Rich Hill & '07 Projections -Bill James Handbook (Merged

[Rob]

 

Cliff's notes:

 

Decline for Soriano

Decline for DeRosa

Decline for Blanco

Decline for Barrett

 

Improvement for Lee

Improvement for Prior

Improvement for Hill (3/4 of the value he produced at the end of the year over 200 innings.)

 

He's been doing complicated statistical baseball analysis for longer than I've been alive and I could have told you that!

 

Then why didn't you?

[nilodnayr]

 

Cliff's notes:

 

Decline for Soriano

Decline for DeRosa

Decline for Blanco

Decline for Barrett

 

Improvement for Lee

Improvement for Prior

Improvement for Hill (3/4 of the value he produced at the end of the year over 200 innings.)

 

He's been doing complicated statistical baseball analysis for longer than I've been alive and I could have told you that!

 

Then why didn't you?

I have! Read all my posts in the last month. :lol:

[tkenm356]

Someone posted this on another forum, and I'm not sure if this has been posted elswhere, if so, lock this thread. Apparently Bill James had this projection for Rich Hill next year (not sure if it's true or not, if anyone has it, care to confirm?)...

 

 

32G 32GS 201IP 165H 28HR 69BB 241K 8HB 13-9 .591% 0SV 10.8BR/9 3.40ERA

 

here's what he had done for Zambrano...

 

32G 32GS 212IP 173H 17HR 98BB 191K 11HB 14-10 .583% 0SV 12.0BR/9 3.48ERA

 

Someone had mentioned these were made prior to the offseason. I find it hard to believe that Hill will be better than Zambrano, and I consider it even more hard to believe that Hill will have 241 punch outs next year, but hey, FWIW

[soccer10k]

I think somebody has posted this but it's been a while.

 

As for the actual projections, they obviously think he'll continue to pitch in 2007 like he did post-ASB in 2006.

[tkenm356]

I think somebody has posted this but it's been a while.

 

As for the actual projections, they obviously think he'll continue to pitch in 2007 like he did post-ASB in 2006.

 

Here's hoping

[WrigleyField 22]

I think somebody has posted this but it's been a while.

 

As for the actual projections, they obviously think he'll continue to pitch in 2007 like he did post-ASB in 2006.

 

Actually if they think that:

 

32 GS 213 IP 2.93 ERA 5 CG 3 SHO 210 K 64 BB

 

Actually worse with the Ks though slightly lower BBs too.

[WrigleyField 22]

Wasn't there like a high, low, and median prediction though, and this was Hill's high?

[tkenm356]

Wasn't there like a high, low, and median prediction though, and this was Hill's high?

 

I know Baseball Prospectus has that, not sure about Bill James' projections

[WrigleyField 22]

Wasn't there like a high, low, and median prediction though, and this was Hill's high?

 

I know Baseball Prospectus has that, not sure about Bill James' projections

 

Thats probably what I was thinking of.

[oldstyle81]

he had 90 K's in 99 innings last year, consider that some of those innings were at the start of the year where he couldnt figure out how to pitch. i dont think 240 is a far out number

[tkenm356]

Sweet, here they are.

[A New Era]

I'm tellin you guys. Hill is the next "zambrano" out of the cubs orginazation. And you're gonna be glad they held onto him.

[Yeti]

I'm tellin you guys. Hill is the next "zambrano" out of the cubs orginazation. And you're gonna be glad they held onto him.

did you tell us this before or after you called us all douchebags?

[Magnetic Curses]

Someone posted this on another forum, and I'm not sure if this has been posted elswhere, if so, lock this thread. Apparently Bill James had this projection for Rich Hill next year (not sure if it's true or not, if anyone has it, care to confirm?)...

 

 

32G 32GS 201IP 165H 28HR 69BB 241K 8HB 13-9 .591% 0SV 10.8BR/9 3.40ERA

 

here's what he had done for Zambrano...

 

32G 32GS 212IP 173H 17HR 98BB 191K 11HB 14-10 .583% 0SV 12.0BR/9 3.48ERA

 

Someone had mentioned these were made prior to the offseason. I find it hard to believe that Hill will be better than Zambrano, and I consider it even more hard to believe that Hill will have 241 punch outs next year, but hey, FWIW

 

hill DID have the best game score in the NL last year with his 10 k 1 BB complete game shutout of the reds.

