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

[radarluv1]

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.

 

i think this a relevant factor that has been overlooked by many. a couple of early runs couldve gone a long way for rich, especially the first few games.

[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.

 

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.

So let me see if I understand your thought process here, when Cubs fail to perform well its Baker's and Hendry's fault which proves that they are fools thus when some Cubs succeed they couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

 

Thats a pretty hollow argument. And the incivility with which you presented your response gives me a clue as to how open you are to seeing evidence that flys in the face of your position. I've already dismantled your position on how obviously Hendry favored Rusch over Hill and you never responded to that, so I won't bother presenting a counter argument here.

[Rob]

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.

So let me see if I understand your thought process here, when Cubs fail to perform well its Baker's and Hendry's fault which proves that they are fools thus when some Cubs succeed they couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

 

Thats a pretty hollow argument. And the incivility with which you presented your response gives me a clue as to how open you are to seeing evidence that flys in the face of your position. I've already dismantled your position on how obviously Hendry favored Rusch over Hill and you never responded to that, so I won't bother presenting a counter argument here.

 

Actually, it's a pretty logical argument.

 

If I tried to coach Tiger Woods on golfing (which I know nothing about) and he had to pay attention to what I said, it'd be pretty easy to screw him up. If I just left him alone and let him play, I wouldn't really be helping him... I just wouldn't be handicapping him anymore.

 

If you really wanted to give me credit for finally knowing when to shut my mouth, you could... but it'd be a huge stretch to credit me with the success.

[abuck1220]

So let me see if I understand your thought process here, when Cubs fail to perform well its Baker's and Hendry's fault which proves that they are fools thus when some Cubs succeed they couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

 

let me see if i understand your thought process. hill dominates in iowa. he's called up and sucks. he goes back down again and dominates. he comes back up and sucks. he goes back down again and dominates. he comes back up again and this time he's really good. third time's a charm, and hendry had it planned like that all along! great job everybody!

 

does that pretty much sum up what you're saying?

 

Thats a pretty hollow argument. And the incivility with which you presented your response gives me a clue as to how open you are to seeing evidence that flys in the face of your position.

 

that's the problem...you don't have any evidence...for any of your arguments. ever.

 

I've already dismantled your position on how obviously Hendry favored Rusch over Hill and you never responded to that, so I won't bother presenting a counter argument here.

 

excuse me, you're saying you "dismantled" an argument i made that hendry favored rusch over hill? first of all, i don't ever remember making that argument, let alone having you dismantle me on it. second of all, i think it's pretty clear to anyone who watched cub baseball in 2005 and 2006 that hendry and co absolutely did favor rusch over hill. rusch had to literally nearly die before hill bumped him out of the rotation.

 

the last discussion you and i had about hill started when someone said that hendry had "a thing" for hill. i said he didn't. those he said that he did pointed to rumors that hendry turned down a hill for dunn trade...rumors that have never been backed up by anything. that's pretty much all you had.

 

in support of my argument that hendry was not, in fact, hot for hill, i pointed to 1) his demotion and non-use after 4 no-hit relief innings in '05, 2) the cubs continued use of an awful rusch in the rotation instead of letting hill have starts 3) marshall and rusch getting spots in the rotation over hill coming out of spring training 4) hill's demotion after the white sox game, which was coupled by some of the worst trash-talking i've heard the cubs use about their own guy since sosa 5) the absence of any quotes anywhere indicating that hendry was high on hill.

 

and before anyone says "hill didn't deserve a spot coming out of spring training" or "hill deserved to be demoted after the white sox game" i'm not arguing that hill was treated unfairly any of those times (even though i think he probably was)...i'm merely arguing that hendry didn't favor hill or treat him as though he was his pet or something.

 

if either one of us had an argument dismantled it was your doozy a while back about how rusch had been pretty good 75% of the time. that one went down in flames. hard.

[Coach C]

I think the reasoning why Hill went down to Iowa, and when he came back, and finally got it going was probably his confidence on his pitches and his stuff.

