The Increasing Risk of Signing Hitters Into Their Mid-30s

[pitchingandefense]

I'm not seeing your correlation.

It's not supported by anything you posted

As pitching velocity has increased, there are fewer older hitters producing at elite or above average levels. Therefore paying free agents big money deep into their 30s with expectations that they will remain elite is more risky now than it used to be.

Again, nothing you stated, supports that

Kyle Schwarber keeps getting better, Harpers been just fine..Ohtahni, Judge .

None of the players you listed have entered the age group of 34+ that I cited, so not sure what the eye roll is for.

In 2025, Freddie Freeman and George Springer were the only qualified hitters age 34+ who were top 50 hitters, and they were both 35.

In decades past there were plenty of 34+ age players who were among the league leaders. Guys who other posters have mentioned in this thread.

So we are seeing a trend where fewer hitters are remaining elite into their mid to late 30s. This is happening at the same time as rising pitch velocities.

Arenado didn't fall of a cliff, he steadily fell. Same with Goldy
They both had their career year in 2022...that's the anomaly started in their early 30's

Title of the thread says into their mid 30's

Exactly, mid 30s. Many of these guys who are signing contracts that take them to age 34 and beyond are not coming close to being worth their contracts. Just today I read an article that the Astros are already trying to unload Christian Walker due to his steep regression as he enters his mid 30s. They aren’t finding any takers yet. He is one of many examples emerging of buyers remorse for paying sluggers in this age group. Arenado is our team’s current example. Contreras might be next.

The downturn of elite players like Arenado and Goldy is happening faster than it used to. The descent is steeper. Likely caused by a combination of age versus faster pitches than the game used to see this regularly, along with facing a constant parade of relievers who they haven’t faced many times.

[12xu]

It's no secret that as velocity has increased in the game, so have the strikeouts and struggles of older players. It has been jarring to witness how quickly Arenado and Goldschmidt fell off. They follow a trend around the league. It makes the 5 year contracts of Schwarber and Alonso seem questionable. Here's some comparison between the 2015 and 2025 seasons for reference to the game's changes.

Average Fastball Velo
2015 93.3
2025 94.3

K/9
2015 7.76
2025 8.49 (This is actually down a bit from where it has been the last couple years)

Average age of Qualified hitters who were top 50 in wRC+
2015 29.5
2025 28.5

Qualified hitters age 34+ who were top 50 in wRC+
2015 7 (Oldest was 39)
2025 2 (Both were 35)

Qualified hitters age 34+ with wRC+ of 100 or higher
2015 10
2025 6


Unless MLB institutes some rule changes that help subdue the velocity (and injuries) pitchers are chasing, then we will likely see the end of hitters receiving contracts that go deep into their 30s. Another effect will be career counting numbers that fall short of current Hall of Fame standards. This is already happening with starting pitchers in the current environment.

You show the me the Wade Boggs, Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, Ozzie Smith, Paul Molitor, Willie McGee, Will Clark, Ichiro,……type hitters in todays game and then talk to me about 1mph increase in Velo the last decade. Most of these K’s are because of the hitters approach and nothing to do with Super Men Pitchers.

This is true. Pitchers do throw faster today, but there are so many batters who swing from the heels even with 2 strikes. Not enough hitters like Freddy Freeman who hit with power but also go with the pitch and make contact instead of flailing away. Those type hitters you mention are getting harder to find every day.

[sp25]

The idea of swinging for the fences against 98 mph pitching is beyond dumb. If they can’t pull it they don’t swing. This is why Donovan is so coveted. He’s an old school hitter. Hits to all fields and is aggressive on early strikes. Not many intelligent hitters in the game anymore. Goldy and Arenado had to cheat to catch up
To a fastball.

Cheating by Goldy and Arenado? Pretty strong accusation without any proof.

[pitchingandefense]

Now show the comparison of ERA+ by age in the same time period. Does the higher velocity prevalent in today's game have a similar effect with regards to aging or an opposite effect (since their velocity is higher)?