[RynoRules]

Sheesh, if Hill approachs those nos. this team could be a legit threat in the NL (assuming the pen is decent).

[TruffleShuffle]

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

[Warpticon]

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

 

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump.

[TruffleShuffle]

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

 

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump.

 

True, although given his mental issues in the past, it's not surprising that he had some bumps adjusting to the big leagues.

 

There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the Cubs not having a #2 starter, but other than paying out the butt for Zito or Schmidt, the Cubs' most realistic chance at having a legitimate #2 is Rich Hill. A lot of people just make him out to be a #4 starter or something, and I don't see it at all.

 

He's either been great or bad depending on his control. I think he's either a #2, borderline #1, or he bombs and can't stick in the rotation. There's really not a lot of in between for him. I'm petrified to predict that he'll be great this year, but I really can see him having a fantastic 2007. His stuff is that good.

[CubsWin]

I'm petrified to predict that he'll be great this year, but I really can see him having a fantastic 2007. His stuff is that good.

Yes, his stuff is that good. And thus, I'm not petrified to predict that he'll have a really good year in '07. I could be wrong, but I think there is a strong fact-based argument for Hill have a year along the lines of 14-8, 3.50. I think there is a really good chance for him finishing with around 200 innings pitched and an ERA under 4 which would make him a legitimate #2 starter in the NL.

[CubsWin]

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

 

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump.

Did you see how he pitched in spring training last year? There were at least 5 others who were better. When Rusch absolutely sucked in April, they brought Hill up to pitch on May 4th and he sucked even worse. They ran him out there for 4 consecutive starts and each time, Hill did not pitch well. If Dusty had continued to run him out there and Hill continued to put up an ERA over 9, not only would fans say that Dusty isn't trying to win, but they would attack him for ruining a very promising pitching prospect with a somewhat fragile psyche by continuing to let him fail over and over again thus proving to Rich that he doesn't have what it takes to perform in the big leagues.

 

No, Dusty and Jim did the right thing. They protected their prized prospect and sent him down to AAA where he had been redefining the word domination for the past year to get his confidence back and work on what was apparently having him fail at the big league level which was spotting the fastball. Apparently, once he improved his control with his fastball and was consistent with it, he was called back up. That took about 7 weeks in AAA to do. In his first start after being called back up, Hill failed. Did Dusty sit him? No. Just like in May, he gave him another shot. This time Hill did not fail. And Rich never looked back.

 

In Hill's case, the results speak for themselves. He was handled right.

[abuck1220]

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

 

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump.

Did you see how he pitched in spring training last year? There were at least 5 others who were better. When Rusch absolutely sucked in April, they brought Hill up to pitch on May 4th and he sucked even worse. They ran him out there for 4 consecutive starts and each time, Hill did not pitch well. If Dusty had continued to run him out there and Hill continued to put up an ERA over 9, not only would fans say that Dusty isn't trying to win, but they would attack him for ruining a very promising pitching prospect with a somewhat fragile psyche by continuing to let him fail over and over again thus proving to Rich that he doesn't have what it takes to perform in the big leagues.

 

No, Dusty and Jim did the right thing. They protected their prized prospect and sent him down to AAA where he had been redefining the word domination for the past year to get his confidence back and work on what was apparently having him fail at the big league level which was spotting the fastball. Apparently, once he improved his control with his fastball and was consistent with it, he was called back up. That took about 7 weeks in AAA to do. In his first start after being called back up, Hill failed. Did Dusty sit him? No. Just like in May, he gave him another shot. This time Hill did not fail. And Rich never looked back.

 

In Hill's case, the results speak for themselves. He was handled right.

 

that's such crap. just because he ended up doing well, it was because he got sent down? he was the same pitcher in AAA in '05, early '06 and his second stint there in '06. the reason he pitched better in the second half of the year was because he got some innings under his belt -- not because jim hendry handled the situation with a skilled hand. people need to quit giving hendry/baker credit for hill's success. he succeeded in spite of those fools, not because of them.

[TruffleShuffle]

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

 

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump.

