Tough Topic: The Sophomore Slump

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 5:39 AM PST

I hate to be the pessimist in the crowd, but isn't anyone worried about the possibility of a "sophomore slump" for our awesome 2005 rookie A's?

For the record, I read AN daily--ok, I lied, I come back like 5 times a day-- and I love the optimism we share about our A's. My optimism runs high today: In the most recent A's fan poll (oaklandathletics.com), I voted that we'll win between 90-100 games next season. I certainly hope this is the case and I PRAY that the A's stay healthy this year and perform to our potential, and if we can do this, I'm confident that we'll be competitive with the best teams in baseball.

I know many of you feel this way too, which is evidenced by comments like "THIS IS OUR YEAR!" and "Next stop, World Series!" etc., and while I'm SO hoping these people are correct (hell, I've even made a few of these comments myself!), I feel the need to come back to Earth occasionally and be a realist, even if that means being slightly pessimistic this offseason.

Which brings me to my diary topic; something I haven't seen discussed at all around these parts is something I think we've all heard of: the so-called "Sophomore Slump."

Back in April of last year (feels weird to say that!), Hardball Times did a piece on this very topic, trying to prove once and for all, whether or not the 'sophomore slump' exists. To spare you all the nitty-gritty details (though for people interested, I suggest you check it out!), I'll cut to the chase:

The sophomore slump, in large part, exists.

Looking at 114 of the most recent 118 ROY winners (not including the 4 most recent winners: Huston Street, Ryan Howard, Bobby Crosby and Jason Bay since the research is from April, 2005) in terms of Win Shares,

"-73 declined in their second year (64.0%)
-37 improved in their second year (32.5%)
-4 stayed the same in their second year (3.5%)"

But going beyond simply who declined and who improved, if we look at Gleeman's research, he breaks it down by percentage increase or decrease:

"Of the 73 players who declined as sophomores, 54 of them saw their Win Shares drop by at least 25%, 23 of them by 50% or more, and 10 of them by at least 75%. On the flip side, just 11 players increased their Win Shares by at least 25% in Year 2 and only four improved by 50% or more. Only [2 players, John Castino and Dwight Gooden] improved by 75% or more as sophomores:

Decline Improve
>75% 10 2
>50% 23 4
>25% 54 11
>10% 66 26"

Now, the reason for bringing this all up? Well, as any A's fan knows, our success in 2005 was in large part due to our rookies' successes, and in 2006, we're relying on them (albeit to a lesser extent with the acquisitions of Loaiza, Bradley and Perez) in order to have success as a team.

It's not to say that the 'sophomore slump' makes any player that was good in his rookie terrible by any means, but rather, that we simply have reason to suspect a possible drop-off in year 2. Actually, many of the players who had sophomore declines turned out to be great players (Willie Mays, Rick Sutcliffe for instance) or have at least rebounded after their second year (the jury's still out: Dontrelle Willis, Kerry Wood for instance).

Surely the 'sophomore slump' study isn't perfect, as the sample space is limited to just two rookies a season (and we had 4 great ones on our team last year...and some even count Haren as a 'rookie' given his lack of PT in '04), but I felt the need to throw this into the fold and hear your thoughts, since it seems a pattern has emerged. If it has the possibility of affecting any team, it's us.

With this all being said, even if our guys do end up being great down the road, do we have reason to worry about a possible drop-off in 2006? Sound off, AN.

Tweet Comment 52 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

RE: spoh slump

The three players I'm assuming you speak of is Swisher, Johnson, and Street.

IMO, Swisher and Johnson can produce better then their '05 numbers....particularly Swisher. I think you could say there is an arguement that Swisher was a mildly disappointing year and DJ had a up/down last 2-3 months.

