Joba the Starter....Joba the Reliever....or Joba the Hut???

[swisscheeseD]

after recent news of Cash saying joba will be a starter come spring training....with everything considered...

where does Joba Chaimberlain best suit the needs of the Yankee pitching staff now???...and in the future???...

personally, i think the yanks are makin a mistake putting him into the rotation...not that i dont think he will be a good starter...i just feel he has the makeup to be our future closer...

he went the Mariano route...coming up in the system as a starter, moved into the pen, and totally dominated...

do you think we would have had such a run from 96-the present if Mariano was our #1 starter instead of our shut down closer???...

i rest my case...lol

either way....GO YANKS!!!

[VinnyTheMick]

Anyone who thinks Joba can help us more in the pen than in the rotation just needs to look towards the past few postseasons. Our seasons rested on the shoulders of pitchers like Shawn Chacon, Corey Lidle (rip), Jaret Wright, John Lieber, Kevin Brown, an old RJ etc...

We need lights out pitching in our rotation. You saw what happened when Clemens got injured this post season, we used Phil Hughes & were stuck with Wang on short rest.

[theknicks414]

as nykgm would say, 200 dominant innings is more valuable than 80 dominant innings.

[Jstarks3]

i think it depends on what mo does and what the rest of our bullpen looks like.

[Jitpal]

You have to put him into the starting rotation. Think of it this way, if he does his job we won't need our closer to win. The offense will be just as good. The luxury we have with Joba is that if can't keep that filthy stuff for 6-7 innings or becomes ineffective as the game goes on, you can move him to the pen to be that lights out closer. -Jitpal

[nykgeneralmanager]

I'm just gonna copy and paste my post from the other thread because it fits perfectly here:

It can be debated for days about what is more important between a dominant closer or an ace pitcher. There is no stat to prove one being that much more important than the other. Personally, I feel that recent history and logic point to an ace being 10 times more valuable than a great closer.

First, the common sense. Would you prefer to have a guy dominate for 200 innings a year, or 70 innings? The Yankees wanted Rivera to be a dominant starter, the only reason he became the closer was because he posted a 5.51 ERA in 1995 when he split time as a starter and reliever. This is the case with many closers, they are mostly failed starters (whether they failed in college or the majors or the minors). That's another common sense aspect, if the major league teams wait until a guy sucks as a starter to convert him to a reliever, I think there is reason behind that.

Now, the past history aspect. Just look at the recent champions and what they were built on. In 2001, the DBacks had two of the best pitchers in baseball in Johnson and Schilling, yet theur closer was nothing special (Kim had a good season in 2001, but nobody in their right mind would call him a dominant closer, and he blew 2 saves in the series). In 2002, the Angels obviously had a dominant closer, but their starting pitching was phenominal as well (4 starters with an ERA of 3.92 or less, one had an ERA of 3.15 and one of 3.66). The 2003 Marlins were built on young stud starters of Beckett, Willis, Penny, even Redman had a 3.59 ERA. Their closer? Braden Looper. We all know what the 2004 Red Sox were about, Pedro and Schilling. Foulke was a pretty good closer for a period of a few years, but not a dominant closer by any stretch of the imagination. The White Sox in 2005 had four shutdown starters and their closer was Dustin Hermanson. Yes, Dustin Hermanson. The Cardinals last season had pretty bad starting pitching, but they were also one of the biggest fluke teams in baseball history. Although their starters sucked, they managed to just dominate in the playoffs and Adam Wainwright closing.

Even if you want to ignore those teams, look no further than our very own Yankees. When we had Cone, Wells, Pettitte, Clemens, El Duque, etc. we won and rolled through everybody. In the past 7 years, we've had to settle for Contreras, Vazquez, Kevin Brown, Mussina, Lieber, an old Randy Johnson, and an old Roger Clemens, suddenly we can't win anything. You know what has stayed the same over those two separate periods? A dominant offense and a dominant closer. Unless you have 2 stud pitchers (Indians this season are a perfect example), it won't matter how good your closer is. Joe Borowski saved 45 games for a 96 win team with an ERA over 5.

Let Joba and Hughes run this rotation along with Kennedy, Wang, and Horne. We'll piece together the closer spot through free agency or the minors.

Forget about a rivalry with Papelbon, if Hughes and Joba reach their potential as starting pitchers then we will blow Boston out of the water and we won't have to worry about Joba vs Pap. I'm more worried about what is in the best interest of this team, and that is having Joba pitching for 200 innings. The beauty of it is that even if he can't be successful as a starter (whether he just sucks or can't handle the workload) we know that he can fall back on being a dominant closer down the road in 2010 or so. But based on his track record in the minors, his stuff, and what he showed up here this season, I can't imagine him being bad in the majors as a starter.

[rappa]

First off, Rivera became a closer after he was a FAILED starter. He came up through the minors as a starter but then FAILED at the major league level as one so he then got moved to the bullpen.

