172634 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Fitsaboutthemoney.net%2Farchives%2F2011%2F01%2F12%2Fhughes-nova-make-verduccis-annual-yae-list%2FHughes%2C+Nova+make+Verducci%27s+annual+YAE+list2011-01-12+17%3A09%3A29Jason%40IIATMShttp%3A%2F%2Fitsaboutthemoney.net%2F%3Fp%3D17263 to “Hughes, Nova make Verducci’s annual YAE list”
You may be right with this theory, but I could make one hell of a staff with the guys on your list. I don't believe the 30 inning rule stands alone. I personally feel that it only manifests itself after years of overwork and/or overthrowing. I would bet many of these players were used too much back in high school and even earlier. The effect is cumulative, not a one year thing.
If I remember correctly, the YAE was disproven by a couple different people in the sabermetric community. The concept is fine (not abusing young pitchers), but the way it's been constructed and the outcome has been proven incorrect.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it's worth at least mentioning. As I said above:
It is, by no means, a hard and fast rule and Verducci himself is the first to admit it. But, it bears watching.
IIATMS MASTHEAD
Co-Founders and Editors Emeritus
Jason Rosenberg, Larry Koestler,
Moshe Mandel, Brien Jackson Editors-in-Chief
Michael Eder, Stacey Gotsulias, Matt Imbrogno Writers
Tamar Chalker, William Tasker, EJ Fagan, Mike Jaggers-Radolf, Brad Vietrogoski, Domenic Lanza
You may be right with this theory, but I could make one hell of a staff with the guys on your list. I don't believe the 30 inning rule stands alone. I personally feel that it only manifests itself after years of overwork and/or overthrowing. I would bet many of these players were used too much back in high school and even earlier. The effect is cumulative, not a one year thing.
Ain't my list or my theory. Just mentioning it.
If I remember correctly, the YAE was disproven by a couple different people in the sabermetric community. The concept is fine (not abusing young pitchers), but the way it's been constructed and the outcome has been proven incorrect.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it's worth at least mentioning. As I said above: