Phil Hughes vs. Clay Buchholz, who would you rather have?

[Metroidman]

I'm not saying Clay's gonna get worse

In talking about Hughes though I think he has a better chance of being better

He has much better fastball command which if you all forget is how Clemens got where he is. He also has a better curve

Granted Clay has a better change but Hughes has shown flashes of having a plus change. Not to mention Hughes's best pitch when he came into our farm was a slider which if he starts throwing could be a great pitch for him

[Javadawg44]

Originally Posted by ppa79

The discussion was that its easier to develop fastball command. So why haven't those guys developed any command yet

I don't know what you are talking about.

The statement was that it's easier to develop FB command than it is to develop as plus-plus change. You said "players a, b, c would argue that it's not easy to develop plus fastball command".....but nothing about developing said change.

Nobody was saying that it's "easy" to develop either, they were saying that in comparison it's easier to develop one rather than the other. Your statement didn't seem to fit, because it didn't address the comparison but rather simply limited itself to one of the elements of the comparison.

Certainly nothing major worth discussing 20mins before first pitch.....

[Munson's 'Stash]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'd still rather have Hughes.. I'm not bashing Clay, but other than his changeup, I don't think his stuff was anything really special. The curveball breaking down in the dirt, as already posted, will not get batters once they've seen it a few more times. I could see this kid having a lot of walks once hitters start catching on.

I just watched a DVR recording of his no no game, and your characterization of his curve seems to be pretty far off. He seems to be able to throw it for strikes pretty well, not just burying it in the dirt and relying on hitters to chase (it was the pitch to K Markakis for the final out). It's certainly a plus pitch.

He'll have a lot of problems with walks if he can't command his fastball, or establish his offspeed pitches, but I think he's going to have swing and miss stuff for quite awhile, and it should serve to help him out of some jams.

As to which one I would rather have, the answer is "whichever one stays healthier."

[YankProspector]

Something funny I just read in Sports Illustrated in regards to a Ortiz comment. It is not prospect related but I hang out here often and thought this would be a good place to put it. It's a comment by Ortiz about the Yankees.

"Those $ucker$ are smokin' hot," says Ortiz of the second-place Yankees. "They don't want the wild card. THEY WANT US."

[JeterRodriguezSheff]

Originally Posted by YankProspector

Something funny I just read in Sports Illustrated in regards to a Ortiz comment. It is not prospect related but I hang out here often and thought this would be a good place to put it. It's a comment by Ortiz about the Yankees.

"Those $ucker$ are smokin' hot," says Ortiz of the second-place Yankees. "They don't want the wild card. THEY WANT US."

Seems to be true.

-Get beat up by Detroit
-Kick Boston's ass against their top 3 starters in a 3 game sweep
-Get beat up by Tampa
-Drop the first game to Seattle

Seems like they only care about Boston.

[MaximMan121]

Originally Posted by Big_Matt34

It doesnt matter once batters start seeing him more with the curveball, when someone has a great curveball it is hard to lay-off because it looks like a strike almost all the way to the plate. The person your referring to didnt say batters wont swing at it once they see it more, he said if Clay doesnt improve his fastball command doesnt get better then they may start to lay off the off-speed stuff. Theres a reason its considered a plus to plus plus pitch, batters arent going to be able to lay off of it after just seeing it more because he can throw it for strikes too, not just in the dirt and its the same with the changeup, which makes it even more difficult for batters.

If you dont think his other stuff is anything special then you may be the only one as its pretty obvious he has sick stuff and his fastball command is only going to get better which will make him even better.

I'd respectfully disagree with your assumption that batters will not be able to lay off of Clay's curveball as they see it more.

What I expect to happen is somewhat similar to what I expected to see with Beckett (and have seen, from time to time). If he's got his top control on that curveball on any given day, he's going to be fantastic, because batters won't be able to lay off it--after seeing one or two for solid strikes in fastball counts, they'll have to try to foul it off. This will lead to a lot of swinging strikeouts.

