Hill to Work on a Third Pitch

[abuck1220]

MAKE ROB BOWEN TELL US OR KICK HIM OFF THE TEAM

 

MAKE ROB BOWEN HIT .100 OR KICK HIM OFF THE TEAM.

[NCCubFan]

Lets hope that Hill and Rothschild get this figured out because we will need good Hill badly for the 2nd half of the season, especially if bad Marquis shows up and Marshall's numbers even out.

Bad Marquis isn't really due until next year. He usually does well his first year with a new team and that trend seems to be continuing this year.

[Roast]

MAKE ROB BOWEN TELL US OR KICK HIM OFF THE TEAM

 

MAKE ROB BOWEN HIT .100 OR KICK HIM OFF THE TEAM.

 

*agree*

[mhuber92211]

This is why I was surpised to see the consenus of the board to keep Hill and deal Marshall. Marshall is younger and has the 3rd pitch (and possibly a 4th) already. This year it seems that his curve has gotten above average.

 

I'd rather have Rich Hill over Sean Marshall because Hill still has a higher upside and doesn't have Marshall's injury history.

 

While I trust your opinion is accurate it doesn't seem logical here.

 

Hill is older, has less velocity, less control, less # of pitches and can't show any consistency. Marshall has seemingly grown over the offseason and has surpassed Hill. The only negative is his unknown injuries.

[Guest]

This is why I was surpised to see the consenus of the board to keep Hill and deal Marshall. Marshall is younger and has the 3rd pitch (and possibly a 4th) already. This year it seems that his curve has gotten above average.

 

I'd rather have Rich Hill over Sean Marshall because Hill still has a higher upside and doesn't have Marshall's injury history.

 

While I trust your opinion is accurate it doesn't seem logical here.

 

Hill is older, has less velocity, less control, less # of pitches and can't show any consistency. Marshall has seemingly grown over the offseason and has surpassed Hill. The only negative is his unknown injuries.

 

Huh? Hill has had a much more successful big league and upper minor league career, he's been consistently good.

 

Also, the velocity isn't that big a difference for me for the reason that UK states in terms of Hill's FB - deception. And the difference in velocity between the two is minimal.

[abuck1220]

Really? You just figured out now that as a starter would would need more than 2 pitches to be successful?

 

no kidding...he hasn't had ANY success to this point.

 

You know Shawn Estes had isolated stretches of success for the Cubs in 2003.

 

 

maybe the worst comparison i've ever heard.

 

I like Rich too, but it's clear something is wrong beyond just having a few bad outings.

 

It seems that unless he has total command of his curveball(s), he's increasingly horrible. His fastball is adequate, but only with paired with an effective curve. Without the curve being sharp and thrown for strikes, he's a BP pitcher.

 

Fortunately for Rich, he has gone through prolonged stretches where his curve was good, and the league was still trying to get a solid read on him.

 

It appears they have, and a trend has developed, and it's not a good one. Rich needs another pitch to cover his butt when his curve is less than spectacular. Either that, or he is going to have to continually change up his pitch/situation strategies to prevent hitters from sitting on pitches. It seems a lot simpler to just add a pitch.

 

Plenty of players have come into the league and looked awesome, only to fade into obscurity as they were figured out. Rich can still be awesome, but it may be evolve or die time for him.

 

wow, that is being ridiculously harsh.

 

It's a metaphor, abuck.

 

 

i realize that, but i still think it's extreme.

[abuck1220]

This is why I was surpised to see the consenus of the board to keep Hill and deal Marshall. Marshall is younger and has the 3rd pitch (and possibly a 4th) already. This year it seems that his curve has gotten above average.

 

I'd rather have Rich Hill over Sean Marshall because Hill still has a higher upside and doesn't have Marshall's injury history.

 

While I trust your opinion is accurate it doesn't seem logical here.

 

Hill is older, has less velocity, less control, less # of pitches and can't show any consistency. Marshall has seemingly grown over the offseason and has surpassed Hill. The only negative is his unknown injuries.

 

less consistency? hill is coming down off a stretch of baseball nearly equal to a full season where he was one of the top 5-10 pitchers in all of baseball. has marshall even strung together more than five consecutive good starts in his career? what's the longest run of good health he's ever had? three months? and that's not even considering hill's vastly superior minor league numbers.

 

by the way, every one is crapping themselves over hill's last four starts...his four starts before that...