Street, I'm not worried about. The kid is the real deal and there are few "special" players like Street.

by bigelephant on Jan 4, 2006 6:28 AM PST reply actions

pitchers?

well, I was speaking of these three guys, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong to rule out Blanton from possibly having an off-year, or rough stretches at times, either. Keep in mind his rough, rough, rough start to '05. If he's a streaky guy, you never know. We must not forget that all of these players' sample sizes are small, and with Blanton, particularly, I'm definitely happy that he ended the year with such upward mobility, but this is far from a guarantee that he, or any of these guys will be as good as many of the people here on this site expect them to be.

Me?? I'm sure as hell hoping they are as good or better than last year, I just felt that this topic, hard as it is to discuss, needed to be broached.

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 7:13 AM PST up reply actions

ya, forgot about joe...

...until I was half way through my morning cupcake.

I suppose I just don't buy into this soph slumps or jinx or whatever. baseball is about adjusting and readjusting. IMO, DJ readjusted when pitchers starting throwing off speed junk on the outer half of the plate and he got back on track. both haren and blanton (blanton's curveball and changeup were terrible in april/may) readjusted after difficult starts.

I do worry about Swisher. He was really the only rookie that struggled with adjusting to what was being done to him.

by bigelephant on Jan 4, 2006 7:37 AM PST up reply actions

I lean toward this too...

To me there's no such things as jinxes, but I can understand sophomore slumps. Those go to the great rookies who either can't adapt or haven't yet learned to adapt. Those who do learn get to play a third year and beyond.

DJ, Haren and Blanton are good examples of learning how to adjust. They'll likely have to do it again in '06, so it's good that they've gotten that experience.

An interesting discussion...

AN Member Location Surveys: Results | Take part

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jan 5, 2006 8:43 AM PST up reply actions

an interesting point..

...though, as you mention, the sample size is small. Yet it's not too hard to imagine our sophomore pitchers going through rough stretches, Blanton reverting to first-half form, Haren suffering some bad luck, and Street going from outstanding to simply good (even Mario Rivera has had less than stellar years).

I hope THT's study doesn't apply here, but if there's any reason we don't make the playoffs in '06, this could be it.

by sarchasmic on Jan 4, 2006 6:37 AM PST reply actions

It's a tough topic

You are right. I don't have time to research right now, but i bet of the players who did improve, they were ones with good/great plate discipline with. I bet most of the eople who got worse were the Angel Berroa types.

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Jan 4, 2006 6:50 AM PST reply actions

Jeff Franceour

I bet the sophomore slump hits this guy hard.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Jan 4, 2006 9:34 AM PST up reply actions

Take the qualifier out

by removing the acronym "ROY" out of the equation. Now replace the qualifier with the acronym "MVP" or these words "CY Young Award winner". Will you get similar results showing a mostly declining level of performance? Here's another one, try using the following subjective qualifier of "career year". Now what do the results look like?

Now, can anyone point me to the results of what happened to second-year players who didn't earn the ROY Award in their first seasons?

by LowcountryJoe on Jan 4, 2006 6:54 AM PST reply actions

this is what I was thinking

when I said sample size was small. I want more information about non-ROY players in year 2.

I think the reason that the ROY qualifier is in there is because if you consider all rookie players in year 2, you might have an unproportionately high number of crappy performances (from guys who didn't 'make it' in the league. Now, I can't say for sure, cuz I haven't looked at all of the data, but it seems the ROY qualifier is useful in this case because the we're evaluating good-to-very-good rookies, like 4 I spoke of.

The closest thing to what I think you want could perhaps be found by looking at the top 5 or top 10 rookies for each year in each league since 1947 (the first year of THT's study), and considering their year 1 to year 2 progression, but even this would have its flaws.

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 7:04 AM PST up reply actions

Agreed

That would be the more appropriate study, using the top five vote getters in the ROY balloting in each league and then checking the results. I suspect that there would be a general performance increase from the first year.

by LowcountryJoe on Jan 4, 2006 7:12 AM PST up reply actions

so...

who can we get to do this? nose goes!
<touches nose>

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 7:14 AM PST up reply actions

Well, it sure the heck wont be me

I'd prefer to remain on the sidelines and then be critical of anyone else's findings..."you should have used Win Shares!" "How come you you didn't include Isolated Power?" "What about ERA+?" "The top three from each league would have been better" ad infinitum.

by LowcountryJoe on Jan 4, 2006 7:22 AM PST up reply actions

Exactly ...

