The official announcement of the Yankees’ fifth starter will be the big news today, but Wednesday’s headline was the performance of fourth-starter Javier Vazquez, who carved up an admittedly weak Nationals lineup as the Yankees cruised to a 3-1 win. Well, that and the fact that Ramiro Peña will once again be the Opening Day utility infielder.
Lineup:
R – Derek Jeter (SS)
L – Nick Johnson (DH)
S – Mark Teixeira (1B)
R – Alex Rodriguez (3B)
L – Robinson Cano (2B)
S – Jorge Posada (C)
L – Curtis Granderson (CF)
S – Nick Swisher (RF)
L – Brett Gardner (LF)
Subs: Juan Miranda (1B), Kevin Russo (2B), Ramiro Peña (SS), Francisco Cervelli (3B), P.J. Pilittere (C), Greg Golson (RF)
Pitchers (IP): Javier Vazquez (6), Damaso Marte (1), Mariano Rivera (1), Mark Melancon (1)
Big Hits: A triple by Alex Rodriguez (2-for-3), Doubles by Nick Swisher (1-for-3), and Nick Johnson (1-for-3, BB).
Who Pitched Well: Javier Vazquez needed just 77 pitches to get through six innings plus one batter. He didn’t issue a walk and allowed just one run on four singles while striking out six. Mark Melancon pitched a perfect ninth striking out two. Mariano Rivera worked around a double for a scoreless eighth, striking out two as well.
Who Didn’t: Vazquez gave up a single to the only man he faced in the seventh. Damaso Marte then allowed that inherited runner to score on a double by former Yankee Alberto Gonzalez, though Gonzalez was the only baserunner Marte allowed in his one inning of work.
Oopsies: Brett Gardner was caught stealing second by the former Yankee battery of Brian Bruney and Wil Nieves.
Cuts: The first real significant batch:
Kevin Russo: Russo hit .333 in camp, but Russo has always hit. The issue is that he’s not really a viable shortstop, and twith Alex Rodriguez now six years and one hip surgery removed from the position, the Yankees likely reasoned that they couldn’t go into the season with Russo as Derek Jeter’s sole backup at the position. Russo moved his name toward the top of the list of replacement bench players, but with the Yankees hoping to get 150 games or more out of each of their infielders, they properly opted to go with Ramiro Peña’s glove and versatility over Russo’s batting-average-dependent offense. It will be interesting to see if the Yankees stick him back at second base in Scranton or give him more exposure at short and third in the hope of increasing his defensive value.
Juan Miranda: Miranda didn’t hit much in camp and, as Scranton’s first baseman, will have to fend off the advances of Jorge Vazquez while battling with Jesus Montero to be the first name called when Nick Johnson goes down with an injury. Given that Miranda’s also in the last year of his contract, success in Scranton could just as easily get him traded as promoted.
Greg Golson: Golson hit .300/.364/.550 in camp and struck out just four times in 20 at-bats, which offers some hope that the tweaks made to his swing and approach by Kevin Long are already yielding results. If Golson can control the strike zone, he has the tools (speed, power, glove) and athleticism to be an upgrade on Brett Gardner, but he’ll have to prove it over a larger sample as Scranton’s center fielder.
Mark Melancon: Melancon was fantastic in camp, but there’s just no room in the Yankee bullpen: Mariano Rivera, Joba Chamberlain or Phil Hughes, Damaso Marte, David Robertson, Chan Ho Park, Alfredo Aceves, Sergio Mitre. That’s seven. I’d like to have seen Melancon make the team over Mitre, but as I explained Tuesday night, I’m kind of okay with Mitre making the team, particularly given how strong the rest of the pen seems to be. Had Melancon pitched better in his extremely brief major league opportunities last year, he might have had the edge. As it is, he’ll likely force his way onto the major league roster in the first half of the season.
Jonathan Albaladejo: Albaladejo made the Opening Day roster each of the last two seasons but got hurt in 2008, failed to distinguish himself in 2010, was lit up in camp this year. If there’s no room for Melancon in the bullpen, Albaladejo has no chance. He should follow Edwar Ramirez out of the organization shortly.
Bang on write up Cliff. Javy was money, mowing down those Nats (how many former Yanks/prospects do they have on that team anyway?) .