 

While I am compairing apples and oranges in Hill and Teahen in terms of position (pitcher/3rd baseman), Teahen was in the same situation, having trouble identifiying pitches and swining at crap pitches, he was sent down to Omaha to re-establish his confidence on a level that he is fimiliar with, and once his confidence grew and that he got into a grove, then the Royals called him back up, and most of us knew how that went.

 

And I'm sure that Hendry could get the credit for brining him back up to Chicago, the real credit should go to Hill and the people who worked with him to get that issues taken care of.

[CubsWin]

So let me see if I understand your thought process here, when Cubs fail to perform well its Baker's and Hendry's fault which proves that they are fools thus when some Cubs succeed they couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

 

let me see if i understand your thought process. hill dominates in iowa. he's called up and sucks. he goes back down again and dominates. he comes back up and sucks. he goes back down again and dominates. he comes back up again and this time he's really good. third time's a charm, and hendry had it planned like that all along! great job everybody!

 

does that pretty much sum up what you're saying?

 

Thats a pretty hollow argument. And the incivility with which you presented your response gives me a clue as to how open you are to seeing evidence that flys in the face of your position.

 

that's the problem...you don't have any evidence...for any of your arguments. ever.

 

I've already dismantled your position on how obviously Hendry favored Rusch over Hill and you never responded to that, so I won't bother presenting a counter argument here.

 

excuse me, you're saying you "dismantled" an argument i made that hendry favored rusch over hill? first of all, i don't ever remember making that argument, let alone having you dismantle me on it. second of all, i think it's pretty clear to anyone who watched cub baseball in 2005 and 2006 that hendry and co absolutely did favor rusch over hill. rusch had to literally nearly die before hill bumped him out of the rotation.

 

the last discussion you and i had about hill started when someone said that hendry had "a thing" for hill. i said he didn't. those he said that he did pointed to rumors that hendry turned down a hill for dunn trade...rumors that have never been backed up by anything. that's pretty much all you had.

 

in support of my argument that hendry was not, in fact, hot for hill, i pointed to 1) his demotion and non-use after 4 no-hit relief innings in '05, 2) the cubs continued use of an awful rusch in the rotation instead of letting hill have starts 3) marshall and rusch getting spots in the rotation over hill coming out of spring training 4) hill's demotion after the white sox game, which was coupled by some of the worst trash-talking i've heard the cubs use about their own guy since sosa 5) the absence of any quotes anywhere indicating that hendry was high on hill.

 

and before anyone says "hill didn't deserve a spot coming out of spring training" or "hill deserved to be demoted after the white sox game" i'm not arguing that hill was treated unfairly any of those times (even though i think he probably was)...i'm merely arguing that hendry didn't favor hill or treat him as though he was his pet or something.

 

if either one of us had an argument dismantled it was your doozy a while back about how rusch had been pretty good 75% of the time. that one went down in flames. hard.

I'll only respond to say you are making a whole lot of stuff up out of thin air. The facts disagree with you. I've listed them several times. I'm not going to waste my time proving to you again how good or not good Glendon Rusch was during his first two years as a Cub or disproving the statement you did make about Rusch and Hill in the thread in transactions. I'm getting back to my wife and two kids now.

 

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

[abuck1220]

lemme guess...you're chalking this one up as a "dismantling" too.

[CUBZ99]

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.

 

Your last statement is ridiculous. I think you make some valid points otherwise, but Dusty and Hendry weren't rooting against Hill or trying to make him fail. When they first called him up in 2005, I dont' remember anything but glowing comments from them. I dont' see what the problem is with the Cubs actually making one of their players earn a spot on the team. Hill simply didnt' take advantage of his opportunities until late last year.

 

On the other hand, I'm not so sure that I would give Dusty any credit for helping Hill along. It seemed that Dusty didn't really know how to coach or use Hill. Because we don't have any idea on what happens in the club house or behind closed doors, all we can do is speculate as to the reasons Hendry did this or that.

 

I just find it interesting that when Hendry started taking Dusty's toys away from him and actually started forcing Dusty to play some of the younger guys, Hill was called back up and was successful.

[abuck1220]

yeah, because several times in this thread i've said that dusty and hendry were rooting against hill and trying to make him fail. that's definitely what i said.

