• Hey, Did Phil Hughes Ever Make The Cover Of S.I.?

    Posted by on May 14th, 2013 · Comments (26)

    Comments on Hey, Did Phil Hughes Ever Make The Cover Of S.I.?

    1. MJ Recanati
      May 14th, 2013 | 2:33 pm

      Does it matter?

    2. Ricketson
      May 14th, 2013 | 2:55 pm

      He will before Michael Pineda.

    3. MJ Recanati
      May 14th, 2013 | 3:21 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      He will before Michael Pineda.

      Do your comments even have a point anymore? Transparently trolling.

    4. May 14th, 2013 | 3:42 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      He will before Michael Pineda.

      LOL.

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Does it matter?

      Only in the sense that the Mets, as bad as they are, handled Harvey perfectly – let him do his time in the minors without any major hype – so, he never got a fat head and the fan base never got any false expectations. He was able to develop fine, easy, and under the radar.

    5. Raf
      May 14th, 2013 | 4:31 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      The factors you mentioned weren’t the reason Wilson, Isringhausen and Pulsipher didn’t pan out. Same with Jon Niese. Or with the Cubs, Prior and Wood (Zambrano too?).

    6. MJ Recanati
      May 14th, 2013 | 4:47 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Only in the sense that the Mets, as bad as they are, handled Harvey perfectly – let him do his time in the minors without any major hype – so, he never got a fat head and the fan base never got any false expectations. He was able to develop fine, easy, and under the radar.

      You’re confusing and conflating matters here.

      1. Fan expectations — and any dissapointment that arises from those expectations — are the fans’ problem alone. They’re totally irrelevant to anyone but fans who, often, don’t have the first “effing” clue about anything anyway.

      2. If Harvey was developed under the radar it’s because the Mets, unlike the Yankees, had absolutely no expectations for success in 2012 or this year. Being the best pitching prospect on a team that is near last place on an annual basis is a lot easier than being the best pitching prospect on a team annually contending for World Series titles.

      3. You’re certain that Harvey doesn’t have the so-called “fat head” based on the 18 major league games he’s pitched? That’s wonderful that you can so astutely judge someone’s character. Too bad your well-established biases make you remarkably unconvincing.

    7. Evan3457
      May 14th, 2013 | 11:24 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      He will before Michael Pineda.

      I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that.

    8. Scout
      May 15th, 2013 | 6:54 am

      The Mets can have all the covers of SI they want. I’ll take first place.

    9. McMillan
      May 15th, 2013 | 3:17 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      He will before Michael Pineda.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that.

      I would bet the ranch on that, plus at least $500.00, or the cost of bail for his last arrest.

    10. Evan3457
      May 15th, 2013 | 3:48 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Ricketson wrote:
      He will before Michael Pineda.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that.
      I would bet the ranch on that, plus at least $500.00, or the cost of bail for his last arrest.

      Have at it, then.

    11. McMillan
      May 15th, 2013 | 10:35 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Being the best pitching prospect on a team that is near last place on an annual basis is a lot easier than being the best pitching prospect on a team annually contending for World Series titles.

      A team that gets as far as the World Series every year annually contends for a World Series title. A team that gets as far as the A.L.C.S. every year annually contents for an A.L. championship. A team that wins 90 games every year annually contends for a division title. Winning 90 games every year and annually contending for World Series titles are two different things.

    12. MJ Recanati
      May 16th, 2013 | 9:17 am

      McMillan wrote:

      A team that gets as far as the World Series every year annually contends for a World Series title. A team that gets as far as the A.L.C.S. every year annually contents for an A.L. championship. A team that wins 90 games every year annually contends for a division title. Winning 90 games every year and annually contending for World Series titles are two different things.

