This recently came up in Frank Piliere’s chat on Fangraphs:
I think this is a very interesting question. If we compare Phil Hughes after 2007 and Manuel Banuelos now, I think I have to disagree with Piliere. I don’t doubt that Banuelos has better stuff than Hughes does right now, but Hughes had a much better track record at this point in 2007. He was coming off a downright nasty season between Tampa and Trenton, with 10.4 K/9 and 2.1 BB/9 and 146 innings, and his curveball was labeled the best in the minor leagues. Importantly, he had two full seasons of healthy, elite-level pitching under his belt.
However, with the benefit of hindsight, Piliere’s criticism of Hughes is pretty enlightening. We all assumed back then that Hughes would develop a changeup without a whole lot of trouble. He was considered a coach’s dream and a quick learn. He had been taught the curveball after throwing just sliders in High School in just a few short months, and it was frequently rated a 70 on the 20-80 scale.
But that’s all hindsight. In 2007, that wasn’t that much of a concern. There are lots of potential threats to Manuel Banuelos’ prospect status that hindsight could prove more serious than they were: his lack of innings and size for example. He does have the advantage of being about a year younger than Hughes was at a comparable points. Still, I don’t want to jump the gun on Banuelos too much. And this is coming from someone who is a huge fan of ManBan.
And frankly, its not like Phil Hughes has been a bust. Due to an untimely injury and a crowded rotation, Hughes hasn’t exactly taken a straight development path. I don’t think that at this point we can say that Hughes has been a disappointment. He’ll turn 25 in June, has one elite relief season and one strong starting season under his belt, and could very well follow Adam Wainwright’s career path. He’s turned out pretty well for a prospect, top level or not.
Hughes was a darn good prospect after he completed Double-A. Manuel is a darn good prospect too, but as someone who started blogging right around the time Hughes started pitching, I remember how good we all thought he was very well. He was roughly comparable to Jesus Montero in prospect status. Banuelos isn’t there yet.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
12 Responses to Is Banuelos A Better Prospect Than Phil Hughes Was?
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I would have slated Hughes for a certain number of innings then stuck him back in the pen instead of burning him out for Sept-Oct.
how can you possibly disagree with a professional scout about his evaluation? All you are basing your evaluation on is basically internet scouting reports and various hype. He is using professional skill.
Professional scouts disagree. Pro scouts rated Hughes the #5 prospect in baseball in 2007, and Banuelos in the 12-50 range in 2011.
Its OK to have your own opinion sometimes.
Hughes may have gotten more hype but Manny is more polished. We did assume Hughes would develop these pitches, though its become clear that he hasn’t. If he can than good for him, but as of now Manny seems to have a brighter future. Betances is a good example of the type of prospect Hughes was. Hughes has obviously had more success and I doubt Betances will go as far as Hughes. However, Hughes was a high ranked prospect because we assumed that he could develop his off speed pitches. We looked at his ceiling but didn’t take the time to look at his floor. Manny as of now is more effective and has a higher effectiveness ceiling but doesn’t have the innings Hughes has (Hughes is older). Manny is already set in terms of off speed, he just needs more time in the minors to build up his innings. I have a strong feeling that Manny has a better chance of becoming an Ace and Hughes unless Hughes develops his off speed pitches.
I never saw Hughes as a potential ace, it confused me to constantly hear comparisons to Roger Clemens and be called the “mini rocket” when I could never see them being close to one another.
Banuelos is far and away more polished, left handed, younger and has similar velocity all of these add up to Manny being the better prospect, just because Hughes had more Hype doesn’t mean he was better.
What I think happened with Hughes was Yankee fans hadn’t had a great young prospect in so long when we finally got one many lost their minds, they assumed he had to be an ace, and they started projecting what he would one day learn. With Banuelos he already has 3 pitches, and he already has mound demeanor that Hughes still doesn’t possess. If Manny had A Phil Hughes body no one would even think about it, they would have Banuelos in the top 10 rankings and he would be fighting Montero for top spot.
