The Handling Of Phil Hughes As Compared To Wade Davis
The Yankees took Phil Hughes with the 23rd overall pick in the 2004 June Amateur Draft, And, the Tampa Rays took Wade Davis with the 75th overall pick in the same draft. How were both of these pitchers handled since then?
At 18, Wade Davis made 18 starts in short-season Rookie Ball in 2004. And, at 19, Davis made 15 starts in Short-Season A-Ball in 2005.
At 18, Phil Hughes made 3 starts in short-season Rookie Ball in 2004. And, at 19, Hughes split his season between Low-A (12 starts) and High-A (4 starts). In doing this, Hughes skipped pitching in Short-Season A-Ball.
At age 20, Davis made 27 starts in Low-A Ball (during 2006). At age 20, Hughes made 5 starts in High-A and 21 starts in Double-A (during 2006).
At age 21, Davis split his 2007 between High-A and Double-A. At age 21, Hughes pitched in High-A, Double-A, Triple-A and the major leagues during 2007.
In 2008, at age 22, Davis pitched two-thirds of his season at Double-A and one-third in Triple-A. In 2008, at age 22, Hughes pitched in Triple-A and in the major leagues.
And, last season, at age 23, Davis made 28 starts in Triple-A and had a handful of starts in the majors – whereas Hughes, at the same age, spend most of last season in the major leagues.
Clearly, the Rays treatment of Wade Davis as been somewhat textbook – moving him up the minor league ladder, step-by-step, and allowing time at each level. And, the Yankees started fast-tracking Phil Hughes once he was 20-years old.
Which was the smarter move? And, which pitcher will go on to have the better major league career? It will be interesting to look at these two…five…ten…fifteen years down the line and then answer those questions.
The main difference I see is that as of today people introduce Phil as: World Series Champion Phil Hughes.
Jered Weaver was taken 12th in that draft. Glen Perkins was taken 22nd. Huston Street was taken 40th. J.P. Howell was taken 31st. Yovani Gallardo was taken 45th. Why no comparison to any of these guys?
It seems like this sort of posting is the norm around here – this is a shot at Cashman, no?
Davis looks like he’ll be a stud. Hughes has had mixed success between the rotation and the bullpen and no one really knows for sure what he’ll do in 2010 and beyond. So, a comparison is made that glosses over 99% of the available information, and then a blanket statement of “it’ll be interesting to see” is put forth. I call this “I’m not saying, I’m just saying” ‘journalism’.
jay wrote:
No. Saying, I can’t believe the Yankees passed on Wade Davis to take Jonathan Poterson, Jeffrey Marquez and Brett Smith would be a shot at Cashman.
The Yankees moved Phil Hughes as rapidly as they should have, until they promoted him from AAA the first time.
He dominated at every level, until he got to AAA. Take a look at the guy’s minor league number; there were no statistical holes. High K rate, low BB rate, very low hit rate, VERY low HR rate.
The only reason he was promoted from AAA prematurely in 2007 was that the team was obviously short a starter needed to fill out a contending rotation. When Hughes went down, the Yanks had to sign Clemens to fill the gap.
The Rays could afford to keep Davis in the minors, one step at a time, certainly at least up until 2007, because the Rays never even got a sniff of the pennant race until 2008.
At the time the Yanks promoted Hughes, I thought they were rushing him, as he hadn’t had enough time at AAA to master it. In his 2nd start, he got injured and missed 3 months.
Wade Davis, on the other hand, hasn’t really proven much in all of 6 major league starts. Right now, his future as a starter looks> brighter because he’s confirmed for Tampa’s rotation, the Kazmir trade having opened up a slot for him.
Finally, two pitchers who look the same superficially may nevertheless mature at different rates.
=================================
Which way was smarter? There’s literally no way to make that judgment; no, not even if Davis outpitches Hughes as a starter from this point on.
@ Steve Lombardi:
Likewise for about a dozen other GM’s, no? How are Steven Waldrop, Matthew Fox, Jay Rainville, and Anthony Swarzak doing? I’ll save you the trouble of performing this exercise – you’re going to find out that every GM has a list of guys who slipped through their fingers. Your attempt at any semblance of subjectivity is comical.
