Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Dierking

Turns out Phil Hughes is just bad, not hurt

Recommended Posts

Hate to agree with Mike, but giving up a HR on your 61st pitch when you are on a 60 pitch count doesn't seem like a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't you fags be fighting over whether 2 runs in 5 innings (none over the last 4) is good or bad with his terrible "peripherals" tonight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched and I thought he looked terrible, slightly better than the atrocious outings in the beginning of the season.

2 swings and misses all night- non of which on his fastball. Indians hit the ball hard....very lucky it was only 2 runs.

I'm not sure how I feel. I really liked the way Nova had been pitching, so I'm not real happy with this move. OTOH, I think I pretty much saw what I expected from Hughes. It would be nice if he had been stronger, but I don't expect to see enough until he's had at least 3 starts. I think terrible is a little harsh, but he certainly didn't look particularly good.

Phil Hughes' 2010 campaign is all the proof you should need to convince the saber-naysayers that wins are the least meaningful pitching statistic when trying to gauge relative performance.

At 9.03 runs/game, Ivan Nova ranks 2nd in the AL this season, just behind Jake Arrietta.

Statistically you might be right, but Nova has been pitching very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post wasn't a knock on Nova, but simply a retort to Max's Tx-esque troll job.

Just win baby.

I know, but I had already quoted you and responded. It was just easier to edit than erase the post. I like Nova. Shame he had the options so he had to be the odd man out. I'd plenty comfortable with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHIP was invented in 1979. And FIP is a lot better at predicting future ERA than ERA itself is.

Yeah. Invented. Back when I was a kid we had to add up the walks and hits divide by innings pitched all by ourselves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing you had a slide rule to do the heavy lifting.

One word. Abacus.

I don't think the Comodore 64 could handle such sophisticated calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was at Jets camp today and then had some family over. Any update on this thread? I think Hughes started today and I know the Yankees won. Any update on how Hughes looked? Thanks.

He looked pretty ******* confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the result he didn't look horrible tonight. The pitch to Papi was bad, but otherwise okay. His fastball seemed to be hitting 94 regularly, but those guns may be optimisitc. I also missed most of when he was getting knocked around so take it with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was a good pitcher, he'd pitch well against everyone, home or away. Fact is he is mediocre at best.

Maybe he pitches the same and better offensive teams just hit better? Seems to be the norm. He gives up too many homers. Otherwise he seems to be doing pretty well. Not MadMike well, but no complaints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason opposing fans stick to Hughes is obvious. Hughes represented for the Yankee fan base that opportunity to groom one of their own hand-picked pitchers into a star-Something the Yankees have not done for some time (developed a big time starter). The Yankees sold their fan base that this kid was going to be it and people and the media jumped on that (see the fervor with Banuelos and Betances last year-now, not so much).

Fans want to see home grown talent succeed. It is a natural fan selection. The excuses that some allow with Hughes is slightly amusing to watch-If he was Joe Blow acquired in a trade, the passion would be gone and the clamor would be to "get this bum off the team".

Like Nova?

I'd rather keep them and live with the ups and downs than trade them for Ken Phelps. I'd rather have held guys like Lilly, Kennedy and I was pissed going back to Tewksbury, Rijos and the first Doug Drabek. I'm glad they held on to Chamberlain and Hughes no matter how mad it makes you and Carl and irrational it made guys like Mad Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally understand that.

It does not make me mad, more amused. Let's just call Hughes what he is-a mediocre talent. And there is nothing wrong with that-pitchers like that can thrive for 12-15 years in this league.

But realize, that any 2 week sustained glimpse of very good pitching, may not necessarily make him the next incarnation of Bob Gibson.

He's not a mediocre talent. He's a pretty high up the talent scale - see MadMike. He's a mediocre pitcher.

Part of the problem is the constant berating Yankee fans get for "not having any homegrown talent". That's why we cling to these guys so tightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point (and I would say that close to 150 appearances on the mlb level qualify), your talent becomes par with your performance. Hughes' has been no more than mediocre. One would surmise that his talent is similar.

Not worth arguing about. Just talking about ceiling vs. production. Baseball, in particular pitching, involves a hell of lot more than what I term as "talent". I'm happy enough with the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...