I don't understand why they feel the need to preserve Hughes. I was under the impression they were trying to preserve Joba's arm because he was supposed to be a high velocity pitcher in conjunction with his jerky motion, which means he places more stress on his arm. I don't think any of us view Hughes this way (even though he throws consistently harder than Joba now) To me, Phil seems to be like CC or Mussina or Pettitte, where he absolutely needs the ball every 5 or he develops rust... But even the above conclusion is premature because he's only been in the rotation full-time for 1/2 a season (3/4 of a season including the injury season)...so how can the Yankees come to these conclusions already? am i wrong here?
I don't think the reason had much to do with mechanics. They were pretty clean. The only real issue was a stiff front landing leg. But the real reasons behind the attempts to preserve Joba's arm were that he had never thrown more than ~100 innings in pro ball, and was 22-23 years old (and was more of an injury risk with body type, too). Yes and no. The Yankees aren't trying to come to a conclusion about what Hughes is or is not capable of doing. They're trying to protect their asset during what they feel is a period of higher risk when they're increasing his innings workload. Now, I don't think Hughes needs to be coddled at this point. I'd just let him go, and keep an eye more on his in-game pitch counts.
Only if they acquire another starter (i.e. Lee). I don't think they'd be comfortable going into the playoffs putting their third best pitcher in the pen. Oddly, I bet all of this comes down to whether or not the Yankees think Montero can stick at catcher. If he can, they'd be crazy not to hold on to him. If they don't project him as a catcher, well... 1B and DH are locked up for the foreseeable future, so he becomes tradeable. And then, all of a sudden, it's "Pardon me, Ruben Amaro: Would you like one of the top prospects in baseball and a couple of mid-level prospects (all of whom you'll have for six cost-controlled years) instead of two more months of Cliff Lee?"
Good points. The Yankees would have executed the same plans if Hughes wasn't injured 2 years ago. It's just weird because, to me, it seems like these pitching restrictions and rules are a "new" way of conditioning pitchers because in order to save them, the team has to essentially "concede" certain games (we're talking about Hughes here because if you skip Hughes for Vazquez or even Burnett lately, it's like accepting a loss) you know what I mean? Of course, I haven't played organized ball in awhile, but I've heard the little league pitching restrictions are tighter too...to preserve young arms.
Yeah, but in this case, that's a good problem to have. You're saying that the young pitcher - who is so undeveloped that they're still monitoring his innings - is that vital to the team. That, or it speaks poorly about the rest of your rotation. Either way, I don't think you make those decisions based on what others on the team are doing. Actually, strangely enough, that's probably not true. Because Hughes threw 146 innings in 2006. If he wasn't injured in 2007, he probably would have thrown ~180 or so... which means it wouldn't have been likely that they'd place an innings limit on him in 2008-2009. But I get what you're saying.
Precisely what I was alluding to...which is why I was trying to be specific to the Yankees with Hughes, because they have the luxury to do such experiments. The Nationals, on the other hand, because they aren't "dead" yet, cannot afford to do the same with Strasburg. I bet when they are "dead" we will see similar techniques applied to him.
I think in a few weeks we're not going to be worrying about our rotation anymore. AJ and Javy will be fine with some work from Eiland, and Hughes recent issues will be cleared up too. I honestly believe Eiland's absense set the team back in terms of starting pitching. And honestly, I don't think Lee is going to make it to the open market, just like Halladay. He may say he won't sign anywhere, but there's going to be a team willing to trade anything for him, and then pay him whatever he wants. Minnesota is who I think will be that team. I want the Yankees to make the trade, even if they think Montero will stick at C. Yes, organized ball is much different today. One of the leagues my son is in counts every pitch. At 75 pitches in the week, the kid is done for 5 days. His school's league only restricts innings and appearances per week, and his summer team doesn't "officially" track it, but we do anyway.
I don't know if this confirms what I'm saying or not but the Nats can't afford to part with Strasburg at the current time. Right now Stras has 31.2 innings pitched (w/ 48 K's !!). He could make the rest of the season and not hit 110. If the Nationals are dead they will leave him in there. But, if he's getting into the 90 range and the Nationals are still alive, they are saying they will have to skip him or pull him early. I never followed the Giants...what did they do w/ Lincecum? Boston w/ Lester? TB with Price?