@ jay:
Want comical? This one’s for you:
http://waswatching.com/2008/04/09/some-housekeeping-on-comments-regarding-me/
Steve Lombardi wrote:
yr taking a shot at cashman over the draft?? thats pretty petty. the draft is a crap shoot. look at strasburg u dont know if hes going to be the pitcher everyone expects. or look a mark prior, “perfect” mechanics, best college pitcher in history arguably. did he pan out? no he got hurt. you dont know what these kids are going to do in their future. cashman goes by what his scouts say he doesnt see all 50 something people they draft every year play. he relies on his scouts as does every gm does when it comes to the draft. ur also talking bout 2 different situations these 2 were in hughes being in NY where its win now and ur not going to keep ur best available pitcher in the minors when u need to fill a hole. davis being in Tampa where they werent comepting and then when they were they had some very good and polished pitchers there already so they could afford to let him progress slower.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
Without reading it, I’m guessing that’s the post where you compare yourself to Mike Lupica?
Look man, I’m not making a personal attack on you. I’m disagreeing with your position, or your group of positions, about a particular topic. There’s a difference. I’m disagreeing with your claim that you are in any objective (I said ‘subjective’ in the last post but meant ‘objective’.) You aren’t objective when it comes to this topic, and I find it comical because you actually laim objectivity. If this is not a forum for discourse, then what is it? Would you really prefer 30 replies that are mutations of “Yeah, man, you’re right about ______!”
Perhaps to bring the conversation back more towards two intellectuals having a disagreement, you can answer this: with this post, are you not trying to poke at Cashman for either (1) not selecting Davis before Hughes or (2) handling Davis differently than Hughes? If (2), how can you support that point of view while not also criticizing the dozens of other GMs or players who belong in that conversation? Or perhaps a better way to pose the question is, what point are you trying to make in bringing up that player A (Hughes) was handled differently than player B (Davis) while never mentioning any of the specifics of their careers over that 5 year period as well as any potential comparisons in the dozens of other players that were drafted that same year?
jay wrote:
i agree with what ur sayin but i think steve picked davis cause hes the same age where as everyone but gallardo in the names u listed r older and street and howell or relievers whereas davis and hughes r starters. but otherwise i agree with u
@ jay:
Jay, let me try and help you with this.
I picked Wade Davis because he’s the perfect example of the proper way to advance a HS SP thru your farm system. I can’t take the credit for spotting this – I saw it in John Sickels 2010 book – and it caught my eye there.
I picked Phil Hughes because I’m a Yankees fan and I care about the Yankees. How the A’s, Padres, Rockies, Pirates, Royals and Rangers handle their pitching prospects is not my interest/concern.
I compared Hughes to Davis because I care about Hughes and because Davis is the perfect model.
I did not compare Hughes to other HS pitchers in that draft, and how they were handled – if different than Davis – because I don’t believe that the fact that other teams may have rushed or mishandled their HS SP prospects doesn’t mean it’s OK that the Yankees may have done the same.
To me, the Yankees-way should be the gold standard, the right way to do it, and not just following what most others do and then writing it off if it fails with “well, it fails for most other teams too.”
@ Steve Lombardi:
Fair enough. But the expected progression of your logic isn’t sound, in my opinion.
If Davis develops well and Hughes doesn’t, does that necessarily mean the way Hughes was handled and the way Davis was handled are the causes? They’re too completely different pitchers.
Also, does the fact that Hughes contributed to a 2007 team making the playoffs and a 2009 team winning the World Series count for nothing?
I apologize – but these questions are rhetorical. I’m moving on from this.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
It should be, as it may indicate a trend. Context is very important when researching these types of matters.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
Such a way does not exist. AFAICT, there are 4 authorities on pitching; Tom House, Mike Marshall, Leo Mazzone & Johhny Sain. None have pitched for the Yankees, and AFAIK, none are on the Yankees’ payroll as consultants. Even a guy like Jim Kaat, who I feel has a lot to offer on the pitching side hasn’t had a pitching coach gig in a while.
jay wrote:
Not really, when you’re talking about their development. I would think it to be more relevant to discuss the way they’re handled, organizational philosophies, their workload, things of that nature.