Rivera would of never have been in position to save games if it wasn't for the starters such as pettite, cone, wells back in the day. We need front end starters, which is what chamberlain is if we want to get past the first round. Pitching wins in october, not offense, and with putting him as a closer, hes not even guaranteed to pitch if were losing, therefor he goes to waste. Anyone that thinks he should be a closer is dumb. The ONLY WAY he becomes a reliever is if he FAILS as a starter, but that I just don't see.

[Pharmcat]

nykgm is right

when we throw out phil, joba, andy, wang, kennedy

we are giving ourselves a legit chance to win every game

and in best of 5 series....we got 2 starters who can blow you away

[cmaff051]

Whether or not we resign Mo, Joba should still be in the starting rotation.

[TKF]

Whether or not we resign Mo, Joba should still be in the starting rotation.

I agree.....

[Chach]

Everyone knows that Joba can start, it's just a matter of degrees. He may start but may not be completely dominant. Take Papelbon for instance. He was the second best closer in baseball this year (behind Nathan) and I do not have a doubt in my mind that if he were to be a starter next season, he would be a #3 starter at best. He has two great pitches and passable third pitch and he's toying with some sort of change. I think Joba is in a better position to succeed as a starter because his secondary pitches are better than Papelbon's but I am not convinced that he is going to absolutely lights out in the rotation. So for me the question is more would you rather have a excellent starter who puts up a 3.80 ERA with a ton of Ks or a closer who has an ERA around 1 and strikes out even more guys? That draws the comparison closer and more to real life.

I would deploy Joba as a Joel Zumaya reliever next season. Use him in big spots in the 6th and 7th, pitch him for 2-3 innings at a time. Have your best reliever get the biggest outs, regardless of innings. Also, this would allow him to rack up 150 or so innings is used properly. Send him to the Caribbean to pitch a few innings and winter ball and you get his year total up around 170-180. Then you can deploy him into the rotation without worrying about his innings.

That's the real thing that worries me with both Joba and Hughes next season. He ended this season around 115 innings. If he averages 6 innings a start for 35 starts, that's 210 innings. Whoever the Yankees manager may be, if he lets Joba work that inning load, is a disgusting human being because that is completely irresponsible and, in today's age of information and research, immoral as well. Joba has the talent to be great players for years to come and to let a manager (or the Yankees fanbase in general) ruin his career for short signed reasons, well that would really make me sad (and that means a lot coming from a Sox fan). mahalo
~Chach~

[cmaff051]

Everyone knows that Joba can start, it's just a matter of degrees. He may start but may not be completely dominant. Take Papelbon for instance. He was the second best closer in baseball this year (behind Nathan) and I do not have a doubt in my mind that if he were to be a starter next season, he would be a #3 starter at best. He has two great pitches and passable third pitch and he's toying with some sort of change. I think Joba is in a better position to succeed as a starter because his secondary pitches are better than Papelbon's but I am not convinced that he is going to absolutely lights out in the rotation. So for me the question is more would you rather have a excellent starter who puts up a 3.80 ERA with a ton of Ks or a closer who has an ERA around 1 and strikes out even more guys? That draws the comparison closer and more to real life.

Very good points, Chach. But I would rather have a starter who has an ERA in the high 3s than a closer. This team's problems in the last few years can be blamed almost primarily on the starting pitching. Putting Joba in the rotation would help out.

I would deploy Joba as a Joel Zumaya reliever next season. Use him in big spots in the 6th and 7th, pitch him for 2-3 innings at a time. Have your best reliever get the biggest outs, regardless of innings. Also, this would allow him to rack up 150 or so innings is used properly. Send him to the Caribbean to pitch a few innings and winter ball and you get his year total up around 170-180. Then you can deploy him into the rotation without worrying about his innings.

Having him as a setup man is a complete waste, IMO. I'd rather him pitch 5 innings a start then being a setup man.

That's the real thing that worries me with both Joba and Hughes next season. He ended this season around 115 innings. If he averages 6 innings a start for 35 starts, that's 210 innings. Whoever the Yankees manager may be, if he lets Joba work that inning load, is a disgusting human being because that is completely irresponsible and, in today's age of information and research, immoral as well. Joba has the talent to be great players for years to come and to let a manager (or the Yankees fanbase in general) ruin his career for short signed reasons, well that would really make me sad (and that means a lot coming from a Sox fan). mahalo

Hughes pitched 150 innings in 2006. He should be fine for 180-190 next year. Joba's innings situation is going to be a big problem, though. At most he can probably only throw 150 innings.

[Chach]

As would I cmaff but I'm saying the comparison is closer and, in some cases, I may take the closer. In this case, however, with HOW Joba will get keeping his ERA low (through strikeouts rather than weak contact), I'd take him in the rotation.

I don't see having one of your best pitchers pitching in some of the highest leverage innings is a waste. In fact, if he took over for Mo and was the closer THAT would be a waste. If he's going to pitch 150 innings next season, wouldn't it just make more sense to pitch those innings in high leverage situation rather than the third inning?