[CUBZ99]

yeah, because several times in this thread i've said that dusty and hendry were rooting against hill and trying to make him fail. that's definitely what i said.

 

What are you saying that you can back up with any type of factual support? Your argument seems to be just sour grapes at this point. Hill was horrible during his first couple of call ups with the Cubs. I don't see why you seem to believe that Hill had an entitlement to be on the Cubs. There are many pitchers that have done well in AAA and could not carry those numbers over to the Majors. I see nothing wrong with the Cubs making him prove himself and earn playing time. It happens all the time in sports. If Hendry left Hill up all year and Hill was horrible you would be moaning and complaining about how Hendry ruined Hill and destroyed his trade value. Hendry sent him down and Hill seemed to be doing just fine at the end of the year, IMO that is the important part.

[abuck1220]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

[dew1679666265]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument?

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I see nothing wrong with the Cubs making him prove himself and earn playing time.

 

Well see theres really only two ways to find out if he proves it:

 

1. If they play him, therefore he's actually earning his playing time. Unless to earn playing time you need to do something funny/stupid like

 

2. Make him "earn" it at AAA, which he was doing.

 

That is where that logic falters.

[CubsWin]

lemme guess...you're chalking this one up as a "dismantling" too.

Don't think I have to, abuck. I don't think there is anything to dismantle.

[CUBZ99]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I don't understand why you feel the need to degrade everyone that disagrees with one of your statements? I'm not illiterate just because I don't take your word as the gospel.

 

!) Hill was not ready the first few times he was up and he showed it by his performances early on. You seem to feel that Hill had an entitlement to innings when he was first called up. There is nothing wrong with making him earn his playing time.

 

2) You have absolutely nothing to back that up. Hill played poorly so he got sent down. He kept doing well in the minors, he got called back up. There is nothing conspiracy theory about that. When Hill finally showed what he was capable of they gave him extended playing time and even included him in their plans for 2007.

[CUBZ99]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument?

 

He doesn't. Its simple he just makes a statement and expects everyone to believe it as the truth. If he keeps saying it enough, maybe someone will believe him and he won't have to back up the statement with facts.

[abuck1220]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument?

 

what hard, factual evidence do you have to support yours?

 

my evidence is hill was awesome in AAA in 2005. he was equally awesome in 2006. he was equally awesome his second stint in 2006. he was the same AAA pitcher each time he went down there.

 

the reason he got better was because he got more innings under his belt, got more run support and became more comfortable pitching in the bigs. it's not like he went down to AAA and added 2 more k's per 9 innings or added a screwball.

[CubsWin]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument?

I don't think there is any, dew.

 

abuck is saying that Hill didn't get anything out of his time in AAA and that the decision Hendry made to send him down for those 7 weeks in June and July had nothing to do with him performing better when he returned.

 

abuck has accused me of lots of stuff that is completely untrue in this thread. One accusation was that I didn't provide any evidence to back up my opinion that Hill did benefit from his time in AAA. I did, in another thread, but somehow abuck didn't believe it. I'll be happy to provide more here. Perhaps abuck will believe Rich Hill's own words written September 18th, 2006...

Cubs.com[/url]"]I've had some success the past two months, and it stems from the improvements I made in Triple-A Iowa during June and July.

[abuck1220]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I don't understand why you feel the need to degrade everyone that disagrees with one of your statements? I'm not illiterate just because I don't take your word as the gospel.

 

!) Hill was not ready the first few times he was up and he showed it by his performances early on. You seem to feel that Hill had an entitlement to innings when he was first called up. There is nothing wrong with making him earn his playing time.

 

2) You have absolutely nothing to back that up. Hill played poorly so he got sent down. He kept doing well in the minors, he got called back up. There is nothing conspiracy theory about that. When Hill finally showed what he was capable of they gave him extended playing time and even included him in their plans for 2007.

 

sorry, but i have to question your reading ability because you still seem to have a problem grasping what i'm saying. i never said baker/hendry wanted hill to fail, i never said there was a conspiracy theory, and i never said hill was treated unfairly.

