PDA

View Full Version : For holding onto Phil Hughes



bobbymagee
12-01-07, 03:13 PM
FYI, the Yankee front office number is(718)293-4300. Office hours run Monday to Friday: 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. I am for keeping Phil Hughes as a Yankee. Johan Santana , 29 years old, may have six more quality seasons while Hughes will be good, God willing, for over a decade. I'm gonna telephone the front office PDQ Monday morning. I'm hoping that there will be a sufficient number of Yankee fans opposed to trading him away. I hope our front office is smarter than the Mets. They traded away Scott Kazmir. '

Bobby Magee

bigjf
12-01-07, 03:32 PM
They didn't trade away Scott Kazmir, they gave him away. Wrong Zambrano, Mets...

I like Hughes as much as everyone else and would love to keep him, but if they do trade him at least it is for the best pitcher in the game...one who is currently great, not a has-been.

You can call that number all you want, but no one's gonna listen. They're at the meetings, not that they would listen even if they were in NY.

bobbymagee
12-01-07, 03:45 PM
They didn't trade away Scott Kazmir, they gave him away. Wrong Zambrano, Mets...

I like Hughes as much as everyone else and would love to keep him, but if they do trade him at least it is for the best pitcher in the game...one who is currently great, not a has-been.

You can call that number all you want, but no one's gonna listen. They're at the meetings, not that they would listen even if they were in NY.

I look at Johan's WHIP and it looks like an escalator going up,up and up. We have the beginnings of a young nucleus of Joba, Ian, Phil,Humberto,Wanger, and Alan Horne, plus several solid potentials for bullpen arms, too. Sorry, I'm sick of all ot the crappy trades and/or acquistions over the previous 5 years. I will call and hopefully more Yankee fans will do, too.

YanksFan1992
12-01-07, 03:49 PM
They didn't trade away Scott Kazmir, they gave him away. Wrong Zambrano, Mets...

I like Hughes as much as everyone else and would love to keep him, but if they do trade him at least it is for the best pitcher in the game...one who is currently great, not a has-been.

You can call that number all you want, but no one's gonna listen. They're at the meetings, not that they would listen even if they were in NY.

Also, Santana is just slightly better than Zambrano;)

Sam18
12-01-07, 03:58 PM
Calling isn't going to do anything. I'm gonna get my revenge next year by going to Yankee stadium and upper decking as many toilets as I can.

CallOfTheCrow
12-01-07, 03:58 PM
Yup. That'll work.....

bobbymagee
12-01-07, 04:04 PM
Calling isn't going to do anything. I'm gonna get my revenge next year by going to Yankee stadium and upper decking as many toilets as I can.

that's crazy, the FO should have to deficate with we commoners

__starr69
12-01-07, 04:19 PM
Calling isn't going to do anything. I'm gonna get my revenge next year by going to Yankee stadium and upper decking as many toilets as I can.

Please tell me how you plan to upper deck a toilet with no tank?

Edit: on second thought, don't.

Yankeesfan811
12-01-07, 04:31 PM
please don't trade phil....

BronxBombersMRP
12-01-07, 05:18 PM
I like Hughes a lot, but Santana is the best pitcher on the market right now and we need a solid ace. Wang is great but has only proved to be a number 2 guy, and with the Yanks not sure if Andy will be back, Santana is the obvious choice.

Sam18
12-01-07, 06:34 PM
Please tell me how you plan to upper deck a toilet with no tank?

Edit: on second thought, don't.
If you put your mind to it anything's possible.
http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC051723/photo_derek_jeter.jpg

27IsNext
12-01-07, 07:58 PM
I look at Johan's WHIP and it looks like an escalator going up,up and up. We have the beginnings of a young nucleus of Joba, Ian, Phil,Humberto,Wanger, and Alan Horne, plus several solid potentials for bullpen arms, too. Sorry, I'm sick of all ot the crappy trades and/or acquistions over the previous 5 years. I will call and hopefully more Yankee fans will do, too.

2004 WHIP: 0.921
2005 WHIP: 0.971
2006 WHIP: 0.997
2007 WHIP: 1.073

If this is all we're worried about, I'm glad we're getting him, if indeed we are.

njdhockey
12-01-07, 08:05 PM
please don't trade phil....
Quoted for the truth.

Jdkush10
12-01-07, 08:06 PM
2004 WHIP: 0.921
2005 WHIP: 0.971
2006 WHIP: 0.997
2007 WHIP: 1.073

If this is all we're worried about, I'm glad we're getting him, if indeed we are.

Exactly. Pretty hard to expect a guy to improve WHIPs like that. Although I'm sure Hughes will be the first to record a 0.001 WHIP.





FYI - I like Hughes, but some on this board deify him way too much.

TheYankee
12-01-07, 08:56 PM
I look at Johan's WHIP and it looks like an escalator going up,up and up.I'm going to go ahead and point you to 27isNext's post just in case you missed it. Complaining about Johan's "higher" WHIP numbers is like complaining about Jeter going from a .343 2 years ago to .322 last year.... in fact, not even that aggravated. His climbing WHIP is such a miniscule change it's silly to squirm over it. If you have qualms about his rising HR numbers last, that's different, but still an anomaly based on the rest of his career.


We have the beginnings of a young nucleus of Joba, Ian, Phil,Humberto,Wanger, and Alan Horne, plus several solid potentials for bullpen arms, too.That's all good and true. But who's going to lead these guys outside of Wang? You really want to bank on a staff of Wang, Chamberlain, Hughes, Mussina and Kennedy? That's a pretty tall order for that many young guys to carry that many innings, let alone a solid season of numbers.


