Seaver says Chamberlain will never acquire a warrior-ethos if he’s coddled in his early years.

No offense, but I don't want athletes developing a warrior-ethos. Sports is not war. That sounds trite, but the two endeavors demand different mentalities.

Tom Seaver says he has nothing personal against Joba Chamberlain

Weird. In the Andy Pafko thread yesterday, I connected Seaver and Chamberlain through Clemens.

Where are you going to find the next Bob Gibson or Nolan Ryan or Steve Carlton unless a young pitcher is pushed?

Maximum number of major-league innings pitched in a season by Nolan Ryan prior to age 25: 152

Maximum number of major-league innings pitched in a season by Bob Gibson prior to age 25: 86.2

DB

Your social security check is late! Things cost more than they used to! Young people use curse words!

Where are you going to find the next Bob Gibson or Nolan Ryan or Steve Carlton unless a young pitcher is pushed?



Maximum number of major-league innings pitched in a season by Nolan Ryan prior to age 25: 152

Maximum number of major-league innings pitched in a season by Bob Gibson prior to age 25: 86.2

Awesome!

Where are you going to find the next Bob Gibson or Nolan Ryan or Steve Carlton unless a young pitcher is pushed?

Maximum number of major-league innings pitched in a season by Nolan Ryan prior to age 25: 152

Maximum number of major-league innings pitched in a season by Bob Gibson prior to age 25: 86.2

DB

Ryan did pitch 202 innings in the minors one year at age 19, and Gibson 190 innings at age 22, but your point is still well taken. And though it may not be polite to say so, the lineups that Chamberlain face today are a lot more stacked from top to bottom than they were back when Seaver was starting out. Not to mention little advantages that Seaver had in his first two years, such as a big strike zone and a high mound.

Your social security check is late! Things cost more than they used to! Young people use curse words!

Shocking.

No offense, but I don't want athletes developing a warrior-ethos. Sports is not war. That sounds trite, but the two endeavors demand different mentalities.

Tom Seaver is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Tom Seaver is possibly the greatest pitcher of all time.

I would therefore expect Seaver to have a useful insight into the successful menality for competitive athletics.

I wonder what Hall or Halls of Fame JMN Has Mastered Shooty and Dominate belongs to.

Tom Seaver is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Tom Seaver is possibly the greatest pitcher of all time.

I would therefore expect Seaver to have a useful insight into the successful menality for competitive athletics.

That's a fair point, and we shouldn't be simply dismissing what Seaver has to say, but I do wonder just how much he's allowing for the radically different offensive conditions of today. And as DB points out, neither Ryan's nor Gibson's actual pre-age 25 innings totals add anything at all to his argument.

The problem I have with Seaver's argument is that he assumes if Joba is babied that he will in fact turn into a baby. Men can develop new habits in their 20s.

Joba is being told that he has an inning limit ... if this turns him into a weakling, if he starts assuming that he only needs to go 6 innings, if he starts looking towards the bullpen hopefully whenever runners get on late in the game, then I doubt that he would develop the proper warrior mentality under any circumstances.

If he is babied for three years and then a new manager comes in and tells him, "I want you to throw 260 innings this year," and has him work through all his own problems in the 8th, my guess is that Joba would be thrilled to do it.

And as DB points out, neither Ryan's nor Gibson's actual pre-age 25 innings totals add anything at all to his argument.

And though Tom, for obvious reasons, didn't mention them, neither do Denny McLain's, Dean Chance's, Steve Barber's, Wally Bunker's, Jim Bouton's, and Larry Dierker's, not to mention teammates Gary Gentry and John Matlack.

“These people today don’t understand what it means to walk off the mound after holding the other team down for nine innings, the feeling of triumph for your own team — and the effect it has on the players in the other dugout.

“They’re thinking, ‘we didn’t even get a sniff off Seaver or Gibson’ or whoever. That’s totally demoralizing, and it’s one element you don’t see anymore.”

Again, Seaver played the game, and hit .074 against Gibson lifetime, so he knows what he's talking about. OTOH, I can't imagine that "we didn't even get a sniff off Chamberlain for seven innings, or Hughes in the eighth either, and then Rivera kicked our butts in the ninth" is much of a a morale-builder, either.

