Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Kevin Youkilis needs back surgery, out 10-12 weeks
(hardballtalk.nbcsports.com)
######, NYC Tonite, Up Against The Wall
The injury hits just keep on coming for the Yankees, who announced that Kevin Youkilis needs surgery to repair a herniated disc and will be out for 10-12 weeks.
That puts Youkilis’ season in jeopardy, because 10 weeks would get him into September and any setbacks would leave him running out of time. Youkilis hit just .219 with two homers and a .648 OPS in 28 games for the Yankees after signing a one-year, $12 million deal as a free agent.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 4 pages
1 2 3 4 >It would be crazy though, and everyone knows it.
I'm going with the idea that this actually was written last March, before Soriano took over for a year and was, well - Nearly. As. Good.
This time around it will cost us $15 million per year though.
"Closer" isn't a position. His position is pitcher, or if you want to narrow it down just a bit, relief pitcher.
Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1901 to 2012, (requiring IP>=300 and earned_run_avg_plus>=150), sorted by greatest Adjusted ERA+
Mariano Rivera: 1219.2 IP, 206 ERA+
Jonathan Papelbon: 499.1 IP, 192 ERA+
Billy Wagner: 903 IP, 187 ERA+
Takashi Saito: 338 IP, 185 ERA+
Joakim Soria: 315.1 IP, 181 ERA+
Mike Adams: 363.2 IP, 177 ERA+
Brad Ziegler: 320.2 IP, 171 ERA+
Bryan Harvey: 387 IP, 162 ERA+
Francisco Rodriguez: 720.2 IP, 159 ERA+
Tom Henke: 789.2 IP, 157 ERA+
Pedro Martinez: 2827.1 IP, 154 ERA+
Rafael Soriano: 502 IP, 153 ERA+
Joe Nathan: 794 IP, 153 ERA+
I thought my meaning was clear. Let's use "reliever". It's very clearly a different position from starting pitcher.
Agreed. Also: he is not a raging egomaniac (Jordan is pretty fascinating though; just turned 50, as it turns out).
I don't think that's right. Pitching is pitching. It's clear that all starters are capable of relieving. And all relief pitchers are failed starters.
If you were to assemble a team of all-time greats, you'd select zero relief pitchers for your 10-11 man staff.
seems to be the yanks didn't have real too much trouble finding another reliever to close and do a good job. unless you are talking about the astros, finding a capable reliever is not that tough (now that ed wade is gone - it was the only thing he could do well)
why there is this obsession on having the same reliever close for 15 years i don't get. it's not like he's gagne 03 or lidge 08.
It may be, however, that the top 10-11 starters of all time are all more efficient per inning than the best relievers. In which case, the above point is invalid.
It may be, however, that the top 10-11 starters of all time are all more efficient per inning than the best relievers. In which case, the above point is invalid.
Everything we've seen, from SP-RP conversions, to SP pitching in relief in post-season, suggests to me that top-SP would be excellent, excellent, RP.
Kimbrel isn't. Came into the minors as he turned 20 and has never started a game in pro ball.
The "all" should be removed from these sentences.
So, yeah, by all means, the Yankees can try to buy last year's most successful closer every year, if he happens to be a free agent. Seems unlikely to be a winning succession plan.
If you mean is Rivera better than the second best relief pitcher by a greater margin than Wagner is better than the second best shortstop, I'd say absolutely.
Twenty years ago I'd have agreed with this. Today I think you'd be foolish not to include Rivera on your staff. Why wouldn't you want to have him throw an inning or two at the end of a Koufax start?
Just 300? Seems a bit low.
One way of looking at this would say that you would have to restrict the time period for this question to the era during which the save has been an official statistic, because usage patterns shifted so dramatically thereafter. [In an alternative universe, if people cared about saves in the 1920s, it's fun to think about Babe Ruth trotting in from the outfield to close out some games]
On that basis, is the gap from #1 to #2 as great at any position post late-60s? I don't think WAR would back this up, but I would say Johnny Bench might be a contender for creating the greatest gap to #2.
Because I can have Pedro Martinez throw that inning or two, and also be available to give me 6 IP if I need them.
Kimbrel isn't. Came into the minors as he turned 20 and has never started a game in pro ball.
The "all" should be removed from these sentences.
I disagree. If the Braves thought Kimbrel could throw 175 IP to a 100 ERA+ they would he made him a starter. And that's true of every RP. Kimbrel just failed earlier than most.
What evidence is there of SP who can't relieve?
That can't really be true at any meaningful level. The best SS of all time have put up strings of 8-10 WAR seasons. Rivera's peak is around 4 WAR.
Frankly, I don't even see how Rivera is any better than Hoyt Wilhelm. Wilhelm didn't make the majors until age 29, and the difference between them in WAR is all leverage.
Plus, Wilhem proved he could be an excellent SP, something Rivera never did.
Yeah, I did that intentionally. The fact is, the list of relievers who were good enough to put up an ERA+ of 150 or better over any length of time is really short.
I think that's true. What Rivera did is incredibly unique. Unfortunately, that uniqueness is just not all thjat valuable, given the limitations of the "closer" role.
What's a guaranteed 175 ERA+ closer worth over a "replacement" closer? 1 or 2 wins p.a., right?
if a pitcher was never a starter in the first place, you can hardly call him a "failed" starter. you can't fail at something you never did
see huston street and chad cordero, for example - neither one even started in college
unless you are insisting on going back to little league or something and all KINDS of kids had starts in little league
if a pitcher was never a starter in the first place, you can hardly call him a "failed" starter. you can't fail at something you never did
see huston street and chad cordero, for example - neither one even started in college
unless you are insisting on going back to little league or something and all KINDS of kids had starts in little league
As you say, every pitcher starts at some point. If a guy is made a dedicated RP in college, it's only b/c he's demonstrated he can't remain effective and/or healthy pitching more innings.