      Phil Hughes made his major league debut in 2007. Since 2007:

      A. 21 of 30 MLB teams have qualified for at least one postseason;
      B. 17 of those 21 playoff qualifiers have made it into the playoffs more than once;
      C. Seven of those 17 teams that have qualified for the playoffs more than once have made it to the playoffs at least three times;
      D. Only two of those seven 3-time playoff qualifiers have made it more than three times;
      E. 14 of those 21 original playoff qualifiers have made it to at least one LCS;
      F. Seven of 14 teams that have qualified for an LCS have made it to at least two LCS;
      G. Only two of those seven 2-time LCS qualifiers have made it to a third LCS;
      H. Nine of those original 21 playoff qualifiers have made at least one World Series; and
      I. Three of those nine World Series qualifiers have made it to more than one World Series.

      How does this relate to the Yankees?

      A. The Yankees are one of those 21 teams;
      B. The Yankees are one of those 17 teams;
      C. The Yankees are one of those seven teams;
      D. The Yankees are one of those two teams;
      E. The Yankees are one of those 14 teams;
      F. The Yankees are one of those seven teams;
      G. The Yankees are one of those two teams;
      H. The Yankees are one of those nine teams; and
      I. Only the Rangers, Giants, and Phillies have made it to more than one World Series.

      If you want to continue to argue the absurdity that the Yankees haven’t been an annual World Series contender — at the very least since Hughes has been on the team, although I’m happy to expand the range further back — then go right ahead. But considering the Yankees have made it to the LCS in three of the five years they’ve qualified for the playoffs, and since playing in the LCS is a mandatory prerequisite for being a World Series contender, I don’t see how one could argue that the Yankees are anything other than an annual World Series contender.

    13. Evan3457
      May 16th, 2013 | 11:36 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I don’t see how one could argue that the Yankees are anything other than an annual World Series contender.

      Blindingly obvious to all but the most dedicated Cashman-bashers.

    14. Raf
      May 16th, 2013 | 12:44 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Blindingly obvious to all but the most dedicated Cashman-bashers.

      You have to admire their dedication to soldier forth despite getting pwn3d over and over again. :P

    15. McMillan
      May 16th, 2013 | 1:13 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I don’t see how one could argue that the Yankees are anything other than an annual World Series contender.

      Cashman “wrested” his autonomy in 2005-06, according to yourself in a previous post.

      To state that a team has been in contention for a World Series title every year from 2005-13 would seem to imply that it has made it to the World Series more than once.

      The team has not even won the division in every year, and has advanced beyond the A.L.C.S. only once. That is not the New York Yankees of the 1950s, or the New York Yankees of 1996-2001, or a team that contends for a World Series title every year; it’s a team that contends for a division title every year, and once in every eight years prevails in enough consecutive postseason series (3) with strong starting pitching to win a World Series title.

      And with payrolls exceeding all other franchises in M.L.B. in the hundreds-of-millions of dollars in each season or for the period, the team should have had more postseason success from 2005-13; it did not, because it did not have the competence at the executive management level to do so.

      If you want to narrow the frame of reference to 2007, then the team has been closer to an annual contender for an A.L. championship, having appeared in 3 of the 6 A.L.C.S. series since then. They’re an annual post-season contender. If they were a contender for a World Series title in 2012, they would have at least gotten a hit in the A.L.C.S.

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Only the Rangers, Giants, and Phillies have made it to more than one World Series.

      “Only?” That is three teams for a six-year period, each with payrolls substantially less than the Yankees’.

    16. McMillan
      May 16th, 2013 | 1:15 pm

      Raf wrote:

      You have to admire their dedication to soldier forth despite getting pwn3d over and over again.

      Are you still trying to figure out whether or not Mason Williams can be charged with underage drinking and driving at the age of 21?

    17. Raf
      May 16th, 2013 | 1:27 pm

      @ McMillan:
      Nope, for reasons cited in that thread, a thread that a cop participated in. Stick to obsessing over Cashman’s winky. ;)

      You’re out of your element, Donny.

    18. Raf
      May 16th, 2013 | 1:36 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      If they were a contender for a World Series title in 2012, they would have at least gotten a hit in the A.L.C.S.

      Correct. So using your “4th rate logician” skills, since they got a hit in the A.L.C.S. they were a contender for the World Series title in 2012. Good to see you and MJ agree on something.

    19. MJ Recanati
      May 16th, 2013 | 2:26 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      To state that a team has been in contention for a World Series title every year from 2005-13 would seem to imply that it has made it to the World Series more than once.

