Wow, that’s a fair bit worse than it was. Any particular dropoffs? Cano is below average now, but that can’t be all of it. The return of CF Damon and Matsui?

Ooooooouch.  WTF happened?!

So Toronto is 10 wins better (give or take) than the Yankees defensively, and still two games behind them in the standings. That’s a pretty harsh commentary on the hitting and pitching JP has assembled up north.

Here are the position totals

I think Cano’s falloff is the majority of it, he went from +5 to -7 over a span of what, 2 months?  That’s a 12 run dropoff.  Nady’s LF #s aren’t very good right now either(-5 as a Yank), although he’s looked ok to me.

NYY   RF   -21

Happy trails, Bobby. Assuming that’s mostly him, he’s floating at around +1 win above replacement level player.

NYY   LF   -10
  NYY   RF   -21

Ew.

Yeah, that’s all Bobby (he’s actually a -22).

And his VORP at the moment is 30.8, so he’s basically giving back 70% of his value with the bat with his defense. That’s lousy.

(Although not, to be fair, as lousy as Cano whose VORP now stands at 7.2, meaning he is giving back 97% of his value. Killing me this year, just killing me.)

Although not, to be fair, as lousy as Cano whose VORP now stands at 7.2, meaning he is giving back 97% of his value.

It is interesting that as Cano has started hitting, his defense has slipped.  I wonder if he just has difficulty multi-tasking

Yeah, that’s all Bobby (he’s actually a -22).

To simplify it, if the Yankees had average defense in LF, RF, and 1B (hmm, are there any FA

DoH!  Accidentally submitted!  To continue…

(hmm, are there any FA available at those positions?), they’d be 4 games better in the standings; ahead of the Twins, and only 3 back of the RS.

WDE.

So Toronto is 10 wins better (give or take) than the Yankees defensively, and still two games behind them in the standings. That’s a pretty harsh commentary on the hitting and pitching JP has assembled up north.

There’s not much wrong with the pitching.  They lead the league in strikeouts, allow the fifth lowest number of walks, and are better than most at keeping the ball in the park.  Throw in that defense and they’re the best in the AL at run prevention.  They just can’t hit a lick.  OTOH, they have a better pythag than the Angels.

WDE

How do you pronounce that?

OTOH, they have a better pythag than the Angels.

Someone else—not here—pointed this out the other day and I ran the numbers. Since JP took over in the Great North the Jays over underperformed their Pythag every year 5 out of 7 years, and by an average of something like four and a half games.

It might be nothing, but it seems he’s betting at creating paper teams than field teams.

<I>How do you pronounce that?<I>

It’s a combination of Woe and d’oh.

Teixiera’s been a +11 defender this year, although I think I’d project him to be about a +5.  That’s a 13 run defensive upgrade at first base alone.  Cano shouldn’t be this bad, although his projection has probably gone from plus to average.  Part of 3B is Ensberg’s -3.

I think the Yankees are planning to put Nady in RF next year, so that should be at least a one win upgrade on Abreu, even if Nady’s below average.  CF looks like slim pickings, so they may end up with Damon in CF which is a hit compared to Melky, probably at least 10 runs range + arm.  How they handle CF will determine LF I imagine.  I don’t think they should go for Dunn unless they can’t get Teixeira and would use him at first.  He’s a butcher in the OF.

I know this is an unsabermetric point of view, but it has always seemed to me that if you are going to rely on and try to build with young pitchers, you should make a point of having solid defense.  This is both for the sake of the pitchers’ confidence and for the team’s ability to evaluate them objectively.

I don’t think they should go for Dunn unless they can’t get Teixeira and would use him at first.  He’s a butcher in the OF.

Personally, I would prefer Burrell in LF on a shorter-term contract.  I have a feeling Dunn will get six years.  If they also get Tex (for however long), having Dunn for six probably isn’t a good idea.  If they can get Burrell for 3 years, that would be ideal, I think; though he’ll probably get some offers for 5 years from someplace, which will make it difficult.

And by “unsabermetric” I just mean that the issue of confidence relating to defense might be only anecdotal if not mythical.

I know this is an unsabermetric point of view, but it has always seemed to me that if you are going to rely on and try to build with young pitchers, you should make a point of having solid defense.  This is both for the sake of the pitchers’ confidence and for the team’s ability to evaluate them objectively.

Hard to tell where the sabr dogma lies these days, but I don’t think it’s an unsabr. Better defense means less pitches thrown. I seem to recall the Yankee defense letting some of the young guys down earlier in the year and I think you’re right about confidence.

They should get Tex and Burrell. I don’t know if they can. But they should. Also, I’m not wild about Tex, but I think you have to gamble.

I know this is an unsabermetric point of view, but it has always seemed to me that if you are going to rely on and try to build with young pitchers, you should make a point of having solid defense.

