Best of THESE young pitchers??

[AVM]

To be fair to those of us that voted for Hughes, he was a bigger prospect than any of these guys. And has better control than any of these guys.

Homer glasses off aside, because Hughes has not proven it at the big leagues yet (outside of his no-no), I'd go with Verlander, then Felix, Kazmir & Hamels. I cant even put Liriano on the list until he comes back from injury and looks as good as he did last year. If he gets back, then I'd put him 2nd behind Verlander.

But Hughes will probably be better than all of these guys. Or at least I hope!

Great post B. I actually like Kazmir and Hamels a little more than Felix, although Felix COULD be the best of the bunch if he tried harder. I also agree with Liriano 100%--you never know how he'll come back, or even IF he'll come back. True, he had great stuff, but that great stuff may be done for good.

[GimmeShelter]

Whatever. From what I hear about Hughes he could very well turn out to be a better pitcher than most of these guys, but at this point he is completely unproven and we'll have to wait and see.

I picked Verlander because he is the most proven of any of these guys and is the most consistent one as well.

Outside of the Yankee hype machine a lot of scouts project Hughes as a 3 or 4 starter.

Felix Hernandez was a much bigger prospect hence the name "King Felix" before he even entered MLB.

[GimmeShelter]

Think of it like this-Greg Maddux and Doc Gooden came up at about the same time. Now, on raw ability, it's no contest. Gooden, form the brief time he spent in the minors and his first few years with the Mets, was a great raw physical talent-95 + heat, drop-off-the-table curve. Maddux, on the other hand, looks like a school assistant principal and has never been in danger of clocking anywhere near Nolan Ryan.But from the beginning he knew how to pitch, as well as almost anyone.

Looking back now, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would take Gooden over Maddux given the way their careers have turned out.

I'm a Yankee fan. I hope Hughes is great. But right now, the guys in the bigs winning, and doing so with polish,are Verlander and Hamels. I hope someday soon I have a different answer. And same thing with Brackman-we're talking 2007, not 2009.

Good post...it's easy to forget just how dominant Maddox was after his first two seasons.

[madmike1]

Outside of the Yankee hype machine a lot of scouts project Hughes as a 3 or 4 starter.

Felix Hernandez was a much bigger prospect hence the name "King Felix" before he even entered MLB.

What scouts? And that one idiot in Ken Rosenthal's column doesn't count. Hughes was a top 3 prospect on EVERY list. Calling him a 3-4 is completely insane. He's a 21 year old who throws 97 MPH with pinpoint control, a plus curve a plus change and great makeup. Stop being a blind yankee hater.

[Scott Dierking]

What scouts? And that one idiot in Ken Rosenthal's column doesn't count. Hughes was a top 3 prospect on EVERY list. Calling him a 3-4 is completely insane.

Prospects are just that, prospects.

Proven nothing. To say a prospect is a better pitcher than an established pitcher is crazy

[madmike1]

Prospects are just that, prospects.

Proven nothing. To say a prospect is a better pitcher than an established pitcher is crazy

Hughes will be better than about 95% of major league pitchers. And thats probably a low number.

[Scott Dierking]

Hughes will be better than about 95% of major league pitchers. And thats probably a low number.

What proof do you have to help your case?

Mike, what will his lifetime numbers project to?

So he will be in the HOF?

[madmike1]

What proof do you have to help your case?

Mike, what will his lifetime numbers project to?

So he will be in the HOF?

I'm not in the numbers projection business. His numbers show that he has the ability to be a dominant pitcher.

[Barton]

Outside of the Yankee hype machine a lot of scouts project Hughes as a 3 or 4 starter.

Felix Hernandez was a much bigger prospect hence the name "King Felix" before he even entered MLB.

One scout said that. One. And he's a moron.

If you think Hughes is a product of yankee hype machine then you need to take the blinders off. He's an ace projected.

[Scott Dierking]

I'm not in the numbers projection business. His numbers show that he has the ability to be a dominant pitcher.

Its all you talk about.

Does he project to a HOF pitcher?

[madmike1]

Its all you talk about.

Does he project to a HOF pitcher?

If he doesn't have injury problems I could easily see him putting up HOF caliber numbers. He's that good.

[JetsMan57]

I think King Felix has the best stuff, and in time will end up being the best of that group. But that is some list though..

[Blackout]

You are too much sometimes.

Until proven otherwise, Verlander, Liriano and Hernandez are the top 3 on that list with Verlander the clear winner due to the arm problems experienced by the other two.

Hughes has had one good Major League game. I'd put Rich Hill and Hamels ahead of him as well.

rich hill is 28. not so young.

[GimmeShelter]

rich hill is 28. not so young.

27 but suprised that old.

[Blackout]

of the guys in the majors

i rank it

1-hamels

2-liriano

3-kazmir

4-felix

5-verlander

Statistically Liriano has been the best, but obviously the others have more time on him.

