MacPhail: Deal is dead (p. 297), stop posting, go outside

[Keener98]

Boston - 5th

NYY - 4th

Tigers - 4th

Cleveland - 3rd

Anaheim - 3rd or 4th

Arizona - 4th

Brewers - 3rd

 

Weird how my teams are the playoff/WS series contenders and your's are the crap teams of the national league or AL teams with no chance.

 

Rich Hill can be great. I hope he is great. But if you want to win the World Series, you need more and better pitchers than Rich Hill.

 

As for arguing his mental state - its a real thing if you've seen him pitch.

 

How can you say its a real thing, when his stats over a full season show something completely different. Does he show his emotions sometimes, yes. But he handled pressure situations just fine, as I proved in my previous post.

[RynoHawk23]

Real things are quantified by statistics. If his body language doesn't allow runs I don't really care.

 

Yes because baseball is played by computers and not humans.

[inari]

Real things are quantified by statistics. If his body language doesn't allow runs I don't really care.

 

Yes because baseball is played by computers and not humans.

 

No, but baseball is played by batters whose goal is to create runs and pitchers whose goal is to prevent runs from scoring. Rich Hill did the second just fine. So why should anyone care that you deemed his demeanor to be somehow inappropriate? He got the job done. As Keener said, he was one of the top 30 starters in baseball.

[RynoHawk23]

Keener, you make valid points.

 

But he had many a big game where he lost total control - Mike Cameron, throwing cookies to pitchers or even walking them (cant remember the exact games, maybe someone can help me - sorry, I'm old), and Arizona.

 

I'm not really trying to discredit Hill, I've been swept up in this debate. Basically I think we need a #2 pitcher or at the very least - another pitcher that is just as good as Lilly to create more playoff depth for this team. Therefore, making Hill our #4 and creating a matchup advantage for the Cubs.

[Keener98]

Keener, you make valid points.

 

But he had many a big game where he lost total control - Mike Cameron, throwing cookies to pitchers or even walking them (cant remember the exact games, maybe someone can help me - sorry, I'm old), and Arizona.

 

I'm not really trying to discredit Hill, I've been swept up in this debate. Basically I think we need a #2 pitcher or at the very least - another pitcher that is just as good as Lilly to create more playoff depth for this team. Therefore, making Hill our #4 and creating a matchup advantage for the Cubs.

 

The thing is, every pitcher in baseball has those games. No pitcher is on top of his game every single time out, and over the course of a season they will probably have more than just one of those types of outings. At worst Rich Hill is a number 2 pitcher, and Lilly is a good number 3. Our problem in the rotation lies in the backend with guys like Marquis and Dempster. Although if the Cubs were smart, Marshall and Gallagher would be in there instead, or at the very least 1of them would be.

 

Rich Hill takes alot of abuse from Cub fans, and I dont know why(not pointing at you Ryno). The guy was in his first full season, and was a top 30 pitcher, really what more could you ask out of him? There is no reason to think Hill wont improve this season, and by seasons end, this discussion will look foolish as I think Hill pushes Z this year as best starter on this team.

 

I think nobody would have a problem with getting another great starter, but they dont grow on trees, and they dont come cheap.

[BigbadB]

like i said, sori does not have the mental approach to be a leadoff hitter nor the baserunning skills. He has the mentality of a 3-5 hitter. He was put into a position that does not fit his mental approach. Why? because we did not have a good leadoff option. If we get one & then move sori down then our offense gets much better imo...especially w/ the addition of a lefty in fuko.

 

I brought this post to your attention in another thread and you have completed ignored responding. So, I'll point it out again.

 

I checked out Baltimore's line up from last year, and it rivals what the Cubs line up looked like, so let's really look at the difference between Brian Roberts and Alfonso Soriano, since Soriano is apparently extremely overrated hitting lead off:

 

Baltimore's typical line up: Roberts, Mora, Markakis, Tejada, Huff, Millar

Chicago's typical line up: Soriano, Theriot, Lee, Ramirez, Floyd, DeRosa

 

I've left off the 7-9 hitters since we would be including quite a bit of garbage for no real apparent reason.

 

Roberts 2007: 716 plate appearances, .377 OBP, 59 XBH's, 50 SB's, 103 R

Soriano 2007: 617 plate appearances, .337 OBP, 80 XBH's, 19 SB's, 97 R

 

Soriano scored 6 less runs in 99 less plate appearances. I would venture to guess that Soriano would have scored many more runs than Roberts if given another 99 chances at the plate, and that's taking into consideration he was hopping around on a bad leg for a good stretch of the 2nd half of the season.