And though Tom, for obvious reasons, didn't mention them, neither do Denny McLain's, Dean Chance's, Steve Barber's, Wally Bunker's, Jim Bouton's, and Larry Dierker's, not to mention teammates Gary Gentry and John Matlack.

or Don Gullet, Gary Nolan, Catfish Hunter and Andy Messersmith

I would therefore expect Seaver to have a useful insight into the successful menality for competitive athletics.

This would be a useful retort if I cared. I'm not saying that developing a warrior mentality does or does not help produce success in competitive athletics. In fact, I'm largely agnostic on the subject, and think that it varies from one player to another.

My point is that, regardless of whether it is a successful approach or not, it is the wrong approach. Athletics is not war. It just is not as important. If you screw up in war, your people die. If you screw up in baseball, you play again tomorrow. I think that those who take the anything to win approach to a game are destructive.

The Verducci people can always fall back on the tautology of "the less you pitch, the less likely you are to get hurt." We all agree that if you spread a pitcher's innings through some rationing plan, you maximize his longevity.

But of course, they say more than this . And that is that if you limit Joba's innings now, you can somehow inure him to pitching 200 innings EVENTUALLY. And that's where the whole thing falls apart because there is not even a whiff of the first hint of proof that this is true.

Here's a list of pitchers with >1000 IP by age 25 (since 1950)

it is (to say the least) a mixed bag for predicting longevity

corrected link

And that is that if you limit Joba's innings now, you can somehow inure him to pitching 200 innings EVENTUALLY

Well, I don't read it that way. The way I see it, if you start them off at a young age, say Joba's current age 23 or younger, you are a lot less likely to be effective for very long. For every Zambrano or Sabathia, there are multitudes of Dontrelle Willises.

From 1990-2005, there have been 36 pitches of age 23 or younger and more than 200 IP. Of those, Zambrano, Vazquez, Smoltz, Sabathia, Radke, Mussina, Scott Erickson, Ryan Dempster, Buehrle, and Appier, have been worth a damn past age 29. Erickson's last effective year was at age 30. Dempster is effective now, but was mostly worthless from ages 24 through 27, and could only relieve until age 31.

10 out of 36. The other 26 includes some highly rated young prospects like Dontrelle Willis, Steve Avery, Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alverez, Mark Prior, Ben Sheets, Ramon Martinez, Andy Benes, Matt Morris, Jeff Weaver, Ismael Valdez, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito.

Maybe the only way to find the next Tom Seaver is to throw everyone into the meat grinder and see who survives like they did in the 60's and 70's, but I think most people prefer today's methods.

edit: Zambrano and Sabathia are still effective of course, but aren't yet 30,

And though Tom, for obvious reasons, didn't mention them, neither do Denny McLain's, Dean Chance's, Steve Barber's, Wally Bunker's, Jim Bouton's, and Larry Dierker's, not to mention teammates Gary Gentry and John Matlack.

or Don Gullet, Gary Nolan, Catfish Hunter and Andy Messersmith

The names quoted above as cautionary tales account for 14 20-win seasons and one 30-win season with double-digit World Series rings. I'm not saying go out and abuse your pitchers, but perhaps there is something to be said for pushing guys a little and seeing what happens. It's good to be prudent, but I think MLB teams border on paranoid today with regard to starting pitchers.

My take is that a number of the guys listed here likely would've blown their arms out anyway. How many of the modern "babied" pitchers go under the knife every year? Tons of them. I'd like to see some data on what percentage of lower workload starters flame out by age 30. I bet it's not far different than those with heavier mileage.

With Joba, you also have to note that he never got the chance to build up any innings/arm strength/endurance in the minors. He was in the Yankee bullpen in his first professional season.

I would be much more likely to agree with Seaver if we were talking about a 23-year old who had a couple of 180 IP seasons in the minors. Joba's never gone more than 110 IP in a season in his career. If anyone needs to be babied, he's high on the list.

And as DB points out, neither Ryan's nor Gibson's actual pre-age 25 innings totals add anything at all to his argument.

Except that when today's pitchers are put on "innings counts", their minor league innings count towards that total, too. I would bet that Gibson et al pitched over 200 combined major and minor league innings a year, or close to it, while they were back and forth to the majors.

I would therefore expect Seaver to have a useful insight into the successful menality for competitive athletics.

Great athletes are often ignorant of the things that actually made them great athletes. They ascribe their success to their mental toughness or focus, when really it was their fastball and control that made them great. It's why great players often end up being lousy coaches, and lousy players often end up being great coaches.

When the tough things come easily to you, it's hard to teach someone else how to do them as well as you did.