On days when he doesn't have top control of the curveball, he's going to be in the same situation that Edwar Ramirez currently is--a 91-92 fastball (popping at 94, sure) with shoddy command, and a killer changeup.

I'd say that this is why he gave up so many HR's in the minors, and it's why Ramirez is giving up so many now.

[Matsui55]

I think what we will see for the next two seasons (2008 and 2009) will be some VERY good pitching by both (as well as Chamberlain and Kennedy- I'm not sold that Lester has the control to be a top end starter), but some realy clunkers once in a while.

Young pitchers have to make more adjustments and learn new things than veteran guys. Unfortunately, the only way to learn is to just go out and pitch- that means that while a young ace type might have top of the rotation stuff, they just don't know the tricks of the trade (or generally have the stamina) to win 18-20 games.

I think a good guess for 2008 is that Buchholz (as the #3-4 starter) goes somewhere in the 15-9 range, with a 3.80 ERA. Lester probably goes 12-10, with a 4.00+ ERA. I think Chamberlain enters next year as the #3 for the Yanks- and goes 15-7, with an ERA around 3.20. Hughes is probably the #4 starter, and goes 13-8, with a 4.00+ ERA. Kennedy probably doesn't start the season in NY, and even when he does (my guess is May, when some veteran runs out of chances), he is likely the 5th starter, so his numbers will be hurt by that. Let's say, maybe 9-5, with an ERA over 4.00.

This is because while some day, all except Lester and Kennedy will be regular 15-18 game winners, with some seasons better than that (with Kennedy and Lester likely in the regular 12-16 win range), younger guys just have more "bad" days than a vet, and will struggle more when they don't have their best stuff- even with the Boston and NY offenses.

If you want to start a better debate on these guys, look for 2009, when they should all have more than a season under their belts and be more prepared to assume major roles in their respective rotations.

[girardi08]

What makes you think that Chamberlain will have a 3.20 ERA and Hughes will have a 4.00 ERA? If anything, I think that may be reversed. I think those are optimistic too, but the point being is that I think Hughes will be a better starter than Chamberlain.

[Matsui55]

Originally Posted by girardi08

What makes you think that Chamberlain will have a 3.20 ERA and Hughes will have a 4.00 ERA? If anything, I think that may be reversed. I think those are optimistic too, but the point being is that I think Hughes will be a better starter than Chamberlain.

You are entitled to your opinion- I just happen to think that Hughes stuff does not match Chamberlain's at this point in their careers- as a result, I think Chamberlain can pitch through "down points" in his outings with raw power stuff, even if the command is off, where Hughes will get shelled without his best stuff.

[Buzah!]

Originally Posted by ziggyosk41

Hughes may be only 21, but physically he is about done developing, where many have said that Clay still has plenty to fill out on his thin frame and could still add 1-2 MPH.

That's ludicrous. Phil has a bigger frame and it's somewhat hollow up top so far. Clay is lean and he's less likely to fill out appreciably at 23 than Phil is having just turned 21.

[Buzah!]

Originally Posted by Matsui55

You are entitled to your opinion- I just happen to think that Hughes stuff does not match Chamberlain's at this point in their careers- as a result, I think Chamberlain can pitch through "down points" in his outings with raw power stuff, even if the command is off, where Hughes will get shelled without his best stuff.

you haven't seen Hughes's best stuff this year. When he bounced back, you're gonna have some revising to do, Richard.

[ballgame9]

There were two points made, one by Maxim and one by Matsui, I'll touch on Maxim first. Isn't that what could be said for every pitcher? You basically just stated that Clay will be great when his pitches are working, but will tank when he can't throw his curveball for a strike. It's fairly rare you'll find a pitcher who can get by when his off-speed stuff isn't going over for a strike.

And Matsui, right now 5 guys in the AL have an ERA under 3.2 and that's where you're putting Chamberlain at for his first full season in the bigs. AL East, rookie, 3.2 ERA? I mean, hey, if he does, good for you guys and the Yanks, but some realism needs to come into play doesn't it? Those numbers aren't #3 starter numbers, and if that's what you're thinking he will be, the numbers should look accordingly. I can see him getting the 15 wins though as the Yankees offense will hit year in and year out.

