My guess is they hope to roll through the DS in 3 games, in which Joba will not pitch at all. Then, perhaps, he'd start a game of the LCS (3 or 4).

I see no problem with starting Joba in the LCS. Say the Yanks carry 11 pitchers that round: CC, Andy, AJ, Joba, Mo, and Hughes are the 6 givens. Coke, Marte, and Robertson (if he's healthy) will probably go, leaving plenty of room for Aceves and Gaudin - either of whom could come in as long relievers if Joba ran into trouble in his start.

I honestly don't see a need for Joba in the pen, unless its as a long reliever in the DS. I also don't think putting him in the pen will automatically guarantee he pitches well.

Of course, Neyer's fundamental premise is that Joba should go to the pen and Hughes should be immediately stretched as a starter, for the playoffs. As most anyone here knows, I have advocated restoring Hughes to the rotation, but since it's not going to happen this season (ever?), Neyer's article is nothing more than fantasy.

[0] Alex, you would move BOTH to the pen? For the regular season this would probably not matter, since the Yankees have built up such a large lead that is, probably, Gaudin-Mitre proof. But what about the post-season? Surely you are not advocating allowing Mitre-Gaudin to start in the playoffs over Joba?

Now, if the team had the balls to go with a three-man rotation in the playoffs, and if Girardi had the good sense to use his best relievers for more than 11 pitches at a time, then keeping Hughes and Joba in the pen could be a brilliant strategic decision for the post-season.

[1] Say the Yanks carry 11 pitchers that round...

I would weep tears of joy.

you need a least the option of a 4th starter if not a 4th starter itself in the playoffs - so i am not inclined to put joba in the pen without a better option being around - it is not gaudin, mitre, or aceves.
hughes is not streteched out, nor should we expect his numbers as a reliever to be replicated as a starter.

in joba's good starts this year (especially those 3 after the asb) what was he doing so well? something about his mechanics? was he in fact not shaking po off as much?
i normally don't criticize the pitching coach (or hitting coach for that matter) because so much of there work is done behind the scenes. but for some reason i don't feel totally comfortable that eiland is able to pinpoint these types of things and then have his pitchers work on them. i like to believe joba can be at least adequate and prefferably "good joba" in the playoffs, which will be a major weapon. hopefully this start tonight is progress.

[4] ...hughes is not stretched out, nor should we expect his numbers as a reliever to be replicated as a starter.

The more important questions, though, are:

1. Will Hughes as a starter be better than Joba?
2. If yes, would that presumably improved performance in the #4 starter (+ Joba in the pne) offset the loss of The Eighth Inning Guy from the Pen?

[5] yeah i agree that those questions are important, especially #1.
not to be a killjoy, but if hughes is not being considered to be stretched out by the yankees it does not matter in practice, it is just an interesting debate for us to have

now, just playing devil's advocate - what if you stretch hughes out and he does not do well - then what, especially if you have moved joba to the pen?

I'm afraid if Chamberlain went back to the pen he wouldn't be his old dominant self. I prefer to operate under the assumption that he has some great value, even if it's not being utilized right now.

It still blows my mind that they have Hughes as the bullpen as the eighth inning guy and Chamberlain in the rotation. It's bizarro world.

[6] Then there's no problem at all. Hughes going five or six innings well is far, far more valuable than him maybe going 11 pitches every few days. The only "problem" would be finding an Eighth Inning Guy for a few games in the playoffs from among Robertson, Bruney, Joba, Aceves, Cokey, Marte. It would probably be Joba.

The only irritant will be the inevitable debate next spring about whether Joba (and Hughes) should be starters or relievers...but that debate is going to continue until they both win 25 games a season and throw nine no-hitters. At least moving Joba to the pen now can be justified publicly by invoking the innings limit.