The pitching side has seen two trends. The first is the velocity increase. The second is the continued decline of pitchers who reach the minimum threshold of innings pitched for the ERA title consideration. In 2015 there were 78 pitchers who threw the minimum innings to qualify. In 2025 that number was 52. Age doesn’t seem to be a factor on the pitching side as bullpens are soaking up more innings than ever.

[Olemiss540]

Now show the comparison of ERA+ by age in the same time period. Does the higher velocity prevalent in today's game have a similar effect with regards to aging or an opposite effect (since their velocity is higher)?

The pitching side has seen two trends. The first is the velocity increase. The second is the continued decline of pitchers who reach the minimum threshold of innings pitched for the ERA title consideration. In 2015 there were 78 pitchers who threw the minimum innings to qualify. In 2025 that number was 52. Age doesn’t seem to be a factor on the pitching side as bullpens are soaking up more innings than ever.

More concerned with the stats of aging pitchers against their peers (era+ or similar stat) over the last decade. You have shown how hitters stats decline relative to their piers over the last decade, how about pitchers stats compared to their peers over the last decade (aside from velocity or SOs)?

[pitchingandefense]

Now show the comparison of ERA+ by age in the same time period. Does the higher velocity prevalent in today's game have a similar effect with regards to aging or an opposite effect (since their velocity is higher)?

The pitching side has seen two trends. The first is the velocity increase. The second is the continued decline of pitchers who reach the minimum threshold of innings pitched for the ERA title consideration. In 2015 there were 78 pitchers who threw the minimum innings to qualify. In 2025 that number was 52. Age doesn’t seem to be a factor on the pitching side as bullpens are soaking up more innings than ever.

More concerned with the stats of aging pitchers against their peers (era+ or similar stat) over the last decade. You have shown how hitters stats decline relative to their piers over the last decade, how about pitchers stats compared to their peers over the last decade (aside from velocity or SOs)?

I assume you mean from an investment standpoint in signing pitchers to long term contracts that carry into their mid and late 30s. The older starting pitchers are doing ok in this regard.

Top 50 pitchers in ERA- who were 34+
2015 5
2025 9

But some of that is skewed by the fact that there were so few qualifying pitchers in 2025. It seems this is because the current crop of young starting pitchers are coached to prioritize velocity over longevity, even if it means their start only lasts four innings.

[Olemiss540]

Now show the comparison of ERA+ by age in the same time period. Does the higher velocity prevalent in today's game have a similar effect with regards to aging or an opposite effect (since their velocity is higher)?

The pitching side has seen two trends. The first is the velocity increase. The second is the continued decline of pitchers who reach the minimum threshold of innings pitched for the ERA title consideration. In 2015 there were 78 pitchers who threw the minimum innings to qualify. In 2025 that number was 52. Age doesn’t seem to be a factor on the pitching side as bullpens are soaking up more innings than ever.

More concerned with the stats of aging pitchers against their peers (era+ or similar stat) over the last decade. You have shown how hitters stats decline relative to their piers over the last decade, how about pitchers stats compared to their peers over the last decade (aside from velocity or SOs)?

I assume you mean from an investment standpoint in signing pitchers to long term contracts that carry into their mid and late 30s. The older starting pitchers are doing ok in this regard.

Top 50 pitchers in ERA- who were 34+
2015 5
2025 9

But some of that is skewed by the fact that there were so few qualifying pitchers in 2025. It seems this is because the current crop of young starting pitchers are coached to prioritize velocity over longevity, even if it means their start only lasts four innings.

Correct. So your stats are saying it's a wiser investment to have long term pitching contracts than hitting contracts right?

[juan good eye]

It's no secret that as velocity has increased in the game, so have the strikeouts and struggles of older players. It has been jarring to witness how quickly Arenado and Goldschmidt fell off. They follow a trend around the league. It makes the 5 year contracts of Schwarber and Alonso seem questionable. Here's some comparison between the 2015 and 2025 seasons for reference to the game's changes.

