Joba, to start or relive?
EGK
already know the plan is to return him to a starter role next year but what
i'm curious about is how people view the value of starting vs relieving.
Mo has routinely been called the MVP of the Yankees for the last decade and
obviously a reliever is going to pitch more often than a starter. Not that
I'm comparing Joba to Mo at this point. On the other hand, Mo isn't going
to be around forever. If Joba could turn in to a successor, would he more
valuable as a closer?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)
Tom K
> Mo has routinely been called the MVP of the Yankees for the last decade
> and
> obviously a reliever is going to pitch more often than a starter. Not
> that
> I'm comparing Joba to Mo at this point. On the other hand, Mo isn't going
> to be around forever. If Joba could turn in to a successor, would he more
> valuable as a closer?
If the Yankees could get 200+ innings out of Mo every year, pitching at
around a 3.00 ERA, they would never have converted him.
Starting pitchers are much harder to find than good relief pitchers. The
Yankees could have Mo's successor elsewhere in the organization...if Joba
becomes his successor, it will only be after he fails miserably as a
starting pitcher.
EGK
This is what I don't get. You're basically saying Mo would have been more
valuable as a starter? I'm wondering why the Sox didn't keep to their plan
to have Pappelbon in the starting rotation this year if it's so much easier
to find closers?
I'm not arguing with you. I'm just trying to understand the logic here.
Tom K
> valuable as a starter? I'm wondering why the Sox didn't keep to their
> plan
> to have Pappelbon in the starting rotation this year if it's so much
> easier
> to find closers?
Yes, I am saying Mo would have been more valuable as a starter IF he could
have started....and that's the big IF. He didn't have the necessary
tools to be a very good starting pitcher.
Let me put it to you this way: If it is best to take your best pitchers and
make them closers, why isn't Hughes being groomed to close? Why aren't the
Sox bringing up Buchholz with that in mind? Why doesn't Tampa take Scott
Kazmir and cure their always existing bullpen woes for good? Why doesn't
SF take Lincecum and put him in the pen? Would Roger Clemens, Pedro
Martinez, Randy Johnson, etc helped their teams more by throwing one
dominant inning every two days instead of 7 or 8 dominant innings every five
days? I don't think so. John Smoltz is a very good example of this; he
was extraordinary as a closer. But once he was healthy enough to take on
the workload of a starter again, they put him back where he belongs.
I still think Boston made a mistake with Papelbon by not seeing if he can
become a solid starting pitcher...just like I think the Yankees made a
terrible mistake taking a strong left-handed starting pitcher and putting
him in the pen (Righetti)
You are wasting Chamberlain's talent by making him a permanent reliever.
See if his mega-ability can become a dominant top-of-the-rotation guy. If
he stinks up the joint or can't get his third pitch to work, or whatever -
you can always move him back.
Dano
"Tom K" <mryc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mL6dne2H4dzvrFDb...@comcast.com...
Papelbon himself made the choice. He enjoys the job and the rush...the
challenge...the opportunity to impact more games. The team, in fact, tried
to put him back in the rotation in the spring. He didn't like it...missed
the role of ace reliever, coming in and shutting teams down. He went to
THEM.
I'm not really disagreeing with your basic premise by the way. Just a case
of personal preference with this kid is all I'm saying. Pretty nice weapon
to have BTW. At the All-Star Game, Putz said he was shocked that Papelbon
even considered going back to starting. Takes a different type is all.
Joe
> "Tom K" <mrycle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Being a starting pitcher means knowing how to mix up pitches from one
at bat to the next. Some pitchers just don't have a mind to do such a
thing - those are the pitchers who make better relievers. You've got
to be able to vary your pitches especially the 3rd time a guy is
seeing you in a game, that takes a little more complex approach to
pitching.
Joba was brought up as an alternative to bringing in Gagne so that's
the only reason why he is in the bullpen now because there was a
desperate need there as opposed to the stable (at the time) starting
rotation. But now that the rotation may be finding a hole I'm
wondering if Torre might think about giving Joba a shot. Mussina's
stuff right now might be better suited to relieving because he can air
out his pitches instead of conserving energy to maximize his outing. I
agree that a good starting pitcher is more valuable than a reliever -
especially one that can go 7-8 innings because that not only obviates
the need for relief pitching that night but also guarantees them the
needed rest every week so that they can perform effeciently.
ccsuwxman
> Just wondering what some peoples thoughts are about what to do with Joba? I
> already know the plan is to return him to a starter role next year but what
> i'm curious about is how people view the value of starting vs relieving.