[8] no, my concern is if you move hughes to the rotation and joba to the pen and for whatever reason hughes sucks ass, then what? who is your 4th starter then?
i guess my concern is i think the yankees have waited too long to move hughes into the rotation to give themselves a chance to implement a back-up plan if he is not a good starter right now (which is a possibility considering how he has been used and his lack of arm strength)

Yes, it is obvious that we will need a 4th starter after the DS. Neyer is clueless.

First of all, it's quite likely that the Yankees will (i) have the best record in the AL, and therefore (ii) get to choose which playoff format they want in the first round, and so (iii) pick the one with the extra day off, so they only need three starters in the first round. (Of course, if Joba suddenly becomes really good in the next few starts, they can choose the format requiring four starters.)

Second, I'm not so sure that Hughes for six innings as a starter is "far, far more valuable than him going 11 pitches every few days." Take a six game series. Hughes could get one start and pitch six innings. Or he could throw three innings of relief. The three innings of relief might be much better than the six starter innings, and in fact are likely to be. And the three relief innings are probably notably higher leverage than the avg. inning in his start. So he might actually net more win expectancy in relief.

As a VG starter, he's more valuable, but as a merely decent starter he might have less value than as a lights-out reliever.

[9] Ah, right, I didn't see that "not." Now I am going blind, apparently. Well, he could suck ass. But isn't the entire discussion prompted by the fact that Joba has been kind of sucking ass, and that Mitre and Gaudin historically suck ass? Thus, suck-ass-Hughes would not be any worse, with the only cost being The Eighth Inning Guy, a role that could probably be filled in the playoffs by Joba and company and the occasional two-inning Mo.

Everything is a calculated risk.

Your greater point is well taken, however: that they waited too long to make the switch. I agree, and moreover, I think they are so enamored with Hughes as The Eighth Inning Guy--indeed, with the very notion of having an Eighth Inning Guy--that they will never make such a switch in the first place. Thus, the entire conversation is "mute."

But if we are going to play advocatus diaboli and assume that they would make the move, I think it stands a very good chance of working out for the better.

[8] But they won't do it - move Joba to the pen now, that is. Certainly not as a short reliever.

And I'd say, just because Hughes has had a maddeningly short number of short pitch outings over the last 5 weeks, does not mean he could not go 2 innings in a playoff game. Indeed, his last four appearances - over the last 7 days in fact - he's pitched 4 times, twice going over an inning (4.2 IP total). That's almost half his entire August workload. Its possible that he is being "stretched" a bit now, in anticipation of longer playoff outings.

Go back to August 28th, and he has 7 IP in 12 days. Let's see if the trend continues.

[11] Second, I’m not so sure...

That's a good point, since the format of the playoffs and their very finality changes the equation. I guess I was operating on the pitching RAA and WAR charts that RLYW has been runing periodically, in which EVERY full time starter was rated more valuable than EVERY relieveron the Yankees staff this year, including Mo and Hughes (and Hughes gets a bump from his starting).

A second point: it is not at all clear that the three innings during which Hughes *might* be used in the playoffs will matter very much in terms of win probability, especially given Girardi's penchant for using his back-end relievers in formulaic fashion. For example, we could very well see Hughes pitch with a two or three run lead in one eighth inning, when the day before Sergio Mitre is incinerated by the fourth inning.

[13] And I’d say, just because Hughes has had a maddeningly short number of short pitch outings over the last 5 weeks, does not mean he could not go 2 innings in a playoff game.

I agree. The question that we cannot answer now: will he?

It will be interesting to see how Girardi manages in the playoffs.

The great irony, or one of the great ironies, about the Joba Debate is the value the organization, and the fans, seems to place on Chamberlain as a starter has more to do with his performance as a reliever than as a starter.

If he didn't tear shit up as a reliever, things would be so different. He might even be on another team right now, who knows.

[13] Its possible that he is being “stretched” a bit now, in anticipation of longer playoff outings.

And this just begs the question of why his appearances were so severely limited for most of his time in the bullpen. It's ludicrous that what he's been up to lately can be seen as "stretching", but yeah that's what it looks like.

