers were actually punished for signing Beltre when he was too young, so I think his age is probably correct.

5. DavidRF Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:26 pm

   Several of those guys played significant amounts of time in their teens as well. A <= 29 list from the "age leaderboard" page looks like so:

   1. Mel Ott 7294
   2. Robin Yount 7148
   3. Alex Rodriguez 7100
   4. Edgar Renteria 6866
   5. Vada Pinson 6850
   6. Al Kaline 6747
   7. Mickey Mantle 6699
   8. Ken Griffey 6688
   9. Andruw Jones 6617
   10. Jimmie Foxx 6605

6. kds Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm

   Not only has Pujols done as much or more in 9 years as these stars did in 10, but many have the advantage of starting in the majors as teens. All the others in the top 5, Cobb, Mantle, Foxx and Ott were playing, and usually as regulars, by age 19.

7. John Autin Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:33 pm

   I wouldn't have known that Edgar Renteria or Adrian Beltre had 6,000 PAs in their 20s, but I knew that both were everyday players in their teens.

   Until the last couple of years, Renteria looked like a decent candidate for 3,000 hits. He had 1,934 hits through age 30 -- 11th in modern MLB history (and 34 more than his former teammate, Albert Pujols). He's still young enough to have a theoretical shot; he has 2,252 hits through his age-33 season.

   Beltre has 3,176 Total Bases through age 31, good for 26th in modern history. The 6 players right behind him are all HOFers. I make no predictions, only observations.

8. Tmckelv Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:47 pm

   @7,

   "Beltre has 3,176 Total Bases through age 31, good for 26th in modern history. The 6 players right behind him are all HOFers. I make no predictions, only observations."

   OK, you mean of all players through age 31, Beltre is 26th all-time. I had a real double-take there thinking he was 26th on the all-time list already. I cannot imagine him in the HOF before Ron Santo, but anything is possible depending on how the next 10 years go for him.

9. John Autin Says:
   November 23rd, 2010 at 4:48 pm

   @6, Kds -- Not sure what your point is about Albert. The "top 5" you apparently refer to is ranked by OPS+, a rate stat -- so there's no advantage to those who played 10 seasons instead of Albert's 9. If anything, the opposite is true -- the more years you play, the harder it is to maintain any extremely high rate stat.

   As far as whatever advantage may accrue in the counting stats to those who reached the majors as teenagers, most of them deserved to be there. I think the world of Albert, but I can't see why I should think more highly of him just because he didn't reach the majors until age 21 while Cobb and Griffey were racking up numbers at 19.

10. San Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    I never bought the Renteria for 3,000 hits thing. It seems like players who start really young seem to decline earlier than others. Besides he's already contemplating retirement.

11. Frank Clingenpeel Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    I am not at all surprised about Renteria; and I assumed from the beginning that Pinson, Bench and Kaline would make the list; but I guess I never paid enough attention to Beltre's achievements, aside from that freak year he hit 48 home runs.

    I am wondering now what a list would look like of pitchers who managed, say, 1750 innings pitched before hitting the "big" 3-0.

12. Snrub Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    The thing I don't like about lists like this is that it doesn't take into account when they player's birthday is; it just uses their "Age 29" season. I know there's no easy way around it, and it's splitting hairs anyway, but it still irks me.

13. Camchuck Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    In a quick search, it looks like Carl Crawford will make the list in 2011 (107 lifetime OPS+). Miggy Cabrera has a good chance to crack the top 10 in 2012.

14. John Autin Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    @10 -- The opposite is true, for position players. The younger they get to the majors, the longer they last and the higher their peaks.

    Most guys who played into their 40s were established by 20 or 21. There are very few who reach the majors at 25 or later and last into their 40s.

15. John Autin Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    @11, Frank -- Below is a link to the list of pitchers with 1,750+ IP through age 29. (Sorry, I still haven't mastered data sharing on the blog!)

