the pitching is what it is?

[Evangelion]

To add, I do find the Yankee bullpen would make up for the shortcoming of the rotation. It's already done that this season. The combination of Chamberlain and Rivera can match up against any combination in MLB. Along with their high ceiling young talent in the bullpen. At the moment, the bullpen looks good. Only liability is Kyle Farnsworth. Other than that, nothing to be concern. Even if a player falters, their talent in the minor league system for the Yankees to use.

[bigbadwolf]

Hate to burst the bubble you are living in, but the boston and Toronto pitching staffs are not better than the Yankee staff.

[Evangelion]

Hate to burst the bubble you are living in, but the boston and Toronto pitching staffs are not better than the Yankee staff.

They are. Yankees' offense helps balance the issues their rotation have to compete or even surpass Boston and Toronto.

Red Sox have Beckett and Wakefield. By your standards, Beckett better than Wang. Wakefield better than Pettitte. Matsuzaka is even with Pettitte. How exactly is the Yankee rotation even? I'm going by your logic here with how you define a pitcher's worth by counting their wins.

Moving back to topic. I'll address the question that Toronto rotation no better than Yankees and, for that matter, Boston. Currently, Toronto rotation out performed Boston and New York rotation with Halladay, Marcum and McGowan have solid starts to season. Litsch pitched better than Hughes, Kennedy, Lester and Buchholz for Toronto as their number five. They're currently better off than Boston and New York at this present date. Also, Halladay continues to eat innings and pitch effectively in the process. If Burnett puts it together, Toronto got the deepest and likely the strongest rotation in our division. This all falls into Halladay continue success along with Marcum and McGowan continue to pitch effectively. Last season, Marcum broke down at the end of the season. Also, he had major issues with the Yankees. Take Yankees starts out of the equation, Marcum was quite good last year. Toronto got a strong rotation, it's just people don't notice it.

[bigbadwolf]

Like boston and Toronto have no offense.

Then you compare the staffs of each team based on 15 games.

No problem with how you look and equate at things.

Bottom line is still Yankee staff still the best. Staff to me means all the pitchers.

[Pinstripes]

Fifth in AL ERA in how many games? Unless Hughes and Kennedy become the pitchers people suspect, that ERA going to get much higher. I would call a staff with Wang, Pettitte, Mussina, Hughes and Kennedy mediocre at the moment. Pettitte the second most dependable pitcher on this staff and it's not consider mediocre? You prefer the word average?

Boston and Toronto in their own division have a better rotation. In the AL, Kansas City and Cleveland have better rotations, too. If not dealing with injury issues, Tampa Bay with Kazmir and Shields with high ceiling pitchers like Garza and Jackson along with their farm system. Seattle with Bedard and Hernandez at the front. The back of their rotation lead by Silva and Washburn.

Yankees are middle of the pack with it comes to starting pitching at the moment. If you prefer, I'll call their rotation average.

Still feel you haven't seen the best of the pitching staff? That's what a fan of every team with a young prospect with a high ceiling saying about their staff. It's potential. Potential doesn't effect how good the staff at the moment. Yankees have an average to below average staff with high ceiling prospects that could make their staff much better.

I'm not going to say Hughes is a terrible pitcher, but realistically, he's 21. Just because other pitchers had instant success and became main stays at MLB level doesn't mean he will at this age. I do suspect he'll become a good to great pitcher at one point, but currently, I'm not impressed with what I've seen of Hughes this season. I did suspect he build of his strong finish to 2007 season. Could happen this year? Sure. Could it not happen this year? Sure. If Hughes is pitching like he did in Boston, where he only fooled Pedrioa, he's not going to be that good this season.

You constantly contradict logic. If Buchholz continues to fool... well... nobody like he did last night, Boston has bigger issues than the Yankees. See how easy that works? We've seen Hughes, when he's pitching well, dominate. At the age of 21, you have to expect some growing pains at times.

You suggest that the "Unless Hughes and Kennedy become the pitchers people suspect, that ERA going to get much higher." This makes no sense. Kennedy and Hughes CAN'T get worse than they've already pitched. With these AWFUL numbers from those two, the team ERA is STILL 5th in the AL. And if they continue to pitch the EXACT same way they have so far, and everyone else on the team continues to pitch in the exact same way they have so far, the team ERA would stay exactly the same.

