Best article I've read about our rotation

[OnTheBorder79]

This makes perfect sense to me ... all of it (especially the Joba part). Thoughts?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...tte/index.html

[Rocketbooster]

This makes perfect sense to me ... all of it (especially the Joba part). Thoughts?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...tte/index.html

So Phil suffering a flukey hammy/ankle injury and then suffering a rib injury means that he's injury prone and he's another AJ? It's not like he's had any arm injuries - that's downright ridiculous.

[OnTheBorder79]

So Phil suffering a flukey hammy/ankle injury and then suffering a rib injury means that he's injury prone and he's another AJ? It's not like he's had any arm injuries - that's downright ridiculous.

I don't remember it saying Phil was injury prone at all. Unless I'm misreading the piece, he questions Phil's ability to put up tons of innings based on the very real stats he uses to illustrate Phil's performance last year. Am I missing something?

[NelsonMuntz]

I'm confused by this statement:

A more compelling option is an aggressive promotion for one of the organization's myriad pitching prospects, a group led in ability by Manny Banuelos, Dellin Betances and Andrew Brackman, all of whom topped out at Double-A last year, and in advancement by David Phelps, Hector Noesi and D.J. Mitchell, none of whom projects as better than Nova.

Is he actually saying that Banuelos, Betances, and Brackman do not project better than Nova or does "none" apply exclusively to Phelps, Noesi and Mitchell? Because the killer B's certainly have more upside than Nova.

[NYCrusader]

I'm confused by this statement:
[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Is he actually saying that Banuelos, Betances, and Brackman do not project better than Nova or does "none" apply exclusively to Phelps, Noesi and Mitchell? Because the killer B's certainly have more upside than Nova.

He's talking about David Phelps, Hector Noesi and D.J. Mitchell, there was a comma...

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

I don't remember it saying Phil was injury prone at all. Unless I'm misreading the piece, he questions Phil's ability to put up tons of innings based on the very real stats he uses to illustrate Phil's performance last year. Am I missing something?

This is what he says, I think:

Of further concern for both Hughes and Burnett, both have had their share of injury problems in the past.

I thought this was actually less fair:

Hughes went 18-8 for the Yankees in '10, but he benefited from a whopping 6.75 runs per game of support from his offense and posted a 5.05 ERA over his final 23 starts of the regular season, while his 1.38 ERA in his first six starts owed some to an unsustainably low .223 opponents average on balls in play.

His BABIP was low in six starts, so we disregard them... but then try to draw a conclusion from the rest of his season, when we might assume his BABIP evened out? As we've discussed many times on here, you can't toss out the best (or worst) performances and try to draw conclusions from the rest.

Anyway, it's pretty much what we already know. I think they go with something like Garcia and Nova, and then replace whoever's not working out with a parade of whoever is doing best among Noesi, Warren, Phelps - at least until they make a midseason trade.

[DaBliz]

As for Burnett, who was never much more than a third starter to begin with...

Burnett was pretty terrible last year but he's posted some great seasons. Years like 08, where he earned that huge contract, he was number one quality. I'd say you'd evaluate him as 2 over his career. This dude is a hater.

I'm not terribly concerned about the starting pitching. We'll skate along with two number five quality guys until the deadline, where there absolutely will be talent available. I wouldn't count out Andy being coerced into a final post-season run. Between CC, Hughes, the Offense, and the Pen, we're still a playoff team. It's just a matter of making sure that we have pieces once we get there. We find a solid 2nd starter to stick between CC and Hughes, we'll be golden.

[Tifoso]

Burnett was pretty terrible last year but he's posted some great seasons. Years like 08, where he earned that huge contract, he was number one quality. I'd say you'd evaluate him as 2 over his career. This dude is a hater.

I'm not terribly concerned about the starting pitching. We'll skate along with two number five quality guys until the deadline, where there absolutely will be talent available. I wouldn't count out Andy being coerced into a final post-season run. Between CC, Hughes, the Offense, and the Pen, we're still a playoff team. It's just a matter of making sure that we have pieces once we get there. We find a solid 2nd starter to stick between CC and Hughes, we'll be golden.