I think this makes a lot of sense, but I think it’s probably hard to achieve.  The Yankees’ big problem with defense is that they are an old team.  Defense peaks in the mid 20s and then slowly declines at most positions (I think 1B is an exception).  When the bulk of your team are free agents signed past their prime, your defense is going to tend to be worse than average, although there are of course exceptions.  But I have no doubts that having a bad defense behind Hughes and Kennedy hasn’t helped them, although Joba seemed to manage ok since he misses more bats.

Personally, I would prefer Burrell in LF on a shorter-term contract.

Me too, but I have a hunch he’s going to get some long-term offers.  Offense + defense, he may be better than Dunn.

That’s just plain embarrassing…

Me too, but I have a hunch he’s going to get some long-term offers.  Offense + defense, he may be better than Dunn.

I seem to remember having this discussion with Cowboy a while ago.  Definitely over the next three years I think he won’t be *worse* than Dunn (offense+defense), but the Yankees could use the defense since it’s not like they’ll be short at just one position.  Longer-term, looking at 2012 and beyond, Dunn may be better because of the age difference.  Not sure if I want either for 5+ years.  Burrell I think will get a shorter contract than Dunn.  Possibly, the Yankees can talk him into 4 plus an option or two.  One more year than I’d like, but…

Here’s my biggest thing with any contracts the Yankees give out this year.  NO NO TRADE CLAUSES!!!

Here’s my biggest thing with any contracts the Yankees give out this year.  NO NO TRADE CLAUSES!!!

You can do it, but there’s two problems. One is that players, generally, want NTC. And it’s hard to argue that it’s worth not signing a Tex or someone over a NTC.

The other point is that NTC’s are like umpires, you only notice them when they cause a problem. I would guess that in a huge majority of contracts, they aren’t an issue. If a player is playing well and paid reasonably, a team wants to keep him. If a player is not one (or both) of those things, a team will want to deal him but is unlikely to be able to do so.

Once in a while these issues conflict, exceptions tend to focus on when a team is lousy and looking to trade away vets to help rebuild. Given that’s a position the Yankees should never be in at their payroll, it’s not a situation they should be planning for.

That’s what I’m thinking.  Honestly, I think the yanks can afford NTCs more than other teams because they expect not to have to rebuild as often.  Obviously you don’t want to hand them out willy-nilly, but I’m not sure it’s that big a problem.  How many of the guys currently on the team would have brought back a whole lot if not for a NTC?  Maybe I’m wrong.

The other thing about NTCs, espcially for longer contracts with veterans, is that generally by the time you want to unload a guy because he’s overpaid and lousy, 10/5 rights start to kick in.

Let’s say the Yankees give Tex (or CC) 7 years. Chances are the first four years will be solid. At which point they aren’t going trade him during the fifth year. So even if the fifth year includes a major decline, the player earns the 10/5 right so the NTC issue is moot.

And since I might well just ramble for a while here, is there any Yankee deal of recent memory where a NTC was a big factor? It’s not like NTCs were what stuck the Yankees with Pavano or Giambi or whatever. It’s was performance and salary.

Dunn vs Burrell.  That’s something that I can’t get too excited about. 

Just sign Tex.  Suffer through Damon, Nady, Gardner/Christian/Matsui/etc, until a younger better OF option comes through via trade, minors, or FA.  And see who between Abreu or Giambi will sign a one year within reason DH deal. Or better yet, sign Bonds (assuming court issue gets resolved). 

Main reason I’m not too down with Dunn or Burrell is they seem to have negatives or holes to their game. I understand they bring a lot to the table, but let’s try to get good to great all around players instead.

It’s not like NTCs were what stuck the Yankees with Pavano or Giambi or whatever. It’s was performance and salary.

you could argue that it hurt them this season, once the team really fell out of it (meaning within the last 2-3 weeks), they possibly could have flipped Giambi/Abreu/Moose/Damon to a contender for something decent. 

of course, Giambi and Moose have 10/5 rights, so that kindof proves your point. and you’d have to weigh the benefits of trading Abreu vs. possibly collecting 2 draft picks.  same with Damon and possibly needing him in 2009.

i concede.

Main reason I’m not too down with Dunn or Burrell is they seem to have negatives or holes to their game. I understand they bring a lot to the table, but let’s try to get good to great all around players instead.

you will be waiting a long time for those players.  there aren’t many of them, and they don’t become available often.

the 2004-2005 front office disaster continues to reverberate and haunt this team.  choosing RJ over Beltran was a huge mistake. 

it would have been worth it to miss the playoffs in 2005 (keeping Vazquez over RJ) to have Beltran in 2008 and 2009.

it would have been worth it to miss the playoffs in 2005 (keeping Vazquez over RJ) to have Beltran in 2008 and 2009.

Vazquez probably would have been a good pitcher in 05 if they had gotten Beltran. That’s something like a 40-50 run defensive swing in CFer and Vazquez was a flyball pitcher.