Regardless of competition, he looks ready, and me so happy. Just don't know how many innings we're gonna get out of the 2 and 3 slots this year, so 500-ish inning out of 1 and 4 will help greatly.
Good insight on Melancon. I expect him to be back in the show this season, with impact. The kid can pitch.
While I don't see the point in carrying Mitre north, I do think that Melancon would be better served pitching regularly in the minors than in limited mop up roles with the Yankees. If Robertson struggles or Joba/Hughes is pressed into starting duty because of an injury, he should be the first person promoted.
I might have to send Cashman a bag of dogshit if Joba is sent to the pen. Hughes I can deal with because he has fewer innings to work with. But Joba is already an average starter (so more valuable than even Mo) and with only 15 minor league starts in his career. Hughes got 63. If they don't think Joba's ready, bite the bullet and send him to AAA. Let him focus for one solid year on being a starter without any other bullshit.
Scratch that. I have a big dog. A box of dogshit would be more appropriate.
Melancon getting cut says I may have to start collecting that dogshit. Unless they do keep Gaudin afterall.
[3] I agree that Joba deserves a shot, but ...(1) he has not established himself as an average starter and (2) an average starter would not be more valuable than Mo.
With only 220 innings as a starter, Joba has established nothing (which really is an argument for giving him a chance). If anything, his more dominant 60 relief innings as well as his downward trend as a starter would suggest he'd be better off in the bullpen.
As for an "average starter" being more valuable than Mo, I think that completely ignores the leverage of the latter's innings. It would be a lot easier (and cheaper) for the Yankees to find an average starter than a reliever as dominant, durable and consistent as Mo.
[5] Hmmm....
In those 221 innings, he has a 4.18 ERA with 206 Ks and 101BBs. You're telling me that if that we over one season, you expect an average starter to better than that? And to say that's established "nothing" is pretty myopic. List for me all the starting pitchers, 23 and under, who have done better.
Since 2002, Mo has never been worth more then 3.2 WARP (2005). Last year he was worth 2.0 WARP. Joba? Last year he was worth 1.5 WARP in 156 IP. Even at his worst as a full-time starter and non innings nonsense, Joba is worth just as much as Mo right now.
And the leverage of Mo's innings is nonsense. He rarely comes into a tie game, even in the post-season. The folks at YFSF just put together a list of the top 39 high leverage moments in Yankee post-season history. There was one reliever on that list. And it was John Wetteland. At number 39.
Mo has his value, but he's a failed starter. Joba is not.
"his downward trend"
Seems like he was doing just fine after the All-Star break last year.
If you're siding with Francesa, you ain't siding with reason.
More tellingly, the Yankees will have developed more starters for other teams this year than they have for their own. That's pathetic. Instead, a starter will get hurt and they'll rely on Mitre. Again.
Great write up.
If you are looking at the organization over the next five years, I can't see that demoting Joba to the Pen will be a good idea, and if they put Hughes in the starting role, that's what I think they'll get: a guy who they make into a pen guy instead of a starter. I'm sure he'll get his shot as a starter a few times where the expectation will be that he comes in to pitch a 7 inning 2 run game, but it's just not reasonable to expect a guy to be a better than average starter without a couple hundred innings as a less than average starter.
[6] Hell Yeah. That's what I meant.
"It would be a lot easier (and cheaper) for the Yankees to find an average starter than a reliever as dominant, durable and consistent as Mo."
Really? Who? Average starters get a minimum of $10 million/year. That was the Pavano contract. How many closers make more than that? Closers are generally cheap and very abundant. Average starters are not.
And a reliever as "dominant, durable and consistent" as Mo doesn't exist. He is one of a kind. There is no replacing him and no pitcher should ever be expected to. He is the greatest of all time.
It really annoys me that Joba could be converted to relief with all of 15 minor league starts under his belt and all at the age of 21. Either they finally let the kid develop or trade him for something worth having. Sticking him in the pen is an utter waste of his prodigious talent. Last year he was finally starting to find it, until they started messing with his head. Again.
Okay, I'm going to try to be more positive:
Who could the Yankees realistically get with a Joba+ package? Who are young players about to be overpriced for their teams? Any corner outfielders?
