Don't Believe The Hype: Year 3

Fantasy Baseball is filled with many myths, much like your average cult. One of the most widely known is the "magical" Year 3, where pitchers somehow turn on a switch after "learning" for 40-70 starts. Is this really the case? Do pitchers just somehow turn it on, or is this as silly as saying their gloves are lined with tungsten? (LOL Science Joke!)

The first "Year 3" article has arrived. Let's take a gander, shall we?

If you have finished our pontification on prime-time 27-year-olds maybe even buying into the logic, we might have a harder sell with a close second in our list of Fantasy rules of thumb: the breakthrough of the third-year starting pitcher. .... Save for World Series hero Cole Hamels and his Series counterpart James Shields of the Rays, it was a down year for pitchers in their third season.

Or maybe Hamels just performed well because he was ALREADY REALLY FREAKING GOOD, and not in some magical range of starts to suddenly cause unexplained growth!

Before last year, Hamels had thrown 51 MLB starts split over two years. He had already put up stellar numbers, including an insane 4.12K/BB ratio in 2007. Did you really think the magical Year 3 was going to tell you he was breaking out. Guess what? He already did! Statistically, his 2007 season was actually superior to his 2008 season, averaging almost a full K/9 higher8.69 vs 7.76, while only walking 0.001 more batters per 9 innings. Calling for Hamels' Year 3 breakout is about as safe as saying that Jon Heyman hates VORP, and thinks I live in my mom's basement.

Sure, two of them helped their teams to league championships, but because of the case of Justin Verlander, you might be inclined to mock our theory as the breakdown of the third-year starter.

Actually, I have other reasons to mock this theory. Unlike Hamels and Shields who had respectable FIPs and astronomical K/BB ratios, Verlander wasn't as impressive.

Verlander's K/BB ratios were a mere 2.07 (below average) and 2.73 (slightly above average) in 2006 and 2007. His 2006 K/9 was a very low 6+, and although he brought it up to 8.17 in 2007, he was still walking almost 3 batters per 9 innings. Only one other "elite" pitcher can do this, and it's because he strikes out almost 11 guys per 9 (Lincecum).

Verlander barely cracked a FIP of 3.99 in his 2007 season, and had a very low HR/FB% of 8.5 that year. That's not quite as a lockdown Year 3 breakout as you might think. Note this also: Verlander's HR/FB dipped again this year, and his FB% increased. You think when his HR/FB reaches a normal level his ERA won't blow up again? Fat chance.

We are not going to give up on targeting third-year starting pitchers, though. Doing so would make us hypocrites.

It is still our belief those with between 40-70 career starts, starting pitchers roughly in their third season, have survived the learning curve and are now conditioned to reach Fantasy ace status -- especially in relation to a full season of starts (30-plus) and innings (200-plus).

Actually, it'd make you responsible "experts" since you would stop leading other players down some magical path of "guys in the 40-70 range are going to blow up!!!!111". Where is the rest of your data supporting these breakouts?

It cannot be forgotten the legendary Fantasy L.I.M.A. Plan (Low Investment Mound Aces, named by Ron Shandler) was derived from Jose Lima, who broke through at 21-10 with 187 strikeouts and a 3.58 ERA in 1999. He entered that year with 54 big-league starts under his belt.

Except for a couple details. Thanks for cherry picking though.

In 1998, he pitched an ungodly season, racking up a 5.28K/BB in 33 starts, in a good manner of ways, statistically better than his 1999 season. Unfortunately his batted ball data isn't available, so we can't see what my guess is--that his HR/FB% took a drop in 1999 which caused his ERA to dip, even though he started to walk more batters.

Again, all of this was precluded by excellent strides in his K/BB from previous years (including 140IP of relief in 96 and 97)

The L.I.M.A. strategy suggests you pick starters on the cheap because breakouts can come from the depths of the position and risk is heavier among the elite pitchers as opposed to hitters. That is for you, disappointed Verlander owners.

Actually, the LIMA centers around the idea that you should spend early round picks on hitters who contribute to all 5 categories because it is more efficient than wasting early round picks on starters who only contribute to 4 categories.

See, we did learn something from last year and the disappointment of early rising, lately sinking Verlander. But we will bet our Fantasy season the 2009 version of third-year starting pitchers list will look more prophetic than pathetic this time around.

I'm guessing you didn't, since you gave no evidence as to why you thought Verlander would succeed other than "It's Year 3, lolz!" nor did you say what you actually learned.

This right here. This is the problem with "Year 3". Articles like this fill you with some false sense of security that if you cherry pick players in their third year, that you'll get a bunch of large unexpected breakouts. Why else would Eric list a group of 20. 20 breakouts?

This. Is. False.

Players "breakout" in Year 3 because more often than not, they are still ridiculously undervalued in the draft and real life. Do you honestly think most national writers or Joe Buck knew anything about James Shields last year? I think not. After his 2007 season, there's no way James Shields should have been only about a 118 ADP, and there's no way anyone in baseball should have been overlooking this guy.

On the flip side, Cole Hamels had a 2008 ADP of 51.6. What he provided last year was exactly on par with his ADP. He was widely known throughout baseball, and everyone expected good things from him. Did you honestly think if you drafted Cole Hamels you pulled a fast one on your league? Please.

Here's my proposition for how to approach Year 3. Do not make Year 3 about finding every good pitcher around 40-70 starts and ranking them. Look at unheralded younger pitchers with solid and improving K/BB ratios like James Shields and make a list that allows you to plan to take these guys when other managers are taking inferior pitchers.

