There has been a lot of talk lately about Kyle Hendricks being the “next Greg Maddux.” Of course, as soon as people say it, they promptly say that they shouldn’t be saying it because nobody can be as good as Greg Maddux. But then they go on to explain why Kyle Hendrix is like Greg Maddux. He doesn’t throw hard, he is smart (Kyle went to Dartmouth), he keeps his pitch count down, he has good location on his pitches, etc.
A couple of comments. First, it is true that Greg did not have a lot of speed on his fastball, but while Kyle rarely gets out of the high 80s with his fastball, when Greg was younger, he threw in the low 90s.
Second, I am hesitant to say any new pitcher is the “next Greg Maddux” because I have seen a lot of young pitchers have a string of good starts, maybe even a year of them,and then something happens, and they just don’t seem to have it anymore. Recently, there was Randy Wells. In 2009, he was 12-10 with a 3.05 ERA. Three years later, his career was over. In 1967, Rich Nye was 13-10 with a 3.20 ERA. The next year he fell out of favor with Leo Durocher, and 1970 was his last year in the majors. Ten years before that, in 1957, a 20-year old rookie by the name of Dick Drott led Cubs pitchers with a 15-11 record. He only won twelve more games in the rest of his career.
But mostly, Kyle Hendricks is not the next Greg Maddux because, when Greg Maddux was starting out, he was not the next Greg Maddux. While Greg came up in September 1986, 1987 was his first full year. In 1987, Greg Maddux had a record of 6-14 with an ERA of 5.61 and a WHIP of 1.638 (which is almost Edwin Jackson territory). The reason he got to pitch was the Cubs didn’t have enough other pitchers.
In other words, before you call somebody the next Greg Maddux, remember it’s not the first year that counts. It’s the first twenty.
Comments