 

here is my argument, please look at it closely...maybe read it aloud to yourself:

 

HENDRY DOES NOT HAVE A "THING" FOR HILL. HE IS NOT HIS PET, HE IS NOT HIS FAVORITE PLAYER. HE DOES NOT TREAT HIM WITH ANY EXTRA FAVORITISM. NOTE: MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HILL HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. REPEAT: MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HILL HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. AGAIN, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT HENDRY DOES NOT HAVE A "THING" FOR HILL. HE DOES NOT VALUE HIM AT AN UNREALISTICALLY HIGH LEVEL.

 

THE EVIDENCE FOR MY ARGUMENT IS AS FOLLOWS (available in powerpoint format upon request):

1. HILL WAS NOT USED/DEMOTED AFTER A GREAT RELIEF OUTING IN 2005.

NOTE: AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS WAS UNFAIR OR THAT HILL SHOULD BE INDUCTED INTO THE HALL OF FAME AFTER THIS OUTING. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY TRULY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEMOTED.

2. HILL WAS PASSED OVER FOR STARTS AT THE EXPENSE OF GLENDON RUSCH. HILL WAS THE BEST PITCHER IN THE MINORS AT THIS TIME, AND GLENDON RUSCH WAS, WELL, GLENDON RUSCH.

NOTE: AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS WAS UNFAIR OR THAT HILL SHOULD HAVE REPLACED RUSCH (though i do believe that). MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY REALLY DID HAVE A BOY CRUSH ON HILL, HE WOULD HAVE KICKED RUSCH TO THE CURB AND CALLED UP HILL.

3. HILL DID NOT MAKE THE ROTATION OUT OF SPRING TRAINING. RUSCH AND MARSHALL DID.

NOTE: I AM NOT ARGUING THAT HILL DESERVED A SPOT, SO DON'T THROW HIS SPRING NUMBERS AT ME. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY REALLY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD HAVE PUT HIM IN THE ROTATION.

4. HILL WAS TRASHED ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR AFTER THE WHITE SOX GAME.

NOTE: PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, DON'T TELL ME THAT HILL SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED HIS MOUTH OR THAT HE DESERVED WHAT HE GOT. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TRASHED HIM LIKE HE DID. HE WOULD HAVE MADE EXCUSES FOR HIM AND TALKED HIM UP ANYWAY.

 

the only argument i've seen supporting the idea that hendry is head over heels for hill is rumored trades that hendry has turned down involving hill. of course, none of those have any kind of confirmation.

[abuck1220]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument?

I don't think there is any, dew.

 

abuck is saying that Hill didn't get anything out of his time in AAA and that the decision Hendry made to send him down for those 7 weeks in June and July had nothing to do with him performing better when he returned.

 

abuck has accused me of lots of stuff that is completely untrue in this thread. One accusation was that I didn't provide any evidence to back up my opinion that Hill did benefit from his time in AAA. I did, in another thread, but somehow abuck didn't believe it. I'll be happy to provide more here. Perhaps abuck will believe Rich Hill's own words written September 18th, 2006...

Cubs.com[/url]"]I've had some success the past two months, and it stems from the improvements I made in Triple-A Iowa during June and July.

 

seriously, what else do you expect him to say?

 

"i didn't learn squat in AAA, as evidenced by the fact that my numbers in june and july are absolutely identical to my AAA numbers from april, and for that matter, all of 2005. what a waste these last two months have been."

[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.

 

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.

Rich Hill disagrees with you. He credits his time in the minors in June and July with giving him the necessary improvement to succeed like he did when he came up at the end of July.

Cubs.com[/url]"]I've had some success the past two months, and it stems from the improvements I made in Triple-A Iowa during June and July...The key is being able to throw my fastball where I want it...Since coming back from Triple-A, I've had command over all my pitches.

I think that says it all.

[CubsWin]

can you read?

 

my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'.

 

nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

 

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument?

I don't think there is any, dew.

 

abuck is saying that Hill didn't get anything out of his time in AAA and that the decision Hendry made to send him down for those 7 weeks in June and July had nothing to do with him performing better when he returned.

