2ND YEAR PITCHER SLUMPS

[wrveres]

Interesting post. Thanks

[Guest]

This has to be considered when drafting SP's in their second season in the majors. I have had several "discussions" here on the subject this week so decided to do some investigating myself after Hootie posted that overall only 35% of first year players drop in numbers in their second year.

You had a ton to write in that post, so I'll just post a little something about one point:

If 35% drop in numbers, then unless over 30% stay exactly the same, more pitchers improve after their first season. And 65% of pitchers don't decline in their sophomore year.

How I read it was that if Hootie was right with his 35% and that was debatable then this study over 4 years shows clearly that over 65 % of first year pitchers did decline in their sophomore year which means a huge percentage of first year hitters imrpoved their numbers in the second year.

[HOOTIE]

Looking at only 53, (small sample size) it's going to increase the error rate. There are about 350 pitchers on a team this year. If you included just the last 10 years, you will be talking over 1,000. Going all time, you are talking many, many thousands.

[NZF]

This has to be considered when drafting SP's in their second season in the majors. I have had several "discussions" here on the subject this week so decided to do some investigating myself after Hootie posted that overall only 35% of first year players drop in numbers in their second year.

You had a ton to write in that post, so I'll just post a little something about one point:

If 35% drop in numbers, then unless over 30% stay exactly the same, more pitchers improve after their first season. And 65% of pitchers don't decline in their sophomore year.

How I read it was that if Hootie was right with his 35% and that was debatable then this study over 4 years shows clearly that over 65 % of first year pitchers did decline in their sophomore year which means a huge percentage of first year hitters imrpoved their numbers in the second year.

Couldn't have put that better myself. Jackal I have done this study over the past 4 seasons with the parameters mentioned above. As I said I may have left several pitchers off the list as it was done mainly by memory but I'm pretty sure I got the majority of them. Feel free to track down any others and take a look.

The facts are there plain for everyone without blinkers to see. More than 70% of all first year SP's in at least 10 games / 60 IP have had a reduction in their numbers in their sophomore year. Combined ERA / WHIP / BAA

[NZF]

Looking at only 53, (small sample size) it's going to increase the error rate. There are about 350 pitchers on a team this year. If you included just the last 10 years, you will be talking over 1,000. Going all time, you are talking many, many thousands.

Take the blinkers off.

I have already admitted this study is only over a short period (4 seasons) but 53 SP is a significant sample size. With the parameters used (for sake of fairness) I can't recall many others in the 4 year period I have left off except for the ones mentioned earlier (injured or with very low stats in first year). Including them would increase the % even more.

What the hell does 350 pitchers have to do with anything????
60 new SP (including Zito, Oswalt, Benson, Eaton, Pineiro etc) over 4 seasons who had to have pitched a significant time in their first year and again in their next year to me is quite a number! That's 2 new pitchers for every ML team. For accuracy and integrity you can't include guys that come up for one appearance and go down never to be seen again or others that pitch for just one year in the Majors. How can you accurately compare that?

As I said to Jackal give me some more names if you can to include. I doubt you will find many. Even better go further back in time and if you like use your own parameters, but don't preach that "no merit study" crap to me until you can prove otherwise.

Just because you believe it isn't so, don't mean it aint so.

[HOOTIE]

Take the blinkers off.

I have already admitted this study is only over a short period (4 seasons) but 53 SP is a significant sample size. Even better go further back in time and if you like use your own parameters, but don't preach that "no merit study" crap to me until you can prove otherwise.

53 might be significant to you. It's a very small size. Just 5 guys switching sides (increase/decrease), will alter the findings 10%. I don't have to prove anything. The overall study had a 35% decrease. Since you believe it's much higher for pitchers, it's up to YOU to prove it. Plus you keep saying you went off memory? Like i said, i checked only a few guys you listed, and you had Buehrle ranked as decreasing, when he increased.

[fezzik]

I think while this is an iteresting study you've done, it isn't really going to affect the way I judge the competency of second year pitchers...
They either have nasty stuff or they don't...