And as a side point nykgeneralmanager, Foulke was one of the top closer of the late 90s, early 2000s and was really the key for the Sox victory in the post season. Schilling played his part but in terms of pitching, Foulke basically ruined his career to pitch like he did in the post-season. If all things are equal, then having a top closer can be the difference. mahalo
~Chach~

[cmaff051]

There is no way Joba pitches over 100 innings coming out of the bullpen. If he is going to throw that many innings (and then some), it will be as a starter.

[Chach]

Not if I'm the manager. You throw him into the 6-7-8 inning mix of 75 games and you get 130-150 innings. Use him to get some of the biggest outs and either use him on back to back days or multiple innings with days off. The Joba Rules were good but need to be expanded. You do that, you raise his total innings total AND you use him in the most critical situations where his stuff is needed.

But you are right, no manager would be smart enough to do that. mahalo
~Chach~

[ccvle]

That sounds good on paper but nearly impossible to do. Managing a bullpen is in my opinion the biggest myth in baseball. You either have a good bullpen or you don't. Baseball is too unpredictable over the course of 162 games. I guess it is possible in theory to pitch 130-150 innings over 75 games,but I bet half of those appearances are non-crucial. I also dont know if pitching 2-3 innings over 75 games is the best way to built endurance.

[moocow007]

I'm just gonna copy and paste my post from the other thread because it fits perfectly here:

It can be debated for days about what is more important between a dominant closer or an ace pitcher. There is no stat to prove one being that much more important than the other. Personally, I feel that recent history and logic point to an ace being 10 times more valuable than a great closer.

First, the common sense. Would you prefer to have a guy dominate for 200 innings a year, or 70 innings? The Yankees wanted Rivera to be a dominant starter, the only reason he became the closer was because he posted a 5.51 ERA in 1995 when he split time as a starter and reliever. This is the case with many closers, they are mostly failed starters (whether they failed in college or the majors or the minors). That's another common sense aspect, if the major league teams wait until a guy sucks as a starter to convert him to a reliever, I think there is reason behind that.

Now, the past history aspect. Just look at the recent champions and what they were built on. In 2001, the DBacks had two of the best pitchers in baseball in Johnson and Schilling, yet theur closer was nothing special (Kim had a good season in 2001, but nobody in their right mind would call him a dominant closer, and he blew 2 saves in the series). In 2002, the Angels obviously had a dominant closer, but their starting pitching was phenominal as well (4 starters with an ERA of 3.92 or less, one had an ERA of 3.15 and one of 3.66). The 2003 Marlins were built on young stud starters of Beckett, Willis, Penny, even Redman had a 3.59 ERA. Their closer? Braden Looper. We all know what the 2004 Red Sox were about, Pedro and Schilling. Foulke was a pretty good closer for a period of a few years, but not a dominant closer by any stretch of the imagination. The White Sox in 2005 had four shutdown starters and their closer was Dustin Hermanson. Yes, Dustin Hermanson. The Cardinals last season had pretty bad starting pitching, but they were also one of the biggest fluke teams in baseball history. Although their starters sucked, they managed to just dominate in the playoffs and Adam Wainwright closing.

Even if you want to ignore those teams, look no further than our very own Yankees. When we had Cone, Wells, Pettitte, Clemens, El Duque, etc. we won and rolled through everybody. In the past 7 years, we've had to settle for Contreras, Vazquez, Kevin Brown, Mussina, Lieber, an old Randy Johnson, and an old Roger Clemens, suddenly we can't win anything. You know what has stayed the same over those two separate periods? A dominant offense and a dominant closer. Unless you have 2 stud pitchers (Indians this season are a perfect example), it won't matter how good your closer is. Joe Borowski saved 45 games for a 96 win team with an ERA over 5.

Let Joba and Hughes run this rotation along with Kennedy, Wang, and Horne. We'll piece together the closer spot through free agency or the minors.

Forget about a rivalry with Papelbon, if Hughes and Joba reach their potential as starting pitchers then we will blow Boston out of the water and we won't have to worry about Joba vs Pap. I'm more worried about what is in the best interest of this team, and that is having Joba pitching for 200 innings. The beauty of it is that even if he can't be successful as a starter (whether he just sucks or can't handle the workload) we know that he can fall back on being a dominant closer down the road in 2010 or so. But based on his track record in the minors, his stuff, and what he showed up here this season, I can't imagine him being bad in the majors as a starter.

I was going to post a long post about what I felt but it's a bit easier to just quote this.

[moocow007]

There is no way Joba pitches over 100 innings coming out of the bullpen. If he is going to throw that many innings (and then some), it will be as a starter.

Or he'll be the next Tanyon Sturtze...who from what I hear is still trying to find the arm after it fell off.

[34Celtic]

-= original quote snipped =-



Or he'll be the next Tanyon Sturtze...who from what I hear is still trying to find the arm after it fell off.

Tanyon Sturtze is also like 38 years old my friend.

[moocow007]

-= original quote snipped =-



Tanyon Sturtze is also like 38 years old my friend.

You're missing the point my friend. Believing that Chamberlain can pitch 100+ innings in relief is idiotic (much less a mind numbing 130 innings of relief as proposed by some of you guys)...pure and simple.