The names quoted above as cautionary tales account for 14 20-win seasons and one 30-win season with double-digit World Series rings. I'm not saying go out and abuse your pitchers, but perhaps there is something to be said for pushing guys a little and seeing what happens. It's good to be prudent, but I think MLB teams border on paranoid today with regard to starting pitchers.

nobody really disputes you can abuse a pitchers arm and get success for a few years, and heck some people will even say that a team really should do that to maximize their investment, but others are arguing that with the large amount of money involved, that a pitcher has to consider his long term financial situation and the decisions should be made not to treat the player as if he is an indentured servant with no rights.

Except that when today's pitchers are put on "innings counts", their minor league innings count towards that total, too. I would bet that Gibson et al pitched over 200 combined major and minor league innings a year, or close to it, while they were back and forth to the majors.

as pointed out in the earlier post, one year Gibson did pitch 190 ip in the minors.

Joba's never gone more than 110 IP in a season in his career. If anyone needs to be babied, he's high on the list.

But that's the Yankees' fault. They've kept him around ~110 innings his entire career up to this point. Not only is it unreasonable to expect Chamberlain to carry a much heavier burden this season, but it's an open question as to whether he's EVER going to be a consistent +200 IP guy. I would guess the Yankees have, indeed, guaranteed that Chamberlain won't be pitching many high inning total seasons this way.

But that's the Yankees' fault. They've kept him around ~110 innings his entire career up to this point. Not only is it unreasonable to expect Chamberlain to carry a much heavier burden this season, but it's an open question as to whether he's EVER going to be a consistent +200 IP guy. I would guess the Yankees have, indeed, guaranteed that Chamberlain won't be pitching many high inning total seasons this way.

Pardon?

His first season they need him in the pen for a pennant race. The next season they had a plan to build him up to ~150 IP, but he got hurt. This year, he'll hopefully get to ~180 IP including the playoffs, so is right on track for 200 next year. What could they have done differently?

The idea that it is "guaranteed" he won't pitch 200+ innings in the future is pretty laughable. As if pitching were that predictable.

No offense, but I don't want athletes developing a warrior-ethos. Sports is not war. That sounds trite, but the two endeavors demand different mentalities.

Tom Seaver is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Tom Seaver is possibly the greatest pitcher of all time.

I would therefore expect Seaver to have a useful insight into the successful menality for competitive athletics.

Both of these statements can be true.

Well, snapper, it seems pretty clear from the discussion so far that the Yankees have erred by not pitching Joba injured and not putting him back on the mound right after surgery.

AFAIK, the infantry doesn't call off the war if the sargeant has a headache.

Warrior up!

As a veteran of multiple conflicts I can relay with great certainty that the "warrior code" is "avoid stupid, stupid gets you killed"

So if Tom is saying Joba needs to avoid doing stupid things then I heartily agree

With Joba, you also have to note that he never got the chance to build up any innings/arm strength/endurance in the minors. He was in the Yankee bullpen in his first professional season.

I would be much more likely to agree with Seaver if we were talking about a 23-year old who had a couple of 180 IP seasons in the minors. Joba's never gone more than 110 IP in a season in his career. If anyone needs to be babied, he's high on the list.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Even if you buy into the Nolan Ryan's approach in Texas, his approach starts with building pitchers' work load in the minors so that they can handle it in the majors. He may or may not be doing the right thing, but his strategy does recognize that you can't ramp up the innings pitched in the majors for guys who didn't have any work load in the minors.

Some may think that teams' current approach to young pitchers is too cautious. Maybe it's true to some degree. But this evolved from horrible rates of arm destruction in the 70's and 80's. It was not an irrational reaction. Sometimes teams would lose almost complete farm systems' worth of young pitchers in a short period, setting their developmental systems back by years. Teams are not that stupid. They knew they needed to do something to change their approach to abusing arms.

this evolved from horrible rates of arm destruction in the 70's and 80's.

What is the empirical evidence that the rates of arm destruction in the 70s and 80s were any worse (or better, for that matter) than they have been since?

as pointed out in the earlier post, one year Gibson did pitch 190 ip in the minors.

Yes, I saw that post, ty. And Ryan pitched lots of minor league innings, as did many pitchers of that era. And, many of them had nice careers.

this evolved from horrible rates of arm destruction in the 70's and 80's.

What is the empirical evidence that the rates of arm destruction in the 70s and 80s were any worse (or better, for that matter) than they have been since?

