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

abuck1220 · December 18, 2006

by the way, this whole argument originates from my claim that if z, lilly, marquis, miller and prior are all healthy hill will start in AAA or the pen. and i still believe that. if hill is as lights out in the spring as he was last year, then he'll probably stick. but if he has a mediocre spring, i still say he gets bumped. hendry has said too many glowing things about those other guys (and not enough about hill) to make me think otherwise.

and i don't buy the argument that hendry will not put the five best pitchers out there. the last three years are littered with examples of him putting lesser players on the 25 man roster.

CubsWin · December 18, 2006

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.

I am looking at the numbers, abuck. The major league numbers. And they are quite different from every other time up in '05 and '06 than they were in August and September. Why? Rich Hill just told you why.

As far as his AAA numbers, he was dominant before the May call up and dominant after. He couldn't get much better. How was he supposed to show improvement upon his April numbers of .149/.221/.230 with 33 Ks in 25 IP? Answer, he wasn't. He can't. No human can. He could fool the AAA level hitter, clearly. But the numbers also show that he wasn't fooling the major league hitter. Apparently, if you choose to believe the words coming out of Rich Hill's mouth, someone identified some adjustments he needed to make and he made them. And, presto change-o, (showing my GN watching heritage with that one) he comes up in the 2nd half and does what he wasn't able to do in May or any time before that.

You wanted evidence that his time in the minors made a difference, I gave it to you. You wanted evidence that Rich Hill was highly valued by the Cubs front office, I gave it to you in another thread. You wanted evidence as to how Rusch had been good for about 3/4 of his time with the Cubs prior to this season and I gave it to you. You believe none of it. That's your choice. You're mind is made up. That's totally cool with me. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just stating my well-supported and thought out opinions and providing the evidence for them. Just open your mind enough to allow other people's arguments that are backed up with hard evidence to exist also. There should be no need for threads to be hi-jacked like this.

CubsWin · December 18, 2006

by the way, this whole argument originates from my claim that if z, lilly, marquis, miller and prior are all healthy hill will start in AAA or the pen.

No, it doesn't. I was done with that one a week ago.

This one stems from the claims you made in this thread, namely, that Hendry's decision to send Hill down after his horrible performance in May had nothing to do with his subsequent improvement. That's the issue we have been discussing in this thread. One has nothing to do with the other.

abuck1220 · December 18, 2006

You wanted evidence that his time in the minors made a difference, I gave it to you.

and i gave you evidence that it didn't. stats.

You wanted evidence that Rich Hill was highly valued by the Cubs front office, I gave it to you in another thread.

and i gave you (more) evidence that he wasn't/isn't.

You wanted evidence as to how Rusch had been good for about 3/4 of his time with the Cubs prior to this season and I gave it to you.

no evidence needed to be given to refute this ridiculous claim, but i gave it to you.

listen dude, we just disagree. you like glendon rusch, i like rich hill. one of us is wrong, the other is right...i guess time will tell which was which.

abuck1220 · December 18, 2006

by the way, this whole argument originates from my claim that if z, lilly, marquis, miller and prior are all healthy hill will start in AAA or the pen.
No, it doesn't. I was done with that one a week ago.

This one stems from the claims you made in this thread, namely, that Hendry's decision to send Hill down after his horrible performance in May had nothing to do with his subsequent improvement. That's the issue we have been discussing in this thread. One has nothing to do with the other.

ok, fine. i disagree with you on this issue too. and i showed you why.

abuck1220 · December 18, 2006

I am looking at the numbers, abuck. The major league numbers. And they are quite different from every other time up in '05 and '06 than they were in August and September. Why?

because young pitchers need more than 30 big league innings to get used to pitching in the bigs.

i think a few dozen more big league innings made the difference. you seem to think that a few dozen more minor league innings of exactly the same quality as his previous 400 AAA innings made the difference. agree to disagree.

