The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Joba making progress

Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Feb 11, 2009 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Just spoke to Joba Chamberlain. He’s up to 35 pitches off the mound and is throwing all of his pitches.

“In my mind I’m preparing for 200 innings and 30 starts,” he said.

It speaks well of him to gave gotten here so early. He really has embraced being a starter.

 
 

Advertisement

53 Responses to “Joba making progress”

  1. Axel February 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Does he still have his goater?

  2. jay destro February 11th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    just stay healthy kid

  3. Thomas Robust February 11th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    While it does depend on his pitch count passing 180 doesn’t seem realistic. Good for Joba giving his all. Maybe he’ll be an all-star sooner than later. (added by Mobile using Mippin)

  4. S.A.-The 2009 MLB season is almost here February 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    Good to hear

  5. Rishi February 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    Ignore if you want, just posting for those who don’t have Insider Access…from Rob Neyer’s blog:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Steroids or not, A-Rod’s HR pace would be similar

    Wednesday, February 11, 2009 | Feedback | Print Entry

    Hey, did you hear? Alex Rodriguez took drugs! And now everything he accomplished doesn’t count!

    Perhaps. But I wonder if it’s worth wondering how many extra home runs A-Rod actually hit, what with being loaded up on different chemicals and such. Fortunately, J.C. Bradbury’s worked the math. Money shot:

    So, what were A-Rod’s steroids worth? 2.37 home runs over two seasons, or a little over one home run a season. At least, that is the estimate based on the method I laid out above; however, it’s probably best to say that there was no observed effect. It is possible that the steroids did give Rodriguez a boost, and this may have helped him through an injury or some other factor that my estimate does not account for. It’s also likely that he hit more home runs than expected through random chance. Given the general swings in the play of the game, it is very difficult to separate true performance changes from random swings in performance. The deviation here isn’t large enough to say much.

    The important finding is that the statistical record doesn’t reveal an obvious spike in home-run performance by Alex Rodriguez during the time when he admits to using performance-enhancing drugs.

    Not a real shock here, folks. Even if you assume that performance-enhancing drugs have had a measurable impact on statistics — which is far from settled, by the way — you wouldn’t expect to see a particular player do extraordinarily unexpected things. It’s safe to say that if Alex Rodriguez had never broken a single law or a single rule, he would still today be on track for 800 home runs.

    I don’t know; maybe nobody cares. But it seems like somebody should.

  6. ANSKY February 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    When he’s ready for 200+ innings (getting there at a conservative pace) the rest of the AL is going to dread facing him for a long time.

  7. kill.schill(ing) February 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Wait a second. The Angels, says the NYP, just signed Abreu to a one year deal AT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS, FIVE?

    For FIVE million, the Yankees should have signed Abreu and sent Nady packing.

    They’d actually have saved a $1 mil.

  8. five iron from fenway February 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Who has the better season for the NY Yankees – Joba or Hughes?
    A year and a half ago the debate was over who was better. Seems moot now – but health will play a very important factor. I personally think Hughes will surprise a lot of people with the success he will have for the big club this year.
    Nice to see a big and growing list of players in camp early.

  9. Al from BK February 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Joba is going to give max effort in all his starts I can’t wait for the other guys to show-up CC and A.J.

  10. John February 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    pete, you may think that you are special because it is hot in florida, but it is 60 and sunny in NJ today. feels like a spring day

  11. Frisco Pete February 11th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    This is what it has come to

    http://bostondirtdogs.boston.c.....9_twit.jpg

  12. AROD fan February 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    I agree should have signed abreu. Unless they r planning to sign manny ramirez

  13. Thomas A. Anderson February 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    @ Frisco Pete:

    It would be very interesting to see the look on Sox fans’ faces if David Ortiz is on that list of 104.

    (Not that I dislike Ortiz in any way, mind you.)

  14. Phil February 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    He was always a starter, what’s to embrace?

  15. migames February 11th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    the yunkies is actually pretty clever for a red soxs fan…

  16. dave February 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Five iron –

    I agree with you and only hope that what you said comes true. Hughes has to go to AAA to start the year because he needs to continue to work on his third and fourth pitches but I have a lot of faith that Hughes will be a fantastic major league starter. He has everything he needs except a slightly better change but even that has improved and will continue to improve. I like hughes alot and im sure someone will get injured this season and make room for him. i THINK he will impress when he comes up. Its not like Hughes has shown us nothing – He had shown us many glimmers of greatness in between bouts of injury but he will overcome that this season I have a feeling.