For every Albert Pujols, there's a Ben Grive.

For every Dontrelle Willis, there's an Angel Berroa.

Guys that were super polished but never amounted to anything more or guys who weren't really that good and got exposed once the league got used to them.

For example, finishing fifth behind Berroa (we'll leave Godzilla aside) was a guy named Mark Teixeira.

OPS+
103
128
146

no sophmore slump there.

and finishing third was Rocco Baldelli
OPS+
95
100
(missed '05 due to injury)

Of course, finishing 4th was Jody Gerut ... who hasn't quite panned out since then
OPS+
122
94
84

Looking at last year's sophmore efforts, Crosby improved, Cabrera improved, Greinke fell off, Rios was neutral, DeJesus improved, Gload fell off, Buck was neutral, Bush fell off, and Robertson was neutral in the AL (3-3-3).

In the NL Bay improved, Greene fell off, Otsuka fell off, Miles was neutral, Holliday improved, Matsui fell off, Sledge did not get the opportunity to play. (2-1-3)

So, overall, between the three classes I looked at, there were 18 non-Japanese players, 7 improved, 4 stayed neutral and 8 fell off. It's a small sample size and it's still biased towards players who have more room to fall but 61% of the players did not experience a sophmore slump and 39% improved.

Check out some awesome music ...

by devo on Jan 4, 2006 3:51 PM PST up reply actions

question

61% of the players did not experience a sophmore slump and 39% improved

Does this mean 39% DID experience a slump (and the 61+39=100 was a coincidence), or is this a typo for 61% DID experience a slump?

by Apricot on Jan 4, 2006 6:47 PM PST up reply actions

my bad, those numbers are wrong ...

it should be
58% did not experience a sophmore slump and 37% actually improved.

Check out some awesome music ...

by devo on Jan 4, 2006 9:07 PM PST up reply actions

The stats cited in your diary

probably just prove the "natural regression" phenomenon. After all, the sample is purely made up of guys who thrived big-time in their rookie year. In other words, even if baseball was played on stratomatic and there were no "human elements" (like making adjustments), if you happen to have one of your best years first, it stands to reason that more often than not your second year will be worse than your first year.

As for what will happen to the A's sophomores:

I think DJ had his "sophomore slump" period already, and with his excellent approach will come back strong in 2006. I'd project him at about .270 with 20 HRs and a solid OBP.
Swisher always starts slow at each new level and while I think his maturity (which translates to learning curve) is slower than the others', he can hardly help but improve upon his 2005 numbers, especially his AVG and overall vs. LHP numbers. I'd project him at about .250 with 20-25 HRs.
Street was a veteran as a rookie, and will pick up where he left off. Natural regression suggests he might drop off a hair. Or he might be a hair "even better". I'd project more of the same: lights out most of the time, human because he is.
Blanton would have trouble not regressing from his June-Sept performance. I'd project a "sophomore slump" in the form of a higher ERA (4.50ish?), but that he'll still be a good innings eater--kind of like Loaiza if you look at Esteban's career so far as a whole. But before you panic, I predicted Blanton would have a poor rookie season and I was wrong about that; so hopefully, I'm wrong again.
Charles Thomas will definitely have a "sophomore slump"--look for him to start the 2006 season by going -1/20.

by Nico on Jan 4, 2006 8:06 AM PST reply actions

Agree with Nico

Here's a way of looking at the statistical problem: let's say ten of us get together and each roll three dice. One of us gets the highest roll and is designated "Roller of the Year". Then we all roll three dice again. How likely is it that the person who won the RoY award will get a much lower roll on the second try? Very likely.

A baseball player's performance is not completely random like the roll of dice, but it has a significant random component. The top award winners in any category are likely to be those who had a significant amount of luck on top of their skill. That's why you don't get lots of repeats in any award category.