Just imagine if Hughes and Kennedy had pitched at the league average so far. I full well believe that those two can easily pitch to a league average of around a 4.30 ERA. If that does indeed happen, the team ERA would not increase, it would decrease.

Boston's bullpen ERA is 12th in the AL at 5.57. That's a major concern. Papelbon can't pitch every inning. Boston's OVERALL team ERA is 4.95. Good for 12th in the AL as well.

Toronto has issues at the back end of their rotation and have health issues with Burnett, but I agree that at the moment they have the better overall pitching staff top to bottom. However, the Yankee's offense is vastly superior.

Additionally, the Yankees team pitching is 4th overall in OPS against w/ a .706 OPS against. Toronto's pitching staff has a .749 OPS against, which is 9th in the AL. This would lead me to believe that Toronto's staff has been somewhat lucky in terms of ERA - they've stranded more runners on base than they "should have". Because while some pitchers are better at stranding runners than others, in the long run it usally comes pretty close to evening out, and the teams with the worst OPS against usually have the worst ERAs, and vice versa.

The point here is that the Yankee's pitching staff, which we haven't even seen the best of, is current 4th in the AL in OPS against, behind only the White Sox, the Royals, and the A's.

Yankees have an average to below average staff with high ceiling prospects that could make their staff much better.

4th in the AL in OPS against. Right NOW. With Hughes and Kennedy pitching like crap overall, and Joba missing from the team for 3+ days.

Boston and Toronto in their own division have a better rotation. In the AL, Kansas City and Cleveland have better rotations, too. If not dealing with injury issues, Tampa Bay with Kazmir and Shields with high ceiling pitchers like Garza and Jackson along with their farm system. Seattle with Bedard and Hernandez at the front. The back of their rotation lead by Silva and Washburn.

You're basing all of this on long past performance or potential performance. I'm going on what's actually happening. Kazmir is hurt. When will he be back? Will he be 100%? Question marks. Garza is not good. Career .816 OPS against, career 4.72 ERA. Currently injured. He's nothing more than POTENTIAL, something I wasn't allowed to use in favor of the Yankees rotation, so why can you use it in favor of the Rays?

Kansas City has a better overall staff (so far), but will not contend - no offense.

Cleveland has a better rotation? How exactly. CC Sabathia had a career year last year. He hadn't thrown over 200 innings since 2002. Last season he threw 240+ innings. Maybe he won't bounce back from that kind of overuse. So far he's been awful. Can Carmona back up his performance from last year? Doubtful. His ERA is good so far (2.20), but his periferals would suggest he's been extremely lucky. 17 walks in 16 innings. That's not a typo. He's issued more walks than innings pitched. He won't continue to get away with that. His strike out to walk ratio is less than .5. He's walking TWICE as many batters as he's striking out. Cliff Lee is pitching way over his head. He's a career 4.56 ERA pitcher who's 29. Doubtfull (even though it's possible) that he'll find himself at the age of 29-30, especially after 6+ years of MLB experience. Rarely will a pitcher do that. Cleveland currently has a 5.21 ERA, next to last in the AL. Their starters are 12th in the AL.

[Evangelion]

You constantly contradict logic. If Buchholz continues to fool... well... nobody like he did last night, Boston has bigger issues than the Yankees. See how easy that works? We've seen Hughes, when he's pitching well, dominate. At the age of 21, you have to expect some growing pains at times.

You suggest that the "Unless Hughes and Kennedy become the pitchers people suspect, that ERA going to get much higher." This makes no sense. Kennedy and Hughes CAN'T get worse than they've already pitched. With these AWFUL numbers from those two, the team ERA is STILL 5th in the AL. And if they continue to pitch the EXACT same way they have so far, and everyone else on the team continues to pitch in the exact same way they have so far, the team ERA would stay exactly the same.

Just imagine if Hughes and Kennedy had pitched at the league average so far. I full well believe that those two can easily pitch to a league average of around a 4.30 ERA. If that does indeed happen, the team ERA would not increase, it would decrease.

