Trading Hill

[CubsWin]

I think some posters were left with a bad taste in their mouths by Hill's poor performance with the Cubs briefly last season. Thus, I think it is important to remind ourselves what Hill did in the minors last season (10 starts in AAA, 10 starts in AA and 1 in Low A).

 

21 starts, 11-4, 3.31, 130 2/3 innings, 105 hits, 194 Ks, 35 BBs, 1.07 WHIP, with an AVG. against around .210.

[...]

 

As far as his stuff, I'm no scouting expert either, so here is what BA has to say...

Hill’s 12-to-6 curveball is often unhittable, and batters can’t sit on it now that he can locate his 90-91 mph fastball. His changeup shows promise and would give him the third pitch he requires to remain a starter. He has cleaned up his delivery, which also improved his control. For all his progress, Hill didn’t throw strikes when he joined the Cubs and big league hitters took advantage. He needs to trust and use his changeup more often. Hill will get a chance to crack Chicago’s rotation in spring training, and he has the stuff to be a No. 2 starter.

 

[...]

Hill is basically major league ready. If the guy can just trust his stuff and battle the same way he did in the minors, he will succeed. How common is it to have a player be a little in awe of the show his first time up? I think Hill deserves the benefit of the doubt given his consistent performance throughout all of last season in the minors.

 

What most disturbed most people about Hill's performance in his short time with the Cubs last year is that he set about making a mockery of Baseball America's scouting report. Certainly, he showcased the often unhittable curveball, but the fastball was nowhere as good as advertised: his velocity was down on earlier in the season, there was very little movement on it, and he had absolutely no control of it for the most part. By this stage in the season he'd also completely laid aside the changeup, he wasn't throwing it any more. A bleh fastball and one other pitch, no matter how good, is not a recipe for success as a major league starting pitcher. People are worried about what kind of a future he has not because of the numbers that he put up, but the way that he went about putting those numbers up.

An excellent explanation of what may have turned off some people to Hill. Clearly written. Thank you, Diffusion.

 

However, my original question still stands. How common is it to have a guy be in awe of the show his first time up? If you are in awe, you will begin to doubt your secondary pitches. You may begin to muscle up on your fastball which will cause it to loose some velocity and straighten out a bit. According to BA (in a scouting report written after his time with the Cubs by the way), Hill has a decent change up that he should throw more often and which he apparently abandoned altogether when he came up last season. Confidence is a huge part of performing well. Anyone who has been in any sort of performance situation knows this. How can 130 innings of AA/AAA ball be so completely negated by 24 innings of major league ball? Whatever happened to sample size?

 

Again, I'm not saying he should be untouchable. I would gladly trade him for the right player. But I believe some posters here are grossly undervaluing him. And some, not saying you, Diffusion, are doing so in a very cynical and disrespectful way, not giving Hill any benefit of the doubt based on a very small sample. How does one do that in the face of all the hard facts and numbers?

[don_kessinger_was_good]

For those questioning why Hendry seems to be "stockpiling" starting pitching as it were, the injury issues are certainly one aspect of that. But I think many are forgetting the second--he is planning more than one year in advance. He knows Maddux will retire and Wood won't be brought back. So he's looking at two starters for sure in 07 (Z and Prior) and then what? He needs to get some kind of continuity set up here, or the Cubs will be looking for a LOT of starting pitching 12 months from now. One would hope someone like Guzman or Hill could be one of the in-house options to lessen the task. Hence, don't trade Hill (is Hendry's thinking) unless it is a trade that REALLY helps the team. Like Tejada or Abreu.

 

What I don't know is how other GMs view this kid. I'm betting some of them are wowed by his 2005 minor league numbers, and in the spirit of "sell high", that's why I've been hoping Hendry trades him this offseason. But I understand his logic behind publicly calling him "untouchable" too.

[Diffusion]

What most disturbed most people about Hill's performance in his short time with the Cubs last year is that he set about making a mockery of Baseball America's scouting report. Certainly, he showcased the often unhittable curveball, but the fastball was nowhere as good as advertised: his velocity was down on earlier in the season, there was very little movement on it, and he had absolutely no control of it for the most part. By this stage in the season he'd also completely laid aside the changeup, he wasn't throwing it any more. A bleh fastball and one other pitch, no matter how good, is not a recipe for success as a major league starting pitcher. People are worried about what kind of a future he has not because of the numbers that he put up, but the way that he went about putting those numbers up.