    It will be Huge to have Hughes come through for us this year. Do you guys remember his outing in the playoffs relieving clemens from the pen. He was pretty solid. Then, there was the outing against the rangers where he was pitching a no-hitter and if you remember, that lineup was not some weak hitting AAAA lineup. He is just dominated everyone at every level including a few times in the majors. The people that have given up on him will look pretty foolish when he is a stalwart in the rotation in 2010. I dont think its a matter of if with hughes but only a matter of when.

  17. ANSKY February 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    SJ, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the legal end of things. What do you think the odds are of the leak being found and prosecuted, or at least someone being prosecuted for protecting the leak?

    I don’t think the pursuit of the leak will go away. It may disappear from the media’s attention but eventually (even if it takes a few years) someone will face the music.

    On a side note, I’m guessing its better than 50/50 that Canseco is in some way connected to it.

  18. Tom February 11th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Well, what do you expect. Let the Red Sox fans be smug and bask in the A-rod stuff for a little while. If (when?) the list comes out and some of their “boys” are on it, then we shall see how they react. Can’t say I’ll gloat though. However, I do enjoy some good clean schadenfreude.

    (of course they will say 2004 still “counts” because nobody failed a test)

  19. Tom February 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    Ansky, I don’t think Canseco would have had access to the list of failed tests.

  20. Jeremy February 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    kill.schill(ing),

    You’re assuming we could have traded Nady and signed Abreu. It’s not that easy.

    Abreu only signed today. There’s no way to know he would have signed with the Yankees any sooner. We trade Nady and we go into mid-February not knowing who our RF is.

    The Yankees can’t work it out so another team will wait to pull the trigger on a Nady trade until we have Abreu ready to sign.

    If we offer him more than the Angels did to ensure he signs with us, then we don’t save money over Nady.

  21. trisha - want the truth? Read Canseco's book February 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Frisco Pete, what really annoys me most about that collage is that while everyone(including the New York Daily News) is so quick to publish the list of Yankee “juicers” they are not honest enough to actually show the people with the team logo associated with the time they supposedly juiced.

    FLIPPIN LOSERS.

    Because I am a day late and a dollar short on posting with respect to some of the vanilla posts I read from an earlier thread regarding Selena Roberts “doing her job” and “bombshell information” I don’t mind if I end up being the only poster here who says that court-protected information should always remain “court protected”. If Roberts was REALLY some hot shot whoopee doo investigative reporter, she would come up with the names of players who actually took steroids AFTER the 2003 season (you know, not court-protected information), and hey, let her be brave enough to post their names and protect her sources.

    I do not want to see any of the remaining 103 names. I am an officer of the court who actually believes that when I took my oath, I wasn’t just pretending to abide by the laws of the land and uphold them some of the time but applaud others who broke them because I didn’t agee with the law. That’s what you call a legal prostitute. I’m not one. Maybe I can understand better those of you not in the legal profession feeling it is okay for laws to be broken for some “better good”. I don’t know. I’m just not one of them and never will be.

    Feel free to test me on this. I’m sure you will!

  22. Steve B February 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    “It would be very interesting to see the look on Sox fans’ faces if David Ortiz is on that list of 104.”

    Heard Schilling on Boston radio yesterday. He told the guys on the show it would be ridiculously naive to think that those 104 positive tests from 2003 don’t include some Red Sox. Wouldn’t name names, but said he had his suspicions.

  23. tg February 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    does it speak well of him that he’s there as his lawyer tried to argue away a DWI?

  24. dave February 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    I dont know how happy I am to hear that joba is already throwing. He needs to take it slow – he has never been close to a full season and i JUST hope the yanks dont push him. Every single time a player like joba is pushed to the limit after around 100 innings the previous season, they suffer for it the following season. Its like clockwork. There is soo many pitchers like this, its almost a guaranteed fact. The yanks have to be careful with him.

    Joba is the type that ALWAYS wants the baseball and girardi needs to say no, no matter how well he is doing. I hate to say it but we really do need joba for the playoffs. So if they pitch him half the season as a starter and move him to the pen thereafter and let him go to 160 innings, I think that would be reasonable. But joba cannot pitch 150 regular innings this season and then, be called upon in the playoffs time and again. Those innings add up. Thati s NOT two separate seasons right there. 160 innings should be his limit for the season plus the playoffs – NOT JUST THE SEASON!

  25. teddy February 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    how many times does joba throw at youklis this year

  26. ANSKY February 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Thomas A. Anderson – To his credit, Ortiz (who I respect) has said he’s not sure that he’s never taken something like a protein shake that had something banned in it. I don’t see that as a Bonds-type denial either. It’s feasible that anyone could have bought something at GNC that had a banned substance in the fine print that was listed under a different name. Hell, I could have taken banned stuff that way without knowing, and I even read most of the ingredients of whatever supplements I used to drink. There’s obvious stuff you avoid of course, but there’s also lots of not so obvious stuff.