Sorry, I'm sick of all ot the crappy trades and/or acquistions over the previous 5 years.That's fine. As much as I hate to lose Phil, it's not a "crappy" trade as you seem to term it. We'd be aquiring Johan Santana. If Kennedy gets thrown into the deal, I'll call it a bad trade because we gave too much... but giving up a high ceiling prospect for the leagues best pitcher who's only 28 years old is not a bad trade.


I will call and hopefully more Yankee fans will do, too.You remind me of the scene on The Bronx is Burning when all the Yankee fans are calling the front office telling Steinbrenner to shove it and not to fire Billy. I wish you luck in your quest.

Hobbes40
12-01-07, 10:15 PM
Man, if they trade hughes, I won't be able to wear my hughes tshirt around anymore.

Roberto Kelly
12-01-07, 10:31 PM
I'm sure they'll put your call right through.

bobbymagee
12-02-07, 12:40 AM
I'm sure they'll put your call right through.

Oh, to all you naysayers, read the freaking title of the thread. Does that mean you boys were invited? :O :-rofl-:

I did call Saturday afternoon, and noone was home, and no voicemail. Bastards!:(

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-02-07, 12:49 AM
I look at Johan's WHIP and it looks like an escalator going up,up and up. We have the beginnings of a young nucleus of Joba, Ian, Phil,Humberto,Wanger, and Alan Horne, plus several solid potentials for bullpen arms, too. Sorry, I'm sick of all ot the crappy trades and/or acquistions over the previous 5 years. I will call and hopefully more Yankee fans will do, too.

Santana was better in 06 than he was in 05. 07 was an off year. His K's have been increasing. Nothing to worry about in that regard.

WordToBigBird
12-02-07, 01:21 AM
Santana was better in 06 than he was in 05. 07 was an off year. His K's have been increasing. Nothing to worry about in that regard.


Why is that? What evidence is out there to suggest that 07 was just an off year and that he'll be back to his 06 form going forward?

King of NY
12-02-07, 02:41 AM
well...one of the problems with not trading for Santana is....if Santana ends up on the Red Sox, the Yankees can say good bye to any possibility of winning the World Series for the next 5+ years unless either Beckett or Santana's arm falls off. So...the merit of trading for Santana is not only does it make the Yankees an instant contender...it prevents the Red Sox from becoming far too dominant.

YankeeClemens22
12-02-07, 07:36 AM
Why is that? What evidence is out there to suggest that 07 was just an off year and that he'll be back to his 06 form going forward?

There's PLENTY discussion like this in the hot stove forum.

ksison
12-02-07, 09:28 AM
I like Hughes a lot, but Santana is the best pitcher on the market right now and we need a solid ace. Wang is great but has only proved to be a number 2 guy, and with the Yanks not sure if Andy will be back, Santana is the obvious choice.

I agree that Santana is the best pitcher in the league now, but I strongly feel that Hughes has the potential of becoming the Yankee ace. Hughes showed a lot of promise when he came up last year, then he got hurt. He didn't have a chance to pitch a full season yet, and we're going to trade our #1 prospect? After seeing what Hughes can do when he pitched in the only playoff game we won last season, I'm not willing to give him up that easily.

Sixty one
12-02-07, 10:02 AM
I hope the yankees don't trade Hughes or any of the other kids for Santana. I'd rather them go after one of Oakland's pitchers for less money and fewer top flight players. Santana alone will not gurrantee a championship....it takes quality everyday players as well as pitching!!

643DP
12-02-07, 11:54 AM
well...one of the problems with not trading for Santana is....if Santana ends up on the Red Sox, the Yankees can say good bye to any possibility of winning the World Series for the next 5+ years unless either Beckett or Santana's arm falls off. So...the merit of trading for Santana is not only does it make the Yankees an instant contender...it prevents the Red Sox from becoming far too dominant.
I'm not sure about that last part. If Santana's on the Yankees, yes, it makes us a contender. But it also means that Lester and Buchholz and Ellsbury are all still with the Red Sox. This gives them (with the first two) great pitching depth, especially looking down the road when Schilling retires. Buchholz is a pitcher with a pretty high talent ceiling too. So I don't think Boston getting Santana would make them any more dominant, especially in the long run.

Just to support the original poster of this thread... Hughes may be more valuable in the long run. Some people have already pointed to Santana's annually increaing WHIP. While I understand that it's unrealistic, even for a great pitcher, to maintain 0.92 every year, I find the fact that Santana's WHIP has steading increased since '04 to be concerning. That, and the fact that he was a homerun-allowing machine last year (he gave up 33, easily the most in the A.L.) And despite all the strikeouts and Cy Young awards, I'd just like to remind you guys (especially those who are quick to jump on Wang and A-Rod for their playoff shortcomings) that Santana has ABSOLUTELY NO track record of being a big game pitcher. This year he constantly struggled against divisional rivals (0-5 in 6 starts vs. Cle, 1-3 in 6 starts vs. Det). He has a 1-2 record in 5 career playoff starts, and has never managed to get his team through the ALDS as a starter. I'm not sure that Santana is the answer to getting over that playoff hump, and I'd be real leery about trading away Phil Hughes for that.

bobbymagee
12-02-07, 01:32 PM
I'm not sure about that last part. If Santana's on the Yankees, yes, it makes us a contender. But it also means that Lester and Buchholz and Ellsbury are all still with the Red Sox. This gives them (with the first two) great pitching depth, especially looking down the road when Schilling retires. Buchholz is a pitcher with a pretty high talent ceiling too. So I don't think Boston getting Santana would make them any more dominant, especially in the long run.