An excellent explanation of what may have turned off some people to Hill. Clearly written. Thank you, Diffusion.

 

However, my original question still stands. How common is it to have a guy be in awe of the show his first time up? If you are in awe, you will begin to doubt your secondary pitches. You may begin to muscle up on your fastball which will cause it to loose some velocity and straighten out a bit. According to BA (in a scouting report written after his time with the Cubs by the way), Hill has a decent change up that he should throw more often and which he apparently abandoned altogether when he came up last season. Confidence is a huge part of performing well. Anyone who has been in any sort of performance situation knows this. How can 130 innings of AA/AAA ball be so completely negated by 24 innings of major league ball? Whatever happened to sample size?

 

My understanding of it is that the changeup went to the wayside before he reached the major leagues, actually. If that is the case, the "in awe" explanation obviously isn't appropriate. Furthermore, confidence doesn't lend itself as an easy explanation to this split...

 

First 16.2 IP, 13 H, 2 HR, 7 BB, 18 K, 3.78 ERA

Next 7 IP, 12 H, 1 HR, 10 BB, 3 K, 21.86 ERA

 

He may well have been muscling up on his fastball, but I don't really know.

[JeffH]

Wood won't be brought back

 

I'll be rather surprised if Kerry Wood is not a Cub in 2007.

[frostwyrm]

If Hendry is so high on Hill's ability and is/was considered untradeable, why is Hendry stockpiling starting pitching, we're even hearing that he has intentions of possibly making a move for another one?

 

1. Prior

2. Zambrano

3. Maddux

4. Wood?

5. Rusch

6. Williams

 

 

7. Hill

 

If a new pitcher is acquired, Hill presumably moves down to number 8 on the depth chart. He'll more than likely start the season in Iowa and only be called up if one of the pitchers goes down.

 

You can also add that Scott Eyre was given big $$ to be the lefty relief ace for the next 3 years, so Hill won't be filling that role either. Given Hendry's moves I just can't believe that Hill can't be had for the right price.

[CubsWin]

My understanding of it is that the changeup went to the wayside before he reached the major leagues, actually. If that is the case, the "in awe" explanation obviously isn't appropriate. Furthermore, confidence doesn't lend itself as an easy explanation to this split...

 

First 16.2 IP, 13 H, 2 HR, 7 BB, 18 K, 3.78 ERA

Next 7 IP, 12 H, 1 HR, 10 BB, 3 K, 21.86 ERA

 

He may well have been muscling up on his fastball, but I don't really know.

Do you have a link to the information about Hill losing his change-up before coming to the bigs? How did you come to this understanding? I'm not doubting you at all, I just like to compile evidence.

 

So lets go on the premise that he did "lose" his change-up before joining the Cubs, what is to say that he will never get it back? He apparently had it once and it is apparently a more recent addition to his repetoire than his fastball or curve, so losing it momentarily would be more understandable than losing his curve or fastball, right? And if it did leave him right before he came up, then the real question is, what will he be able to accomplish in the bigs when he gets it back?

 

The split you provided doesn't help explain the idea that Hill can't cut it in the bigs. Now, instead of a 24-inning sample, it is only 7 innings in which he pitched poorly.

 

I'm glad that the anecdotal evidence and the split above don't support the theory of Hill being intimidated by coming to the show. I want him to be a fighter and mentally tough. But if what your rebuttal laid out is true, then I'm even more convinced that he is near major league ready. He put up pretty darn good numbers for the first 17 innings and then struggled for 7. And apparently he did that without the use of his change-up.

 

And, from what I've been reading in this thread, some of the negative opinions of Hill came from watching just one game of his in which he didn't use his change-up and struggled to spot his fastball. Again, sample size?

 

For those of you who are down on Hill, the numbers show a different story. I believe it is time to revise your opinion to include the bigger picture.

[CubsWin]

If Hendry is so high on Hill's ability and is/was considered untradeable, why is Hendry stockpiling starting pitching, we're even hearing that he has intentions of possibly making a move for another one?

 

1. Prior

2. Zambrano

3. Maddux

4. Wood?

5. Rusch

6. Williams

 

 

7. Hill

 

If a new pitcher is acquired, Hill presumably moves down to number 8 on the depth chart. He'll more than likely start the season in Iowa and only be called up if one of the pitchers goes down.

