Article: Don't Sleep On Phil Hughes

[d-mac]

 

I felt it was unnecessary. The Twins had Hughes for two more seasons and 2014 was easily his career season to date.

 

Yeah, you stand to lose a little by waiting one season to extend that player but you also drastically reduce risk of paying a guy for an outlier season.

 

As it turned out, it was an outlier season.

 

Same logic applies to the stupid and by stupid I mean completely moronic extension of Suzuki in the midst of a career year. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Same logic applies to the stupid, and by stupid I mean completely moronic extension of Suzuki in the midst of a career year. 

That bothered me less, as it was modest money for a guy who wouldn't kill you as the backup catcher.

 

Suzuki got $12m over two years. Hughes got $40m over three years on top of the $16m he was already owed over the coming two years. A five year commitment of over $55m.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If all of the starters can improve their ERA by.75 points from last year(Santana won't), with a team ERA around 4.25, we have a chance to go .500 if the bats can score the 5 runs per game needed.  Not sure what our runs per game was last year but it should be close to that mark.

Twins were at 4.46 runs per game.  5 per game would have easily the second-best in the AL, trailing only the Red Sox offensive juggernaut.

 

4.25 ERA would be basically AL average.  The Twins had by far the worst ERA in the AL last year at 5.08.

 

So yeah, if they have league-average pitching and league-leading hitting, they should be pretty good.  Not sure of the likelihood of both of those things fully coming true, given the minimal roster changes so far...

Edited January 18, 2017 by spycake

[gunnarthor]

I think Brock hit it on the head - we will know in ST if Hughes is back.  If he's throwing 88, maybe it's time to discuss a buy out or at least a bullpen role.  But if his velocity is back, he can be a 180ip, 1.5-2.0 WAR pitcher.  That's not great but that's certainly serviceable in today's MLB. 

[d-mac]

 

Twins were at 4.46 runs per game.  5 per game would have easily the second-best in the AL, trailing only the Red Sox offensive juggernaut.

 

4.25 ERA would be basically AL average.  The Twins had by far the worst ERA in the AL last year at 5.08.

 

So yeah, if they have league-average pitching and league-leading hitting, they should be pretty good.  Not sure of the likelihood of both of those things fully coming true, given the minimal roster changes so far...

 

Fangraphs has us pegged for 4.61 runs scored per game (9th in AL) and 5.01 runs allowed per game (dead last in the AL) in 2017.

[nicksaviking]

 

I think Brock hit it on the head - we will know in ST if Hughes is back.  If he's throwing 88, maybe it's time to discuss a buy out or at least a bullpen role.  But if his velocity is back, he can be a 180ip, 1.5-2.0 WAR pitcher.  That's not great but that's certainly serviceable in today's MLB. 

 

Personally I'd like to see him in the pen regardless of where his velocity is at. I think he could be good back there with his limited repertoire and I'd rather give some of the younger guys a shot at the rotation. I'd like to give two of May, Berrios and Mejia a shot at the very least. I don't really like having 4 vets in the rotation for a rebuilding club.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Personally I'd like to see him in the pen regardless of where his velocity is at. I think he could be good back there with his limited repertoire and I'd rather give some of the younger guys a shot at the rotation. I'd like to give two of May, Berrios and Mejia a shot at the very least. I don't really like having 4 vets in the rotation for a rebuilding club.

That's not a terrible solution but it's unlikely all of Berrios, Meija, and May will thrive in the rotation, at least right off the bat.

 

I'm fine with giving Hughes, Berrios, May, and Meija legitimate shots at three rotation spots coming out of Spring Training. It's likely at least one of them will falter in March and the decision makes itself at that point.

 

I suppose Duffey could "get a shot" as well but I don't see him as a starter, not with his pitches.

[Lonestar]

 

I felt it was unnecessary. The Twins had Hughes for two more seasons and 2014 was easily his career season to date.

 

Yeah, you stand to lose a little by waiting one season to extend that player but you also drastically reduce risk of paying a guy for an outlier season.

 

As it turned out, it was an outlier season.

It is true that 2014 was an outlier season. Is it true that the Twins paid him for it? 

 

Hughes put up 5.9 WAR. The Twins increased his pay from $8M to $13.5M. That's less than 2 WAR.