 

You do want your top of the order hitters to get on base and Roberts is better at getting on base. However, getting on base is no guarantee of scoring. A lot of Soriano's times on base was circling the bases via a HR, which is plenty valuable for a top of the order hitter. It's really great that Roberts can get a single and steal second. But, I'll take a guy who can hit a home run over a guy who can hit a single and steal 2nd.

 

But, it's an argument over nothing. If the Cubs get Roberts, it would make sense to lead off with Soriano and bat Roberts 2nd. I'd take that option all day long over batting Roberts 1st and Theriot 2nd, that I can assure you.

 

Please show me how in the numbers above Soriano is an extremely overrated lead off hitter.

[anabiono]

like i said, sori does not have the mental approach to be a leadoff hitter nor the baserunning skills. He has the mentality of a 3-5 hitter. He was put into a position that does not fit his mental approach. Why? because we did not have a good leadoff option. If we get one & then move sori down then our offense gets much better imo...especially w/ the addition of a lefty in fuko.

 

I brought this post to your attention in another thread and you have completed ignored responding. So, I'll point it out again.

 

I checked out Baltimore's line up from last year, and it rivals what the Cubs line up looked like, so let's really look at the difference between Brian Roberts and Alfonso Soriano, since Soriano is apparently extremely overrated hitting lead off:

 

Baltimore's typical line up: Roberts, Mora, Markakis, Tejada, Huff, Millar

Chicago's typical line up: Soriano, Theriot, Lee, Ramirez, Floyd, DeRosa

 

I've left off the 7-9 hitters since we would be including quite a bit of garbage for no real apparent reason.

 

Roberts 2007: 716 plate appearances, .377 OBP, 59 XBH's, 50 SB's, 103 R

Soriano 2007: 617 plate appearances, .337 OBP, 80 XBH's, 19 SB's, 97 R

 

Soriano scored 6 less runs in 99 less plate appearances. I would venture to guess that Soriano would have scored many more runs than Roberts if given another 99 chances at the plate, and that's taking into consideration he was hopping around on a bad leg for a good stretch of the 2nd half of the season.

 

You do want your top of the order hitters to get on base and Roberts is better at getting on base. However, getting on base is no guarantee of scoring. A lot of Soriano's times on base was circling the bases via a HR, which is plenty valuable for a top of the order hitter. It's really great that Roberts can get a single and steal second. But, I'll take a guy who can hit a home run over a guy who can hit a single and steal 2nd.

 

But, it's an argument over nothing. If the Cubs get Roberts, it would make sense to lead off with Soriano and bat Roberts 2nd. I'd take that option all day long over batting Roberts 1st and Theriot 2nd, that I can assure you.

 

Please show me how in the numbers above Soriano is an extremely overrated lead off hitter.

 

he isn't overrated but it would be nice to get someone in the leadoff slot who doesn't swing for the hills on every pitch

[JimSorgi]

Tigers - 4th

 

That's funny, I count one pitcher on the Tigers that's better than Rich Hill. It's Verlander, Rogers, Bonderman, Willis, Robertson in the rotation. Hill is better than the last four.

[Guest]

Tell me which teams he would legitamitely be a the #1 starter and anchor of a staff.

 

Teams that he would be the best or pretty much as good as their number one starter?

 

Washington (best) Agree

Florida (best) Agree

Kansas City (best) Agree

St. Louis (best) Wainwright

Texas (best) Agree

Mets (best, assuming Pedro isn't healthy) Very debatable

Baltimore (whether Bedard is there or not, they're pretty comparable) Bedard is much better than Lilly

San Francisco (We don't really know what to expect from Lincecum right now. He's on the same level as Cain at the moment) No no no no no. Are we talking about Lilly?? Better than Lincecum and Cain??

Pittsburgh (As good as Snell) Disagree

Oakland (depending on the health of Harden) Like you said depending.

 

And of course

 

The Cubs. He was probably our best pitcher last year.

 

Now I'd love to hear you tell me the teams he would be the 4th best starter on, since I believe it was you that called him a #4 starter.

 

Seriously, Ted Lilly? He was great last year I agree. But c'mon, 4.46 ERA and 1.33 Career WHIP. You really think he put it together finally at age 31 in his 9th season?

 

Er. That as supposed to be about Hill.

 

Oh haha. Well my comments in quotes still stand. I cannot agree that Rich Hill is better than Cain, Lincecum, Wainwright, Snell, etc.

 

Only one of those 5 had a better ERA+ last season than Hill (Cain, by 3; Wainwright did have the same ERA+). Hill also had the best K/BB of them all.

 

EDIT: Only Lincecum had a better K/9 last season too. (Sorry, just perusing all their BR.com pages and comparing.)