CubsWin · December 18, 2006

listen dude, we just disagree. you like glendon rusch, i like rich hill. one of us is wrong, the other is right...i guess time will tell which was which.

When did I say that I liked Glendon Rusch? I don't even want him on the team. I simply stated a fact about him. An irrefutable fact that you refuse to believe.

When did I say that I didn't like Rich Hill? I've been defending him for years on this board.

What are you doing, abuck? Is this what you do when you don't have much of a factual argument? Is that the best you can put forward? Its stuff like that that makes your argument look desperate and weak.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

imb · December 18, 2006

listen dude, we just disagree. you like glendon rusch, i like rich hill. one of us is wrong, the other is right...i guess time will tell which was which.
When did I say that I liked Glendon Rusch? I don't even want him on the team. I simply stated a fact about him. An irrefutable fact that you refuse to believe.

I know that when I say "how in the hell can you pretend that saying that Glendon Rusch was good in 75 percent of his outings is an irrefutable fact" you will just say "Im not going into it again", but.

How in the hell can you pretend that saying that Glendon Rusch was good in 75 percent of his outings is an irrefutable fact?

dew1679666265 · December 18, 2006

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.

I don't have to have any evidence because I didn't make an argument. To be honest, I'm not sure if Hendry/Baker had anything to do with Hill's improvement at all. On the other hand, they may have.

You have the burden of proof because you're trying to prove the point. It's very possible that Hill made some slight adjustment while in the minors that facilitated his improvement and the need for that adjustment was seen by Rothschild, Baker or Hendry. Or maybe not.

Do you know if he did anything different when he went down, perhaps working on locating his fastball a little better or challenging hitters more (which is something he didn't do his first time up in 2006 but did do his second time up)?

That's my question, I'm not trying to prove a point, just asking.

Backtobanks · December 18, 2006

by the way, this whole argument originates from my claim that if z, lilly, marquis, miller and prior are all healthy hill will start in AAA or the pen. and i still believe that. if hill is as lights out in the spring as he was last year, then he'll probably stick. but if he has a mediocre spring, i still say he gets bumped. hendry has said too many glowing things about those other guys (and not enough about hill) to make me think otherwise.

and i don't buy the argument that hendry will not put the five best pitchers out there. the last three years are littered with examples of him putting lesser players on the 25 man roster.

Assuming they're all healthy and pitching as they have shown they are capable of pitching, then:

Zambrano

Prior

Hill

Lilly

Marquis/Miller as 5th starter and swingman

I still think the #3 starter's job is Hill's to lose after what he did during the 2nd half. The real key is Prior because his health would slot the other pitchers where they should be (middle and bottom of the rotation).

David · December 18, 2006

I'm joining this party kind of late, but is someone suggesting that Glendon Rusch is a better option in the rotation than Rich Hill??

EDIT -

I should probably add that this was meant as a joke since I probably wont be around to defend myself later....

TruffleShuffle · December 18, 2006

so how's rich hill going to do in 2007?

CUBZ99 · December 18, 2006

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.

If your argument is truely limited to the above, maybe you shouldn't vastly over dramatize your argument to include statements that expand on it.

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

goonys evil twin · December 18, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

abuck1220 · December 18, 2006

listen dude, we just disagree. you like glendon rusch, i like rich hill. one of us is wrong, the other is right...i guess time will tell which was which.
When did I say that I liked Glendon Rusch? I don't even want him on the team. I simply stated a fact about him. An irrefutable fact that you refuse to believe.

When did I say that I didn't like Rich Hill? I've been defending him for years on this board.

What are you doing, abuck? Is this what you do when you don't have much of a factual argument? Is that the best you can put forward? Its stuff like that that makes your argument look desperate and weak.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

listen, dude...i don't care if you agree with me or not (in fact, if you did agree with me, i'd be worried), but can you stop resorting to the "boy, abuck must be crazy because he doesn't even have an argument" defense? i listed my argument and its support in friggin outline form with big ass capital letters and underlining. do you want me to send it to you certified mail or what?

