WasWatching.com

Hughes had 2 RSAA in 72 2/3 IP in 2007.

I just took a look at the raw data in the CBE, looking at pitchers who had at least 50 IP at the age of 21, with a RSAA +/- 2 of Hughes.

That generated 93 pitchers.

I then took a look at the median eventual career RSAA of the group.

It was 2.

In other words, a full half of the pitchers who were as good as Hughes at his age ended their careers without adding a single career RSAA above the mere 2 that Hughes already has.

Actually, I didn't really phrase that last sentence well.

A full half of the pitchers who were as good as Hughes at his age ended their careers not just not adding a single RSAA above the mere 2 that Hughes already has, but instead went in the opposite direction.

Let's not overlook the fact that Hughes was negatively impacted by the two leg injuries he sustained during the season, which affected his mechanics, and in turn, both his velocity and his command.

You can find excuses everywhere you look.

Excuses don't win games.

And, why should we presume that he will not be negatively impacted by those factors again?

The results of what happened to pitchers who were just as good as Hughes at his age show little reason for optimism. Why should we presume that leg injuries aren't going to be a contributing factor to him being one of the half of those pitchers who go below Hughes's 2007 performance level over the remaining of his career.

There are no excuses in life, but there are reasons.

Hughes isn't excused for having a subpar season, his stats are what they are, but to be able to fairly projects his future performance, it's reasonable to to factor in tangible impediments that he faced that impacted that performance.

The reason that we should not presume that he will be negatively impacted by those factors again (or at least with any regularity) is his body of work prior to that point.

Contrary to specious reports that some mediots have published, he has been healthy throughout his minor league career. When he was shutdown, it was to preserve his innings cap as he made he transition from high school to professional baseball.

So the weight of the evidence is that Hughes is a durable pitcher with the kind of high end stuff and command that allowed him to be so effective both against Texas pre-injury, and against the Indians in the ALDS after he had regained his mechanics.

I cannot wait for Hughes, Ian and Joba to start throwing to actual hitters again. It will finally put a stop -- hopefully -- to this unending argument about what or who they will become. They will pitch well or they won't, but at least we won't have to revisit these talks about not putting too much faith in them, that prospects fail, that yeah, they looked good, but they COULD suck, etc., etc., etc.

It'll be a pleasure for them to just go out there and prove things one way or another.

Also, are you really going to stick with The Second Big Three?

Hughes isn't excused for having a subpar season, his stats are what they are, but to be able to fairly projects his future performance, it's reasonable to to factor in tangible impediments that he faced that impacted that performance.

----------------

But, that can be said about so many other pitchers.

We see it all of the time. People coming up with reasons why this guy is going to be one of the success stories. Then, move on to why the next guy is going to be the success story.

Lee, you wrote the following in another post:

"Hughes has had a bad impact on the team. Positives: 2 RSAA. That's just a tiny inconsequential positive. Negative: Helped cost the Yankees the acquisition of the best picher in the AL. That's a big negative. Maybe, he might end up being worth that very high cost. But, maybe might doesn't do it. He has to prove that he was worth that very high pricetag."

I don't recall what you've written about Hughes pre-Santana deal, and I'm not saying this is the only thing coloring your opinion of Phil, but it's pretty obvious your reaction to him now was negatively impacted by the fact that you think they should have shipped him off for Santana.

I also think it's unreasonable to say HE'S been a bad impact on the team -- even if he blows up this year and Santana wins a Cy, he can't trade himself.

Steve,

This is re: your post about Giambi, who, because he didn't show up to camp early, must be an out of shape slacker:

http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2008/02/16/giambi-reportedly-in-great-shape/

People still griping about Santana not being on the team. Let it go, already.

It's going to be great to see homegrown pitching talent succeed in the MLB. There is nothing like. There is no greater joy. When was the last time the Yankees had this intrigue surrounding high ceiling pitching prospects?

I don't recall what you've written about Hughes pre-Santana deal, and I'm not saying this is the only thing coloring your opinion of Phil, but it's pretty obvious your reaction to him now was negatively impacted by the fact that you think they should have shipped him off for Santana.

------------

No.

My reaction to him now (with the sole exception of that other comment) has nothing to do with the fact that he should have been traded.

You are mixing up cause and effect.

I wanted him traded because he is a nonentity nothing, until he proves himself.

It's not the case that I now consider him to be a nothing because he should have been traded.

Okay, Lee. Let me parse my own paragraph.

"I don't recall what you've written about Hughes pre-Santana deal..."

Easy: I don't know what your opinion of Phil Hughes was before he was mentioned in trade talks for Santana, so I am not saying that your current opinion is based on that.

"...and I'm not saying this is the only thing coloring your opinion of Phil..."

Easier: I am flat-out saying that I am NOT saying your current view of Phil is based solely on the fact that if the Yankees traded him Santana would be a Yankee.

..."but it's pretty obvious your reaction to him now was negatively impacted by the fact that you think they should have shipped him off for Santana."

Which is true. Notice "negatively impacted" -- not "you now think he sucks because we don't have Santana." In the previous post, you almost seem to be blaming Phil for not volunteering to go to the Twins.

I don't understand the point of calling a person with 70 big-league innings a "nothing, a nonentity." You can't prove yourself until you're allowed to prove yourself, and he'll have that opportunity now. Considering the 130+ over 6 that the Mets had to give Santana -- and I have no doubt the Yanks somehow would have spent more -- I think Cashman was smart to stay away from him... for Phil Hughes or anyone else.

