NZ Eff wrote:Yoda wrote:
LOL that 'study' is a complete joke as I suspected.
You don't even consider the talent with the group that improved versus the group that regressed.
Why is that relevant? Isn't that stating the obvious? The purpose of the study was to identify pitchers that could be great sleepers moving into their third year (ie. those that improved in their second) more than expecting a 70% regression among second year guys.
This theory threw up Jake Peavy as I mentioned in February '04 as a guy to target and look what happened. I also mentioned Garland who in 2005 was talked about in CY voting.
The only thing that these guys have in common is the fact that it is their 2nd season. Nothing else. Size, shape, age, experience, skill level, talent are completely ignored in your 'study'. Players should be looked at individually.