Who might just be AJ

[OnTheBorder79]

Who might just be AJ

Sorry, you guys are way too pie-in-sky optimistic for me. The author is an idiot for saying AJ is more of a #3 starter? Really? If AJ is a #3 starter this year, I'll rejoice and thank god. In the AL, AJ has never had a season where he pitched 170 innings and had an ERA under 4. In the season someone above talked about, his ERA was 4.07. His career ERA+ is 107. His career WHIP is 1.321 (which is better than that "great" year in Toronto or either year with us). If this guy is a #2, then so are about 50 percent of all AL pitchers.

[Yankees Empire]

Who might just be AJ

AJ is who he is. He's not, at his age, going to transform into some top of the rotation stud so many people think is commensurate with what his talent would seem to indicate. He is, at the very best, a middle of the pack starter who can eat some innings with an ever present injury cloud hanging above his head.

We massively overpaid to get him and the remaining years on his deal will make this notion clear.

[Rocketbooster]

I don't remember it saying Phil was injury prone at all. Unless I'm misreading the piece, he questions Phil's ability to put up tons of innings based on the very real stats he uses to illustrate Phil's performance last year. Am I missing something?

It's right here. Comparing their injury histories is beyond stupid given the severity of AJ's......and besides, AJ hasn't had an injury in a few years. Just this part alone makes not take his article seriously

Of further concern for both Hughes and Burnett, both have had their share of injury problems in the past. It would be unreasonable to expect an ERA below 4.00 from either pitcher and a coin flip as to whether or not either will reach 200 innings.

[Rocketbooster]

This is what he says, I think:



I thought this was actually less fair:



His BABIP was low in six starts, so we disregard them... but then try to draw a conclusion from the rest of his season, when we might assume his BABIP evened out? As we've discussed many times on here, you can't toss out the best (or worst) performances and try to draw conclusions from the rest.

Anyway, it's pretty much what we already know. I think they go with something like Garcia and Nova, and then replace whoever's not working out with a parade of whoever is doing best among Noesi, Warren, Phelps - at least until they make a midseason trade.

I didn't think what he said was unfair overall. The only thing I take issue with slightly is the BABIP thing because Phil did not give up a lot of hard hit balls - it's not like he got lucky. Everything else Corcoran said was very true about Phil's season.

[PocketAces12]

Sorry, you guys are way too pie-in-sky optimistic for me. The author is an idiot for saying AJ is more of a #3 starter? Really? If AJ is a #3 starter this year, I'll rejoice and thank god. In the AL, AJ has never had a season where he pitched 170 innings and had an ERA under 4. In the season someone above talked about, his ERA was 4.07. His career ERA+ is 107. His career WHIP is 1.321 (which is better than that "great" year in Toronto or either year with us). If this guy is a #2, then so are about 50 percent of all AL pitchers.

Agreed. I found this article to be spot on. I fully question how Hughes is going to pitch this year. Believe it or not, I think AJ is going to outperform him in many categories.

I also liked how he brought to light the organizations secrecy in not starting Joba. I still don't understand after his track record, one which is marred by failures to be blamed on the organization, that they would be so definite in him not being an option for the rotation. Couple that with the alternatives (Garcia, mitre, colon) and it becomes downright suspicious.

Good article.

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

I didn't think what he said was unfair overall. The only thing I take issue with slightly is the BABIP thing because Phil did not give up a lot of hard hit balls - it's not like he got lucky. Everything else Corcoran said was very true about Phil's season.

Except that he's basically saying Hughes' ERA was low because of a low BABIP in the first 6 games -- fine observation -- but you still can't discount those games. In any small sample, you're likely to have variation. If his luck "evened out" over the rest of the year, then you don't just count the bad part -- you still have to look at the entire sample. Otherwise, you're cherrypicking.

