Verducci Effect?

[NorCalAtlFan]

Apparently the Marlins don't prescribe to this "theory."

[Edwards Kings]

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

Verducci Effect



Named for Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated, this is a negative forward indicator for pitcher workload. Verducci, who called this the 'Year After Effect,' found that pitchers under the age of 25 who have 30-inning increases year over year tend to underperform. Will Carroll independently found that pitchers who break the "Rule of 30" tend to get injured. Carroll renamed this 'rule' the Verducci Effect in honor of the man who initially found the evidence. I have heard this, seen it quoted and admit it sounds logical. But how was it for true predictive value (i.e. accuracy and large enough pool of pitchers to make it worthwhile).



So, to look at this population and compare/test against 2008 results, we would go have to go back to 2006, see what pitchers in this age pool had a 30+ IP increase in 2007 over 2006, and see how they actually did in 2008. I did limit the beginning of the pool in 2006 to those pitchers who had at least 100 IP (in the majors) that year.



With that, the pool is pretty shallow, as in five pitchers pitched at least 100 IP in the majors in 2006, was of the right age, and had a 30+ increase in IP in 2007. They were:



Cole Hamels - 2008 227+IP, 3.088 ERA, 1.082 WHIP and 196 K.

James Shields - 2008 215 IP, 3.558 ERA, 1.153 WHIP and 160 K.

Jared Weaver - 2008 176+ IP, 4.329 ERA, 1.258 WHIP and 152 K.

Scott Kazmir - 2008 152+ IP, 3.487 ERA, 1.267 WHIP and 166 K.

Chuck James - 2008 29.7 IP, 9.091 ERA, 1.886 WHIP and 22 K.



Clearly the pool is too shallow to actually give serious consideration to the Verducci effect using only Major League numbers. The pool might be bigger if you combined ML numbers as well.



Given that limitation, even though Kazmir dropped in IP over 2007, Kazmir overcame is slow start due to injury and contributed nicely and Weavers stats were a bit misleading (i.e. ERA didn't really match the way he pitched). Hamels and Shields go without saying.



James (of course, the only Brave) reeked. Was hurt and never got it back minors or majors.



So, really one for five. Not sure if the Verducci Effect has much impact.



[ February 06, 2009, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

[The Mighty Men]

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Men:

The article in Sports Illustrated last year about Lincecum, his mechanics, and his father convinced me that this kid is different, and special.



Maybe he will get injured, but I'm buying this year. Actually SI had another article penned by Verducci in which he discusses Lincy's workload. I think it is objective; he certainly allows for the possibility that he's a freak who might buck the odds. At the same time, the Giants have tried their best to test the theory that he's indestructible.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/w ... index.html [/QUOTE]Thanks, bjoak. Good stuff.

[bjoak]

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

quote:Originally posted by Captain Hook:

Verducci Effect



Named for Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated, this is a negative forward indicator for pitcher workload. Verducci, who called this the 'Year After Effect,' found that pitchers under the age of 25 who have 30-inning increases year over year tend to underperform. Will Carroll independently found that pitchers who break the "Rule of 30" tend to get injured. Carroll renamed this 'rule' the Verducci Effect in honor of the man who initially found the evidence. I have heard this, seen it quoted and admit it sounds logical. But how was it for true predictive value (i.e. accuracy and large enough pool of pitchers to make it worthwhile).



So, to look at this population and compare/test against 2008 results, we would go have to go back to 2006, see what pitchers in this age pool had a 30+ IP increase in 2007 over 2006, and see how they actually did in 2008. I did limit the beginning of the pool in 2006 to those pitchers who had at least 100 IP (in the majors) that year.



With that, the pool is pretty shallow, as in five pitchers pitched at least 100 IP in the majors in 2006, was of the right age, and had a 30+ increase in IP in 2007. They were:



Cole Hamels - 2008 227+IP, 3.088 ERA, 1.082 WHIP and 196 K.

James Shields - 2008 215 IP, 3.558 ERA, 1.153 WHIP and 160 K.

Jared Weaver - 2008 176+ IP, 4.329 ERA, 1.258 WHIP and 152 K.

Scott Kazmir - 2008 152+ IP, 3.487 ERA, 1.267 WHIP and 166 K.

Chuck James - 2008 29.7 IP, 9.091 ERA, 1.886 WHIP and 22 K.



Clearly the pool is too shallow to actually give serious consideration to the Verducci effect using only Major League numbers. The pool might be bigger if you combined ML numbers as well.



Given that limitation, even though Kazmir dropped in IP over 2007, Kazmir overcame is slow start due to injury and contributed nicely and Weavers stats were a bit misleading (i.e. ERA didn't really match the way he pitched). Hamels and Shields go without saying.



James (of course, the only Brave) reeked. Was hurt and never got it back minors or majors.



So, really one for five. Not sure if the Verducci Effect has much impact. [/QUOTE]I'm sure the data Will Carroll and others tested was from the last 20 years, at least. No idea why they would only use the last three years.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Brian, Come up with a somewhat meaningless theory. Get a job at Sports Illustrated and we can see a 'Bjoak Effect'.

[Edwards Kings]

Originally posted by bjoak:

I'm sure the data Will Carroll and others tested was from the last 20 years, at least. No idea why they would only use the last three years. I am not sure at all, but it is probable. I was only looking at how predictive it would have been if we used it before the 2008 season. It did not seem to have much as value last year as I thought and, in my mind, calls it into question for value in 2009.

[bjoak]

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Brian, Come up with a somewhat meaningless theory. Get a job at Sports Illustrated and we can see a 'Bjoak Effect'. Well, I will do my best to come up with a meaningful theory that some others perceive to be meaningless.