Boston's bullpen ERA is 12th in the AL at 5.57. That's a major concern. Papelbon can't pitch every inning. Boston's OVERALL team ERA is 4.95. Good for 12th in the AL as well.

Toronto has issues at the back end of their rotation and have health issues with Burnett, but I agree that at the moment they have the better overall pitching staff top to bottom. However, the Yankee's offense is vastly superior.

Additionally, the Yankees team pitching is 4th overall in OPS against w/ a .706 OPS against. Toronto's pitching staff has a .749 OPS against, which is 9th in the AL. This would lead me to believe that Toronto's staff has been somewhat lucky in terms of ERA - they've stranded more runners on base than they "should have". Because while some pitchers are better at stranding runners than others, in the long run it usally comes pretty close to evening out, and the teams with the worst OPS against usually have the worst ERAs, and vice versa.

The point here is that the Yankee's pitching staff, which we haven't even seen the best of, is current 4th in the AL in OPS against, behind only the White Sox, the Royals, and the A's.

4th in the AL in OPS against. Right NOW. With Hughes and Kennedy pitching like crap overall, and Joba missing from the team for 3+ days.


You're basing all of this on long past performance or potential performance. I'm going on what's actually happening. Kazmir is hurt. When will he be back? Will he be 100%? Question marks. Garza is not good. Career .816 OPS against, career 4.72 ERA. Currently injured. He's nothing more than POTENTIAL, something I wasn't allowed to use in favor of the Yankees rotation, so why can you use it in favor of the Rays?

Kansas City has a better overall staff (so far), but will not contend - no offense.

Cleveland has a better rotation? How exactly. CC Sabathia had a career year last year. He hadn't thrown over 200 innings since 2002. Last season he threw 240+ innings. Maybe he won't bounce back from that kind of overuse. So far he's been awful. Can Carmona back up his performance from last year? Doubtful. His ERA is good so far (2.20), but his periferals would suggest he's been extremely lucky. 17 walks in 16 innings. That's not a typo. He's issued more walks than innings pitched. He won't continue to get away with that. His strike out to walk ratio is less than .5. He's walking TWICE as many batters as he's striking out. Cliff Lee is pitching way over his head. He's a career 4.56 ERA pitcher who's 29. Doubtfull (even though it's possible) that he'll find himself at the age of 29-30, especially after 6+ years of MLB experience. Rarely will a pitcher do that. Cleveland currently has a 5.21 ERA, next to last in the AL. Their starters are 12th in the AL.

Buchholz is not being depend upon in the Red Sox rotation as much as Phil Hughes is being depend upon in the Yankee rotation. Red Sox have Beckett and Matsuzaka leading their staff. While Wang and Pettitte lead the Yankee staff. I take the Red Sox over the Yankees front two, I don't see why you take the Yankees. Would you take Mussina over Wakefield? You question my logic when you make a comment like "Boston have more issues with their rotation than Yankees." You take a rotation of Wang-Pettitte-Mussina-Hughes -Kennedy over Beckett-Matsuzaka-Wakefield-Lester-Buchholz? Go right ahead. This season, I take Boston. In the long run, I view Hughes becoming the better pitcher of the four young pitchers currently in the rotation, but that's not the discussion we're having here.

I didn't word that sentence correctly. What I meant to say is people expect them to at least have league average ERA, but it's going to be much higher ERA if they pitch like they been. Easily? Yeah, sure. I'm not going to overestimate their potential, their current ages, experience and underestimate the league as whole ability to hit to say these rookies are easily going to pitch league average. League average is nothing special, but when there's many people struggling to reach it in the back end of teams rotation, it can't be easy. High ranking prospects and prospects that dominate minor leagues could and will struggle at the MLB level. I don't disagree Kennedy and Hughes can have league average ERA, but I also believe the possible chance to be worse to much worse is there.

A game like last night game could rocket a team's ERA. I do like the ERA statistic, but when I look at Mussina, Hughes and Kennedy current performance, I see a mediocre staff outside Pettitte and Wang. They're going to need more than a league average ERA from Hughes to make up for how bad Mussina been and likely will continue to be. Hughes and Kennedy likely will go through growing pains, but when only two pitchers can be depend upon in your rotation to likely keep you in the game or hold a lead, you have issues.