If you grabbed Shields last year around R10 (near his ADP) you ended up with a solid #2 pitcher(average K value) when most people were scrambling for the Jered Weavers still available. Interestingly, he's still only about a 83 right now, below guys like Oswalt, Matsuzaka (haha), and Zambrano. I'd take Shields over any of those guys.

Looking ahead to this year, let's see if we can break Mack's list down into a small starting subset.

Mack highlights 10 guys on his master list who will have "Year 3 breakouts". Here are the only two I like for real "breakout" potential.

6. Josh Johnson - ADP 166

Johnson is the only real breakout player he lists that will actually give you some decent return on draft day in comparison to his round value. Johnson's K/BB has been climbing in all of his decent sized samples of MLB stints (we'll throw out the 30 total innings he pitched in 2005 and 2007 combined), climbing as high as 2.85 in 2008 (higher than his #1 guy, Adam Wainwright). Although his strikeout numbers are not quite elite, he has continuously reduced his walk rate, and has made decent decreases in his FIP as well. Johnson also took on a bit extra BABIP last year (332).

My only concern with him is his HR/FB% is a tad above average, but a slight regression there won't be too much of a black mark.

With enough managers scared on his injury history, Johnson seems like the best low value pick on the bunch.

8. Sean Marshall - ADP 225+

I like Marshall for the exact same reasons. Continuously increasing K/BB numbers, and Marshall is actually improving his strikeout rate as well. His walks are a bit of a concern (3+ is always iffy unless you strike out 11)

If you haven't noticed, I have a common factor when I judge pitchers. Once a pitched ball hits something (a bat, a helmet, the guy behind home plate in Fenway that wears the same stupid jacket each game) the pitcher has zero control of what happens to it. I've learned over the years that K/BB ratio is one of the biggest indications of a player's talent. A pitcher who prevents baserunners and gets outs on his merits alone has a better chance to be successful. There are other factors to consider for pitchers like Brandon Webb, who are skilled at inducing ground balls, thus limiting the amount of fly balls that have a chance to leave the park, but overall this is one of your best indicators of a pitchers who is actually pitching above or below his "classic" numbers.

Back to Mack's big list, let's trim it down a bit.

1) Lincecum, Billingsley, Wainwright, Lester, Nolasco

As I said earlier, all of these players are going to perform at about what their ADP value would most likely be. We can't really consider these players as breakout candidates because everybody is viewing them the same way we are.

A word of caution about Jon Lester. His 2.3 K/BB ratio is still a little alarming. He's definitely improved his walk ratios, but I would be hesitant to overpay for him just because of the "W" factor with Boston. I would lean towards him hitting Bill James' expected ERA (4.02) than what he did last year.

2) Daisuke Matsuzaka(ADP 71), Gavin Floyd(ADP 164), Fausto Carmona(ADP 193), Matt Garza(ADP 128), Joe Saunders(ADP 136), Micah Owings(ADP 225+)

These players are like the first group. Everybody is going to have similar opinions about them, and they will not slip below or out perform their ADP value. The difference they have from the first group, is that I believe they all posses strong risk factors that will most likely give you Mack's version of a "Verlander Pick"

Some quick stats about the group.

1) Only one player has a K/9 above 7 (Matsuzaka). All of these players are going to be, at best, average in strikeouts. Owings is your only sleeper, eclipsing 7.45 in 2008.

2) None of these players have a career K/BB above 2.5

3) Only Matt Garza increased his K/BB (2.07 to 2.12) in 2008. All other players regressed.

4) Only Matt Garza and Matsuzaka showed the ability to keep lofty K/BB numbers in their minor league (treating NPB as the minors) careers.

5) Only Gavin Floyd has a normal HR/FB ratio, all other payers came in under the average for a value the pitcher has no control over. One caveat: Saunders and Garza have held similar numbers for 3 straight seasons, so this may not be an anomaly for them.

6) Low BABIPs exist across the board, with only Owings eclipsing .300. This leads me to believe that they were still getting some help. All players had FIPs over 4.0 as well, with a few guys getting as high as 4.75+ (Floyd, Carmona, Owings)

7) Crazy LOB% numbers exist as well (80.6% for Matsuzaka!)

8) Two guys walked close to or over 5 guys per 9 innings, and only two players were under 3 (Saunders at 2.41, Garza at 2.88) Specifically, only Barry Zito walked more batters per 9 innings than Matsuzaka. Do you really want to gamble with that?

Of the entire group of players I warn you against, there's only two I would consider taking a shot at: Owings and Garza. Owings will cost the least of the bunch, and had enough unlucky stats (64% LOB) and reasons to like him (increasing K/9). Garza has been showing minimal improvement, but at least he's showed 3 solid years of an increasing K/BB. The other players will cost you too much in the draft.

To summarize my ramblings one last time:

Do your homework and look for real evidence of a player's growth and the validity of their stats. Make a smaller list of breakouts that you are truly confident you can use to save tons of ADP value. This should arm you with a much smaller list, and it will be geared toward saving you significant round value. Having a breakout list with a guy like Lincecum Wainwright, or Billingsley and drafting him around his ADP is something anyone can do. Don't be that guy. Be the guy who drafts Josh Johnson and gets a pitcher that everyone was drafting 6-7 rounds prior.

If all you do is come into the draft with a huge list of pitchers in the 40-70 start range, here's what will happen:

1) You'll get the safe picks right, and these will probably be mostly guys like Hamels last year.

2) You'll get a couple legit steals. Throw a dart enough times, and you'll eventually get a bulls eye, right?

3) You'll bomb everywhere else.

Might as well just flip a coin.

Check out Eric's list and tell me who else you agree/disagree with. I left a few other possible breakouts, and a ton of other busts in there for you to think about.