[UMFan83]

Tell me which teams he would legitamitely be a the #1 starter and anchor of a staff.

 

Teams that he would be the best or pretty much as good as their number one starter?

 

Washington (best) Agree

Florida (best) Agree

Kansas City (best) Agree

St. Louis (best) Wainwright

Texas (best) Agree

Mets (best, assuming Pedro isn't healthy) Very debatable

Baltimore (whether Bedard is there or not, they're pretty comparable) Bedard is much better than Lilly

San Francisco (We don't really know what to expect from Lincecum right now. He's on the same level as Cain at the moment) No no no no no. Are we talking about Lilly?? Better than Lincecum and Cain??

Pittsburgh (As good as Snell) Disagree

Oakland (depending on the health of Harden) Like you said depending.

 

And of course

 

The Cubs. He was probably our best pitcher last year.

 

Now I'd love to hear you tell me the teams he would be the 4th best starter on, since I believe it was you that called him a #4 starter.

 

Seriously, Ted Lilly? He was great last year I agree. But c'mon, 4.46 ERA and 1.33 Career WHIP. You really think he put it together finally at age 31 in his 9th season?

 

Er. That as supposed to be about Hill.

 

Oh haha. Well my comments in quotes still stand. I cannot agree that Rich Hill is better than Cain, Lincecum, Wainwright, Snell, etc.

 

Only one of those 5 had a better ERA+ last season than Hill (Cain, by 3; Wainwright did have the same ERA+). Hill also had the best K/BB of them all.

 

Wainwright really came on at midseason and finished strong I believe. I think he easily can be an ace

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I hate this thread. :D

[Outshined_One]

Real things are quantified by statistics. If his body language doesn't allow runs I don't really care.

 

Yes because baseball is played by computers and not humans.

 

Holy crap...you mean to tell me the robots have finally taken over?!?!?!

[RammyFanny]

Real things are quantified by statistics. If his body language doesn't allow runs I don't really care.

 

Yes because baseball is played by computers and not humans.

 

Holy crap...you mean to tell me the robots have finally taken over?!?!?!

http://www.londondance.com/image_library/17/46/13667.jpg

[Outshined_One]

Real things are quantified by statistics. If his body language doesn't allow runs I don't really care.

 

Yes because baseball is played by computers and not humans.

 

Holy crap...you mean to tell me the robots have finally taken over?!?!?!

http://www.londondance.com/image_library/17/46/13667.jpg

 

Nothing says "suave" like a gawky 6'7 Englishman.

[Guest]

Boston - 5th

NYY - 4th

Tigers - 4th

Cleveland - 3rd

Anaheim - 3rd or 4th

Arizona - 4th

Brewers - 3rd

 

Weird how my teams are the playoff/WS series contenders and your's are the crap teams of the national league or AL teams with no chance.

 

Rich Hill can be great. I hope he is great. But if you want to win the World Series, you need more and better pitchers than Rich Hill.

 

As for arguing his mental state - its a real thing if you've seen him pitch.

 

If we're talking about last year's stats then:

 

Boston: Beckett was better and maybe Schilling but Matsuzaka and Wakefield weren't.

New York: Wang was a bit better but that's it. Pettitte, Clemens, Mussina and Hughes were all worse.

Detroit: Verlander was better and that's it. And even if you want to include Willis, Hill is better

Arizona: Brandon Webb was better and I'm not counting Randy Johnson since he only pitched 56 innings. Counting Dan Haren changes things.

Milwaukee: Hill was on par with Sheets and Gallardo (worse ERA but better WHIP, K/9, K/BB).

 

 

Boston: 2nd/3rd

New York: 2nd

Detroit: 2nd

Arizona: 2nd without Haren and 3rd with Haren.

Milwaukee: 1st to 3rd but probably 2nd/3rd.

 

I agree with Anaheim and Cleveland, though.

[rchap24]

Tigers - 4th

 

That's funny, I count one pitcher on the Tigers that's better than Rich Hill. It's Verlander, Rogers, Bonderman, Willis, Robertson in the rotation. Hill is better than the last four.

ha thats funny cause Bonderman is a much better pitcher than Rick Hill. Rogers is old, Willis iffy, and Robertson is a back of the rotation guy. I completely disagree with the Hill is better than the last 4 maybe better than hes about even with the last 3 and no nowhere near Bonderman.

[Outshined_One]

ha thats funny cause Bonderman is a much better pitcher than Rick Hill. Rogers is old, Willis iffy, and Robertson is a back of the rotation guy. I completely disagree with the Hill is better than the last 4 maybe better than hes about even with the last 3 and no nowhere near Bonderman.

