Ellsbury or Hughes? Who's better

[Gom]

With the Yankees and Red Sox battling it out over Santana, I'm interested in your view points on this.

 

Who do you think will have a better career, Phil Hughes or Jacoby Ellsbury? Seeing how I don't know much, I'll sit this debate out. Truthfully, I would take pitching over hitting, which would make me lean towards Hughes, but from what I've seen from Ellsbury in his late season call-up, he has been impressive.

 

Your thoughts? I'm curious.

[cam780]

Tough to say. Pitching is usually more highly regarded so I'll Hughes on this one but caveat is a starting pitcher has the ability to affect the outcome of 30 games. A starting CF has the ability to affect the outcome of 150.

 

I'll take the pitcher everyday of the week though but in the context of the Santana deal I think the Twins may lean toward Ellsbury if only because he addresses a more pressing need for them as their top 6 prospects are pitchers and Hughes has an injury history.

[See Red]

I'm with you, I'd take the great pitching prospect over the great hitting prospect.

 

Hughes.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Phil Hughes

 

but I'll take Clay Buchholz over Phil Hughes

[BoSox21]

I'd rather have the hot shot pitching prospect than the hot spot outfield prospect but within the context of the deal, I think Ellsbury is probably more valuable to the Twins.....but I understand that isn't the debate here

[ACL BoSox]

IMO, a guy who platys everyday as opposed to once every five is more important.

[Thumper]

Pitching is how you win.

 

Hughes beats out Ellsbury in this deal.

 

But like SchillingIsTheNatural said, Buchholz over Hughes.

[TheKilo]

IMO' date=' a guy who platys everyday as opposed to once every five is more important.[/quote']

 

So you probably think Pedro shouldn't have won the MVP. Gotcha.

 

Phil Hughes.

[Cocos Disciples]

Pitching is how you win.

 

Hughes beats out Ellsbury in this deal.

 

But like SchillingIsTheNatural said, Buchholz over Hughes.

 

What? By that argument, wouldn't you take a pitcher over a hitter every time? Is Gil Meche better than David Ortiz because pitching wins championships?

 

I don't know here. Both were impressive in their debuts. In 13 starts, Hughes had a 4.46 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 2.00 K/BB, 7.19 K/9. Pretty solid numbers, especially for a rookie.

 

On the other hand, Ellsbury, in 116 at bats, had a .353 AVG and a .903 OPS. The OPS will drop to the mid .800s when the batting average regresses to normal. He also had 9 stolen bases, 15 strikeouts and 8 walks. Using those numbers, he would be on pace for 44 steals, 74 K and 39 BB. Doesn't walk much at all, so the OBP won't be more than .40 points higher than the average, putting his career norm at a likely .330-.340, which is okay.

 

Yeah, so, tossup.

[cam780]

What? By that argument, wouldn't you take a pitcher over a hitter every time? Is Gil Meche better than David Ortiz because pitching wins championships?

 

I don't know here. Both were impressive in their debuts. In 13 starts, Hughes had a 4.46 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 2.00 K/BB, 7.19 K/9. Pretty solid numbers, especially for a rookie.

 

On the other hand, Ellsbury, in 116 at bats, had a .353 AVG and a .903 OPS. The OPS will drop to the mid .800s when the batting average regresses to normal. He also had 9 stolen bases, 15 strikeouts and 8 walks. Using those numbers, he would be on pace for 44 steals, 74 K and 39 BB. Doesn't walk much at all, so the OBP won't be more than .40 points higher than the average, putting his career norm at a likely .330-.340, which is okay.

 

Yeah, so, I'm going with Hughes by a tad.

 

Among comparables I'd give the edge to the pitcher Meche and Ortiz wouldn't be comparables but you got it right in the end

[jacksonianmarch]

Depends on what you are looking for. For the Twins, they very well may be more interested in a CFer, but with the loss of Garza, they have thinned out some of their pitching depth. I honestly think that the Garza move was a pre-emptive move for the acquisition of a pitcher, either Lester, Hughes, Buch or Kennedy

[TheKilo]

Depends on what you are looking for. For the Twins' date=' they very well may be more interested in a CFer, but with the loss of Garza, they have thinned out some of their pitching depth. I honestly think that the Garza move was a pre-emptive move for the acquisition of a pitcher, either Lester, Hughes, Buch or Kennedy[/quote']

 

I think the question was based off of simply comparing the prospects at respective positions.

[TheKilo]

What? By that argument, wouldn't you take a pitcher over a hitter every time? Is Gil Meche better than David Ortiz because pitching wins championships?