Webb - has nasty stuff exploding sinker creates many grounders and many nightmares

Contreras - nasty stuff, plays on a winning team, probably struggled at first more from culture shock and not starting than ability...finished season extremely strong
Harden - has nice fastball...needs to work on offspeed control
Foppert - nice fastball...has difficulty working deep in games
Ainsworth - pretty nasty stuff...needs to work on control and strength
Willis - mediocre fastball, nice arm angles, good against lefties...righties got a read on him after first couple times through league
Horacio - good control...stuff isn't too nasty...however, very steady and consistent performer with a nice pitching coach
Cliff Lee - looks like a promising youngster, but I haven't seen enough of him yet
Jason Davis - not too nasty, doesn't look too promising
Bonderman - plays for Detroit...not as bad as his numbers imply, but still not too productive
Jeriome Robertson - not too nasty...doesn't help to play in Houston
Vargas - only average stuff, despite a strong start to last season
Seo - doesn't have great stuff, but is mentally tough and knows how to pitch (if you ignore a horrendous July, he actually pitched pretty well last year)
Jerome Williams - his era would imply he's pretty dominant, but I don't think he has great stuff, only pretty good...playing in pac bell and on a winning team helps too

so after all that, the only three guys from above I'd consider targetting for this years draft are Webb (somewhere between rounds 8 and 10), Contreras (mid to late rounds), and Harden (late rounds). Maybe Willis very late, but he's not going to last that long.

so even if 70% of second year pitchers actually perform worse, I'm confident enough in my knowledge of baseball to target a few guys I feel will be productive pitchers in 2004. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't have a drop off (i.e. Webb will have a difficulty improving on his era/whip/BAA, but even if those go up slightly he'll have a great year. Plus I think he'll post 14-16 wins this year with a better offense around him.)

I enjoyed reading the data you had collected, but I just don't know how applicable it is to improving someones fantasy baseball knowledge.

[NZF]

Take the blinkers off.

I have already admitted this study is only over a short period (4 seasons) but 53 SP is a significant sample size. Even better go further back in time and if you like use your own parameters, but don't preach that "no merit study" crap to me until you can prove otherwise.

53 might be significant to you. It's a very small size. Just 5 guys switching sides (increase/decrease), will alter the findings 10%. I don't have to prove anything. The overall study had a 35% decrease. Since you believe it's much higher for pitchers, it's up to YOU to prove it. Plus you keep saying you went off memory? Like i said, i checked only a few guys you listed, and you had Buehrle ranked as decreasing, when he increased.

Apparently you are given credit in this forum for having some intelligence. I have yet to see it. Using the parameters I have mentioned repeatedly to you Buehrle did decrease. Not only did he decrease in his first year as a regular SP but he has every year since. A great example to use to prove my point. Once again just for you because you obviously have extreme difficulty grasping what I am saying, of course a 4 year period is a short time but 60 pitchers within that time frame is not. Over 70% decreased within that period.

The memory I went off was in the actual pinpointing of SP within this period who met the criteria, not their individual statistics. Those results are fact. If you can think of any others to add to the study feel free to do so. To date you have not so I conclude from that I have recalled them all.

In my opinion you have to prove plenty.

[HOOTIE]

Apparently you are given credit in this forum for having some intelligence. I have yet to see it. Using the parameters I have mentioned repeatedly to you Buehrle did decrease. Not only did he decrease in his first year as a regular SP but he has every year since. A great example to use to prove my point. Once again just for you because you obviously have extreme difficulty grasping what I am saying, of course a 4 year period is a short time but 60 pitchers within that time frame is not. Over 70% decreased within that period.

The memory I went off was in the actual pinpointing of SP within this period who met the criteria, not their individual statistics. Those results are fact. If you can think of any others to add to the study feel free to do so. To date you have not so I conclude from that I have recalled them all.

In my opinion you have to prove plenty.

NZ i will sleep easy whether no matter what you think of me. It doesn't matter to me. I don't get paid to be liked or disliked. I suggest you learn about sample sizes. Doing a study with 53 players, is flawed before it starts.

Also, Buehrle improved his 2nd year. Apparently, you have a hard time reading player stats.

00 1st year 4.21 era 51.1 innings
01 2nd year 3.29 era

He improved. You say he didn't. Another flaw in your study. 50 innings is good enough to lose rookie status.