 

Hughes' extensions exposed the Twins to more risk of injury. Then again, he got hurt during the pre-extension years. 

 

We all expected Hughes to regress after 2014. 2014 could still have been a break through. How many of us expected him to regress from 5.9 WAR to less than 2?  He put up 2.6 as a starter in 2010 and 2.4 in 2012.

 

If TOS is the special cause of his regression, we don't know how much of an outlier his 2014 is/was. And we might not ever know.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It is true that 2014 was an outlier season. Is it true that the Twins paid him for it? 

 

Hughes put up 5.9 WAR. The Twins increased his pay from $8M to $13.5M. That's less than 2 WAR.

 

Hughes' extensions exposed the Twins to more risk of injury. Then again, he got hurt during the pre-extension years. 

 

We all expected Hughes to regress after 2014. 2014 could still have been a break through. How many of us expected him to regress from 5.9 WAR to less than 2?  He put up 2.6 as a starter in 2010 and 2.4 in 2012.

 

If TOS is the special cause of his regression, we don't know how much of an outlier his 2014 is/was. And we might not ever know.

True, they didn't pay him market value. It was a calculated risk, one that didn't pay off.

 

I'm not super-critical of the deal, I simply don't believe it was necessary.

 

I'd rather see the Twins take a gamble on Phil Hughes after 2014 than pay one more damned cent to the likes of Mike Pelfrey or Kevin Correia.

[Lonestar]

I planned on no innings from Hughes in 2017. If he is capable of more than pitching batting practice, I would put him in long relief/swing man. If he is capable of high leverage relief, I think he would also be a good starting pitcher and that's where I would put him.  My $.02.

 

If Hughes is starting, I don't see the Twins starting all four vets -- Santana, Gibson, Santiago, and Hughes. I think Santiago would be the odd man out.

[nicksaviking]

 

That's not a terrible solution but it's unlikely all of Berrios, Meija, and May will thrive in the rotation, at least right off the bat.

 

I'm fine with giving Hughes, Berrios, May, and Meija legitimate shots at three rotation spots coming out of Spring Training. It's likely at least one of them will falter in March and the decision makes itself at that point.

 

I suppose Duffey could "get a shot" as well but I don't see him as a starter, not with his pitches.

 

I wouldn't expect the young guys to thrive, but I'd like to give them a shot.

 

I don't think there are four of them (Hughes, Berrios, May and Mejia) fighting for three spots, isn't it only two spots? I'd assume Santana, Gibson and Santiago are locks barring injury. Three unexciting vets are more than enough for my tastes if we're rebuilding, four is probably more than I can handle.

 

As far as Duffey not being a starter any longer due to his two pitch mix, I agree, and it's also largely the reason I don't really think Hughes needs another shot at the rotation; he basically just has two different fastballs and a curve, but unlike Duffey, Hughes' curve is really, really bad. And that has nothing to do with TOS, his curve has been a bad pitch his entire career.

[TheLeviathan]

Hughes-Santana-Santiago-Duffey-Gibson:

 

My nightmare scenario.

[Thrylos]

 

If all of the starters can improve their ERA by.75 points from last year(Santana won't), with a team ERA around 4.25, we have a chance to go .500 if the bats can score the 5 runs per game needed.  Not sure what our runs per game was last year but it should be close to that mark.  I don't care who is in the rotation and who is in the pen, as long as the pitchers keep us in games, I'll watch a lot more games(I already watch too many, per the wife).  I would drop some coin and go to a few if there was a better chance the Twins could be in every game past the 5th inning this year

 

In 2016 they Scored 722 runs, Allowed 889 runs. For a .500 record they should allow 722 runs, which is 167 or 18.8% improvement.  Team ERA was 5.08.  An 18.8% improvement would be 4.12 and not 4.25.  A 4.12 ERA would have been the 6th best in the AL

 

a. Good luck

b. a .500 record means nothing in a rebuilding season.  Developing players and getting young talent that can help them to become a 90+ win team is more important.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Hughes-Santana-Santiago-Duffey-Gibson:

 

My nightmare scenario.

Damn, I completely forgot about Santiago.

 

Gee, I wonder how that happened.

[ThejacKmp]

 

Every time I see the name "Phil Hughes", I think "wildly unnecessary contact extension." Go New FO!