CubinNY · December 18, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

NoDak · December 18, 2006

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.

Abuck, I think that what cubs win is looking for is for you to make a declarative statement (which you did very well here) and then back it up with evidence that is verifiable. Each of your statements is backed up with an opinion. I have to say that Cubs win's point that saying that he was basically the same pitcher in AAA each time he was sent down doesn't really prove that he was just "lacking experience" at the big league level. His point that it would be statistically very difficult to "improve" on his prior dominant numbers. So, the fact that his numbers stayed stable doesn't really mean he wasn't improving as a pitcher. He very well could have been working at setting up pitches (something more valuable statistically in the majors than AAA), or "spotting" his fastball, or "taking something off" a pitch. A batter is just as struck out, but that is what I would hope that Hill would do. Hill's quote sums this up well, and, absent any evidence to the contrary I am inclined to believe that. That is what I hoped Patterson would do when he was sent to AAA.

Also, "if" Z, Marquis, Miller, Lilly are all healthy CHC will not play Hill may be accurate but I would be surprised if that will be the state of affairs comeing out of ST. My grandpa always said, "'if' is a little word but it means a lot!"

abuck1220 · December 18, 2006

which of these is an opinion?

1. HILL WAS NOT USED/DEMOTED AFTER A GREAT RELIEF OUTING IN 2005.
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.
3. HILL DID NOT MAKE THE ROTATION OUT OF SPRING TRAINING. RUSCH AND MARSHALL DID.
4. HILL WAS TRASHED ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR AFTER THE WHITE SOX GAME.

none.

CUBZ99 · December 19, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster.

abuck1220 · December 19, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster.

so hill was treated unfairly. glad we got to the bottom of this.

CubinNY · December 19, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster.

Entitlements to rookies? Give me a break.

In 2005 Hill went from low A to the majors. In his rise to the majors he posted some of the best numbers in all of baseball. By the end of 2005 he pitched 23.6 innings in the bigs. In 2006 he again posted incredibe numbers in Iowa. Then he was up for awhile used sparingly and then demoted. Then he was up again and demoted. Then after the season was well over for the Cubs, he still wasn't called up and the Cubs used Rusch and some others. Then he finally got a chance to work consistently and he pitched pretty well.

We still don't know what the Cubs will get out of Hill in 2007, but I have to ask, how does one earn a spot on the team when they aren't given a fair chance?

Take a look at Hill's minor league numbers and tell me he didn't deserve a better shot last year.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/H/Rich-Hill.shtml

Only one of the worst run teams in baseball would have used Hill they way they did.

CUBZ99 · December 19, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster.

so hill was treated unfairly. glad we got to the bottom of this.

:lol: :lol:

Hardly, it may turn out that Cubs actually handled Hill correctly and we can only hope that he continues to pitch the way he was pitching toward the end of season.

abuck1220 · December 19, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster.

so hill was treated unfairly. glad we got to the bottom of this.

:lol: :lol:

Hardly, it may turn out that Cubs actually handled Hill correctly and we can only hope that he continues to pitch the way he was pitching toward the end of season.

if he continues to have success, it doesn't mean that the cubs handled him correctly. if the cubs sent soriano to AAA for the first two weeks of the season and he came up to hit 40 homers, it wouldn't mean that it was the right decision to send him to AAA.

cheapseats · December 19, 2006

Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine.

I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies

Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster.

so hill was treated unfairly. glad we got to the bottom of this.

:lol: :lol:

Hardly, it may turn out that Cubs actually handled Hill correctly and we can only hope that he continues to pitch the way he was pitching toward the end of season.

No, the Cubs handled him incorrectly, and nothing that happens in the future will change the past.

TruffleShuffle · December 19, 2006

I think this really should be split off into another thread, since almost none of it has anything to do with Rich Hill's projections for 2007.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs