I wonder if they'll begin screwing with Hughes the way they screwed with Chamberlain. If you think you need to limit his innings to something less than 180-210, shut him down in September -- and through the playoffs, if you make it there. Instead, they're trying to have it both ways.

If you want to limit his pitches/innings, just limit him to 90-100 pitches per start.

We had to go through it with Joba last year.

And that went wonderfully. He's currently the best-trained four inning starter in any major league bullpen.

On this matter, I agree with Ray.

My fantasy team does not accept your miserable, mewling excuses, Girardi.

It really does seem from all the statements that come out that someone really stupid on the coaching staff or in the FO is enacting some kind of master pitching plan that they refuse to deviate from, no matter what the consistent evidence to the contrary appears to be.

Is there any evidence that starters break down simply from throwing too many innings, if the games and innings have reasonable pitch counts?

The Hughes Rules had nothing to do with his bad start last night. It was his lack of an arsenal. He threw 85 percent fastballs and cutters. While Hughes location was poor, the worst hitting team in the AL took him to the woodshed, because they knew what he was going to throw.

If he doesn't use his curve, or further develop his changeup — which he used effectively to Branyan last night — then eventually he'll be cooked as a starter.

The Hughes Rules had nothing to do with his bad start last night.

You don't know that skipping his turn didn't affect him.

"You don't know that skipping his turn didn't affect him."

You're right, I don't. Still, he can't just rely on his fastball and his cutter to get by. When Rob Johnson has your number, maybe its time to go offspeed.

Also, Cervelli is not a great pitch caller. That certainly doesn't help matters.

Player A - 99.2 IP of 150 ERA+
Player B - 88 IP of 114 ERA+

You're right, B is CRUSHING A this year.

let's see ...

Hughes' first game of the season was team game 9: 5 innings, 3 ER
on regular rest, Hughes has given up 5 ER in 5 and 5.2 innings, the latter to the Astros.
Last night was 6 ER in 5.2 innings.

Clearly, it had to be the extra rest.

Uh-huh.

Player A - 99.2 IP of 150 ERA+
Player B - 88 IP of 114 ERA+

You're right, B is CRUSHING A this year.

Would anyone other than Mets' fans take player A over player B?

Would anyone other than Mets' fans take player A over player B?

I'm sure Mrs. Pelfrey would.

Then she'd miss the microstat world series.

Player A - 99.2 IP of 150 ERA+
Player B - 88 IP of 114 ERA+

You're right, B is CRUSHING A this year.

Let's see what player A's stats are after tonights start against the Marlins, who consistently crush him (1-6, 5.53 career ERA)

I'm sure he'll have a 114 ERA+ after tonight, since the Marlins have the secret sauce.

You don't know that skipping his turn didn't affect him.

And you don't know that it did.

There is absolutely no comparison between giving a starter an extra couple of days off here and there during a season and what was done with Chamberlain down the stretch last year. The whole point of these extra off days is to avoid a repeat of that.

And this is pretty much exactly what the Tigers did with Porcello last season. They skipped him when the schedule allowed it and gave him a mini-vacation around the all-star break. Now we can certainly argue about how well that worked out, but I don't recall any wailing and gnashing of teeth while it was happening.

Would anyone other than Mets' fans take player A over player B?

I do not believe that Pelfrey is this good a pitcher, although I like his chances of being a 125-130 ERA+ guy and a solid #2. I think Hughes has the potential to be a #1-2 starter based on his K-rate, and he's 2 years younger as well.

Still, I think you have to take Pelfrey right now, unless:

1) You're not competing this year, or
2) Your team is so stacked that you can afford to carry a player before he's fully developed on the chance that he realizes his potential.

I would not have swapped the two straight-up a month ago, so I'm certainly not for doing it now. If Hughes was my team's prospect, I'd be at least a little less optimistic.

Is there any evidence that starters break down simply from throwing too many innings, if the games and innings have reasonable pitch counts?

Is there any evidence on anything related to why starters break down?

Since they are no other resident Yankee fanboys interested in this I'll take this on.

Still, I think you have to take Pelfrey right now

Pelfrey is currently striking out 5.7, walking 3.1, giving up .5 HRs and giving up 7.9 hits per 9. Hughes is currently striking out 8.3, walking 2.8, giving up .8 HRs and giving up 8.0 hits per 9. Batters are hitting .246/.309/.355 against Pelfrey. Batters are currently hitting .239/.295/.359 against Hughes.