Maybe there's a better word than "failed". But no coach or team chooses to give a good pitcher fewer IP unless they have to for some reason.
To take the metaphor even further, if the Bulls got a really good power forward post-Jordan, they could design the offense around him and be back to winning a lot of games again, even with a replacement-level shooting guard.
The Yankees need to be able to find a very good closer, or "ninth-inning relief pitcher". If they throw a replacement-level guy into that role for some reason, they'll lose some games that they "shouldn't have".
it's not that i don't think that closers or relievers have significant value in the modern game because of course they do as this is not 1970
it's just the deification of mariano as THE reason behind the yankees success is something i don't get
or even the fact that it was only him for 15 years. would it be different if the yanks changed closers every year or 3 and they had the same success rate at a much lower ERA+
What? Papelbon, Aroldis Chapman, etc etc etc etc
Even with Rivera, the Yankees chose to give him fewer IP after 1996. It may not be the right move, but teams do it all the time. You are almost implying that the best reliever would automatically be a worse starter than the worst pitcher who actually starts.
You're forgetting the "chaining" effect for RP.
No team (except the comically awful) ever have a replacement level closer. You always bump your next best RP up, and give the replacement level guys low leverage garbage time innings.
Given the relative lack of difficulty in relieving, and the volatility of RP, almost every team has 2 really good RP every year.
They felt those guys wouldn't be effective or healthy as SP.
If that's not true, then they made stupid decisions.
You are almost implying that the best reliever would automatically be a worse starter than the worst pitcher who actually starts.
No, I'm implying that the best RP would be worse than league average starters. Most of these guys have 1.5 good pitches. They can't go through a lineup 3 times. Or, they physically can't handle 175 IP.
some guys were relievers starting in high school and never started - the whole - joba chamberlain The All Important Bridge To Mariano - he should only pitch THAT inning - isn't restricted to the yanks
there are guys who, maybe, say, were sick or sore at the beginning of the year, so they were put in short relief, excelled and never given a chance to start. ESPECIALLY short rightys. well, short guys, period. people really believe that you can't be short and pitch more than an inning, don't ask me why
MLB quality arms are being relegated to the pen in HS?!?! That's appalling.
They replaced him last year with the guy sitting next to him in the pen. I'm not really seeing the "challenge" there.
----
Why? You don't build teams with an eye towards 15 years down the line. You don't hand 15 year contracts to players. They didn't give Rivera a contract for 15 years, or anything close to that.
----
Exactly true. As the starters converting to relievers have shown, closing is the MLB equivalent of a punt, pass, and kick skills competition.
It is a skill for MLB pitchers to be able to start games, and that is where the significant value comes in. Rivera doesn't have that skill.
It seems plausible to me that the "give-up-singles-but-keep-'em-close" breed of starter (Glavine, Pettitte, Buehrle, Kirk Rueter, Terry Mulholland, Tommy John, etc.) would not be better as relievers, even per inning. It's highly hypothetical, since this apparently is also what front offices believe, and thus guys like this don't get made into relievers. (Any examples to the contrary?)
Does it really matter in terms of figuring out the value the guy actually provided? Is anyone seriously arguing, e.g., that WAR's replacement level for relievers should be recalculated?
No.
Yes, teams over-rate the closer role ... which is why you can't assume every reliever is one because they are a failed starter.
But teams don't always know until it is too late which of their relievers are going to have the best season. Furthermore, they are hampered by other things which infringe on the changing of relief roles. Every single season there are many teams for which the most effective reliever never gets the most important innings and/or never becomes the closer.
Jonathan Papelbon: 499.1 IP, 192 ERA+
Billy Wagner: 903 IP, 187 ERA+
Takashi Saito: 338 IP, 185 ERA+
Joakim Soria: 315.1 IP, 181 ERA+
Mike Adams: 363.2 IP, 177 ERA+
Brad Ziegler: 320.2 IP, 171 ERA+
Bryan Harvey: 387 IP, 162 ERA+
Francisco Rodriguez: 720.2 IP, 159 ERA+
Tom Henke: 789.2 IP, 157 ERA+
Pedro Martinez: 2827.1 IP, 154 ERA+
Rafael Soriano: 502 IP, 153 ERA+
Joe Nathan: 794 IP, 153 ERA+
Wow, Pedro popping up on there as the lone starter. Of those guys, how many of them have been available for just money in even just the last five years? Besides Rivera, I'm seeing Papelbon, Wagner, Saito, Adams, FRod, Soriano, Nathan - and that's not even counting Soria or Ziegler who also have been active and available in trades. The Yankees will be fine.
But hasn't this essentially been the Yankees' plan for filling the closer role since Rivera hit free agency? They've been paying top dollar for the best reliever in baseball to be their closer for something like the past decade. The plan gets harder/worse going forward because the best reliever in baseball is likely to be worse than Rivera has been, but it's not going to suddenly get more expensive for the Yankees to go out and buy a closer.
There's a big argument over exactly that. I don't think there's any consensus over how much credit a closer should get for his leverage usage.
They most certainly are not.
Glad to hear it. I know nothing about HS baseball, just reacting to BBC's post.
Page 1 of 4 pages
1 2 3 4 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.