Are there tough times ahead for the Yankees’ fifth starter, Phil Hughes?
Well, not exactly, however, given a few of his underlying numbers on the season, it does seem as though Hughes is bound to regress a bit going forward. For example, Hughes currently sports a 1.44 ERA, but his FIP is 3.13 (xFIP at 4.24). He seems to be benefitting from the Yankee defense, allowing him to pitch over his head in his 4 starts, thus far (there is not a huge disparity between his ERA and FIP, but his ERA should definitely be higher).
In addition, Hughes BABIP, at .162, is well below the league’s .300 average. He can’t maintain such a low BABIP forever and it will soon inflate as the season wears on. In fact, the inflation could be brought on by an increase in Hughes’ line drive rate, as it is currently 12.1%, another unsustainably low figure (Hughes’ rate is the 5th lowest in the American League). Also, consider the fact that Hughes’ strand rate or his LOB% (left on base percentage), currently at 87.4%, is well above the norm, as the average LOB% on the season is 71.7% (it was 71.9% in 2009). Hughes’ LOB% should see a drop over the course of the regular season. When this mark levels off and fewer base runners are stranded, more runs will then score.
Still, although I am pointing out the obvious, that Hughes likely won’t maintain a 1.44 ERA all season, what we should expect going forward isn’t all that bad, really (not at all). Even with a regression, ZiPS forecasts Hughes to post a 3.76 FIP (4.29 ERA) going forward. I doubt any fan would complain about that (he would then end the year with a 3.63 ERA).
Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
9 Responses to Hughes to regress?
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I think one thing that might mitigate a drastic regression is if he continues to increase the use of his change. He threw more (as far as I could see) in his most recent start, and threw some good ones. Having CC on the staff has to help in that regard–if it’s good enough a pitch for CC to throw, it’s certainly good enough for PH.
REGRESSION. Couldn’t be that nobody goes 35-0.
Couldn’t be that fast starts and slow starts don’t always mean much.Couldn’t mean IF HUGHES 15-16 GAMES, WHO CARES? Regression.
Isnt that a bit simplistic? This simply looks at the underlying issues to see how much he has overachieved. It gives a more specific look that just saying a hot start doesnt mean much.
The top 4 starters have all been pitching over their heads, not just Phil. But the good news is our 2-4 hitters have yet to get going, so we have some positive offensive regressions coming our way as well.
People need to watch the games.Regression? I guess that’s watching a smallish David Robertson throw the ball STRAIGHT in the low 90′s and have guys take those low strikes and him constantly getting ahead first time around and striking them out.I was skeptical.Now it’s second time around and they’re clubbing him.Is that a shock or is it just watching the games?
Not saying Robertson won’t adjust, just saying if you were watching, you couldn’t possibly think an average reliever straight fastball was going to make him famous.
If you watch the games the myriad of stats are often meaningless and often more result oriented than causal aren’t very important and frankly, predict little, except after the case.
Hughes, has a lot of pitches, knows how to pitch but won’t go 35-0.He’ll lose command for a period and they’ll figure him out for awhile but overall, I think it’s pretty clear that he’s going to have a good career as a starting pitcher.
Can he be Bob GIbson? Probably not but he appears to have the make up, command and variety of good pitches at different speeds with enough movement to keep batters off balance and to win.
I watch all the games, and I think Robertson will be fine. He hides the fastball very well and has a great curve that keeps hitters off balance. You dont lead the AL in strikeouts per 9 by accident.
As for your general point, the stats themselves are never causal, they reflect results. But they can also indicate causes, which can then tell you if the results are sustainable.
it’s funny how someone watching the game doesn’t take note of the obvious fact that David Robertson was throwing 95 last year, which by most measure isn’t “low 90s”
Everyone watches the game, it is just amusing that people who claim that anyone who bother to check up the lines and see if it confirms with their memory (which, human memories are notorouiously prone to lapses) somehow made the game up on paper.
David Robertson mostly threw 90-93, occassionaly at the end got one or two up to 95 but that was far from the norm.
Back to Hughes–I think a lot of people still underestimate just how good he can be. He wasn’t especially sharp tonight, and even lost his arm slot for a bit. A visit from Eiland and he started mowing Red Sox hitters down once more. He’s obviously due for some correction, but it’s entirely possible that he’s going to be a front-line pitcher (barring injury) for many years to come.