RealGM

Lets take their AAA numbers of their first few starts:

Phillip Hughes:

2-1, 3.94 ERA, 3 starts, 16.0 IP, 11 hits, 7 ER, 0 HR, 4 BB, 17 K, 4.50 Groundout/Airout, .200 Opposing Batting Average.

Tim Lincecum's AAA stats:

3-0, 0.36 ERA, 4 starts, 25.0 IP, 9 hits, 1 ER, 0 HR, 11 BB, 32 K, 1.81 Groundout/Airout, .113 Opposing Batting Average.


-------------------

My take:

Hughes is another product of New York media hype versus Lincecum whose numbers did most the talking to get his hype.

I like Linecum better.

But I also hate Hughes.

This thread is funny already.

edney2polynice_ wrote:Lets take their AAA numbers of their first few starts:

Phillip Hughes:

2-1, 3.94 ERA, 3 starts, 16.0 IP, 11 hits, 7 ER, 0 HR, 4 BB, 17 K, 4.50 Groundout/Airout, .200 Opposing Batting Average.

Tim Lincecum's AAA stats:

3-0, 0.36 ERA, 4 starts, 25.0 IP, 9 hits, 1 ER, 0 HR, 11 BB, 32 K, 1.81 Groundout/Airout, .113 Opposing Batting Average.


-------------------

My take:

Hughes is another product of New York media hype versus Lincecum whose numbers did most the talking to get his hype.

Holy making conclusions off of three starts Batman!

Tim Lincecum is just **** amazing. He's definitely better, but Hughes is for real. He's not a product of the New York hype machine, that really doesn't even exist.

Stop being (Please Use More Appropriate Word) with this thread. Tim Lincecum is a transcendent pitching talent. Phil Hughes is the second-best pitching prospect in baseball.

Um, let's all watch them pitch a little more. I'd say everyone here has only seen each of them pitch once or twice tops. From what I've seen. One Lincecom start on Sunday night, and two Hughes starts, Hughes is clearly better

34Celtic wrote:Um, let's all watch them pitch a little more. I'd say everyone here has only seen each of them pitch once or twice tops. From what I've seen. One Lincecom start on Sunday night, and two Hughes starts, Hughes is clearly better

That assumption is no better than the OP's extreme bias, as Lincecum's AAA #s are better and Hughes' MLB #s are better... but neither tell you anything relevant.

That said (since I hate the Giants and Yanks equally), I think Lincecum is the guy I'd rather have right now. Hughes is unquestionably a great talent, but Lincecum's movement, on all his pitches, is just amazing. Both will be exceptional talents (if healthy), but I'd put Lincecum's ceiling a bit higher than Hughes'. Barely.

The only thing I

It's way too early to say. If Linecum can get his command to Hughes' like levels, than I am willing to say Lincecum. But I need a few more starts from both before I say who is better. It's a dead heat, really.

HCYanks wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Holy making conclusions off of three starts Batman!

Yeah, but look how many people he actually convinced with it.

Well I'm a Giants fan so I'm biased but I say Lincecum.

Obviously I'm considered a homer by many for picking Hughes, but give me the guy with 3 plus pitches with nearly perfect command at the age of 20, and a 4th plus pitch if he ever decides to use it.

I'll take Hughes.

gotta go with lincecum

Sure, Lincecum's AAA numbers are better, but Hughes is 2 years younger.

And infinitely more injured. And not as good.

Lincecum without hesitation. He is just ridiculous.

kobeSTOPkobeDONT wrote:Lincecum without hesitation. He is just ridiculous.

Yeah I haven't seen enough of both but Lincecum is just sick!

Bleeding Green wrote:And infinitely more injured. And not as good.

I didn't know that a freak hamstring injury was being infinitely more injured.

Linececum's delivery is going to cause more injuries in the long run.

cmaff051 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I didn't know that a freak hamstring injury was being infinitely more injured.

Linececum's delivery is going to cause more injuries in the long run.

theres nothing wrong with lincecums old school mechanics.