[16] definitely agree that his "brilliance" is born out of his relieving, but he has had enough really good starts, including even some this year to see what he *could* be as a starter.

[14] mitre is on the ps roster? :{

one thing to point out is even in the alds with the longer schedule, the yankees might need 4 starters if any games get rained out.

This all makes me think again what a shame it is about Wang.

[14] The RLYB charts don't take leverage into account, though. It's true that Girardi might use Hughes is foolishly low leverage situations; still, following the dumb recipe "Hughes for the eighth if it's close" will give somewhat higher leverage innings to the kid than just having him pitch the first six.

[16] If he didn’t tear shit up as a reliever, things would be so different.

But he was only allowed to show his stuff as a reliever because, after pitching as a start in college, he was drafted as as a starter and rocketed through the Yankees' MiL system as a starter, and was then in danger of reaching his innings limit.

No, I would say that the real irony is that his success as a starter has made so many clamor for him as a reliever. Sort of like how Hughes was the most successful of all of the #5 starters + Wang this season (Hughes, Wang, Aceves, Mitre and Gaudin--well, after last night, Gaudin's numbers as a starter have not been so bad), and that earned him a permanent role in the bull pen.

Ah, worrying about the 4th starter for the playoffs. A much better question to ponder than where we were last year, no?

I don't see stretching Phil out now, with less than a month to the season, as the best option. He's done well in the 8th inning (last night excepted) and the Yankees are looking like a well oiled machine right now. Don't mess with what's working. I would carry Aceves to shadow Joba in the playoffs. Maybe tell Joba that he's only going to go five innings and thus just air it out. If the Yankees take the extra day off that means Joba will get one start in the ALCS and one start in the WS. And that's it for the postseason. Joba for five, Alfredo for three and then Mo or whoever in a mop up role when the Yankees are up 11-1?

[20] When I was looking up Cokey's numbers last night, I did a quick comparison to Hughes. Of his relief appearances, 18 have been in High Lev, and only 6 in Low Lev (9 in Med Lev), so it is true that he has been used mostly in High Lev situations (I guess by definition, the eighth inning will be high leverage more often).

[20] than just having him pitch the first six.

But here I disagree with you. The Leverage definitions are fine, but I think they undervalue the importance of starting pitchers, who provide length. If Hughes (or anyone) can get through the first six innings credibly, he has "shortened the game" more than having a great back-end of the pen. This is because the starter has, effectively, shortened the bridge to the closer who can, by definition and usage, only be used in the ninth.

"Just" pitching the first six meanings lowers the chances that the worst BP arms, almost invariably preserved for such situations, are used in the fifth and sixth inning.

"Just" going six innings increases the chances that you actually get a chance to use your closer and, if you have one, your Eighth Inning Guy.

[14] [18] Mitre on the postseason roster? No way.

Great point on the rainout possibility, ms october- and that's why Joba will be in the pen as a long reliever for the DS.

[17] Its possible the Yanks are just being cautious. Leaving aside all the controversy of the Verducci Effect, and does it include the minors and etc etc etc - it seems clear that a big increase in the number of innings for young pitchers can lead to problems down the road. Consider:

Year 1 - 86.3 IP
Year 2 - 146 IP (+59.7)
Year 3 - 116.0 (-30, due to injury)
Year 4 - 69.7 (-46.3, due to injury)

Ramping up this pitchers' innings, from 69.7 to (say) 120+, might not be a good idea. Maybe better to limit him.

I'm sure you've guessed by now that those are Hughes's IP for 2005-2008, majors and minors combined (and his 5.2 stellar innings in the '07 playoffs). This year, he's at 96.7 so far (majors + minors). Figure he gets ~15 innings in the playoffs - which is about what Mo has averaged every year the Yanks have made the Serious - and if they want to keep him around 120 IP, that means only about ten or so IP the next 3 weeks.

[22] Ah, worrying about the 4th starter for the playoffs. A much better question to ponder than where we were last year, no?

You, sir, are wise beyond years.