    There are a lot of Hall of Famers (8 of the top 10, plus Blyleven pending)and other 200-game winners on the list, as well as some who faded rather young (e.g., Dwight Gooden).

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/season_finder.cgi?type=p#gotresults&as=result_pitcher&offset=0&sum=1&min_year_season=1901&max_year_season=2010&min_season=1&max_season=-1&min_age=0&max_age=29&lg_ID=lgAny&lgAL_team=tmAny&lgNL_team=tmAny&lgFL_team=tmAny&lgAA_team=tmAny&lgPL_team=tmAny&lgUA_team=tmAny&lgNA_team=tmAny&isFA=either&isActive=either&isHOF=either&isAllstar=either&throws=any&role=anyrole&games_started=60&games_relieved=80&qualifiersSeason=nomin&minIpValS=162&minDecValS=14&mingamesValS=40&qualifiersCareer=nomin&minIpValC=1000&minDecValC=100&mingamesValC=200&orderby=IPouts&layout=full&c1criteria=IPouts&c1gtlt=gt&c1val=1750&c2criteria=&c2gtlt=eq&c2val=0&c3criteria=&c3gtlt=eq&c3val=0&c4criteria=&c4gtlt=eq&c4val=0&c5criteria=&c5gtlt=eq&c5val=1.0&c6criteria=&location=pob&locationMatch=is&pob=&pod=&pcanada=&pusa=&ajax=1&submitter=1

16. John Autin Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    @10, "I never bought the Renteria for 3,000 hits thing."

    Be that as it may. Renteria had 1,934 hits through his age-30 season. Not counting active players, 20 have had at least 1,800 hits through age 30. Seven of those 20 did reach 3,000 hits, and Frank Robinson fell just 57 shy. Seventeen of the 20 reached the Hall of Fame, with Roberto Alomar pending; the only ones who've fallen short for good are Sherry Magee (whom many think is deserving) and Vada Pinson.

    Also, Renteria's age-30 season (2007) was one of his best -- 124 OPS+, .332 BA, .390 OBP. Why would you doubt such a player's shot at 3,000 hits?

17. Pageup Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    Eddie Mathews had an unbelievable career going early on but then he faded out fast, was he injured or what?

    Also, I read something by Bill James where he said if a player had, say, 20 hrs, 80 ribbies and hit 280 or so with a few other decent number at the age of 20 or 21 then there was about a 30% chance he might make the HOF. These guys certainly prove that.

18. Pageup Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Amazingly, Cobb has the fewest plate appearances and the most hits.

    And not to be obnoxious, but is it a proven fact that Pujols is 30? I remember seeing him when he was 23 and thinking no way.

19. Mike Gaber Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    A player who had an easy shot at 6000 PA's in his 20's was Phil Cavaretta of the Chicago Cubs who came up to the majors at age 17 in 1934 and was playing as a Regular at age 18 the following year.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cavarph01.shtml

    But a hip and ankle injuries from sliding between 1938 and 1940, cost him a lot of playing time, playing only 22 games in 1938. He played in only 176 games in those 3 years.

    He wound up playing for 22 seasons. 1955 was his last at age 38.
    He was the NL MVP in 1945 when he won the batting title at .355.
    That was the last year the Cubs went to the World series.

    Interesting note from the Wikipedia:
    Phil Cavaretta is alive at 94 and is the last living EX-MLB player to have played against Babe Ruth, when the Babe played for the Boston Braves..

20. San Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    John: You said he has a theoretical shot, but the guy is 750 hits away and it's well documented that he's badly banged up and already contemplating retirement: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-24/sports/24087052_1_andres-torres-elbow-quick-return

    I always thought the Renteria for 3,000 thing was something people were stretching for a little, because it would be so intriguing to see a player of his caliber finally get to 3,000 hits and bring up a fun Hall of Fame debate that would perplex the round numbers/flat earth crowd. We all know it's possible for a non-Hall worthy player to reach 3,000 and I suppose it was feasible that it would be him. Personally, I've always thought Johnny Damon was the much better bet to give us that debate (though his case for the HOF is better than Renteria's).