[6] No, I'm telling you that 220 innings over 2 seasons is too small a sample size to determine exactly what Joba is, especially when his trend has been down (both in terms of performance and velocity). You question about under 23 starters is irrelevant because very few of those have "established" anything either. Based on his body of work to date, the jury is still out on Joba, which is actually a better argument for leaving him in the rotation than stating "he is already average".
I am sorry, but I don’t listen to Mike Francessa, so I am not sure what arguments he makes, but specifically regarding Joba’s downward trend, here are his starters ERAs, month by month: June 2008: 1.50; July 2008: 2.52; April 2009: 3.13; May 2009: 4.84; June 2009: 3.79; July 2009: 2.73; August 2009: 8.22; and September 2009: 6.85. While he did pitch well in July last year, the general trend has been a decline. I am not suggesting that this trend is definitive, but again, that’s exactly my point. Nothing about Joba is definitive.
As for the Mo comparison, WARP is a useless metric because it doesn’t include leverage. I believe Tango factors in leverage when calculating a pitcher’s “bonus WAR” Also, depending on whose WAR you are using, Mo gets penalized because of his FIP (Mariano has historically outperformed his FIP). Finally, leverage isn’t just about the score when you come into the game, but also the inning. One only needs to hearken back to the Phil Coke’s shell shocked interview after his first save for anecdotal evidence. Of course, your facts are plain wrong anyway. Mariano does come into close games. According to B-R.com, 50% of Mariano’s career innings are high leverage.
[9] In his two seasons as a starter, Gaudin’s WAR was 2.2 and 1.5, which averages out to just about average. I hear he is available for cheap.
And yes, Mo is one of a kind. You said Joba was already as valuable as Mo. If you meant to say, he is more valuable as a starter than the typical closer, that's another story.
Let's break you down FJM-style:
"Based on his body of work to date, the jury is still out on Joba, which is actually a better argument for leaving him in the rotation than stating “he is already average”.
You said he's shown "nothing". As long as you're backing away from that nonsense, we'll start to find common ground.
"While he did pitch well in July last year, the general trend has been a decline."
When you completely ignore the relevant context. Here's a simple question: Tell me the one season where Joba has been a starter and only a starter? (Hint: It's a trick question).
"Finally, leverage isn’t just about the score when you come into the game, but also the inning."
That makes no sense. Leverage is all about the score no matter the inning.
"One only needs to hearken back to the Phil Coke’s shell shocked interview after his first save for anecdotal evidence."
So 221 innings is too a small sample but one anecdote is enough to support your point?
"In his two seasons as a starter, Gaudin’s WAR was 2.2 and 1.5, which averages out to just about average. I hear he is available for cheap."
Exactly. So why are they releasing him?
"If you meant to say, he is more valuable as a starter than the typical closer, that’s another story."
If that makes it easier for you to see the obvious, then sure, run with. At least we agree that no one will be replacing Mo.
Joba is not as valuable as Mo.
7 of the 8 postseason closers last year blew a save. We all know who didn't, and we all know how valuable postseason saves are, and what can happen in a postseason series after a save is blown. There aren't too many players in the game as valuable as Mo, and Joba is not one of them, not yet, not by a long shot.
Someone at RAB just talked me off the ledge. They're going to take a second lefty north. Joba starts the year at AAA. He's guaranteed a rotation slot in August when Hughes gets shifted back to the pen or until an injury changes the plan.
At least I hope it's that...
What a lineup.
How many teams have #7 and #8 hitters that combined for 59 home runs last season?
This team has the potential to be crazy good.
[13] I concede the point. Mo is one-of-a-kind. Typical closers are not.
I'm not sure I agree that "[t]here aren’t too many players in the game as valuable as Mo" but that's a philosophical dispute.
I didn't think anyone was insisting that Joba is as valuable as Mo.
But I think I'm in agreement with William about this. We've had to compensate so hard for the dopes who think an 8th inning guy is essential to success that we may be overcompensating.
Other things equal, making an excellent pitcher into a starter is getting more value out of him than leaving him in the bullpen, because starters pitch more innings. But here are two ways in which everything isn't equal. First, making good use of a top reliever will multiply his value because he'll be pitching in high-leverage situations. I can't find any stats on how much leverage total Mo has in his career, but the B-R breakdown into High, Med, and Low leverage suggests it could be close to a leverage of 2 overall. But that means Mo's 85 innings are worth as much as 170 average innings, and that already brings him close to a starter's contribution. Now Joba will not get that much leverage, but if used well he should have at least 1.5, so he's contributing as much as maybe 130 starter innings when he pitches out of the bullpen.