Just to support the original poster of this thread... Hughes may be more valuable in the long run. Some people have already pointed to Santana's annually increaing WHIP. While I understand that it's unrealistic, even for a great pitcher, to maintain 0.92 every year, I find the fact that Santana's WHIP has steading increased since '04 to be concerning. That, and the fact that he was a homerun-allowing machine last year (he gave up 33, easily the most in the A.L.) And despite all the strikeouts and Cy Young awards, I'd just like to remind you guys (especially those who are quick to jump on Wang and A-Rod for their playoff shortcomings) that Santana has ABSOLUTELY NO track record of being a big game pitcher. This year he constantly struggled against divisional rivals (0-5 in 6 starts vs. Cle, 1-3 in 6 starts vs. Det). He has a 1-2 record in 5 career playoff starts, and has never managed to get his team through the ALDS as a starter. I'm not sure that Santana is the answer to getting over that playoff hump, and I'd be real leery about trading away Phil Hughes for that.

although you seem to be mildly supporting my view, beyond the issue at hand, smart and sound reasoning

groovitude
12-02-07, 02:38 PM
Just to support the original poster of this thread... Hughes may be more valuable in the long run. Some people have already pointed to Santana's annually increaing WHIP. While I understand that it's unrealistic, even for a great pitcher, to maintain 0.92 every year, I find the fact that Santana's WHIP has steading increased since '04 to be concerning. That, and the fact that he was a homerun-allowing machine last year (he gave up 33, easily the most in the A.L.) And despite all the strikeouts and Cy Young awards, I'd just like to remind you guys (especially those who are quick to jump on Wang and A-Rod for their playoff shortcomings) that Santana has ABSOLUTELY NO track record of being a big game pitcher. This year he constantly struggled against divisional rivals (0-5 in 6 starts vs. Cle, 1-3 in 6 starts vs. Det). He has a 1-2 record in 5 career playoff starts, and has never managed to get his team through the ALDS as a starter. I'm not sure that Santana is the answer to getting over that playoff hump, and I'd be real leery about trading away Phil Hughes for that.
Postseason vs. regular season numbers for Santana:



Regular Post

ERA 3.22 3.97
WHIP 1.09 1.32
K/9 9.50 8.47
H/9 7.34 9.26
HR/9 0.99 0.53
BB/9 2.50 2.63
His metrics are all below his average with the exception of HR/9. I know there's a lot to be said about small sample size (34.0 IP), but everyone does this in terms of postseason success. He's 1-3 lifetime in the postseason (1-2 in GS), and that's not the "big game winner" or "shutdown ace" everyone's looking for.

Compare, for instance, to Josh Beckett (boo! hiss!):



Regular Post

ERA 3.74 1.73
WHIP 1.23 0.74
K/9 8.51 10.15
H/9 8.07 4.95
HR/9 0.96 0.05
BB/9 2.99 1.73

Santana edges Beckett in terms of regular season numbers, but Beckett absolutely blows him away in terms of postseason success. Big game pitching, and Santana doesn't look like he's one of 'em.

And seeing as I was in the left field bleachers of ALDS Game 3 this year, I'm sure you can imagine how I feel about Mr. Hughes's ability to step up in a big way on the postseason stage.

Save Hughes.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-02-07, 03:09 PM
Why is that? What evidence is out there to suggest that 07 was just an off year and that he'll be back to his 06 form going forward?

It doesnt work that way. There is no evidence in the world that could show that something does not exist.

The way that is determined, is the argument for 07 being a decline year is presented, and I attempt to refute the argument. Those arguing he is declining have to provide evidence and then it is my job to refute it, not the other way around. However like another poster said we have been through this many times.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-02-07, 03:15 PM
Postseason vs. regular season numbers for Santana:



Regular Post

ERA 3.22 3.97
WHIP 1.09 1.32
K/9 9.50 8.47
H/9 7.34 9.26
HR/9 0.99 0.53
BB/9 2.50 2.63
His metrics are all below his average with the exception of HR/9. I know there's a lot to be said about small sample size (34.0 IP), but everyone does this in terms of postseason success. He's 1-3 lifetime in the postseason (1-2 in GS), and that's not the "big game winner" or "shutdown ace" everyone's looking for.

Compare, for instance, to Josh Beckett (boo! hiss!):



Regular Post

ERA 3.74 1.73
WHIP 1.23 0.74
K/9 8.51 10.15
H/9 8.07 4.95
HR/9 0.96 0.05
BB/9 2.99 1.73
Santana edges Beckett in terms of regular season numbers, but Beckett absolutely blows him away in terms of postseason success. Big game pitching, and Santana doesn't look like he's one of 'em.

And seeing as I was in the left field bleachers of ALDS Game 3 this year, I'm sure you can imagine how I feel about Mr. Hughes's ability to step up in a big way on the postseason stage.

Save Hughes.

Since 04, you know when he actually became the best pitcher in baseball his postseaon ERA is 1.35.

groovitude
12-02-07, 04:43 PM
It doesnt work that way. There is no evidence in the world that could show that something does not exist.

The way that is determined, is the argument for 07 being a decline year is presented, and I attempt to refute the argument. Those arguing he is declining have to provide evidence and then it is my job to refute it, not the other way around. However like another poster said we have been through this many times.
I think it's fair enough to ask for possible evidence from both sides -- it's just easier to find the evidence of an overall decline, as you're using statistical data over the last three or four years rather than the extenuating circumstance (physical, mental, mechanical, or otherwise) of why this year was an off year.

I haven't been part of the "Santana is in a decline" camp in an effort to argue against the trade of our stalwart Mr. Hughes, but I'll kind of type through my thought processes as I look at it. The way I see it, if I think it shows that he is in a decline, that helps my argument; and if it doesn't, it proves that Santana is a filthy good pitcher, which we already knew.

First, from thebaseballcube.com:


ERA H/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/9 WHIP

2004 2.61 6.16 0.95 2.13 10.46 0.92
2005 2.87 6.99 0.85 1.75 9.25 0.97
2006 2.77 7.16 0.92 1.81 9.44 1.00
2007 3.33 7.52 1.36 2.14 9.66 1.07
I'm thinking I'm going to run these particular numbers through Graph (I rock OpenOffice's Calc rather than Excel, and its regressions are useless) and see what the closest trendlines I can get to each are.

