Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 |
How Jered Weaver Might Be Primed For A Fall
Via Halo Herald, an interesting Tom Verducci article on what he calls the "Year After Effect" on young pitchers who suddenly increase the number of innings pitched from their previous year. Jered Weaver is one such, and regression, here we come?
Comments:
So, since you have been convince all along that Jered will become Jeff AND Jered had such a ridiculously spectacular year, what kind of decrease can we see in his performance in order to call it the "Year After Effect" or the "Jeff Weaver Effect" or just plain "You-can't-have-a-2.5-ERA-every-year Effect"?
i do agree with what that guy from SI.Com said, but there's always the don't EVER UNDER ESTIMATE the person behind the pitcher.
ps it's gonna be fun wathing Jered this coming season.
ps it's gonna be fun wathing Jered this coming season.
# posted by 
: 11/29/2006 10:13:00 PM
: 11/29/2006 10:13:00 PM
Just another thought: Jered is gonna be on the cover for the new EA Sports College Baseball game. EA Sports cover curse? Madden seems to have one.
# posted by : 11/29/2006 11:11:00 PM
: 11/29/2006 11:11:00 PM
Ok, so talking into the glove means he is turning into his brother? So, what if he does glove-talking and ends up with the best ERA on the team? Is that still a part of the "Jeff Weaver Effect"? Or is his new higher ERA (by virtue of the "You-can't-have-a-2.5-ERA-every-year Effect") indicative of him turning into his older brother? Does he have to hit league average next year for it to be the "Jeff Weaver Effect" or could that just count as the "Year After Effect"? I want some guesstimation numbers (ERA+, K/9, K/BB,...) so that I can tell as soon as I can if The Weave is going to completely collapse as a pitcher, collapse for a single year or be awesome forever.
Well, Josh, there's all kinds of failure modes for pitchers. It's symptomatic, incidentally, because the glove-yelling is all about the home runs surrendered. But is it all that difficult to believe Weaver will have a 2007 that won't be as good as his 2006?
But is it all that difficult to believe Weaver will have a 2007 that won't be as good as his 2006?
Boy, Rob, going out on a limb there, huh?
It seems to me you're either knocking Weaver or hedging your bet. If he doesn't do well, you can say, "I told you so." If he does well, you can just continue on your path of hedging or, better yet, pushing back the inevitable.
Boy, Rob, going out on a limb there, huh?
It seems to me you're either knocking Weaver or hedging your bet. If he doesn't do well, you can say, "I told you so." If he does well, you can just continue on your path of hedging or, better yet, pushing back the inevitable.
# posted by : 11/30/2006 07:48:00 AM
: 11/30/2006 07:48:00 AM
Well, I guess I shouldn't ever express any uncertainty around here, then, should I? I really don't know what he'll do next year, and neither do you; but let's say I'm very skeptical of his 2007 until he proves me wrong.
Don't give me that crap, Rob. You always express uncertainty, especially with respect to Weaver. Lumping me with you re forecasting his performance is outlandish. Rather than admitting that I have been right and you have been wrong all along, you're now trying to say that neither of us knows what he will do next year. Well, rather than sitting on the fence, why don't you come out and make a prediction?
# posted by : 11/30/2006 08:20:00 AM
: 11/30/2006 08:20:00 AM
So in other words, you're predicting he'll have an ERA over four, and that he'll only strike out about 35 more hitters despite pitching about 100 extra innings? I'll take that bet. How much you wanna put on it? If he has an ERA over four and strikes out fewer than 5.68 per nine, you win. If he betters both of those marks, I win. If he splits, we tie.
And I agree with Josh. I look forward to reading about what a bust he'll have been when he only posts an ERA around 3.3 and strikes out 6.5/9 next year, when he'll be 24. But that won't matter, because all that matters is that he will have shouted into his glove after giving up a homer.
And I agree with Josh. I look forward to reading about what a bust he'll have been when he only posts an ERA around 3.3 and strikes out 6.5/9 next year, when he'll be 24. But that won't matter, because all that matters is that he will have shouted into his glove after giving up a homer.
You know something, all of you doubter-doubters? Let's see YOUR predictions. Damn I hate it when you demand one thing of me but won't demand it of yourselves.
I already gave you mine.
And quite frankly, Rob, this is the first time you've EVER listed any sort of concrete prediction. For the last year it's been "he'll be like Jeff" with just enough wiggle room to proclaim yourself right if he lands somewhere in between.
And quite frankly, Rob, this is the first time you've EVER listed any sort of concrete prediction. For the last year it's been "he'll be like Jeff" with just enough wiggle room to proclaim yourself right if he lands somewhere in between.
And to clarify, I think what's so frustrating for people like Rich and myself is the constant "He'll be worse than he's been" without really defining what you meant. None of us disagree that he'll be worse than the flat out awesome performance he put up last year. More than 90% of the guys in the majors will be worse than that. But there's a long way between "worse than awesome" and "mediocre".
Since I can't think of any numbers on my own, I'll just split Matt's and Rich's: 16-6, 3.4, 8.81 K/9.
Mark me down for 15-8, 3.71 ERA, 1.23 WHIP.
He'll have some 14K dominating nights because he's that good, but he'll also have a few 4 HR in 2 inning nights. Not because he shares DNA with Jeff Weaver, but because he's still a young pitcher who's not yet approached his full potential.
He'll have some 14K dominating nights because he's that good, but he'll also have a few 4 HR in 2 inning nights. Not because he shares DNA with Jeff Weaver, but because he's still a young pitcher who's not yet approached his full potential.
# posted by : 11/30/2006 08:43:00 PM
: 11/30/2006 08:43:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.