But here's the critical point. We don't know for sure, but it seems likely that those bullpen innings will be significantly better innings than he'd contribute as a starting pitcher. Sure, the difference will not be as dramatic as the Rivera difference. But it's quite possible, even likely, that Joba could contribute more wins (runs prevented X leverage, say) as a late reliever than he could as a starter.
I'd still like to see him start, but if he's an A-level reliever, that no longer seems tragic to me.
"But that means Mo’s 85 innings are worth as much as 170 average innings, and that already brings him close to a starter’s contribution."
That's a very big stretch. Outs are outs. You can't simply turn 3 or 4 into 6 or 8 based on the context. That's not how the game works.
If you believe in free markets, here's an easy question: How many middle relievers make $10 million/year? How many closers? How many starters? How many average starters?
Just based on what the market is willing to bear, average starters are worth more than almost every closer and certainly every middle reliever. That's because average starters get 15-20 outs a game. Joba has the talent to be an average starter and even much better. The Yankees have never given him the best chance to develop that talent - not one full year even. I really hope they finally do before they decide to pull the plug.
It's amazing to me that I'm getting this worked up over an non-sourced story in a rag. I'm done venting until or if reality gives me a reason. I really hope the Yankees are smarter than I remember them to be.
[12] Looks like I fell into the Bum Rush trap. I’ll respond one more time and then stop engaging you (unless you can do so more civilly).
***You said he’s shown “nothing”. As long as you’re backing away from that nonsense, we’ll start to find common ground.***
No, I said he’s “established” nothing. I think the distinction is quite clear. I am actually suggesting that Joba be given the chance to establish himself. I still have hope that Joba might not only be an average starter, but a very good one. He has “shown” enough flashes to warrant the chance. However, he has not pitched enough to have “established” any baseline level of expected performance (he could be the pitcher with the 3 ERA or the one with the 5 ERA).
*** When you completely ignore the relevant context. Here’s a simple question: Tell me the one season where Joba has been a starter and only a starter? (Hint: It’s a trick question).***
Context is not being ignored. Those are is month by month ERAs in his career as a starter (a stretch mostly uninterrupted by relief appearances). If you are going to make judgments based on a small sample, then you have to also take into account the trends based upon it (or just ignore them to suit your own interests).
***That makes no sense. Leverage is all about the score no matter the inning.***
Are you purposely misrepresenting what I say? I didn’t state it wasn’t about the score…I said it was about both the score AND the inning. Please read more carefully.
*** Exactly. So why are they releasing him?***
I don’t know. I am not supporting that decision.
*** If that makes it easier for you to see the obvious, then sure, run with. At least we agree that no one will be replacing Mo.***
If that’s your way of backtracking from your statement, fine.
As it turns out, the Yankees did in fact release Gaudin, which I think is a very short sighted move. When you consider Mitre's 800K salary and the 700K still owed to Gaudin, it seems foolish to let a decent asset go over $1.4mn.
If you want to argue the difference between "established nothing" and "nothing" then this discussion is already over.
In other news, Boone Logan will be the final arm and Joba is going to AAA.
I hope and pray...
Sending Joba to AAA to work as a starter makes somewhat sense, especially if they are committed to using Hughes as a starter AND keep him on an innings limit. That is, Joba starts in AAA while Hughes starts at MLB. At some point Hughes will get shut down and Joba will replace him (unless one or the other proves incapable of starting, then he will be in the BP...or unless there is an injury, in which case both will be starting in MLB).
I guess what I'm saying in a roundabout way is that *if* the Yankees have not given up on Joba or Phil as starters, then one or the other would almost have to start in AAA this season.
[22] But, is the bullpen sans Hughes/Joba strong enough? Also, does it make sense to be without Hughes in the post season, not to mention shuffle Joba back to the bullpen after a full season as a starter?
Unless the Yankees flat out think Hughes is a much better option as a starter, then it really makes no sense to demote either one. Someone has to pick up those innings, and right now that looks like Boone Logan (or Sergio Mitre or Chan Ho Park).
Paul,
No, I'm afraid that's wrong.