Average Fastball Velo
2015 93.3
2025 94.3

K/9
2015 7.76
2025 8.49 (This is actually down a bit from where it has been the last couple years)

Average age of Qualified hitters who were top 50 in wRC+
2015 29.5
2025 28.5

Qualified hitters age 34+ who were top 50 in wRC+
2015 7 (Oldest was 39)
2025 2 (Both were 35)

Qualified hitters age 34+ with wRC+ of 100 or higher
2015 10
2025 6


Unless MLB institutes some rule changes that help subdue the velocity (and injuries) pitchers are chasing, then we will likely see the end of hitters receiving contracts that go deep into their 30s. Another effect will be career counting numbers that fall short of current Hall of Fame standards. This is already happening with starting pitchers in the current environment.

You show the me the Wade Boggs, Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, Ozzie Smith, Paul Molitor, Willie McGee, Will Clark, Ichiro,……type hitters in todays game and then talk to me about 1mph increase in Velo the last decade. Most of these K’s are because of the hitters approach and nothing to do with Super Men Pitchers.

Those guys would be licking their chops at all those fastballs being fed to them, even with the uptick.

Those who think Ichiro, Gwynn, etc wouldn’t be able to adjust to the modern game are out of their minds. Their numbers would be even better.

Modern defensive positioning and shifts would take away many of their predictable, soft hits.

[CorneliusWolfe]

It's no secret that as velocity has increased in the game, so have the strikeouts and struggles of older players. It has been jarring to witness how quickly Arenado and Goldschmidt fell off. They follow a trend around the league. It makes the 5 year contracts of Schwarber and Alonso seem questionable. Here's some comparison between the 2015 and 2025 seasons for reference to the game's changes.

Average Fastball Velo
2015 93.3
2025 94.3

K/9
2015 7.76
2025 8.49 (This is actually down a bit from where it has been the last couple years)

Average age of Qualified hitters who were top 50 in wRC+
2015 29.5
2025 28.5

Qualified hitters age 34+ who were top 50 in wRC+
2015 7 (Oldest was 39)
2025 2 (Both were 35)

Qualified hitters age 34+ with wRC+ of 100 or higher
2015 10
2025 6


Unless MLB institutes some rule changes that help subdue the velocity (and injuries) pitchers are chasing, then we will likely see the end of hitters receiving contracts that go deep into their 30s. Another effect will be career counting numbers that fall short of current Hall of Fame standards. This is already happening with starting pitchers in the current environment.

You show the me the Wade Boggs, Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, Ozzie Smith, Paul Molitor, Willie McGee, Will Clark, Ichiro,……type hitters in todays game and then talk to me about 1mph increase in Velo the last decade. Most of these K’s are because of the hitters approach and nothing to do with Super Men Pitchers.

Those guys would be licking their chops at all those fastballs being fed to them, even with the uptick.

Those who think Ichiro, Gwynn, etc wouldn’t be able to adjust to the modern game are out of their minds. Their numbers would be even better.

Modern defensive positioning and shifts would take away many of their predictable, soft hits.

A hitter that can control where the ball goes doesn’t give a [shirt] about a shift. Every hole that is closed opens up another. But you probably wouldn’t know, having only one good eye.

[mattmitchl44]

As pitchers - in particular relief pitchers - have consistently thrown harder and with high spin rates (more movement), the modern approach to hitting has changed. Hitters and hitting instructors know that, for any hitter, just making solid contact is harder in 2025 than it ever has been before.

And that makes physical sense, IIRC, it takes a minimum of 0.3 seconds for a batter to see a pitch with his eye, have the eye send a signal to his brain, have the brain interpret that input into where the ball is going to be and whether to swing or not, and finally to send signals to the body to start the swing. As more pitchers are throwing 95 to 100 mph vs. 90 to 95 mph before, that has a significant impact on how much "excess time" over that 0.3 seconds the batter has. And when pitchers start routinely throwing 100 to 105 mph, it will be even less.

So - knowing that the deck is stacked against making solid contact - hitters have pivoted to trying to do as much damage, hit the ball as hard as they can to generate XBHs instead of singles, when they DO make solid contact. This is backed up by data - MLB isolated power (ISO) in the 1980s tended to be in the .11x, .12x, .13x range annually, whereas today it is in the .15x, .16x, .17x range annually. That leads to more strikeouts as well, but the modern approach to hitting - and it's almost certainly backed up by a lot of analytic data - has figured out that the trade off still leads to more offense.