[25] I figure for sure the pen will be Mo, Hughes, Aceves, Coke, Marte, Bruney . Maybe Robertson takes someone's place, if he is not injured.

If they go with 12 pitchers (4 starters), I bet that Gaudin or Mitre is one of them, along with Robertson. If they go with 11, it might come down to Mitre/Gaudin v. Robertson (if not hurt).

In any case, I have strong suspicion that one of Mitre/Gaudin will be on the PS roster.

[21] Ha, I'm sure in his Little League days, he was a regular Ted Williams at the plate, too. I'm talking about his Major League experience. There would be no, or very little., story here on either side if he didn't do what he did as a reliever. That's a guess. We'll never know of course, but I think the Yankees' treatment of Chamberlain the Starter would have been significantly different if he didn't people away as a reliever.

Anyway, to compare his "success" as a starter favorably to his dominance as a reliever is just silly to me. You can say what you like about the value of a starter vs a reliever, but Chamberlain's performance in the two roles has been like night and day.

[25] (Sorry, for the conclusion) This could explain why Hughes's usage went down so much in August. They were trying to save him for September/October - especially October.

Future development concerns aside, and that he would have been the best 5th starter, far and away - from this perspective, the Yanks' usage of Hughes makes sense, in terms of playing it safe. Not bad for a guy who's had some injury issues. He gets to 120 this year, 150-ish next year, then 180-ish in 2011 when he's 25, and out of the "innings increase" worry nexus.

[24] I was thinking of a simpler comparison: Hughes for six, rather than whoever is otherwise the fourth starter for six. If he's a decent starter, than that's apt to save you maybe .7 runs over the six innings (the alternative starter is pretty bad).
As a lights-out closer, he certainly replaces a less-good closer. This is tricky, because probably what would happen is that the better relievers move "up" in the "order" and so the drop-off in the high leverage innings isn't enormous (then maybe Bruney instead of Robertson in a less important situation). So the comparison is kind of foggy.

My gut feeling is that it's a pretty close call, and that with the very, very small sample size of the post-season the difference made to the Yankees' winning chances is pretty much negligible.

Argh, by "closer" in [30] I really meant "late reliever".

The irony with the Joba debate is both sides were trying to determine in which role would Joba be the most effective, but now I feel the Yankees just need to find out in what role will he be the least ineffective. Joba has pitched his way out of my playoff consciousness. At this point, I don't think I'd have much confidence in him as a #4 starter or a 7th inning guy. Going into next season, the Yankees need to sit down with Joba and give him a program to follow because otherwise I don't think he will develop much further.

[32] Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I think Joba is plainly the best bet for the fourth starter, by a mile.

[28] Anyway, to compare his “success” as a starter favorably to his dominance as a reliever is just silly to me.

Perhaps.

In 24 innings in 2007, all as a reliever, he was of course crazy good. But look at 2008:

Joba Reliver: 2.31 ERA ,11.3 K/9 INN, 3.24 K/BB .570 OPS against, 35 INN
Joba Starter: 2.76 ERA ,10.2 K/9 INN, 2.96 K/BB .641 OPS against, 65.1 INN

His reliever numbers are a little better, unsurprisingly, but he was pretty much just as dominant as a starter.

Obviously this season has not gone as well for Joba. Maybe he is still recovering from injury. Maybe the league has figured him out. At the same time, at the same time, we probably should not be blinded by 24 magical innings from 2007--results that he's unlikely to repeat. I'm pretty sure that the Yankees were (and are) attracted by what he could do as a starter--his "success"--in 2007 in that vary role.

[33] Especially when the options are Mitre and Gaudin, followed by Aceves (who looked pretty bad in his one start) and then...Josh Towers???

[35] Yes, I should have mentioned that I was using nautical miles.

[32] Why so down on Joba, william? He's got a mere 202 innings of starting in the majors under his belt. Over those innings, he's started 38 games, with a k/9 of 8.51 (very good), a BB/9 of 4.10 (not good - but not surprising for a young pitcher to have trouble there), and a HR/9 of 0.89 (pretty good). His K/BB is 2.06, which, considering his control issues, is still pretty good.

