Rich Hill Named PCL Pitcher of the Week

[mg420]

i guess someone should tell the other aaa teams that hill is quite hitable because he only has 2 pitches-a mediocre fastball and ok curveball.

 

wow, that's a lot of incorrect statements in a really small space.

 

Well i'm pretty sure that's sarcasm on mg's part, esp. considering he's calling for Hill in the '07 rotation.

 

you are correct sir. i am a big fan of hill's and get tired of hearing how he sucks and should be traded. i'm glad to see he's rebounded from his stint in the majors by being so effective in aaa. if the cubs had a decent manager & pitching coach, i'm sure he would do just fine in the majors.

[C.C.]

i guess someone should tell the other aaa teams that hill is quite hitable because he only has 2 pitches-a mediocre fastball and ok curveball.

 

wow, that's a lot of incorrect statements in a really small space.

 

Well i'm pretty sure that's sarcasm on mg's part, esp. considering he's calling for Hill in the '07 rotation.

 

you are correct sir. i am a big fan of hill's and get tired of hearing how he sucks and should be traded. i'm glad to see he's rebounded from his stint in the majors by being so effective in aaa. if the cubs had a decent manager & pitching coach, i'm sure he would do just fine in the majors.

 

I think he knows how to pitch or at least he knows how to pitch in AAA. He just needs confidence. Maybe he's not cut out for the pressure of pitching on a major market team. I'm not sure what the answer is but it's obvious he's got nothing left to prove in the minors, so bring the kid up and see what he can do the remainder of the year or trade him. Seems simple enough for me...

[abuck1220]

Iowa left-hander Rich Hill was named to start for the Pacific Coast League in the Triple-A All-Star Game on July 12.

 

congrats to rich!

[srbin84]

Prior looked good at times in his last start, but his performance over the next couple weeks will determine a lot. I'd give Prior 3, maybe 4 more starts, and if his ERA is still around 9, I'd send him to AAA for awhile to figure things out or just shut him down altogether (probably the smarter move). Assuming Maddux is still around, go with a rotation of Z, Maddux, Marshall, Hill and Marmol/Guzman the rest of the season. I don't care if Hill's ERA doesn't change much the first month back; just leave him in there rest of the year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Prior looked good at times in his last start, but his performance over the next couple weeks will determine a lot. I'd give Prior 3, maybe 4 more starts, and if his ERA is still around 9, I'd send him to AAA for awhile to figure things out or just shut him down altogether (probably the smarter move). Assuming Maddux is still around, go with a rotation of Z, Maddux, Marshall, Hill and Marmol/Guzman the rest of the season. I don't care if Hill's ERA doesn't change much the first month back; just leave him in there rest of the year.

 

That is a crazily short-sighted idea.

[KaiserCesar]

Prior looked good at times in his last start, but his performance over the next couple weeks will determine a lot. I'd give Prior 3, maybe 4 more starts, and if his ERA is still around 9, I'd send him to AAA for awhile to figure things out or just shut him down altogether (probably the smarter move). Assuming Maddux is still around, go with a rotation of Z, Maddux, Marshall, Hill and Marmol/Guzman the rest of the season. I don't care if Hill's ERA doesn't change much the first month back; just leave him in there rest of the year.

 

Prior is a major league pitcher and this team isn't in the pennant race. He should work on his stuff while trying to get major leaguers out not some bad AAA BS. Just let him work out and work everything towards having him ready for 07.

 

DISCLAIMER - A little bit of drinking tonight.

[srbin84]

Prior looked good at times in his last start, but his performance over the next couple weeks will determine a lot. I'd give Prior 3, maybe 4 more starts, and if his ERA is still around 9, I'd send him to AAA for awhile to figure things out or just shut him down altogether (probably the smarter move). Assuming Maddux is still around, go with a rotation of Z, Maddux, Marshall, Hill and Marmol/Guzman the rest of the season. I don't care if Hill's ERA doesn't change much the first month back; just leave him in there rest of the year.

 

That is a crazily short-sighted idea.

