[mrbill]

Well, there's precedent to at least have that generalized rating, home field advantage being one.

If there's a penalty to seeing a pitcher a 2nd time, add that as a global effect. If some pitchers can be better a 2nd time around (because of # of pitches, something about their style, etc), add it as a new rating to pitchers.

I think isolating the most important features of a pitcher is what OOTP is trying to do, simplify a guy to a half dozen numbers. Movement really is aching for replacement by GB%, and "Obscuring pitches on a 2nd/3rd/4th pass through the lineup" seems a viable candidate to take its place. It could supplement endurance in deciding whether someone could start effectively.

But I totally redirected this thread...

I agree that pitch ratings have some place in real life, but I'm not sure how the complexity helps create more intricate pitchers than saying pitchers have a general Stuff and Control rating. To me, that gets in line well behind modeling starter/reliever performance more agreeably. Of course, the two would be tied, if # of pitches and/or their quality was what determined if someone could be as effective starting as they were against the first batter they saw. And the # of pitches and their quality would both be something that has a potential and actual rating. I just read today about a major league pitcher adding a new pitch to his repetoire, and that should make him more effective.