Abreu’s two draft picks.  His biggest contribution in 2008.

What’s the uncertainty on those numbers?  Is Abreu really that bad in the field?

And since I might well just ramble for a while here, is there any Yankee deal of recent memory where a NTC was a big factor? It’s not like NTCs were what stuck the Yankees with Pavano or Giambi or whatever. It’s was performance and salary.

It’s hard to tell because the issue is moot to begin with.  Giambi’s NTC can’t be a factor in moving him because the NTC precludes him from being moved without his consent in the first place. 

I think the Yanks would find it hard to sign any FA to a big contract without a NTC - either partial or full.  NTCs are pretty standard for big contracts now and I don’t see a guy like CC or Tex signing without one.

Count me in as someone who believes a good defense helps young pitchers mentally.  Heck, it probably helps the veterans too.  Pitchers who aren’t worried about making the perfect pitch time and time again because he can’t trust his defense, or worried what a mistake will cost him, will probably pitch better.  Looser is better than uptight and worried in my book.

The problem is putting a good defense on the field that can also hit.  I guess when you solve that problem, you can cancel your October tee times and get ready for the World Series.

Carryover from yesterday.  Goldman exactly sums up my feeling about Joba.

The Yankees are again conflicted about Joba Chamberlain’s role, possibly sending him back to the bullpen to start the 2009 season because he’s so special that the Yankees can’t bear to use him for fear of breaking him, like a beautiful toy that you can’t play with because it will no longer command “mint in box” prices once you take it out of the packaging. Chamberlain will turn 23 later this month, an age at which Dwight Gooden had already pitched nearly 1,200 major league innings. Chamberlain has pitched 114.1. Between those two extremes there is probably a happy, safe medium, but the Yankees seem determined not to find it, preferring to deprive themselves of a top starting pitcher. At this point, Chamberlain seems destined to go down as one of the great missed opportunities in franchise history, which is saying a lot given the team’s long-standing habit of mishandling young pitchers. Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy remain unknown quantities.

It’s hard to tell because the issue is moot to begin with.  Giambi’s NTC can’t be a factor in moving him because the NTC precludes him from being moved without his consent in the first place. 

But even if we imagine a world where Giambi doesn’t have NTC, I’m not seeing a trade. His problems started post 2003. But obviously he wouldn’t have been dealt then. Post-2004 maybe, but the Yankees would have been dealing a guy owed $76 million for four years in the same enviorment when Miguel Tejada signed for 6 years and 4 million less than that.

The Yankees never traded Giambi because—NTC or not—there was never a realistic market for him

With Joba it’s a risk/reward analysis.  Personally, I’m not worried about the Yankees making Joba a starter, I think it will happen.  I’m just interested in doing it with minimal risk to his future contributions to the team.  If that means he only throws 150-160 innings next year, I’m okay with that, because the marginal gain from him going to 200+ is not worth the increased risk of injury. 30-40 innings is not worth it to me. I don’t really see how him being capped at “only 160” next year is “mint in the box”.  That’s a lot of good, quality innings.

Why don’t we send Joba to VA Tech (Fall Ball) to throw a bunch of BP simulation games against their lineup.  Or, better yet, why don’t we take Melky, Gardner, Christian, AJax, Cano, and any other young hitter who needs work and make them hit against Joba this Fall. 

Also, what’s the story with Hughes- he was ready to be a SP on a WS contender last winter but now he is in AAA while Darell Rasner, Ponson, and Pavana start instead?  Have they gone from rushing these guys to babying them?  Does Cashman know what he’s doing?

but the Yankees seem determined not to find it, preferring to deprive themselves of a top starting pitcher.  At this point, Chamberlain seems destined to go down as one of the great missed opportunities in franchise history

really?  WTF is this statement based on?

where is this coming from?

the Yankees are talking about putting Joba in the pen to START the season to LIMIT his innings.

at no point has anyone connected with the Yankees talked about permanently making him a reliever.

this just strikes me as misinformed rumormongering at best, and irresponsible sensationalism at worst.

did everyone forget about, i don’t know, 2 months ago, when the Yankees moved Joba into the rotation despite a HUGE outcry from the media, from former players, and from CURRENT players??

what part of the Yankees’ actions with regard to Joba shows that they don’t 100% grasp the fact that he is more valuable as a starter??

because they are being cautious with his injury, they are now determined “to deprive themselves of a top starting pitcher”???

this is pure hackery.  Abraham would be proud.

What’s the uncertainty on those numbers? Is Abreu really that bad in the field?

I think the general assumption is a spread of -5 to +5 either way over a full season, so it’s possible Abreu is closer to a -15 defender this year. This year is far worse than he’s ever been, and if I were to project Abreu in 2009 I’d guess he’d be closer to a -10.

“At this point, Chamberlain seems destined to go down as one of the great missed opportunities in franchise history, which is saying a lot given the team’s long-standing habit of mishandling young pitchers.”