 

27 2/3 ip, 18 h, 5 bb, 24 k's, 1.63 era, 0.83 whip

 

i'm concerned about him right now too, but let's have a little perspective.

[third eye]

This is why I was surpised to see the consenus of the board to keep Hill and deal Marshall. Marshall is younger and has the 3rd pitch (and possibly a 4th) already. This year it seems that his curve has gotten above average.

 

I'd rather have Rich Hill over Sean Marshall because Hill still has a higher upside and doesn't have Marshall's injury history.

 

While I trust your opinion is accurate it doesn't seem logical here.

 

Hill is older, has less velocity, less control, less # of pitches and can't show any consistency. Marshall has seemingly grown over the offseason and has surpassed Hill. The only negative is his unknown injuries.

 

less consistency? hill is coming down off a stretch of baseball nearly equal to a full season where he was one of the top 5-10 pitchers in all of baseball. has marshall even strung together more than five consecutive good starts in his career? what's the longest run of good health he's ever had? three months? and that's not even considering hill's vastly superior minor league numbers.

 

by the way, every one is crapping themselves over hill's last four starts...his four starts before that...

 

27 2/3 ip, 18 h, 5 bb, 24 k's, 1.63 era, 0.83 whip

 

i'm concerned about him right now too, but let's have a little perspective.

 

Agreed. Also, all pitchers will have stretches of a few bad starts in a row over a season. Prior in 2003 had a couple of bad ones before the break. He only got REALLY hot after he came off the DL from the Giles collision. Hill has put together close to a full very solid year now. And as abuck pointed out, prior to the last 4 starts, he had 4 strong ones. And even within the last four, the sox outing wasnt that bad. I see him getting through this slump as he finds his location again.

[mhuber92211]

This is why I was surpised to see the consenus of the board to keep Hill and deal Marshall. Marshall is younger and has the 3rd pitch (and possibly a 4th) already. This year it seems that his curve has gotten above average.

 

I'd rather have Rich Hill over Sean Marshall because Hill still has a higher upside and doesn't have Marshall's injury history.

 

While I trust your opinion is accurate it doesn't seem logical here.

 

Hill is older, has less velocity, less control, less # of pitches and can't show any consistency. Marshall has seemingly grown over the offseason and has surpassed Hill. The only negative is his unknown injuries.

 

less consistency? hill is coming down off a stretch of baseball nearly equal to a full season where he was one of the top 5-10 pitchers in all of baseball. has marshall even strung together more than five consecutive good starts in his career? what's the longest run of good health he's ever had? three months? and that's not even considering hill's vastly superior minor league numbers.

 

by the way, every one is crapping themselves over hill's last four starts...his four starts before that...

 

27 2/3 ip, 18 h, 5 bb, 24 k's, 1.63 era, 0.83 whip

 

i'm concerned about him right now too, but let's have a little perspective.

 

I am NOT crapping myself about Hill's last starts. I am stating my case why I choose Marshall over Hill. When has Marshall been injured? After his first Big league season when he threw more high energy innings then ever before. He started 19 games last season, and started off well. He has come back strong this season and has shown some excellent stuff. How many quality starts does he have?

 

Hill is inconsistent at the level that matters. Minor league numbers are a great indicator of possibility but not performance. Hill has been up and down in MLB, no question about that. Why would this change now? How long do we give him to develop?

 

Marshall vs Hill and they have extremely similar stats. I don't understand the love for Hill and the constant being that he is going to be a top 10 pitcher when Marshall is showing the same skills and attributes, is younger and has other options to throw and yet he is not getting the same kind of attention.

[Guest]

I am NOT crapping myself about Hill's last starts. I am stating my case why I choose Marshall over Hill. When has Marshall been injured? After his first Big league season when he threw more high energy innings then ever before. He started 19 games last season, and started off well. He has come back strong this season and has shown some excellent stuff. How many quality starts does he have?

 

2004: Only pitched 76 IP due to a ruptured tendon in his middle finger.

2005: Only pitched 94 IP due to shoulder soreness.

2006: Missed about a month due to the oblique injury.

2007: Missed the first 7 weeks of the season due to shoulder soreness.

 

Sean has 6 quality starts this season (not sure why that matters).

 

Hill is inconsistent at the level that matters. Minor league numbers are a great indicator of possibility but not performance. Hill has been up and down in MLB, no question about that. Why would this change now?