Boston bullpen is currently a issue, but I'll hold my judgment on a team bullpen. I do like the potential of the Yankee bullpen. I consider the bullpen of New York much stronger than their rotation.

Not much disagree with your comment regarding Toronto. Health issues plague Burnett. Along with the occasional bad starts. Toronto did have one of the better pitching staffs last season. It deals with offensives woes that likely keeps them for being a bigger factor. Though, we'll see if that changes this season.

If you're calling Toronto lucky, is fair to say you consider Pettitte lucky, too?

If we haven't seen the best of the Yankee rotation. The same case can be made for a number of teams with young players in their rotation. I just believe there's a possibility that Hughes and Kennedy could go through growing pains and be quite bad this season. Keep in mind I don't expect Lester to be that good with his control issues and Buchholz is mostly coming off hype from the no-hitter. Yankees rotation is a issue, if it becomes better like couple of people suspect, then yeah, it's in better shape. Still, a 21 year old rookie pitching his first full season. I just don't see him being great yet.

Chamberlain just missed a couple of games. He's part of that staff and been dominate to help the numbers. Take him out, you see those numbers get progressively worse since one bad outing could ruin ERA and OPS against during the year, especially this early.

Going by what happening now? Then Hughes and Kennedy are terrible, but the best to come from them, so Yankees rotation right now isn't mediocre based on this theory? Ignoring the fact they been dreadful and that Mussina been awful. How's this rotation not mediocre compare to Toronto and Boston right now?

Kazmir is hurt.

Hughes been bad.

Will Kazmir be 100%?

Will Hughes be better?

Question marks, but the best to come with Hughes. Kazmir? Nope, question mark even though he's been much more successful at MLB level than Hughes. Two different cases, but case are mere speculation. Garza not good? Hughes is not good either by the same logic if you post his current MLB statistic. No? I don't believe that myself. Just asking if you're using that against Garza, shouldn't it be used against Hughes? Garza, Hughes and Kennedy are currently potential with limited experience.

That type of argument of "What if" can be used against just about every team. If you're contending this season, I take Sabathia, Carmona, Westbrook, Lee and Byrd over Wang, Pettitte, Hughes, Mussina, Kennedy. Yankees highest point is their potential in Hughes and Kennedy, that's just like depending on Burnett to remain healthy. Potential is potential, but people treat career years as flukes while potential to be much better is treated with more importance. I like Hughes going into the future, but this season? Cleveland got the better staff. You can keep the ERA statistic after 15-20 games, I won't take a rotation with Wang, Pettitte, Mussina, Hughes and Kennedy over K.C., Boston, Toronto and Cleveland. Instant success is being used against K.C. and pitchers off to go start since it's impossible for them to keep it up while the struggles of the staffs is used against Boston and Cleveland, but struggles of Hughes and Kennedy are not used against them. It's just "We yet to see the best of these pitchers."

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

You all know that I am not that keen on going after every big prized free agent on the market, like the Yanks used to do.

I don't know how many years are remaining on Beckett's contract, but if he becomes a free agent, I don't mind if the Yankees will pull a big check book and sign him, if he is still that good then.

[Pinstripes]

Evangelion:

I guess we'll have to agree that we're going to view things differently. I'm assuming you're a Sox fan (nothing wrong with that), and we're obviously going to both perhaps overrate our own teams with regard to the rest of the league, probably because it's only natural to be a lot more familiar with your own team than another team, even if you're very knowledgable.

You have plenty of valid points - I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to say "you're wrong." When it comes to things like this, sometimes it's just a matter of perspective.

I think the one thing we can agree upon is that there's no doubt that every pitching staff in the AL has it's fair share of question marks, especially with regard to the contending teams. Whichever teams question marks turn out to be positives will likely have the best shot at winning in the end.

I don't think the Yankees are relying on Hughes as much as you might think, but with the recent awful outings by Mussina and Wang, you might be right. I expect them to bounce back a bit, especially Wang, and until last night Mussina had been throwing the ball very well. Location killed him. We'll have to see how things pan out with him.

I think the Red Sox are putting a lot of weight on the success of Beckett. I feel that Matsuzaka is being overrated by his early ERA success. His control (high walk total) is too much of an issue for me to be comfortable saying he's a "solid" #2 in the rotation.

