<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will &#8220;The Duke&#8221; Continue to Reign in 2009?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/will-the-duke-continue-to-reign-in-2009/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/will-the-duke-continue-to-reign-in-2009/</link>
	<description>Daily fantasy baseball analysis and strategy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:07:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Graham Goldbeck</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/will-the-duke-continue-to-reign-in-2009/#comment-1441</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Goldbeck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/?p=283#comment-1441</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t speak for Fangraphs pitch classification system specifically as I don&#039;t know how it operates, but this spin vs speed graph of mine 

http://oaktownas.com/images/duke%20spin.jpg

shows why they&#039;d classify a couple pitches the way they did.

Now I&#039;m sure they probably don&#039;t have the time to go back and verify each pitch (maybe if they get their data from BIS they do), but this is why I could see their classifying being the way it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t speak for Fangraphs pitch classification system specifically as I don&#8217;t know how it operates, but this spin vs speed graph of mine </p>
<p><a href="http://oaktownas.com/images/duke%20spin.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://oaktownas.com/images/duke%20spin.jpg</a></p>
<p>shows why they&#8217;d classify a couple pitches the way they did.</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;m sure they probably don&#8217;t have the time to go back and verify each pitch (maybe if they get their data from BIS they do), but this is why I could see their classifying being the way it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Cioe</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/will-the-duke-continue-to-reign-in-2009/#comment-1381</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Cioe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:46:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/?p=283#comment-1381</guid>
		<description>Ok, this has always bugged me about the pitch identification here: if his average cutter, which he throws 27% of the time, is 81.7 mph, and his average slider, thrown 1% of the time, is 81.3 mph, what the hell is the difference?  You see this with cutters/sliders, splits/changes, and occasionally curveballs/sliders.  Is it just noise in the data, or is there some legitimate reason for calling one 81 mph glove side-moving pitch a cutter and calling another 81 mph glove side-moving pitch a slider?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, this has always bugged me about the pitch identification here: if his average cutter, which he throws 27% of the time, is 81.7 mph, and his average slider, thrown 1% of the time, is 81.3 mph, what the hell is the difference?  You see this with cutters/sliders, splits/changes, and occasionally curveballs/sliders.  Is it just noise in the data, or is there some legitimate reason for calling one 81 mph glove side-moving pitch a cutter and calling another 81 mph glove side-moving pitch a slider?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/will-the-duke-continue-to-reign-in-2009/#comment-36</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/?p=283#comment-36</guid>
		<description>A 3.69 ERA is great in my opinion.  Even if his FIP regresses a bit this year the Oakland defense hasn&#039;t disappeared, so his ERA will probably still come in a little but under his FIP.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A 3.69 ERA is great in my opinion.  Even if his FIP regresses a bit this year the Oakland defense hasn&#8217;t disappeared, so his ERA will probably still come in a little but under his FIP.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