He's a kid pitcher still, and kid pitchers are maddeningly inconsistent. Its the nature of the beast. But he'll get it straightened out, I have few doubts about that.

Just for comparison: in Jon Lester's first 200 or so IP (201.3 to be precise), his K/9 was 6.4 (worse than Joba's), his BB/9 was 4.6 (worse than Joba's), his HR/9 was 1.03 (worse than Joba's), and his K/BB was 1.39 (worse than Joba's). Lester was 24 when he pitched his 200th inning as a big league starter - a year older than Joba, BTW.

In his next 334 innings as a big league starter, Lester has a 8.7 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, .67 HR/9, and a 3.44 K/BB. No reason that Joba, was has better stuff than Lester, can't make a similar leap.

[26] Thanks, though the years are catching up. Not sure if there are any active players older than me anymore I turn 45 in about 5 weeks.

Yankees only need to match up #4 starter once against:
Angels (shudder) or
Boston or
Detroit or
Texas

and once against
Philly or
Dodgers or
St. Louis or
Colorado or
San Fransisco

How are their #4s? I think the NL #4s would not stand a chance against the Yankees' lineup (though it'll be in the DH-less NL park) considering how well guys like Smoltz do there vs. getting bombed by the AL. So even a shaky Joba could survive.

My one concern is in getting through the Angels.

[34] I was just looking at that question, and esp. for Detroit, since the Yankees will actually get a choice (if things turn out the way it's looking now) to choose whether to use three starters against the Tigers, or four. And it looks to me like Armando Gallaraga stinks, and we should have no fear of throwing Joba out there against him, and it might be preferable to a second CC vs. Verlander match-up.

What do others think about this?

Oh, the Red Sox don't really have a fourth starter. Seriously. Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, and... nobody knows.

[38] Best. Analysis. Today.

Thanks for being the voice of calm reason, rbj. Your best hope is that Jamie Moyer keeps pitching for a few more years - I think he's the only one left older than you.

My apologies to Armando for misspelling his surname, which is "Galarraga".
I'm considering apologizing also for saying he stinks, but so far am not moved to do so.

This is a neat timeline to follow, of how David Justice led to Nick Swisher, courtesy of PeteAbe (and whoever mentioned it to him last night). Clearly, Cashman = genius.

joba's last few starts have obviously been mediocre - not horrible stink bombs or anything but mediocre (it's not fair to use his game scores to provide numbers since he was on an innings limits).
so i don't think he is a disaster waiting to happen, and will probably be acceptable - and he can certainly improve from now to october.

the alcs and ws you almost have to use the 4th starter, so that leads to riyank's ? in 39 - do we want to roll the dice with him and galarraga or go cc/verlander twice? that is a helluva dilemma. do you let yourself be swayed by what he does the rest of the season?
i can't link now but newsday has a quote from girardi saying the yanks are probably going to pick the longer series.

[43] More rest = better for an older team, which the Yanks are.

late to the discussion, but I'm all for deploying a 3-man rotation, and relievers aplenty in October.

Not saying that saving Joba to be the number 4 starter is a bad idea (many good reasons to keep him in the rotation have already been posted here), but I think he'd be more effective, and useful to the team as a reliever at this point.

Joba, Hughes, and Mo can shorten every game in October. The Big 3: CC,AJ, and Andy can handle the heavy lifting, and keep the games close. The Yanks are going to live and die by the bats and the bullpen, and Joba's arm would be a great weapon to have out there. Take the training wheels off the kid in October. No innings counts, no pitch counts, and ask him do his thing several times a week.
Unencumbered Joba for October. That's what I'd do.

[33] I also think Joba is the best bet to be the 4th starter, but that's damning him with faint praise. He stands out above the other options because they are so bad, not because he has pitched well.

Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, and… nobody knows.

