As a starter, Joba has had better numbers over a larger sample size when compared to all Hughes/Aceves. That is even true if you **include** his horrendous late season numbers from 2009, which should (arguably) be chucked in the trash since the Yankees were jerking him around so much.”

couldn’t have said it better myself. No one is saying hughes should be the heir to mo but would it have been bad if he was a reliever this yr. Joba already has the innings and started for the entire yr minus the PS season. I’m not saying he should have just been given the job but according the everyone the battle was not a battle at all. It was hughes’ job all along

I continue to be dumbfounded by how this easy decision is being made into a complex bunch of nonsense.

As a starter, Joba has had better numbers over a larger sample size when compared to all Hughes/Aceves. That is even true if you **include** his horrendous late season numbers from 2009, which should (arguably) be chucked in the trash since the Yankees were jerking him around so much.

If you agree we should chuck those, then Starter Joba has obviously and sharply outperformed Hughes, Aceves, Gaudin.

If you disagree about chucking ‘em, then Joba has merely outperformed them.

In either case, he’s been better, longer. So, why the hell is this decision so difficult, again?

I expect teams like the Royals and Twins to go out of their way to avoid the obvious and correct solution. I’ll be very disappointed if the Yankees wind up doing so.

Joba:
W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF WHIP SO/9 SO/BB
as Starter

12 7 .632 4.18 43 43 0 0 0 0 221.2 227 117 103 25 101 4 206 14 4 8 980 1.480 8.4 2.04

as Reliever
3 2 .600 1.50 50 0 8 0 0 1 60.0 39 11 10 2 20 1 79 1 0 2 237 0.983 11.9 3.95
http://www.baseball-reference......;t=p#sprel

Phil
W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF WHIP SO/9 SO/BB
as Starter

8 9 .471 5.22 28 28 0 0 0 0 141.1 144 87 82 17 59 0 112 8 0 7 621 1.436 7.1 1.90
as Reliever

5 1 .833 1.40 44 0 6 0 0 3 51.1 31 9 8 2 13 1 65 0 2 3 193 0.857 11.4 5.00
http://www.baseball-reference......;t=p#sprel

Ironically, they show that Phil was better or comparable to Joba in relief, and that Joba had more success (full point lower ERA, better K ratio) than Phil as a starter.

Also, as I recall, Phil was always more prone to the “big inning” by opposing batters than Joba, who battled with control, which could use work, but still kept the team in the game.

The point, of course, is not that it is not fun or productive to discuss these things, but that it becomes tiring when the constant refrain to any kind of patient or complex approach is some version of “Yeah, well, what about what is happening RIGHT NOW?!?!?!?” as if “now” and “later” are mutually exclusive options. As if whether or not Joba and Hughes are given the opportunity to develop as starters doesn’t impact what the team will have to do next year, and the year after that, and the year after that…

(Just imagine: Hughes and/or Joba ends up in the pen, next year you could have two-three spots in the rotation to fill. CC opts out the following year and you potentially have another two-three spots to fill…You can’t sign every available free agent, nor would you want to. It’s short-term thinking like that which caused the rotation problems of the past.)

If nothing else comes from the Joba/Hughes to the pen debate, it would be useful if it could teach people to have a more long-term, complex view of things. Of course, at a time when shouting “death panels” at someone is considered sophisticated political discourse, that is probably unlikely.