Page 1 of 1

Who says Pitching is more unpredictable than hitting?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:24 pm
by AznHisoka
People say that they draft hitting because hitters are generally more consistent than pitchers. However, take a look at the "blue-chip" pitchers and hitters the last 3 years.

From 2003 to 2005, the only hitters that were among the top 25 players each single year were:
1. Albert Pujols
2. Gary Sheffield
3. AROD
4. Manny Ramirez
5. Carlos Lee (Pretty surprising to find his name here)
6. Bobby Abreu


Here are the pitchers that were ranked in the top 25 each year from 2003 - 2005:
1. Pedro Martinez
2. Billy Wagner (another guy not many people notice)
3. John Smoltz
4. Mariano Rivera
5. Roger Clemens
6. Johan Santana

I only looked at the Yahoo player rankings, but they seem reliable enough. Granted, 2005 ain't over yet, but it seems that both are almost as consistent/inconsistent as the other. This year, we have big hitters like Thome, Rolen, and Helton underperforming, and perennial pitchers like Schilling, Mulder, and Hudson underperforming.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:50 pm
by beltrans_boy
I do. Want proof? Go look at any 2005 preseason draft sheet. How many of those pitchers are healthy and producing in line with their preseason ranking? There's no such thing as a perfect science, but hitters tend to stay more consistant and healthier than pitchers.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:54 pm
by BobbyRoberto
beltran's boy, who's the girl in your sig? Where can I get pics of her? Damn!

Re: Who says Pitching is more unpredictable than hitting?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:08 pm
by Tavish
AznHisoka wrote:I only looked at the Yahoo player rankings, but they seem reliable enough.


Only if they are twisted enough does it work out that way though. Not to say that you did that on purpose but its not quite as cut and dry as you made it out to be. Those pitchers fell into the top 25 pitchers, but their overall value is much lower, in some cases being as low as the mid-60s. At the same time many of those hitter's value never fell out of the top 10 or 15 overall.

The fluctuation is definitely there even for the best of the best pitchers.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:11 pm
by beltrans_boy
BobbyRoberto wrote:beltran's boy, who's the girl in your sig? Where can I get pics of her? Damn!


That's Lucy Pinder. She's British. And she's got very, very big brains.

(o) (o)




;-D

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:19 am
by jbones733
in H2H i tink its better to have BIG bats then stud starters, cause you never know 1 start an ace can get bombed & your finished,. in roto ya still gotta go & try to get your aces, tho pitching is a lil more unpredictable

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:43 pm
by Iconoclastic
beltrans_boy wrote:I do. Want proof? Go look at any 2005 preseason draft sheet. How many of those pitchers are healthy and producing in line with their preseason ranking? There's no such thing as a perfect science, but hitters tend to stay more consistant and healthier than pitchers.


I disagree on the health part after doing some research. I used Yahoo's preseason rankings as a guide and looked at the top 200 players (who all figure to be on somebody's team). Out of the top 200, 87 had been on the DL at least once this season. 50 of those were hitters, 37 were pitchers. That proportion actually corresponds to the ratio of 9 hitters to 7 pitchers.

Shallow and limited in sample size as it may be, it seems that hitters do not stay any healthier than pitchers.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:51 pm
by bd3521
Im pretty sure we are talking about early round picks. From my experience taking a pitcher in the early rounds is a great RISK. Top hitters are almost always money in the bank.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:02 am
by HOOTIE
Iconoclastic wrote:I disagree on the health part after doing some research. I used Yahoo's preseason rankings as a guide and looked at the top 200 players (who all figure to be on somebody's team). Out of the top 200, 87 had been on the DL at least once this season. 50 of those were hitters, 37 were pitchers. That proportion actually corresponds to the ratio of 9 hitters to 7 pitchers.

Shallow and limited in sample size as it may be, it seems that hitters do not stay any healthier than pitchers.


You are not taking into account that rosters have 10 or 11 pitchers, meaning there are 14-15 hitters on every team. Basing a 14/11 split for all teams, that's 56% hitters, 44% pitchers. The 50/37 split you use is 57%. If you use a 15/10 split, that's 60%. If we split the difference, about 58% of rosters are hitters. You only used 200 players out of 750, so that 50/37 split could change.

I have no doubt in my mind hitters are much more stable. Too many variables go into era and records.