[Tifoso]

Except that he's basically saying Hughes' ERA was low because of a low BABIP in the first 6 games -- fine observation -- but you still can't discount those games. In any small sample, you're likely to have variation. If his luck "evened out" over the rest of the year, then you don't just count the bad part -- you still have to look at the entire sample. Otherwise, you're cherrypicking.

Nicely done

[PocketAces12]

Except that he's basically saying Hughes' ERA was low because of a low BABIP in the first 6 games -- fine observation -- but you still can't discount those games. In any small sample, you're likely to have variation. If his luck "evened out" over the rest of the year, then you don't just count the bad part -- you still have to look at the entire sample. Otherwise, you're cherrypicking.

Is it cherrypicking when you take the larger of the sample size as evidence?

Hughes started the season pretty well, due mainly to the low BABIP. But as the season progressed, and the BABIP went up, his performance became very hit or miss.

Another factor is the fact that pitchers are usually ahead of batters at the beginning of the season. Not trying to discount his performance in those 6 games, but I'm more worried about his performance the rest of the season, than I am impressed with those 6 games.

[Rocketbooster]

Except that he's basically saying Hughes' ERA was low because of a low BABIP in the first 6 games -- fine observation -- but you still can't discount those games. In any small sample, you're likely to have variation. If his luck "evened out" over the rest of the year, then you don't just count the bad part -- you still have to look at the entire sample. Otherwise, you're cherrypicking.

I don't think it was fair of him to discount those games, but those were 6 games - the rest of the season he just wasn't very good. I put more emphasis on the remaining 20 something starts he had than those 6 because frankly, he was pitching over his head - in large part due to the fact that teams hadn't scouted him. So, while the early games count, they clearly were not a reflection of Phil as a pitcher. He's better evaluated as to what he did after those starts and after those starts he was not impressive. Also, I don't believe that much in luck. Phil really did pitch well early on - he didn't give up a ton of long FB or hard hit balls. After that, I don't think he was unlucky - he just pitched worse, a lot worse

[ArodMVP217]

AJ is who he is. He's not, at his age, going to transform into some top of the rotation stud so many people think is commensurate with what his talent would seem to indicate. He is, at the very best, a middle of the pack starter who can eat some innings with an ever present injury cloud hanging above his head.

We massively overpaid to get him and the remaining years on his deal will make this notion clear.

he is how he is; i agree. he could pitch the 8 inning gems one start and the next could get the hook after 3 innings. Depending on which days our offense shows up, typical AJ could be very effective next year. Everyone is going to accredit Rothchild with the return of goodAJ, but in reality, it will just be a revertion to the mean.

[OnTheBorder79]

he is how he is; i agree. he could pitch the 8 inning gems one start and the next could get the hook after 3 innings. Depending on which days our offense shows up, typical AJ could be very effective next year. Everyone is going to accredit Rothchild with the return of goodAJ, but in reality, it will just be a revertion to the mean.

This is all correct if you consider the mean a #3 starter. The point is that even after two years of watching AJ, there are still some fans who have this idea of him as some great starter who has lapses. AJ is not a kid. He's been in the league more than a decade. He's not going to wake up and be a #2 or an ace. It ain't happening. If he pitches like he did in 09, I'll give Rothchild the team MVP.

[groovitude]

Is it cherrypicking when you take the larger of the sample size as evidence?

Hughes started the season pretty well, due mainly to the low BABIP. But as the season progressed, and the BABIP went up, his performance became very hit or miss.

Another factor is the fact that pitchers are usually ahead of batters at the beginning of the season. Not trying to discount his performance in those 6 games, but I'm more worried about his performance the rest of the season, than I am impressed with those 6 games.

Yes. Phil had a sub-3 ERA for the first third of the season (excluding his first outing); that's a fairly significant part of the season's sample.

Additionally, he had an ERA lower than 4 for 21 of 31 games (with two of the remaining ten games being relief appearances).