Again, I don't think your opinion of Phil is based on the Santana near-deal, but it sure seems like you have a bad vibe toward him. Maybe I'm reading the tone of your post wrong...

unfortunately, a lot of prospect analysis is going to be based on where you stand on the glass half empty/full philosophy. Lee's entitled if he sees the large potential to fail that Hughes has. Regardless, it's not fair to brand him a non-entity. Phil has very good stuff (even when he was hurt, it was above average). Most say his pitching IQ is off the charts. Being about average at the majors at his age, along with dominant in every level of the minors gives me good reason to believe there's still the very strong potential that he can be a successful big-league pitcher.

Those other 93 pitchers also fit the same criteria. They were all average pitchers at the same young age as Hughes. They all needed to have the same kind of potential as Hughes, the same kind of fasttrack through the minors in order to get those IP in the majors at such a young age.

But, those pitchers prove that pitchers with the same kind of early averageness, same kind of potential and same kind of fasttrack to the majors are not good bets to have even an expected future performance of even 1 career RSAA.

The logical extension of calling Hughes a non-entity is that all prospects are fungible, and clearly, they're not.

Via Pete Abraham:

[...]

Watched Phil Hughes throw and was impressed with his fastball. After his leg injury in May, he said his heater was 91-92 instead of the usual 93-95 it is. “It wasn’t until the playoffs when I felt complete confidence in my leg,” he said. “That was when I got my fastball back.”

Hughes said it’s not so much velocity that he counts on. It’s more the “late life” when he can throw harder. “You need your legs to follow throw and get that little extra on the pitch,” he said. “I wasn’t getting that.”

~~~Also, are you really going to stick with The Second Big Three?~~~

Probably not.

It's really silly to call them the three, or the 2nd three, etc.

What if Horne and Brackman turn out better than Hughes and Kennedy? What do you do then, call Horne/Brackman/Joba the the "3B"?

wow. Hughes has been called a 'nonentity nothing' after 75 above avg AL innings (counting the playoffs)? that must make Joba and Kennedy two meaningless, less-than-nothings.

we should try to ship them off and pray that we get back a player of Juan Pierre or Jason Kendall's quality. those guys are definitely 'proven'. cant wait for that trade!

Such list across era simply doesn't make any sense.

a.minor league system was very different, it was really INDY ball that use to be the minor leagues. and some kids simply get pulled up with no experience at all outside of a good ST.

b.era context. a significant group of the list consist of dead ball era pitchers. RSAA of 2 in that era is very different then the decade that followed it, let alone today.

c.ability context: for example, Johnny Kucks had one more RSAA then Hughes, he also had more walks then strikeouts that year AND 10 HBP. what does that really say.

d.sample size context: what does 15 IP really prove? Matt Smith was unscored upon for the same amount of time. but there's obviously a huge difference between what he did and Joba did. but if Smith were 22 year old according to your method he would have been better than Lefty Gomez? really?

Stats are a good method to evaluate players, but you need to put it in proper context and you still need to couple it with some realistic observation. Roger Clemens was the #3 starter on his college team. he was very good but there were certainly better statistical pitchers . Joba Chamberlian was a middling college pitcher. does that mean they suck?

As for the Santana trade, we could evalute it a few more years down the road. and we are never truely sure of what happened during all the negotiations. it is more than possible that the Twins simply asked a much steeper price tag than what they asked from the Mets. trade isn't just about value exchanged, it is also about context and willingness.

(and no, i simply exploded when someone suggested that we were nuts to not pull the Wang + IPK for Santana deal, even had the offer been true, your essentially trading 4 years of the 5th best pitcher in the AL over the last two year for the best one AND a good prospect for 1 year of the best pitcher in the AL and the right to pay him a gazillion bucks. and yes Wang is the 5th or 6th best pitcher in the AL over the last two year)

Thank you Steve...that was an excellent post, and your leg work as always is much appreciated.

I have to say I am pretty excited about the Big 3. The fact that they all cut through the minors like a hot knife through butter coupled with an initial performance at the ML level indicates that they will likely be successful. Of course, anything can happen - any or all can get hurt, sustain personal/emotional problems that impact their physical performance, etc. But, those things cant be prognosticated, and should not be factored into the equation.

Some of this is downright silly.
We all know that many, many top prospects fail.
We also know that many of the top young pitchers in MLB now were highly thought of prospects.

So to some extent it's a guessing game.
If you are not willing to play that game, you will never have young, cheap, quality pitching.

It seems that many other teams, with far fewer resources, have developed some fine pitching. It's simply time for the Yankees to do the same. So there will be guessing, failures, and hopefully, some success.

Of the many attributes that make a great young pitcher, Phil has a number of them. Joba does also and has fantastic stuff. As far as IPK goes, we are really only hoping for a quality #4 or #5 guy. I am happy to take a chance with these 3.

The Yankees philosophy of buying talent and trading youth HAS guaranteed a rediculously high payroll. We have gotten some very good teams, but not good enough. Our bang for the buck quotient sucks. As tasty as the Santana deal looked, it was still going down the same path that has failed for years.

We may not will it all this year, or even next. But if we continue to develop talent as we have since 2005, and we have a more reasonable payroll after 2009, we still start to have a dynasty we can sustain.