Oh, I admit this is just my experience following game. I just don't recall the examples of system wide decimation to the same extent today. Some teams in the 80's became so desperate that they took measures like banning sliders and split finger pitches throughout their organization. There are so many variable involved, I don't think the overall issue will be easily proven or disproven by statistical studies. But if you are a GM and your team experiences a lot of damage among pitchers in your system, all you can do is ask for the best advice you can get from medical experts. I think most of the effort at pitch and inning limitations were attempts at following the advice of orthopedic experts. Maybe they will turn out to be wrong, but with all due respect to Tom Seaver, who was a great pitcher, I would probably give more weight to the advice of medical staff.

Oh, I admit this is just my experience following game. I just don't recall the examples of system wide decimation to the same extent today.

Fair enough. But I've been following the game since the '60s, and it hasn't been my perception that the rate of pitcher injuries has changed at any time. Pitchers used to get hurt a lot, and they still get hurt a lot.

I'll definitely agree that injuries are diagnosed far more precisely today than ever before, and obviously therapeutic methods (including surgeries) have improved tremendously. So teams are far better able to respond to and ameliorate the impact of pitcher injuries.

But while I agree that the changes in pitcher workload patterns that we've seen since about the mid-1980s have been significantly (though not exclusively) motivated by the desire to reduce the incidence of injury, it isn't in any way clear that they've had that effect. It seems to be a widely perceived article of faith that they have, but that's all it is; there is no evidence to support it.

Great athletes are often ignorant of the things that actually made them great athletes. They ascribe their success to their mental toughness or focus, when really it was their fastball and control that made them great. It's why great players often end up being lousy coaches, and lousy players often end up being great coaches.

FTW.

Many people (and athletes in particular) seem to have a great aversion to their success being ascribed to natural talent, presumably because that's essentially the luck of being born with the genes you have.

Of course very few people are successful *solely* based on "God-given" talent, but few seem to like giving it it's due relative to how hard they worked.

Frankly, I think you see the seeds of the same thing when some people ##### about progressive taxation and such; "did the government bust its ass through law school? No, I did." etc. Everyone wants to hand-wave away their great fortune to have been born with certain abilities/intelligence, in a country where they were free to make the choice to bust ass and be successful rather than being born destitute somewhere where they'd constantly be wondering where their next meal was coming from.

Of course very few people are successful *solely* based on "God-given" talent, but few seem to like giving it it's due relative to how hard they worked.

I try to tell my kids that all the time. Jimi Hendrix didn't play like Jimi three days after picking up his first guitar. These "born geniuses" practice 10,000 hours. Maybe that's another problem with this workload stuff. How are these young pitchers ever going to learn how to be great if they pitch so sparingly relative to the great pitchers of yore -- both in the minors and in those developmental stages of their Major League careers?

It's all very fascinating, this talk about where Joba will be after he turns 30.

But precisely why should Joe Girardi care? Brian Cashman? The Steinbrenner boys?

Joba will be a free agent after 2013. After his age 27 season. So you pitch him fewer innings now in the hope of having a more effective Joba from 2014-2019. So .... what?

If I'm the Yankees, I'd want to ride him hard in his cost-controlled years. After the 2013 season, if Joba's arm is shot, I'll go sign Lincecum. Or Cain. Or Billingsley. Or Ubaldo. Or whichever one of the Great Young Arms of 2009 still has a right arm attached to his shoulder and still can hit 95 on the gun. Joba's post-27 year old seasons are irrelevant to me from a business perspective. I don't want him using up the innings in his arm in minor league action. I don't want him saving innings for his arm for the Red Sox in 2014. I want to use him up right here, right now. Now, that's within reason: I want to maximize the effective/important innings he pitches for the Yankees between now and the end of the 2013 season. But the club has a chance to win it all this year. I might take it slow with him in September (hey, maybe even DL him with a "muscle strain" if the division is in the bag in early September), but the last thing I'd worry about is his effectiveness in his age 30 season.