Well, it’s a claim, but it’s not an argument.  Joba has some injury history, and some questions about his mechanics, and the +30 innings rule seems sensible.  Joba’s going to be a starter next year, and the year after that, etc. etc.  Saying he should have thrown 150 innings this year and should throw 200 the next, or whatever it is Goldman wants, is all fine and good, but the Yankees should have given me a $150k grant to write poetry this season and $200k next season.

Uhm, didn’t Dwight Gooden’s arm break down because of that workload?  Pretty poor job of cherry-picking by Goldman.

This year is far worse than he’s ever been

I am thinking he’s hurt. He can turn on his legs when he needs to, especially on the bases, but when he is just walking around in between innings, or God forbid, trying to bend over, he looks like he’s a 70 year old with arthritis.

“I think the general assumption is a spread of -5 to +5”

Is that one sigma?  If so, that’s not at all good enough for this argument.

Also, what’s the story with Hughes- he was ready to be a SP on a WS contender last winter but now he is in AAA while Darell Rasner, Ponson, and Pavana start instead?  Have they gone from rushing these guys to babying them?  Does Cashman know what he’s doing?

is this really a Cashman decision?

obviously it’s his decision to cut Ponson, which he needs to do.

but i would imagine when it comes to Hughes’ rehab, he is basing all decisions on advice from Contreras, Eiland, and Chaves.

“Uhm, didn’t Dwight Gooden’s arm break down because of that workload?  Pretty poor job of cherry-picking by Goldman.”

To be fair, he calls Gooden’s workload an “extreme” case.  But without an explanation of what “happy” is and how exactly it differs from what the Yankees are doing, there’s not much to go on.

Hughes is learning a new pitch (cutter).  Perhaps they feel that, considering the big league team’s season is over, his time is better spent in AAA refining his secondary pitches.  We’ll see if they bring him up after the Scranton playoffs are over.

More Goldman: “The Yankees are at exactly the same point in the life cycle of their team as the Orioles were just more than 10 years ago, if not further along. Their farm system is killing them.”

Well, ok, ignoring that they used the system to get Nady, that the surprisingly-good bullpen is in large part up from the farm, that they will likely be getting several dominant starters from the system, that there are several high-ceiling position players making progress…  Umm and those veterans coming off the books will return a lot of money, and Tex isn’t old, and, well, this column is the sort of thing that convinced me to stop reading him a long time ago.

Is that one sigma?

It varies by position since certain positions see more chances.

1B: 5
2B: 7
3B: 6
CF: 6
LF: 6
RF: 6
SS: 7

If so, that�s not at all good enough for this argument.

What argument?  Ability or value?  For ability, I agree, that’s why I’d use at least 3 years of data for assessing someone’s defensive ability or skill.  As far as value in a given season though, I think these numbers will generally give us a reasonable approximation of most players’ performance to this point, with the -5/+5 error bars.

I don’t understand the “ability vs value” distinction.  I thought the argument is e.g. that Abreu isn’t valuable or anyway a good return on his salary.  But if he’s suffering a two-sigma statistical fluctuation in this metric, something fairly likely to observe on a team looking at several seasons of data, then I’d want to be cautious.  If he’s been a minus defender for a while and fits a decline curve indicating he can’t maintain value, then fine - I thought he’s been ok in RF in earlier seasons, esp. given his arm.  If it’s obvious he’s limping, then I’d want to figure out if he’s hurt and if he’s likely to be better going forward.

Wow!  A lot of feedback on “no NTC’s”.  I’d just like to make a few uninformed comments.

1) That’s my wish; I realize how difficult it will be.
2) Just because it’s hard not to sign a player to an NTC doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try.
3) Yes, I understand the 10/5.  But if I’m looking to sign Pat Burrell to no more than a 5 year deal, then the 10/5 doesn’t come into play.
4)  When has it hurt the Yankees?  Hmm…Randy Johnson I believe said he would only approve a trade to Arizona.  You have to wonder if the Yankees could have gotten more if say Texas (who always needs pitching) was in the discussion.  Yes, I realize the Yankees didn’t give him the NTC, but it was still there.

If an NTC is the difference between signing Tex and not signing him would I say, “no”?  Of course not.  Would I hope they explore other avenues, including adding some extra $$?  Yes.  It’s impossible to tell exactly how many times the NTC’s have hurt the Yankees over the past decade (you could argue how much, if any, RJ hurt them).  But I’d sure rather have the option of trading that player somewhere than not (ask the Padres).

I don’t understand the “ability vs value” distinction.

Defensive ability is based on a player’s tools. Defensive value is based on the amount of outs a player uses, based on his abilities, positioning and the break down of his pitching staff. You can be physically talented defensively and turn in a lousy year because of bad luck (many tough to field balls over a certain year), poor positioning, injury or whatever. Just the same, a player with limited defensive ability can provide good value if he’s positioned well and gets some good luck (more easily fieldable balls over the course of a year). The idea is that three years of running the numbers will cancel out a good deal of the luck or injury concerns (but not really the positioning issues) while maintaining relevance to a player’s current ability. Over that sample, a player’s ability and value will be close to equivalent, so the theory goes.