 

I'm going to have to disagree. I think this is an example of hating something after based on the result. The process was defendable.

If you're the Twins in 2014, you have no other #1 starter and no one coming up who looks like a decent shot at a true #1 starter. Phil Hughes in 2014 was a #1 starter. He hadn't done it for multiple seasons but it wasn't like his BABIP or HR rate was hiding it - he was legitimately a top 10 to 15 pitcher. He also had the pedigree to back it up – he had the prospect history and some MLB bullpen success to back up the concept that he might be finally be putting things together. MLB history has many examples of top prospects who took a while to put it together.

It would have been nice to wait a year and see him repeat it but that wasn’t really an option. You could say wait a year but if the Twins had and Hughes had a good year in 2015, he'd have no incentive to sign since he'd be a year from free agency and a huge pay day. Any extension after 2015 would likely be beyond the Twins ability to spend. So it was really “extend after 2014 or lose him after 2016” (if he keeps it up).

 

And the money involved wasn’t disastrous – Phil Hughes contract hasn’t kept the Twins from being good the past few years. He got an extra $42 million for three extra years (basically $14 million per year). He’s been injured and not good for that whole time and that sucks but the amount of money they gambled for a chance at three extra seasons of a #1 type pitcher is pretty minor when you get down to what pitching costs in today’s market.

 

The Twins had no real solid internal options for the top of the rotation at the time and they weren’t likely to be in the market for the Lesters and Grienkes of this world.

 

I can't fault the Twins for signing him to an extension - it's a low risk, high reward gamble and when you're in the Twins spot it's not a bad choice. Something not working out doesn’t mean that it was a terrible call. You win some and you lose some and the Twins (thus far) have definitely lost this one. But I remember being excited about the Twins making a play to have a true #1 pitcher for a half decade and I’ll stick by that. I hope the new regime wouldn’t be afraid of the potential downside when it comes to making similar gambles (early contracts for guys like Buxton, Sano or Berrios leap to mind).

[ThejacKmp]

 

I think Brock hit it on the head - we will know in ST if Hughes is back.  If he's throwing 88, maybe it's time to discuss a buy out or at least a bullpen role.  But if his velocity is back, he can be a 180ip, 1.5-2.0 WAR pitcher.  That's not great but that's certainly serviceable in today's MLB. 

 

Definitely like bullpen more than buy out. He's had success before and it's not like the Twins have a ton of sure things in the pen. Wouldn't be surprising to see him claim a 7th inning or maybe even 8th inning role. That low BB rate might also be useful when coming on in the middle of an inning - he isn't going to walk in a run.

[Boom Boom]

I think Brock hit it on the head - we will know in ST if Hughes is back. If he's throwing 88, maybe it's time to discuss a buy out or at least a bullpen role. But if his velocity is back, he can be a 180ip, 1.5-2.0 WAR pitcher. That's not great but that's certainly serviceable in today's MLB.

I see what you're saying, but if Hughes is throwing 88 in Spring Training, we will be told that Spring Training numbers don't matter.

 

There was some concern about Glen Perkins's diminished velocity in ST last year. Perk told us he was fine and don't worry about it.

[nicksaviking]

 

I'm going to have to disagree. I think this is an example of hating something after based on the result. The process was defendable.
 

 

Who would do such a thing! Let's jump in the time machine and see what everyone was saying about the extension when it occurred:

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/16336-article-twins-extend-phil-hughes/page-1?hl= phil  hughes

 

Props to being alone on the Island of Skepticism HitInAPinch! John Bonnes was also a bit waffley on the extension. Dang, I was hoping I was going to be on the right side of history on that one, alas I guess I liked the move as well.

[Thrylos]

 

 Phil Hughes in 2014 was a #1 starter.