 

Rich Hill since his most recent call-up from the minors, at the end of July 2006: 184 IP, 3.42 ERA, 175 K/56 BB, ~.218 BAA

 

Hill has not been rather consistent since his most recent call-up - sure, he struggled in his earlier stabs at the majors but he's obviously figured a few things out since his days of posting an ERA around 9. Similarly, Sean Marshall has improved on his performance from last season and while he doesn't have the number of successful innings Hill has after his initial struggles, I'm inclined to consider Marshall's 2007 season more in line with his ability. Rich Hill's "inconsistency" (i.e. sucking in his first few tries at the big leagues) are a thing of the past. Why the change, as you ask? Because of how well he has pitched in his last 184 innings.

 

Career Stats:

 

Rich Hill: 227 IP, 4.52 ERA, 99 ERA+, 227 K/88 BB, 1.14 WHIP

Sean Marshall: 174 IP, 4.97 ERA, 91 ERA+, 113 K/73 BB, 1.44 WHIP

 

Rich Hill has been better thus far in his career. And he's thrown 53 more innings than Sean Marshall.

 

How long do we give him to develop?

 

Hill has had a longer stretch of "consistent" success than Marshall. Look at that 184 inning stretch (about equivalent to a full big league season) and tell me if we need to wonder how much longer he needs to develop. He's been better than Marshall in the big leagues.

 

Marshall vs Hill and they have extremely similar stats. I don't understand the love for Hill and the constant being that he is going to be a top 10 pitcher when Marshall is showing the same skills and attributes, is younger and has other options to throw and yet he is not getting the same kind of attention.

 

Similar stats this season? Sure (though Marshall has thrown less than half of Hill's innings this season - let's see where Sean is after he's over 100 IP). But Rich Hill has had a better numbers for his career thus far.

 

I'm not sure I understand the top 10 comment. Rich Hill has a ceiling of a #2 starter (which wouldn't be top 10 in the big leagues) and Sean Marshall's ceiling is bit lower. You can't discount that injury history of his and Marshall hasn't had the sustained success in the big leagues that Rich Hill has had.

 

FWIW, while I think Hill is better, I think Marshall is close behind (and I have thought this for a while, back when both of them were prospects too).

Edited July 6, 2007 by CaliforniaRaisin

[abuck1220]

I am NOT crapping myself about Hill's last starts. I am stating my case why I choose Marshall over Hill. When has Marshall been injured?

 

are you kidding? for starters, last year at the end of the season and this year to start the season. and a bunch in the minors.

 

How many quality starts does he have?

 

well, that's a dumb way to evaluate guys, but since you asked, hill has 9, marshall has 6. over the past two seasons, hill has 16, marshall 15. hill has has a QS in 47% of his starts the past two seasons, marshall 46%.

 

Hill is inconsistent at the level that matters.

 

apparently that's not the case.

 

Minor league numbers are a great indicator of possibility but not performance. Hill has been up and down in MLB, no question about that. Why would this change now? How long do we give him to develop?

 

Marshall vs Hill and they have extremely similar stats. I don't understand the love for Hill and the constant being that he is going to be a top 10 pitcher when Marshall is showing the same skills and attributes, is younger and has other options to throw and yet he is not getting the same kind of attention.

 

over the past two years, hill has put up era+'s of 111 and 116. marshall's career era+ is 91. even when you factor in his horrible 2005 when hill was shuffled back forth b/w the minors and the majors and the rotation and the bullpen, his big league career numbers are better than marshall's. i like marshall too, but hill's been better as a starter for the cubs and as a minor leaguer. and he's been healthier.

 

and marshall is not really showing the same skills and attributes. hill has been harder to hit, he's walked fewer batters (surprisingly), and he's struck out a ton more batters.

[Guest]

Or abuck could be more succinct than me.

[Amazing_Grace]

Correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't Zambrano also questioned as a starter because when he first came up he only had two pitches?

[nilodnayr]

Personally I don't think he needs to work on a changeup. His curveball already sits in the low to mid 70's. I would like to see something around a cutter.

 

Just because he already throws a slow pitch doesnt mean he doesnt need a change up. The beauty of the change up isnt its speed, its that it looks like a fastball coming out.