One of Byrd, Wakefield or Tazawa. Matsuzaka if he recovers in time.

[37] My problem with Joba isn't the numbers...it's the attitude and development. He has slowly gotten worse during his Yankee tenure, but doesn't seem to eager to find out why. Instead, every postgame interview involves him going on and on about his mechanics and all the good pitches he made. Then, he'll trot out the sun will come up tomorrow as reason why he isn't concerned. Well, that ma work for little orphan Annie, but not major league starters. The icing on the cake was an interview in which he proudly proclaimed that he doesn't watch video.

The other issue with Joba is the numbers look good in total, but they are front loaded. Since he burst on the scene, he has gotten progressively worse, which isn't the trend you are looking for. When you combine a noticeable drop-off in his stuff, it makes me really wonder about Joba's future.

Maybe the Yankees have screwed up his development, or maybe Joba's inflated ego is getting in the way of doing the necessary work? I don't know, but if something doesn't change, Joba's ceiling looks to be a back-end starter.

Old Team needs More Rest:
That's a good point.

At the moment I'm still leaning toward the more compact series to take our chances with Joba vs. Galarraga, but I think it's a close call and I could go either way. One point to keep in mind is that with the more spread out series and going with the 3-man rotation, you have a better chance of getting stuck with Sabathia and Burnett having just pitched and unable to start games one or two in the ALCS.

[32] Joba has pitched his way out of my playoff consciousness.

Yep.

[34] I'll give you 2008. But that's about it!

Of course, we'll never know if Chamberlain could have kept up his dominance as a reliever had they just stuck with him there. Just as we'll never know what type of starter he might have been had they never put him in the bullpen in the first place.

I do know that I want Hughes as a starter and it'll be a real laugh riot if they decide to keep him in the bullpen forever.

[51] Just as we'll never know how good of a starter he (Joba) will be should the give up on him and return him to the pen.

I find it interesting that you want Hughes as a starter even though his success as a starter has been less than Joba's, and his relief work every bit as brilliant. Yet Joba you seem to want returned to the pen.

As for me, I want them both in the rotation, and given several opportunities, until they have no choice but to move one or both to the pen for good.

Give Joba some time, he is young. Just take a look at Tampa's starter last night, Price. Last year in his short time he was lights out and this year very inconsistent. Do you think Tampa is going to put him back in the pen? No way! Joba will learn and in a couple years be a #1 starter.

My impression of Hughes and Chamberlain as starters is more or less the same: some great moments, but a lot of learning-curve mediocrity. And as great as Hughes has been in the bullpen, I don't think he's nearly the intimidating force that Joba was.

I don't want Joba returned to the pen. I think that ship has sailed, probably.

[54] And as great as Hughes has been in the bullpen, I don’t think he’s nearly the intimidating force that Joba was.

Well, I guess it's hard to measure intimidation. Let's look at some numbers:

Hughes (reliever) 2008: 34 G, 42.2 INN, 158 PA, 4.91 K/BB, 11.4 K/9 INN, .446 OPS against, 0.820 WHIP, 1.27 ERA

Joba (reliever) 2007: 19G, 24 INN, 91 PA, 5.67 K/BB, 12.8 K/9 INN, .440 OPS against, 0.750 WHIP, 0.38 ERA

Joba (reliever) 2008:30 G, 35.0 INN, 143 PA, 3.14 K/BB, 11.3 K/9 INN, .570 OPS against, 1.171 WHIP, 2.76 ERA

Joba (reliever) total: 49 G, 59 INN, 234 PA, 3.90 K/BB, 11.9 K/9 INN, .519 OPS against, 1.000 WHIP, 1.53 ERA.

So, Hughes has been a little "worse" than Joba 2007, but better than Joba 2008, and better than Joba's overall numbers as a reliever.

Maybe the opposing team was more "intimidated" by Joba, but they're hitting every bit a badly against Hughes this year.