While I'm installing Graph, though, I just noticed this little tidbit.


GB%

2004 41%
2005 43%
2006 38%
2007 --
TBC doesn't have the data for his 2007 GB% in; The Hardball Times does, however, and it's 38% again. I'm not sure that his upward trend in HR/9 this past year was a fluke so much as 2006 was a fluke considering how low his groundcall count is. 38% is second-lowest in the AL, only to Jarrod Washburn and his 36.5%. He's actually tenth-lowest in all of MLB in 2007, though -- the NL's loaded with flyball pitchers, apparently.

Quick crunch of numbers based on the top 10 lowest GB% vs. their HR/9 in the AL for 2007, and include their data from 2006 and 2005 (to compare to Santana's "abberation"):


2007 2006 2005
Pitcher GB% HR/9 GB% HR/9 GB% HR/9

Washburn 36.5 1.06 39.9 1.19 39.3 0.98
Santana 38.0 1.45 40.6 1.00 40.4 0.93
Byrd 38.3 1.25 38.5 1.24 37.8 1.00
Matsuzaka 38.4 1.11 -- -- -- --
Wakefield 38.9 1.06 39.4 1.20 41.4 1.49
Garland 39.4 0.83 42.1 1.11 47.3 1.10
Vazquez 39.8 1.27 39.8 1.02 43.3 1.49
Bannister 40.8 0.85 40.0 0.91 -- --
Verlander 41.1 0.89 41.7 1.04 46.3 0.71
Guthrie 42.5 1.23 50.0 0.83 -- -- Note: I realize that Santana's GB% numbers are different here -- the earlier numbers are from The Baseball Cube, these are from The Hardball Times. I don't know what the discrepancy between the two are, but I'm working with what I've got.

With this data, I see thirteen examples of GB% under 40% -- and only two of them have HR/9 under 1 (Washburn '05 and Garland '07). At any rate, with such a low GB%, he runs the risk of more HRs, especially with the slowly increasing H/9 he's got going (and that has been increasing every year since 2004, one of few absolute consistencies in his line).

Now that I'm past that rather extended tangent, I tried running the regressions on the numbers since '04, but to no particular avail -- the ones that had the greatest coefficients of determination were not always sensical models (i.e., despite a constant trend upwards in H/9, the "best fitting" model had it dipping back down for next year). So much for that.

I figure ERA+ is a good place to hit next -- from baseball-reference.com:


ERA lgERA ERA+
2004 2.61 4.73 182
2005 2.87 4.45 155
2006 2.77 4.47 161
2007 3.33 4.33 130
I'm surprised to see that his ERA+ was actually better in 2002 and 2003 than it was this past year (149 and 148). "Slipping" to 155 wasn't horrible either, for the record -- he still led the AL in ERA+, '04-'06.

After looking it all over, I'm inclined to not disagree with the "Santana is declining" camp. I'm not agreeing with them; I'm just not disagreeing with them. If the numbers aren't sliding, they're following a downward-sloping oscillation from '04 on. I expect this next year to be better than this year but not back on par with '06.

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Hughes continuing to get better over the next few years.

wang+cano=future
12-02-07, 04:59 PM
Save Phil Hughes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

groovitude
12-02-07, 05:04 PM
Since 04, you know when he actually became the best pitcher in baseball his postseaon ERA is 1.35.
In 2004, his breakout season, he had a regular-season ERA+ of 182, which is absolutely disgusting. Then see how he stepped up in the postseason in comparison to the previous year:


H/9 HR/9 BB/9 WHIP
2003 10.57 0.00 3.52 1.57
2004 10.50 0.00 3.00 1.50
What dramatic change in the peripherals! Was the dramatic shift in ERA (7.04 to 0.74) between the '03 postseason and the '04 postseason due to chance or his breakout season? My guess is the former.

It's true that there is a line of delineation between pre- and post-2004, but there are still a number of factors to consider:

* His post-2004 postseason WHIP is still a bit higher than his career WHIP; and considering we're looking for a shutdown postseason ace, that's not what we want to see.
* The sample size here is incredibly small; granted, that could work for either argument, but it needs to be considered.
* Looking at the post-'04 numbers, I'd still take Beckett.


ERA H/9 K/9 WHIP
Pre '04 Santana 7.71 10.28 7.71 1.50
Post '04 Santana 1.53 8.55 9.00 1.20

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-02-07, 05:29 PM
I think it's fair enough to ask for possible evidence from both sides -- it's just easier to find the evidence of an overall decline, as you're using statistical data over the last three or four years rather than the extenuating circumstance (physical, mental, mechanical, or otherwise) of why this year was an off year.

I haven't been part of the "Santana is in a decline" camp in an effort to argue against the trade of our stalwart Mr. Hughes, but I'll kind of type through my thought processes as I look at it. The way I see it, if I think it shows that he is in a decline, that helps my argument; and if it doesn't, it proves that Santana is a filthy good pitcher, which we already knew.

First, from thebaseballcube.com:


ERA H/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/9 WHIP

2004 2.61 6.16 0.95 2.13 10.46 0.92
2005 2.87 6.99 0.85 1.75 9.25 0.97
2006 2.77 7.16 0.92 1.81 9.44 1.00
2007 3.33 7.52 1.36 2.14 9.66 1.07
I'm thinking I'm going to run these particular numbers through Graph (I rock OpenOffice's Calc rather than Excel, and its regressions are useless) and see what the closest trendlines I can get to each are.

While I'm installing Graph, though, I just noticed this little tidbit.


