Why do teams default to veterans?

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

3 thoughts on “Why do teams default to veterans?

  1. I think it's a case of the "pre-emptively deflect criticism" thing, that also explains why NFL head coaches are reluctant to go for it on fourth down at midfield. If you sign J. Veteran, and he fails to perform to his potential, you are less likely to hear about it from the media and fans than if you bring up T. Rookie and he tanks. "What were they thinking, bringing up a guy with no big-league experience! Why, they could have signed J. Veteran, and he's got a great track record!"

  2. williamjtasker

    I agree completely with the post and Carlos answers and least part of the equation. Managers are usually former players and may gravitate more easily to older players they view as closer to being peers. And I think there is this notion that experienced players know how to handle adversity better and not panic and let it get worse. But how do you obtain that experience if never given the chance? This is a perfect opportunity to do exactly as Brien says and find out what they have in Phelps. But they probably won't.

  3. Bill

    Especially with a 9 game lead. Unless the other four fall on their face, you can afford to see what the young man has to offer. Nothing against Garcia, but what you saw last night just isn't going to get it done. And he doesn't need any more experience. There's also a business consideration involved. For whatever reason, they look at the salary and figure no matter what, we have to try and get a return on the investment. And how many times have we seen that fail?

Comments are closed.