If he’s been a minus defender for a while and fits a decline curve indicating he can’t maintain value, then fine - I thought he’s been ok in RF in earlier seasons, esp. given his arm.

I’m sure someone else can give you value in “runs” better.  But just eyeballing where he’s fit in the

That’s the second time I’ve fat-fingered that today! 

He’s basically been average or a little below on the ZR charts (just looking at where he’s ranked) in each of the last few years.  His arm was actually a negative last year (-1) and basically average the year before, but about +3 this year and 2005.  He may not be this bad, but he’s definitely not good.

I don’t understand the “ability vs value” distinction. 

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the list in general, not Abreu specifically.  To me, if we’re looking at ability we need to look at a weighted average of several years of data with regression towards the mean and aging factored in for any numbers we are looking at.  So even though Jeter is +1 defensively this year, i’d still think of his ability as the -10 defender he was projected to be coming into 2008 but adjusted for his 2008 actual performance, which probably makes him a -7 defender ability-wise, even if his value to this point has been +1.

I thought the argument is e.g. that Abreu isn’t valuable or anyway a good return on his salary.  But if he’s suffering a two-sigma statistical fluctuation in this metric, something fairly likely to observe on a team looking at several seasons of data, then I’d want to be cautious.

Abreu’s been below average of late, here are his runs saved compared to average since 2005.

2005: -5
2006: -6
2007: -3
2008: -22

If I were to project him for 2009, I’d probably use something like (4 x -22 + 3 x -3 + 2 x -6 + -5) / (4+3+2+1) = -11.  I’d regress that towards average and then adjust for aging, which probably comes close to canceling each other out.  So I’d estimate his actual defensive skill in RF right now as a -10 or -11.

I haven’t visibly noticed him limping, and his numbers have been consistently poor all season, so if he suffered an injury mid-season it doesn’t seem to have affected him that much.

To me, the problem with the Yanks handling of the young pitchers is that they haven’t been consistent.  Kennedy rushed through the minors, got his cup of tea at the end of the season, and then was being counted on to join the NYY rotation in 2008.  Even though he produced, that’s a quick ascension for a guy most see topping out as a #3 starter at best.

Then he struggles.  Now, he’s being given time to work on his stuff - whether it be command, control, and/or secondary pitches.  Shouldn’t they have slowed his rise through the minors and work on that the first time around?

I don’t know too much about this alleged rule about the inning limit; can someone point me to a study? Just cherry-picking random examples is an awful thing, but because this data should be easily available historically, we can know, for instance, the total number of innings pitched, total number of pitches thrown for individual players at an young age, and how they correlate with injury down the line?

Obviously, this has to be done for everyone who pitched in a ML game for at least two years, so we are probably dealing with a set that have at least minimal ability to survive in the majors.

I see the Yankee caution as excessive, but would really like to see the strength of empirical evidence settle it. At the heart of it, this is an empirical question.

Also, I wonder if the offseason work and exercise regimens might take a toll on a pitcher’s arm.  Many guys pitch in fall/winter leagues while also going through year-around exercise programs.  That’s a lot of work on the arm/shoulder, even if you monitor innings. 

A lot of press has been made about Yao Ming’s injuries: he plays basketball almost year-round and it has taken its toll on his lower body.  Could the same thing apply to pitchers and their arms, especially considering how dependent they are on ligaments and tendons?

I haven’t visibly noticed him limping, and his numbers have been consistently poor all season, so if he suffered an injury mid-season it doesn’t seem to have affected him that much.

It’s also possible his legs are just aging faster.  His SB’s and SB% are also down this year.  Last year was down a little from 2006 as well; though in line with his career numbers.

Interesting dilemma; if it’s injury we can expect him to bounce back (a little) next year.  Though at his age, he could be injured again.  If his legs are just aging, he could actually be WORSE next year.  Either way, I think the two picks he’s likely to bring back would probably outweigh any contribution he could make for the team.

“You can be physically talented defensively and turn in a lousy year because of bad luck (many tough to field balls over a certain year), poor positioning, injury or whatever.”

This is heading towards a philosphico-statistical argument I don’t care to get tangled in, but I think one needs to take luck out of value or ability arguments when possible, and that in fact is precisely the kernel of my above objection.  I’m willing to lump positioning in with speed/judgment/etc because that’s a feature of the player on the team in the field with the slow-changing staff.  But I’d like to know if “Abreu sucks this year” should be, “Abreu is a -10 defender having some bad luck” or “Abreu is a -5 defender with an ankle issue the Yanks don’t care to discuss having some bad luck”.