 

You can also add that Scott Eyre was given big $$ to be the lefty relief ace for the next 3 years, so Hill won't be filling that role either. Given Hendry's moves I just can't believe that Hill can't be had for the right price.

At this point, is there anyone who is claiming that he is an "untouchable"?

 

One of the points I tried to make in my original post that started this thread is that there is little to no evidence to suggest that Hill is an untouchable, and thus the comments criticizing Hendry for being unwilling to trade him are unwarranted.

 

It sounds like everybody agrees...so far. :wink:

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It seems that Hill was untouchable during last season, but he is likely available this offseason in the right deal.

[CubsWin]

It seems that Hill was untouchable during last season, but he is likely available this offseason in the right deal.

Well, yes, but there was very little evidence, certainly no hard evidence, that suggested that Hill was an "untouchable" even last season.

 

Regardless, I believe the evidence that we do have shows us that Hill has more value than some have been seeing. And, the evidence also shows that Hendry does not consider him untouchable now.

[ThePenguin11]

My understanding of it is that the changeup went to the wayside before he reached the major leagues, actually. If that is the case, the "in awe" explanation obviously isn't appropriate. Furthermore, confidence doesn't lend itself as an easy explanation to this split...

 

First 16.2 IP, 13 H, 2 HR, 7 BB, 18 K, 3.78 ERA

Next 7 IP, 12 H, 1 HR, 10 BB, 3 K, 21.86 ERA

 

He may well have been muscling up on his fastball, but I don't really know.

Do you have a link to the information about Hill losing his change-up before coming to the bigs? How did you come to this understanding? I'm not doubting you at all, I just like to compile evidence.

 

So lets go on the premise that he did "lose" his change-up before joining the Cubs, what is to say that he will never get it back? He apparently had it once and it is apparently a more recent addition to his repetoire than his fastball or curve, so losing it momentarily would be more understandable than losing his curve or fastball, right? And if it did leave him right before he came up, then the real question is, what will he be able to accomplish in the bigs when he gets it back?

 

The split you provided doesn't help explain the idea that Hill can't cut it in the bigs. Now, instead of a 24-inning sample, it is only 7 innings in which he pitched poorly.

 

I'm glad that the anecdotal evidence and the split above don't support the theory of Hill being intimidated by coming to the show. I want him to be a fighter and mentally tough. But if what your rebuttal laid out is true, then I'm even more convinced that he is near major league ready. He put up pretty darn good numbers for the first 17 innings and then struggled for 7. And apparently he did that without the use of his change-up.

 

And, from what I've been reading in this thread, some of the negative opinions of Hill came from watching just one game of his in which he didn't use his change-up and struggled to spot his fastball. Again, sample size?

 

For those of you who are down on Hill, the numbers show a different story. I believe it is time to revise your opinion to include the bigger picture.

 

You're putting words in his mouth because he never said he "lost" his changeup. By saying it "went by the wayside", I'm pretty sure he's implying that he simply stopped using it.

[CubsWin]

My understanding of it is that the changeup went to the wayside before he reached the major leagues, actually. If that is the case, the "in awe" explanation obviously isn't appropriate. Furthermore, confidence doesn't lend itself as an easy explanation to this split...

 

First 16.2 IP, 13 H, 2 HR, 7 BB, 18 K, 3.78 ERA

Next 7 IP, 12 H, 1 HR, 10 BB, 3 K, 21.86 ERA

 

He may well have been muscling up on his fastball, but I don't really know.

Do you have a link to the information about Hill losing his change-up before coming to the bigs? How did you come to this understanding? I'm not doubting you at all, I just like to compile evidence.

 

So lets go on the premise that he did "lose" his change-up before joining the Cubs, what is to say that he will never get it back? He apparently had it once and it is apparently a more recent addition to his repetoire than his fastball or curve, so losing it momentarily would be more understandable than losing his curve or fastball, right? And if it did leave him right before he came up, then the real question is, what will he be able to accomplish in the bigs when he gets it back?

 

The split you provided doesn't help explain the idea that Hill can't cut it in the bigs. Now, instead of a 24-inning sample, it is only 7 innings in which he pitched poorly.