Fans love their "exceptional" comparisons - why can't more hitters be like Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, etc., why can't more pitchers be like Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, etc. The fact of the matter is that, even in those players' era when the game was better structured to support their approach, almost no players THEN could replicate what Gwynn, Carew, Glavine, Maddux, etc. did and have the same level of success. Let alone any players doing that now.

[mattmitchl44]

I'll add - and the OP's premise also makes physical sense. We expect a hitter's "bat speed" - reaction time and swing speed - to go down as they get older, in particular into their mid-30s and later.

The effect of that decline gets compounded by pitchers across MLB throwing harder and with more movement with every passing decade.

[renostl]

As pitchers - in particular relief pitchers - have consistently thrown harder and with high spin rates (more movement), the modern approach to hitting has changed. Hitters and hitting instructors know that, for any hitter, just making solid contact is harder in 2025 than it ever has been before.

And that makes physical sense, IIRC, it takes a minimum of 0.3 seconds for a batter to see a pitch with his eye, have the eye send a signal to his brain, have the brain interpret that input into where the ball is going to be and whether to swing or not, and finally to send signals to the body to start the swing. As more pitchers are throwing 95 to 100 mph vs. 90 to 95 mph before, that has a significant impact on how much "excess time" over that 0.3 seconds the batter has. And when pitchers start routinely throwing 100 to 105 mph, it will be even less.

So - knowing that the deck is stacked against making solid contact - hitters have pivoted to trying to do as much damage, hit the ball as hard as they can to generate XBHs instead of singles, when they DO make solid contact. This is backed up by data - MLB isolated power (ISO) in the 1980s tended to be in the .11x, .12x, .13x range annually, whereas today it is in the .15x, .16x, .17x range annually. That leads to more strikeouts as well, but the modern approach to hitting - and it's almost certainly backed up by a lot of analytic data - has figured out that the trade off still leads to more offense.

Fans love their "exceptional" comparisons - why can't more hitters be like Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, etc., why can't more pitchers be like Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, etc. The fact of the matter is that, even in those players' era when the game was better structured to support their approach, almost no players THEN could replicate what Gwynn, Carew, Glavine, Maddux, etc. did and have the same level of success. Let alone any players doing that now.

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Age has some factor. It is also important to be what we used to call short to the ball. There's a large range there. Complicated
swings can be 250 ms with short at 150. Arenado is long with the inside pitch an exception he can speed up. No surprise he aged
faster. Judge is drop and explode. Anyway a lot of number that add up to the time of a blink at 100 mph.

Baseball America had this. Batting Stats of all hitters vs velocity. Wish they had one of the age 35+ hitters to fully support the OP.

Velocity
range AVG obp slg ops whiff
rate
89-90 mph .290 .369 .539 .908 15.3
91-92 mph .267 .344 .487 .831 17.9
93-94 mph .250 .344 .438 .782 21.2
95-96 mph .241 .328 .411 .739 23.8
97-98 mph .209 .293 .336 .629 25.4
99-100 mph .184 .282 .267 .549 29.1
101-102 mph .143 .236 .214 .450 36.6

[mattmitchl44]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

[pitchingandefense]

Now show the comparison of ERA+ by age in the same time period. Does the higher velocity prevalent in today's game have a similar effect with regards to aging or an opposite effect (since their velocity is higher)?

The pitching side has seen two trends. The first is the velocity increase. The second is the continued decline of pitchers who reach the minimum threshold of innings pitched for the ERA title consideration. In 2015 there were 78 pitchers who threw the minimum innings to qualify. In 2025 that number was 52. Age doesn’t seem to be a factor on the pitching side as bullpens are soaking up more innings than ever.

More concerned with the stats of aging pitchers against their peers (era+ or similar stat) over the last decade. You have shown how hitters stats decline relative to their piers over the last decade, how about pitchers stats compared to their peers over the last decade (aside from velocity or SOs)?

I assume you mean from an investment standpoint in signing pitchers to long term contracts that carry into their mid and late 30s. The older starting pitchers are doing ok in this regard.