I don’t know too much about this alleged rule about the inning limit; can someone point me to a study?

Can’t remeber where the study is but the point that is being lost here is that the 30 inning rule only applies to major league innings.  Minor league innings jumps don’t produce the same injury rates and adding minor and major league innings is not useful in calculating the 30 innings.

Then he struggles.  Now, he’s being given time to work on his stuff - whether it be command, control, and/or secondary pitches.  Shouldn’t they have slowed his rise through the minors and work on that the first time around?

Perhaps.  But perhaps they’ve also learned a lesson.  THIS Yankees front-office hasn’t had many pitchers who have had the ability to fly through the minors, so for some of them it may be new.  Perhaps they’ve learned a lesson, which is why they’re being more cautious now.  Whether or not they’ve learned a lesson won’t be shown until guys like Betances, Brackman, etc (hopefully) fly through the minors, if they give them ample time.

I don’t know too much about this alleged rule about the inning limit; can someone point me to a study?

Don’t have a link handy, but I believe the 30-inning rule is one of Verducci’s pet projects.  Not sure if the idea originated with him or he just picked it up, but I think he’s shown some good evidence that increasing a pitcher’s workload by more than 30 innings in one season increases the injury risk greatly.

“Now, he’s being given time to work on his stuff - whether it be command, control, and/or secondary pitches.  Shouldn’t they have slowed his rise through the minors and work on that the first time around?”

Thought the point was that he was dominating at AAA and just burning innings on his arm.  If as SG showed the other day he really pitched to a 5.00 ERA in the majors excluding luck (good and bad), then well he ought in fact to have been in the majors from my perspective.

(It seems ok given the lack of understanding of advanced metrics to have him at AAA now, working on craft and rebuilding confidence.)

  But I’d like to know if “Abreu sucks this year” should be, “Abreu is a -10 defender having some bad luck” or “Abreu is a -5 defender with an ankle issue the Yanks don’t care to discuss having some bad luck”.

I’d go with “Abreu is a -10 defender having some bad luck” if I had to guess, but I don’t have access to any injury data that the Yankees may have.

I would think that if there was an injury issue, we’d have seen more Damon/Melky/Nady OFs with Abreu DHing before Matsui came back and Melky got optioned though.

but I think one needs to take luck out of value or ability arguments when possible, and that in fact is precisely the kernel of my above objection.

Sure, but I don’t know if you can do that with defense in baseball. Sometimes the numbers are just going to be wrong.

I would think that if there was an injury issue, we’d have seen more Damon/Melky/Nady OFs with Abreu DHing before Matsui came back and Melky got optioned though.

That’s a good point. Maybe he’s just old.

Then he struggles.  Now, he’s being given time to work on his stuff - whether it be command, control, and/or secondary pitches.  Shouldn’t they have slowed his rise through the minors and work on that the first time around?

well, if they KNEW or THOUGHT he was going to struggle so badly, they would have.

i don’t really see the contradiction here.  their analysis of Kennedy was just wrong.

all of the information they had pointed to the possibility that Kennedy could hold down the #5 starter position this year.  that was there honest evaluation of his abilities.  that he could have an ERA of about 5.00 while gaining tons of good experience.

they were wrong about that.

Yup - I see where you’re coming from, but how many #5 starters fly through the minors?  Or even guys with #3 ceilings?  The guys who fly through the minors seem to be the higher ceiling guys, not guys like Kennedy.

I do think some of the problem stems from the trend of bringing up younger players earlier because free agency isn’t what it used to be and teams want to keep payroll down.  Some young guys can handle it and some can’t.  I guess the problem is determining who can and who can’t.

“that he could have an ERA of about 5.00 while gaining tons of good experience.

they were wrong about that.”

As noted above, this is incorrect.

As noted above, this is incorrect.

what do you mean?  it is incorrect that the Yankees thought he could be a #5 starter in 2008?

i’m honestly lost.

I see where you’re coming from, but how many #5 starters fly through the minors?  Or even guys with #3 ceilings?  The guys who fly through the minors seem to be the higher ceiling guys, not guys like Kennedy.

i thought the book on Kennedy was that while his ceiling was lower, the probability of reaching that ceiling was very high.

i think there was a quote from Keith Law or someone to that effect.

“that he could have an ERA of about 5.00”

In an earlier post I noted that SG had (that is, yesterday) shown that IPK had pitched to a sub-5.0 ERA this year, taking out luck.  This shows that he had the ability to have an ERA of about 5, which is what the Yankees putatively expected.

gotcha.

what do you mean?  it is incorrect that the Yankees thought he could be a #5 starter in 2008?

i’m honestly lost.

I think the #‘s SG printed the other day, using tRA, indicate the way Kennedy has pitched his ERA *should* be around 5.