What I would call real evidence for a sophomore slump would be evidence that all rookies, not just the top one or two, tend to have a decline in their second year. And I don't think that's the case.

by matthias on Jan 4, 2006 8:19 AM PST up reply actions

I agree

I agree with Nico's analysis.

Street's numbers may be down a little (except saves of course) but he will be the closer from day 1 so that will be a plus for us.

by Larry E on Jan 4, 2006 8:33 AM PST up reply actions

Regression toward the mean

First off, HAHA about Charles Thomas. Though it might really be -3/20.

Secondly, Dr. Jim Taylor explores the Sophomore Slump and, suggests that there are two things in play: stress/anxiety from having a great rookie season, as well as a natural regression toward the mean.

He breaks it down:

It is presently suggested that changes which accompany outstanding play in a rookie year may produce significant stress for the athlete that could adversely affect performance during the sophomore season. Relevant issues include added attention from the media and fans and the resultant visibility which may produce increased anxiety.

[ed. note: We can call this 'Angel Berroaitis]

Greater time demands may limit off-season physical and technical development. Also, greater expectations may generate self-doubt about the athlete's ability to live up to these expectations, thereby lowering self-confidence and producing additional anxiety. Further exacerbating these concerns is that the young athletes may possess limited coping repertoires for managing this stress effectively.

But then Taylor goes on, suggesting what really may be happening, on top of all these things:

An alternative explanation that has been offered for the phenomenon of the sophomore slump is that the decline in performance is a function of a regression toward the mean, that is, a statistical tendency of extreme scores to move toward the group mean. From this perspective, outstanding rookie performances are likely to regress toward their actual level of ability.

Taylor's study is actually really interesting, and I'll admit I didn't read it in detail before making this post (since the goal of my original post was not to prove or disprove the myth of the Sophomore Slump, but rather to just discuss it and suggest that perhaps our beloved rookies would not be as great as many on this site were suggesting). But now that I'm reading it, his methodology is good (going beyond simply looking at Rookies of the Year, and eliminating potentially troubling 'one-hit-wonders' who might skew the data).

Taylor's discussion is perhaps the most interesting part of his paper, as he suggests that neither a situational explanation nor a regression toward the mean explanation tells the whole story. There are other factors that impact performance level, such as quality of a team that one plays on, for instance.

But my point remains, whether the Sophomore Slump is a psychological phenomenon or a purely statistical function, we might be in for a dose of it or two in 2006. I'm certainly hoping that this is wrong and our rookies defy the trends as a few special players have been able to do over the years, but the realist in me remembers players like Berroa, Ben Grieve, etc. who fell off a fair bit after great rookie years.

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 11:42 AM PST up reply actions

Sophomore Rebound?

If part of the Slump is a regression towards the mean, then it's also possible that players who had a tough year, such as Charles Thomas, could have a rebound.

"Next year might be an all-out zoo." -- Barry Zito

by TomB on Jan 4, 2006 11:51 AM PST up reply actions

sophomore rebound

If part of the Slump is a regression towards the mean, then it's also possible that players who had a tough year, such as Charles Thomas, could have a rebound.

Depends what you consider the "mean" in his case. For human beings overall, the mean is to be totally incapable of playing professional baseball acceptably. If I somehow managed to play major league next baseball next year, I would post an OPS of .000, which would in fact be the mean expected result averaged over the 6 billion people on the planet. What would you then expect if I somehow showed up for a second season? You wouldn't expect me to regress toward a mean of a .700 OPS (typical for established major leaguers) but to stay right at the mean I achieved.

by matthias on Jan 4, 2006 3:15 PM PST up reply actions

That's the question

Considering that players can improve, or they can hit a plateau, or they can fall off, we'll just have to see. The main thing is there's no reason not to hope for a rebound. And there's something about being an A's fan that makes me want to root for the underdog, and see him exceed everyone's expectations.