I don't know what to think of Hughes or Bailey yet, Hughes is going to be good though and Bailey is at worst guilty of being over hyped but sitll solid.

and Lincecum looks like poop in the majors, all he can do is strike you out or let you hit off him.

[Blackout]

Kudos to MasonJet for once of breaking out of the Yankee Kiddie Coffee Club and voting for on other than a Yankee.

i had the second vote and voted for hamels

[PFSIKH]

I'm not in the numbers projection business.

His numbers show that he has the ability to be a dominant pitcher.

WTF are you talking about?

What numbers?

Do you get confused with your own BS?

[madmike1]

WTF are you talking about?

What numbers?

Do you get confused with your own BS?

Just because I don't want to guess what his actual numbers are going to be doesn't mean I can't look at the numbers he has compiled so far and know he's going to be a good pitcher. There IS a difference. You obviously don't know the difference between evaluating stats and making projections.

[PFSIKH]

Just because I don't want to guess what his actual numbers are going to be doesn't mean I can't look at the numbers he has compiled so far and know he's going to be a good pitcher. There IS a difference. You obviously don't know the difference between evaluating stats and making projections.

I am just asking what numbers.

His 10 innings pitched?

[madmike1]

I am just asking what numbers.

His 10 innings pitched?

Do I really have to keep saying that i'm not basing anything on his 2 starts this year? The guy has a 3 year track record.

[PFSIKH]

Do I really have to keep saying that i'm not basing anything on his 2 starts this year? The guy has a 3 year track record.

In the minors.

Obviously, this guy has talent and all estimations on his pro potential suggests the Yanks have a real good pitcher.

However, he needs to prove it on the field. Tony Mandriach was projected to be a great football player. However, he is in any Top 5 list of draft busts.

He has a long way to go.

[madmike1]

In the minors.

Obviously, this guy has talent and all estimations on his pro potential suggests the Yanks have a real good pitcher.

However, he needs to prove it on the field. Tony Mandriach was projected to be a great football player. However, he is in any Top 5 list of draft busts.

He has a long way to go.

Pitchers don't just appear in the majors and pitchers with the track record he has don't bust without catastrophic injuries.

[SouthernJet]

And Hughes could wind up being an injured bust his entire career.

Who knows? NO ONE

plus,,3 years in college ACC ball is not like he hasnt been pitching,,

[SouthernJet]

I'm not in the numbers projection business. His numbers show that he has the ability to be a dominant pitcher.

WTF are you talking about?

What numbers?

Do you get confused with your own BS?

hahaha

POTW nominee

game, set, match

[SouthernJet]

Do I really have to keep saying that i'm not basing anything on his 2 starts this year? The guy has a 3 year track record.

in the minors,,if it was in top college ball it would be more convincing,,aka Andrew Miller

[SouthernJet]

andrew miller

he sure looked good,,again,, last night,, he might be a Phillip Huges, but he looks great

[Barton]

in the minors,,if it was in top college ball it would be more convincing,,aka Andrew Miller

LOL.

Double A and Triple A are alot tougher than college ball. Are you actually being serious?

Miller has a great arm, but his control is erratic to say the least.

[Scott Dierking]

LOL.

Double A and Triple A are alot tougher than college ball. Are you actually being serious?

Miller has a great arm, but his control is erratic to say the least.

I would not necessarily make that statement comparing college ball to the minors.

recent studies have indicated that college players reach the majors at a younger age, and at a higher frequency than the minor league counterparts.

College pitchers have it rougher than Minor leaguers. They are dealing with aliminum bats, where pitcher pitches get hit hard, where a wooden bat breaks.

Not a fair comparison you make,

[SouthernJet]

in the minors,,if it was in top college ball it would be more convincing,,aka Andrew Miller

LOL.

Double A and Triple A are alot tougher than college ball. Are you actually being serious?

Miller has a great arm, but his control is erratic to say the least.

I would not necessarily make that statement comparing college ball to the minors.

recent studies have indicated that college players reach the majors at a younger age, and at a higher frequency than the minor league counterparts.

College pitchers have it rougher than Minor leaguers. They are dealing with aliminum bats, where pitcher pitches get hit hard, where a wooden bat breaks.

Not a fair comparison you make,

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/608879.html

College stars ripen faster

They make majors faster than high schoolers, but pitchers may have more wear

Luciana Chavez, Staff Writer

When North Carolina teammates Andrew Miller and Daniel Bard were drafted in the first round of the 2006 Major League Baseball draft, both had a better than good chance of quickly making it to the majors.

Not because of their talent, although both have plenty, but because three years ago both decided to go to college.

"I guess [major league clubs] believe colleges are doing their job well," N.C. State coach Elliott Avent said.

Miller got to the major leagues first. He's 2-1 in two stints with the Tigers so far this season. He's one of three 2006 first-rounders who have made the jump so far.