 

 

 

Not sure about that.  In 2014 there were 196 SPs with minimum of 40 IP..  If you take the #1 cut-off at 10% , then you have 20 #1s (which is too much I think, but let's say it is so - reminder: the best starter in a horrible team is not always number 1; see: Diamond Scott)

 

Here is Hughes' ranking in several categories in 2014:

 

Hughes was 71st in ERA, 48th in K%, 36th in WHIP,  33th in xFIP, 29th in SIERA, 18th in IP, 10th in FIP, 1st BB%, 

 

Other than his FIP numbers that was majorly driven by his low walks,  Hughes was not on the top 10 of 2014 pitchers.  His 2014 was a lot like and a hair better (because of the more Ks) Carlos Silva's 2005:  A decent number 2 type of pitcher

 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Who would do such a thing! Let's jump in the time machine and see what everyone was saying about the extension when it occurred:

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/16336-article-twins-extend-phil-hughes/page-1?hl= phil  hughes

 

Props to being alone on the Island of Skepticism HitInAPinch! John Bonnes was also a bit waffley on the extension. Dang, I was hoping I was going to be on the right side of history on that one, alas I guess I liked the move as well.

 

I still don't mind the process as far as pitchers go.  If you think you can lock one up at an affordable rate and you have confidence he can contribute - I'd make the same move again.  

 

Pitching is a risky investment and it's always going to be no matter whether that investment is with dollars or trades.

[Doomtints]

We will find out shortly if the surgery he had can correct an otherwise unexplained 2-3 MPH velocity drop.

 

I'm skeptical.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I see what you're saying, but if Hughes is throwing 88 in Spring Training, we will be told that Spring Training numbers don't matter.

There was some concern about Glen Perkins's diminished velocity in ST last year. Perk told us he was fine and don't worry about it.

Spring Training is a process. If a guy is down a few mph on March 1st, it's worth noting but not time to pull the fire alarm and run.

 

If a guy is down a few mph on March 30th, then it's time to pay attention and potentially take action.

 

My problem with the past few Spring Trainings is that people go into a five-alarm fire drill on March 10th.

[Thrylos]

 

Spring Training is a process. If a guy is down a few mph on March 1st, it's worth noting but not time to pull the fire alarm and run.

 

If a guy is down a few mph on March 30th, then it's time to pay attention and potentially take action.

 

My problem with the past few Spring Trainings is that people go into a five-alarm fire drill on March 10th.

 

You can get enough data on March 10th or 15th, if you know where someone was on those dates in previous seasons.   One could tell about Perkins last ST, for example, as soon as his first outing under a radar gun.

 

[ThejacKmp]

 

Who would do such a thing! Let's jump in the time machine and see what everyone was saying about the extension when it occurred:

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/16336-article-twins-extend-phil-hughes/page-1?hl= phil  hughes

 

Props to being alone on the Island of Skepticism HitInAPinch! John Bonnes was also a bit waffley on the extension. Dang, I was hoping I was going to be on the right side of history on that one, alas I guess I liked the move as well.

 

We should do that more often. It's good to remember that hindsight is 20/20.

 

I think the real criticism of TR and crew was that they were afraid to gamble and make financial investments earlier (Johan, Joe, Torii etc.), not that the one time they tried it the thing failed. TR's Twins loved to buy out years of arbitration (worked for Dozier, failed for Blackburn etc.) but they were pretty bad at using high points (e.g. Willingham) to either trade a guy or extend him. It's clearly a smart thing to do.

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

I'm going to have to disagree. I think this is an example of hating something after based on the result. The process was defendable.

If you're the Twins in 2014, you have no other #1 starter and no one coming up who looks like a decent shot at a true #1 starter. Phil Hughes in 2014 was a #1 starter. He hadn't done it for multiple seasons but it wasn't like his BABIP or HR rate was hiding it - he was legitimately a top 10 to 15 pitcher. He also had the pedigree to back it up – he had the prospect history and some MLB bullpen success to back up the concept that he might be finally be putting things together. MLB history has many examples of top prospects who took a while to put it together.

It would have been nice to wait a year and see him repeat it but that wasn’t really an option. You could say wait a year but if the Twins had and Hughes had a good year in 2015, he'd have no incentive to sign since he'd be a year from free agency and a huge pay day. Any extension after 2015 would likely be beyond the Twins ability to spend. So it was really “extend after 2014 or lose him after 2016” (if he keeps it up).

 

And the money involved wasn’t disastrous – Phil Hughes contract hasn’t kept the Twins from being good the past few years. He got an extra $42 million for three extra years (basically $14 million per year). He’s been injured and not good for that whole time and that sucks but the amount of money they gambled for a chance at three extra seasons of a #1 type pitcher is pretty minor when you get down to what pitching costs in today’s market.