 

abuck has accused me of lots of stuff that is completely untrue in this thread. One accusation was that I didn't provide any evidence to back up my opinion that Hill did benefit from his time in AAA. I did, in another thread, but somehow abuck didn't believe it. I'll be happy to provide more here. Perhaps abuck will believe Rich Hill's own words written September 18th, 2006...

Cubs.com[/url]"]I've had some success the past two months, and it stems from the improvements I made in Triple-A Iowa during June and July.

 

seriously, what else do you expect him to say?

 

"i didn't learn squat in AAA, as evidenced by the fact that my numbers in june and july are absolutely identical to my AAA numbers from april, and for that matter, all of 2005. what a waste these last two months have been."

You ask for evidence. I give you the horse's mouth. But you still don't believe. Okay.

 

Well, there are tons of things he could have said besides "I made some improvements" and all of them would have been politically correct. He could have said basically what you are saying, that he understands why he was sent back to Iowa but that it was just a matter of time and simply a confidence thing. But he didn't. Why not? What would have been so bad with saying that? Nothing, except for, according to Hill, it wasn't the truth.

Claiming that he had to say what he said in order to keep up appearances doesn't wash, abuck. There is no logic to it, no motive. You got anything else to try to explain away Rich Hill's own words?

[treebird]

You ask for evidence. I give you the horse's mouth. But you still don't believe. Okay.

 

Well, there are tons of things he could have said besides "I made some improvements" and all of them would have been politically correct. He could have said basically what you are saying, that he understands why he was sent back to Iowa but that it was just a matter of time and simply a confidence thing. But he didn't. Why not? What would have been so bad with saying that? Nothing, except for, according to Hill, it wasn't the truth.

Claiming that he had to say what he said in order to keep up appearances doesn't wash, abuck. There is no logic to it, no motive. You got anything else to try to explain away Rich Hill's own words?

 

telling the higher-ups they made the right decision and fixed him is almost certainly the smartest possible answer, regardless of what he feels is true.

[abuck1220]

 

Well, there are tons of things he could have said besides "I made some improvements" and all of them would have been politically correct. He could have said basically what you are saying, that he understands why he was sent back to Iowa but that it was just a matter of time and simply a confidence thing. But he didn't. Why not? What would have been so bad with saying that? Nothing, except for, according to Hill, it wasn't the truth.

Claiming that he had to say what he said in order to keep up appearances doesn't wash, abuck. There is no logic to it, no motive. You got anything else to try to explain away Rich Hill's own words?

 

you're right...speaking his mind after the white sox game had absolutely no adverse consequences. he definitely didn't have a motive to give the most organization-friendly answer he could.

 

regardless of what hill said, the numbers speak for themselves (pretty sure they don't have a motive)...he was the same pitcher at each of his AAA stops. you want evidence, look at the numbers.

[CubsWin]

You ask for evidence. I give you the horse's mouth. But you still don't believe. Okay.

 

Well, there are tons of things he could have said besides "I made some improvements" and all of them would have been politically correct. He could have said basically what you are saying, that he understands why he was sent back to Iowa but that it was just a matter of time and simply a confidence thing. But he didn't. Why not? What would have been so bad with saying that? Nothing, except for, according to Hill, it wasn't the truth.

Claiming that he had to say what he said in order to keep up appearances doesn't wash, abuck. There is no logic to it, no motive. You got anything else to try to explain away Rich Hill's own words?

 

telling the higher-ups they made the right decision and fixed him is almost certainly the smartest possible answer, regardless of what he feels is true.

Sure, there is a very slight possibility that Rich is a hopeless kiss ass who needs to take every opportunity to smooch the behind of those above him, but what evidence do you have that he actually is that low of a human being? Do you really go so far as to accuse Rich Hill of being such a smarmy human being just to try to support a claim that Hendry's move to send him down had nothing to do with his success in August and September? That's low, dude.

 

Did you even read the article? He doesn't mention Hendry once. He doesn't even name his pitching coach. He talks about the changes he made. I don't think your theory that Hill is trying to get in good with the "higher-ups" is going to hold much water in this case. If he intended to do that with this article, he sure did a poor job of it.