[55] Yeah it's hard to measure intimidation. I think it's probably even harder to measure "intimidation". Maybe it's easier, though, to "measure" "intimidation".

[56] All you need to do is use the grittiness index. Though I think there' s another factor involved that escapes me at the moment.

[56] Or, one can choose to measure performance. That's usually the root I take, or at least try to take.

[57] I believe that's the BFOG factor, which is calculated exponentially, if I recall.

[58] One can and should choose to measure performance; it's not an either/or proposition. But usually the numbers trotted out fall short of telling the whole story. Personally, I find the dismissal of factors deemed unmeasurable to be a bore. Often these factors are meaningful, and beyond that if someone really went to the trouble, they'd probably be measurable too. I'm not going to disregard something because sports statisticians are too lazy to take their science to the next level.

[60] I’m not going to disregard something because sports statisticians are too lazy to take their science to the next level.

That's interesting. I usually find that those who fall back on unmeasurable factors are too lazy to look at what, if any, evidence supports their position.

Take intimidation, since that is what we were discussing. It is easy to claim that one or another pitcher was intimidating, scared batters, and the like. But if so, then surely then surely that is measurable in some way? Surely the impact is observable? If not, then what good is it.

So, when the numbers show clearly that Hughes has pitched better than Joba as a reliever (if we look at Joba's combined performance; he was a smidge better in 2007 only than Hughes has been this year), then Hughes would seem to have the greater intimidation factor. Or, perhaps intimidation is not effective at getting hitters out.

You are correct that numbers alone do not tell the whole story. But in baseball, arguably the most numerate of the major sports, numbers tell a lot of the story,and when it comes to performance, often the bulk of the story.

You may find it a bore. For me, I need to see evidence to back up assertions like "player X is not the intimidating force that player Y is."

[61] I don't think comparing straight numbers out of context - as you are doing with Chamberlain and Hughes - necessarily ought to bring about a clear verdict. What if one player was hurt? What if one was off his game for unusual reasons for an extended period of time? Certainly, these things affect performance, specially with young players. Small (and different) sample sizes, young players - I'm not about to bet everything on those numbers.

Take intimidation, since that is what we were discussing. It is easy to claim that one or another pitcher was intimidating, scared batters, and the like. But if so, then surely then surely that is measurable in some way? Surely the impact is observable? If not, then what good is it.

Easy? I don't think that something being easy is inherently a problem. And there's a difference between observable and measurable. I have observed it, but it has not been measured. And since I'm not hung up on measuring everything, I don't feel obliged to measure it; I don't need everything to be turned into a stat. No offense to those that do, but the onus on them is to make a stat for it, not me. Those that only want to look at numbers are missing some important stuff as of right now. It's putting the cart before the horse to say that if there's no number, it doesn't exist or it's meaningless. No - if there's a phenomena that is observable but not measured, then someone better get busy measuring it.

So I think starting with the intimidation factor is a good place. Stat mavens, go!

[62] No – if there’s a phenomena that is observable but not measured, then someone better get busy measuring it.

You are operating from a position of logical fallacy. If something is observable, it is measurable. If you say that someone is "intimidating," the onus is you to support that observation. How do YOU measure intimidation? Did you see several players quake or soil themselves? if so, by all means report that measurement. Maybe the "intimidation factor" could be as simple as "quotient of players who trembled at the sight of X player."

Byt if you claim to observe something, then the very fact means that there is something to measure. Now YOU go and figure out how to quantify it.

I don’t think comparing straight numbers out of context – as you are doing with Chamberlain and Hughes – necessarily ought to bring about a clear verdict.

What numbers are out of context? I merely cite and analyze. And I agree, there are SO many variables, that we can only look at the results and draw conclusions from those. Appeals to nebulous and, apparently, unprovable factors only get in the way.

Finally, I would point out that it is YOU who made a clear assertion--that Hughes in no way is as intimidating as Joba was. I only pointed out that there is no evidence to support this, and that from the evidence that we have it appears that Hughes was about as effective--if not more so--than Joba.