"Next year might be an all-out zoo." -- Barry Zito

by TomB on Jan 4, 2006 4:30 PM PST up reply actions

Sophmore slump in modern times

I wonder if in this age of video and internet if the sophmore slmup is becoming more of a thing of the past.

My guess for the reason behind the slump is people pick up tendencies or weaknesses.

Back in the day it may have taken a full year to pick up on these things but now with all the video and staff I would guess th Sophmore slump is more likely to be scene in late part of first year if it was really to come. OR with prospects who no one knew about so they ignored early on. The A's rookies (minus Johnson) were all highly scouted coming up.

Why don't they just lick their fingers? -- http://oaklandprospects.blogspot.com/

by novaoakland on Jan 4, 2006 8:16 AM PST reply actions

Interesting possibility

But I just did a quick check on MLB and it looks like the only winner in the past few years that didn't drop off was Jason Bay. Hinske, Berroa, etc. all had some drops in year 2. I agree that this is a concern for the coming year, but hopefully there's enough support around them all that it won't be crushing, and maybe we'll get a year 3 bounceback from Crosby to partially make up for it.

by sslinger on Jan 4, 2006 9:10 AM PST up reply actions

Crosby didn't drop off

He just got hurt.

His OPS improved

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jan 4, 2006 9:37 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah

that's why I didn't bother looking him up. I didn't look at Pujols or Ichiro either, because they're freaks. Admittedly, not a big sample but I was just looking into the idea that in the modern game with video etc. its fundamentally different, and based on these few it doesn't seem to be the case.

by sslinger on Jan 4, 2006 10:23 AM PST up reply actions

My take

Street performs at a position somewhat impervious to a sophomore "slump". he could not be as good as last year-- I would think that very likely-- yet still earn a similar amount of Win Shares because he is a) the closer all year and b) he doesn't blow a lot of games;

As others have mentioned there is as much chance that Swisher improves as that he regresses. Johnson the same.

Blanton is the real variable, and might have overperformed last year. But the fact that he did it for nearly four months running-- with only an occasional bad start after a very shaky beginning-- is cause for some more optimism.

Zito struggled badly for half of his sophomore year-- but Mulder was terrific for all of it, and Hudson finished 2nd in the CY in his 2nd year. And even with Zito because he only pitched 2+ months in his rookie year, he actually was lights out after he had completed a "full" season of pitching, roughly halfway through 2001. So the A's have a pretty good track record with pitchers.

But I agree it is a fascinating question, and it is pretty unlikely that one of these guys won;t slip fairly significantly.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jan 4, 2006 8:52 AM PST reply actions

Yeah I agree, Huston Street will still be good...

Especially while he's on the mound, we have the best 9th inning defense in the Major Leagues.

LF Payton (top 3 defensive left fielder)
CF Kotsay (top defensive center fielder)
RF Bradley (top 5 defensive right fielder)
1B Swisher (will be top 3 defensive 1B)
2B Ellis (top 5 defensive 2B)
SS Crosby (top 7 defensive SS)
3B Chavez (top 2 defensive 3B)
C Kendall (top 32 defensive C ^_^)
P Street (sometimes he doesn't want anyone else to play)

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jan 4, 2006 9:25 AM PST up reply actions

Rookies vs. Sophomores

When you're a rookie, you are usually put in situations where you can succeed. i.e., put in the batting lineup w/ a little protection around you.

When you're a sophomore, you are usually "counted" on to be a main contributor - See Crosby batting #3 last season.

This could also be a factor.

Let's Go Oak-Land!

by Colorado Fan on Jan 4, 2006 9:39 AM PST reply actions

If DJ, Swish, and Street suck in '06 ...

... I say we kill them, dump their bodies in the drainage ditch under the BART walkway, and rename the creek "The Sophomore Slough" ...

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 4, 2006 10:48 AM PST reply actions

Let's pay pros to do it for us.