    Yes, it is staggering to realize that Renteria had so many hits at such a young age, but when you look at it in terms of hits in his first x seasons instead of hits before age x, it's not quite as shocking. I mean Juan Pierre had 1378 hits in his first seven full seasons, but I never saw anyone on the Juan Pierre for 3,000 hits bandwagon. Of course Juan Pierre came up at 22, not 19. If you subscribe to the idea that Renteria isn't likely to have tremendous longevity (as I do), his 2-3 year edge on other young every-day players starts to seem less important.

    If you look at what I wrote, I said it seems like players who start really young seem to decline earlier than others. I didn't say they don't have long careers, just that they sometimes decline for good in their early 30s. I know we could pick a handful of guys from either side, but I was thinking of guys like Robin Yount, who was up at 19, out of baseball at 37, and washed up by 34. Eddie Mathews played a full season at 20 and had his last good year at 33. Junior Griffey played until 40 but had a famous sharp decline and topped 130 G twice after age 30. Of course those are all great players, far better than Renteria.

    Even if you ignore the whole came-up-at-age-19 angle, there are so many solid major leaguers who range from great, to occasional all-star, to solid-long-time-everyday-players, who end up out of baseball in their early to mid-30s: Shawn Green, Chuck Knoblauch, Kevin Seitzer, Mickey Morandini, Mike Lowell, Robbie Alomar, Andy Van Slyke, Carlos Baerga, Jon Kruk, Robin Ventura, Edgardo Alfonzo, Don Mattingly, etc. come to mind. For Renteria to get to 3,000 he's going to have to play until at least his 40th birthday. It still takes incredible longevity and I never assumed Renteria would have the necessary longevity.

    By the way, Steve Finley, Kenny Lofton and Edgar Martinez are examples of guys who didn't become regular big leaguers until later in their careers and played until 40.

    It's true that there are guys who came up at 19 or 20 and lasted until age 40, but most of them are A) inner-circle hall of famers, B) from previous generations, C) decline pretty sharply in their early or mid-30s even if they end up playing until 40.

    Renteria never struck me as the inner-circle HOF type and especially as a middle-infielder and non-power hitter type, it seemed to reason that he wouldn't have great longevity. If he declines suddenly and loses a step defensively, he's not the type who's going to have his career extended by playing LF, 1B or DH. Also of note, Renteria batted second in the order for a good chunk of his career. That means a lot more PAs than someone lower in the order. As he ages and his production declines, he's much more likely to be a #7 hitter (or thereabouts) and will get significantly fewer PAs.

    As for your other question, it's not that I specifically doubted him after his surprising 2007 season. It's that I never stopped to consider him a threat for 3,000 after his 2006 season and by the time I first heard all this speculation about his quest for 3,000 in the last year or two, it was pretty apparent that he was already in decline.

    In other news on the 3,000 hit front, I find the case of Pudge Rodriguez fascinating, simply for the fact that he's gotten all but 80 or so of his hits as a catcher. Sure, he's going to the Hall of Fame either way and he's benefited in the hit department from A) taking very few walks and B) spending his prime in Texas. Still, it's pretty incredible that he's as close as he is.

21. John Autin Says:
    November 23rd, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    @20, San -- Thanks for elaborating. I see your take more clearly now.

    My particular interest in Renteria began when ["who cares?" alert!] I had him on my fantasy baseball team in 2006-07, the last years I did such stuff. He was productive for my team at minimal cost (pretty much the opposite of Boston's experience), and one day when I was admiring his stats, I realized that he'd been plugging away steadily for a dozen years and had over 1,700 hits when he turned 30. I didn't think, even then, that he had a good shot at 3,000 hits, mostly because he'd never had any really big years; his high of 194 was his only season over 175, and that just didn't seem to be the normal path to 3,000. Still, I was surprised and intrigued by his total at that age, especially as he'd stayed pretty well under the radar most of the time, given the abundance of power-hitting, run-producing shortstops in that era.