No. The Nats will shut him down. The Sox shut down Buchholz a few years ago. (2007? 2008? I forget.) Lester was a little older when he ran into the innings workload problem. Price threw about 125 in 2008, about 160 in 2009, and is probably good for 200 innings this year. (Or more... again, this is the age 24 season for him.) And you're not counting the 55 innings Strasburg has already compiled in the minors this year. He's at 90+ innings already. But maybe they were referring to 110 innings in the majors... I don't know. I doubt that, though.
Posada ruined a generally well-pitched game by Sabathia. And this team can't even hit lesser talented pitchers.
Did anyone hear what ARod said after the game? When he hit his homer he thought it was a walkoff, but realized it wasn't when no one was jumping over the railing. That's great stuff. --------- Supposedly AJ thinks Eiland has already fixed him. Burnett thinks the mechanical flaw is that he wasn't pausing at the top of his motion, so it's causing him to fly out and makes the ball easier to see. If he has a great start, and I'm Dave Eiland, I'm asking for a hefty raise. --------- I haven't seen any news on Dustin Moseley yet. He was supposed to have been called up by now, which would have meant a roster move. --------- Albaladejo set the single-season saves record for Scranton/Wilkes-Barre yesterday with 25. I'm not sure if that record is for any team in SWB, the Yankees AAA affiliate altogether (including Columbus,) or just the SWB Yankees, which is probably the most likely. Whatever the case, I just can't believe he's not getting the call back to the majors. How good does he have to pitch to take CHoP's or Gaudin's spot?
It's rain dancin', man. That's all it is. Eiland even said it... it's the same problem Burnett always has (when things aren't going right), and that Harkey was aware of it and had been working with Burnett on it. It's not like Eiland found some secret flaw in his delivery. Burnett knew what was happening; he was just struggling to fix it. I mean, I like Eiland and all, but pitching coaches really only do so much, especially with veterans.
Maybe you're right. I don't know. I do know that Eiland said he noticed a particular thing while watching from home while he was away, and this seems to be what he was talking about. I guess we'll see. I put far more weight into coaching than you do, so I think it'll make a bigger difference, but I see your point. He's a big boy, and has enough experience to have "figured it out" himself. Either way, I just hope he turns the corner. I don't care about the "how" or "why" just the result.
Yes, it's the same thing. In the same interview (although I don't know if it was published in the part you read), Eiland said it was nothing new. That Burnett knows of this problem, has been having this problem for years, and that Harkey had been aware of it and had been working with him on it. See, I don't think we'll "see" anything here. I think it'll still be inconclusive. If he has a good start, that doesn't mean he owes it to Eiland. He could have been coming around on his own. (In fact, I'd say this is more likely, since it's not a new problem, but rather one he has been working on.) I mean, Sabathia started pitching awesome right around the time Eiland left, and Vazquez's ERA is almost four runs lower over the period while Eiland was gone. Should we be using that as evidence that Eiland sucks as a pitching coach? Of course not. Pitchers have ups and downs over the course of the season. And I'm not saying pitching coaches are worthless. I'm just saying that the ultimate responsibility is on the pitcher. If the pitcher needs the security blanket of a certain pitching coach, okay... but that still points back to the pitcher. It's not due to some skill of the pitching coach. Eiland can't physically stop a pitcher's front side from flying open. And what's he going to do/say that's different from what Harkey's doing? It's still up to Burnett to correct the flaw. Agreed. But I think we've all seen this from AJ before. Hell, just about every pitcher goes through it. You lose the feel for your mechanics, and sometimes it takes a few starts to figure it out and start feeling right again. But then you get it and snap off three or four awesome starts in a row. And then you lose it for a start or two again.
The Giants shut Timmy down in 2007 in September with 177 innings between the minors and majors, and then in 2008 he(obviously) pitched a full season and won a Cy Young, and again in 2009. He pitched 2 full college seasons and a 1 full minors season before he made his pro debut in May, 2007, however.
