• Draft and Trade Talk Message Board

  • tlaw tlaw Jun 30, 2011 6:12 PM Flag

    Dick Strong

    normally i agree with your opinion. but you are wrong, starting pitching is not easier to find than hittng, and since you think i cant grasp english, let me give you a little school lesson of my own. listen up now.

    starting pitching is not easier to find that starting hitting, the difference is neglible and random. dont believe me? lets take a look:

    in the current top 100, there are 14 pitchers that have "come out of nowhere", jumping 100 spots from their o-ranking. yet there are 15 hitters that did the same. coincidence? you decide.

    now lets expand that it a bit to players that were probably undrafted (300+adp) yet have jumped 200 spots "out of nowhere" to be in the top 100.

    8 pitchers, 9 hitters.

    moral of the story, its not easier to find starting pitching than starting hitting. its random, as is was when i checked it earlier on in the season.
    http://messages.fantasysports.yahoo.com/Fantasy_Sports/Baseball/threadview?bn=fan-baseball-drafttalk&tid=1806880&mid=1806880

    now pitchers are added/dropped faster than hitters, because people overreact to bad starts. however, this doesnt mean pitching is easier to find. Because a slumping hitter (eg. adam dunn) is held onto for so long, there is more of a chance for you to grab someone else (eg. michael morse). so it equals out in the end, just at different rates of speed.

    now that you have been schooled, go home and study, then come back with a better argument.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I didn't read the entire stickfight though I suspect it was highly entertaining in a sick kind of way. Just to toss my opinion into it - starting pitching is much easier to find than good hitting. As tempting as it is to draft pitchers early I usually wait until the 6th or 7th round before taking a pitcher. I think most veteran fantasy players pretty much agree on this.

    • Sean clearly does not understand numerical data and statistical analysis.

      That is why he and tlaw use incomplete sets of information and/or a one time snapshot of data instead of using rolling data and/or a complete set (or season) of data.

    • How do you determine future fantasy value without the past to suggest what you can expect?

    • Ignore Dick, he is living in the past and doesn't understand that only the future and present matters as far as fantasy value goes.

    • Actually the data that I provided is from 2003 and 2004 and uses full season performance. On the other hand, your data is from just 2011 and only uses a current snapshot.


      Thus, one offers two seasons of full data...one offers a one time snapshot. (this is the difference between video of an entire football game or a snapshot of one goal line play) Which is more correct?

      Again, Skippy...I don have time to trivialize with dumbasses.

    • no, you wont challenge it because you know its right.

      instead you will show me data from 2003 to try to prove your point.

      i have shown you data from 2010 that proves differently.

    • if you draft sps 1-2-3 rds look at what kind of 3base -SS-2b u end up with this is where the stats really come in you can always find a vogalsong or humber or pineda later on in the draft or even off the FA you wont find top end stats at 2b-3b and ss unless you get lucky

    • Your data is incorrect. I won't abuse you on the absurdity of your data as you have no idea how to compile data.

      Here...read this again (or for the first time):

      HITTERS OVER PITCHERS, BITCHES!!!

      "Better to draft pitchers or hitters early? Some evidence....

      Postby ukrneal » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:40 am
      I have seen this question recently in several places. I subscribe that it is better to draft hitters early on and pick up pitchers later because: 1) Pitchers are more likely to be volatile and not be consistent and 2) More pitchers 'break out' than hitters.

      But I was intrigued by recent claims to the opposite. So I decided to take a look and see if maybe there wasn't something to the counter-claim. Here's what I discovered...

      Methodology: Using 2003 and 2004 (only seasons I have data for) I compared the top 25 pitchers and top 25 hitters both at the beginning and end of the season. I used the rankings from Yahoo/Sporting News. I used them to be consitant, even if we don't agree with them. I needed to use some published source to make it neutral.

      Hitters:
      2003:
      Out of the top 25 hitters at the beginning of the year, 15 (60%) were still among the top 25. 10 outside the top 25 found their way on. Of the 10 who ranked in top 25 at beginning of year (but not the end), they ended their ranks at: 26,27,29,34,45,48,59,64,66,146.

      2004:
      Out of the top 25 hitters at the beginning of the year, 12 (48%) were still among the top 25. 10 outside the top 25 found their way on. Of the 13 who ranked in top 25 at beginning of year, (but not the end) they ended their ranks at: 29,35,38,41,43,54,63,65,69,71,106,125 and Maggs (injured and didn't have a ranking for him)

      Pitchers:
      2003: Out of the top 25 pitchers at the beginning of the year, 12(48%) were still among the top 25. 13 outside the top 25 found their way on. Of the 13 who ranked in top 25 at beginning of year (but not the end), they ended their ranks at: 32,36,41,47,54,56,59,65,75,125 (Sasaki and Nen injured and couldn't find Koch)

      2004: Out of the top 25 pitchers at the beginning of the year, 9(36%) were still among the top 25. 16 outside the top 25 found their way on. Of the 16 who ranked in top 25 at beginning of year (but not the end), they ended their ranks at: 31,33,34,39,41,44,52,63,67,76,80,104,106,131,133 (and Nomo - too far down and didn't have data).

      While two years is not enough to draw as solid a conclusion as one might like, it does seem to show that top rated hitters perform more consistently than top rated pitchers. If one were to focus on the top 25 remaining within the top 50, hitters still appear to perform better. That is, of both pitchers and hitters rated in the top 25 more hitters than pitchers remain within the top 50. In general, they do so by a margin of 3-4 players.

      I don't know if history would support these conclusions or not (although they do coincide with what I thought) - so I'd be interested to see if anyone has more data.

      Also, using different rankings could significantly affect the results. Jose Mesa was ranked #25 (pre-season 2003) and Vincente Padilla at #25 (pre-season 2004). I would never have put them there. So someone who is better at the rankings might have different results. Anyway, just some food for thought."

    • you are making a bunch of ridiculous statements and changing what i say in a feeble attempt at proving your point.

      you wont challenge my data, because there is nothing incorrect about it. it states why its not easier to find either pitching or hitting, then gives data backing it up.

    • More insults! Entertain me

    • View More Messages