 

The Twins had no real solid internal options for the top of the rotation at the time and they weren’t likely to be in the market for the Lesters and Grienkes of this world.

 

I can't fault the Twins for signing him to an extension - it's a low risk, high reward gamble and when you're in the Twins spot it's not a bad choice. Something not working out doesn’t mean that it was a terrible call. You win some and you lose some and the Twins (thus far) have definitely lost this one. But I remember being excited about the Twins making a play to have a true #1 pitcher for a half decade and I’ll stick by that. I hope the new regime wouldn’t be afraid of the potential downside when it comes to making similar gambles (early contracts for guys like Buxton, Sano or Berrios leap to mind).

 

FanGraphs rated Hughes as the #5 pitcher in all of MLB for 2014.

I believe It was a defensible decision based on the points ThejacKmp made.  His post reminded me of our situation at that time.  Remembering the potential upside of the signing tends to dissipate over time.

 

And it was an unusually aggressive move by TR.

[HitInAPinch]

 

Who would do such a thing! Let's jump in the time machine and see what everyone was saying about the extension when it occurred:

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/16336-article-twins-extend-phil-hughes/page-1?hl= phil  hughes

 

Props to being alone on the Island of Skepticism HitInAPinch! John Bonnes was also a bit waffley on the extension. Dang, I was hoping I was going to be on the right side of history on that one, alas I guess I liked the move as well.

I do have my moments.  And that was probably it for 2014  

 

 

[jimmer]

 

FanGraphs rated Hughes as the #5 pitcher in all of MLB for 2014.

I believe It was a defensible decision based on the points ThejacKmp made.  His post reminded me of our situation at that time.  Remembering the potential upside of the signing tends to dissipate over time.

 

And it was an unusually aggressive move by TR.

It was a completely out of left field season and an unnecessary/early extension.  It wasn't a good extension based on info available at the time. Hindsight (which, you know, wasn't hard to see coming) confirms it but wasn't necessary to see this was a bad decision. I don't care if a lot of people in here were on a high from his season and applauded the decision at the time because of that season, it was an obvious bad move (and using group think to say other-wise doesn't work either).

Edited January 19, 2017 by jimmer

[Steve Lein]

Loved what Hughes brought in 2014, it was an awesome season. But there was absolutely no reason to extend his current deal at that point in time. 

 

I've kind of believed that the Twins got him to sign here with a gentleman's agreement saying they'd tear up his deal with a new one if he performed. 

 

Seriously, tell me how often that has happened for any free-agent signing in baseball history, the extending/increasing of a 3+year free agent deal after one year of it? My intuition says I could count them on one-hand. Possibly one finger.

[Mike Sixel]

Hughes had one great year and not much else... Why would we expect another year, unlike most of his career? I think relief is his future, possibly very good future

[ThejacKmp]

 

Not sure about that.  In 2014 there were 196 SPs with minimum of 40 IP..  If you take the #1 cut-off at 10% , then you have 20 #1s (which is too much I think, but let's say it is so - reminder: the best starter in a horrible team is not always number 1; see: Diamond Scott)

 

Here is Hughes' ranking in several categories in 2014:

 

Hughes was 71st in ERA, 48th in K%, 36th in WHIP,  33th in xFIP, 29th in SIERA, 18th in IP, 10th in FIP, 1st BB%, 

 

Other than his FIP numbers that was majorly driven by his low walks,  Hughes was not on the top 10 of 2014 pitchers.  His 2014 was a lot like and a hair better (because of the more Ks) Carlos Silva's 2005:  A decent number 2 type of pitcher

 

Not terrible points but a pitcher is more than the sum of his parts.

 

To quote someone else, "FanGraphs rated Hughes as the #5 pitcher in all of MLB for 2014." Hughes also finished #7 in the Cy Young voting (I get that Cy Young is an award and thus not super accurate but I think it shows how the industry thought of his performance that year - the guys he was behind were Kluber, King Felix, Sale, Lester, Scherzer and Price, not bad company). I think calling him top 10 to 15 is pretty defensible and accurate. He's not a top flight ace who carries you through the playoffs but he is a legitimate #1 starter for an MLB playoff team (for 2014).