Bard, meanwhile, is playing for Class A Greenville (S.C.) and was part of a no-hitter by the Drive last week.

Professional teams like college players on draft day, even if they have mixed feelings about it.

"I think most clubs, in a lot of ways would rather have high school players," Atlanta Braves scout Billy Best said, "because you can raise that kid. ... But for various reasons, maybe [the player's] signability, sometimes owners look for the [college kid] who might make it [to the majors] more quickly."

Looking at the 1993-96 baseball drafts, 37.9 percent (22 of 58) of all college first-round picks made in those years had reached the major leagues by 1997 compared to 19.4 percent (12 of 62) of all high school first-rounders.

In the 2003-06 Major League drafts, 34.7 percent (25 of 72) of all college first-round draft picks in those years had made it to the bigs by 2007 compared to 12.5 percent (6 of 48) of all high school first-rounders.

College players are more physically mature. They are less of an unknown because scouts have three years to watch them. They're also relatively cheaper to acquire because another entity, a university or college, has paid to develop the players in those first three years out of high school.

Andrew Brackman, a right-hander on the Wolfpack staff, went to the New York Yankees with the 30th and final pick of the first round of the 2007 draft.

The advantage Brackman, like other college players with three seasons under their belt, has is life experience.

"When you sign a 17-18-year-old kid and take him away from home for the first time with guys who are older, from different backgrounds, different cultures, it's difficult," Avent said. "Even though the organizations spend a great amount of time with tests and checks and getting to know the players, if you take a college junior who is 21 years or older, by that time he's physically and mentally mature enough to handle all the things I just mentioned."

College pitchers are a bit of an exception to what statistics show. Older, in their case, means used longer -- and pitchers only have so many fastballs and curves loaded in their arms.

Scouts have to gauge how much wear-and-tear pitchers have suffered playing with the "the win-at-all-costs" mentality of college coaches. "But I don't think there is a concrete answer why college players, in general, succeed quicker," Best said. "It's just a philosophy [to pick one type over the other]. Every team has a different philosophy. ... You do the best you can."

[Barton]

I would not necessarily make that statement comparing college ball to the minors.

recent studies have indicated that college players reach the majors at a younger age, and at a higher frequency than the minor league counterparts.

College pitchers have it rougher than Minor leaguers. They are dealing with aliminum bats, where pitcher pitches get hit hard, where a wooden bat breaks.

Not a fair comparison you make,

What SJ is saying is that Andrew Miller is more convincing because he dominated college, than Phil Hughes who dominated the minors.

He is way off. Its the other way around.

[madmike1]

in the minors,,if it was in top college ball it would be more convincing,,aka Andrew Miller

College ball is about equal to the A+ level of the minors. Thats why most high drafted college players start there.

[Scott Dierking]

What SJ is saying is that Andrew Miller is more convincing because he dominated college, than Phil Hughes who dominated the minors.

He is way off. Its the other way around.

I am not talking about specific players.

I am talking about generalities, where it is proven that more collegiate players get to teh Majors faster.

Also, College pitchers are more polished than their minor counbterparts.

As teh SJ article also points out, college pitchers may be abused a bit more.

[Scott Dierking]

College ball is about equal to the A+ level of the minors. Thats why most high drafted college players start there.

The reason that they start them there is to get them integrated into teh system. They want to establiesh organizational hierarchy.

It does not relate to what their talent level is.

many of them graduate up to AA within the year of being drafted.

AAA is pretty non relevant to much of minor league development anymore. It is mostly a reserve for the big club, compared to what it once was.

[mbn007]

Much as I wanted to vote Hughes, I look at this poll as a group of pitchers with some decent amount of Major League experience, vs. another group that has limited experience.

I voted Verlander. Basically, based on his Major League body of work, it really is no contest. Now, if I had a choice, and everyone was healthy, i would pick Liriano, then Felix, then Verlander. But if I needed 1 guy from this group, today, I take Verlander. He's the best of that list at this point in time.

I really believe that in 3 years, we will all agree that Hughes is head and shoulders above the rest of this list. But right now, based on Major League experience, Verlander is the guy.

[madmike1]

The reason that they start them there is to get them integrated into teh system. They want to establiesh organizational hierarchy.

It does not relate to what their talent level is.

many of them graduate up to AA within the year of being drafted.

AAA is pretty non relevant to much of minor league development anymore. It is mostly a reserve for the big club, compared to what it once was.

Wrong again as usual. MOST College players who are just trying to get used to pro ball start out in a rookie ball league such as the the NYPL and it's a known fact that only the more advanced college players start out in A+ which (i'll say it again) is considered close to or better than the level of competition of D1 college baseball. If a pitcher dominates A+ and AA like Hughes has, saying he's not as advanced because he's not a college pitcher is completely foolish.