    As soon as I noticed his outside shot at 3,000 hits, I realized that if he got it, he would provide the first big HOF test of the power of the "magic number" vs. the widespread gut feeling that Renteria simply wasn't a HOF-caliber player. I recalled when it seemed that Harold Baines or, earlier, Al Oliver might provide that test, but both fell short of 3,000. Now, as you noted, Johnny Damon is the next "great hope" in that regard. It does seem that there must eventually be a player who reaches 3,000 hits but is still not elected to the Hall on the basis of his overall performance. There's no sound reason for the existence of any "magic number," and I hope to be around to see the precedent set.

    Incidentally, while I won't consider Damon a HOFer even if he does reach 3,000 hits by continuing his current career path, I do think it will be a struggle for the voters to reject him. He'll almost surely have several other impressive counting numbers by then. Here is, if you will, the "Scott Boras" case for Johnny Damon:
    -- over 1,600 runs (every modern eligible player with 1,600 runs is in the HOF);
    -- over 200 HRs and 400 SB (he would be the 9th ever to reach that combo); and
    -- over 500 doubles (just 4 HOF-eligible players with 500+ doubles and 200+ HRs have been rejected).

    Furthermore, I can imagine some traditional HOF voters thinking that a vote for Damon would be a nod toward the new school, on a couple of fronts. The Hall has historically favored middle-of-the-order hitters and slighted leadoff hitters; Damon is a leadoff hitter. 100-RBI men have been favored over 100-Run scorers; Damon has scored 100+ runs 10 times. (That's 13th all-time, tied with Pete Rose, 4 more than Tim Raines, more than Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Joe Morgan, Lou Brock, and many other HOFers.)

    What all the counting stats obscure, of course, is that Damon's career has been almost perfectly situated in time and place for piling up numbers. His entire career has been during the steroids era, in the higher-scoring league, and with the DH spot available (no small factor for keeping a weak-armed OF in the lineup every day; Damon mostly DH'd this year, and spent chunks of 2007-08 in that role).

    It's funny how durable an impression can be even when you know it's wrong. I still think of Damon as roughly a .300 hitter, but in fact he's been in the .270s more often than the .300s (6 years to 5), has hit .282 or less in 9 of his 16 seasons, and has a career BA of .287.

    (This feels long enough, so I'll post now and maybe come back later to talk about career length and age of retirement.)

22. John Autin Says:
    November 24th, 2010 at 12:38 am

    Continuing my reply to San @20....

    "it seems like players who start really young seem to decline earlier than others. I didn't say they don't have long careers, just that they sometimes decline for good in their early 30s."

    Maybe so -- but, historically, the vast majority of players have declined for good by their early 30s and have hung up the spikes by 35. I think the important point is that this is demonstrably less true of players who come up very young than it is of those who debut at an average age or beyond. That this is true has been amply demonstrated by Bill James, among others. And it makes perfect sense to me: In general, those who come up young do so because they're better than others their age, which in turn means that, on average, they have higher peaks and, given normal ageing patterns, they maintain MLB-caliber skills for a longer period.

    Furthermore, after their skills have declined below replacement level, those players tend to stay in MLB longer, for several reasons: they're the face of a team; they're drawing cards; their experience is viewed as an asset in the clubhouse over and above their ability to play; and since they've had many good years, they're seen as having a better chance to pull one more good season out of a hat.