I don't know how many years are remaining on Beckett's contract, but if he becomes a free agent, I don't mind if the Yankees will pull a big check book and sign him, if he is still that good then.

He won't be. He's always relied on his fastball velocity and average secondary pitches. At his age, he's reached the point where he's going to start levelling off, and there's nothing but decline left after that. In 3-4 years he'll be average pitcher, and in 4-6 years he'll be below average, if not sooner. There's the chance he will re-invent himself without the velocity, but the odds are historically stacked against that type of transition.

[Urbanshocker13]

You all know that I am not that keen on going after every big prized free agent on the market, like the Yanks used to do.

I don't know how many years are remaining on Beckett's contract, but if he becomes a free agent, I don't mind if the Yankees will pull a big check book and sign him, if he is still that good then.

That would be sweet!! Does anyone know where you can find info on how much time players have on their contracts? I wounder sometimes I just want to know when some players might become free agents.

[Pinstripes]

That would be sweet!! Does anyone know where you can find info on how much time players have on their contracts? I wounder sometimes I just want to know when some players might become free agents.

Here you go:

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/

As for Beckett:

3 years/$30M (2007-09), plus $12M 2010 club option

So unless Beckett suffers a catastrophic system failure or gets injured, he's locked up through and including 2010 with a very reasonably priced option that the Sox will almost definitely pick up.

I could see the Sox locking him up longer in the event he continues to pitch well, because for now it seems to be a happy marriage both ways, and the Sox don't really seem to have any arms on the horizon that can fill that "ace" roll. Signing a free agent is always a crap shoot, with Beckett the Red Sox know what they have.

I still maintain that by 2011-2012 a long term contract to Beckett will be a very unwise move. Signing 30-32 year old pitchers to long term (5-6 year) deals is just way too risky.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

Signing 30-32 year old pitchers to long term (5-6 year) deals is just way too risky.

Nah. We did a good job in signing Johnson, Moose and Kevin Brown.

[hellborn]

(about Beckett)
He won't be. He's always relied on his fastball velocity and average secondary pitches. At his age, he's reached the point where he's going to start levelling off, and there's nothing but decline left after that. In 3-4 years he'll be average pitcher, and in 4-6 years he'll be below average, if not sooner. There's the chance he will re-invent himself without the velocity, but the odds are historically stacked against that type of transition.

This statement is highly inaccurate, if you really look at history.
Almost every pitcher who had a long, successful career threw reasonably hard when they were young. Whitey Ford, Spahn, Maddux, Carlton...they all had good heat, Maddux less so than the others. Ford had one of the best fastballs in the league as a youngster and relied on the curve more as he got older...Spahn developed a gob of pitches, including a screwball...Maddux refined his change and developed pinpoint control...Carlton relied on the nuclear slider. They all adjusted very well to a natural decline in raw speed. Pedro has been doing the same thing for a few years now, but is always hurt...he can be very effective when he's not on the DL.
Beckett throws hard, sure...but he also has excellent control, good movement, and good deception in his delivery. Watching him mix pitches and location up is a lot of fun when he's on. I don't see how anybody could say now that he won't be able to adjust to having less of a fastball, just like most every other really good pitcher in history did.
Barring serious injury, I think that there's every likelihood that Beckett will have a long, successful career, just like all these other guys who could really bring it when young (OK, that's a stretch for Maddux).

[Evangelion]

Evangelion:

I guess we'll have to agree that we're going to view things differently. I'm assuming you're a Sox fan (nothing wrong with that), and we're obviously going to both perhaps overrate our own teams with regard to the rest of the league, probably because it's only natural to be a lot more familiar with your own team than another team, even if you're very knowledgable.

You have plenty of valid points - I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to say "you're wrong." When it comes to things like this, sometimes it's just a matter of perspective.

I think the one thing we can agree upon is that there's no doubt that every pitching staff in the AL has it's fair share of question marks, especially with regard to the contending teams. Whichever teams question marks turn out to be positives will likely have the best shot at winning in the end.