    I’d some ways be surprised if he was on the list of 104, but in other ways I also wouldn’t be. Its also possible he’s using uncertainty as an ‘out’ too.

  27. SJ44 February 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Ansky,

    Depends on how much money and mite the government puts behind any investigation re: the leak.

    Put it to you this way….

    If they spend 1/3 of the amount of money Jeff Novisky has spent so far on this steroid witchhunt, they will find out the person(s) who leaked the info inside of 3 months.

    If its just a cursory, “We tried” deal, they won’t find out who did it.

  28. Steve B February 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    “does it speak well of him that he’s there as his lawyer tried to argue away a DWI?”

    Not really, but it doesn’t speak poorly of him either. He has as much right as anyone to the best possible legal representation.

  29. arodthe greatjuicer February 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    Of course Joba would embrace being a starter, considering; mediocure starters make more than stud relievers.

  30. Tom February 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    Trisha, I agree. What’s the point of exposing 1 cheater while covering up and protecting the names of four felons?

    I know Roberts isn’t breaking any laws (media sheild), but, she can’t claim the moral highground here either.

  31. five iron from fenway February 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    dave – Hughes showed flashes of stuff and poise in his brief stints in NY. Even last year he would look good for periods of time and then give up the big inning. Reports from AZ were that he gained back some velocity and was working on the secondary pitches. I agree he will start in SWB. I actually hope to catch a Pawtucket/SWB in RI in May – hopefully it will be Hughes. But by June/July someone from the starting 5 will need a breather or a DL stint and up comes Mr Hughes who will have utterly dominated AAA.
    Steve – Vaughn, Jeremy Giambi and Canseco were with the Sox as were Clemens, Nomar, Gagne etc. It will not be at all surprising to see the likes of Ortiz, Varitek, Youk etc. Not accusing but would not be surprised.

  32. Jeremy February 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    kill.schill(ing),

    FYI MLBtraderumors.com says the Abreu deal is still being hashed out and will likely contain incentives that will drive up its value.

    It’s still a terrific bargain for the Angels. It amazes me that Giambi and Abreu made about $37 million combined playing for us last season and will now make less than a third of that.

    Will you might disagree with my opinions about the Yankees’ ability to re-sign Abreu and trade Nady, I think we can both agree that the Yankees made a terrific move by declining arbitration to Abreu.

  33. jennifer February 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Thomas and Tom

    They will say but David didn’t know what he was taking. He is already setting up his defense that he was clueless about what was in his shakes. I don’t buy it for Alex, and I don’t for one millisecond buy it for David.

  34. Tom February 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    I think the Angels should be after Dunn too-1b/DH type.

    Imagine being able to get Abreu and Dunn for less than half of what Teixeira makes. (this was not a “hit” on the Teix move. I love the fact that he’s a Yank).

  35. trisha - want the truth? Read Canseco's book February 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Tom, thanks.

    :)

    It’s always good to have you to share with.

    I have to say that I don’t think Roberts is protected by the shield law here anymore than the SF guys were protected by the shield law. Well they were sentenced to 18 months in prison for refusing to give up the name of the person who leaked the info, and only because the person came forward did they avoid prison.

    Gotta race (I hate the hit and run posting) but will look forward to any response when I check in later.

  36. ANSKY February 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Tom, I don’t think Canseco was the primary source of the leak either. But I’m guessing its better than 50/50 that he was at least in some way connected to it/this.

  37. dave February 11th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Rishi,

    My post a few hours ago, i WAS SAYING almost the exact same thing. You look into the numbers taking park factors and his age into account based on when players usual breakout and there is absolutely no evidence that arod was given any sort of major boost in his stats. If anything, the numbers he put up are almost exactly what one would expect him to do in a place like arlington in most players breakout seasons of 26,27 and 28 years old. There is no way any one could take those stats and make any sort of argument that the numbers are enhanced. So what has the media done? They have decided to completely avoid talking about his stats and distortions in them because that would contradict their point and they go out of their way to avoid any solid evidence that contradict what they are trying to get across to the public.