[yep]

Originally Posted by Buzah!

That's ludicrous. Phil has a bigger frame and it's somewhat hollow up top so far. Clay is lean and he's less likely to fill out appreciably at 23 than Phil is having just turned 21.

Yeah.

There's a lot of stuff along the lines of "prospects on my team are likely to get better because of (mumbo-jumbo) whereas prospects on your team are likely to get worse because of (more of same)."

It's inevitable, I suppose, but everyone seems to think that they've unlocked the magic formula to projecting MLB performance from pitching prospects and furthermore (surprise!) that formula reveals that my team's prospects are better than anybody thinks while most other prospects are overrated. We all have a little bit of Hughes2.50 in us, I guess.

Propsects are prospects and are ranked based on their *potential* to perform at a high level. The great likelihood is that *none* of these pitchers will ever reach their full potential. If any of them do, they will be among the top pitchers in baseball.

What is likely is that some will reach 70%, 60%, 80% of their potential or whatever, and will be decent-to-very-good MLB pitchers for a long time. If you get one top of the rotation starter from a class of five hot prospects you're doing pretty good. If you get two regular starters from that same class of five you hit jackpot.

This is why teams try to stock prospects. If good prospects could be relied upon to become good players then you'd only need nine position players and five starting pitchers in the farm system. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of "can't miss" prospects DO miss, and they often miss pretty hard.

For every Roger Clemens there are a hundred "next Roger Clemenses" that disappear into the minors or lurk around the waiver wire for a few years. We remember the hot prospects that turned into Arod or Clemens or whatever, but we forget about the hot prospects that turned into nobody.

The top pitching prospect in baseball at any given time is generally the guy with the highest ceiling. But it is often the case that some guy with a lower ceiling will turn out to reach something closer to his ceiling, or will stay healthier, or will figure out a better way to fool big-league hitters with lesser tools or whatever, and the second-tier prospect sometimes becomes the first-tier MLB pitcher.

Given time and big-league exposure, prospects cease to be prospects. They become players and we no longer evaluate their potential so much as their actual performance.

If we evaluate Bucholtz's major-league career to date we see that half of all his starts were no hitters. Clearly, that is the best career in the history of major league pitching. It is also completely meaningless since we already know to a certainty that 50% no-hitters is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

Similarly there is a lot of reason to think that Phil Hughes' MLB performance to date is not necessarily an indicator of what to expect going forward. Speculating and saying what their respective ERAs are probably gonna be in two years is just playing make-pretend at this point. These are top-flight prospects who have a realistic chance of being exceptional major league pitchers. They could also bust. That's the nature of prospects.

[spiritof27]

Originally Posted by yep

Yeah.

There's a lot of stuff along the lines of "prospects on my team are likely to get better because of (mumbo-jumbo) whereas prospects on your team are likely to get worse because of (more of same)."

It's inevitable, I suppose, but everyone seems to think that they've unlocked the magic formula to projecting MLB performance from pitching prospects and furthermore (surprise!) that formula reveals that my team's prospects are better than anybody thinks while most other prospects are overrated. We all have a little bit of Hughes2.50 in us, I guess.

Propsects are prospects and are ranked based on their *potential* to perform at a high level. The great likelihood is that *none* of these pitchers will ever reach their full potential. If any of them do, they will be among the top pitchers in baseball.

What is likely is that some will reach 70%, 60%, 80% of their potential or whatever, and will be decent-to-very-good MLB pitchers for a long time. If you get one top of the rotation starter from a class of five hot prospects you're doing pretty good. If you get two regular starters from that same class of five you hit jackpot.

This is why teams try to stock prospects. If good prospects could be relied upon to become good players then you'd only need nine position players and five starting pitchers in the farm system. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of "can't miss" prospects DO miss, and they often miss pretty hard.

For every Roger Clemens there are a hundred "next Roger Clemenses" that disappear into the minors or lurk around the waiver wire for a few years. We remember the hot prospects that turned into Arod or Clemens or whatever, but we forget about the hot prospects that turned into nobody.