GB%

2004 41%
2005 43%
2006 38%
2007 --
TBC doesn't have the data for his 2007 GB% in; The Hardball Times does, however, and it's 38% again. I'm not sure that his upward trend in HR/9 this past year was a fluke so much as 2006 was a fluke considering how low his groundcall count is. 38% is second-lowest in the AL, only to Jarrod Washburn and his 36.5%. He's actually tenth-lowest in all of MLB in 2007, though -- the NL's loaded with flyball pitchers, apparently.

Quick crunch of numbers based on the top 10 lowest GB% vs. their HR/9 in the AL for 2007, and include their data from 2006 and 2005 (to compare to Santana's "abberation"):


2007 2006 2005
Pitcher GB% HR/9 GB% HR/9 GB% HR/9

Washburn 36.5 1.06 39.9 1.19 39.3 0.98
Santana 38.0 1.45 40.6 1.00 40.4 0.93
Byrd 38.3 1.25 38.5 1.24 37.8 1.00
Matsuzaka 38.4 1.11 -- -- -- --
Wakefield 38.9 1.06 39.4 1.20 41.4 1.49
Garland 39.4 0.83 42.1 1.11 47.3 1.10
Vazquez 39.8 1.27 39.8 1.02 43.3 1.49
Bannister 40.8 0.85 40.0 0.91 -- --
Verlander 41.1 0.89 41.7 1.04 46.3 0.71
Guthrie 42.5 1.23 50.0 0.83 -- -- Note: I realize that Santana's GB% numbers are different here -- the earlier numbers are from The Baseball Cube, these are from The Hardball Times. I don't know what the discrepancy between the two are, but I'm working with what I've got.

With this data, I see thirteen examples of GB% under 40% -- and only two of them have HR/9 under 1 (Washburn '05 and Garland '07). At any rate, with such a low GB%, he runs the risk of more HRs, especially with the slowly increasing H/9 he's got going (and that has been increasing every year since 2004, one of few absolute consistencies in his line).

Now that I'm past that rather extended tangent, I tried running the regressions on the numbers since '04, but to no particular avail -- the ones that had the greatest coefficients of determination were not always sensical models (i.e., despite a constant trend upwards in H/9, the "best fitting" model had it dipping back down for next year). So much for that.

I figure ERA+ is a good place to hit next -- from baseball-reference.com:


ERA lgERA ERA+
2004 2.61 4.73 182
2005 2.87 4.45 155
2006 2.77 4.47 161
2007 3.33 4.33 130
I'm surprised to see that his ERA+ was actually better in 2002 and 2003 than it was this past year (149 and 148). "Slipping" to 155 wasn't horrible either, for the record -- he still led the AL in ERA+, '04-'06.

After looking it all over, I'm inclined to not disagree with the "Santana is declining" camp. I'm not agreeing with them; I'm just not disagreeing with them. If the numbers aren't sliding, they're following a downward-sloping oscillation from '04 on. I expect this next year to be better than this year but not back on par with '06.

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Hughes continuing to get better over the next few years.


The only reason a decline is even close to being considered, is because you are starting the window of time with his career year. That year should not be relevant as even if I am right he is likely never going to match it again. Also it is the least relevant of the past 4 years just by time.

06 and 05 should be compared, and they are typically the same exact line. The differences in WHIP and what not are what they would be for any other pitcher from year to year. He was actually better in k/9 and ERA+. There is no evidence of his stuff declining and he still throws the 92-94 MPH he always did.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-02-07, 05:30 PM
In 2004, his breakout season, he had a regular-season ERA+ of 182, which is absolutely disgusting. Then see how he stepped up in the postseason in comparison to the previous year:


H/9 HR/9 BB/9 WHIP
2003 10.57 0.00 3.52 1.57
2004 10.50 0.00 3.00 1.50
What dramatic change in the peripherals! Was the dramatic shift in ERA (7.04 to 0.74) between the '03 postseason and the '04 postseason due to chance or his breakout season? My guess is the former.

It's true that there is a line of delineation between pre- and post-2004, but there are still a number of factors to consider:

* His post-2004 postseason WHIP is still a bit higher than his career WHIP; and considering we're looking for a shutdown postseason ace, that's not what we want to see.
* The sample size here is incredibly small; granted, that could work for either argument, but it needs to be considered.
* Looking at the post-'04 numbers, I'd still take Beckett.


ERA H/9 K/9 WHIP
Pre '04 Santana 7.71 10.28 7.71 1.50
Post '04 Santana 1.53 8.55 9.00 1.20

In 04 he also faced the best offense in baseball, the Yankees. I dont care how you look at it, he dominated us considering the offensive capabilities we had/have. That ALDS game was very impressive considering who he was facing and the fact that Moose gave up 2 runs, to keep the pressure on in Yankee effing stadium.

groovitude
12-02-07, 09:21 PM
In 04 he also faced the best offense in baseball, the Yankees. I dont care how you look at it, he dominated us considering the offensive capabilities we had/have. That ALDS game was very impressive considering who he was facing and the fact that Moose gave up 2 runs, to keep the pressure on in Yankee effing stadium.

In 2004, he faced the New York Yankees, a team that scored 897 runs.

In 2003, he faced the New York Yankees, a team that scored 877 runs.

The .123 runs scored/game doesn't make much of a difference, IMO.

groovitude
12-02-07, 09:30 PM
The only reason a decline is even close to being considered, is because you are starting the window of time with his career year. That year should not be relevant as even if I am right he is likely never going to match it again. Also it is the least relevant of the past 4 years just by time.

06 and 05 should be compared, and they are typically the same exact line. The differences in WHIP and what not are what they would be for any other pitcher from year to year. He was actually better in k/9 and ERA+. There is no evidence of his stuff declining and he still throws the 92-94 MPH he always did.

I didn't bring up the "Santana is on a decline" argument; like I said, I don't particularly agree with the overwhelming sentiment that many have expressed. On the other hand, I did see a trend that is statistically hard to refute.

