Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2014 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 10/1/2014 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2014 11:30:00 AM (view original):
I'll help you. You do something for roughly 32 years. Obviously you grow older. You peak then you decline. Then you take 18 months off, at 38-39, doing something that requires very good hand/eye coordination. Some people says it's the toughest task in sports.
How does the math say "Oh, he'll turn back the clock 5 years"?
You're 39 years old. Your job is to do something that's draining on your body from April-October. You're told that you must do your job at age 40, but can take off this year if you want. Your goal is to do the best you possibly can at age 40.
Do you do your job at age 39? Or rest up for age 40?
Having passed the age of 40, I think I would have been better at 39. Much like I was better at 38. And I'd expect to be worse at 41.
Would a couple of weeks off during May and August help? I think so. But I don't think my reflexes get better between the age of 39 and 40. And I need those.
Would an entire season of not doing your strenuous job at age 39 help you at age 40? Probably, right? Now, if you want to argue that the decline in your physical skills and reflexes are worse at 40 (things that aren't effected by wear and tear, just age), and that he'd be better at 39 than waiting that year and playing at 40, OK. But my point is not playing in 2014 is better for A-Rod in 2015, than playing in 2014. Do you disagree?