 

I'm glad that the anecdotal evidence and the split above don't support the theory of Hill being intimidated by coming to the show. I want him to be a fighter and mentally tough. But if what your rebuttal laid out is true, then I'm even more convinced that he is near major league ready. He put up pretty darn good numbers for the first 17 innings and then struggled for 7. And apparently he did that without the use of his change-up.

 

And, from what I've been reading in this thread, some of the negative opinions of Hill came from watching just one game of his in which he didn't use his change-up and struggled to spot his fastball. Again, sample size?

 

For those of you who are down on Hill, the numbers show a different story. I believe it is time to revise your opinion to include the bigger picture.

 

You're putting words in his mouth because he never said he "lost" his changeup. By saying it "went by the wayside", I'm pretty sure he's implying that he simply stopped using it.

Its possible that I misinterpreted what Diffusion wrote, but I'd like to hear it from him, if I did.

 

You claim that when Diffusion wrote that Hill's change-up "went by the wayside" that he meant Hill simply stopped using it. Why would a pitcher do that unless he had lost confidence in it. According to BA, his change up is a useable pitch that he should use more often, so why would he "simply stop using it" if he wasn't losing confidence in it by "losing" some of his ability to use it effectively. I don't think I am misunderstanding Diffusion here. But it is possible. We'll have to wait and see.

 

Regardless, the evidence still shows Hill's value as being higher than some posters on here are seeing it.

[Diffusion]

My understanding is based on something that craig wrote in the minor league forum...

 

There was some report early that [the changeup] looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind.

 

Given that Hill had the bulk of his success in the minor leagues, I took that to mean that he left it behind while still in the minor leagues. We'll have to speak to craig or abuck about this.

 

So, what I meant by "went by the wayside" is that Hill stopped using it, not that he lost the ability to use it. My suspicions all along though have been that Hill's changeup is not and never was a major league pitch, and the difference between saying he stopped using it and that he "lost" it is just one of semantics.

 

Another interpretation of the 17 IP/7 IP split, Cubswin, is that his stuff got found out, they learnt how to approach him: lay off the curveball, make him throw it for strikes - if he can't, sit on and pound the living daylights out of the fastball.

[CuseCubFan69]

If Hill gets his change going I could easily see the Cubs using Rusch as trade bait in June or July and Hill coming up.

[craig]

My understanding is based on something that craig wrote in the minor league forum...

 

There was some report early that [the changeup] looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind.

 

Given that Hill had the bulk of his success in the minor leagues, I took that to mean that he left it behind while still in the minor leagues. We'll have to speak to craig or abuck about this.

 

Entering last season, Hill was a wildman who'd yet to crack AA, and hadn't been all that great in A. In BA's report last winter, they also talked about the change, but comments on how given how much he had to pull together, expecting him to master a change besides might be asking too much. And since, given what he hadn't mastered, becoming a lefty specialist was more realistic than becoming a rotation pitcher anyway, the change might be a "frosting" pitch, but not a first priority pitch.

 

Early in the season when he first strung together a couple of good games for WTenn (after his first couple weren't that hot), there was one game where he was quoted as saying that his change had been working, and how good it felt to have three different pitches all working and each of which he could throw with confidence. This was clearly a relatively unprecedented experience for him. Several of us minor-league followers got all fired up about the change as well as fastball (which in spring was being reported in the 90-94 range) in addition to the signature curve. But that was one game.

 

Once Hill got rolling, a number of farm fans tried to attend Hill games and provide reports, and many others would research the Jackson or Iowa newspaper accounts of Hill outings. I don't recall any first-hand observers or any newspaper quotes indicating that Hill ever used his change much, or that it was ever a major pitch.

 

My guess is that the change was *not* a significant contributor to the minor league success he had last year.

 

He had two fastballs (4-seam and cutter), and somebody has said he has two curveballs as well. I think he mixed those four pitches for his minor league success, without much use of the change as a 5th pitch.

[abuck1220]

i think i saw him three times (maybe four?) in des moines, and i don't think i ever saw a change.

[Diffusion]

craig, I recall the report you're referring to in which Hill said his change had been working great that one night.

 

Trouble is, I didn't see much of Hill's cutter in the majors either. Did you?

[imb]

I dont remember seeing the cutter. I think, one thing that happened is, he was just being used so sporadically that he went with what was most comfortable to him, which was that big hook and the fastball.