SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Lookout Landing

Felix Hernandez And The Year After Effect

Smart people, ordinary people, and fans of Rick Reilly who got lost might've read Tuesday's SI article from Tom Verducci classifying Felix Hernandez as one of the pitchers at risk for the Year After Effect. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the Year After Effect - also known as the Verducci Effect - identifies pitchers 25 or younger who threw at least 30 more innings in the most recent season than in the season before, and says that these pitchers are at great risk for injury or underperformance. Felix turns 24 this April, and, including the WBC, threw 46.2 more innings in 2009 than he did in 2008. As such, he makes the cut, alongside nine other guys like Josh Johnson and Rick Porcello.

That can seem a little distressing. After all, the Year After Effect (YAE) has noted names like Dustin McGowan, Jose Rosado and Francisco Liriano in the past. Does this mean that Felix is in trouble?

To those of you who're feeling concerned, I offer two bits of advice:

  • Don't worry
  • Worry just a little bit

For one thing, the YAE is more than a little arbitrary. Why 25 years old? Why 30+ innings? Why not 26 years old, or 24 years old? Why not 20+ innings, or 40+ innings? Why have buckets at all? Buckets (or groupings) can be convenient, but they're never ideal. Pitcher A, 24, increased his innings by 29. Pitcher B, 24, increased his innings by 30. Pitcher C, 24, increased his innings by 90. Pitcher D, 26, increased his innings by 150. Pitchers B and C will get classified together, while neither Pitchers A nor D will be included. That doesn't make any sense. Granted, this isn't a scientific theory and these are exaggerated hypotheticals, but life is continuous, and not a step function. 30 innings represent more wear and tear than 20 innings, but 40 is more than 30, and so on. There's a principle here, and the principle might be valid, but the selection process is flawed.

For another thing, the YAE paints with a broad brush, and as we all know, humans are snowflakes. If you thought hitters were difficult to project, try projecting pitchers. Better yet, try projecting pitchers who'll get hurt. It's hard. General principles have their place, but you can't take ten different pitchers and apply the same rule of thumb, because they're each structurally unique. Let's say, hypothetically, that 75% of all pitchers selected for the YAE fall victim. That in no way means that each pitcher has a 75% probability of falling victim, because some guys can simply withstand the rigors of pitching a lot, and other guys can't. You have to treat each guy individually. What do we have with Felix?

We have a guy who had shoulder bursitis in 2005 and a forearm strain in 2007, and no other arm trouble.

We have a guy who's made 126 starts the last four years.

We have a guy who's thrown 191, 190.1, 200.2, and 238.2 innings the last four years.

We have a guy who got stronger as the season went on last year, a guy who didn't show any kind of velocity loss.

We have a guy whose workload has been closely monitored, even if it seems like it hasn't been.

We can't personally investigate Felix's shoulder and elbow to see how they're doing. I suppose it's possible they could be on the brink of obliteration. The Mariners, though, have presumably done their homework, here, and on the macroscopic level, there's no reason at all to believe that Felix can't handle a big workload. While he was worked hard, he gave every indication that he was up to it. To say that alarm bells should be sounding just because he meets two basic statistical criteria...no, that's too simplistic. You have to consider more, and the 'more' seems to work in Felix's favor.

Finally, I like both David Gassko and Jeremy Greenhouse, and they've investigated the YAE - Gassko in 2006, and Greenhouse this morning. Greenhouse's research is the reason I'm writing this post, actually. Guess what they've found out, independent of one another? Nothing. They can't find an effect. You can argue with their analytical methods if you so desire, and it's certainly not conclusive, but you'd think they would've been able to pick up on an effect if one existed, and they didn't. The burden of proof, then, lies on those advancing the theory. We should expect Felix to, say, throw fewer innings in 2010 than he did in 2009, but that's simple regression to the mean, because 238.2 innings is an extraordinary total.

Overall, I wouldn't worry about Felix's inclusion in the group. The YAE is a nice theory, and its heart is in the right place - young pitchers shouldn't be ridden too hard, because young pitchers are valuable and delicate. But its grouping method is poor, it addresses pitchers in general rather than specifically Felix, and no one has found any evidence that it's real. It'd be one thing if Felix went from 120 innings to 240. That'd be an alarming jump. But 200 to 240? If Felix gets hurt, or gets worse (I know, I know), I'd prefer to just chalk it up to the hazards of pitching than some handy rule of thumb, because it turns out pitching is dangerous.

And that's why I think it's reasonable to generally worry just a little bit. Because even if you don't put much stock in the YAE, pitching is dangerous, and perhaps more significant than Felix's ~40 inning jump are the 820 innings he's thrown the last four years. I guess that kind of depends on your perspective. Some would call that a heavy workload. Others would call it proof that Felix is more Randy Johnson than Kerry Wood. I'm not qualified to offer any sort of evaluation. Forgetting that, though, we're still dealing with the fact that pitching puts a terrific strain on the body, and Felix's continued health isn't guaranteed. It's not something to take for granted. Is he at special risk because he's young and threw 40 more innings? I don't think it's significant. Is he at risk because he's a pitcher? Sadly, yeah. I don't like to think about this any more than you do, but it is something we just have to keep in mind, and given that we could have another 500 Felix Days or just one more Felix Day, I implore you to treat each as if it were the last. Felix's is an arm to be treasured, for as long as it lives.

0 recs  |  38 comments

Comments

And shouldn't it be done by pitches thrown rather than innings anyways?

Since more effective pitchers are going to get through more innings with smaller pitch counts. His Pitches/Game Started was higher, but not by a whole lot (103 in 2008, 107 in 2009).