No, this just is not accurate. It wasn’t just Yankees fans hyping him, all of the independent scouting services loved Hughes, and he was universally considered one of the top 2 pitching prospects in the minors. Hughes had excellent mound presence, 2 top of the line pitches and a 3rd that had plus potential, very good command and control, and the minor league performance to back it all up.
I’ve always been in the minority on Hughes and that is fine with me but I do find it mind boggling so many people still see him as a future ace.
I’ve never seen Hughes as a 3 pitch pitcher, I don’t understand why just because a pitcher occasionaly throws a good change it’s a future plus pitch. You have to grade pitches off more than just what they can become and also factor in how much the pitcher trusts the pitch. Hughes seems to have an average changeup with less than average confidence in the pitch, to me that doesn’t make for a potential plus pitch.
As for his mound presence, maybe he was better about it in the minor leagues but to me this has always been his worst quality. Early on his biggest overall problem was not being able to stop the other team once things went against him, in fact I’ve seen him crumble on the mound more than once. He’s gotten a lot better since his time in the pen, but again last year in the playoffs he showed the same kind of tendency to fold when the going gets really tough. He strikes me mentaly in a similar way as Burnett does, in that they both seem to be there own worst enemy. When things are going good they can be dominate but when things go bad, time to look out.
Simply comparing Banuelos to Hughes now I think he shows a much better change with much more confidence in three pitches, a much better presence on the mound, and an ability to pitch from behind I’ve never seen Hughes posses. Between the two Hughes is a more prototypical looking pitcher, Banuelos however is more the actual pitcher.
I dont see him as an ace anymore. If the comparison is current ceiling, I can definitely see Banuelos getting the nod. But as prospects, Hughes was the better one.
As for Hughes being his own worst enemy on the mound, I dont see that at all. Last season he rarely got blown out of a game, keeping them in almost every game he pitched. I’ve never seen him melt down on the mound in any fashion.
I couldn’t agree with you any more T.O. Phil Hughes received this hype because it had been a while since the Yankees had a top prospect. I think Manny has the 3 pitches that Hughes doesn’t have. However, I still can see Hughes as a potential ace. Phil showed in the first half of the season what he was truly capable of. In the second half however, his innings had caught up to him. He also lost consistency on his curve and his change up (wasn’t great to begin with) had somehow gotten worse. With Larry as the new pitching coach, Phil could turn things around with his new pitch. Though Manny is the better pitcher.
I don’t agree that Hughes showed who he really is in the first half of the season.
I have seen this claimed in many places, that he showed us who he was and then simply tired out but this doesn’t explain why he had such a difference in his ERA and FIP during the first half, and when combined with the tiny BABIP he posted and having the most run support in baseball during the first half I think much of it was luck. If anything I believe things evened out and he came back down to earth closer to where he was pitching. He was pitching over his head in the first half, and while innings load may have helped his downward spiral at the end I think he was bound to come down closer to the way he was pitching when you look at his peripherals in the first half.
I generally agree with what T.O. Chris says, although I think the comments are extremely harsh and I couldn’t agree to that extent. The issue with Phil is this: he has a good FB, but it’s not special – and none of his other pitches are special. I really do believe in his first half last year, particularly the first 6 starts, as I saw all of those 6 and I don’t believe he got lucky. He wasn’t giving up hard hit balls – period. Fact is, though, he had a 5 ERA after those starts and that’s not good.
As to mound presence, I won’t go so far as to saying he’s AJ as I don’t think that’s at all fair, but let’s just say that 2007 was a long time ago – he really did seem to have ice in his veins then. Since then? I do think he gets overwhelmed in truly big spots, though he pitched well against the Sox and Rays late in the season in 2010
You make a good point, but that still doesn’t explain why Phil just started pitching poorly. I agree it wasn’t just innings, but I must admit, Phil’s command, effectiveness, and off speed pitches all contributed in his first half. However, in the second half, Phil lacked a lot of this. Phil didn’t just quit. Its typical for a young pitcher to lose consistency in mechanics ect. Keep in mind he is 23 years old and he was making a transition from the bull pen to the rotation. Provided if he stayed in the minors and pitched every 5 days, we might be talking about a different Phil. Though Manny is a much better prospect.