We often subscribe to the belief that experience is a positive trait in evaluating players.  Not only does past performance give us a comfort level with predicting future results, but beyond that, we (and pro organizations) often view the “been there, done that” mentality as a positive trait.

But can experience ever be a bad thing?

This question was prompted by a comment from Cardinals4Ever about the reason for LaRussa bringing up Jimenez, instead of a (likely) more talented youngster like Motte:

"[Motte] is lights out right now and throwing in the high 90's ... hits 98 from time to time ... he would have to help us more than Jimenez ... but from Tony's perspective, it's experience vs. rookie"

Jimenez is 27, Motte is 25.  K-J has about 6 times more innings pitched in the minors, with a 3.99 ERA.   Nothing to sneeze at, but nothing to write home about.

But K-J’s major league experience consists of 43 IP, in which he has a 7.53 ERA.

Perhaps the overwhelming factor is that his numbers in the majors are just plain bad (despite the small sample size).

But it must also be noted that K-J’s “experience” is one of repeatedly getting shellacked my major-league hitters.  What is the psychological impact of such an experience?

Some would argue that K-J’s “experience” is precisely why he should be in the minors and Motte should be given a chance to prove himself at a major league level.  In K-J’s case the psychology of “experience” may be a negative rather than a positive trait.

Do you buy into this?  Can players get anchored to providing lowered performance based on their past experiences? Or is experience always a good thing to have?