    I don't want to split hairs on specific players, but your leading example was Robin Yount, whom you said was "washed up at 34." I disagree. First off, Yount was MVP at 33 (older than a great majority of MVPs), posting a 152 OPS+ (giving him 4 straight years at 125 or higher in his 30s). At 34, he played 157 games in CF and had a 102 OPS+; of the 23 men who played at least 80 games in CF that year, he ranked 14th in OPS+ and 11th in WAR. At 36, he played 139 games in CF and had a 101 OPS+, ranking 12th out of 25 regular CFs in OPS+ and 16th in WAR. That's far from vintage Robin Yount, but it's not washed up. At 36, Yount hit 40 doubles, stole 15 bases in 21 tries, and had just 9 GIDP.

    On your other examples, I split my vote:
    -- Eddie Mathews: Definitely burned out early.
    -- Junior Griffey: While certainly injury-prone and far from the caliber of his prime, Griffey was still a very productive hitter through age 37, with a combined 122 OPS+ from age 31-37.

    You cited 3 examples of players who became regulars rather late but played into their 40s: Kenny Lofton, Edgar Martinez and Steve Finley.
    -- Lofton, I believe, had focused on basketball in his youth and in college, which puts a bit of an asterisk on his relatively late debut. Also, the Astros have a history of being cautious with their prospects; look at the minor-league careers of Lance Berkman, Luke Scott, Jason Lane, Morgan Ensberg and others who were made to prove themselves far longer than most organizations would have done.
    -- Edgar became a regular at 27 due to a combination of injuries, a logjam at his positions, and organizational incompetence. It's pretty clear that Edgar was a major-league-ready hitter by age 24.

    Anyway, these are just 3 examples, and while I'm sure there are several more, they are still by far the exceptions to the rule. Here are the men who've had 300+ PAs in a season at 40 or older, and the age at which they became a MLB regular; I'll highlight any who weren't regulars by age 24 (i.e., 50 games in a season):

    -- Yaz 21, Winfield 21, T.Williams 20, Cy Williams 27, Wagner 23, Vizquel 22, Vernon 21, Surhoff 22, Stairs 28, Slaughter 22, Sheffield 20, Sauer 31, Jimmy Ryan 23, Rose 22, Ripken 21, Sam Rice 26, Tony Phillips 24, Parker 23, Palmeiro 22, Al Nixon 36 (the question is not why he debuted so late but why he ever made it at all), Nettles 24, Musial 21, Murray 21, Morgan 21, Molitor 21, Deacon McGuire 22, McCovey 22, Mays 20, E.Martinez 26, Maranville 21, Lopes 28, Lofton 25, Larkin 23, Lajoie 22, Kent 24, Reggie Jackson 22, Dummy Hoy 26, Henderson 20, Luis Gonzalez 23, Galarraga 25, Gaetti 23, Julio Franco 24, Fisk 24, Finley 24, Darrell Evans 24, Downing 23, Jake Daubert 26, Lave Cross 21, Johnny Cooney 23, Conine 27, Cobb 19, Brett Butler 25, Brock 23, Brett 21, Bob Boone 25, Barry Bonds 21, Boggs 24, Biggio 22, Baines 21, Jimmy Austin 29, Appling 24, Moises Alou 25, Aaron 20.

    About 3/4 of these players (47 of 63) were MLB regulars by age 24. Of the 16 who weren't, a few played in the years before 1930, when scouting was more haphazard, minor leagues were independent, and it was not automatic that a MLB-caliber player would be promptly channeled to the majors. And one played in the majors for reasons that escape the naked eye.

23. BSK Says:
    November 24th, 2010 at 11:36 am

    I don't think any of the arguments regarding Pujols' age have much substantiation to them. From what I have seen, they are largely (if not entirely) based on A) appearance and B) production.

    Pujols moved to America when he was 16. It is certainly possible that his parents/he lied about his age upon coming here, but given that coming here meant entering the draft system (as opposed to being an international free agent), there was less incentive to game the system in this way. Again, it's possible, but I think a lot less likely.

    To the evidence that does seem to indicate he has been less than truthful about his age, it is largely speculation that can be explained by other possibilities as well.