I started with 2004 because that's what's been deemed relevant by many, including yourself when analyzing my postseason breakdown. Likewise, if '04 is the most statistically irrelevant line, then, by the same logic, 2007 must be the most relevant line -- which should knock his value down a few notches. And by the same logic, comparing '06 to '07 is more relevant than '05 to '06.

Furthermore, while his K/9 may be increasing since '05, so is his BB/9. Comparing the two, you'll notice his BB/K ratio is going up -- or, he is, from year to year, letting more batters get to first base on his own than he is putting them back on the bench on his own.

He's an incredible pitcher, I will certainly not diminish that. But he is already showing signs, however minor, that he is not 26 anymore. Hughes has incredible upside and is 21 -- a full seven years younger than Santana, and will be improving his stuff for years.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-02-07, 10:21 PM
I didn't bring up the "Santana is on a decline" argument; like I said, I don't particularly agree with the overwhelming sentiment that many have expressed. On the other hand, I did see a trend that is statistically hard to refute.

I started with 2004 because that's what's been deemed relevant by many, including yourself when analyzing my postseason breakdown. Likewise, if '04 is the most statistically irrelevant line, then, by the same logic, 2007 must be the most relevant line -- which should knock his value down a few notches. And by the same logic, comparing '06 to '07 is more relevant than '05 to '06.

Furthermore, while his K/9 may be increasing since '05, so is his BB/9. Comparing the two, you'll notice his BB/K ratio is going up -- or, he is, from year to year, letting more batters get to first base on his own than he is putting them back on the bench on his own.

He's an incredible pitcher, I will certainly not diminish that. But he is already showing signs, however minor, that he is not 26 anymore. Hughes has incredible upside and is 21 -- a full seven years younger than Santana, and will be improving his stuff for years.

Im taking the stance 07 was an off year. Like 06 was for A-rod, at an older age than Santana is now. Just one that happened to be 3 years after his career year. The 2 years in the middle are the same. Thats what I am saying. I am saying that expecting 04 would be insane, and expecting 07 would be pessemistic. I would expect 05 and 07 since they were the same and are in the middle of the spectrum. You cant say the trend isnt true, I just do not happen to think it is relevant, or a sign of decline. Once he has his normal 05. 06 type year in 08, all this talk of a trend or decline will be over.

We have no clue if the bolded is true or not at this point in time. Its entirely possible Hughes does not improve.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-02-07, 10:26 PM
In 2004, he faced the New York Yankees, a team that scored 897 runs.

In 2003, he faced the New York Yankees, a team that scored 877 runs.

The .123 runs scored/game doesn't make much of a difference, IMO.

That isnt relevant to me. I think its hard to say that Santana didnt dominate us in 04. SInce 04 his ERA has been great, and thats what matters. WHIP and the other stats are used as a indicator of future performance, but this is Santana we know he is good, the question is about pressure. Being able to pitch out of the jam by getting the big strike out as an opposing player in Yankee Stadium, leading to shutting down the best offense in baseball in the playoffs, show that he can handle the pressure imo.

groovitude
12-02-07, 11:33 PM
Im taking the stance 07 was an off year. Like 06 was for A-rod, at an older age than Santana is now. Just one that happened to be 3 years after his career year. The 2 years in the middle are the same. Thats what I am saying. I am saying that expecting 04 would be insane, and expecting 07 would be pessemistic. I would expect 05 and 07 since they were the same and are in the middle of the spectrum. You cant say the trend isnt true, I just do not happen to think it is relevant, or a sign of decline. Once he has his normal 05. 06 type year in 08, all this talk of a trend or decline will be over.

We have no clue if the bolded is true or not at this point in time. Its entirely possible Hughes does not improve.

I'm playing the probabilities that a pitcher whose has been widely identified as someone with that much upside, who has shown a considerable amount of said upside on the mound in what is arguably one of the most difficult stages to play on, at that young of an age, will show that improvement.

Likewise, I'm also willing to play the probabilities that in the long run, keeping Hughes will be more worth it than Santana will be in what will most certainly be years of declining production at the back-end of what will likely be a six-to-seven year deal.

groovitude
12-02-07, 11:39 PM
That isnt relevant to me. I think its hard to say that Santana didnt dominate us in 04. SInce 04 his ERA has been great, and thats what matters. WHIP and the other stats are used as a indicator of future performance, but this is Santana we know he is good, the question is about pressure. Being able to pitch out of the jam by getting the big strike out as an opposing player in Yankee Stadium, leading to shutting down the best offense in baseball in the playoffs, show that he can handle the pressure imo.

I'm not disagreeing with you, saying his feat wasn't impressive, nor am I saying he hasn't had a very good postseason ERA since then; but is it really so ludicrious to say that that single game couldn't be the product of luck and chance just as much as his previous postseason start, considering his peripherals were virtually identical?

And either way, consider that his postseason stats -- before or after his breakout as the best pitcher in baseball -- aren't what his regular season stats are. Isn't this an indication that since he can't pitch to his own averages in the postseason, there is a glaring hole in the logic that signing Santana will cure our woes of not having a big-game ace? He's certainly an ace, but he doesn't step his game up in big games -- he's stepping down.

Say what you will, but I loved what I saw in Phil Hughes this past postseason; I believe in his stuff, his command, and his mental makeup; and I would rather keep him than send him and others out to Minnesota for what we very, very possibly could get next offseason for just cash.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-03-07, 12:12 AM
I'm not disagreeing with you, saying his feat wasn't impressive, nor am I saying he hasn't had a very good postseason ERA since then; but is it really so ludicrious to say that that single game couldn't be the product of luck and chance just as much as his previous postseason start, considering his peripherals were virtually identical?