I don't think the Yankees are relying on Hughes as much as you might think, but with the recent awful outings by Mussina and Wang, you might be right. I expect them to bounce back a bit, especially Wang, and until last night Mussina had been throwing the ball very well. Location killed him. We'll have to see how things pan out with him.

I think the Red Sox are putting a lot of weight on the success of Beckett. I feel that Matsuzaka is being overrated by his early ERA success. His control (high walk total) is too much of an issue for me to be comfortable saying he's a "solid" #2 in the rotation.

He won't be. He's always relied on his fastball velocity and average secondary pitches. At his age, he's reached the point where he's going to start levelling off, and there's nothing but decline left after that. In 3-4 years he'll be average pitcher, and in 4-6 years he'll be below average, if not sooner. There's the chance he will re-invent himself without the velocity, but the odds are historically stacked against that type of transition.

I agree.

Nah, I known that's not message you're sending.

That's simplified view of the AL pitching staff and, in general, all staffs in baseball. There's never a pitching staff that's perfect, even if it appears to be perfect on paper. Injures, declining pitchers and other factors play a role. All we discuss is possibilities based on current performance, along with potential and decline and other factors.

Moving along, I do believe the Yankees are depending on Hughes and Kennedy to bring stability to back end of their rotation. If Mussina was pitching like the Mussina Pre-2007, then the team likely won't be that concern, but heading into the season, Hughes was coming off a good appearance in a playoff game along with a strong finish to the 2007 season. Kennedy dominated the minor leagues levels and pitched effectively when he reached the majors. I feel it's reasonable to assume these pitchers would be better than what they've shown, not to say they can't turn it around. Mussina shown he's clearly lost his ability to pitch effectively, this dating back to last season. Could he turn it around? Sure, it's possible, but I expect a turn around by Hughes and Kennedy much more than Mussina turning it around. I have my doubts Mussina will remain in the rotation.

Location kills Mussina, but Mussina needs to develop a method to be effective, because his declining velocity as made what he's been successful with useless. Maddux's pin-point control has kept him effective well into his 40's. Mussina doesn't have pin-point control and he could develop pin-point control, but after 30 starts of mediocrity dating to last season, I just don't see Mussina adapting and becoming a effective pitcher again. If he hasn't adopted a effective method of pitching after that many starts, I don't believe he ever will.

On Wang, there's no concern on Wang's front or shouldn't be. That was just a poor pitching performance by both teams. Just a bad night for Wang. Nothing to be concern about it.

Matsuzaka had good starts against Detroit and Oakland. While walking four during the Detroit game, he pitched effectively, unlike the game against New York, where he received a win even though he didn't pitch well enough to deserve it. Even with control issues, Matsuzaka effectively pitches well enough to win most of his game, he's won 4 of them while the team won all 5 times he's started. Is he a dominate number two pitcher? Nope, not with those control issues, but he's currently getting the job done. Will the walks come back to hurt them? They should, I just hope Matsuzaka develops better control. Most people see Matsuzaka and don't understand why he picks at corners instead of locating his fastball. I'm trailing off, Matsuzaka scatters the hits and walks, if you look at last night, it's not that impressive, but again, the team up by 8 runs, he gives up a 2-run home-run in the 6th inning, then he's pulled. I don't see a problem with that, but that won't make a statistic line look good. Just pointing that out. Matsuzaka scatters the walks and hits effectively. Could come back and bite him, but we'll see.

On that note, Pettitte effectively pitch like this all of last season. Instead of a large amount of walks, he allows a large amount of hits. He effectively scatter them to have a solid 2007 season. He'll likely do the same this season. Matsuzaka and Pettitte will have those outing where they're killed and their ERA's will take a large hit, like last Sunday for Matsuzaka. Still, both pitchers are getting the job done. Not much to complain about.

Matsuzaka's secondary pitches are solid. If there's a problem, it's that Matsuzaka doesn't depend enough on his fastball. I do see Matsuzaka going down the path you to describe, but I would like to see more of Matsuzaka first since he's relatively young at the moment. If Matsuzaka ever solve his control issues, he could become a great pitcher. I don't like to use the word, but I don't like the word good. So, I say Matsuzaka could become a number one starter if he ever resolve his control issues. It's just a matter of will? Matsuzaka got his Pro's and Con's and we'll see what will become of him with time.