Did you see how he pitched in spring training last year? There were at least 5 others who were better. When Rusch absolutely sucked in April, they brought Hill up to pitch on May 4th and he sucked even worse. They ran him out there for 4 consecutive starts and each time, Hill did not pitch well. If Dusty had continued to run him out there and Hill continued to put up an ERA over 9, not only would fans say that Dusty isn't trying to win, but they would attack him for ruining a very promising pitching prospect with a somewhat fragile psyche by continuing to let him fail over and over again thus proving to Rich that he doesn't have what it takes to perform in the big leagues.

 

No, Dusty and Jim did the right thing. They protected their prized prospect and sent him down to AAA where he had been redefining the word domination for the past year to get his confidence back and work on what was apparently having him fail at the big league level which was spotting the fastball. Apparently, once he improved his control with his fastball and was consistent with it, he was called back up. That took about 7 weeks in AAA to do. In his first start after being called back up, Hill failed. Did Dusty sit him? No. Just like in May, he gave him another shot. This time Hill did not fail. And Rich never looked back.

 

In Hill's case, the results speak for themselves. He was handled right.

 

In some cases I'd agree with you, but he was only given four starts before being sent back down, and only two of those were really awful. He had to learn to trust his fastball in the big leagues, and I really don't see how sending him back to a place he'd already been successful accomplished that. If I remember correctly, he had already been dominating AAA before the first call-up; he didn't improve his control and consistency of his fastball in Iowa because he already was throwing the ball great down there.

[TruffleShuffle]

Also, note that in his first really solid game this year, the Cubs scored 9 runs, with 7 coming in the first 3 innings. That gave him a chance to just go out and pitch with a big lead, and not think about what each mistake would mean. The Cubs' incompetent offense manufactured all of 1 run during the first 4 games he pitched. It can't be easy for a young guy who's struggling to pitch knowing that his team would lose the game if he made a couple of mistakes.

[oldstyle81]

John Dewan publishes the Stat-of-the-Week online. This week's is the projected 2007 MLB leaderboard from the Bill James Handbook 2007.

 

Who's projected to lead the NL in strikeouts with 241?

 

Rich Hill

:D

 

I just ordered the handbook and haven't received it yet.

 

with a 3.40 ERA to boot

 

 

 

and darn, Pierre is gonna steal 49 bases. wtg Hendry

 

and get thrown out 25 times

[cheapseats]

I do think Rich will have a really solid year, but I'm still nervous about him for just one more year. If he comes out and throws lots of strikes I'll have my fears eased. Guys whose pitching problems were mostly mental make me worried because sometimes the switch can turn off just as quickly as it turned on. His past two years really have been night and day from his first three with the organization, and if he has a consistent, solid start to the season, I'll feel really good about his future.

 

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump.

Did you see how he pitched in spring training last year? There were at least 5 others who were better. When Rusch absolutely sucked in April, they brought Hill up to pitch on May 4th and he sucked even worse. They ran him out there for 4 consecutive starts and each time, Hill did not pitch well. If Dusty had continued to run him out there and Hill continued to put up an ERA over 9, not only would fans say that Dusty isn't trying to win, but they would attack him for ruining a very promising pitching prospect with a somewhat fragile psyche by continuing to let him fail over and over again thus proving to Rich that he doesn't have what it takes to perform in the big leagues.

 

No, Dusty and Jim did the right thing. They protected their prized prospect and sent him down to AAA where he had been redefining the word domination for the past year to get his confidence back and work on what was apparently having him fail at the big league level which was spotting the fastball. Apparently, once he improved his control with his fastball and was consistent with it, he was called back up. That took about 7 weeks in AAA to do. In his first start after being called back up, Hill failed. Did Dusty sit him? No. Just like in May, he gave him another shot. This time Hill did not fail. And Rich never looked back.

 

In Hill's case, the results speak for themselves. He was handled right.

 

that's such crap. just because he ended up doing well, it was because he got sent down? he was the same pitcher in AAA in '05, early '06 and his second stint there in '06. the reason he pitched better in the second half of the year was because he got some innings under his belt -- not because jim hendry handled the situation with a skilled hand. people need to quit giving hendry/baker credit for hill's success. he succeeded in spite of those fools, not because of them.

 

Amen.