We also have to note that one of the reasons Kennedy was up last year is, he was probably the BEST starter available at that time to the Yankees.  Then, he pitched well in the majors.  He’s taken a step back this year, plus his injury.  Now they’re being cautious.

i thought the book on Kennedy was that while his ceiling was lower, the probability of reaching that ceiling was very high.

Yeah, that and the fact that with his college resume, it was always thought he could reach the majors quickly.

Doh!  Too slow!

I should have linked to [63] in [68].

I don’t know how much faith we can have in IPK or Hughes or even Joba, it might be time to lock up the more experienced Rasner and Ponson with long term contracts(or a year in the big house.)

“it might be time to lock up the more experienced Rasner and Ponson with long term contracts(or a year in the big house.)”

Chain-yanking?

[28] Please name 5 players without holes or weaknesses in their game.

[28] Please name 5 players without holes or weaknesses in their game.

Dustin Pedroia, David Ortiz, Kevin Youkilis, David Eckstein, Darin Erstad.

the point that is being lost here is that the 30 inning rule only applies to major league innings.  Minor league innings jumps don’t produce the same injury rates and adding minor and major league innings is not useful in calculating the 30 innings.

Now this, I find hard to believe.  You can tell me that minor league innings are less stressful in general.  You can tell me that pitchers will rarely be asked to get an extra batter or two out when they’re running on fumes.  You can tell me a lot of things.  But you can’t tell me that a 19 year old who never pitched more than 70 or 80 innings in a year between HS and Legion ball isn’t risking injury by throwing 200 professional innings out of the gate.

Now this, I find hard to believe.

i believe the source of this particular facet of the “rule of 30” is Will Carroll.

YMMV.

i believe the source of this particular facet of the “rule of 30” is Will Carroll.

I’d be curious if Carroll did much research to support this, he doesn’t seem like the researchy type.

I have a bunch of minor league data back through the mid 70s, maybe I’ll look at that in the offseason.

I have a bunch of minor league data back through the mid 70s, maybe I’ll look at that in the offseason.

this isn’t the offseason?

[78] You forgot Aaron Rowand and Miguel Cairo. It’s impossible to have flaws when you have a belly full of gut/grit.

But you can’t tell me that a 19 year old who never pitched more than 70 or 80 innings in a year between HS and Legion ball isn’t risking injury by throwing 200 professional innings out of the gate.

I never said this.  I said:

adding minor and major league innings is not useful in calculating the 30 innings.

I’m not saying that a massive jump in innings does not create a legitimate injury concern, I’m saying that using innings in the minor or winter leagues to boost their inning total or relying on that data to estimate a “safe” major league total is not effective.

Here’s Will Carrolls article:
http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2008/01/21/pinch-hitting-will-carroll-of-bp/

[78] You forgot Aaron Rowand and Miguel Cairo. It’s impossible to have flaws when you have a belly full of gut/grit.

That’s true.  However, you asked to name 5, so 5 is what you got.  Sheesh!

The other thing that I don’t quite understand.

At age 22, a young pitcher pitches 150 innings in the majors in year one after having satisfied the requirements of the “30 rule” or whatever that may be. The very next year, he suffers an injury that effectively kills his season at the 70 IP point. The injury may or may not be related to stress.

Does that mean, at age 24, he will be restricted to 100 IP, and at age 25, to 130 IP, even though he has reached the 150 IP plateau before at age 22?  And suddenly at age 26, start throwing 200 IP? This kind of means that the team has burned three cost contrtolled years of the pitcher at 127 ish IP per year, in the hope that he will throw 200 in the last two arbitration eligible years?

I don’t think I understand anything of this rule. It seems rigid. I am sure some team has done careful research on this one, but there does not seem to be too many clear answers in public domain.

Please name 5 players without holes or weaknesses in their game.

I get the point and all, but I think this would be a fun exercise.

Utley, Beltran, Sizemore, Hanley (even if he isn’t really a SS, he’d still be a great CFer), and…Curtis Granderson. Wright is an option. Markakis maybe. Holliday. Pujols, but he isn’t really fast so I didn’t count him initially. A-rod isn’t really a good defender anymore, but he probably still counts.

McCann is slow, Mauer lacks power, so does Markakis, Reyes is playing lousy defense this year, JD Drew is never healthy, Pedroia is a piece of shit, Kinsler can’t play D, neither can Hamilton.

[28] Please name 5 players without holes or weaknesses in their game.

I just brought it up because taking Damon or Giambi for example, with all the goodness that comes with offense, the defense is a liability.  I’m not asking for perfection but something in the line of good offense without much real sacrifice on defense.  Or multi-dimensional offensive players.  I guess that’s why I’d like to have Tex, don’t have to worry about taking him out for defense late in games.  Or the sailed boat of Beltran.  Or Alex.

Not saying not to fill holes or whatnot, but if it’s going to be a long ass contract, someone with less holes or weaknesses.  Is that better?  And I did say good, not necessarily great, all around players.