 

It's the exact opposite actually. I'd like to see what we have in Marmol, Guzman and Hill so we know who to trust with a rotation spot next year. If Maddux is still around, that only leaves one spot to use for them. If Prior is 0-6 or 0-7 with around a 9 ERA, it's probably better to just let him rest for next year instead of risking him getting hurt when he shouldn't be pitching in the big leagues anyway. I have respect for him as a professional and a human being, and I don't want to see him go through this embarrassment too much longer. We could use that extra rotation spot to give starts to Hill, Guzman and Marmol. These guys average about the same age as Prior, so I don't really get your point.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Prior looked good at times in his last start, but his performance over the next couple weeks will determine a lot. I'd give Prior 3, maybe 4 more starts, and if his ERA is still around 9, I'd send him to AAA for awhile to figure things out or just shut him down altogether (probably the smarter move). Assuming Maddux is still around, go with a rotation of Z, Maddux, Marshall, Hill and Marmol/Guzman the rest of the season. I don't care if Hill's ERA doesn't change much the first month back; just leave him in there rest of the year.

 

That is a crazily short-sighted idea.

 

It's the exact opposite actually. I'd like to see what we have in Marmol, Guzman and Hill so we know who to trust with a rotation spot next year. If Maddux is still around, that only leaves one spot to use for them. If Prior is 0-6 or 0-7 with around a 9 ERA, it's probably better to just let him rest for next year instead of risking him getting hurt when he shouldn't be pitching in the big leagues anyway. I have respect for him as a professional and a human being, and I don't want to see him go through this embarrassment too much longer. We could use that extra rotation spot to give starts to Hill, Guzman and Marmol. These guys average about the same age as Prior, so I don't really get your point.

 

The embarrassment? Give me a break. You don't give Prior < 50 IP to prove his worth in his return from injury. It's ludicrous. You apparently want so badly to show that Prior is washed up that you think it's reasonable to try and get him out of the rotation at the earliest opportunity.

[Laura]

Iowa left-hander Rich Hill was named to start for the Pacific Coast League in the Triple-A All-Star Game on July 12.

 

congrats to rich!

 

nice!

 

The game will be on espn2.

[jaxxradio]

Rich is certainly deserving of the honor. Hopefully, he goes out and performs well.

[abuck1220]

Rich Hill was able to hold the International League scoreless in two innings, but the Pacific Coast League's offense managed only two hits as they lost, 6-0, to the IL All-Stars.

Despite the loss, Hill was named as the PCL MVP for starting the game with two scoreless innings, allowing just one hit and striking out two.

 

too bad for rich that the big league team is so full of great talent right now.

[C.C.]

Rich Hill was able to hold the International League scoreless in two innings, but the Pacific Coast League's offense managed only two hits as they lost, 6-0, to the IL All-Stars.

Despite the loss, Hill was named as the PCL MVP for starting the game with two scoreless innings, allowing just one hit and striking out two.

 

too bad for rich that the big league team is so full of great talent right now.

 

No offense to Rich Hill, but if Hill took advantage of the opportunity he got this year, last year, or even Spring Training, he would still be pitching with the Cubs instead of Marshall or Marmol.

[CubsWin]

Since being called up to Iowa last season, Rich has started 24 games at AAA without incident or injury. He has gone 12-2 with a 2.63 ERA. He has averaged over 6 innings per start and amassed 157 2/3 innings pitched allowing only 114 hits. He has walked only 34 while striking out 213 for a 7-to-1 ratio and a WHIP of 0.94. Rich has performed better and more consistently this season than last continuing to show the improvement he began early last season while at West Tenn.

 

For years, Cubs scouts and management personnel teased us by telling us to watch out if Rich Hill ever finds his control. Well, I think it is safe to say that with a WHIP of .087 and a strikeout-to-walk ratio of 6-to-1, that he found it. And I've been "watching out", but so far all I see is a guy not being given much of a chance to mentally adjust to the big league level.

 

Clearly, he's earned it. Here's hoping that come August or even before, Hill will be given an extended chance to get big league hitters out.

[abuck1220]

hill's last 10 starts have been ridiculous...

 

69 1/3 ip, 39 h, 13 bb, 10 er, 94 k's

 

that's 12.2 k/9, 0.75 whip, 1.30 era. and that's not just a small two game sample...that's roughly 1/3 of a season. i don't think there's any doubt that he's been the best pitcher in minor league baseball, not only this year, but over the past two seasons.