If I'm the Yankees, I'd want to ride him hard in his cost-controlled years. After the 2013 season, if Joba's arm is shot, I'll go sign Lincecum. Or Cain. Or Billingsley. Or Ubaldo. Or whichever one of the Great Young Arms of 2009 still has a right arm attached to his shoulder and still can hit 95 on the gun. Joba's post-27 year old seasons are irrelevant to me from a business perspective. I don't want him using up the innings in his arm in minor league action. I don't want him saving innings for his arm for the Red Sox in 2014. I want to use him up right here, right now. Now, that's within reason: I want to maximize the effective/important innings he pitches for the Yankees between now and the end of the 2013 season. But the club has a chance to win it all this year. I might take it slow with him in September (hey, maybe even DL him with a "muscle strain" if the division is in the bag in early September), but the last thing I'd worry about is his effectiveness in his age 30 season.

And this is why Boras should get Strasburg every last dollar he thinks he can get him while he still has some leverage.

Joba will be a free agent after 2013. After his age 27 season. So you pitch him fewer innings now in the hope of having a more effective Joba from 2014-2019. So .... what?

It's the Yankees, it's better for their brand to actually preserve some of their talented young players so they can market the crap out of them. And almost all of the players they have now that will be playing in 2014 are pitchers.

Joba's post-27 year old seasons are irrelevant to me from a business perspective.

That's some fairly short term thinking. Joba's already got a pretty strong following among Yankee fans. They've got everything to gain by doing their best to try and turn him into a commodity that pays off for 10-15 years, not just for the next three. And then of course you have all the amateur and free agent talent that will eventually notice the organization's philosophy towards it's pitchers and it will be that much harder for the Yanks to bring in talent.

I want to use him up right here, right now.

He's not really that good right now. If they're going to intentionally destroy his arm as you're advocating, I'd prefer they wait until it's actually beneficial to the team to have him throw a ton of innings.

I try to tell my kids that all the time. Jimi Hendrix didn't play like Jimi three days after picking up his first guitar. These "born geniuses" practice 10,000 hours.

Right, but practicing 10,000 hours isn't going to make most people into Hendrix, or Clapton, or [insert your favorite guitar god here], any more than my sprinting 10,000 hours as a kid would have made me a world-class sprinter. I'd probably be a lot faster and a lot fitter, but it wouldn't mean Usain Bolt would be obliterating my records instead of someone else's. Genes matter.

He's not really that good right now. If they're going to intentionally destroy his arm as you're advocating, I'd prefer they wait until it's actually beneficial to the team to have him throw a ton of innings.

Yes, it would be much better to give Jason Hirsh some major innings.

Look, I'm not saying "use him up on purpose." There's just been a lot of nonsense here about high inning counts destroying pitchers' arms before they turn 30.

Joba's already got a pretty strong following among Yankee fans. They've got everything to gain by doing their best to try and turn him into a commodity that pays off for 10-15 years, not just for the next three.

10-15 years? Really? How many fireballing 23 year olds are still going strong at 33? At 38? That's what I'm getting at here: there's this weird Cult of Joba thing (I guess it's purely a NY phenomenon) that has just completely lost touch with reality.

Yes, it would be much better to give Jason Hirsh some major innings.

Why wouldn't it be? The Yanks have a huge lead. They have a talented #3 starter who has pitched more than he ever has before. In the hopes of keeping him effective as he pushes his body and his arm harder than he has before, it makes a lot of sense, for this year, to rest him as much as possible for the playoffs.

There's just been a lot of nonsense here about high inning counts destroying pitchers' arms before they turn 30.

OK, but that's not what you were talking about. You were talking about intentionally pushing him as hard as possible because who cares if he hurts himself, they can just sign some one else. I think that in general babying pitchers has gone too far, but that's not really the issue with Joba specifically, as has already been pointed out up thread.

10-15 years? Really? How many fireballing 23 year olds are still going strong at 33? At 38?

I said try. I know you were probably in a rush to point out how foolish my Joba cult membership is, but I made it clear that they should attempt to preserve him, not that he would, as long as they didn't abuse him, be around for 15 years. I'm well aware that the odds of him pitching till he's 33 are long, that doesn't mean they should assume he'll flame out by 30 and ride him into the ground. As long as there is a possibility he might be able to pitch that long, they should do all they can to make that happen.

How many fireballing 23 year olds are still going strong at 33?

Are you under the impression that strikeout pitchers don't tend to last as long? Because that's totally incorrect.

Right, Bill James hit that one 25 years ago - the fireballers last LONGER.

Wow, I touched the Joba nerve. Can anyone seriously disagree with what I said, namely:

1. Joba is Yankee-controlled for 4 more years; hence, the appropriate time horizon for Yankee management's plan for Joba is ... 4 years, plus the rest of 2009.