Top 50 pitchers in ERA- who were 34+
2015 5
2025 9

But some of that is skewed by the fact that there were so few qualifying pitchers in 2025. It seems this is because the current crop of young starting pitchers are coached to prioritize velocity over longevity, even if it means their start only lasts four innings.

Correct. So your stats are saying it's a wiser investment to have long term pitching contracts than hitting contracts right?

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Some of the starting pitchers who are older and ranked in the top 50 are simply there because of a lack of qualifying pitchers now compared to what we used to see in MLB. As BrockFloodMaris points out, there are so many TJ surgeries now in this high velo/spin environment that the long term pitcher contracts carry a lot of risk as well. But pitchers have always carried more injury risk on long-term deals. Now it seems aging hitters are a riskier bet than they used to be to maintain high level production.

[Goldfan]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

[mattmitchl44]

I seen your name and thought the deep dive of the numbers was coming. It is rather fascinating.
The ball doesn't travel 60' 6". It gets hit about a foot in front, then whatever the stride is and we sometimes see 7 foot strides.
A 100 mph FB takes about 375 milliseconds to travel the distance. 23 ms is gained at 95 mph another gain at 90 mph.

Your numbers are close enough. A very good recall of that total time. 75-100 ms to see it, elite athlete can drop the reaction time to
100 ms that's uncommon, It starts for pros at 200 ms and after a couple years 150 ms is a great accomplishment.
The swing itself takes 150 - 200 ms.
The batter has the process a lot and then projects during that short initial moment where it's going call it that 300 millisecond time,
There is only a 7 ms window of time to determine if the struck ball is fair or foul.

Yeah - let's assume it's like 55 ft. from point of pitch release to bat contact.

90 mph = 132 fps = 417 ms - 300 ms = 117 ms excess time to react
95 mph = 139 fps = 395 ms - 300 ms = 95 ms excess time to react
100 mph = 147 fps = 375 ms - 300 ms = 75 ms excess time to react
105 mph = 154 fps = 357 ms - 300 ms = 57 ms excess time to react

So, while going from 90 mph to 100 mph might be thought of as just a 10-11% increase in velocity, it is effectively more like a ~35% reduction in the excess time a batter has to react ((117 - 75)/117 = a ~35% reduction in excess time to react).

From 90 mph to 105 mph, it's an ~15% increase in velocity, but a ~50% reduction in excess time to react.

And when you add more movement to that increase in velocity, the combination is rather devastating for all batters' ability to make solid contact.

So with the provided equation……we can all see that it’s impossible to hit ML pitching. And yet they do
It’s also logical that if a batter has an expert control of their bat(Gwynn, Carew, Boggs, Rose, Ichiro) that producing a HIT is a much GREATER probability than producing a HR. Given that….if MOST of todays batters are at the plate attempting to produce that perfect launch angle/speed swing HR cut…..the probability is set in stone since the beginning of the game that they will fail at a MUCH greater rate than the batter simply attempting to make contact producing a fair hit landing within the diamond. This is physics, probability, mathematics.
The premise that this rather new “approach” that the batter must attempt this “most damage” swing because thats the only way to hit today’s pitching is ridiculous.

Again, most batters are never going to be Gwynn, Carew, etc. in terms of bat control. They are never going to be that any more than they are going to be Babe Ruth with respect to power. Your unstated premise is that it would easy, if they just tried, to develop expert bat control and be able to place batted balls wherever they want vs. modern pitching (and modern defensive adjustments). That isn't the case.

30, 40, etc. years ago, most players couldn't emulate Gwynn, Carew, etc. vs. the pitchers THEN, and it's even more unlikely for any but the tiniest fraction to be able to emulate them against pitchers NOW.

And, if you are not making solid contact, just getting the ball in play - if you can even do that at a slightly higher rate - isn't necessarily going to lead to more overall success.

The "modern approach" to emphasize hitting for XBH "damage" didn't materialize out of thin air just to offend you sensibilities as to that "pretty baseball" looks like. It materialized because a lot of people studied what the trends were in modern baseball and found that that approach is going to work best for most batters facing modern pitching.