The top pitching prospect in baseball at any given time is generally the guy with the highest ceiling. But it is often the case that some guy with a lower ceiling will turn out to reach something closer to his ceiling, or will stay healthier, or will figure out a better way to fool big-league hitters with lesser tools or whatever, and the second-tier prospect sometimes becomes the first-tier MLB pitcher.

Given time and big-league exposure, prospects cease to be prospects. They become players and we no longer evaluate their potential so much as their actual performance.

If we evaluate Bucholtz's major-league career to date we see that half of all his starts were no hitters. Clearly, that is the best career in the history of major league pitching. It is also completely meaningless since we already know to a certainty that 50% no-hitters is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

Similarly there is a lot of reason to think that Phil Hughes' MLB performance to date is not necessarily an indicator of what to expect going forward. Speculating and saying what their respective ERAs are probably gonna be in two years is just playing make-pretend at this point. These are top-flight prospects who have a realistic chance of being exceptional major league pitchers. They could also bust. That's the nature of prospects.

Of course you still didn't address the point that was made. Which was correct.

[yep]

Originally Posted by spiritof27

Of course you still didn't address the point that was made. Which was correct.

I did. My very first word of the post was "Yeah." As in, "I agree." As in, thinking that a 23-year-old Bucholtz has more physical development ahead of him than a 21-year-old Hughes is seeing the world through Sox-colored glassses.

Which was the whole point of the post that followed. When it comes to our own team's prospects, a lot of us have a tendency to start from the hypothesis and then fill in the data to support it. e.g if you fish around you can find reasons to believe that a 23-year-old has more development ahead of him than a 21-year old, or that a mediocre performer will inevitably get much better while a stellar performer must be destined for a sharp decline, all depending on which team they are on.

[Snatch Catch]

Heh. Callis flip-flops on the Hughes/Buchholz comparison:

Jordan(CT): After seeing both in the majors which prospect would you say has the brighter mlb future, Buchholz or Hughes?

Jim Callis: (2:08 PM ET ) We haven't seen Hughes at his healthiest or best this year, but I'm still going to say Buchholz. Same fastball velocity (with less command) but significantly better curveball and changeup.

I can't wait until Phil settles down and irons everything out mechanically.

[bmxstreetrider86]

sigh, clays curveball is not significantly better than hughes', changeup is though

[Metroidman]

lol Callis

Now Clay has the better curve? Please

[NY_GOLDENARMS]

Originally Posted by bmxstreetrider86

sigh, clays curveball is not significantly better than hughes', changeup is though

It is right now and thats how Callis projects prospects, by who's hot at the moment. What a great talent evaluator, Callis sucks.

[Matsui55]

Originally Posted by Buzah!

you haven't seen Hughes's best stuff this year. When he bounced back, you're gonna have some revising to do, Richard.

Hughes should improve, as I don't think he's healthy right now. That said, whether one is better than the other wasn't my point.

My point was this- when Chamberlain and Hughes have "off games," where they just don't have their good stuff that day, IMO, Chamberlain's stuff is just better than Hughes when they don't have their command.

In other words, IMO when Hughes doesn't have one or two (or even all) of his pitches working that day- he's going to get hit. When Chamberlain doesn't have one of his pitches, he can likely "power through" and last a little longer than Hughes- though he would get hit too. IMO, Chamberlain will give you a better chance to win when he is "off" than Hughes in the same situation. It would not be pretty, but IMO, that's what would happen.

This is something we will definately see at least several times next season. Young pitchers have to learn the hard way to pitch when they aren't at their best, or they have "nothing" that day. Remember how David Wells would usually (but not always) somehow find a way to give you 5-7 IP when he had nothing but junk working. That's what Buchholz, Lester, Chamberlain, Hughes and Kennedy will be learning on the fly next year- and some days it will just be ugly.

That said, IMO, Chamberlain is more likely, at this stage in their respective careers, to survive the bad outing or give him team a better chance that day that Hughe.