2. If the Yankees sew up the division early, it would be prudent to ease up on Joba in September. This would be primarily to try to ensure his availability and maximize his chances for effectiveness for the post-season.

And yes, I know that history shows that power pitchers have somewhat better durability than finesse pitchers. So let me rephrase: how many 23 year old (really, 21 year old, given Joba's solid-but-unspectacular performance the last 2 seasons) phenoms are still going strong at 33? At 38?

It might behoove the "save Joba now" campaigners to actually answer that question.

1. Joba is Yankee-controlled for 4 more years; hence, the appropriate time horizon for Yankee management's plan for Joba is ... 4 years, plus the rest of 2009.

What you actually said was a lot less mild than your summation above: "If I'm the Yankees, I'd want to ride him hard in his cost-controlled years. ... I don't want him using up the innings in his arm in minor league action. I don't want him saving innings for his arm for the Red Sox in 2014. I want to use him up right here, right now."

You didn't "touch the Joba nerve." If you'd said "I don't see any reason that Joba can't pitch ~200 innings this year" I suspect you'd have some people saying that might be a bit much, but I haven't seen many people here arguing strenuously that Joba's innings need to be strictly limited.

But you didn't say that, you said you'd "ride him hard" and implied an "if he blows his arm out, oh well" attitude. That's what people are reacting to, as Cowboy Popup said above.

Joba's average fastball velocity, from fangraphs:

2007 97

2008 95

2009 92.5

K/9:

2007 12.75

2008 10.58

2009 7.92 (and 4.36 BB/9, too)

This is not an encouraging trendline. He was truly a phenom in late 2007. Now? Kind of a right-handed Jorge de la Rosa. So the starting premise here: "Joba is something truly special, and therefore truly warranting special treatment," seems to be flawed.

Yes, a fair amount of that apparent loss of velocity may be explained by his move from pure reliever, to getting 12 starts last year, to getting all starts this year. But from what we see, as well as what we know, this arm ain't ever gonna make it to 2013 intact. I actually think he is so fragile that he's better suited to the bullpen. But even with that reduced workload, I wouldn't bank on the Yankees getting another full season out of him without a major breakdown, or just a simple lapse into general ineffectiveness. So my primary point remains: he's clearly a guy you need this year, and in this post-season. I simply wouldn't bank on anything from him beyond the next year or two. Maybe that's harsh, but everyone here seems to be taking the Yankees' management perspective ("how should they be using Joba"), and if you're doing that, I think you've got to admit my "ride him hard" perspective is defensible. Now if we were putting ourselves in the position of Joba's agent, I'll admit the advice would be different ...

This is not an encouraging trendline.

'07 is only 24 IP, and he was exclusively a reliever. He transitioned in '08, about 2/3 of his IP were as a starter. In '09 he's been exclusively a starter.

There may be other things going on with respect to his effectiveness, but his change in roles can't be completely ignored when you're looking at his velocity and K rate.

imo, play it safe with him this year. if his fastball velocity isn't back to 2008-as-a-starter level by ten starts into next season, recognize that you no longer have a potential #1 starter and think of him as a source of cheap pretty good innings....

I think we all agree that Joba's been decent but havn't really matched the flash of brilliance suggested in parts of the last 2 season. the only real question is why and what to do about it.

Tom Seaver thinks that it's simply because he hasn't gotten enough experience . the Yankees probably think that it's that and a matter of stamina in general. so that's how they approach it. by still giving him time to get experienec while trying to limit his workload so he doesn't go past the limit of his already struggling endurance.

In the end, the Yankees can afford to do this, they have a commanding lead in the divison. and more importantly the decent but not spetacular Joba isn't a huge upgrade from the random fillers they can grab out of AAA / Waiver anyway. at least not nearly enough of a differenec between playoff and not. in this case they can afford to rest him a bit and at least raise the chances that he might improve due to this.

Having watched most of his starts. I think stamina is really a issue. because what Seaver's saying would be alright if he's blasting 98mph heat all around but not going deep due to walks and getting hit. but he's not. he have a few start where he sits 93-95 and peak at 97-98 whenever he gets into trouble (not to meantion a a pretty good curveball and a wicked slider), but a lot more where he's sitting 90-91 and peaking at 92-93 (and miss with his slider and hangs his curve).

It's not the issue that he's not pitching well because his not able to properly utilize his stuff. which would be an experience issue. it's that in some starts he have #1 starter stuff but in most other he have #4 starter stuff.