I guess it’s my frustration talking, I understand the benefit of having an awesome, let’s say, offensive ability, and being able to rely on that, can outweigh some lack of (pick your combination) speed, defense, hitting for contact, health, etc. 

McLouth?

“At age 22, a young pitcher pitches 150 innings”

According to the rule he can pitch 180 inning at age 24, even if at 23 he pitches fewer than 150.

“When I’ve looked at major league pitchers 25-and-younger who were pushed 30 or more innings beyond their previous season (or, in cases such as injury-shortened years, their previous pro high)”

(I’d like to see the sample size there, and significance.)

I think that HBT article has a pretty significant selection bias which isn’t discussed at all.  The starter/reliever thing is mentioned, but I feel like the “non-overworked” group is including a lot of fringe pitchers, which could be dragging down the overall numbers.  There needs to be some way to control for the quality to start with.

”When I’ve looked at major league pitchers 25-and-younger who were pushed 30 or more innings beyond their previous season (or, in cases such as injury-shortened years, their previous pro high)”

Thanks, this is useful.

I don’t know what the concern for a particular pitcher is from Verducci’s claims. What is the right performance indicator to look at? Effectiveness as a pitcher? Because that seems to be what the HBT article is doing, and what seems to be Verducci’s position.

In Joba’s case, what exactly is the concern? That if he pitches 170 innings next year, he could be injured in 2010? Or is the concern simply that if he pitches 170 innings next year, he will suck in 2010?

Here is another piece of datum in our experiment: Jon Lester never pitched more than 81 innings prior to this year, is 24, and has pitched 181+ innings this year to this date. It will be interesting to see how things develop with him next year and beyond, but I don’t see a reason why he will suddenly suck, or why he is likely to be injury prone because of this fact.

Didn’t Verlander and Bonderman suck after their innings skyrocketed?  I’m honestly curious.

Another question: Why is this not a concern for Phil Hughes? Does that mean he does not have a rotation spot for next year? Because if he does, then he cannot possibly get by with throwing 100 IP if he is healthy and effective.

The rest of the paragraph:

“When I’ve looked at major league pitchers 25-and-younger who were pushed 30 or more innings beyond their previous season (or, in cases such as injury-shortened years, their previous pro high), I’ve been amazed how often those pitchers broke down with a serious injury the next season or took a major step backward in their development. (The season total includes all innings in the minors, majors and postseason.)”

There is controversy about including minor league numbers as discussed some above.

Hughes threw 146 innings in 2006, according to the web.

Didn’t Verlander and Bonderman suck after their innings skyrocketed?  I’m honestly curious.

Depends on when you think this happens. Bonderman threw 160+ innings as a 20 year old, showed steady progression until age 23, was below average for age 24, and league average for age 25. he has never had an ERA of less than 4.

Verlander had two solidly above average years before this year, when he is below average. His K rates this year fall somewhere between his age 23 and age 24 years.

I don’t see how causality can be attributed in this case, unless it is a huge reach. The league simply may have adjusted to his stuff, and he has not been able to come up with a better pitch. Number of innings pitched in years before may have nothing to do with it.

Also, take the modern trifecta of Hudson, Mulder and Zito. All made huge jumps in innings pitched and were fairly effective (health and performance wise) until Beane got rid of each one of them. Rich Harden is the only A’s player that has succumbed to this symptom, but in Harden’s case, I think it is more mechanics and other issues that may or may not be related to early overuse.

Waiting for the impending doom.

I never said this.

Well, you said this:

Minor league innings jumps don’t produce the same injury rates and adding minor and major league innings is not useful in calculating the 30 innings.

This rather strongly implies that the minor league innings don’t matter, and at best sidesteps the issue of just what is useful in calculating the +30?  Joba Chamberlain pitched 24 major league innings in 2007.  27.7 if you count the ALDS.  Does that mean that he should have been limited to 60 major league innings this season?  And that another 150 in AAA would have been OK?  Well, here’s the thing: his target of 150 innings for this season was, in fact, based on adding his major and minor league totals from last year.  Again, I could buy some kind of adjustment on the minor league totals, and I could also see a rationale for putting a floor and/or a ceiling on the +30 rule, but you can’t simply ignore the minor league innings, on either end.  They have to count somehow, both for and against.

Someone mentioned John Lester, and left out his minor league numbers.  Now, given the cancer and treatment for same, he’s obviously sui generis, but FWIW his MLB innings progression looks like this:

0 ... 81.3 ... 63.0 ... 181.7 (and counting)

Adding minor league and post-season innings gives this:

148.1 ... 129.3 ... 160.0 ... 181.7 (and counting)

That certainly looks a lot smoother, and more like what you’d expect from an organization that has a pretty well-established pattern of being quite cautious with its young pitchers.  OTOH, I suspect that he’s bumping up against some potential issues pretty soon, and wouldn’t be surprised if a long playoff run by the Red Sox had either short- or long-term negative consequences for Lester.