 

Bonderman the last two seasons:

 

14-8, 214 IP, 1.30 WHIP, 18 HR, 202/64 K/BB, 4.08 ERA, 112 ERA+

11-8, 174 IP, 1.38 WHIP, 23 HR, 145/48 K/BB, 5.01 ERA, 91 ERA+

 

Bonderman's younger than Hill by about a year and a half. Other than that, I really don't see how you can objectively say Bonderman's a much better pitcher than Hill.

[JimSorgi]

I completely disagree with the Hill is better than the last 4 maybe better than hes about even with the last 3 and no nowhere near Bonderman.

Did you even watch Rich Hill pitch last year?

[Post Count Padder]

This is a shame. 110 pages for nothing.

[Keener98]

ha thats funny cause Bonderman is a much better pitcher than Rick Hill. Rogers is old, Willis iffy, and Robertson is a back of the rotation guy. I completely disagree with the Hill is better than the last 4 maybe better than hes about even with the last 3 and no nowhere near Bonderman.

 

Bonderman the last two seasons:

 

14-8, 214 IP, 1.30 WHIP, 18 HR, 202/64 K/BB, 4.08 ERA, 112 ERA+

11-8, 174 IP, 1.38 WHIP, 23 HR, 145/48 K/BB, 5.01 ERA, 91 ERA+

 

Bonderman's younger than Hill by about a year and a half. Other than that, I really don't see how you can objectively say Bonderman's a much better pitcher than Hill.

 

Is Bonderman a mental midget like RICK Hill?

[wrigley23]

so only qualified people can post on message boards? I've got news for you. Ones that are really qualified have enough going on in their lives that they don't feel the urge to post on message boards. And speaking of qualifications. Steve Stone would have a few & he also is not a fan of soriano leading off. Hendry had to promise this to soriano last year as that was his wish when he was a free agent. That is now over. Hendry has been shopping for a leadoff hitter for a reason. I doubt he would have done it if Piniella wasn't on board so that makes three baseball people that are not only more qualified than all of us, but ones that are much closer to the day to day action to form those opinions. Soriano's mindset is to hit the ball when he bats leadoff. His mentality as a leadoff hitter should be to take pitches & run the count to 8 or 9 pitches, take lots of walks...put the team's needs above their own. Soriano has never shown me that mindset. This of course...is my opinion, but also appears to be that of others that are very knowledgeable.

[Burtonbell]

so only qualified people can post on message boards? I've got news for you. Ones that are really qualified have enough going on in their lives that they don't feel the urge to post on message boards. And speaking of qualifications. Steve Stone would have a few & he also is not a fan of soriano leading off. Hendry had to promise this to soriano last year as that was his wish when he was a free agent. That is now over. Hendry has been shopping for a leadoff hitter for a reason. I doubt he would have done it if Piniella wasn't on board so that makes three baseball people that are not only more qualified than all of us, but ones that are much closer to the day to day action to form those opinions. Soriano's mindset is to hit the ball when he bats leadoff. His mentality as a leadoff hitter should be to take pitches & run the count to 8 or 9 pitches, take lots of walks...put the team's needs above their own. Soriano has never shown me that mindset. This of course...is my opinion, but also appears to be that of others that are very knowledgeable.

 

Are you 100% sure of this?

[inari]

so only qualified people can post on message boards? I've got news for you. Ones that are really qualified have enough going on in their lives that they don't feel the urge to post on message boards. And speaking of qualifications. Steve Stone would have a few & he also is not a fan of soriano leading off. Hendry had to promise this to soriano last year as that was his wish when he was a free agent. That is now over. Hendry has been shopping for a leadoff hitter for a reason. I doubt he would have done it if Piniella wasn't on board so that makes three baseball people that are not only more qualified than all of us, but ones that are much closer to the day to day action to form those opinions. Soriano's mindset is to hit the ball when he bats leadoff. His mentality as a leadoff hitter should be to take pitches & run the count to 8 or 9 pitches, take lots of walks...put the team's needs above their own. Soriano has never shown me that mindset. This of course...is my opinion, but also appears to be that of others that are very knowledgeable.

 

There's no qualifications. It just helps to make arguments that are based on something that's actually observable. Because that's, you know, how arguments are made.

[wrigley23]

no, i'm not 100% sure. are you that it's not? It's called tea leaves & that was my read. I am 100% on the stoney comment as he said it on the radio less than 2 wks ago.

[Keener98]

no, i'm not 100% sure. are you that it's not? It's called tea leaves & that was my read. I am 100% on the stoney comment as he said it on the radio less than 2 wks ago.

 

Steve Stone is a good broadcaster. He needs to stick to that, because when it starts getting into baseball decisions hes not very good.