[CubsWin]

hill's last 10 starts have been ridiculous...

 

69 1/3 ip, 39 h, 13 bb, 10 er, 94 k's

 

that's 12.2 k/9, 0.75 whip, 1.30 era. and that's not just a small two game sample...that's roughly 1/3 of a season. i don't think there's any doubt that he's been the best pitcher in minor league baseball, not only this year, but over the past two seasons.

Statistically, yes.

 

Amen, brother. Preach it.

[Balsa]

I have a feeling we'll see very soon how well he'll adapt to the Majors.

[C.C.]

hill's last 10 starts have been ridiculous...

 

69 1/3 ip, 39 h, 13 bb, 10 er, 94 k's

 

that's 12.2 k/9, 0.75 whip, 1.30 era. and that's not just a small two game sample...that's roughly 1/3 of a season. i don't think there's any doubt that he's been the best pitcher in minor league baseball, not only this year, but over the past two seasons.

 

We all know he's one of the best AAA pitchers out there right now, but that doesn't help the Cubs unless he produces. I'm not sold on his stuff at the ML level...I really, really, hope I'm wrong.

[Flames24Rulz]

hill's last 10 starts have been ridiculous...

 

69 1/3 ip, 39 h, 13 bb, 10 er, 94 k's

 

that's 12.2 k/9, 0.75 whip, 1.30 era. and that's not just a small two game sample...that's roughly 1/3 of a season. i don't think there's any doubt that he's been the best pitcher in minor league baseball, not only this year, but over the past two seasons.

 

We all know he's one of the best AAA pitchers out there right now, but that doesn't help the Cubs unless he produces. I'm not sold on his stuff at the ML level...I really, really, hope I'm wrong.

 

I don't really know how you can judge his major league stuff when he's hardly been up to show what he has.

[craig]

Rich Hill has gotten four big-league starts this year, and four last year.

 

I don't think it's really fair to say the Cubs haven't given him a good opportunity. 8 big-league starts is basically a quarter of what a healthy rotation guy gets in a full year. It's a good window of opportunity, really.

 

So I think those of us who are still pro-Hill need to maybe back off on faulting fans (and management) who have their doubts. 8 starts is not an insignificant sample size, IMO.

 

At the same time, 8 starts is not a huge sample either. To write the dude off based on the observations of 8 starts is premature. So I think those who are anti-Hill need to maybe back off on faulting the pro-Hill supporters.

 

One mistake I do perceive as sometimes coming from the pro-Hill is the view that Hill has been nothing but great for two years now in the minors. That he's been a steady-state success, that the Cubs are idiots for having him spend time in the minors, that he's had nothing to learn, etc..

 

I think that's wrong for 2 reasons:

1) Not a persuasive argument to the anti-Hill's. If nothing has changed, why should we believe the NL outcome will change?

2) Contrary to fact.

a) His WHIP is 20% lower. That's not a teensy difference. I believe the same magnitude of difference between his last two months and early this season.

b) His ERA is way lower; last year 3.5, this year 1.8, and over recent 10 starts or whatever 1.1 or something? That's not a small improvement.

c) Scouting suggests that his change is now a useful pitch. It wasn't last year, early this year, nor in any of his three Cub audutions (last year, camp this year, 4-start window this year).

d) I don't have numbers, but it's my impression and I believe some scouting supports that he's gotten a lot more groundouts since going back to Iowa.

e) Many of these items suggest that his stuff and his location has improved, considerably, since last year, and since earlier in his high-minors sample.

f) After he flopped earlier with the Cubs, he got pasted his first start back with Iowa. One view is that he pitches the same all the time, but the same stuff that works in Iowa doesn't in NL and he'll never succeed. A flip argument based on this one-game bombout is that when he pitches like he did for Cubs, that stuff gets pasted in PCL just as it did in NL. But that he doesn't pitch the same all the time; and it's a change in his pitching, not just a change in venue, that has resulted in his subsequent turnaround.

g) The biggest change in comparing his minor-league work this year from last is that his HR's are way, way, way down. Last year in 123 IP,he allowed 20 HR; this year in 100 he's allowed 3! It's the removal of those extra HR's that almost completely explains the reduction in WHIP and the reduction in ERA. So, is the reduction in HR's just a fluke, small sample size? Or does it reflect a significant improvement in Hill as a pitcher? That something in his stuff/command has improved..... A LOT??