    The only anomaly in those numbers is the year he came to the yanks, he fell off a bit at a time when most players are still on the rise and improving their numbers. I think that could be attributed to the roids or to his mental loss of confidence at the plate from knowing he was no longer taking them which is a major factor. But those deviate his numbers downwards so if anything, if he didnt take the roids his numbers may be slightly improved or if there is any slight improvement during the three years prior, the downward trend in 2004 actually evens it back out. Hard to use that as an argument against arod being a HOF though. I know there is still the whole thing about character, integrity and positive impact on the game or whatever that nonsense is but there are a ton of players in the hall that cheated, lied and were detrimental to the game of baseball at one point or another.

    And arod being outed while 103 other players hide in the bushes, is actually forcing arod to take the blame for everyones transgressions. He is not naming all the other guys who did it like canseco even though Im sure he knows of a few that we dont but he is just letting the entire burden fall on him. I think that is unfair to force him to do that but in a strange way, he is protecting the other guys by allowing his own reputation to be destroyed without ever complaining that his name was the only one out of 103 to be revealed. I know if I were in that position I would be pissed about it but you cant say arod isnt taking it like a man. Not once during the interview did he ask why he was the only one sitting under the hot lamp and not the other 100 guys. To me, that is somewhat admirable.

  38. SJ44 February 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    There you go Trisha having the NERVE, the outright GALL to actually follow the rules of the court.

    Sarcasm added of course! lol

    You see folks, this is the stuff that ticks some of us off more than others.

    Arod tested positive for steroids. Ok, great. Another baseball player got caught juicing. Big freaking deal.

    HOW he got caught is a bigger crime than him testing positive.

    Unfortunately, too many people in the sports media think the “end justifies the means”. It doesn’t. It never does.

    We are a nation of laws. We aren’t a nation of, “I’ve spent 12+ million dollars, empaneled three grand juries and got nothing to show for it”, screw it, let’s leak Arod’s name and get another pound of flesh” type of society.

    That’s not how the system is supposed to work.

    Nobody is making Arod out to be a scapegoat who share Trisha’s, mine and others frustrations with how this information came out. He did it and he has to live with the consequences.

    Its HORRIFYING that the goverment would be involved in something like this. I believe one of the 4 “sources” of this came from the governments side of the table. I would be shocked if it didn’t.

    This wasn’t information Selena Roberts “stumbled” upon. This was information given to her by someone, corraborated by three other people, that is in DIRECT violation of the law. That’s a coordinated leak meant to hurt somebody. Unacceptable and illegal in our society.

    I hope this judge has the intestinal fortitude to demand and full and complete investigation to find out who did it.

  39. whozat February 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Pete…of course Joba’s embracing being a starter. He spend what, four or five months out of his entire life as a reliever?

    I just don’t understand why “pitcher returns to role he’s had since he was in college” is such a story. I hate when it’s portrayed (Pete doesn’t do this) as the Yankees “converting” a guy from a reliever to a starter.

  40. Jeremy February 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    trisha,

    I also hate it when the Post/News do things like post a picture of ARod in a Yankee uniform with a giant syringe in his arm, along with a story that he used PEDs while on a different team.

    Do they think about the possibility that someone will see the picture and think the story says ARod juiced as a Yankee? Do they care?

    As for Roberts, whether we like it or not, freedom of the press allows reporters to publish just about anything short of troop movements in wartime. They just can’t break the law to get information.

    The ends don’t justify the means, but it’s far from clear that she broke any laws. The people who leaked ARod’s name to her sure did, and I hope they’re prosecuted.

    As for Roberts, she did not commit a crime by being the recipient of the leak and publishing what she knew.

    The question for a court to decide is whether the public interest in identifying the persons responsible for the leak outweighs Roberts’s First Amendment right to conceal her sources, such that Roberts should be ordered to divulge her sources or be jailed for contempt.

    This is a very thorny issue because the First Amendment resists any efforts to chill the freedom of the press. Forcing a reporter to give up her confidential sources on fear of imprisonment would result in a major chilling effect. It could result in reporters declining to write other stories, very important stories, that would require keeping their sources secret.

    As you know, I think Roberts is a hack who stands for much of what’s wrong with sports journalism today. But subjecting her to prosecution would make me extremely uncomfortable. I would much prefer if she just couldn’t get a job and no one bought her book.

  41. T15D23 February 11th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    My fear, Joba does not have the innings behind him and could end up on the DL by June.

    Heck, after a little over 60 innings as a starter last year, he ended up on the DL.

    He throws too many pitches and needs to LEARN how to pitch. Yes, he has the raw talent, but I prefer him as the set up to Mo and eventually to take that roll from Mo when he retires.

    So, we’ll see.

  42. jennifer February 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    One thing I keep hearing is they want the other 103 names released so the “clean” players won’t have this hanging over their heads. Well were they not told when they were going to be tested? So the 104 that got caught were the ones stupid enough not to cycle off.

