1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    After #1, does it even really matter? Hughes, is in a position similiar to what Clay was in last year. Let's just see how he progresses from here.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Phil Hughes

    #2 or #3? Please discuss.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnnyV219. Show JohnnyV219's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    this year we will see what Phil is made of..Hes got all the tools to be an ace..If he can show consistancy this year, Hes the #2,IMO, until CC departs..
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from glumandrew. Show glumandrew's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    Girardi has penciled in Burnett as the #2.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac32. Show pinstripezac32's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes



    right now, ideally  a 3 at best


    which isn't bad for a guy whose acronym

    is  P-Hu




    joba   4 yrs     18 -13    377 era    135 whip    SO/9 9.2

    clay   4 yrs      29-21    368 era     135 whip   SO/9 7.0

    hughes 4 yrs   31- 18   420 era     126 whip   SO/9 7.9

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Babeinsawxland. Show Babeinsawxland's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : That is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  Players do not mature at the same time.  The only advantage that Hughes has there is that it is likely his career will be longer based on average age at end of pitching career.  Going back to the original question, I would say he is a 3 at the moment trending toward a 2

    Posted by midnight

    Of course you would. But try taking off your sawx colored glasses.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    Hughes is real deal. Will be one of the top starters for Yanks this year. 1st half last year he and Pettitte were pitching like aces, Hughes tired 2nd half due to not pitching that many innings in previous 3 seasons. Yanks need him to be a solid #2 this year because who knows what they'll get out of Burnett. If Hughes pitches poorly Yanks have a major problem, but I've seen Hughes pitch alot here in CT and don't think that will be the case.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikeyinthebronx. Show mikeyinthebronx's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : That's a fair point, Zac.  The BP numbers should probably be taken out of the equation, as it's difficult to say how he would have performed as a starter.  As such, you can see improvement in Hughes over the past couple of years, though not as pronounced as with Buchholz. I think there is still a chance for Hughes to be a top pitcher in the league, but this is probably his last chance to make it happen.  After this season, he is what he is. 
    Posted by slomag


    BTW Bucholz is roughly 2 years older than Hughes.....he should be further developed at this point
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : BTW Bucholz is roughly 2 years older than Hughes.....he should be further developed at this point
    Posted by mikeyinthebronx


    Sorry to disagree, but every player developes in thier own time frame. Just because Buch is older doesn't mean he should have come along faster. Tim Wakefield didn't make it to Pittsburg until he was 25 and was 8-1 with a 2.15, the following year he was 6-11 with an ERA of 5.61. Did he suddenly go backwards with age. Sandy Koufax didn't really mature into a great pitcher until he was 25, and into his 7th full season with the Dodgers. On the other side of the coin, Don Drysdale was 17-9 with Brooklyn at the ripe old age of 20. 

    Point taken !!   
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from chain-reaction. Show chain-reaction's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    1. Sabathia
    2. Burnett
    3. Hughes
    4. Colon
    5. Garcia

    LR - Nova

    Odd man out - Mitre
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    Hughes is the bum we saw in the 2nd half last season.  That will carry over into this season.  He'll become what he truly is finally, a mediocre ml starter, a 3 or maybe a 4 guy.
    Posted by soxnewmex


    You may very well be right; but I doubt it.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikeyinthebronx. Show mikeyinthebronx's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : That is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  Players do not mature at the same time.  The only advantage that Hughes has there is that it is likely his career will be longer based on average age at end of pitching career.  Going back to the original question, I would say he is a 3 at the moment trending toward a 2. 
    Posted by midnight


    Generally it takes some time for pitchers to develop.  Of course there are exceptions, freaks of nature like Felix Hernandez can dominate at the age of 24 but in general it takes them some time.  I would agree with the earlier post, Bucholz is further along than Hughes at this point in his career.  Bucholz is very talented and has a high ceiling but its far too early in both pitchers careers to know who is going to be better.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from midnight. Show midnight's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : BTW Bucholz is roughly 2 years older than Hughes.....he should be further developed at this point
    Posted by mikeyinthebronx

    That is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.  Players do not mature at the same time.  The only advantage that Hughes has there is that it is likely his career will be longer based on average age at end of pitching career. 

    Going back to the original question, I would say he is a 3 at the moment trending toward a 2. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac32. Show pinstripezac32's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : Wow, Zac. Hard to believe that these guys have been around for 4 years.   Seems like yesterday that Joba was a rookie. Where does the time go? (Rhetorical question, truly.)
    Posted by summerof67




    greetings 67


    not much longer


    for the season to start
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from summerof67. Show summerof67's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    right now, ideally  a 3 at best which isn't bad for a guy whose acronym is  P-Hu joba   4 yrs     18 -13    377 era    135 whip    SO/9 9.2 clay   4 yrs      29-21    368 era     135 whip   SO/9 7.0 hughes 4 yrs   31- 18   420 era     126 whip    SO/9 7.9
    Posted by pinstripezac32


    Wow, Zac. Hard to believe that these guys have been around for 4 years.
     
    Seems like yesterday that Joba was a rookie.

    Where does the time go? (Rhetorical question, truly.)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    After #1, does it even really matter? Hughes, is in a position similiar to what Clay was in last year. Let's just see how he progresses from here.
    Posted by jesseyeric
    I'm hoping Phil and Clay both continue to progress. Yankees vs. Red Sox just makes following baseball a lot more fun for me.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from fizsh. Show fizsh's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    I was reading what Baseball Prospectus had to say about Hughes, and I was suprised to see that they are not that high on him.  At least, not at Yankee Stadium.  It seems that he is too much of a fly ball pitcher and allows a HR every 20 AB in New York, as opposed to 1 every 53 AB on the road.  They think unless he can induce more ground balls (5th lowest ground ball to fly ball ratio, just a "trivial fraction" from 2nd lowest) he will not be very effective in New York.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac32. Show pinstripezac32's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : A couple of issues with your WHIP stats: 1) Hughes as a starter has a 1.34 WHIP - his bullpen stats bring that career total down. 2) Clay has improved year over year in his 3 years in the Majors, while Hughes is just holding serve.
    Posted by slomag


    point taken slomag

     as far as the whip stat goes, however

    I don't think it's fair to say the hughes, held serve, didn't improve last yr




    perhaps you are using those same BP stats that you didn't want to count

     against him now
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanRock. Show SoxFanRock's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    He is scheduled to pitch against Lackey for the Home Opener
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikeyinthebronx. Show mikeyinthebronx's posts

    Re: Phil Hughes

    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes:
    In Response to Re: Phil Hughes : Sorry to disagree, but every player developes in thier own time frame. Just because Buch is older doesn't mean he should have come along faster. Tim Wakefield didn't make it to Pittsburg until he was 25 and was 8-1 with a 2.15, the following year he was 6-11 with an ERA of 5.61. Did he suddenly go backwards with age. Sandy Koufax didn't really mature into a great pitcher until he was 25, and into his 7th full season with the Dodgers. On the other side of the coin, Don Drysdale was 17-9 with Brooklyn at the ripe old age of 20.  Point taken !!   
    Posted by Hetchinspete

    there are exceptions of course as I alluded to one named Felix Hernandez earlier but and this is a big word for you GENERALLY it takes pitchers some more time to develop
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share