      By your implication, a team can only be considered a World Series contender if it actually reaches the World Series. Below, then, is a list of World Series contenders that fit your criteria from 2005-2012:

      Chicago White Sox (1)
      Houston Astros (1)
      Detroit Tigers (2)
      St. Louis Cardinals (2)
      Boston Red Sox (1)
      Colorado Rockies (1)
      Tampa Bay Rays (1)
      Philadelphia Phillies (2)
      New York Yankees (1)
      San Francisco Giants (2)
      Texas Rangers (2)

      All we’ve accomplished here is to prove that NO TEAM is an annual World Series contender since reaching only one (or in PHI/STL/TEX case, two) World Series over an eight year period is hardly “annual.” If so, I am happy to retract my statement that the Yankees are “annual” contenders because we’ve effectively learned that no one is an annual contender. If that is the case then it can hardly be held against any single player, owner, manager, or team executive since no team can guarantee itself “World Series contender” status without first having made the World Series.

    20. McMillan
      May 16th, 2013 | 2:27 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Nope, for reasons cited in that thread, a thread that a cop participated in.

      I’m glad someone was able to help you with that.

    21. MJ Recanati
      May 16th, 2013 | 2:37 pm

      @ McMillan:
      Please stop trolling on this site.

    22. McMillan
      May 16th, 2013 | 2:44 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      By your implication, a team can only be considered a World Series contender if it actually reaches the World Series.

      Of course, not. I’m not hung up on the word “contender.” To characterize a team that has advanced to the World Series once in the last eight years as an “annual contender” for a “World Series title” does not seem appropriate, and is an overstatement. A team that makes it to the World Series with substantial consistency, such as those I referred to in a previous post, might be characterized as “annual contenders” for a “World Series title.”
      If the 2005-13 New York Yankees have been “annual contenders” for a “World Series title,” then how would one characterize the New York Yankees teams of the 1950s? It’s your word – “contenders.” If you want to use that word, then it would seem they have been a lot closer to “annual contenders” for A.L. Eastern Division titles since 2005, then for World Series titles – they have won the A.L. East with substantial consistency, but have advanced to the World Series only once. Again, its your word, not mine.
      MJ Recanati wrote:

      If so, I am happy to retract my statement that the Yankees are “annual” contenders because we’ve effectively learned that no one is an annual contender.

      I agree. The closest M.L.B. has had to an “annual contender” for a “World Series title” most recently might have been the 1996-2001 Yankees, but Cashman put that to bed.

    23. McMillan
      May 16th, 2013 | 2:52 pm

      Raf wrote:

      Correct. So using your “4th rate logician” skills, since they got a hit in the A.L.C.S. they were a contender for the World Series title in 2012.

      No, I said “if… at least…”

    24. Evan3457
      May 16th, 2013 | 3:28 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      how would one characterize the New York Yankees teams of the 1950s? It’s your word – “contenders.”

      An extended dynasty. However, the environment for creating such an entity has been destroyed by the rule 4 draft, free agency, the addition of divisional and wild card rounds of playoffs, and measures forcing more even distribution of revenues, allowing teams to keep their best young players for longer and longer periods.

      The closest M.L.B. has had to an “annual contender” for a “World Series title” most recently might have been the 1996-2001 Yankees, but Cashman put that to bed.

      Actually, age and the Law of Competitive Balance put it to bed.

    25. McMillan
      May 16th, 2013 | 3:48 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      However, the environment for creating such an entity has been destroyed by the rule 4 draft, free agency, the addition of divisional and wild card rounds of playoffs, and measures forcing more even distribution of revenues, allowing teams to keep their best young players for longer and longer periods.

      Such an entity as an “annual contender for World Series titles?”
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Actually, age and the Law of Competitive Balance put it to bed.

      Cashman did his part.

    26. MJ Recanati
      May 16th, 2013 | 5:51 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Cashman did his part.

      No. Winning four World Series and six pennants in eight years was an unsustainable anomaly that seems to have spoiled a lot of people into thinking that it was something repeatable in this era.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.