{"id":11931,"date":"2016-02-10T11:10:54","date_gmt":"2016-02-10T16:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nationalsarmrace.com\/?p=11931"},"modified":"2016-02-10T11:10:54","modified_gmt":"2016-02-10T16:10:54","slug":"verducci-effect-for-2016-announced","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nationalsarmrace.com\/?p=11931","title":{"rendered":"Verducci effect for 2016 announced"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Snydergaard<\/a>

Snydergaard vastly increased his workload in 2015; will it hurt him in 2016? Photo tucson.com<\/p><\/div>\n

This year’s installment of si.com’s Tom Verducci<\/strong>‘s “Year After Effect” (which he’s trying to use as the title instead of the eponymous “Verducci Effect” that i’ve grown used to using) was published this week<\/a> and he’s definitely gone conservative in his ominous predictions.\u00a0 In year’s past he’s used a 20% year over year increase and listed many candidates … now he’s down to just a handful a year with a more conservative 30% workload increase.\u00a0 For 2016, he’s identified 5 candidates for his watch list.<\/p>\n

Here’s some posts on this same topic from year’s past: 2013 year after effect<\/a> and 2014 year after effect<\/a> (I somehow forgot to do this post last year).\u00a0 In the 2013 post, there’s some counter-arguments to whether or not his observation actually exists, with research on all pitchers who qualified for the thresholds he laid out at the time.\u00a0 I won’t go into the same arguments made there; what I will do is point out the actual results of his predictions (Link to my working XLS showing all the core numbers referenced here<\/a>):<\/p>\n