And either way, consider that his postseason stats -- before or after his breakout as the best pitcher in baseball -- aren't what his regular season stats are. Isn't this an indication that since he can't pitch to his own averages in the postseason, there is a glaring hole in the logic that signing Santana will cure our woes of not having a big-game ace? He's certainly an ace, but he doesn't step his game up in big games -- he's stepping down.

Say what you will, but I loved what I saw in Phil Hughes this past postseason; I believe in his stuff, his command, and his mental makeup; and I would rather keep him than send him and others out to Minnesota for what we very, very possibly could get next offseason for just cash.

Santana has a better ERA in the playoffs since 04 than in the regular season. In this case periphs. or not relevant, imo. I dont think there is any doubt in his future ability to match that ERA.

groovitude
12-03-07, 02:24 AM
Santana has a better ERA in the playoffs since 04 than in the regular season. In this case periphs. or not relevant, imo. I dont think there is any doubt in his future ability to match that ERA.

They're not relevant in those specific cases, no; but the ERA and the peripherals don't match up, which imply to me that he had gotten lucky, and that over a larger postseason sample size -- which, I assure you, he will get as a Yankee -- he will inevitably regress to the mean, which does not bode well for our hopes for the big-game shutdown ace we want out of this.

So, in other words, I do have doubt in his ability to repeat those ERAs. He has a very similar pitching line from '03 to '04, but his ERA is miles different. Somehow, if you took all the pitching performances with similar numbers and put them together as a sample set, you would not get an ERA like his '04 line.

Though I understand where you're coming from, and certainly see that it makes sense, I don't have the same faith when it comes to getting rid of Hughes for him.

False1
12-03-07, 11:11 PM
I like Hughes a lot, but Santana is the best pitcher on the market right now and we need a solid ace. Wang is great but has only proved to be a number 2 guy, and with the Yanks not sure if Andy will be back, Santana is the obvious choice.I can't wait until the Wanger makes so many of us eat our words. The "Wang Isn't Clutch" crew really doesn't know what it has in CMW.

False1
12-03-07, 11:16 PM
In 2004, his breakout season, he had a regular-season ERA+ of 182, which is absolutely disgusting. Then see how he stepped up in the postseason in comparison to the previous year:


H/9 HR/9 BB/9 WHIP
2003 10.57 0.00 3.52 1.57
2004 10.50 0.00 3.00 1.50
What dramatic change in the peripherals! Was the dramatic shift in ERA (7.04 to 0.74) between the '03 postseason and the '04 postseason due to chance or his breakout season? My guess is the former.

It's true that there is a line of delineation between pre- and post-2004, but there are still a number of factors to consider:

* His post-2004 postseason WHIP is still a bit higher than his career WHIP; and considering we're looking for a shutdown postseason ace, that's not what we want to see.
* The sample size here is incredibly small; granted, that could work for either argument, but it needs to be considered.
* Looking at the post-'04 numbers, I'd still take Beckett.


ERA H/9 K/9 WHIP
Pre '04 Santana 7.71 10.28 7.71 1.50
Post '04 Santana 1.53 8.55 9.00 1.20I'm all for keeping Hughes, but why is eveyone saying Santana is not a shut down ace? His numbers in the post-season over the last several years are very good indeed. Not to mention the issue of sample sizes, and the fact that in the playoffs you tend to face better offenses than the average of the league over a course of a season. Right now, there's no one I'd rather have on the mound in an important game than Mr. Santana. I'm just not willing to overpay for that in terms of the immediate and especially long term future.

nojoke
12-04-07, 01:02 AM
I honestly think that Santana is the best pitcher in baseball. With that said I don't think it makes sense for the Yankees OR THE REDSOX to give up young players that they have developed in order to win. Jacoby Ellsbury hit .353 this year and Hughes had dominant outings pre-injury and displayed why he was such a top prospect in late September and his outings against Cleveland in the playoffs. Remember Hughes was said to be the next Roger Clemens, who career wise is years beyond Santana.

sahara
12-04-07, 02:14 AM
Unless Hank flips, he's likely been held.

And I won't have to change my avatar.

groovitude
12-04-07, 02:45 AM
I'm all for keeping Hughes, but why is eveyone saying Santana is not a shut down ace? His numbers in the post-season over the last several years are very good indeed. Not to mention the issue of sample sizes, and the fact that in the playoffs you tend to face better offenses than the average of the league over a course of a season. Right now, there's no one I'd rather have on the mound in an important game than Mr. Santana. I'm just not willing to overpay for that in terms of the immediate and especially long term future.

My argument, based on those stats, is that he's not a big-game pitcher; not in the sense that he doesn't perform well, but that he doesn't pitch better. His postseason lines are worse than his regular season lines. Compare that to someone like Josh Beckett, who blows his superb regular season numbers away with unbelievable postseason numbers.

Not only that, but I feel like some of those peripherals indicate that his postseason ERA should be higher than it is -- and if that suddenly reverts to the mean, he won't be what we're looking for in a big-game shutdown ace.

By no means think that I don't think Santana is a fantastic pitcher, or think that I wouldn't love to have him pitching a game for me in the postseason. I just think the insane expectations we have won't be met, and with a few statistics to back that opinion up.


Unless Hank flips, he's likely been held.

And I won't have to change my avatar.

That would be optimal. May Hughes forever be graced with wins from our absurd offense and the slimming effect of wearing pinstripes.

Hughes2.50
12-04-07, 05:58 AM
I think it's fair enough to ask for possible evidence from both sides -- it's just easier to find the evidence of an overall decline, as you're using statistical data over the last three or four years rather than the extenuating circumstance (physical, mental, mechanical, or otherwise) of why this year was an off year.

I haven't been part of the "Santana is in a decline" camp in an effort to argue against the trade of our stalwart Mr. Hughes, but I'll kind of type through my thought processes as I look at it. The way I see it, if I think it shows that he is in a decline, that helps my argument; and if it doesn't, it proves that Santana is a filthy good pitcher, which we already knew.