Or since he did make 3 more starts in 2009

Pitches thrown in 2008 = 3193
Pitches thrown in 2009 = 3638

Oh god, now we are going to have to treat each pitch like it could be Felix's last.

Every pitch is sacred.
Every pitch is great.
If a pitch is wasted,
Jeff gets quite irate.

Types of pitches seem like it would be important as well.

Felix throwing 85 pitches of fastball change-up seems like it would do less damage then 85 pitches of sliders and curveballs?

Lots of schematics involved, but throwing a curverball/slider will probably require more motion than a fastball which needs more power
Honestly, I have no idea.
His pitch types last year weren't that different from 2008, anyways
Stress level is probably also important …

… reaching for the extra increment of bite or velocity seems as if would add a significant increment of physical stress. In addition, when trying for a bit of extra stuff a pitcher is more likely to make some slight alterations in delivery that could add collateral damage.

As kids

we are all told that curveballs hurt our arms more than throwing fastballs. However this article seems to refute that. Regardless, all pitching puts strain on your arm, and to try and quantify it by categorical group of a pitch (since a curve/slider isnt thrown the same way by ever pitcher) might be impossible

And, as an interesting piece on ESPN will show tomorrow

Not all pitches are equal.

That makes sense

Which is a little more concerning in Felix’s case, with all the high leverage pitches he threw last year.

Though he's 27, Jason Vargas went from 0 innings to 143.1

Red flag right there.

He was just resting
Felix will have a good year. the whole team's pitching staff has gotten better.
I feel like blanket theories this are cheating.

 If you cast such a wide net of players that could have trouble you’re bound to “hit” on a few of them, thus proving the theory right.

It’s kind of akin to not making something falsifiable in science terms. For some of the scientists I know hate the term “climate change.” They hate it because it’s not scientific. It’s ALWAYS going to be right. That’s what climates do…they vary and change. Likewise a young upcoming pitcher gets hurt every year. That’s what young pitchers do…they break.

I dunno. Let’s just hope nothing happens to the king.

Please use proper capitalization.
I was so confused by this comment until I read the last sentence.
At least he gets the point across lol
Please do not use chatspeak such as LOL
my bad. first time here
I don't think we are going to understand this stuff for a long long time

I can make up theories all I want but for every theory I make up, I can make up an opposite one that seems equally likely.

Humans are not snowflakes

That’s just another lie your mother told you.

Yeah

All of my tests indicate that humans have a significantly higher melting point than snowflakes do.

You are a sick man

People aren’t meant to be heated up to 212F (100 C to you).

Those are some tough snowflakes.

Most ice melts at 0 C.

Please use proper units.

You only get to drop the ° symbol if you’re using Kelvin.

I know there's an easy way to make the ° symbol but I don't know what it is.
Yeah thanks I had no idea that they were talking about temperatures here.
god damn it, i'm retarded
Isn't this a correlation-causation fallacy?

A pitcher having a very good/career season is likely to see a significant jump in his innings pitched, and, likewise, is not likely to pitch as well the next season. This would be especially true when you limit the sample to only young pitchers, because the season in which their innings jump could very well be their first successful season, and any player in any sport that has an unprecedented season of success is likely to regress the next season. The jump in innings does not cause the regression, rather, it merely correlates with a good season the pitcher may not be able to duplicate regardless of health or ability.

One could observe the same thing for a young batter that hits for a very high average one season—a batting average, say, 20 points higher than at any point in his career. I could postulate that all hard contact with the ball takes a toll on the young hitters shoulders and wrists and that he’s unlikely to hit for such a high average the next season. Of course he’s not. That doesn’t mean my interpretation is correct.

The effect is a regression effect, not a real one

Or at least, that’s what I’ve always suspected. Allow me to explain.

What’s the basic principle of regression to the mean? It says “for any observed outlying member of a population, expect it to be more like the average of the population in the future.” Pitchers with a significant bump in innings will often be players who were very good. And the principle of regression to the mean says that they will be more average in the future. Consequently, if you look at a player who had a big innings bump, it’s usually because they were much better than average. And that means that they’re likely to do worse in the future, not because of some kind of wound sustained in the past, but because that’s what the best outliers do (same with the worst ones.)

This particular fallacy of not regressing is all over the place. You’ll hear people investigating an education program by giving a pre-test and a post-test. The average before and after will be pretty close. But someone will come along and notice that the worst third on the pre-test did overall much better on the post-test. The program doesn’t help the best students, but it’s still a good program because the worst students learned a lot! False. They regressed to the mean. If you looked at the best third from the pre-test, a bunch would have done worse. The program hurt them! False. It’s just regression. Before you can study the pre-test and the post-test, you need to know r, the correlation coefficient, of the relation between pre-test scores and post-test scores.

And of course, you guys already mention this, “but that’s simple regression to the mean, because 238.2 innings is an extraordinary total.”

How many pitchers under 25 have 4 seasons averaging 200 innings?
Dwight Gooden, but he had 270+ innings at 20, so that's not saying much
I'm much more concerned about Cliff Lee myself

270 innings is a lot, and he’s not that far removed from a lost year. Not that I think he’s a walking ligament time-bomb; I just think he’s more at risk than Felix.

But Lee is more of a workhorse anyways...he's not getting strikeouts like Felix is
Interesting fact

From FanGraphs latest piece for ESPN: Cliff Lee threw the 6th most pitches in baseball last year, but ranked just 42nd on the list of pitches thrown in high leverage situations. Most of his work came when he could cruise. He threw relatively few max effort pitches.

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.