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

I don't think it was fair of him to discount those games, but those were 6 games - the rest of the season he just wasn't very good. I put more emphasis on the remaining 20 something starts he had than those 6 because frankly, he was pitching over his head - in large part due to the fact that teams hadn't scouted him. So, while the early games count, they clearly were not a reflection of Phil as a pitcher. He's better evaluated as to what he did after those starts and after those starts he was not impressive. Also, I don't believe that much in luck. Phil really did pitch well early on - he didn't give up a ton of long FB or hard hit balls. After that, I don't think he was unlucky - he just pitched worse, a lot worse

August -- 4-2 with a 4.22 ERA

Also, in his last two starts, he pitched 12.1 innings against the Rays and Red Sox and gave up 4 runs.

His worst months, by far, were June and July. Maybe he made adjustments back? It's not like he was consistently bad after May. You can't just throw out more than 20% of his season.

Is it cherrypicking when you take the larger of the sample size as evidence?

Hughes started the season pretty well, due mainly to the low BABIP. But as the season progressed, and the BABIP went up, his performance became very hit or miss.

Another factor is the fact that pitchers are usually ahead of batters at the beginning of the season. Not trying to discount his performance in those 6 games, but I'm more worried about his performance the rest of the season, than I am impressed with those 6 games.

Um, no. The largest sample size is the season, not a portion of it. I'm not discounting anything, or trying to say he had a better season than he did. But you can't take the worst part of his year and make conclusions.

[Rocketbooster]

August -- 4-2 with a 4.22 ERA

Also, in his last two starts, he pitched 12.1 innings against the Rays and Red Sox and gave up 4 runs.

His worst months, by far, were June and July. Maybe he made adjustments back? It's not like he was consistently bad after May. You can't just throw out more than 20% of his season.



Um, no. The largest sample size is the season, not a portion of it. I'm not discounting anything, or trying to say he had a better season than he did. But you can't take the worst part of his year and make conclusions.

I'm not throwing those starts out, but I am putting more weight on his poor performance subsequent to those first 6 starts because 6 starts is a small sample size; twenty something is a much larger sample size. I'm not sure what your point is about his starts against the Sox and Rays; in the post-season, he beat a dead Twins team and got smoked by the Rangers. Consistently bad or not after May, he was not consisently good - he pitched like a #5 starter, which yes - I know that's what he was supposed to be at the beginning of the season. My overall evaluation of his season is this: if it's just about developing a starting pitcher, then I think the Yankees should pretty happy; however, if it's about developing a pitcher you hope will be a frontline starter for years to come (which is what the Yankees had hoped for, unless they've changed their mind), then no - I wouldn't be all that thrilled. I don't think you'll find too many baseball "experts" who think Phil's ceiling is what it was purported to be (meaning: I dont' think very many were overly impressed with his 2010).

[mememe]

Noesi and Phelps project better than Nova, btw.

Will they ever be better? Who knows.

[yankee82093]

Is it cherrypicking when you take the larger of the sample size as evidence?

Hughes started the season pretty well, due mainly to the low BABIP. But as the season progressed, and the BABIP went up, his performance became very hit or miss.

Another factor is the fact that pitchers are usually ahead of batters at the beginning of the season. Not trying to discount his performance in those 6 games, but I'm more worried about his performance the rest of the season, than I am impressed with those 6 games.

You pretty much always want a larger sample.

[justtxyank]

Sorry, you guys are way too pie-in-sky optimistic for me. The author is an idiot for saying AJ is more of a #3 starter? Really? If AJ is a #3 starter this year, I'll rejoice and thank god. In the AL, AJ has never had a season where he pitched 170 innings and had an ERA under 4. In the season someone above talked about, his ERA was 4.07. His career ERA+ is 107. His career WHIP is 1.321 (which is better than that "great" year in Toronto or either year with us). If this guy is a #2, then so are about 50 percent of all AL pitchers.

In his entire career, Andy Pettitte only had 3 seasons in the AL of 170 innings and an era under 4.