The Sophmoroes, maybe?

by ArakSOT on Jan 4, 2006 10:52 AM PST up reply actions

sophomore slump

it's very easy to assume that johnson and swisher can only get better. but remember ben grieve. he was supposed to be the second coming of ted williams. next thing you know he's a 3rd year player and the coaches are working on him not hitting in to double plays during the playoffs. street is the real deal. but it is very possible that johnson, swisher, don't pan out. you usually have to give a player three major league seasons to tell what you got. i think that beane is counting on one of these guys to turn into that power hitter we need.

by powerhouse on Jan 4, 2006 11:06 AM PST reply actions

Crosby

I'm concerned that since Crosby missed half of his actual sophomore season, he'll have a 3rd year slump to make up for it... :\

"Don't go getting all Alexander Haig on me," Beane told Forst.

by Poppy on Jan 4, 2006 1:44 PM PST reply actions

HEY!

Don't even go there! I have it on good authority that he will be just FINE!! Better than Fine, he will be WONDERFUL this year!!

"Happy Holiday's Billy Beane!" - Mychael Urban

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jan 4, 2006 3:04 PM PST up reply actions

<faxes Bobby some calcium supplements>

"Don't go getting all Alexander Haig on me," Beane told Forst.

by Poppy on Jan 4, 2006 3:29 PM PST up reply actions

Got milk?

by Squeaky on Jan 4, 2006 6:21 PM PST up reply actions

The rating for this diary

just went from PG-13 to R

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 7:09 PM PST up reply actions

And then Bobby said...

"Who sent me this picture of calcium supplements?"

AN Member Location Surveys: Results | Take part

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jan 5, 2006 8:28 AM PST up reply actions

and then Zito said ...

... "Dude. Why are you eating that 20-lb bond?"

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 5, 2006 9:08 AM PST up reply actions

fiber

We want Bobby to be regular, too...

"Don't go getting all Alexander Haig on me," Beane told Forst.

by Poppy on Jan 5, 2006 9:57 AM PST up reply actions

Are the A's exempt from the sophomore slump?

I'm sure someone else will have plenty of counter examples, but I just took a superficial look at the stats of recent A's who made significant contributions as rookies, and going back to the LaRussa teams, only Ellis and Weiss suffered any sort of sophomore slump.

Sure, Crosby's power numbers were down, but his OPS went up quite a bit; I wouldn't call it a slump. None of the big 3 had slumps (Mulder and Hudson had their best seasons, at least in terms of win total, in their second seasons). Chavy improved. Miggy, who didn't really contribute as a rookie anyway, improved. Giambi improved. Big Mac did drop a bit, but still had a very good year. Canseco improved. Even going all the way back to Ricky, he improved.

I don't mean to imply that we will see improvement from all four of our contributing rookies from 2005, but I do expect consistancy. I'd expect 20hr and 80rbi from both Swish and DJ, 200 innings with era's around 4 from Blanton and Haren (who officially will be a junior, not a sophomore (who clearly did not slump) but I put him in this boat because it was his first year in a rotation), and dependability from Street. Clearly all of this is blind supposition, but with the exception of Weiss and Ellis (was Weiss hurt his sophomore year?) my experience as an A's fan indicates that there is no such thing as the sophomore slump.

by mendelbob on Jan 4, 2006 3:06 PM PST reply actions

interesting points,

and curious that the A's haven't had drop-offs like some. I hope you're right about the lack of a Sophomore Slump and it continues this way in '06.

FYI: Haren will actually be a 4th year, believe it or not, had PT with the Cardinals in '03 and '04, but only started 14 games each year, respectively. My point about some considering him a rookie was that '05 was his first chance at starting full time.

BTW- did anyone else realize that Haren is 6'5", 220? He's a beast!

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 3:26 PM PST up reply actions

Street

Didn't he struggle down the stretch? Either he got tired or hitters figured hopefully it's not the latter but Swisher has to play 140 games with a good 25 Hr's for him not to slump, DJ should come close to 20.

The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it.-W. M. Lewis

by doublehustle22 on Jan 4, 2006 3:40 PM PST reply actions

Struggle?