>
> Mo has routinely been called the MVP of the Yankees for the last decade and
> obviously a reliever is going to pitch more often than a starter. Not that
> I'm comparing Joba to Mo at this point. On the other hand, Mo isn't going
> to be around forever. If Joba could turn in to a successor, would he more
> valuable as a closer?
Which particular game or season would you like Joba to relive?
EGK
>> This is what I don't get. You're basically saying Mo would have been more
>> valuable as a starter? I'm wondering why the Sox didn't keep to their
>> plan
>> to have Pappelbon in the starting rotation this year if it's so much
>> easier
>> to find closers?
>
>Yes, I am saying Mo would have been more valuable as a starter IF he could
>have started....and that's the big IF. He didn't have the necessary
>tools to be a very good starting pitcher.
This part I have to disagree with. With hindsight, I can't see any way that
Mo would have been more valuable to this team than he was. His was probably
the biggest impact on championship seasons. I just don't see how a starter
starting once every 5 days would have had the same impact.
You didn't see people talking about guys like Clemens or Pettite or Cone
being the MVP of the Yankees yet they were all great pitchers. It certainly
wasn't always like this but in today's game, without the great closer, it's
hard to win championships.
>Let me put it to you this way: If it is best to take your best pitchers and
>make them closers, why isn't Hughes being groomed to close? Why aren't the
>Sox bringing up Buchholz with that in mind? Why doesn't Tampa take Scott
>Kazmir and cure their always existing bullpen woes for good? Why doesn't
>SF take Lincecum and put him in the pen? Would Roger Clemens, Pedro
>Martinez, Randy Johnson, etc helped their teams more by throwing one
>dominant inning every two days instead of 7 or 8 dominant innings every five
>days? I don't think so. John Smoltz is a very good example of this; he
>was extraordinary as a closer. But once he was healthy enough to take on
>the workload of a starter again, they put him back where he belongs.
Geeze, Tom. I don't think you're meaning to but you're making this sound
more and more like relief pitching is simple. It may be simple to pitch but
it's sure not simple to be great at it.
Not everyone is suited for relief pitching. I can't even imagine Clemens,
Martinez and Johnson getting up every other day. Just the strain on a guy's
arm is different.
>I still think Boston made a mistake with Papelbon by not seeing if he can
>become a solid starting pitcher...just like I think the Yankees made a
>terrible mistake taking a strong left-handed starting pitcher and putting
>him in the pen (Righetti)
>
>You are wasting Chamberlain's talent by making him a permanent reliever.
>See if his mega-ability can become a dominant top-of-the-rotation guy. If
>he stinks up the joint or can't get his third pitch to work, or whatever -
>you can always move him back.
Chamberlain was just an example because of how he's looked in just a few
games. I realize that doesn't mean much for a career. He could be a hall
of famer or out of baseball within 2-3 years. I'm not talking about just
any old reliever here but about a guy who could become a closer like Mo.
Someone who can put his imprint on a whole season.
By the way, I'm still not arguing about your basic premise except for the
part about Mo's value. I realize finding good starters is harder but my
question was more about who is actualy more valuable in a championship
season. Not valuable as in a team's investment. I don't know, maybe
relief pitchers like Mo are such special cases they tend to transcend the
argument.
Vinnie S.
>>If the Yankees could get 200+ innings out of Mo every year, pitching at
>>around a 3.00 ERA, they would never have converted him.
>>
>>Starting pitchers are much harder to find than good relief pitchers. The
>>Yankees could have Mo's successor elsewhere in the organization...if Joba
>>becomes his successor, it will only be after he fails miserably as a
>>starting pitcher.
>
>This is what I don't get. You're basically saying Mo would have been more
>valuable as a starter? I'm wondering why the Sox didn't keep to their plan
>to have Pappelbon in the starting rotation this year if it's so much easier
>to find closers?
>
>I'm not arguing with you. I'm just trying to understand the logic here.
Papelbone never had the inning built in as a starter, even though he started. I
don't think Papelbone even pitched more than 150 innings in the minors.
Vinnie S.