 

Again, I think that kind of reduction jives with the scouting: integration of the change, better location of fastball, more consistency with curve (fewer hangers), perhaps better mixing of cutter with regular fastball?

 

This speaks perhaps against some arguments I've seen from both sides.

*Against the anti-Hill: he has gotten better, lots. So he still does have a chance to be pretty good. And although he may be 26, it's not like his level has been flat and he's had no space for improvement. Even at 26, he had room to grow, and has done so.

*Against the pro-Hill-Cubs-are-idiots: Maybe the Cubs haven't been so idiotic after all? Perhaps having him spend time at Iowa has not been idiotic, not been time wasted? Perhaps it's been just the venue he needed, to work on the change, to better blend his cutter/regular fastball, to improve his fastball location? Obviously the Cubs-are-always-idiots view will say all of those same improvements would have happened as fast in the bigs. But it is possible that if in fact he's really improved a ton, in terms of command and consistency and repertoire, perhaps we might say that perhaps it hasn't been totally idiotic and a waste of time after all?

[C.C.]

Rich Hill has gotten four big-league starts this year, and four last year.

 

I don't think it's really fair to say the Cubs haven't given him a good opportunity. 8 big-league starts is basically a quarter of what a healthy rotation guy gets in a full year. It's a good window of opportunity, really.

 

So I think those of us who are still pro-Hill need to maybe back off on faulting fans (and management) who have their doubts. 8 starts is not an insignificant sample size, IMO.

 

At the same time, 8 starts is not a huge sample either. To write the dude off based on the observations of 8 starts is premature. So I think those who are anti-Hill need to maybe back off on faulting the pro-Hill supporters.

 

One mistake I do perceive as sometimes coming from the pro-Hill is the view that Hill has been nothing but great for two years now in the minors. That he's been a steady-state success, that the Cubs are idiots for having him spend time in the minors, that he's had nothing to learn, etc..

 

I think that's wrong for 2 reasons:

1) Not a persuasive argument to the anti-Hill's. If nothing has changed, why should we believe the NL outcome will change?

2) Contrary to fact.

a) His WHIP is 20% lower. That's not a teensy difference. I believe the same magnitude of difference between his last two months and early this season.

b) His ERA is way lower; last year 3.5, this year 1.8, and over recent 10 starts or whatever 1.1 or something? That's not a small improvement.

c) Scouting suggests that his change is now a useful pitch. It wasn't last year, early this year, nor in any of his three Cub audutions (last year, camp this year, 4-start window this year).

d) I don't have numbers, but it's my impression and I believe some scouting supports that he's gotten a lot more groundouts since going back to Iowa.

e) Many of these items suggest that his stuff and his location has improved, considerably, since last year, and since earlier in his high-minors sample.

f) After he flopped earlier with the Cubs, he got pasted his first start back with Iowa. One view is that he pitches the same all the time, but the same stuff that works in Iowa doesn't in NL and he'll never succeed. A flip argument based on this one-game bombout is that when he pitches like he did for Cubs, that stuff gets pasted in PCL just as it did in NL. But that he doesn't pitch the same all the time; and it's a change in his pitching, not just a change in venue, that has resulted in his subsequent turnaround.

g) The biggest change in comparing his minor-league work this year from last is that his HR's are way, way, way down. Last year in 123 IP,he allowed 20 HR; this year in 100 he's allowed 3! It's the removal of those extra HR's that almost completely explains the reduction in WHIP and the reduction in ERA. So, is the reduction in HR's just a fluke, small sample size? Or does it reflect a significant improvement in Hill as a pitcher? That something in his stuff/command has improved..... A LOT??

 

Again, I think that kind of reduction jives with the scouting: integration of the change, better location of fastball, more consistency with curve (fewer hangers), perhaps better mixing of cutter with regular fastball?

 

This speaks perhaps against some arguments I've seen from both sides.

*Against the anti-Hill: he has gotten better, lots. So he still does have a chance to be pretty good. And although he may be 26, it's not like his level has been flat and he's had no space for improvement. Even at 26, he had room to grow, and has done so.

