Comparing Danks, Pelfrey & Hughes
Lately, it’s become fashionable to point at pitchers like John Danks and use that as a defense of sorts regarding Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy’s 2008 seasons.
Via Joel Sherman’s blog last Thursday -
I know it is fashionable to give up on [Phil] Hughes and Ian Kennedy. But if you watched how the White Sox pitched themselves into the playoffs behind John Danks and Gavin Floyd, then remember how many starts and stops that duo had before flourishing this year. Look at how Mike Pelfrey finally got it with the Mets and Scott Baker with the Twins and, well, you get the point. And I keep going back to Eli Manning, who was a bust as late as last December. I have no idea if Hughes and Kennedy actually have the durability, mental makeup and stuff to thrive for the Yankees. What I do know is that their whole story has not been written yet either.
Via Peter Abraham’s blog on Sunday -
On a serious note, perhaps you noticed John Danks win two huge games for the White Sox in the last week. This would be the same John Danks who lost 13 games and had a 5.50 ERA for the White Sox last season when he was 22. The lesson is you have to be patient with young starters.
Sure, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy had poor seasons for the Yankees. But there was a reason they were first-round picks (just like Danks) and you have to give them time. If the playoffs can serve as a blueprint, that is what the Yankees should take from it.
But, here’s the deal with all this…
First, forget Ian Kennedy…because the Yankees have forgotten about him. He’s so low on their list now that he’s looking up at guys like Darrell Rasner and players found in the Mexican League. In fact, I would be very surprised if Kennedy is not sent packing this off-season.
Next, Mr. Hughes…well…actually…let’s look at Danks and Pelfrey…since their names were brought up here. Specifically, let’s look at how many starts they made, including the minors, in their pro-careers over the last three seasons.
Mike Pelfrey:
2006: 22 GS – Age 22
2007: 28 GS – Age 23
2008: 32 GS – Age 24
John Danks:
2006: 26 GS – Age 21
2007: 26 GS – Age 22
2008: 33 GS – Age 23
Now, let’s look at Phil Hughes…
Phil Hughes:
2006: 26 GS – Age 20
2007: 21 GS – Age 21
2008: 14 GS – Age 22
See the difference? Sure, Danks and Pelfrey may have had growing pains when they were younger – like many pitchers. But, at least they were taking a regular turn and getting their work in…learning their craft and improving. Phil Hughes is going backwards…in terms of his ability to get on the mound and put in his time.
So, if you’re expecting Phil Hughes to pitch in 2009 the way that Danks and Pelfrey did this season, you’re probably in for a disappointment.
Repetition is the mother of skill.
Skill lends towards confidence.
Confidence takes away doubt and enables success.
Bottom line, Hughes hasn’t gotten his reps in yet…so he’s a long way from being close to a position where he can succeed…like Danks and Pelfrey did this season.
-Bottom line, Hughes hasn’t gotten his reps in yet…so he’s a long way from being close to a position where he can succeed…like Danks and Pelfrey did this season.-
Are you positive of this, or is it just your opinion? The first part is fact, but the second part seems like your opinion based off that fact, just stated like fact instead of opinion. It is possible to succeed without getting the repetition that others have. Not saying one will, but it’s possible.
Possible? Maybe. But, the odds would be better if he had the reps.
Agreed.
Keep in mind Hughes is a year behind Danks and 2 years behind Pelfrey age wise. He also will be pitching in the fall league to increase his workload which will hopefully put him on a better track. I think we’re probably looking at 2010 being Hughes “breakout” season.
I think the point to take away from the Danks and Pelfrey comparisons is that you have to be patient. Guys come up and struggle and they have to adjust to a new league and new players. If you give them time to do that and don’t rush them and give up quickly, they will be fine. It’s clear Hughes has the ability.
Well, when it comes to getting your reps, shouldn’t you include the two minor league post-season starts Hughes made, which brings his total up to 16?
And, the kid is going to the AFL where you would expect him to get 4-5 more starts for 2008, putting his total at around 20. That’s not a lost season.
The real comparison should be made between Hughes in 2008 and Pelfrey in 2006. He is still very young.
Yeah…I think the point was to preach patience, and that failure at first doesn’t necessarily mean failure forever.
Totally agree. Comparing to individual players, on either the positive or negative side, isn’t what’s important. What’s important is the general theme of being patient even if things don’t go well (or if they do, because it could go from good to bad also) at first.
matt m…
I didn’t include post-season starts. But, if one wanted to, that would also bump up the totals for Danks too.
Comparing to individual players, on either the positive or negative side, isn’t what’s important.
——–
Also gives an idea of what to expect, a frame of reference.
I am surprised that the organization has given up on Kennedy so quickly. I am curious to see how he will respond, if he isn’t traded during the offseason.
I am surprised that the organization has given up on Kennedy so quickly. I am curious to see how he will respond, if he isn’t traded during the offseason.
————————
Do we know for sure that the Yanks have given up on IPK?
Do we know for sure that the Yanks have given up on IPK?
———-
No, but I find it curious that there has been little to no mention of Kennedy.
I haven’t heard anything about him since the SWB playoffs, have you?
Hughes got a few innings in after the playoffs ended. Kennedy hasn’t. I don’t think he even got a callup after the playoffs were over. Even the circumstances surrounding his demotion would imply that the organization isn’t too happy with him for whatever reason.
I haven’t heard anything about him since the SWB playoffs, have you?
————————
No, come to think of it, I haven’t.
Maybe they are trying to trade him, maybe they aren’t. I wouldn’t try to gauge the team’s motives based on what they did or didn’t do in September.
I wouldn’t try to gauge the team’s motives based on what they did or didn’t do in September.
——–
It’s not just what happened in Sept, it’s the whole year in general, from getting hurt, getting shelled, and butting heads with upper management.
Regardless, you don’t think it’s telling that he didn’t pitch an inning in MLB after August? That the organization preferred to start Pavano & Ponson? That he didn’t get a call in Sept? It’s one thing if it were, say, Igawa.
Having said that, I hope the organization doesn’t trade him (not saying that they’re looking to, but still), I think he can help the club.
OK, so let’s say he’s a year or even two or three(!) behind those other guys.
So he starts winning at 24 or 25? Is that so bad?