The HR edge that Pelfrey has is at least partially canceled out by the two different home ballparks. Hughes is striking out more batters AND walking less batters than Pelfrey. Pelfrey's groundballs haven't given him the edge against opposing hitters, as his OPS against is ten points higher than Hughes'. Pelfrey also has the benefit of facing a non-hitter about twice every game. I don't see any reason other than their ERAs (which is a pretty big point in Pelfrey's favor, but it's already been discussed, I don't mean to diminish it) to believe Mike Pelfrey is a better pitcher than Phil Hughes this year. At the very least, your claim that you have to take Pelfrey right now is way off base. I think it's at least debatable this year (obviously I feel differently about who comes out on top in that debate) and for the future I don't think it's particularly close.

I thought about doing their career numbers too, but that is so stacked in Hughes' favor that I didn't think it was worth it.

1) You're not competing this year, or

Somehow 88 IP of 114 ERA+ at this point in the season doesn't help a contending team? Please point out all the contenders whose rotation Phil Hughes couldn't crack with his performance this year.

2) Your team is so stacked that you can afford to carry a player before he's fully developed on the chance that he realizes his potential.

How is Hughes not fully developed? Because he isn't ready to throw 200 innings this year? Because that is the only way you could claim that Hughes isn't developed. He gets ahead in the count, he throws a ton of strikes, he's averaging 6 IP a start, his K/BB ratio is very good, and he's pitched very well for a guy in his first full year of starting. He's certainly got room to grow, unlike Pelfrey, but he's pretty clearly a fully developed Major League pitcher.

I would not have swapped the two straight-up a month ago, so I'm certainly not for doing it now. If Hughes was my team's prospect, I'd be at least a little less optimistic.

Maybe I'm misreading this. Are you saying that a team with Hughes should be less optimistic than a team with Pelfrey? Because I fail to see how that's a reasonable conclusion when you acknowledge the fact that Hughes has a higher ceiling and, even though you disagree, it's not difficult to make the case that he's the better pitcher right now.

There's no bigger Pelfrey fanboy than me, and Cowboy Popup's analysis seems pretty fair. I think in two years Hughes and Pelf will probably both really be at the top of their games, Pelf is coming into his own sooner due to being older. It's not a given that either will be better than the other yet, though. Hughes seems (and this is utterly scout-y) just somehow more fragile and injury-prone, probably due primarily to his size vs. Pelf's.

Still, I think you have to take Pelfrey right now, unless:

Don't see it.

Still, I think you have to take Pelfrey right now, unless:

You aren't the Mets.

Honest questions since I don't really follow the Yankees: Why do the Yankees feel the need to come up with these different rules and plans for their young pitchers? Do they have any evidence they will work? Why don't they just do what ever they did when Andy Pettitte turned up? That seemed to work pretty well.

Hughes seems (and this is utterly scout-y) just somehow more fragile and injury-prone, probably due primarily to his size vs. Pelf's.

6'7'' and 230 vs. 6'5'' and 240. I think you'd be better off citing the fact that Hughes has been injured more in the past.

Honest questions since I don't really follow the Yankees: Why do the Yankees feel the need to come up with these different rules and plans for their young pitchers? Do they have any evidence they will work? Why don't they just do what ever they did when Andy Pettitte turned up? That seemed to work pretty well.

As demonstrated upthread, it's not just the Yankees. It's everyone. No one knows how to keep pitchers healthy and pitchers cost a #### ton so people are just throwing #### against the wall to see what sticks. There is nothing different with what is being done with Hughes this year and what was done with Porcello this year yet the Yankees are getting #### for it.

ZiPS rest-of-season projections-

Pelfrey: 4.77 ERA
Hughes: 4.21 ERA

Based on past performance, they're both pitching above their heads, just Pelfrey's doing so a lot more.

ZiPS rest-of-season projections-

Pelfrey: 4.77 ERA
Hughes: 4.21 ERA

Based on past performance, they're both pitching above their heads, just Pelfrey's doing so a lot more.

This post reeks of anti-NY bias.

I agree Hughes has a higher reasonably likely upside, fwiw. I just felt the need to revisit the idea that hughes is "crushing" pelfrey this year. They are in the business of preventing runs, after all.

Free, you're the only one in this thread that has said "crushing". It doesn't appear in the article either. Why did you construct this elaborate strawman?