Ive read most of the articles about how it doesnt translate empirically.

One thing that is interesting though, is how EVERY article about the Year After Effect mentions how it makes sense when you think about it, but not when you look at the numbers.

I had a thought based on something that was posted on Metsblog. DePodesta answered a question about it:

http://metsblog.com/metsblog/depodesta-talks-about-mattharvey33-and-the-year-after-effect/#disqus_thread

“We are acutely aware of each and every pitcher’s workload throughout the season and, in fact, maintain multi-year plans to get younger players ready for a Major League workload in a reasonable and gradual fashion. While there are some general rules of thumb, we look at each pitcher on an individualized basis. As far as Matt Harvey is concerned, his workload did increase by 34 innings in 2012 over 2011. However, some of that increase was due to an increased efficiency of his work. In fact, he made just four more starts in 2012 than he did in 2011, so on average he was working deeper into games in 2012, though he maintained similar pitch counts. Fortunately, we had this happen in a number of instances in 2012. Furthermore, as the year stretched on, and Matt approached and surpassed his 2011 totals, both in starts and innings, we adjusted his recovery time to provide him extra rest. There’s always a careful balance between stressing players so that they grow (like weight lifting) and protecting them from doing too much. We simply try to be responsible and methodical in the way we go about it.”

Would the Year After Effect make more sense empirically if they talked about total pitch count, and not innings pitched?