Lots of Phil Hughes Talk

Written by Greg Fertel | 27 August 2007

I realize that I've created a little bit of a controversy. I've made a lot of people angry, and I apologize for this. I also think that I've made a very nuanced point that is difficult to understand, even for myself. We've had some great discussion in the comments, and I'd like to say a few things. First off, I have a lot of comments that I've been unable to respond to. Unfortunately, this is a function of unnested comments and a flurry of action. So, there are a couple of main points brought to me, repeated in questions, and I'll respond to them together. The Phil Hughes that we saw in 2006 was a special, once-every-few-years pitcher. A couple of posters have said this as well as I can, for example:

"I went to AA Trenton games before this season Hughes was not throwing at this velocity, he was making batters shake their head at corner pitches and people w/ radar guns clocked him at 97 mph give or take a few mph."

"But E.J., why do you trust someone like Carlos Gomez saying that something is wrong versus someone like Nardi Contreras saying that nothing is wrong". Well first off, I'm basing my opinion off three principle, and concurring, sources along with my own intuition. Eiland, Leiter, and Gomez concur on all the things that we've been discussing, and Gomez's predictions were remarkably similar to what Leiter said on-air last night. In addition, numbers don't lie, and yes radar gun readings are a part of my concern. I know the cliche that "velocity isn't everything" - because it isn't, but it sure helps. Ask Mike Mussina right now if he'd like 3 mph on his fastball. Hughes 2006 was special because of a nearly unheard of power/control combination. I thank Carlos for joining in on the discussion in comments, and hopefully he'll chime in again with the spam filter now knowing that he's not trying to sell us all Viagra. Essentially, he's said that Hughes looks fundamentally different from a year ago. Now, he's got limited video from a year ago, but I think that we can rely on radar gun and eye-witness reports to help confirm his concern. There were rumblings (Eiland) before Hughes even hit the majors. Now, I absolutely love reading the things that Nardi Contreras says, but let's be honest here: he's anything but disinterested. He's not going to come out and say "He's messed up right now, but we're working on it", just as much as Al Leiter isn't going to answer a straight "No" to Michael Kay's question. I want my Mark Prior. As a Yankee fan, I want Phil Hughes to become what he is capable of: the best pitcher in the league. I understand that I'm asking for a very high standard, and I understand that he may not achieve that standard. However, I don't believe in hedging your bets in a situation like this. If the Yankees made the adjustment with risk aversion on their mind, then they made the wrong choice - a choice designed to protect executives and coaches, not to make Phil a better pitcher. Discuss...