First, from thebaseballcube.com:


ERA H/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/9 WHIP

2004 2.61 6.16 0.95 2.13 10.46 0.92
2005 2.87 6.99 0.85 1.75 9.25 0.97
2006 2.77 7.16 0.92 1.81 9.44 1.00
2007 3.33 7.52 1.36 2.14 9.66 1.07
I'm thinking I'm going to run these particular numbers through Graph (I rock OpenOffice's Calc rather than Excel, and its regressions are useless) and see what the closest trendlines I can get to each are.

While I'm installing Graph, though, I just noticed this little tidbit.


GB%

2004 41%
2005 43%
2006 38%
2007 --
TBC doesn't have the data for his 2007 GB% in; The Hardball Times does, however, and it's 38% again. I'm not sure that his upward trend in HR/9 this past year was a fluke so much as 2006 was a fluke considering how low his groundcall count is. 38% is second-lowest in the AL, only to Jarrod Washburn and his 36.5%. He's actually tenth-lowest in all of MLB in 2007, though -- the NL's loaded with flyball pitchers, apparently.

Quick crunch of numbers based on the top 10 lowest GB% vs. their HR/9 in the AL for 2007, and include their data from 2006 and 2005 (to compare to Santana's "abberation"):


2007 2006 2005
Pitcher GB% HR/9 GB% HR/9 GB% HR/9

Washburn 36.5 1.06 39.9 1.19 39.3 0.98
Santana 38.0 1.45 40.6 1.00 40.4 0.93
Byrd 38.3 1.25 38.5 1.24 37.8 1.00
Matsuzaka 38.4 1.11 -- -- -- --
Wakefield 38.9 1.06 39.4 1.20 41.4 1.49
Garland 39.4 0.83 42.1 1.11 47.3 1.10
Vazquez 39.8 1.27 39.8 1.02 43.3 1.49
Bannister 40.8 0.85 40.0 0.91 -- --
Verlander 41.1 0.89 41.7 1.04 46.3 0.71
Guthrie 42.5 1.23 50.0 0.83 -- -- Note: I realize that Santana's GB% numbers are different here -- the earlier numbers are from The Baseball Cube, these are from The Hardball Times. I don't know what the discrepancy between the two are, but I'm working with what I've got.

With this data, I see thirteen examples of GB% under 40% -- and only two of them have HR/9 under 1 (Washburn '05 and Garland '07). At any rate, with such a low GB%, he runs the risk of more HRs, especially with the slowly increasing H/9 he's got going (and that has been increasing every year since 2004, one of few absolute consistencies in his line).

Now that I'm past that rather extended tangent, I tried running the regressions on the numbers since '04, but to no particular avail -- the ones that had the greatest coefficients of determination were not always sensical models (i.e., despite a constant trend upwards in H/9, the "best fitting" model had it dipping back down for next year). So much for that.

I figure ERA+ is a good place to hit next -- from baseball-reference.com:


ERA lgERA ERA+
2004 2.61 4.73 182
2005 2.87 4.45 155
2006 2.77 4.47 161
2007 3.33 4.33 130
I'm surprised to see that his ERA+ was actually better in 2002 and 2003 than it was this past year (149 and 148). "Slipping" to 155 wasn't horrible either, for the record -- he still led the AL in ERA+, '04-'06.

After looking it all over, I'm inclined to not disagree with the "Santana is declining" camp. I'm not agreeing with them; I'm just not disagreeing with them. If the numbers aren't sliding, they're following a downward-sloping oscillation from '04 on. I expect this next year to be better than this year but not back on par with '06.

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Hughes continuing to get better over the next few years.I think the question isn't has Santana slipped yet (probably not) the question should be, when will he start to slip noticeably?

In the history of baseball there are very few left handed pitchers who had strong (multiple) seasons (strong enough to merit the kind of trade proposal the Yankees foolishly proposed) who would merit trading for after they turned 29 years old -

Randy Johnson

Lefty Grove

Sandy Koufax

Whitey Ford


Off the top of my head, aside from the mutilated handful of lefty pitchers above, there are no pitchers in baseball history who continued to pitch nearly as well after 29 as before at such a high level (and there are plenty who didn't - Jerry Koosman, Guidry, Blue, McDowell, etc.)

The point is to justify giving away top prospects, what you get back should have a long shelf-life. The evidence in support of Santana having a long shelf-life isn't compelling.

bigjf
12-04-07, 09:29 AM
I look at Johan's WHIP and it looks like an escalator going up,up and up. We have the beginnings of a young nucleus of Joba, Ian, Phil,Humberto,Wanger, and Alan Horne, plus several solid potentials for bullpen arms, too. Sorry, I'm sick of all ot the crappy trades and/or acquistions over the previous 5 years. I will call and hopefully more Yankee fans will do, too.

Yep, so at this rate his WHIP will be 2.50 in 2 years...better put that number on speed dial! Does anyone even answer?

Rice14
12-04-07, 09:29 AM
I think the question isn't has Santana slipped yet (probably not) the question should be, when will he start to slip noticeably?

In the history of baseball there are very few left handed pitchers who had strong (multiple) seasons (strong enough to merit the kind of trade proposal the Yankees foolishly proposed) who would merit trading for after they turned 29 years old -

Randy Johnson

Lefty Grove

Sandy Koufax

Whitey Ford


Off the top of my head, aside from the mutilated handful of lefty pitchers above, there are no pitchers in baseball history who continued to pitch nearly as well after 29 as before at such a high level (and there are plenty who didn't - Jerry Koosman, Guidry, Blue, McDowell, etc.)

The point is to justify giving away top prospects, what you get back should have a long shelf-life. The evidence in support of Santana having a long shelf-life isn't compelling.

Steve Carlton