Not all outs are created equal. That's why people are interested in leverage indexes. Some innings in a season are more important than others, and some are much more important than others. Andy Pettitte pitching the sixth inning of a 7-1 game is a very unimportant inning; Joba pitching the 8th in a 1-run game is enormously important.
To win lots of games, it's essential to have your best pitchers on the mound in the most important innings. But you can't manage a starter that way -- or anyway the opportunities to do so are minimal. Bullpen pitchers are the opposite: you choose exactly which ones to take the mound in various situations.
The value of a pitcher is in preventing runs. Good pitchers prevent runs from scoring, compared with mediocre pitchers. But it's much more important to prevent runs in a 1-run game in the 8th inning than to do it in a 6-run game in the fifth. If you have an A-grade reliever, you can get much more value per inning pitched than you get from an A-grade starter. Add that to the fact that Joba may well be an A-grade reliever and a B-grade starter and he might well have as much value to the team in the bullpen as he would in the rotation.
[23] If they are committed to them both as starters---and assuming they are unwilling to do the reliever-to-starter-shuffle---they will be without Hughes for the playoffs anyway.
Your question about the BP is more relevant, but again, I have a feeling that they are committed to making the two starters AND in avoiding the Joba-rules-type stuff from last year. That means neither is likely to see time in the BP, except perhaps later in the year.
I wonder to what degree picking up Chan Ho Park, not to mention Mitre's ever-improving luck, has (in the FO's mind) solidified the BP such that JobaHughes can be used exclusively as starters.
[24] Though of course one of the values of a starter is that he chews up lots of innings, high leverage or not, which in turn allows for specialized relievers to be deployed more tactically.
[25] Not necessarily. They could be targeting Hughes for the rotation in 2011, which would make him available in this year's post season. The only way he falls out of the equation is if he maxes out his innings during the regular season (which presumably would occur as a full-time starter). I'd much rather see Hughes rack up 120-140 innings as a long reliever/spot starter AND keep Joba in the majors, then have Hughes max out in the regular season and waste Joba in the minors (unless the Yankees think he has serious work to do on his mechanics, which could be possible).
Good question about Park and Mitre...I hope they aren't putting too much stock into either.
[27] I’d much rather see Hughes rack up 120-140 innings as a long reliever/spot starter...
I agree, and I agreed with this plan last year. My point is that this does not appear to be the team's plan. And frankly, given the way Joba Rules and the Hughes experiment worked out last year (when many of pleaded for Phil to be used for more than one inning), do you trust the organization to Santanaize Phil this season?
If anything, they *might* use him as a starter at the beginning of the year and then convert him to the Eighth-Inning-Guy if need be at the end of the season. Otherwise, I suspect it will be 140 INN between MLB and AAA as a starter and then shutdown time.
"I’d much rather see Hughes rack up 120-140 innings as a long reliever/spot starter AND keep Joba in the majors, then have Hughes max out in the regular season and waste Joba in the minors (unless the Yankees think he has serious work to do on his mechanics, which could be possible)."
It's a fine theory, but they didn't do that last year - when they need a starter to replace Wang. Why would they do that this year?
I think the whole notion of spot starts they're leaving to guys like Aceves and Mitre.
[24] Saying leverage exists is one thing. Saying some outs are worth twice as much as others is something else entirely.
Of course, Mo almost always enters the game with a lead and often with no runners on base.
[28] Fair enough, but I'd also like to think the organization learned something from last season. Also, if they are enlightened enough to send Joba down to the minors instead of make him an eternal 8th inning guy, perhaps they'd be smart enough to realize that they can still utilize both in the majors while maintaining the long-term vision of Joba and Phil in the 2011 rotation?
Then again, maybe Joba actually *needs* time in the minors. If improved mechanics can restore his velocity, then that alone would justify the decision.
"Then again, maybe Joba actually *needs* time in the minors. If improved mechanics can restore his velocity, then that alone would justify the decision."
15 career mL starts says he does.
But then there's this from Lohud:
Cashman said the Yankees would have to “make some real tough choices” in order to carry a second lefty this season. He also said the Yankees aren’t setup to carry two situational lefties, and he considers Damaso Marte a situational lefty on this team.
I really hope he's just laying the groundwork for the right decision and that's how he sells it to Joba.
Uh. It is? What do you think it is, then?