 

IMO, whatever 3rd pitch he uses, he needs to have confidence that he can get it over the plate. A big part of his problem is that hes predictable and that he can get wild with his fastball and not have confidence in it to get over the plate. So he becomes even more predictable having to rely on the curve in counts where he has to throw a strike.

 

Does Rich throw a two-seamer or a four-seamer? If he can control it, I'd like to see him work on a two-seamer with some sink down in the zone to induce grounders.

[Soul]

Correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't Zambrano also questioned as a starter because when he first came up he only had two pitches?

 

I can't say you're wrong, I just don't remember it.

 

I still have perspective on Hill, he could still improve and be effective. But these last few starts -- wow. I'm trying to figure how it's the same pitcher I watched completely dominate the Brewers at the beginning of the year.

[C.C.]

Correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't Zambrano also questioned as a starter because when he first came up he only had two pitches?

 

I can't say you're wrong, I just don't remember it.

 

I still have perspective on Hill, he could still improve and be effective. But these last few starts -- wow. I'm trying to figure how it's the same pitcher I watched completely dominate the Brewers at the beginning of the year.

 

But those two pitches Z throws are really, really, really good. Eveything he throws has movement.

[TruffleShuffle]

Correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't Zambrano also questioned as a starter because when he first came up he only had two pitches?

 

I can't say you're wrong, I just don't remember it.

 

I still have perspective on Hill, he could still improve and be effective. But these last few starts -- wow. I'm trying to figure how it's the same pitcher I watched completely dominate the Brewers at the beginning of the year.

 

how is zambrano the same pitcher who was all over the place at the beginning of this season?

[mhuber92211]

according to Rasin's stats, the 2 players are pretty similar. Marshall has 1 more pitch then Hill. If a deal comes along that makes the Cubs better and Hill is the pitcher that the other team wants, do it. We have another Rich Hill in Sean Marshall.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

according to Rasin's stats, the 2 players are pretty similar.

 

No. Even more so no when you consider that Hill was terrible before he came back from AAA and was awesome.

[abuck1220]

according to Rasin's stats, the 2 players are pretty similar. Marshall has 1 more pitch then Hill. If a deal comes along that makes the Cubs better and Hill is the pitcher that the other team wants, do it. We have another Rich Hill in Sean Marshall.

 

no, we don't.

 

and you're using raisin's stats to support this assertion? the stats he used didn't make them look at all similar.

 

Rich Hill: 227 IP, 4.52 ERA, 99 ERA+, 227 K/88 BB, 1.14 WHIP

Sean Marshall: 174 IP, 4.97 ERA, 91 ERA+, 113 K/73 BB, 1.44 WHIP

 

and that's including hill's horrible 2005 when he was back and forth b/w the pen and the rotation and aaa and the bigs.

[Guest]

according to Rasin's stats, the 2 players are pretty similar.

 

What????

 

Career Stats:

 

Rich Hill: 227 IP, 4.52 ERA, 99 ERA+, 227 K/88 BB, 1.14 WHIP

Sean Marshall: 174 IP, 4.97 ERA, 91 ERA+, 113 K/73 BB, 1.44 WHIP

 

Pretty similar!? Rich Hill has been better thus far in his career. Much better K/9, much better control and he's surrendered a half an earned run less than Marshall over his career. And he's thrown 53 more innings than Sean Marshall.

 

And of course that includes the horrible start to Hill's career when he was posting an ERA around 9. You take that out that time while he was adjusting to the big leagues and look what we have, especially when compared to Marshall:

 

Rich Hill since his most recent call-up from the minors, at the end of July 2006: 184 IP, 3.42 ERA, 175 K/56 BB, ~.218 BAA

 

 

If a deal comes along that makes the Cubs better and Hill is the pitcher that the other team wants, do it.

 

Well, yeah. No one on this team is untouchable, I'd trade anyone if it improves the team. But that's not what we're talking about here, we're comparing Hill to Marshall.

[weis21]

MAKE ROB BOWEN TELL US OR KICK HIM OFF THE TEAM

 

The padres probably didn't tell him because they figured he would probably get out anyway.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Well, FWIW Bowen didn't even bat in that game.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Well, FWIW Bowen didn't even bat in that game.

 

that doesn't matter, everyone in the dugout would have known

[abuck1220]

whether you agree w/ mhuber or not, you have to respect the fact that, while trying to argue his point, he has the balls to cite statistics that directly refute his claim.