    In terms of production, there are many players who demonstrate an intense precociousness. Pujols broke into the majors at 21, which isn't unbelievably young.

    In terms of appearance, there are many reasons why Pujols may look older than he is, including the physical maturation and the hair loss (hidden by the shaved head look). Some individuals have hormone levels that belie their chronological age. They're the guys that are the first to grow mustaches in middle school, can add real muscle mass in high school, and often dominate sports because they basically have the body of a person a few years older. For most of these guys, this soon works against them, as they have the body of someone in their late 20s when they are in the early 20s, etc, etc, etc, and their edge turns into a deficit. Of course, for an elite athlete, this is less likely to be a problem. It may catch up to Albert some day, as he may have the body of a 40-year-old by his mid 30s. But we'll see. Some guys are just legitimately freaks of nature.

    For myself, I can't put much faith into these claims without real evidence. It is the same with steroids... absent any real evidence, I'm not going to cry foul of any guy who amazes me. Am I mindful of the possibility? Of course. But I don't think it's fair to throw such accusations around without evidence. Of course, if there IS evidence I am ignorant of, I am all ears (eyes...?).

24. Joe Garrison Says:
    November 24th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    You can see the effects of expansion here too. Only five of these guys started their careers before the end of World War Two. And none between 1908 and 1928.

25. Mike Felber Says:
    November 26th, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Interesting BSK. I agree that there is no good evidence that Pujols is older. but where is an indication that those who reach puberty earlier age faster? I have never heard this, though it possibly has some truth. If so, it leans credence to what Chuck has said on another site: that Pujols has a "bad body", that of a guy somewhat older. And thinks he will have only 2 or 3 more good years.

    As far as i know, advantages from maturing earlier fade when others catch up, but 1) these guys tend to be those who still on average are more impressive physically-with numerous exceptions & some late developers being great athletes. And 2) I do not know if having several more years with an adult body is more enervating on the system/effectively ages you faster. Would love to hear more about this.

26. Chuck Says:
    November 29th, 2010 at 12:54 am

    My comment regarding Pujols, Mike, was absent of any "early maturation" thoughts, although it is an interesting possibility to look at.

    Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey Jr were performing at age 20 in the major leagues at a pace most guys don't reach until they are ten years older.

    I stood next to Bryce Harper in the AFL, he had just turned 18 and is a legitimate six foot three, two oh five.

    You look at the numbers he put up in college and against top minor league talent at an age when he should be half way through his senior year of high school brings into question whether or not he has physically peaked.

    I see Robin Yount occassionally at Alumni events in the Phoenix area and he looks the same as he did when he played, matter of fact, he looks like he still could play.

    I don't know what his workout routine is, but he has aged well. I think genetics has alot to do with things, some guys are just freaks in that regard.

27. Mike Felber Says:
    November 30th, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Absolutely Chuck, I wonder though: a guy can only reach physical maturity several years before others. Does doing so mean you need decline at a proportionately younger age? i do not know that that need be the case. Also, guys reach their playing peak in their late 20's due to being at or near their physical peaks, but having more skills & knowledge. We know Harper can get much better in the latter.

    Now someone who came into the league even younger than Yount, & was setting single game K league records at 17: Bob Feller. He had been in the league for years when called away to WW2. I wonder if this might have flattened his peak. Given how superb his stuff was, I think he did not reach his full potential. Fascinating guy.

    I saw Micheal Irwin outside my local Supermarket while freeganing. He looks really fit too. I do not think Griffey breaks down due to an early peak, but some guys are more injury prone, & luck plays a part. I would be surprised if A-Rod was out of the game by 40 like you said-maybe you know his condition well enough to say so. But given his skills & athleticism, otherwise I would think he would age pretty well.

    Though assuming now clean, we cannot expect any ridiculous "double peaks" of guys like Bonds-when they only have power left, but that goes through the roof.