Outs in a situation with a 2.0 leverage are worth twice as much as outs in a situation with a 1.0 leverage. That's what leverage is.
[33] I was objecting to your tortured math. Saying Mo is worth 170 innings (ignoring the fact that he doesn't toss 85 innings/year) based on context is stretching the definition of leverage to its most absurd level. That also ignores the fact that Mo almost always has a lead, and often starts an inning with no runners on base.
As for a better definition of leverage, I don't know. I haven't looked at it enough. Since you seem to believe it, how about you explain it to me? Then maybe we both learn something...
Oh, I get it, you are quite sure that I am "stretching the definition of leverage to its most absurd level," although you don't actually know what leverage is.
Well, the simple answer is that leverage is a measure of how important it is to get the next out (similarly, how important it is to prevent the batter from reaching base, getting a double, etc.). So, yeah, an out in a leverage 2.0 situation is worth two outs in a leverage 1.0 situation, by definition. This means that what you are calling "tortured math" is in fact about the simplest possible exercise in arithmetic. 2 X 1 = 2.
You want me to explain how leverage is calculated? It's not exactly simple -- you can read Tom Tango's articles on it if you want. But here's a start. It's based on win expectancy. You look at the situation in terms of how much the win expectancy is going to change with the next event (walk, out, DP, single, triple, etc.), weighted by how often each event occurs. The leverage index for the situation is proportional to how much of a swing there is in win expectancy between that situation and the ones that follow it after all the various possible events. Sometimes this will be very small, as when there are two outs in the bottom of the ninth and the home team trails by ten runs. Sometimes it will be extremely high, as with two outs in extra innings with the bases loaded. The average swing (again weighted by frequencies of situations and events) is, by definition, 1.0.
That's the basic explanation.
Okay, Mariano pitched 82 1/3 innings last year, not 85. Not sure what your point is there. And I don't understand what you mean by saying I have "ignored" the fact that Mo almost always has a lead and often starts an inning with no runners on base. What do those facts have to do with it?
[35] Take a deep breath, then consider that you're calling every single out Mo gets as two outs. If that's not absurd I don't know what is.
"It’s based on win expectancy."
Exactly. And for the top 38 post-season plays in recent Yankee history, not one is from a reliever. #39 is from Wetteland.
"What do those facts have to do with it?"
Go back and read your definition then your math.
No, you must have misread.
I don't know what that means. "Top" by what measure?
2 X 1 = 2.
That seems right. Where did I go wrong? Please help!
"No, you must have misread."
You said: "But that means Mo’s 85 innings are worth as much as 170 average innings, and that already brings him close to a starter’s contribution. "
"“Top” by what measure?"
Change in win expectancy.
"Where did I go wrong? Please help!"
Where's the evidence that each of Mo's outs changes the win expectancy as much as you say it does?
Yes, 2 x 1 = 2. But it's the leading 2 that I have a big problem with.
Right. But what I said is that the B-R numbers suggested that the 85 innings (or 82 1/3 if you want precision) are worth close to twice as much on average, not that every single one of them is worth exactly twice as much.
Okay. So, what is your point? Are you saying that Mariano's innings do not have leverage of 2.0 on average? That may be true -- as I said, I couldn't find a cumulative count anywhere. I'm going on his total number of High Leverage innings (HL is 1.7 and greater), along with the general LI for ninth inning Save situations, from Tom Tango's tables. But that's pretty rough, and if you think it should be lower, that's fine. How about 1.9? 1.8?
Half his innings in his career are high leverage. If that's 1.7 or higher, I call it 1.7 until you can show that he's regularly higher. I don't think he is.
Of his remaining career innings, about 28% are low leverage. The other 22% is medium leverage.
Add all that up, and it's at best 1.5. Still, I'm not sure I buy it. I'd have to look into how BR defines leverage and what Tango says about closers in two or three runs games.
Of all his relief innings, 531 are HL, a total of 371 are Med or Lo.
You can call it whatever you want, but it's kind of stupid to assume that all of the high leverage innings are the very lowest that a high leverage inning can possibly be. It's obviously incorrect, so by assuming it you are guaranteeing that your answer will be incorrect.
Wow, tortured math! Well, you deliberately made a false assumption, so it's not too surprising that you reach an absurd conclusion.
Your prerogative, of course.