*Against the pro-Hill-Cubs-are-idiots: Maybe the Cubs haven't been so idiotic after all? Perhaps having him spend time at Iowa has not been idiotic, not been time wasted? Perhaps it's been just the venue he needed, to work on the change, to better blend his cutter/regular fastball, to improve his fastball location? Obviously the Cubs-are-always-idiots view will say all of those same improvements would have happened as fast in the bigs. But it is possible that if in fact he's really improved a ton, in terms of command and consistency and repertoire, perhaps we might say that perhaps it hasn't been totally idiotic and a waste of time after all?

 

BRAVO! Great thought out post! Gives both sides of the agrument something to think about. I'm so curious to see how he fares on Thursday.

[abuck1220]

i don't think it's fair to equate hill's 8 starts (which have been spread out over two years and each one had do-or-die pressure attached to it) to 8 starts that make up 1/4 of a regular rotation guy's season.

 

if hill had started the year in the rotation and gone 0-7 (or whatever he is on his career) and posted a 9 era in his first eight starts, i'd think different of him than i do now.

[goonys evil twin]

Rich Hill has gotten four big-league starts this year, and four last year.

 

I don't think it's really fair to say the Cubs haven't given him a good opportunity. 8 big-league starts is basically a quarter of what a healthy rotation guy gets in a full year. It's a good window of opportunity, really.

 

So I think those of us who are still pro-Hill need to maybe back off on faulting fans (and management) who have their doubts. 8 starts is not an insignificant sample size, IMO.

 

8 starts, spread over 2 years, with the 2nd start coming a month after the 1st is hardly an opportunity. An opportunity is when you give a guy a job, without the threat of demoting him after a couple bad outings. This would be like saying Matt Murton had an opportunity to start in LF if they gave him the job for 3 weeks last year, and 3 weeks this year. That's not an opportunity, it's a cup of coffee.

[C.C.]

i don't think it's fair to equate hill's 8 starts (which have been spread out over two years and each one had do-or-die pressure attached to it) to 8 starts that make up 1/4 of a regular rotation guy's season.

 

if hill had started the year in the rotation and gone 0-7 (or whatever he is on his career) and posted a 9 era in his first eight starts, i'd think different of him than i do now.

 

Point blank in the 4 starts he looked over matched in the big leagues. He didn't look comfortable on the mound and showed no presence what-so-ever. It was a good move by the Cubs to let him work on whatever was wrong in AAA. Hopefully it pays off for him or maybe he's suited for the pen. Who knows?

[goonys evil twin]

So Hill was very good in AAA and now he's exceptional in AAA, and that somehow justifies keeping him in AAA the whole time? I don't get it. You could use that type of reasoning with sending down anybody. You could send Pujols to AAA and say look at the numbers he put up there compared to when he was in AA, obviously he was able to work on things and get better. That's hardly a defense for the "hey let's see what we can get out of Rusch and get that punk kid Hill out of here" strategy of the Cubs. Send a guy who has hastered a level back to that level and he's likely to just keep mastering it, quite possibly getting better and better. If you send Murton down to AAA he could quote possibly eclipse his .353/.421/.500 line from last year. That wouldn't justify such a move. Same with Cedeno. Same with Wuertz. Improved AAA stats after a guy has already proved he deserves a promotion from AAA is hardly sound reasoning for having kept a guy in AAA.

[abuck1220]

i don't think it's fair to equate hill's 8 starts (which have been spread out over two years and each one had do-or-die pressure attached to it) to 8 starts that make up 1/4 of a regular rotation guy's season.

 

if hill had started the year in the rotation and gone 0-7 (or whatever he is on his career) and posted a 9 era in his first eight starts, i'd think different of him than i do now.

 

Point blank in the 4 starts he looked over matched in the big leagues. He didn't look comfortable on the mound and showed no presence what-so-ever. It was a good move by the Cubs to let him work on whatever was wrong in AAA. Hopefully it pays off for him or maybe he's suited for the pen. Who knows?

 

but if the "whatever was wrong" was getting used to pitching in the big leagues, sending him down would not help him work on "whatever was wrong."