I'll bite at the opportunity to define terms. Maybe this will bring some clarity. I coach a little baseball, my kid is a pitcher and I assume that these terms are generally understood but maybe there are some regional or other variations that might mean  they have less meaning to others.  Velocity is often thought of as merely speed and the most over-rated element of pitching, However, velocity is also an element of command as the variance between the speed of the different pitches. A change up can be effective merely as a slower version of the fastball. The best recent example of this was Shingo Takatsu who depended almost solely upon variation of speed and made it work until he lost the other element of control which is accuracy. A pitcher like Greg Maddux can lack his best `stuff' ( wait one second) on a particular day but through throwing pitches where he wants them and throwing even the same pitch at different speed, defeat batters. In fact, I would argue this is about all that Jamie Moyer has.

When you hear someone say a pitcher has great stuff, it generally means idiosyncratic movement on a pitch. On a fast ball, rather than going in a predictable pattern it has alteration in course that simply makes it more difficult to hit. On a curveball it is "bite" which is a quicker, more violent (sideways or down) movement than just following a curving plane. A hung curve is a slow breaking and predictably path-ed curve and if the hitter is at all ready for it, it is over the fence. A slider (and for that matter the splitter/fork ball) is different in that it tricks the batter by looking like a fastball  but still depends on a downward break to make it harder to hit. There are guys who make it all the way to the majors on one great pitch. Keith Foulke has his circle change which has great downward break and a mediocre fastball. But he mixes them up and has made a career. The totality of his stuff is that pitch.

Much of developing a pitcher is dependent on the development of the stuff.   A pitcher with two effective fastballs, like a four seam that tails away and a cutter that moves into a right handed batter, may have enough stuff to pitch in the majors if he has control (command) of them. Some guys (Kyle Farnsworth) make it on the promise that they have enough velocity that their stuff might be developed. But guys like him and Billy Koch don't succeed for long because while they may have heat, they don't have stuff. Big league hitters will catch up to anybody eventually. It's a big concern of mine about Bobby Jenks whose fastball does not move very much

One of the problems we have here is that 'stuff' is unquantifiable and just does not appear in any statistic. You can see it and you can describe it, as I have attempted above, but it will never appear as data. It will only show up through observation. I got my MBA at a quant school and I could play around with these things but I don't think data captures everything. If you do, we should probably give up.

However Data wise: in re a study between good hitting teams versus successful teams: I moved around the teams into good hitting categories and it does  narrow the margin to about .65 era. LAA is actually in the top half of runs so they don't move. Moving Toronto and Texas is fairly insignificant. He one great and one bad performance against Texas and one mediocre one v. Toronto.  The real change comes mostly from Min. I'm certain this won't satisfy you, but  I consider them a good offensive team that had a bad year. They are the Sox chief rivals and of the last 5 games he has pitched against them he has 4 losses and his one win was (three posts in a row) against a line up that was half minor leaguers and wholly given up.

 As to the Johnson point, you make an assumption that pitchers are roughly the same from outing to outing and for stretches and periods of time. Variability means that some days guys are invincible against a good hitting team and  sometimes they get roughed up by the D Rays. Slumps can be documented if not explained satisfactorily. Johnson's ERA is not as determining as Buerhle's against opponents - witness his 7 runs allowed performances against Det and TB surrounding a 1 run performance against a better Mets team. Pitching performance is variable and that pitchers do not have the same stuff each. Two points that this leads me to: One that pitchers with great stuff may have more variation, though this is hard if not impossible to quantify w/out some v. basic suppositions regarding indentifying stuff pitchers. And Two: that the things that Buerhle does help to reduce his variablilty.

I am concerned about being interpreted  as  employing invective but when you describe things as `entirely circular' you are likely to invoke that sort of response. However your point is taken and I will refrain from antagonizing words like ludicrous.

Let me re-state the point that the peripheral things that Buerhle does are more effective against worse hitting teams than better hitting teams and address your question as to why this doesn't make him more effective against better hitting teams. My point was they are more effective because he does all these things and does them better than most pitchers. Worse hitters tend to be younger and bad hitters, unless they are exceptional fielders (rare in today's game) don't stick around. Good hitters tend to be experienced and their talent allows them to work counts more effectively. Hitting with two strikes is no big deal for Poppy; it a disaster for Joe Borchard. Nor is it as a big deal to swing at the first pitch for a veteran, whereas younger players are expected to take the first pitch and are castigated if they make an out on a first pitch. Veterans have seen more lefties. Veterans know how to control the pace of an at bat and are given more leeway generally by umpires to do so. Good fielding  however always helps.

I don't know (nor have I ever contracted) Voros McCracken but anyone who watches baseball knows there is a profound difference between a line drive and a pop up. Guys without a lot of movement on their pitches allow line drives. Guys with good stuff induce ground balls. That's what Garland gets. Guys like Buerhle get them from poor hitters, because of command and peripherals, but are less likely to do so from good hitters.I've heard baseball people say that strike outs are the most overrated stat there is. I tend to agree. There's a famous quote from Sandy Koufax that goes something like he didn't become a great pitcher until he started making hitters try and hit the ball rather try to make them miss it. I reject both the premise of the no control pitcher and also that strike outs are more important against good hitters. The more pitches a good hitter sees, the  more opportunity he has to do damage. Get them out as quickly as possible.

I don't say that Buerhle's sole determinant is his opposition. I believe that he is more sensitive to variations in the skill and experience of his opposition. This has lead him to achieve more of his success against the bottom teams (in terms of winning percentage and runs scored). Part of this comes from the simple observation that he has not performed well against good and good hitting teams and especially when we needed him.

Tonight he was on your side. Are the Injuns choking? Are they coming back to mean after their streak?

Thanks for the challenge