Sort of ... Sept/Oct was his worst month+ of the season. He gave up 6 runs over 12-2/3. His k and bb rates were more or less even with his season rates (in any statistically relevent way, given the small sample size) - he just gave up a lot more hits. While sample size makes any conclusions flimsy, this would point mostly to bad luck, rather than falling off.

Check out some awesome music ...

by devo on Jan 4, 2006 3:57 PM PST up reply actions

Dan Johnson will have a .850+ OPS

And like 30 dingers

Street will have like 45 saves and a .8 whip

Consequently, the "sophomore slump" will be renamed the "sophomore surge."

by kvn on Jan 4, 2006 3:57 PM PST reply actions

By the time they're seniors ...

... most guys learn to control that ...

@('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 4, 2006 4:00 PM PST up reply actions

To be a slump...

Don't you have to come out of it? So, in terms of this study, the players would be ROY, then suck their second year, then rebound to something near their ROY level.

I'm saying it's not a sophomore slump if a guy has a great first year, and the proceeds to suck after that. It would be interesting to see what happened to all these guys in their third and fourth years.

by timed exposure on Jan 4, 2006 6:50 PM PST reply actions

Actually,

this may be a valid point as to whether or not the 'Slump is real or just an obvious correllation to the natural tendencies of the data. No one discusses the "Sophomore Suck" as opposed to the 'Slump.'

In regard to years 3+, the Jim Taylor article I cited above discussed the 'resurgence-factor,' we can call it, and it seemed to make a lot of sense when I read it, though it retrospect it may have just had to do with the fact that we just don't talk about those guys who only spend 2 or 3 years in the league and peter off after their first good year. If I recall correctly, however, I do think they make some attempt to solve this problem by entering a bit of randomness into it, so perhaps that would be the rebuttle to what you're suggesting. Interesting though.

"Keep an open mind." --Milton Bradley, 12/15/05

by rungood on Jan 4, 2006 6:59 PM PST up reply actions

See what I think is going on,

to expand upon the point I made earlier, is this: Let's say you sort all players of 2+ years into two groups...

Group A has all the players whose rookie seasons were better than their second seasons.

Group B has all the players whose second seasons were better than their rookie seasons.

The two groups would have, within normal chance deviation, identical stats.

But do you think the two groups would have same number of ROY winners? Methinks Group A would have most of them.

Do you think the two groups would have same proportions of "sophomore slumps" and "sophomore surges"? Methinks Group A would have all of the former and Group B would have all of the latter.

The bottom line is we rarely focus on the "3rd Season of the Year" award, so pitchers like Billy Koch are ignored when they happen to have one excellent season in a mostly disappointing career. And the "dreaded 4th year slump" is rarely discussed.

But we can all name Hinske, Berroa, and Grieve, because their "one career year" came first, before they ever had their first sucky one. Big deal.

Great diary, btw--very interesting to ponder and discuss.

by Nico on Jan 4, 2006 7:06 PM PST reply actions

Grieve was pretty good

the entire time he was in Oakland. In fact, I meant to include him in my comment above as an example of a player who did not suffer a sophmore slump. His OPS was about the same all three of his full years in Oakland, and his sophomore year resulted in his highest HR total.

Another example that I meant to include yesterday (and this is in no way related to Nico's post that I am replying to now) is Duke. I consider 2004 to be his rookie year (his first full year at least) and he clearly improved as a sophomore.

by mendelbob on Jan 5, 2006 9:19 AM PST up reply actions

You're right, mendelbob--

Grieve had more than one good season in his career, so it's a bad example, whereas so far Berroa and Hinske really haven't.

by Nico on Jan 5, 2006 5:26 PM PST up reply actions

Selective Sample

"Now replace the qualifier with the acronym "MVP" or these words "CY Young Award winner". Will you get similar results showing a mostly declining level of performance?"

This is spot on, and I would include "Pennant Winners" as well. It's the plexiglass principle: The league leader in any individual season likely overachieved his true talent (goes for teams, too) and is likely to regress the next year.

by Danny on Jan 5, 2006 8:29 AM PST reply actions