 

 

No. Meche and Ortiz are not comps with respect to their positions.

 

You're talking about each team's #2 prospect here. All I was saying is that just because one plays every day and one is not a pitcher is not the rationale to build the argument off of.

 

And I used Pedro as an example of that link of thinking.

[HeadOfSoxNation]

If I'm the Twins, I take Ellsbury...

 

...if I'm building a team from scratch, I take the potential ace.

[Cocos Disciples]

I think the question was based off of simply comparing the prospects at respective positions.

 

I meant to respond to Thumper, sorry.

[Jayhawk Bill]

What are we comparing?

 

Likely career value? Ellsbury.

 

Likely peak value? Hughes, by a narrow margin.

 

Likely near-future value? Hughes, by a narrow margin.

 

Highest potential upside? Hughes, by far.

[TheKilo]

What are we comparing?

 

Likely career value? Ellsbury.

 

Likely peak value? Hughes, by a narrow margin.

 

Likely near-future value? Hughes, by a narrow margin.

 

Highest potential upside? Hughes, by far.

 

Well, out of these assumptions, wouldn't you vote Hughes?

[KeepTheFaith1229]

What? By that argument, wouldn't you take a pitcher over a hitter every time? Is Gil Meche better than David Ortiz because pitching wins championships?

 

I don't know here. Both were impressive in their debuts. In 13 starts, Hughes had a 4.46 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 2.00 K/BB, 7.19 K/9. Pretty solid numbers, especially for a rookie.

 

On the other hand, Ellsbury, in 116 at bats, had a .353 AVG and a .903 OPS. The OPS will drop to the mid .800s when the batting average regresses to normal. He also had 9 stolen bases, 15 strikeouts and 8 walks. Using those numbers, he would be on pace for 44 steals, 74 K and 39 BB. Doesn't walk much at all, so the OBP won't be more than .40 points higher than the average, putting his career norm at a likely .330-.340, which is okay.

 

Yeah, so, tossup.

I think you can pencil in Ellsbury's OBP higher than that. His lowest at any level in the minors was .360, and that was getting used to AAA.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Well' date=' out of these assumptions, wouldn't you vote Hughes?[/quote']

 

It depends for what one is looking.

 

Hughes has a much, much higher injury risk. If he stays healthy--and he probably won't--he's a likely Cy Young winner.

 

Ellsbury will be an above-average CF for years to come. He's very good. If you can't gamble, you take Ellsbury over Hughes.

[ACL BoSox]

So you probably think Pedro shouldn't have won the MVP. Gotcha.

 

Phil Hughes.

 

I'm entitled to my opinion.

[ksushi]

I'll take Hughes all day, I don't even think its close.

[Ray10]

Pitching over hitting anyday one bat doesn't decide a game as much as a pitcher does simple as that.

[Mr Crunchy]

i dont get this question?

2 young men

1 of them muscled his way into the starting lineup at the end of the pennant race

the other won a rotation spot by default

1 guy did very well

1 guy was average

both were very exciting but its like comparing a cadillac against a dump truck

both have their value but in different ways.

 

hughes# from last year

2007 5 3 13 13 0 0 72.2 64 39 36 8 29 58 0 0 0 4.46

these are jon lester like #s almost to a T.

wouldnt a better comparison be against a pitcher like lester while comparing elsbury against a cabrerra?

would you trade cabrerra and hughes for elsbury and lester?

 

i take the pitcher in this scenario 99.9% of the time but this is boston circa 2008 and i like our staff as well as the depth of the staff all day

[jacksonianmarch]

The real question for the sox would be Ellsbury or Buchholz. Buchholz and Hughes are very similar IMHO. If you take the bias away, which one will have the better career?

[ksushi]

Buchholz all day. Again, probably not close. Buchholz is the kind of guy you build a team around, as is Hughes. Ellsbury isn't of that ilk and his position isn't as crucial.

[HeadOfSoxNation]

Pitching over hitting anyday one bat doesn't decide a game as much as a pitcher does simple as that.

 

If you want to look at it that way, doesn't Ellsbury have the chance to decide every game whereas Hughes/Buchholz only has the ability to decide one game every fifth day? :dunno:

[jacksonianmarch]

as with any game, the player that holds the ball is the one with the most control of the game. The QB, the PG, the Pitcher. A hitter can control the game per se, but the pitcher can always pitch around that player, effectively neutralizing them. Not the case with a pitcher.

[Gom]

This has been a very interesting thread. I kinda stayed out of it, and for the most part you all stuck to the premise. Nice to see that most of you put your team's bias aside and judged the players, and not the uniforms.