    Correct?

  43. Steve B February 11th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Jeremy:

    Given that it seems highly unlikely that Arod will ever be dragged before congress or a judge as a result of this, do you envision the court and/or AG minimizing the importance of identifying the leak? Seems to me that this is where the Bonds matter and Arod’s differ.

  44. m February 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    Making progress? What step is Joba on?

  45. Jeremy February 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Steve B,

    I could see it going either way. GB7 posted an article about the California state judge who issued the sealing order that made it seem like the judge supported an investigation. She can’t bring Roberts into her court on her own though. I have no idea whether it makes legal or political sense for state or federal authorities to try to identify the source of the leak.

    As an aside, I wonder if Roberts hopes to be brought into court and held in contempt? It would raise her profile even more. She could write another book.

  46. trisha February 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Jeremy actually it is crystal clear. Crystal clear. There is no 1st Amendment protection when it comes to divulging court-protected information. And if they decide to attempt to get an indictment against whomever leaked that information and Roberts is called to testify, here is her “privilege”. This actually came from the case against the SF reporters who leaked court-protected information regarding testimony on steroid use:

    “In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme
    Court flatly rejected the claim that there is a First Amendment reporter!s privilege that allows reporters to resist giving evidence in a grand jury investigation being conducted in good faith. The Court engaged in a thorough analysis of the competing interests, balancing the public!s right to “every man!s evidence” as the grand jury fulfills its vital role in law enforcement against the alleged chilling effect that giving evidence would have on news gathering activities. The Court came down firmly on the side of requiring reporters, like everyone else, to heed the grand jury’s call for testimony.

    On a record similar to the one in this case, the Court: held that the public interest in effective law enforcement outweighed the uncertain adverse effects from requiring those few reporters who have evidence of a crime to give evidence; recognized that courts should not be placed in the role of balancing law enforcement interests and the interests of reporters on a case-by-case basis; and concluded that courts should intervene only in
    cases where it is shown that an investigation is being conducted in bad faith. Where, as here, there is no such showing, there is no First Amendment reporter’s privilege to resist giving evidence to a grand jury.”

    She has NO 1st Amendment right to aid and abet in breaking the law.

  47. Jeremy February 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Trisha,

    The language you quoted says what we both agree on: Roberts can be held in contempt for refusing a court order to name her sources.

    This is different than prosecuting Roberts for being an accomplice.

  48. ANSKY February 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Jeremy

    I would hope it would convince reporters to make sure they’re not protecting sources who got their information illegally.

    If their source isn’t legal, they’ve got to be held responsible for being an accomplice (in some way shape or form) to the breaking of a law. Even if they’re exposing someone who broke a law.

    If they know their source is on the right side of the law, then they’re entitled to write what they’re going to write and to protect their sources.

  49. ANSKY February 11th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    She could just be in contempt or she could be an accomplice depending on what actually happened.

    If she’s just protecting her source, then she’s in contempt as I understand it.

    If she went so far as to ask someone in the court to unseal the info or even just to answer yes or no to any questions she may ask them (“So was A-Rod on the list or not, Mr Court Clerk?”) she’s got to be an accomplice of some sort to that person breaking the law. I don’t know exactly how in legal terms, but it’s got to be somehow.

    I’m not saying she actually did this … just saying for example.

  50. Boston Dave February 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    SJ44,

    How much $$ (taxpayer dollars) has been spent in your best estimation to investigate steroids in MLB over the past several years?

    “If they spend 1/3 of the amount of money Jeff Novisky has spent so far on this steroid witchhunt, they will find out the person(s) who leaked the info inside of 3 months.”

    I wonder how people would feel if they saw that number plastered on newspapers across the country.

  51. ANSKY February 11th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Its also possible the person asking the court clerk if A-Rod was on the list was Canseco himself, or at least somehow connected to Canseco.

    And its also very possible Canseco knew of the steroids first hand.

  52. trisha - want the truth? Read Canseco's book February 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Jeremy,

    I would love to see Roberts be held in contempt of court if she refuses to give up her source. I think the only “chilling effect” it would have would be one I would applaud. Reporters would no longer feel they are above the law!

    Reporters do have a lot of protection when it comes to protecting sources, and there are shield laws in place. But it tends to fall apart for them when it is the court itself that has issued an information protection order and a reporter allows the information to be published. If the court turned a blind eye to that, it may as well stop issuing court orders on protecting information.

  53. RhapsodyInBlue February 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Take it slow Joba, we need you.


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581